logos_i_ethos_2021_(57), s. 261–292 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15633/lie.4041 Rev. Miłosz Hołda https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0649-2168 The Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow Tischner’s dispute with Kołakowski over grace and freedom Introduction Rev. Miłosz Hołda, a doctor of philoso- phy with a habilitation degree, an assis- The dispute over the problem tant professor at the Department of Meta- concerned with the relationship physics and Philosophy of Man, the Facul- between grace and freedom en- ty of Philosophy at the Pontifical University of John Paul II in Cracow, a lecturer at the gaged in by Saint Augustine and John Paul II Catholic University of Lub- Pelagius is not merely an interest- lin. He has authored three books and sev- ing element in the history of human eral dozen research papers, and was award- ed the prize of the President of the Coun- thought. This controversy, which cil of Ministers for the rewarded doctoral had been generated centuries ago, dissertation in 2013. His most recent pub- has been many a time revived, and lication is Źródło i noc. Wprowadzenie do współczesnego absconditeizmu [The Spring still continues, undergoing new and the Night. An Introduction to Contem- stages. One of these, which is ad- porary Absconditheism] (Kraków 2020). dressed in the present text, is the He specializes in natural theology, philoso- stage of Józef Tischner’s dispute phy of man, and epistemology. He is a mem- ber of the Internationale-Ferdinand-Ebner- with Leszek Kołakowski. Tischner -Gesellschaft. was earnest about Kołakowski’s in- terpretation of one of the stages of this controversy, i.e. the 17th-centu- ry dispute between Jansenists, Pascal being the foremost among them, and Jesuit theologians. However, he interpreted Kołakowski’s view as a voice in the discussion – which transcended a specific historical con- text – of the problematic relationship between grace and freedom. It is noteworthy that the dispute was “uni-directional:” Tischner discussed 262 Rev. Miłosz Hołda and criticized Kołakowski’s views. That is why it is advisable to speak of Tischner’s dispute with Kołakowski, and not of dispute between Tischner and Kołakowski. This, however, is no impediment to viewing their texts as presentation of two relevant positions that can and should be evaluated. In the present text I will outline the origin and the crucial elements in the history of the controversy over grace and freedom. It is necessary to outline the history in order to set the backdrop for the controversy stage in question. Both Kołakowski and Tischner refer to the views held by the participants in the earlier stages of the controversy, and propose solutions that are comprehensible only after one has understood the solu- tions put forth earlier. Outlining the backdrop will also make it possible to show the misunderstandings and over-interpretations that appear par- ticularly in Kołakowski’s texts that treat of these issues. Then, I will pres- ent the views held by the thinkers in question: the reconstruction of the 17th-century dispute between Jansenists and Molinists by Kołakowski, who suggests that the solution embraced in the dispute by the Catho- lic Church was semi-Pelagianism, as well as Tischner’s criticism of Kołakowski’s views and the solution proposed by the former, which is in the spirit of Saint Augustine’s (appropriately interpreted) teaching. To conclude, I will try to resolve this dispute, showing how the positions taken by Kołakowski and Tischner might be reconciled, and point to the ramifications of this dispute for fields of thought other than theology. The controversy over the relationship between grace and freedom is not merely a narrow controversy over one of many elements in the heritage of Christian theology. Even though it is rooted in theology, it translates into many crucial issues concerned with both thinking about education and thinking about politics. That is why a philosopher too can find this controversy interesting.1 It is necessary to understand the 1 As a matter of fact, Tischner implies that the experience of grace does not lie in theological research only. Theology addresses only one, “supernatural” aspect of this concept. However, grace has an experiential aspect too, and that is why “the experience of grace can and even must beco- me a philosophical subject” (J. Tischner, Zarys filozofii człowieka dla duszpasterzy i artystów [An Tischner’s dispute with Kołakowski over grace and freedom 263 theological concepts at play as well as the entire theological “background” to the controversy so that we can engage in discussion of the subjects belonging in the philosophy of education and the philosophy of politics. Of the relevance of this controversy for the contemporary times, and in reference to Kołakowski’s book God