Christendom: World-Renowned Thomist Dewan Delivers Lecture
The lecture can be downloaded from the Christendom itunes account.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Aquinas and the Theology of the Body
A talk by Fr. Thomas Petri, O.P.
A talk by Fr. Thomas Petri, O.P.
Aquinas and the Theology of the Body from Province of Saint Joseph on Vimeo.
Zenit: THE POLITICAL PROBLEM OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
Thaddeus Kozinski Makes an Argument for a Catholic Confessional State
Thaddeus Kozinski Makes an Argument for a Catholic Confessional State
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Zenit: Papal Greeting to Orthodox-Catholic Commission
"Christians Need to Work Together in Mutual Acceptance and Trust" [2011-01-28]
"Christians Need to Work Together in Mutual Acceptance and Trust" [2011-01-28]
Friday, January 28, 2011
Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas, January 28
reprint: Oceans Bridge or Art Gallery
EWTN
Dominican Province of St. Joseph: Abp. Di Noia preaches on Aquinas at the CUA Patronal Feast Mass
Saint Thomas Aquinas, Father Ombres, O.P. preaches on Vatican Radio
Fr. Augustine Thompson, O.P.: Dominican Art and Liturgy Announcements
Fr. Barron comments on St. Thomas Aquinas (via Insight Scoop)
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Zenit: Cardinal Piacenza's Address to Priestly Celibacy Congress
"The Teaching of the Pontiffs From Pius XI to Benedict XVI"
"The Teaching of the Pontiffs From Pius XI to Benedict XVI"
Monday, January 24, 2011
A Form of the Ad Hom?
The psychological analysis fallacy? The psychoanalysis fallacy? The pop psychology fallacy?
1. Opponent A is x (some trait, e.g. callous, or does not feel some emotion).
2. Being x is bad. Or it is an indicator of the lack of mental health. Hence, opponent A is not rational.
3. Therefore his arguments are false.
It seems to be a form of the ad hominem fallacy, but could also be considered to be a form of "poisoning the well" too?
1. Opponent A is x (some trait, e.g. callous, or does not feel some emotion).
2. Being x is bad. Or it is an indicator of the lack of mental health. Hence, opponent A is not rational.
3. Therefore his arguments are false.
It seems to be a form of the ad hominem fallacy, but could also be considered to be a form of "poisoning the well" too?
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Christopher Thompson, Towards a Green Thomism
Towards a Green Thomism
From Conservation to Consecration: Towards a Green Thomism
by Dr. Christopher J. Thompson
(Originally published in Homiletic & Pastoral Review. Via Insight Scoop)
From Conservation to Consecration: Towards a Green Thomism
by Dr. Christopher J. Thompson
(Originally published in Homiletic & Pastoral Review. Via Insight Scoop)
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Aquinas Lecture at St. Vincent Ferrer Church by Fr. Pius Pietrzyk, O.P.
Fr. Thomas Petri, O.P., will offer the annual Aquinas lecture at St. Vincent Ferrer Church in New York City. The lecture is entitled, "The Light of St. Thomas on the Theology of the Body". The lecture will be held at St. Vincent Church (66th & Lexington) on Tuesday, January 25, 2011 at 7:00pm. The lecture is free and open to the public.
(source)
Fr. Thomas Petri, O.P., will offer the annual Aquinas lecture at St. Vincent Ferrer Church in New York City. The lecture is entitled, "The Light of St. Thomas on the Theology of the Body". The lecture will be held at St. Vincent Church (66th & Lexington) on Tuesday, January 25, 2011 at 7:00pm. The lecture is free and open to the public.
(source)
Christendom: World-Renowned Thomistic Philosopher to Deliver Lecture
January 21, 2011
"Lawrence Dewan, O.P., a world-renowned Thomistic philosopher, will be giving a lecture on Friday, January 28 at 4 p.m. The talk, entitled Being a Disciple of St. Thomas Aquinas, will be held in the Chapel Crypt."
January 21, 2011
"Lawrence Dewan, O.P., a world-renowned Thomistic philosopher, will be giving a lecture on Friday, January 28 at 4 p.m. The talk, entitled Being a Disciple of St. Thomas Aquinas, will be held in the Chapel Crypt."
Friday, January 21, 2011
William Oddie, The call for a new Syllabus of Errors, this time on Vatican II, should be heeded (via Fr. Z)
The text of the address by Bishop Athanasius Schneider (via Fr. Z and Rorate Caeli)
If such a syllabus were to come out, I do not think it would be issued before negotiations with the SSPX ended?
The text of the address by Bishop Athanasius Schneider (via Fr. Z and Rorate Caeli)
If such a syllabus were to come out, I do not think it would be issued before negotiations with the SSPX ended?
