Orthodox Items

Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America: 2012 Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in North and Central America

Metropolitan Hilarion concludes his working visit to Greece
Metropolitan Hilarion celebrates at Agia Sophia in Athens

“Spiritual But Not Religious” and the Path to God by Fr. Andrew S. Damick

ROCOR:
Kursk: Celebrations in the Kursk Metropoliate
Jerusalem: Bishop Peter of Cleveland celebrates Divine Liturgy at the Church of Holy Royal Martyr Alexandra of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission of the Moscow Patriarchate

How to Make the Sign of the Cross

(The Orthodox way)

Mere Comments: Russian Monastery Choir on US Tour (includes tour schedule - there is a stop in San Francisco on October 22)

“Christ is in Our Midst” by Anthony E. Clark, Ph.D.
A Catholic pays a visit to a Russian Orthodox Church in Beijing.

(via Insight Scoop)

Mark Lilla reviews Brad Gregory's The Unintended Reformation

Mark Lilla, Blame it on the Reformation (via Michael B. Dougherty and Lee Faber)

More on Ecclesial Movements

Will bishops who come from the ecclesial movements be prepared to properly shepherd local Churches? To come up with strategies necessary to revitalize parish life?

Why is a strong parish life necessary for Christians? Certainly it's been part of the history of Christianity, notably for the Early Church, and much weight must be given to its historical reality and importance as a guide for action. Still, some may go so far as to claim that what is needed now are movements tied either to the workplace or to one's profession. If one has time to meet with other members of the movements after work, then they have time to meet with other members of the parish - but only if other members of the parish are willing to commit to deepening their witness to Christ, that is true.

Ecclesial movements can be seen as a temporary band-aid solution and outlet for evangelization efforts because circumstances in many areas prevent a thorough revitalization of the parish, but ecclesial movements are nonetheless ordered to strengthening the life of the local Church at that level. I am not convinced in the long run that many converts will be made in the workplace by ecclesial movements, especially if the nature of the work goes against the "evangelical simplicity" of the Christian life.

What needs to be done is a more thorough explanation of why parish life is necessary for the Christian, one that will draw upon moral theology (and the order of charity), the science of politics (which will elucidate in relation to human goods the nature of the lay vocation, especially with regards to the word, "world," and how it is to be understood), and an exploration of the Church's liturgy as public prayer.

Perhaps it would be better to say that a healthy, vibrant parish life would be the "natural" result of the laity living out their vocation well. But as I've mentioned before, in many parts of the industrialized world, the political economy itself presents obstacles. But we must also look at the culpability of Christians, or the part they have played in the diminishing of parish life, too.

Ian Ker on ecclesial movements

Alba House: New Ecclesial Movements: Communion and Liberation, Neo-Catechumenal Way,
Charismatic Renewal by Tony Hanna (more info)

New City Press: Ecclesial Movements and Communities by Brendan Leahy

Response by Guzman Carriquiry to the paper "On Being Christian in the World"
(I was unable to find a copy of his "The Ecclesial Movements in the Religious and Cultural Context of the Present Day" online.)

Joseph Ratzinger:
The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements (pdf)
The Ecclesial Movements: A Theological Reflection on Their Place in the Church

Some of his essays on the topic have been collected here - New Outpourings of the Holy Spirit
(the introduction by Bishop Stanislaw Rylko)

Related:
Pontifical Council for the Laity

Rorate Caeli: SSPX-Rome: Important - Father Schmidberger speaks on conditions and current status of negotiations with Rome
Updated: video with subtitles

ROCOR: Washington, DC: September Celebrations in the Parish of St. John the Baptist Cathedral
Howell, NJ: Metropolitan Hilarion led a Regular Session of the Diocesan Council

Competing with Joseph Ratzinger?

Soon to be published by Liturgical Press: Jesus of Nazareth: What He Wanted, Who He Was by Gerhard Lohfink - the English translation of a book originally printed in German, I guess.

On the mailing from LitPress, there is the blurb: "If you read only one book about Jesus this year..."

with praise from Daniel J. Harrington, SJ, author of Jesus: A Historical Portrait

I can't find any reviews or critiques by trusted Catholic theologians.

Volume 3 of Joseph Ratzinger's work on Christ will be released in time for Christmas this year.

Related: Book Review of Jesus and Community by Gerhard Lohfink 1982, Fortress Press

Edit.
Jesus and human imagination by Raymond A. Schroth | Sep. 25, 2013
Christological heresy and Pelagianism?

