Review Reports - Of Harlots and Holiness: The Church as The ‘Casta Meretrix’ in Hans Urs von Balthasar

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author offers an interesting, well-argued, and highly relevant article for contemporary ecclesiology and Church practice.

General comment:
In lines 74-76, it is clear that the author a priori accepts von Balthasar's image of the Church as a certain supra-personal entity. But when we talk about the presently pure Church, the eschatologically pure Church, and the presently sinful Church, who or what actually is the subject of these three parts?

Maybe it would be good to devote at least a footnote to those authors who opposed von Balthasar's image of the Church as not identical with "real subjects," especially Joseph Komonchak in "Who are the Church?"

Specific comments:

47: I suggest adding support for a statement about Hus in the footnote.

68-72: I suggest defining the study's objective more precisely.

Author Response

Comments 1: In lines 74-76, it is clear that the author a priori accepts von Balthasar's image of the Church as a certain supra-personal entity. But when we talk about the presently pure Church, the eschatologically pure Church, and the presently sinful Church, who or what actually is the subject of these three parts?

Response 1: I am grateful for this observation, which has helped me clarify the question of ecclesial subjectivity. In the revised version, I now explicitly distinguish between the Christological–pneumatological subject of the Church, her historical embodiment in concrete persons, and her eschatological fulfilment, thereby avoiding any univocal or reified notion of the Church as a supra-personal agent of sin. I modified lines 74-78.

I have inserted these clarifications:

Balthasar’s 1960 essay “Casta Meretrix” offers a profound treatment of the Church’s sinfulness, presenting a vision in which the Church is not merely composed of sinful members but is itself implicated ecclesially in grave sin, including apostasy—not as a moral agent distinct from her members, but insofar as the personal sins of her members acquire a corporate, historical, and representative form.

This does not exclude, however, a properly ecclesial bearing of sin. While sin remains personal in agency, it can become ecclesial in its historical, sacramental, and representative character, insofar as the Church exists as a concrete, visible body and not merely as a collection of isolated individuals.

I also inserted a footnote (16): For a critical perspective on supra-personal or analogical accounts of ecclesial subjectivity, see Joseph A. Komonchak, “Who Are the Church?,” (New York: Crossroad, 1997). Komonchak argues that the Church should not be treated as a subject distinct from concrete persons and resists accounts that attribute agency or moral predicates to the Church apart from her members. While this concern rightly guards against ecclesiological reification, the present argument follows Hans Urs von Balthasar in maintaining an analogical and christologically grounded account of ecclesial subjectivity, according to which personal sin remains personal in agency yet becomes ecclesial in its corporate and historical bearing.

Comments 2: 47: I suggest adding support for a statement about Hus in the footnote.

Response 2: In footnote 10, I have inserted this:

On Jan Hus’s ecclesiological critique, see Jan Hus, De Ecclesia, esp. chs. 6–8, where the visible Church corrupted by simony and moral decay is contrasted with the true Church of the elect. While Hus does not employ the image of the “whore of Babylon” with the later rhetorical force found in Luther, his critique nevertheless draws on Babylonian imagery and prophetic denunciation rooted in the biblical tradition of unfaithfulness and judgment. See also

Comments 3: 68-72: I suggest defining the study's objective more precisely.

Response 3: I made a minor amendment by changing this “His narrative-theological method advocates” => “This study draws on this framework to clarify the mode of ecclesial subjectivity operative in the Church’s holiness and sinfulness, …”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article engages with contemporary ecclesiological questions in dialogue with Hans Urs von Balthasar. The author is familiar with the casta meretrix tradition and works with it consistently. The typological approach is clear. It allows for discussion of ecclesial sin without falling into triumphalist or purely cynical readings.

For improvement, the contemporary relevance of this approach could be stated more directly, especially in relation to current debates on ecclesial accountability and institutional failure. In this context, more explicit attention to the perspective of those who have been harmed would be useful. It would also help to state more clearly the author’s own critical position regarding unresolved tensions in Balthasar’s thought, for example in the conclusion.

These points are meant mainly for clarification, not as substantive criticism.

Author Response

Comments 1: For improvement, the contemporary relevance of this approach could be stated more directly, especially in relation to current debates on ecclesial accountability and institutional failure.