Thursday, January 20, 2011
DSPT: Aquinas Lecture 2011
Fr. Bryan Kromholtz, OP "The Dead in Christ Will Rise: Thomas Aquinas and Current Ideas on the Time of the Resurrection"
Wednesday, March 2, 2011, 7:30 pm at the Dominican School of Philosophy & Theology
Previous lectures, including last year's:
DSPT Aquinas Lecture, March 3rd, 2010
"Christ and Israel: An Unresolved Question in Catholic Theology"
- presented by Bruce Marshall, PhD
Wednesday, March 2, 2011, 7:30 pm at the Dominican School of Philosophy & Theology
Previous lectures, including last year's:
DSPT Aquinas Lecture, March 3rd, 2010
"Christ and Israel: An Unresolved Question in Catholic Theology"
- presented by Bruce Marshall, PhD
Tyranny and consent of the governed
Thomistica.net notes that some articles have become available at Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism, including one by Michael Pakaluk (Aristotle, Natural Law, and the Founders) and Christopher Tollefsen (New Natural Law Theory). The last appears to be an abridged version of his essay for Lyceum. There is also this piece by Paul Sigmund, Ockham to Hooker: Late Medieval Transformations of Natural Law.
Ah, the Liberal innovations in natural law... something I still need to study further.
Sigmund writes:
If someone is unjustly deprived of political power or citizenship, what recourse does he have, should he nonetheless obey the government? Is his aspiration to change the government or constitution wrong in itself (as opposed to being wrong because it is against prudence)? Is respect for custom/law a sufficient reason to prevent a polity from changing from one constitution to another (as might seem justified when more and more members of succeeding generations are virtuous and deigned worthy of citizenship)?
Hooker's theory on the origin of government is echoed later by someone else -- the first name that popped up in my head was Calhoun, but that's not quite right. Of whom am I thinking? It's actually John Finnis, and I'll have to double-check to see if this is common among liberal theorists.
There is so much more to investigate...
Ah, the Liberal innovations in natural law... something I still need to study further.
Sigmund writes:
Hooker argues that human reason can discover the existence of God and our moral obligations to others, who are “our equals in nature.” “In those times wherein there were no civil societies,” (when Locke quotes this passage, he adds “i.e, in the state of nature”), men were bound by the natural and divine law “even as they are men.” In order to resolve the conflicts that result from self-interest and partiality, men agree to establish government, and because they are all equal this requires the consent of all. This consent, once given by the community, is binding on subsequent generations, a striking difference from the individual consent to majority rule given by the participants in the social contract in Locke’s Second Treatise. Hooker also argues that, in the English case, consent was given to an established church, an institution that Locke rejects in his Letter on Toleration (1685). Therein he argues that true religion must be based on the individual conscience rather than governmental coercion.Does it make sense for liberal democrats to talk of consent, rather than acquiescence? If one's forefathers made the decision and one has duties to the community one is born into, as well as affection, then one shouldn't have much of a choice about the community. If a government is tyrannical but cannot be overthrown, then do those who suffer under its rule and reject it consent? Or acquiesce? Is a tyrannical government legitimate? Does it have the "right" to rule (as opposed to having power or coercive force)? Should an illegitimate government be obeyed? (Does the virtue of obedience come into play rather than prudence?)
If someone is unjustly deprived of political power or citizenship, what recourse does he have, should he nonetheless obey the government? Is his aspiration to change the government or constitution wrong in itself (as opposed to being wrong because it is against prudence)? Is respect for custom/law a sufficient reason to prevent a polity from changing from one constitution to another (as might seem justified when more and more members of succeeding generations are virtuous and deigned worthy of citizenship)?
Hooker's theory on the origin of government is echoed later by someone else -- the first name that popped up in my head was Calhoun, but that's not quite right. Of whom am I thinking? It's actually John Finnis, and I'll have to double-check to see if this is common among liberal theorists.
There is so much more to investigate...
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
All is connected
The German physicist Hans-Peter Düerr talks about connectiveness. Interviewed by Helena Norberg-Hodge. Filmed by Constantin Dumba
Parts 2, 3, 4, 5
Reductionism? Or analogy? I'll have to watch the videos.
I am reminded of Empedocles teaching concerning the two basic forces of the universe, love and strife--I think this has been repeated by someone more recent?
OUP is having a 20% off sale
Until February 28, 2011. Promo Code: 28913 for Theology, 28904 for Philosophy, 28911 for Politics & International Relations.
My wish list:
The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy
A. Edward Siecienski
Some other books to examine:
Reclaiming Conservatism: How a Great American Political Movement Got Lost--And How It Can Find Its Way Back
Mickey Edwards
There is a paperback edition of The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas by Fr. Gilles Emery, O.P.
My wish list:
The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy
A. Edward Siecienski
J. M. Hussey, Andrew Louth
Reclaiming Conservatism: How a Great American Political Movement Got Lost--And How It Can Find Its Way Back
Mickey Edwards
There is a paperback edition of The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas by Fr. Gilles Emery, O.P.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Acting Reasonable: Democracy, Authority, and Natural Rights in the Thought of Jacques Maritain by Brian Jones, M.A.
