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.

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."

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?

Now in paperback: Wretched Aristotle

Wretched Aristotle: Using the Past to Rescue the Future by Jude Dougherty

Thursday, January 20, 2011

John Searle lecture at the DSPT

From October last year.


His webpage.
Faculty page.
Philosopher John Searle Reflects on Half Century at Berkeley

Leiter Reports, 2010: John Searle (Berkeley) Elected to American Philosophical Society
Philosophy of Mind Podcast

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

Tyranny and consent of the governed 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:

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

J. M. Hussey, Andrew Louth

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.
James Chastek, De Koninck and Contraception

Monday, January 17, 2011

Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism (via Mirror of Justice)

Christopher Kaczor's tribute to Ralph McInerny

And What's More . . (via Mirror of Justice)
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.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Physics as Metaphysics by Mark Vernon
Is there a quantum spirituality?

"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.
Thomas Aquinas & Contemporary Scholarship
Inaugural Philosophy Workshop