Owes Us Nothing,2 Tischner writes as follows: “The book is targeted at a specific reader. He is a con- temporary man who has experienced totalitarianism, and carries in his soul Pascal’s conflict between trust in man and unbelief in man.” And he asks: “How is it then: to believe or not to believe in man?”3 Tischner also notes the following: “In Kołakowski’s opinion the Jansenist-Jesuit conflict in some measure still holds. After all that we have experienced in this century do we still have grounds to trust in man? The knowledge we have acquired of man gives rise to despair. However, he who has lapsed into despair because of man, and has placed his trust in God, should know: God owes us nothing. Which side should we take?”4 In the present text we will pursue this question. We will, however, supplement it with another question. It reads: who should we side with – Kołakowski or Tischner? The answer to this question is much more important than it might seem at first glance. The origin of the controversy Saint Augustine’s dispute with Pelagius’ views marks the beginning of the controversy, one of the latest stages of which is the focus of our interest.5 The problem with this dispute is that we do not really know the Outline of the Philosophy of Man for Priests and Artists], in: J. Tischner, Myślenie w żywiole piękna [Thinking in the Element of Beauty], Kraków 2013, p. 291). 2 L. Kołakowski, Bóg nam nic nie jest dłużny. Krótka uwaga o religii Pascala i o duchu janseni- zmu [God Owes Us Nothing: A Brief Remark on Pascal’s Religion and on the Spirit of Jansenism], tłum. I. Kania, Kraków 1994. 3 J. Tischner, Szukając mistrzów naszej wiary [In Search of the Masters of Our Faith], in: J. Tischner, Ksiądz na manowcacach [A Priest in the Wilderness], Kraków 1999, p. 236. 4 J. Tischner, Szukając mistrzów naszej wiary, op. cit., pp. 236–237. 5 The best study of the history of the controversy over grace and freedom, which Tischner di- rectly refers to, is: D. Oko, Łaska i wolność. Łaska w Biblii, nauczaniu Kościoła i teologii współczesnej 264 Rev. Miłosz Hołda true views held by Pelagius. It is also unclear whether Augustine’s criti- cism was well-directed with regard to what Pelagius actually preached.6 However, Tischner believes that Pelagianism and Augustinianism can be viewed as paradigms of thinking about grace within the Christian tradition. Treating Pelagius’ views precisely like this, Tischner claims that Pelagius’ true intention was to oppose cheap, “effortless” Christian- ity. Pelagius strove after a spiritual revival predicated on moral rigorism. As a soul-shepherd and preacher he above all aimed to educate his fol- lowers. In the opinion of Pelagius, who was actuated by the Greek idea of paideia – man’s self-improvement – man is supposed to strive after perfection, and philosophy and religion are there to show him the road and the destination. According to Tischner, Pelagius believed that man has capacity for sinlessness and attaining salvation, because he was created in the image of God. The ability to develop and reach the goal, i.e. salvation, is a peculiar dynamism that man is endowed with. The grace brought by Jesus Christ is not necessary for salvation, but acts only as instruction. Sin did not frustrate the possibility of salvation originally offered to man, and it was only a bad example that stood in the way of attaining salvation. As Tisch- ner emphasizes, the important thing is that Pelagius’ views opposed Man- ichaeism. Pelagius believed that Manichaeism plunges man into fatalism, turning him into a passive observer of evil in the world. In the concept proposed by Pelagius man is not condemned to passive observation of evil, but is in a position to become committed on the side of good.7 As he writes about Pelagius, G. Müller observes that he “was in fact more of a religious zealot than a profound theological thinker.” [Grace and Freedom. Grace in the Bible, the Catholic Church Teachings and Contemporary Theology], Kraków 1997. 6 Tischner explains: “Irrespective of what Pelagius and Augustine thought of grace, the para- digm is important, just like for a river important are both its banks. If there were no paradigm like this, then we would have to think it up” (J. Tischner, Podglądanie Pana Boga [Stealthily Watching God], in: J. Tischner, Ksiądz na manowcach, op. cit., p. 255). 7 J. Tischner, Spór o istnienie człowieka [A Controversy over the Existence of Man], Kraków 2011, pp. 162–164. Tischner’s dispute with Kołakowski over grace and freedom 265 In Müller’s opinion, contrary to what Augustine and the theological tra- dition ascribed to him, he did not reject grace. He was aware that man is saved through grace. Importantly, he construed it as a natural capacity to do good. Even if he regarded Jesus as a model to be emulated, he did not understand the word “model” in today’s moralistic sense.