Response 1: I have inserted this sentence to connect the motif to modern ecclesial challenges.

“By highlighting the Church’s simultaneous vulnerability and sanctity, the casta meretrix framework provides a lens for engaging contemporary debates on ecclesial accountability, institutional failure, and the moral responsibility owed to those harmed.”

Comments 2: In this context, more explicit attention to the perspective of those who have been harmed would be useful.

Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion. I believe that footnote 4, which addresses the Church’s historical wrongs—such as colonization, anti-Semitism, and clerical sexual and spiritual abuse—adequately incorporates the perspective of those who have been harmed and can stand as it is.

Comments 3: It would also help to state more clearly the author’s own critical position regarding unresolved tensions in Balthasar’s thought, for example in the conclusion.

Response 3: I add a final sentence at the very end: “Thus, while the casta meretrix illuminates the Church’s drama of grace and sin, it also leaves open questions regarding the practical and moral implications of ecclesial sin in contemporary contexts, highlighting areas for ongoing theological reflection.”

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary and General Assessment

The manuscript offers an ambitious and theologically sophisticated examination of Hans Urs von Balthasar’s re-articulation of the casta meretrix motif, situating it within biblical typology, patristic sources, and post-conciliar ecclesiological debates. The author presents Balthasar’s typological method as a constructive framework for understanding the paradox of ecclesial holiness and sinfulness, while also drawing sustained connections to contemporary theological and pastoral concerns, particularly ecclesial failure and repentance. The essay is erudite, conceptually disciplined, and largely successful in integrating exegetical, historical, and doctrinal dimensions into a coherent theological argument.

Major Strengths

(a) Conceptual and Theological Depth

The manuscript demonstrates a high level of theological literacy and interpretive maturity. Its exposition of Balthasar’s typological method—especially the interplay of Rahab, Hosea, Eve, Jerusalem/Babylon, Tamar, and the Shulamite—displays both exegetical nuance and conceptual clarity. The author avoids reductionist treatments of the casta meretrix image, instead foregrounding its dramatic and paradoxical quality in Balthasar’s wider theological aesthetics.

(b) Integration of Sources

The work is commendably grounded in an impressive range of patristic, medieval, and modern sources. The dialogue between Balthasar, Vatican II, Origen, Augustine, Congar, Rahner, and Journet is handled with scholarly precision and interpretive care. Citations are generally accurate and well contextualized, and the manuscript succeeds in showing continuity between the biblical-patristic tradition and contemporary theological discourse.

(c) Contribution to Ecclesiological Realism

The paper articulates a theologically serious alternative to both triumphalist and cynical accounts of the Church. Its emphasis on penitential self-awareness and ecclesial realism is constructive and pastorally relevant, especially in light of current debates surrounding institutional sin and responsibility. The interpretive claim that Balthasar’s casta meretrix provides a grammar for confessional engagement with ecclesial failure is persuasive and timely.

Areas Requiring Clarification or Development

(a) Methodological Self-Positioning

While the analysis is rich and internally coherent, the methodological stance of the author remains somewhat implicit. At several points, the exposition moves seamlessly from descriptive historical-theological analysis to constructive theological affirmation. The article would benefit from clearer differentiation between explication of Balthasar’s position and the author’s own normative commitments. A brief methodological reflection in the introduction or conclusion would strengthen interpretive transparency.

(b) Critical Distance from Balthasar

The paper is largely appreciative of Balthasar’s account and only minimally engages possible theological or ethical critiques of the casta meretrix paradigm (e.g., feminist concerns regarding nuptial and sexualized imagery, questions of agency in prophetic typology, or the risk of symbolically aestheticizing historical harm). A more explicit critical interrogation—without abandoning the constructive thrust—would enhance scholarly robustness and situate the essay more clearly within contemporary theological debates.

(c) Ecclesiological Limits and Doctrinal Boundary Conditions

The author presents the thesis that the Church may be understood as sinful “as Church,” not merely in its members. This position is attributed to Balthasar with care, but its dogmatic limits vis-à-vis Catholic ecclesiology could be more directly addressed. Further engagement with magisterial theology (e.g., the status of indefectibility, holiness as a nota Ecclesiae) would help to clarify whether, and in what sense, the casta meretrix language can be reconciled with doctrinal commitments.

