An interview with Jason C. Paone – Catholic World Report

Jason C. Paone, PhD, is the editor of Word on Fire Academic and a Managing Editor of The New Ressourcement journal. He studied the classics and philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in 2015, and in 2017, he received a Master of Theological Studies at Duke Divinity School. Under Reinhard Hütter, he wrote a doctoral dissertation at The Catholic University of America entitled “Obedient Belief: The Act of Faith and the Problem of Doxastic Voluntarism in the Theology of Matthias Joseph Scheeben.”

He recently corresponded with me about The New Ressourcement, beginning with some historical background about the ressourcement movement, then discussing the relationship between that movement and Thomism, and the focus and goals of the journal.

CWR: Before we discuss The New Ressourcement journal, let’s go back about a century: what was the ressourcement movement? How did it begin, and what did it hope to achieve?

Jason C. Paone: The ressourcement sought to renew the Church by renewing and deepening its engagement with the ancient sources of the Catholic tradition—Scripture and the Fathers. The movement rose to prominence in France after the Second World War at a moment when it was no longer possible to doubt that the modern world was here to stay.

Throughout the nineteenth century, a new, liberal, democratic culture was everywhere overturning the structures and values of Europe’s ancient, aristocratic order—an order to which many supposed the Catholic Church was inextricably wedded. Toward the end of the century, especially following the revolutions of 1848 and the seizure of the Papal States by Italian revolutionaries, the Church’s attitude toward the modern world became increasingly negative and hostile.

It was in this atmosphere of anti-modern reaction that the Church turned to Scholasticism in the second half of the nineteenth century. Although Scholastics like Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and Bonaventure were not themselves anti-modern in any sense, as the luminaries of the world before modernity, the late nineteenth-century return to these medieval (and hence, pre-modern) thinkers, involved and represented an implicit repudiation of the modern traditions of thought that followed them.

In fact, the Scholasticism that the late nineteenth century took up derived as much from early modern thinkers such as Francisco Suarez and Juan de Lugo as it did from the medieval Scholastics. This early modern Scholasticism became a bulwark against modernity in the late nineteenth century, a set of doctrines and methodologies that were imposed in the Catholic academy as the sole and sufficient idiom and mode of Catholic thought.

It is well known that many of the proponents of the ressourcement sought to overturn the Neo-Scholastic hegemony that, by the middle of the twentieth century, was firmly established. No doubt, this had something to do with the inherent qualities of the discourse—its uncomely style, its penchant for formulas and definitions that give a misleading sense of comprehension that can forestall deeper reflection on the meaning of the mysteries, and so forth. More fundamentally, however, they objected to the reactionary agenda and symbolism of nineteenth-century Scholasticism. Although they recognized the prophetic task of the Church and its duty to call the world to repentance, they also saw that it could not fulfill its mission to evangelize and sanctify the modern world by maintaining a purely negative and adversarial stance toward it.

By turning the Catholic academy to the Fathers and Scriptures (and, in some measure, away from the Baroque Scholastics), the ressourcement movement hoped to recover a more vital and organic Catholicism—one that was both more ancient and future-oriented. Their aim was not to abandon the tradition but to deepen it by drawing from its richest and most formative sources. They sought to renew the Church’s theological imagination and evangelical effectiveness not by capitulating to modernity but by returning to the deepest wells of the tradition to critically engage with it.

CWR: Bishop Robert Barron, in the opening essay of the first edition of The New Ressourcement, reflects on his theological education. He pinpoints a formative moment when, as a freshman in high school, he was first introduced to the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. How did this lay the foundation for his thought and this new journal?

Paone: That moment of discovery was pivotal. In his seminal essay on The New Ressourcement, Bishop Barron recalls that he first encountered Aquinas as a high-school student studying arguments for God’s existence. What struck him was not simply the power of Thomas’s arguments but the fact that God could be approached through careful, rigorous reasoning. That insight shattered the anti-intellectual fog that had settled over much of the Catholic life he had known up to that point.

Like many who came of age in the postconciliar Church, Barron’s early experience of Catholic life was marked by the usually well-intentioned but often superficial catechesis and preaching of the 1970s. Rather than being rooted in doctrine, mystery, or tradition, the prevailing emphasis was on emotional resonance, community-building, and an ethos of inclusivity and creativity.