Chiesa: Vatican Diary / The pope's favorites
"They are the cardinals, the bishops, the priests whom Benedict XVI has wanted to add to the participants in the upcoming synod. Three of them are from Opus Dei. And another three from Communion and Liberation"

Let us pray to the Holy Spirit that those attending the synod will be enlightened. Surely He can overcome deficits in learning and experience?

Steven Long on Formal Cooperation

Steven Long, The Dubious Guidance of the New Natural Law Theorists on "Formal Cooperation"

Some thoughts occasioned by Bp. Wcela’s essay on female deacons (via Fr. Z)

A canonical treatment of the question, not a theological response to the ordination of [female] deaconesses in the East and explanations of the practice current in Orthodoxy.

Vengeance and Justice

Something of note: Ed Feser has written something on vengeance and its relation to justice - Justice or Revenge?

Sólo sé mí

Palamism Explained in Twelve Minutes or Less (via Byzantine, Texas) - mp3

Vatican Insider: “Vatican II is the cradle of the new evangelisation”

The theology of Abp. Joseph Augustine DiNoia, O.P. by Michael J. Miller (via Insight Scoop)

"The documents of the Second Vatican Council have lasting value because they were produced and approved by an Ecumenical Council under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The interpretations of those documents by enthusiasts who emphasized “renewal” and ignored “tradition” were not necessarily the same thing."

St. Hildegard of Bingen: A Visionary for All Time by Brennan Pursell

Shinichi Mochizuki

Proof claimed for deep connection between primes

World's Most Complex Mathematical Theory 'Cracked'
NYT

Steve Sailer on supposed Japanese unoriginality.

From 2004: Return of the Relics of St. John Chrysostom and St. Gregory the Theologian to Constantinople

Ecclesia in Medio Oriente

English (pdf) - via FT

Vatican summary

Ecclesia in Medio Oriente: Keys to understanding the new papal document


Related:
Pope's Address Upon Signing Apostolic Exhortation on Mideast [2012-09-14]
It "can be read and understood in the light of this Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross"
Pope's Presentation of "Ecclesia in Medio Oriente"
"A guide to follow the various and complex paths where Christ goes before you" [2012-09-16]
Pope's Address at Ecumenical Meeting in Beirut
"Let us work without ceasing so that the love of Christ may lead us little by little into full communion with each other

Being

James Chastek, What am I trying to signify by “being”? and Simultaneity and the First, Second, and Third Way

I've been thinking of the question of being in relation to Duns Scotus and univocity, but since my handle of metaphysics is that of a beginner, I am just jotting some notes for later reference. Can there be a concept of being without first some sort of assent that a particular thing is/exists? How can one know any sensible thing without first sensing it? While essence is not the same as existence for contingent beings, does our conception of a thing necessarily have a reference to the judgment that it has existed? Is our conception of being then dependent upon some "being" having an effect upon our senses? A being is, first, that which has acted upon our senses, either directly or via something else?

If so, can our conception of being be univocal in this way, while it is equivocal when we try to reason out how material creatures differ from immaterial beings and God? Being is univocal in accordance with this sort of preliminary definition, but equivocal with a more "scientific" definition?

Interesting, according to Vox, the OED gives a definition of torture not just as being a form of coercion but as punishment: "he action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something"

John Taverner: Dum transisset sabbatum

Something from 1936? Any updates in scholarship since then? St. Isidore and mediaeval science by Floyd Seyward Lear

Fr. Uwe Michael Lang's book, "The Voice of the Church at Prayer", reviewed by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.

Zenit: POPE'S MESSAGE ON 10 COMMANDMENTS
"God has given us the Commandments to educate us to liberty and genuine love"

Some discussion of women in the diaconate at ByzCath. Both men and women can serve others - but is it the case that women deacons were raised to Holy Orders? Does the deacon have a place in the hierarchy of authority? (Or is it the case that the diaconate, for both men and women, is a separate Holy Order from that of the presbyterate, as one commentor claims?)

While it may convince some that the priest is male because he represents Christ, what about the question of why is Christ male? Arguing that He is male because He is the Bridegroom while the Church is the Bride may be sufficient for some, but isn't the difference in role not something accidental?

