A Deeper Look at the Balthasar - Von Speyr Collaboration And Its Spiritualist Nature

Abstract

ABSRACTS For Part I: In the Catholic context, true mysticism requires supernatural origin. But the Church’s guidelines require a skeptical stance about direct divine causation unless reasonable confirmation is obtained. As material causes and human ones are both more knowable to us and more common, they must be considered and ruled out first, and then demonic sources, before a conclusion of supernatural causation can be reliable. This two-part article follows this procedure to take a deeper look at the collaboration between the theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and the alleged mystic, Adrienne von Speyr. In Part I, we thus introduce, translate, and examine three little-known texts that shed light on the pair’s psychology and outlook on their joint work. Never published outside Balthasar’s private distribution before, the first text gives evidence of his intentionally delayed release of material necessary for the evaluation of Speyr’s experiences and the theology dependent upon them. The second, an excerpt from that curated material first highlighted by Manfred Lochbrunner and here translated into English with commentary, shows that both Speyr and Balthasar knew their theology of hell was a theological novelty but intended to present it as already Catholic teaching. Finally, an anonymized case study by the prominent Catholic neuropsychiatrist Jean Lhermitte is identified as applicable to the pair, and also translated into English. Testimony from Balthasar provides complementary evidence. While Lhermitte’s assessment is illuminating and must be taken into consideration, we note that the adequacy of his diagnosis of a psychological origin for Speyr’s claims is limited by his lack of important relevant data. Consequently, in Part II, we will ask whether the various unusual phenomena reported of Speyr (primarily by Balthasar), such as visions, locutions, stigmata, levitations, healings, etc., necessarily have supernatural origin? For Part II: In the Catholic context, material causes and human ones, and then preternatural (i.e., demonic) sources, must be ruled out before a conclusion of supernatural causation of alleged mystical phenomena can be reliable. This two-part article follows this procedure to take a deeper look at the collaboration between the theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and the alleged mystic, Adrienne von Speyr. In Part I, we thus introduced, translated, and examined three little-known texts that shed light on the pair’s psychology and outlook on their joint work, including an anonymized case study identified as applicable to them. While the significance of these texts cannot be overlooked, we noted that the adequacy of the doctor’s psycho-spiritual evaluation was limited by his lack of important relevant data. Consequently, in Part II, we ask whether the various unusual phenomena reported of Speyr (primarily by Balthasar), such as visions, locutions, stigmata, levitations, healings, etc., necessarily have supernatural origin? Both the theology and historical data of true and false mysticism, however, show such phenomena may also be associated with cases of preternatural, i.e., demonic causation. Because the post-Enlightenment attempt to ascribe them to so-called paranormal abilities is scientifically bankrupt, recourse to other evidence in the Speyr-Balthasar corpus is necessary to determine the origin of these phenomena. The parallels between their working methods and those of spiritualists require particularly close attention. Together with other disturbing but irrefutable evidence of preternatural intrusion, these are so numerous that we reluctantly but confidently conclude the pair unwittingly were subjects of spiritual illusion and deception. The psychological material in Part I provides a credible sketch of the attitudes that inclined them to be too ready to take her revelations as supernatural. Acknowledging other, positive traits about them, our intent is non-polemical, though challenging. The gravity of their claims and the widespread influence of their work requires, even more than most cases, careful assessment in light of the Church’s time-tested caution and processes for the discernment of spirits, a process delayed by Balthasar and Speyr’s deliberate choices, as seen from the texts in Part I. In short, we offer Balthasar and Speyr the respect of taking them at their word, both about the inseparability of their work and their choices in furthering it.