Religious education was less about formation in the faith and more about self-expression and moral sentiment. Theology became indistinguishable from social justice or therapeutic affirmation. This is what Barron has elsewhere described as “balloons and banners Catholicism”—a faith of slogans, liturgical improvisation, and thematic decorations, often detached from the intellectual and spiritual tradition of the Church.

It was into this environment that Aquinas arrived like a gust of fresh air. His clarity, his seriousness, and his confidence that reason and revelation belong together made an enduring impression. That experience planted the seed of what would become a lifelong intellectual vocation and, eventually, the vision for The New Ressourcement—a journal animated by the same confidence that Catholic theology can be beautiful, rigorous, and evangelistically potent when it is rooted in the deep sources of the tradition.

CWR: Bishop Barron also emphasizes that the “first principle” of the new ressourcement is that it “must get over the battle between Thomas and the Fathers.” That topic is certainly complicated, and it might appear rather esoteric or “academic” to some readers. But why is it so important, not just for theologians and academics, but for serious, practicing Catholics?

Paone: Like many fields in the academy, theologians are sometimes prone to separate themselves into opposing camps, and in the decades that have followed the Second Vatican Council, the dispute that had taken place between the Scholastics and the ressourcement theologians has often resurfaced in connection with the broader question about the proper methodology or approach to theology.

Scholastics, in particular, often see the plurality of approaches that characterizes the field of theology today as something problematic and lay responsibility for the situation at least partly at the feet of the ressourcement theologians, whose insurgency in the decades leading up to the Council, they allege, compromised the unity of theology when it overturned the primacy of the Scholastic method. For their part, those sympathetic to the ressourcement theologians often contend that the state of the field in the early twentieth century, for all its supposed methodological unity, was neither ideal nor one to which the Catholic academy can afford to return if it is to nourish a flourishing, evangelistic Church in the modern world.

As a theologian who has drawn heavily and fruitfully from both theological traditions, Bishop Barron sees the dispute as unfortunate and unnecessary. He proposes that what is needed is not a victory of one camp over the other but a deeper synthesis—a “new ressourcement” that honors both the speculative rigor of the Scholastics and the biblical and patristic imagination of the ressourcement thinkers. Aquinas, after all, was himself deeply immersed in the Fathers, and the best ressourcement theologians, like de Lubac and Balthasar, engaged with Aquinas not as a foil but as a conversation partner.

Why does this matter for the wider Church? Because theological division among those most responsible for articulating the faith inevitably weakens the unity and clarity of the Church’s witness. When theology becomes factionalized—when Catholics are asked to “pick sides” between the medievals and the Fathers or between tradition and innovation—it hinders our ability to speak with one voice to a fragmented world.

More than that, it undermines the mutual charity that ought to characterize the Church’s internal life. As Jesus said, “By this, all men will know that you are my disciples if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). Theological rivalry conducted in a spirit of suspicion or antagonism not only obscures the faith for those within the Church—it scandalizes those outside it. The New Ressourcement, by overcoming a needless opposition between these two schools of Catholic thought, seeks to restore a more integrated, charitable, and compelling theological witness—one capable of serving both the Church’s unity and her evangelical mission.

For my part, while I don’t believe that there is anything essential (or particularly Catholic) about the theological monoculture that some early twentieth-century Scholastics wanted to maintain, I also see a great deal of value in much that the modern Scholastics have to offer. I would like to see more collaboration and dialogue between these schools of thought, and I hope that The New Ressourcement will be a place for this kind of engagement.

CWR: Your background is in historical and systematic theology, and your doctoral dissertation was on Matthias Joseph Scheeben, whose work and thought were both deeply Thomistic and patristic. First, how and why were you drawn to Scheeben? And, secondly, how and why were you drawn to the ressourcement movement?

Paone: The form of the question suggests—rightly, I think—that there is meaningful common ground between Scheeben and the ressourcement theologians. Both were deeply interested in the Fathers, and both resisted being pigeon-holed into a single theological school or program. Each embodied what might be called a creative fidelity to the tradition—an eclecticism that refused to reduce theology to party lines or polemical talking points. If I had to identify some trait common to Scheeben and at least some of the ressourcement theologians that attracted me, I would have to point to their speculative genius and their shared conviction that theology must be more than a tool of apologetics or ecclesial self-defense. In different ways, each envisioned a theology marked by wonder—a discipline undertaken not simply to guard the faith but to lovingly contemplate it.