(via Insight Scoop)
"It seems that the Rowland/Schindler argument against "rights talk" (as well as other aspects of current social and political thought) is rooted in a misunderstanding of St. Thomas's teaching on man's two ends. Maritain actually seems to be more faithful to the Thomistic understanding of man's natural end, along with providing legitimacy to the temporal order, which would have tremendous effects then in the realm of culture and social/political philosophy. Maritain's work is truly Thomistic because he makes distinctions in order to unite."
I think this may be a oversimplification of Rowland and Schindler, but I just gave away the copy of Rowland that was most handy, so I can't support it at this point. But I think it is a mistake to identify man's natural end with the temporal good (or the political common good), if that is what the author is doing here.
As for the use of the word democracy -- I'll have to read Maritain on this point. But using democracy (as opposed to polity) to name any good constitution/form of government seems to strain the word too much, if this is indeed what Maritain does.
(via Insight Scoop)
"It seems that the Rowland/Schindler argument against "rights talk" (as well as other aspects of current social and political thought) is rooted in a misunderstanding of St. Thomas's teaching on man's two ends. Maritain actually seems to be more faithful to the Thomistic understanding of man's natural end, along with providing legitimacy to the temporal order, which would have tremendous effects then in the realm of culture and social/political philosophy. Maritain's work is truly Thomistic because he makes distinctions in order to unite."
I think this may be a oversimplification of Rowland and Schindler, but I just gave away the copy of Rowland that was most handy, so I can't support it at this point. But I think it is a mistake to identify man's natural end with the temporal good (or the political common good), if that is what the author is doing here.
As for the use of the word democracy -- I'll have to read Maritain on this point. But using democracy (as opposed to polity) to name any good constitution/form of government seems to strain the word too much, if this is indeed what Maritain does.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
"Permanent deacons are deacons."
Pertinacious Papist passes on some links concerning a thesis put forth by Dr. Edward Peters regarding the obligation to celibacy for all deacons. If the thesis is correct and the obligation is restated, that would close the "cheat" for Catholic men who are tempted to seek the "best of both worlds."
History Professor Shannon Awarded 2010 Best Essay Prize
Dr. Shannon's essay, ""From History to Traditions: A New Paradigm of Pluralism in the Study of the Past" was published in Historically Speaking.
Dr. Shannon's essay, ""From History to Traditions: A New Paradigm of Pluralism in the Study of the Past" was published in Historically Speaking.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Eighth Day Books sponsoring two symposia
January 29: Imagination & Soul: Harry Potter, Twilight and Spiritual Formation with John Granger
February 12: Patristics Symposium: On the Tree of the Cross, The Patristic Doctrine of the Atonement
More information.
February 12: Patristics Symposium: On the Tree of the Cross, The Patristic Doctrine of the Atonement
More information.
Haldane and Lee (and George) and ensoulment
I'm not posting any really new material here, just summarizing what I have written in other posts.
John Haldane and Patrick Lee are probably correct in their criticism of Pasnau's application of Aquinas to contemporary embryology. (See their followup.) I'm not going to read those parts carefully. They are correct to emphasize that development (not just growth but organization/differentiation of organs) is caused by the conceptum itself, and not by something external to it. Development it is a natural operation of the conceptum.
You'll find the same sort of argumentation in the pieces written collaboratively by Lee and Robert George, and probably in George and Christopher Tollefsen's book Embryo (which I haven't had the chance to read yet).
But I would argue that development occurs in other animals as well and cannot be attributed to the rational soul alone. One cannot claim absolutely that a rational soul is present at conception, when the presence of a sensitive soul could explain what is taking place.
To clarify what I had written previously: I don't think that the medieval understanding that there is a succession of forms--vegetative, sensitive, rational--as the embryo is formed from without can be maintained. I use "sensitive" here to distinguish the rational soul from the nonrational souls of other animals. Nor do I think one can rule out a priori with good reason that the rational soul is infused at birth. But one cannot establish the presence of the rational soul either, since there is the absence of rational activity (and the organs required for that activity). The conceptum does have the power in itself to generate those organs ("the brain and nervous system"), but this power in itself does not mean that it possess a rational soul, unless one argues additionally that only a rational soul can bring about the development of organs that are proportioned to the intellect, etc. But what does the rational soul as form of the body have in addition to what is possessed by a sensitive soul that could conceivably develop the embryo into a specifically human body? Even if it is the case that the human sense organs are very different from those of any other animal, this does not mean it is impossible for a sensitive a sensitive soul to generate those organs.