Tomás Luis de Victoria, Ave Regina Caelorum

Tomás Luis de Victoria (1548-1611) Ave Regina caelorum a 8


Tomás Luis de Victoria (1548-1611) Missa Ave Regina caelorum

Vatican Diary / The conversion of bishop-theologian Bruno Forte

Forte's joining the fray is significant, and in some ways surprising.

It is significant because he is one of the best-known Italian bishops, including at the international level, and enjoys a substantial following among his brother bishops, who in fact appointed him as their representative at the worldwide synod on the new evangelization that will be held in Rome in October. Of the four selections he is the only one without the scarlet, the other three being all cardinals: Angelo Bagnasco, Giuseppe Betori, and Angelo Scola.

It is surprising because Forte has always been considered a theologian of the progressive camp, the camp that most opposes, and not only in Italy, the passage from "for all" to "for many."

At the memorable ecclesial conference in Loreto in 1985, which marked the ascent in the leadership of the Italian Church of then-auxiliary bishop of Reggio Emilia Camillo Ruini, Forte was fighting for the other and the winning side, together with the president of the episcopal conference at the time, Anastasio Ballestrero, and Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. And it was he who gave the introductory theological presentation.

This is why he has not rarely ended up in the crosshairs of his more conservative theologian colleagues.

For example, in a 2004 article Fr. Nicola Bux, an adviser – both then and now – to the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, singled out Forte as one of the "promulgators" of a "weak and derivative theology" concerning the resurrection of Jesus, reduced "to an 'etiological legend,' or an artifice in support of the worship that the Judeo-Christians were conducting on the site of Jesus' burial."

But Forte's taking the field is even more surprising because it marks in him a change of judgment with respect to the past.

Behavior psychology and Mass Marketing... as Tools of Evangelization?

Full and Active Participation: The Challenge of “Porta Fidei” and the Promise of Right Brain by Deacon Dominic Cerrato (via Insight Scoop)

Given all that has been said to promote the Year of Faith effectively along with its associated catechetical programs, a new marketing approach needs to be crafted that puts joy before the law. It must lead with the contagious love of Jesus Christ, demonstrating how, by attending these various efforts, the participants will share in that joy by experiencing that love. One way this new marketing approach can be crafted is through the Right Brain Research of Dr. Charles T. Kenny. 22 Right Brain has discovered that a brand is created when people make an emotional connection that transforms the specific product or service into an implicit promise. This promise drives their perceptions, the way they feel, their behavior, and their expectations. By understanding this emotional connection as it relates to the product or service, a highly effective marketing effort can be crafted. The Right Brain approach, inasmuch as it seeks to fulfill a deeply felt emotional need, corresponds directly to the kind of dynamic that moves passive participation to active participation.

Historically, marketing approaches tended to be more left brain. Where left brain describes an analytical approach often expressed through a logical argument, right brain keys in on the emotional benefit for the consumer. As explained in St. Thomas’ ethics, and as illustrated by Fr. Barron’s baseball analogy, these two approaches are by no means mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite: they are inclusive and complementary insofar as the joy (right brain) makes possible a fuller appreciation of the law (left brain). The left brain acts to balance, control, and explain actions that are driven by emotional needs seated in the right brain. All human behavior is an interplay of the left brain and the right brain, a beautiful and synergistic interconnectedness.

Motivating people to participate in a catechetical event is subject to the same universal laws of human behavior and psychology that govern any great brand campaign. These include appealing to one or more of the 47 emotional needs discovered by Right Brain Research, and overcoming one or more of the emotional barriers (i.e., fears) that prevent people from responding. In their commercials, the Catholics Come Home advertising appeals to such emotional needs as: love and acceptance, affiliation, community, hope, intimacy, immortality, and redemption. In those same commercials, they also help people overcome such emotional barriers as: fear of rejection, guilt, fear of judgment, and fear of inadequacy. This achievement can be duplicated using Right Brain Research in the promotion of all catechetical programs.

the Motu Proprio Porta Fidei

I need to read Bellarmine.

And how he explains the separation between temporal authority and spiritual authority.

What Barack Obama Could Learn from St. Robert Bellarmine by Gerald J. Russello

3. Laws affect persons. Bellarmine was adamant in his “On Laymen,” part of a series of works called the Controversiae, published between 1586-89, that “from the fact that political authority is temporal and its end is external peace and that man does not make judgments on internal matters, it is rightly inferred that it can oblige only to perform temporal and external acts but not that it cannot bind in conscience.” This is a crucial point that secularists often overlook, since they have a utilitarian or agnostic view of the law. For them, regulations like the HHS mandate simply preserve “health care” or “equality,” and affect only external actions. For them, such laws do not touch religious belief, which is considered only an internal matter and not one concerned with action.