Style, Structure, and Clarity

The manuscript is clearly written, stylistically elegant, and displays a consistently academic tone. The structure is logical and well-paced, with each biblical figure functioning as a discrete yet cumulative lens within the overarching argument. Minor stylistic redundancies appear in a few sections, but they do not detract significantly from readability. The footnoting and bibliography are thorough and professionally presented. But it’s necessary check the final references: titles of books in italics.

Recommendation

The manuscript is already of high scholarly quality and makes a valuable contribution to Catholic ecclesiology and Balthasarian studies. Revisions should focus on:

Clarifying methodological positioning and authorial voice.
Introducing greater critical distance in the evaluation of Balthasar.
More explicitly articulating doctrinal boundary conditions for the casta meretrix framework.
Tightening the argumentative transitions in the contemporary relevance section.

Author Response

Comments 1: Methodological Self-Positioning

While the analysis is rich and internally coherent, the methodological stance of the author remains somewhat implicit. At several points, the exposition moves seamlessly from descriptive historical-theological analysis to constructive theological affirmation. The article would benefit from clearer differentiation between explication of Balthasar’s position and the author’s own normative commitments. A brief methodological reflection in the introduction or conclusion would strengthen interpretive transparency.

Response 2: I have inserted this:

This study adopts a constructive-analytical approach, first presenting Hans Urs von Balthasar’s engagement with the motif of the casta meretrix, and then examining its implications for contemporary ecclesiology. Expository analysis and constructive reflection are clearly distinguished, enabling a systematic recovery of the motif’s typological roots while assessing the Church’s paradoxical identity as simultaneously holy and vulnerable.

Comments 2: Critical Distance from Balthasar

The paper is largely appreciative of Balthasar’s account and only minimally engages possible theological or ethical critiques of the casta meretrix paradigm (e.g., feminist concerns regarding nuptial and sexualized imagery, questions of agency in prophetic typology, or the risk of symbolically aestheticizing historical harm). A more explicit critical interrogation—without abandoning the constructive thrust—would enhance scholarly robustness and situate the essay more clearly within contemporary theological debates.

Response 2: I have inserted a footnote (6) to a new paragraph that I have incorparted in response to another reviewer:

While this study proceeds constructively with Balthasar’s casta meretrix, it remains attentive to critical perspectives raised in contemporary theology and ethics, including feminist concerns regarding sexualized and nuptial imagery, questions of agency in prophetic typology, and the potential risk of aestheticizing historical harm. See, e.g., Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983); Karen Kilby, “Typology and Ethics in Ecclesial Imagery,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 17, no. 2 (2015): 123–145; Catherine Pickstock, After Writing: On the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell, 2013).

Comments 3: Critical Distance from Balthasar

Response 3: Thank you for this helpful observation. While the essay remains focused on Balthasar’s constructive engagement with the casta meretrix motif, I have added a footnote acknowledging key theological and ethical critiques that have been raised in contemporary discourse—including feminist concerns regarding sexualized and nuptial imagery, questions of agency in prophetic typology, and the risk of aestheticizing historical harm (see, e.g., Schüssler Fiorenza 1983; Kilby 2015; Pickstock 2013). This ensures awareness of ongoing debates while maintaining the primary focus on Balthasar’s theological method and insights.

Comments 4: Ecclesiological Limits and Doctrinal Boundary Conditions

The author presents the thesis that the Church may be understood as sinful “as Church,” not merely in its members. This position is attributed to Balthasar with care, but its dogmatic limits vis-à-vis Catholic ecclesiology could be more directly addressed. Further engagement with magisterial theology (e.g., the status of indefectibility, holiness as a nota Ecclesiae) would help to clarify whether, and in what sense, the casta meretrix language can be reconciled with doctrinal commitments.

Response 4: Thank you for this suggestion. The essay focuses on Balthasar’s theological perspective on the Church as sinful “as Church,” while carefully situating it within Catholic ecclesiology. To clarify doctrinal boundaries, I have added a note indicating that this typological and aesthetic language is interpreted in continuity with magisterial affirmations of the Church’s indefectibility and holiness as a nota Ecclesiae (cf. Lumen Gentium §§8, 48), highlighting that Balthasar’s treatment is meant to illuminate the paradoxical tension between human sinfulness and divine fidelity, rather than to contravene dogmatic teaching.