Still, a theological argument based on what the Church's teachings on the Incarnation can be made that the soul is infused at conception, but this will not convince non-believers. I tend to think that changing the laws regarding abortion on the Federal level will never happen. (And it seems unlikely to me that the Federal government will ever let this issue devolve back to the states.) With the refusal of traditional morality regarding sexuality and marriage, the culture and its institutions of many areas and states cannot but have abortion as a legitimate act for women. In those places, for a law against abortion to take hold, many other changes must be implemented. These changes are so great and encompassing that one can speak of the necessity of their people to be converted without exaggeration. Some states may be more sympathetic to stricter abortion laws, but their culture may be changing at a rapid places.
John Haldane and Patrick Lee are probably correct in their criticism of Pasnau's application of Aquinas to contemporary embryology. (See their followup.) I'm not going to read those parts carefully. They are correct to emphasize that development (not just growth but organization/differentiation of organs) is caused by the conceptum itself, and not by something external to it. Development it is a natural operation of the conceptum.
You'll find the same sort of argumentation in the pieces written collaboratively by Lee and Robert George, and probably in George and Christopher Tollefsen's book Embryo (which I haven't had the chance to read yet).
But I would argue that development occurs in other animals as well and cannot be attributed to the rational soul alone. One cannot claim absolutely that a rational soul is present at conception, when the presence of a sensitive soul could explain what is taking place.
To clarify what I had written previously: I don't think that the medieval understanding that there is a succession of forms--vegetative, sensitive, rational--as the embryo is formed from without can be maintained. I use "sensitive" here to distinguish the rational soul from the nonrational souls of other animals. Nor do I think one can rule out a priori with good reason that the rational soul is infused at birth. But one cannot establish the presence of the rational soul either, since there is the absence of rational activity (and the organs required for that activity). The conceptum does have the power in itself to generate those organs ("the brain and nervous system"), but this power in itself does not mean that it possess a rational soul, unless one argues additionally that only a rational soul can bring about the development of organs that are proportioned to the intellect, etc. But what does the rational soul as form of the body have in addition to what is possessed by a sensitive soul that could conceivably develop the embryo into a specifically human body? Even if it is the case that the human sense organs are very different from those of any other animal, this does not mean it is impossible for a sensitive a sensitive soul to generate those organs.
Still, a theological argument based on what the Church's teachings on the Incarnation can be made that the soul is infused at conception, but this will not convince non-believers. I tend to think that changing the laws regarding abortion on the Federal level will never happen. (And it seems unlikely to me that the Federal government will ever let this issue devolve back to the states.) With the refusal of traditional morality regarding sexuality and marriage, the culture and its institutions of many areas and states cannot but have abortion as a legitimate act for women. In those places, for a law against abortion to take hold, many other changes must be implemented. These changes are so great and encompassing that one can speak of the necessity of their people to be converted without exaggeration. Some states may be more sympathetic to stricter abortion laws, but their culture may be changing at a rapid places.
Go Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Go!
Sandro Magister, A New Syllabus for the 21st Century
That is, a document condemning mistaken interpretations of Vatican Council II. It's been requested by a bishop of Kazakhstan, at a conference in Rome with other bishops and cardinals. Also prompting reactions is the announcement by Benedict XVI of a new interreligious meeting in Assisi
(via the Western Confucian)
That is, a document condemning mistaken interpretations of Vatican Council II. It's been requested by a bishop of Kazakhstan, at a conference in Rome with other bishops and cardinals. Also prompting reactions is the announcement by Benedict XVI of a new interreligious meeting in Assisi
(via the Western Confucian)
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
More on Dignity
Joe Carter offers a response to Robert T. Miller's Two Bases of Morality in Catholic Theology.
Is the concept of dignity convertible with the "good"? Is it an adequate foundation for understanding the virtue of caritas? Mr. Miller notes that the New Natural Law theorists make use of "human dignity" in their argumentation, and I agree with him. I also agree with the substance of his argument, especially on this point:
NNL theorists have difficulties explaining the virtue of justice and its associated acts based on human dignity alone. But an extended development of this claim will have to wait until I finish my project.
Is the concept of dignity convertible with the "good"? Is it an adequate foundation for understanding the virtue of caritas? Mr. Miller notes that the New Natural Law theorists make use of "human dignity" in their argumentation, and I agree with him. I also agree with the substance of his argument, especially on this point:
In particular, the concept of human dignity lacks definite content: It implies that we must treat others with respect, but it does not tell us which kinds of treatment are respectful and which not.26 The formula that we must treat human beings always as ends and never merely as means is similarly empty. It does not justify any particular set of moral norms because it tells us nothing about what kind of treatment is consistent with treating a person as an end and not a mere means.27 For that matter, it does not provide a clear account of what it means to say that we are treating a person as an end or a means. If I hire a prostitute to give me sexual pleasure, these moralists will say that I have treated her as a means, but if I hire a masseuse to give me non-sexual physical pleasure, they say that I have treated her as an end, for this latter transaction is morally licit. Whence the difference, since in both cases I have participated in a voluntary transaction in order that I have a pleasant sense experience? As far as I can see, the theologians who rely on the concept of human dignity have no basis to distinguish these cases.