Cardinal Burke's Address to the Kenyan Canon Law Convention

Zenit: CARDINAL BURKE TO KENYA CANON LAW CONVENTION

Someone wrote in linking to this, "The ever amazing Cardinal Burke on how to remake society in a Just and Christian mold...organically." I think that may be an overestimate of its practical usefulness with respect to civic reform.

Canon law is necessary instrument for the life of the Church. But a conference on canon law is not the same as a symposium on the lay vocation or "spiritual" theology, but one should not take the cardinal's remarks on the universal call to holiness (borrowing heavily from John Paul II) as being complete, nor a program for the renewal of political community.

The Right to Citizenship

A follow-up to this post.

Why is there not a universal, natural right to citizenship?

1. What is required for one to be able to order the community, or legislate, well? [Civic] prudence and the moral virtues.

2. What about being able to judge other people well, according to their character (rather than the platform that they espouse)? This requires experience, familiarity with virtue, and right opinion regarding moral precepts and the good, at least, if not knowledge.

These are not inborn traits; they must be acquired and they are contingent, not necessary. As a result, there can be no natural right since no one is "naturally" qualified to rule or to have some share in it. Some notion of [natural] individual dominion or sovereignty is inadequate to back up the claim that such a right exists. In accordance with distributive justice, then, the work of the whole should be done by all the members of whole only if they are qualified to do it, not simply because they are members.

One might appeal to Aquinas' discussion of law as a counter-argument in favor of all being naturally entitled to citizenship:

Now to order anything to the common good, belongs either to the whole people, or to someone who is the viceregent of the whole people. And therefore the making of a law belongs either to the whole people or to a public personage who has care of the whole people: since in all other matters the directing of anything to the end concerns him to whom the end belongs.

The act of legislating belongs to the community as a whole in directing itself to its good - "since in all other matters the directing of anything to the end concerns him to whom the end belongs." This could be further explained by an appeal to dominion or sovereignty (though Aquinas does not do so in the Summa Theologiae).

But not all participate in the ordering in the right way - some order, some are ordered. And even those who order may not do so equally, for example the members of the family. While the wife (and to a lesser extent their children) may contribute to the deliberation of the household, the husband is the authority. I do not think Aquinas would dispute this point. There appears to be a significant difference between an individual directing himself and an individual being a part of a group. The differences between the members and the consequences of these on their relationships to one another (~social dynamics) are such that the group is not reducible to the totality of the individuals who comprise it. The act of legislation may be attributable to the community as a whole, but it is not necessary that all members of the community are equally the author of that act - there may be justified degrees of participation. While it may be proper that all members of a community be consulted concerning potential legislation (especially regarding its impact on the community), this does not entail that all should be legislators.

While I am sympathetic to the claim that the best constitution (or the one most amenable to Christian fraternity) is that of a republic, it is an ideal and not one that comes about naturally. The paideia that is required must be in place in order to bring a republic into being and to sustain it. Nowadays, it is not as important question  as the problem of size and scale, a more pressing matter, not only because of the lack of ecological sustainability.

If it is not in accord with distributive justice that those who do not have the requisite virtue have a share in rule, and it is not unjust to prevent them from having it, could a valid consequentialist argument be made that if they were to have a share in rule that a worse state of affairs would result (e.g. there would be more disagreement and conflict, or the quality of the legislation would decrease as more compromises would have to be made to satisfy the demands of opposing factions)?

An additional question that needs to be addressed is whether men and women are equally suited to rule. But perhaps a more important consideration is the relationship of a man to his family as the husband and father and to other men as a member of a group.

IERS

Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science

Just started to look at the website; Finalism and “The Aristotelian-Thomistic Concept of Nature and the Contemporary Debate on the Meaning of Natural Laws,” (pdf) by Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti at the Pontifical Athenaeum of the Holy Cross.

See also the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences.

Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk chairs sessions of presidium of Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission and of working group for compiling modern catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church (via Byzantine, Texas)

OCN Come Receive the Light podcasts

website

MB on theosis. mp3

Christopher Blum's Review of Fr. Augustine's biography of St. Francis

The Francis We Never Knew: Surprising Revelations About the Man From Assisi

Mark Martin's Microbiology Blog

via Dr. Helen - All Creatures Great AND Small: Preaching Microbial Supremacy!

Zenit: On the Law of God
"It leads man out of the slavery of egoism and brings him into the 'land' of true freedom and life"

In the Liturgy of the Word this Sunday the theme of God’s Law, of his commandment emerges. This is an essential element both in the Jewish and Christian religions. In the latter the Law of God finds its complete fulfillment in love (cf. Romans 13:10). God’s Law is his Word that guides man on his life’s journey, it leads him out of the slavery of egoism and brings him into the “land” of true freedom and life. For this reason in the Bible the Law is not seen as a burden, an oppressive limitation, but as a precious gift of the Lord, the witness of his paternal love, of his will to be near his people, of being their ally and writing a history of love with them.

Two from Medievalist.net

The Making of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae - Bernard McGinn



Science and the Medieval University

John Paul II on the Right to Citizenship

A reader left a link to Javier Hervada's The Principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church in the combox. It's been a while since I've looked at the essay. Professor Hervada is probably a good man (indeed I owe him for an act of generosity), and I may have even recommended his introduction on this blog at some point, but I wanted to call attention to one part which is probably problematic:

6. THE NATURAL RIGHTS OF THE HUMAN PERSON. One characteristic of the human person is self-mastery. This dominion has two aspects. First, control by reason and will over the other faculties makes a person's acts free and responsible; second, his being and the natural ends proper to it entitle the person to rights and liberties, as well as to duties, in his relations with others. These rights (and duties) a-e called natural rights (or fundamental rights--an expression much used by John XXIII) or inalienable rights of the human person (as John Paul II often calls them).

Usually these rights are stated in general terms; it then belongs to the interpreter to explain them more precisely. The main fundamental rights are as follows (MM 11-27; UN--Address of John Paul II to the 36th General Assembly of the United Nations, Oct. 2. 1979):


...

18) the right to citizenship.

So Professor Hervada is not offering his own opinion or giving his own synthesis of liberalism with CST - rather, he is citing a speech given by Pope John Paul II. Does Pope John Paul II endorse universal democracy as the most just form of government as well? I would argue that this opinion goes against an Aristotelian-Thomistic political theology, and probably against the dominant Catholic theological opinion before the 20th century.

Given Professor Hervada's institutional affiliation one would expect that he not be critical of the opinion of a Roman pontiff. But there is something to be said about ultramontanism being an obstacle to the reforming of the Church.

(Is there a basis for the charges given by certain groups and personages against John Paul II?)

I was reminded how weak our current conception of citizenship is because a friend mentioned that he had passed the citizenship test not too long ago - a test based merely on "knowledge" rather than on demonstrated virtue.

The concept of dominion is used as a theoretical foundation for rights. Something I'll have to remember when reviewing his book on rights.

CST and the United States

Catholic intellectuals and their quest to show how CST transcends the platform of both major political parties in the United States:
The Idol of Liberty
The Role of Government and the Battle over Catholic Social Teaching
The Unity of the Catholic Moral Vision

Let's get beyond the lecturing and start building some real community. Appeals to solidarity and the common good are rather useless if there is very little community to begin with; rather it is a mass aggregate of individuals who are strangers to one another. If they really got to know one another, you might be surprised how many divisions might appear, and while this may not be "ideal," it would be a necessary corrective, much to the dismay of those who live on sentimentalism.

William Carroll on Evolution

Exploring evolution at the Rimini Meeting (via OP website)

Too Little, Too Late?

That title could be applied to a lot of actions. Here's to not squandering it.

Rorate Caeli: For the record: a new motu proprio creating a Pontifical Academy of the Latin Language

Edit.
Latin rebirth in schools
Latin is about to undergo a renaissance in schools under plans being drawn up by the Vatican.

Medievalists.net: A Spectacle of Great Beauty: The Changing Faces of Hagia Sophia

Insight Scoop: Vatican II and the Ecclesiology of Joseph Ratzinger
The Introduction to Joseph Ratzinger: Life in the Church and Living Theology—Fundamentals of Ecclesiology with Reference to Lumen Gentium by Fr. Maximilian Heinrich Heim

An allusion to a "remnant" Church?

Maybe, maybe not?