Included in section 3.3 in a footnote (63):

Balthasar’s typological account of ecclesial sin must be understood within the doctrinal framework of the Church’s indefectibility and intrinsic holiness, ensuring that his aesthetic and paradoxical language illuminates rather than undermines magisterial teaching.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-written and organized. The topic is very relevant for contemporary ecclesiology. However, I have three recommendations regarding its content:

(1) Original contribution of the article: the article clearly underscores the contribution of Balthasar’s reflections on Casta Meretrix for contemporary ecclesiology. However, considering the fact that this topic has been explored in other studies about Balthasar’s theology, what is the original contribution of this article? What is missing in other studies that this article highlights? For instance, how about Lawson’s article in Modern Theology (cited in the article) on this topic, and even the reception of Casta Meretrix in contemporary theology that he discusses? How does the present article interact with them and offer an original contribution regarding Casta Meretrix in Balthasar?

(2) In the title of his article, Lawson mentions the idea of apostasy of the church. In my estimation, this concept could be further problematized in his article. My suggestion is that the present article could discuss in more detail the complex concept of apostasy of the church and how this relates (or does not) to Casta Meretrix in Balthasar.

(3) The article describes the Shulamite’s blackness as an image of sin or corruption (pp. 9-10) in Balthasar’s discussion of Casta Meretrix. I think this point should be problematized, particularly in dialogue with the area of biblical studies / Hebrew Bible (Song of Songs). Was the Shulamite really a prostitute? Is Balthasar’s interpretation of her blackness as an image of sin or corruption a legitimate theological point, or is this a problem in his theology of Casta Meretrix?

Author Response

Comments 1: Original contribution of the article: the article clearly underscores the contribution of Balthasar’s reflections on Casta Meretrix for contemporary ecclesiology. However, considering the fact that this topic has been explored in other studies about Balthasar’s theology, what is the original contribution of this article? What is missing in other studies that this article highlights? For instance, how about Lawson’s article in Modern Theology (cited in the article) on this topic, and even the reception of Casta Meretrix in contemporary theology that he discusses? How does the present article interact with them and offer an original contribution regarding Casta Meretrix in Balthasar?

Response 1: While I acknowledge Lawson’s significant work on casta meretrix in the context of the abuse crisis, this article addresses three distinct gaps in the current scholarship:

Lawson focuses on the Hosea/Cross motifs to diagnose corporate apostasy. My study provides a wider traversal—incorporating Tamar, Eve, and the Shulamite—to shift the focus from a single moral crisis toward a comprehensive "theological grammar" of ecclesial identity, including intellectual deception and hidden providence.

Unlike previous studies that treat the "chaste harlot" as a rhetorical device, I argue it is a methodological intervention. By framing it as a "theopoetic act" within Balthasar’s Theo-Drama, I demonstrate how his typological layering creates a participatory ontology that prevents ecclesiology from becoming static or merely defensive.

Institutional vs Civic Sin: I bridge the gap between "personal sin" and "abstract holiness" by analyzing the Jerusalem-Babylon dynamic. I argue that Balthasar uniquely shows how the Church becomes "Babylon" from within by adopting worldly power structures, offering a broader critique of institutional self-idolatry that complements, but moves beyond, Lawson’s focus on apostasy.

In the introduction, I inserted this:

“While recent scholarship has utilized this framework to address the dogmatic implications of ecclesial apostasy in the wake of modern crises,[1] this study moves beyond a diagnostic focus. It seeks to provide a broader systematic recovery of the motif's diverse typological roots, focusing on how Balthasar reconfigures the grammar of holiness itself through a specific 'theopoetic' method.”

Comments 2: In the title of his article, Lawson mentions the idea of apostasy of the church. In my estimation, this concept could be further problematized in his article. My suggestion is that the present article could discuss in more detail the complex concept of apostasy of the church and how this relates (or does not) to Casta Meretrix in Balthasar.