NNL theorists have difficulties explaining the virtue of justice and its associated acts based on human dignity alone. But an extended development of this claim will have to wait until I finish my project.
No access to this article for me.
There has been some discussion of this post on abortion, the human soul, and the question of ensoulment. While Googling for confirmation by other scholars of what I remembered about Aquinas, I found this article:
"Aquinas's Account of Human Embryogenesis and Recent Interpretations" by Jason T. Eberl
If I were an academic I would check it out (and I'd be able to get access it if the school library were decent; it's probably accessible at BC).
Some thoughts on Haldane and Lee (plus this) on ensoulment to come. I should read De Potentia all the way through, since I haven't done so before.
"Aquinas's Account of Human Embryogenesis and Recent Interpretations" by Jason T. Eberl
If I were an academic I would check it out (and I'd be able to get access it if the school library were decent; it's probably accessible at BC).
Some thoughts on Haldane and Lee (plus this) on ensoulment to come. I should read De Potentia all the way through, since I haven't done so before.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Forgot this
Also from CUA:
Ressourcement Thomism: Sacred Doctrine, the Sacraments, and the Moral Life
Reinhard Hütter and Matthew Levering, eds.
I was reminded of this book by Fr. Pius Pietrzyk, O.P.
Also of interest to me from the Fall/Winter 2010/2011 Catalog:
Bourdin, Bernard / The Theological-Political Origins of the Modern State
Benestad, J. Brian / Church, State, and Society (gotta check out what he says about sovereignty)
Hittinger, John P. / The Vocation of the Catholic Philosopher
Leinsle, Ulrich G. / Introduction to Scholastic Theology
Lombardo, Nicholas E. O.P. / The Logic of Desire
Rhonheimer, Martin / The Perspective of Morality
Canty, Aaron / Light and Glory, The Transfiguration of Christ in Early Franciscan and Dominican Theology
Hrm, written in honor of a Jesuit patristic scholar:
Rombs, Ronnie J. / Tradition and the Rule of Faith in the Early Church
Inspired by MacIntyre? Tarpley, Joyce Kerr / Constancy and the Ethics of Jane Austen's Mansfield Park
Something on Maritain's philosophy of beauty: Trapani Jr., John G. / Poetry, Beauty, and Contemplation
The latest collection of essays from the American Maritain Association's annual meeting: Colvert, Gavin / The Renewal of Civilization
The following collection of essays might not be worth full price:
Zaborowski, Holger / Natural Moral Law in Contemporary Society
Ressourcement Thomism: Sacred Doctrine, the Sacraments, and the Moral Life
Reinhard Hütter and Matthew Levering, eds.
I was reminded of this book by Fr. Pius Pietrzyk, O.P.
Also of interest to me from the Fall/Winter 2010/2011 Catalog:
Bourdin, Bernard / The Theological-Political Origins of the Modern State
Benestad, J. Brian / Church, State, and Society (gotta check out what he says about sovereignty)
Hittinger, John P. / The Vocation of the Catholic Philosopher
Leinsle, Ulrich G. / Introduction to Scholastic Theology
Lombardo, Nicholas E. O.P. / The Logic of Desire
Rhonheimer, Martin / The Perspective of Morality
Canty, Aaron / Light and Glory, The Transfiguration of Christ in Early Franciscan and Dominican Theology
Hrm, written in honor of a Jesuit patristic scholar:
Rombs, Ronnie J. / Tradition and the Rule of Faith in the Early Church
Inspired by MacIntyre? Tarpley, Joyce Kerr / Constancy and the Ethics of Jane Austen's Mansfield Park
Something on Maritain's philosophy of beauty: Trapani Jr., John G. / Poetry, Beauty, and Contemplation
The latest collection of essays from the American Maritain Association's annual meeting: Colvert, Gavin / The Renewal of Civilization
The following collection of essays might not be worth full price:
Zaborowski, Holger / Natural Moral Law in Contemporary Society
The River Forest School
One more comment from Mr. Aversa that got caught by Blogger, this time in response to "Stephen Barr on science and metaphysics":
Some general notes for the readers:
Fr. Wallace is getting along in years; the same is true of Fr. Ashley. I had heard from one of Fr. Wallace's students that he was writing another book on natural philosophy,but I do not know if this will ever be completed and published.
Science, Philosophy, and Theology in the Thomistic Tradition by William A. Wallace, O.P.
Benedict Ashley on Atheists
It would appear that Fr. Ashley's Theologies of the Body, Humanist and Christian is no longer in print?
"How the University of Chicago Opened My American Mind" from The Lumen Christi Institute on Vimeo.