As I noted above, nineteenth-century Scholasticism was deeply shaped by political and apologetic concerns. In the wake of revolution, secularization, and the loss of the Papal States, it emerged as a project of resistance—a way of shoring up the intellectual and doctrinal defenses of the Church. Scholasticism, revived in this context, was not just a method; it became a symbol of stability and continuity in a world undergoing rapid and often disorienting change.

Scheeben broadly sympathized with this revival and its aims. Yet he resisted allowing those apologetic pressures to dominate his theological vision. His tone is different from that of many of his contemporaries—in a word, less combative, more contemplative. And while he was less confrontational than the ressourcement thinkers who came decades later, in his work, one occasionally senses a similar discomfort with the stridency and dogmatism that often characterized the Neo-Scholastic movement. His writing is shaped more by a desire to enter the mysteries of the faith than by the need to assert the Church’s authority or intellectual superiority.

With the ressourcement theologians, Scheeben reminds us that theology is not, at its core, a defensive or apologetic discourse. It is not an instrument for cultural or political ends, nor—even though it must protect orthodoxy—is it reducible to a tool for combating error. Theology is a speculative discipline, and as such, it is not properly for anything outside itself. Its primary task is to contemplate and articulate the mysteries of faith. When it becomes overly entangled in external agendas—whether political, cultural, or institutional—it loses something essential: its integrity, its depth, its orientation toward truth as such.

At the same time, Scheeben stands as a reminder that modern Scholasticism is not a monolith. It has included figures of real theological depth and vision—thinkers like Scheeben himself, who recognized the speculative beauty of theology and refused to let it become the handmaid of ideology. In that respect, he both anticipates and complements the ressourcement movement. He offers a model of theological renewal that remains vital and one that I hope The New Ressourcement journal will carry forward: a theology so deeply rooted in the tradition that it can transcend the shifting crises of the day and keep its gaze fixed on the highest and deepest things.

CWR: How did The New Ressourcement journal come about? Was it something that Bishop Barron had envisioned for a while, or did it result from the ongoing work of Word on Fire?

Paone: The New Ressourcement is the fruit and expression of Bishop Barron’s love for theology and his wish to promote and renew it. Academic publishing is a difficult and costly enterprise, and its rewards are comparatively meager in terms of profits or immediate influence. Nevertheless, Bishop Barron has long insisted that the intellectual tradition of the Church must be cultivated—not as the concern of an ivory-tower elite—but as a vital source of the Church’s culture and imagination, enriching its engagement with the world and its articulation of its message. Theology, in his view, is not merely for specialists; it’s integral to the Church’s ability to speak meaningfully and convincingly to the modern world. Without rigorous and beautiful Catholic thought, the Church cannot fulfill its calling to teach, sanctify, and draw all nations to Christ.

From the beginning of Word on Fire, Bishop Barron has been emphatic that the apostolate should foster Catholic thought and contribute to its flourishing—not just through media and popular evangelism but also through serious engagement at the highest levels of theological reflection and scholarship. This conviction lies at the heart of Word on Fire Academic and The New Ressourcement. Both exist because he believes the Church’s intellectual tradition is one of her greatest evangelical assets and one of the most powerful antidotes to the fragmentation, relativism, and despair that characterize our age.

As the editor of the Word on Fire Academic imprint, I was tasked with creating a journal that would embody this vision—one that would reflect Bishop Barron’s commitment to theological renewal and provide a platform for Catholic scholars to do serious work in continuity with the tradition yet fully attuned to the questions and challenges of the present. After many months of reflection and brainstorming, it became clear to me that The New Ressourcement was the theme and project that best captured and expressed this vision.

The phrase itself evokes not only a return to the sources but also the conviction that the Church today stands in need of a fresh theological renewal—one that retrieves the best of the past in order to serve the future. In that sense, The New Ressourcement is not merely a journal of theology; it’s a work of hope for the renewal of Catholic thought, the deepening of faith, and the re-enchantment of the world.