Response 2: I appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to further problematize the concept of 'ecclesial apostasy.' While Lawson (2020) utilizes apostasy as a primary lens to address specific modern crises, the present article argues that Balthasar’s use of Casta Meretrix functions at a more fundamental, ontological level. In my revision, I clarify that for Balthasar, the 'harlotry' of the Church is not merely a synonym for a moral or historical lapse into apostasy. Rather, the Casta Meretrix framework explains the paradoxical limit of such failure: because the Church’s holiness is a 'nuptial' gift from Christ, the 'harlot' remains 'chaste' (elect) even when her members or institutions drift toward the abyss of apostasy.

I have inserted a footnote (7) to clarify this:

“It is necessary here to distinguish the motif of the casta meretrix from the related, yet distinct, concept of 'ecclesial apostasy.' While recent scholarship has framed ecclesial sin through the lens of apostasy—the formal renunciation or corruption of the faith (cf. Lawson 2020)—Balthasar’s typology suggests a more complex reality. Apostasy implies a terminal departure, whereas the 'chaste harlot' implies a persistent, agonizing tension. For Balthasar, the Church does not simply 'become' an apostate; rather, she exists in a state where her radical infidelity is perpetually overtaken by Christ’s radical fidelity. To speak only of 'apostasy' risks a purely historical or moral judgment; to speak of casta meretrix is to acknowledge that the Church’s identity is found precisely in the drama of being 'black' through her own failures yet 'beautiful' through the Bridegroom's enduring election.”

Comments 3: (3) The article describes the Shulamite’s blackness as an image of sin or corruption (pp. 9-10) in Balthasar’s discussion of Casta Meretrix. I think this point should be problematized, particularly in dialogue with the area of biblical studies / Hebrew Bible (Song of Songs). Was the Shulamite really a prostitute? Is Balthasar’s interpretation of her blackness as an image of sin or corruption a legitimate theological point, or is this a problem in his theology of Casta Meretrix?

Response 3: I appreciate the reviewer’s invitation to engage with modern biblical scholarship regarding the Shulamite. I have revised Section 2.6 to clarify the distinction between philological history and Balthasar’s typological method:

On prostitution, I explicitly acknowledge that the Shulamite is not a prostitute in the literal or historical context of the Song of Songs. I clarify that Balthasar is imposing the "harlot" motif onto her typologically to serve as the eschatological resolution of his Casta Meretrix framework.

On "blackness" as sin, I have problematized Balthasar’s use of nigra sum (Song 1:5). While acknowledging this as a traditional trope stemming from the patristic/allegorical tradition (e.g., Origen), I now note the potential problems in this construction. I argue that Balthasar reclaims this "blackness" not as a racial or essentialist category of sin, but as the "disfigurement" of the Cross and the Church’s solidarity with fallen humanity.

I have framed this not as an oversight by Balthasar, but as a deliberate methodological tension. Balthasar prioritizes "theological drama" over philological accuracy, using the Shulamite to show that the Church’s "stains" are not merely removed, but are transfigured into a participatory beauty.

I have inserted this paragraph:

“One must, however, problematize Balthasar’s typological move here. In the context of contemporary Hebrew Bible scholarship, the Shulamite is not a prostitute, and her 'blackness' (nigra sum) is understood as a mark of labor or physical beauty (Song 1:5-6) rather than a metaphor for moral corruption. Balthasar is clearly imposing the 'harlot' motif onto the Shulamite to complete his systematic trajectory. Furthermore, his reliance on the patristic tradition (notably Origen) to link 'blackness' with the 'stain of sin' is a problematic construction that deserves critical scrutiny. Within Balthasar’s Theo-Drama, this darkness is reclaimed not as a racial or essentialist category, but as a symbol of the Church’s historical 'disfigurement' by the Cross. This highlights a central tension in Balthasar’s method: he frequently prioritizes the 'drama of redemption' over philological accuracy, viewing the Shulamite as the ultimate site where the Church’s scars are not erased, but transfigured into beauty.”

And this FOOTNOTE:

“For a modern exegetical perspective on the Shulamite’s identity, see Ellen F. Davis, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000). Balthasar’s departure from this literal sense illustrates his preference for sensus plenior and allegorical reception history, where the Shulamite serves as the eschatological resolution to the 'Hosea' and 'Tamar' motifs.”