The successors to the Laval School can be found in various institutions, such as Thomas Aquinas College or the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. (The latter less so, with the retirement of Richard Berquist and the department's recruitment of faculty not formed in the tradition.) Many TAC alumni who have PhDs can be found all over the country; many end up returning to TAC to become a tutor. The influence of the River Forest school appears to have peaked in the '60s, and the various faculty members were given other assignments after Vatican II. There is a short history written by Fr. Ashley on the River Forest school. During the '50s the River Forest school would hold conferences where philosophers and scientists would discuss various topics pertaining to the philosophy of nature and philosophy of science. I don't think anything comparable has been done since, though the Institute for the Study of Nature has attempted to revive this. (Unfortunately, ISN was unable to have its planned conference in 2010 because of various difficulties.)
I don't know if Fr. Weisheipl was able to form any disciples within the tradition while he was at UoT.
His THE REVIVAL OF THOMISM: AN HISTORICAL SURVEY.
Philosophy and the God of Abraham: essays in memory of James A. Weisheipl, OP By James A. Weisheipl, Raymond James Long
While the pursuit a dialectical inquiry into contemporary science may be a worthwhile (even salvific) endeavor for Dominicans and some others, I think that we will not see its fruits widely disseminated any time soon. And perhaps we do not deserve them, as I will explain in another post.
The River Forest school is still active.
From Edward Feser's "The Thomistic Tradition (part 1)" (vide also part 2):
This approach emphasizes the Aristotelian foundations of Aquinas’s philosophy, and in particular the idea that the construction of a sound metaphysics must be preceded by a sound understanding of natural science, as interpreted in light of an Aristotelian philosophy of nature. Accordingly, it is keen to show that modern physical science can and should be given such an interpretation. Charles De Koninck (1906-1965), James A. Weisheipl (1923-1984), William A. Wallace, and Benedict Ashley are among its representatives. It is sometimes called “Laval Thomism” after the University of Laval in Quebec [which produced this brilliant thesis: Thomism and Mathematical Physics], where De Koninck was a professor. The alternative label “River Forest Thomism” derives from a suburb of Chicago, the location of the Albertus Magnus Lyceum for Natural Science, whose members are associated with this approach. It is also sometimes called “Aristotelian Thomism” (to highlight its contrast with Gilson’s brand of existential Thomism) though since Neo-Scholastic Thomism also emphasizes Aquinas’s continuity with Aristotle, this label seems a bit too proprietary. (There are writers, like the contemporary Thomist Ralph McInerny, who exhibit both Neo-Scholastic and Laval/River Forest influences, and the approaches are not necessarily incompatible.)
See also:
River Forest Thomism
Scholasticism in Empiriological Sciences
The Modeling of Nature by William Wallace, O.P.
The Way toward Wisdom by Benedict Ashley, O.P.
Some general notes for the readers:
Fr. Wallace is getting along in years; the same is true of Fr. Ashley. I had heard from one of Fr. Wallace's students that he was writing another book on natural philosophy,but I do not know if this will ever be completed and published.
Science, Philosophy, and Theology in the Thomistic Tradition by William A. Wallace, O.P.
Benedict Ashley on Atheists
It would appear that Fr. Ashley's Theologies of the Body, Humanist and Christian is no longer in print?
"How the University of Chicago Opened My American Mind" from The Lumen Christi Institute on Vimeo.
The successors to the Laval School can be found in various institutions, such as Thomas Aquinas College or the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. (The latter less so, with the retirement of Richard Berquist and the department's recruitment of faculty not formed in the tradition.) Many TAC alumni who have PhDs can be found all over the country; many end up returning to TAC to become a tutor. The influence of the River Forest school appears to have peaked in the '60s, and the various faculty members were given other assignments after Vatican II. There is a short history written by Fr. Ashley on the River Forest school. During the '50s the River Forest school would hold conferences where philosophers and scientists would discuss various topics pertaining to the philosophy of nature and philosophy of science. I don't think anything comparable has been done since, though the Institute for the Study of Nature has attempted to revive this. (Unfortunately, ISN was unable to have its planned conference in 2010 because of various difficulties.)
I don't know if Fr. Weisheipl was able to form any disciples within the tradition while he was at UoT.
His THE REVIVAL OF THOMISM: AN HISTORICAL SURVEY.
Philosophy and the God of Abraham: essays in memory of James A. Weisheipl, OP By James A. Weisheipl, Raymond James Long
While the pursuit a dialectical inquiry into contemporary science may be a worthwhile (even salvific) endeavor for Dominicans and some others, I think that we will not see its fruits widely disseminated any time soon. And perhaps we do not deserve them, as I will explain in another post.
CUA Press, Spring and Summer 2011
CUA Press is scheduled to publish The Trinity: An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God by Gilles Emery, O.P. and translated by Matthew Levering (no webpage yet). It is not quite clear to me from the description in the catalog how the content of this book differs from other books by Fr. Emery in English translation: Trinity in Aquinas and The Trinitarian Theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas -- it seems to deal more with the sources of Church doctrine on the Most Holy Trinity before giving a "synthetic exposition of the persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in their divine being and mutual relations, and in their action for us," and ending "with a doctrinal exposition of the 'missions' of the Son and the Holy Spirit, that is, the salvific sending of the Son and Holy Spirit that leads humankind to the contemplation of the Father." (And so CUA Press has gone down the path of PCness, at least in their catalogs--I do not know if this has affected the editing of the texts.)
