It intrigued me to discover several years ago that Ida Görres had written a review of Dietrich von Hildebrand’s Trojan Horse in the City of God. 1) Her review of the Trojan Horse was published in Erbe und Auftrag (“Heritage and Mission”), a somewhat obscure Benedictine publication. Nevertheless, it is prominently described in the collection of correspondence between Ida Görres and Paulus Gordon OSB (the editor of Erbe und Auftrag). 2) My curiosity was piqued by this encounter of two German Catholic authors who in the distant past, in various ways, had been considered in Church circles as “progressives.” I had looked forward to an encounter of these two writers, having similar views in many cases, but with seemingly contrasting reactions to Vatican II. I was disappointed to find Görres’s review to be not a detailed appraisal of von Hildebrand’s thought, but a minor polemical response, not even a full page in length. It does, however, reveal much about Görres’s – and the official Church’s – attitudes toward reform, tradition and the emerging post-Conciliar culture. Unfortunately, I find that I need to write a review longer than her original to do justice to this matter!
I’ve already reviewed several works by Ida Görres. I would summarize her position as that of a supporter – in a somewhat nebulous but real sense – of renewal and even revolution in the Church. Yet she also – both before and after the Council – profoundly disagreed with specific concrete applications of the renewal, such as in sexual morality, politics, liturgy, or the nature of the Catholic priesthood. On the latter point, Ida Görres, in contrast to most other Catholic literary figures of her generation that I have read, was extremely focused on the institution of the Church. Her concern here was not so much the papacy or the hierarchy, but the clergy’s evangelizing leadership – or lack thereof. She obviously set the greatest importance on maintaining good connections with the clerical establishment, especially its progressive members. The concern – even reverence – for the role of the clergy was combined with a quest for saints – both living and dead. This, despite her series of disappointments in men she had once revered – like Karl Rahner.
Paulus Gordon had been a correspondent of Görres for many years. About the time her review of von Hildebrand’s book appeared, he was appointed to be the secretary of none other than Rembert Weakland in Rome. So, her review is very much in harmony with the attitudes of the clerical establishment of the day. In fact, Görres reassured Gordon that although he may have feared that she would be favorable to von Hildebrand’s book, her review was going to be very critical.
I don’t want to write my own review of the Trojan Horse for the purposes of these remarks, but I do need to say something about this very early (1967) reaction to the developing crisis in the Roman Catholic Church in the wake of Vatican II. 3) Von Hildebrand’s book is a kind of 20th century Adversus Haereses, describing non-Catholic philosophies, perverse attitudes and heretical tendencies which by then were manifesting themselves throughout the Roman Catholic Church. Compared to subsequent works it is restrained: generally, the proponents of these tendencies are not named. One conspicuous exception is a footnote castigating none other than Fr. Paulus Gordon! 4) An even more significant exception is von Hildebrand’s extended critique of the thought of Teilhard de Chardin who of course had been dead for many years by the time von Hildebrand wrote his book. By 1967, however, his ideology was all the rage in Catholic circles – the 1969 volume of Erbe und Auftrag lists several works dealing with Teilhard in its “books received” section.
Görres begins her review by pointing out – astutely, I would say – that the “Trojan horse” metaphor is a little out of date because by 1967 the horse’s crew had disembarked and in fact were swaggering shamelessly throughout the city. She also finds that in substance the book does indeed make many valid points. However, Görres attacks the book above all for its style. According to her, von Hildebrand is rigid, thinks only in black and white terms, lacks empathy and understanding. “(The book) lacks any fraternal sympathy for the pains of anxiety, of seeking, of the distress of straying.” Instead of seeking out the good even in erroneous positions, von Hildebrand delivers only blanket condemnations. Furthermore, he supposedly falls into the sentimental and outmoded rhetoric of past devotional writing.
But the real crux of Görres’s review is her emotional reaction to von Hildebrand’s criticism of the thought of Teilhard de Chardin. For von Hildebrand had systematically attacked a man who Görres elsewhere had praised for his “angel-like nature” (Engelhaftigkeit). 5) Görres accuses von Hildebrand of defaming this “great mystic and fervent apostle.” She insinuates that von Hildebrand was motivated by personal animosity based on one direct encounter with Teilhard in 1950. Görres herself, however, did not share all of the philosophical positions of Teilhard. 6) Görres concludes her review by lamenting how some of those who seek to defend the Church and address the acknowledged problems use such weird weapons to do so.