CWR: There are currently five editions of the journal printed. Has there been a thematic approach to each? How do you go about putting together each edition?

Paone: We do not dedicate issues to themes in the way that some journals do. We’ve prioritized excellence and cohesion over predetermined themes. That said, the journal has developed certain recurring concerns: biblical interpretation, liturgy, metaphysics, patristics, and modern theological engagement. Each issue emerges somewhat organically, guided by the submissions we receive and the conversations that the journal’s editors think are most pressing for the Church today.

CWR: You’ve touched on some of this already, but what is the hope and goal for The New Ressourcement journal? Is it aimed only at academics, or do you envision it being helpful for non-specialists as well?

Paone: The journal is certainly academic in form and rigor, but it’s not meant only for professional theologians. Our hope is that The New Ressourcement will serve seminarians, clergy, advanced lay readers, graduate students, and anyone looking to engage seriously with the tradition. Theological renewal is not a luxury; it’s essential for the mission of the Church. We aim to provide material that both nourishes the life of the mind and deepens the life of faith.

CWR: What are some key topics already addressed in published editions? And what about future editions?

Paone: Across its first five issues, The New Ressourcement has engaged a wide range of topics central to the renewal of Catholic thought—Scripture, metaphysics, the Church Fathers, the liturgy, theological method, and the contemporary legacy of figures like Joseph Ratzinger. Each issue brings together scholars working in different eras and disciplines in a shared commitment to retrieve the richness of the tradition for the sake of the Church today.

Our most recent issue (2.1) is a good example of this vision in action. It features essays on patristic theology, sacramental metaphysics, and the theological use of philosophy. John Cavadini reconsiders Origen’s doctrine of God, asking what it might mean to recover Origen as a live voice in contemporary theology. John Gavin, SJ, reads Gregory of Nazianzus’s account of suffering in dialogue with Maximus the Confessor, revealing a vision of grace at work even in affliction. Boyd Taylor Coolman offers a deep dive into medieval Eucharistic theology, while Thomas Piolata reflects on the theology of hope in Bonaventure and Romano Guardini. Other contributions explore phenomenology in the context of Fides et Ratio, sacramental language, and Ratzinger’s Christological synthesis.

One essay in particular that captures the animating spirit of The New Ressourcement—in my mind at least—is John Betz’s “The Analogy of Tradition,” published in issue 1.3 and available as a free download at The New Ressourcement website. There, Betz argues that the deepest foundation of tradition is not historical but theological: It is the eternal “tradition” of the Father’s self-giving to the Son in the Spirit. All temporal traditions—biblical, liturgical, doctrinal—are ultimately analogies of that eternal gift. What makes a tradition vital, he suggests, is its capacity to transmit something of that divine life. This kind of “going back” to the sources is not a matter of retreating into the past but of participating in something ever new. In Betz’s words, the new Reassortment is “a revolution born from the depths of the tradition in order to bring forth the original freshness that is always already there within it and ready to spring up” (523).

That is exactly what we hope the journal will continue to do: bring forth what is living in the tradition and make it newly visible and compelling. Future issues will continue to develop this vision, with contributions on Scripture and its interpretation, the metaphysical and theological foundations of modern science, the nature of tradition and authority, and the possibility of genuine theological contemplation in a distracted and narrowly political and pragmatic age.

CWR: Any further or final thoughts?

Paone: I would be remiss if I didn’t mention our upcoming conference, which represents an important extension of the journal’s mission. The New Ressourcement will host its annual academic conference from October 7–9, 2025, in Rochester, Minnesota, under the theme “Scripture and Its Interpretation.” Taking inspiration from the Second Vatican Council’s teaching that “the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of sacred theology,” the conference will bring together scholars from across disciplines to reflect on the role of Scripture in Catholic thought today.

Plenary speakers include John Cavadini, Gary Anderson, Cyril O’Regan, Nicholas Healy, David Cloutier, Sam Conedera, SJ, and Isaac Morales, OP.

We welcome both those who wish to present papers and those who wish simply to attend and participate in the conversation. I encourage your readers—especially those engaged in theology, philosophy, biblical studies, or the humanities more broadly—to consider joining us.

To apply or learn more, please visit newressourcement.org/conference