So less Aquinas (though the book is undoubtedly Thomistic)?
Other titles of interest to me:
Christ our Hope: An Introduction to Eschatology, by Paul O'Callaghan
Understanding Language: A Guide for Beginning Students of Greek and Latin, by Douglas Fairbairn
Papal Justice: Subjects and Courts in the Papal State, 1500-1750 by Irene Fosi
Already in publication:
New paperback editions of Medieval Church Law and the Origins of the Western Legal Tradition: A Tribute to Kenneth Pennington, edited by Wolfgang P. Müller and Mary E. Sommar and Proportionalism and the Natural Law Tradition by Christopher Kaczor, and Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas, edited by Michael Dauphinais and Matthew Levering
So less Aquinas (though the book is undoubtedly Thomistic)?
Other titles of interest to me:
Christ our Hope: An Introduction to Eschatology, by Paul O'Callaghan
Understanding Language: A Guide for Beginning Students of Greek and Latin, by Douglas Fairbairn
Papal Justice: Subjects and Courts in the Papal State, 1500-1750 by Irene Fosi
Already in publication:
New paperback editions of Medieval Church Law and the Origins of the Western Legal Tradition: A Tribute to Kenneth Pennington, edited by Wolfgang P. Müller and Mary E. Sommar and Proportionalism and the Natural Law Tradition by Christopher Kaczor, and Reading John with St. Thomas Aquinas, edited by Michael Dauphinais and Matthew Levering
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Mr. Alan Aversa has attempted twice to write a comment for the post "Reductionism in Contemporary Science" but it has not shown up, so I am posting it here:
I suspect that it has been eaten up by Blogger as spam because of the embedded links.
Edit. He also added this comment, which is also not being published for whatever reason, to my second post on Stephen Barr:
St. Thomas's commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics really helps clear this up: Are All the Classes of Causes Studied by One Science or by Many?. Mathematics, e.g., does not treat of final causes, and modern physics (mathematical physics) is a combination of physica and mathematics; it is a scientia media (See Replies to 6 and 7 of his Division and methods of the sciences; also In II Phys. lect. 3, n. 8; Summa Theol. 2-2.9.2, ad 3@m (3rd reply); In I Post Anal. lect. 25, n. 2.). Mathematical physics is "formally mathematical and materially physical."
I suspect that it has been eaten up by Blogger as spam because of the embedded links.
Edit. He also added this comment, which is also not being published for whatever reason, to my second post on Stephen Barr:
Read St. Thomas Aquinas's De Mixtione Elementorum and the Thomist article on it: "Elemental Virtual Presence in St. Thomas" by Christopher Decaen.Thanks!
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Just found this: "Physics and Philosophy" by Douglas P. McManaman. (part of A Catholic Philosophy and Theology Resource Page)
Zenit: On the New Year
"Religious Liberty Is the Privileged Way to Build Peace"
Religious liberty as a necessary political condition for evangelization.
"Religious Liberty Is the Privileged Way to Build Peace"
We are witnessing today two opposed tendencies, two extremes both negative: on one hand laicism that, in an often deceitful way, marginalizes religion to confine it to the private sphere; on the other fundamentalism, which instead would like to impose itself on all with force. In reality, "God calls humanity to himself with a plan of love that, while it involves the whole person in his natural and spiritual dimension, requires that he correspond in terms of liberty and responsibility, with his whole heart and with his whole being, individual and communal" (Message, 8). Wherever religious liberty is recognized effectively, the dignity of the human person is respected at its roots and, through a sincere search for the true and the good, the moral conscience is consolidated and the institutions themselves and civil coexistence are reinforced (cf. Ibid., 5). Because of this, religious liberty is the privileged way to build peace.
Religious liberty as a necessary political condition for evangelization.
Reductionism in contemporary science
I wanted to append one more thought to my most recent post dealing with Stephen Barr -- I'd have to look this up, but it seems to me that if Aristotelian-Thomists allege that contemporary science/scientists neglect formal causes it is done in conjunction with the claim that they affirm that complex entitites can be understood completely through their parts -- their material causes. This is most obvious when they attempt mathematical descriptions and other forms of modelling of complex entities. If they talk about causes which might be deemed formal, then, they are doing so with regards to the parts and not to the whole.
No one can give an explanation of things without giving formal causes -- but what happens is that a committed reductionist who is trying to do good science will end up contradicting his philosophical beliefs.
Edit. I was notified that someone had left a comment, but apparently it has been deleted? I was going to say in response that the common judgment of Aristotelian-Thomists that modern physics is subalternated to physics, this would seem accurate with respect to Newtonian physics or celestial mechanics, but is it an adequate characterization of contemporary physics as it is understood by its practitioners? They may be confusing some beings of reason with real beings, but this may not be true of every cause they posit?