Pope suggests it’s best to be ‘honest’ and leave the Church if you don’t believe: HLI priest

Zenit: ON BELIEVING IN JESUS, BREAD OF LIFE
"In those words is foretold the paschal mystery of Jesus"

Pope explains how doubt was created in Judas


From earlier this year: John Allen, A Pope of Ironies

Feast of St. Augustine of Hippo, 28 August

The Scriptural Roots of St. Augustine's Spirituality | Stephen N. Filippo | IgnatiusInsight.com

Dominicana: St. Augustine: Ever Ancient and Yet Ever New!

The extended trailer for Restless Heart:


A review of the movie.

Byzantine, Texas: The explosive growth of Orthodoxy in Guatemala

Even though she is patroness of the Americas, is there much devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe outside of Mexico (and Mexican immigrant communities)?

Does Orthodoxy have better safeguards against syncretism? Is it because of a better model of inculturation? Or just better catechesis?

Can we define what we mean by modernity, please?

Irony of Ironies: Vatican II Triumphs Over Moribund Modernity by Samuel Gregg

You don't need to reach the bottom of the essay to guess that the author is associated with the Acton Institute. Defenders of the liberal [dis-]order are apt to credit liberalism or capitalism with the development of new technology, the increase in longevity and decrease in morality, and so on, as if these developments could only happen because of the concentration of capital in the hands of the few.

From earlier this month--Feast-Day Celebrations at San Francisco’s “Old Cathedral”

Metropolitan Hilarion in town?

Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk will visit USA to take part in celebrations on the occasion of 200th anniversary of Fort Ross

He will be celebrating the Divine Liturgy at St. Nicholas tomorrow, at Holy Virgin Cathedral on Tuesday.

Fort Ross 2012 Bicentennial
Diocese of the West

From February: An Interview with Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev





IEC 2012: Br. Alois Löser, Dr. Maria Voce, Liturgy of Word and Water - June 11, 2012

David Anders, Archbishop Minnerath on Rome, the Papacy, and the East

Clarifications on the Political Common Good

Solidarity, subsidiarity, and principled sanity by Carl E. Olson (via Insight Scoop)

A lot of people have made use of a picture of Inigo Montoya from Princess Bride and the quotation, "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means," with reference to some disputed term or other. I think it would be humorous to make one of these photos with "common good."



Is the definition of the common good (along with subsidiarity), as put forth by contemporary CST and used by Mr. Olson, helpful? Yes, but primarily with reference to the modern nation-state. He cites the Compendium: "The common good of society is not an end in itself; it has value only in reference to attaining the ultimate ends of the person and the universal common good of the whole of creation. " The political common good, as "traditionally" understood by Thomists and Aristotelians, is not the same as the instrumental good defined by John XXIII and adopted into contemporary CST. The common good, the good of the community, is an end in itself - desirable for its own sake and not merely as a means to an end desired for itself. This does not mean that it is not subordinate to a "higher" end or good, like the supernatural common good (and man's ultimate end), God Himself. The common good, as defined within contemporary CST, may be an instrumental good to the political common good, but it is not identical to the political common good:

The principle of the common good, to which every aspect of social life must be related if it is to attain its fullest meaning, stems from the dignity, unity and equality of all people. According to its primary and broadly accepted sense, the common good indicates “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily”.

This instrumental good is explained as such by proponents of the New Natural Law Theory, for example. And yet there is use of language usually associated with the traditional [definition of the] common good:

The common good does not consist in the simple sum of the particular goods of each subject of a social entity. Belonging to everyone and to each person, it is and remains “common”, because it is indivisible and because only together is it possible to attain it, increase it and safeguard its effectiveness, with regard also to the future. Just as the moral actions of an individual are accomplished in doing what is good, so too the actions of a society attain their full stature when they bring about the common good. The common good, in fact, can be understood as the social and community dimension of the moral good.

An explanation of how the common good is common, though it may have been better to explain how it is common or shared - not as belonging to them, like property (in which case common would be said in praedicando), but as a shared end. And in the next paragraph:

A society that wishes and intends to remain at the service of the human being at every level is a society that has the common good — the good of all people and of the whole person [347] — as its primary goal. The human person cannot find fulfilment in himself, that is, apart from the fact that he exists “with” others and “for” others. This truth does not simply require that he live with others at various levels of social life, but that he seek unceasingly — in actual practice and not merely at the level of ideas — the good, that is, the meaning and truth, found in existing forms of social life. No expression of social life — from the family to intermediate social groups, associations, enterprises of an economic nature, cities, regions, States, up to the community of peoples and nations — can escape the issue of its own common good, in that this is a constitutive element of its significance and the authentic reason for its very existence[348]

Can the second part of this section be harmonized with the first? If the common good is the "social and community [communal] dimension of the moral good [the life of virtue]" then is it the same as "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily"?