Now in commenting on Görres’s critique, I would first say that her review gives the reader hardly any idea of von Hildebrand’s book. He would get the impression from her review that, stylistically, it is a violent polemic interspersed with old-fashioned, mawkish passages. But the Trojan Horse is in fact a sober catalogue of mostly philosophical aberrations in the Church. Further, Görres does not reveal to the reader the positions of the book she is reviewing – even those with which Görres agrees. Indeed, some of what von Hildebrand says about the state of the Church prior to Vatican II is not dissimilar to what Görres herself had written – if von Hildebrand does so in a more nuanced manner. 7)
Clearly, Ida Görres as late as 1969 remained committed to the “vision” of Catholic renewal. In no way was she a progressive on issues of morality, nor was she an adherent of the Catholic Church’s left in secular politics. Nevertheless, in this review, she rejected public, straightforward criticism of aspects of the Catholic culture that had developed after Vatican II. I think she in some way intuited (which von Hildebrand at this stage perhaps did not) that a too forthright attack on abuses was actually an unstated attack on the origin of the abuses – namely the Catholic movement of renewal and Vatican II itself. Despite all her disagreements with the unfortunate developments which she saw exploding all around her, Görres never could never do that. In a sense, although the term is anachronistic, her position resembled that of what later became known in the United States as “conservative Catholicism.”
But this review is relevant to more than just elucidating the personal philosophy of Ida Görres towards the end of her life. For the argumentation of her review already illustrated deeply problematic aspects of the post-Conciliar Church. First is the attraction Görres feels for “angelic” ecclesiastical figures. Their sanctity inspires blind devotion and insulates them from any rational criticism of their practices and ideas. What Görres writes about Teilhard, for example, is exactly the same as what the devotees of Dorothy Day have been repeating for decades: Day’s supposed sincerity and sanctity render any criticism of her political and economic ideas an act of treason. Celine Hoyeau has recently summarized for us the history of devotion to charismatic founders and spiritual leaders of Catholic movements in France and the resulting disastrous consequences in the area of sexual abuse. And we all know of numerous other examples elsewhere throughout the Catholic world (e.g.,Maciel).
Second, Görres’s review of course was not just the private opinion of that author. It appears in an official publication of the German Benedictines. I see her review as an initial response of the Catholic clerical establishment to the first stirrings of criticism of the post-Conciliar developments. For von Hildebrand was associated with those thinkers who in the United States coalesced around Triumph magazine and attempted to understand the rapidly unraveling Church and secular culture in which they were living. Görres’s review shows the answer of the clerical establishment: a total refusal to “dialogue.” Von Hilderbrand’s attempt to set out a rational framework for analysis of the contemporary Catholic scene was met with a blistering response and ad hominem attacks. For there was never a possibility of dialogue with a “reform” movement that, as Pope Francis much later explained, proceeds from the axiom that it directly embodies the will of the Holy Spirit. This stance of the establishment has remained intact until the present day!
- 45 Erbe und Auftrag at 348(1969). I would like to thank Dr. Nicholas Salazar and the Yale University Libraries for their aid in locating this review.
- Görres, Ida, “Wirklich die neue Phönixgestalt?” Über Kirche und Konzil: Unbekannte Briefe 1962-1971 an Paulus Gordan. Hanna-Barbara Gerl-Falkovitz (Editor) (Be & Be Verlag, Heiligenkreuz, 2015) See the discussion at pages 318 and 420 (both pages have footnotes with a not totally accurate citation to Görres’s review)
- Hildebrand, Dietrich von, Trojan Horse in the City of God, (Sophia Institute Press, Manchester, N.H.1967 (this edition 1999)). There are questions about the edition of this book reviewed by Görres. First, the German edition is a translation, and the advertisement in Erbe und Auftrag (to which Görres refers) indicates it includes additional material by the author.I don’t know if these additions made it into the subsequent English reprints . Second, the Sophia edition I am using states that an “appendix” in previous editions has been deleted. I strongly suspect this is the document that can be found online here: “Critique of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin by Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, Absoluteprimacyofchrist.org. (posted 10/11/2012; accessed 1/22/2026).This is referred to in several online discussions of Hildebrand’s critique of Teilhard. Hildebrand, however, criticizes Teilhard on several other pages in the Trojan Horse.
- Hildebrand, Trojan Horse at 48 n.26 (wondering about Paulus’s belief in the Resurrection as a historical fact).
- Görres, “Wirklich die neue Phönixgestalt? at 69.
- Id. at n.83
- E.g., Hildebrand, Trojan Horse at pp. 51-60.