I think I had an actual copy of this book somewhere: Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy of measure and the international system of units (SI) by Charles B. Crowley and Peter A. Redpath
No one can give an explanation of things without giving formal causes -- but what happens is that a committed reductionist who is trying to do good science will end up contradicting his philosophical beliefs.
Edit. I was notified that someone had left a comment, but apparently it has been deleted? I was going to say in response that the common judgment of Aristotelian-Thomists that modern physics is subalternated to physics, this would seem accurate with respect to Newtonian physics or celestial mechanics, but is it an adequate characterization of contemporary physics as it is understood by its practitioners? They may be confusing some beings of reason with real beings, but this may not be true of every cause they posit?
I think I had an actual copy of this book somewhere: Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy of measure and the international system of units (SI) by Charles B. Crowley and Peter A. Redpath
Friday, January 07, 2011
Rob Vischer introduces Gilbert Meilander's Neither Beast Nor God: The Dignity of the Human Person:
Human dignity and personal dignity.
Human dignity and personal dignity.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
VN: The intrinsic evil of slavery and the death penalty?
I think the reader A Sinner provides all of the major points that should be considered, referring to the old Catholic Encyclopedia entry. He adds:
Some have been critical of Aristotle for his acceptance and justification of slavery in the Greek world. I would just to take this away from what he said: a slave is distinguished from someone who is free or self-directing with respect to domestic/economic matters. He is a tool or an instrument of another. As far as I can remember, Aristotle does not say that the slave does not have any "rights" or that he is mere "property" of the master, or that the master is morally free to do with the slave as he wishes. Aristotle justifies slavery with the claim that some are naturally inferior and incapable of directing themselves; consequently, they should be directed by others. I do not think he talks of slavery as a punishment for a crime or as a consequence of losing a war. I don't think he talks about those who become deficient in the use of reason through the acquisition of vice or some other character flaw.
I think the reader A Sinner provides all of the major points that should be considered, referring to the old Catholic Encyclopedia entry. He adds:
“I use the term slavery to connote chattel slavery, but I most definitely include in this the Roman institution as well as medieval slavery (as distinguished from serfdom). I simply cannot give any credence to an argument that this is one socio-economic arrangement among many in this fallen world, and so a priori ethically neutral.”
Again, I think it really depends on what you are viewing, and what those societies viewed, as essential to the institution called “slavery.”
If included the idea of “owning” a person, reducing them to an object, or in any way reducing on principle (as opposed to just often in practice, as an abuse) what the moral law says is owed in justice and charity towards another human being…of course this is wrong.
But this isn’t necessarily what slavery was in Old Testament Israel, for example, nor in medieval Christendom (even as opposed to “mere” serfdom).
Nothing can be considered a “human right” that is not granted to children vis a vis their parents. If one’s only objection to certain forms of slavery (albeit largely “theoretical” forms) is based on “freedom” or on masters subjecting slaves to the same sorts of limitations to which parents may legitimate subject their children…one should also, then, start arguing against the power of parents over children (on a family farm, for example).
As it stands, as Cardinal Dulles said, “more or less moderate forms of subjection and servitude will always accompany the human condition.”
Some have been critical of Aristotle for his acceptance and justification of slavery in the Greek world. I would just to take this away from what he said: a slave is distinguished from someone who is free or self-directing with respect to domestic/economic matters. He is a tool or an instrument of another. As far as I can remember, Aristotle does not say that the slave does not have any "rights" or that he is mere "property" of the master, or that the master is morally free to do with the slave as he wishes. Aristotle justifies slavery with the claim that some are naturally inferior and incapable of directing themselves; consequently, they should be directed by others. I do not think he talks of slavery as a punishment for a crime or as a consequence of losing a war. I don't think he talks about those who become deficient in the use of reason through the acquisition of vice or some other character flaw.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Sandro Magister, Cardinal Biffi Breaks Another Taboo. On Dossetti
(via NLM)
"The Catholic historian Roberto de Mattei recently published a new history of Vatican Council II that is causing a great deal of discussion, because of its method and conclusions."
Dr. Fleming:
(via NLM)
"The Catholic historian Roberto de Mattei recently published a new history of Vatican Council II that is causing a great deal of discussion, because of its method and conclusions."
Dr. Fleming:
By the way, my friend Roberto di Mattei has just come out with a long and detailed book on the Second Vatican Council. I have only read the opening chapter, but it is quite hard hitting against all the modernists and ecumenists who paved the way for that disaster. I don’t know if there are any plans to translate it into English, but since he has excellent contacts in France, I have little doubt it will be out in French before too long. He is none too kind to messers Chardin, Lubac, Murray, et al, though he has excellent remarks on Msgr. Fenton. I have nothing more to say on this, but I do hope that others will refrain from posting any more links to ipse dixit arguments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)