As for Fr. Barron's essay -- "Now in Catholic social theory, subsidiarity is balanced by solidarity, which is to say, a keen sense of the common good, of the natural and supernatural connections that bind us to one another, of our responsibility for each other." Solidarity may be identified with the virtue of social justice (or legal justice), or with civic friendship, or both, depending on, of course, its definition. The Compendium:

Solidarity is also an authentic moral virtue, not a “feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good. That is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all”[418]. Solidarity rises to the rank of fundamental social virtue since it places itself in the sphere of justice. It is a virtue directed par excellence to the common good, and is found in “a commitment to the good of one's neighbour with the readiness, in the Gospel sense, to ‘lose oneself' for the sake of the other instead of exploiting him, and to ‘serve him' instead of oppressing him for one's own advantage (cf. Mt 10:40-42, 20:25; Mk 10:42-45; Lk 22:25-27)”[419].

I've already written about subsidiarity (as well as the contemporary notion of common good) and how these terms probably are better understood as reactions to the growth of the modern nation-state and polities that are too big for their own good, and the concomitant political and economic centralization. This may have been a conscious formulation for the first theorists, but those currently presenting CST as a basis for seeking political solutions may be unaware of the original contextual background of the terms.

Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts when we consider the [political] community and its members? Is legal justice distinct from civic friendship? I will have to address these questions at some other time. At some point I will also have to rewrite the discussion of how one cannot talk about common good if a community is mostly absent and the potential for community must be developed first, addressing the need for a common culture and a single identity, one people. Taking the United States as one nation, or polity, is a problem, because the scale is too big and the relationship between all of its members to one another too tenuous for the most part. Talking about the common good (and subsidiarity and solidarity) when the current political order (taken broadly as to referring not only to the federal government but also the culture and social order), or constitution in the Aristotelian sense, mitigates against it.

The Purpose of Education: A Catholic Primer by Stratford Caldecott

Discussing primarily the formation in the intellectual virtues, rather than in the moral virtues.

His Beauty in the Word is published by Angelico Press.

CMT: What is Happiness? by Charles Camosy

How does one relate goods to ends and activities? Some precision would be helpful.

From December of last year: In Defense of Human Dignity – on the 500th Anniversary of the Preaching of the Dominican Friars in Hispaniola

Related: Dominicans in the Americas
Join us in celebrating our 500th anniversary!
(Update)

Happiness and Its Discontents by Fr. Michael Sherwin, OP

(Logos)

Zenit: Pope's Message to Rimini Meeting
"Not only my soul, but even every fiber of my flesh is made to find its peace, its fulfillment in God"

Thus do we discover the truest dimension of human existence, that to which the Servant of God Luigi Giussani continually referred: life as vocation. Everything, every relationship, every joy, as well as every difficulty, finds its ultimate meaning in being an opportunity for a relationship with the Infinite, a voice of God that continually calls to us and invites us to lift our gaze, to find the complete fulfillment of our humanity in belonging to Him. “You have made us for Yourself – wrote St. Augustine – and our hearts are restless until they rest in You” (Confessions I, 1,1). We need not be afraid of what God asks of us, through the circumstance of our lives, were it even the dedication of ourselves in a special form of following and imitating Christ, in the priesthood or religious life. The Lord, in calling some to live totally for Him, calls everyone to recognize the essence of our own nature as human beings: we are made for the Infinite. And God has our happiness at heart, and our complete human fulfillment. Let us ask, then, to enter in and to remain in the gaze of faith that characterized the saints, in order that we might be able to discover the good seed that the Lord scatters along the path of our lives and joyfully adhere to our vocation.

Dominicana: J. Augustine Di Noia, O.P., “Theological Method and the Magisterium of the Church,” Dominicana 54:2 (2011), 51-61.

Tired of the Conflict Between Catholics

Spiritual Consumers by Matthew Cantirino

One of my mom's friends had recounted to my mother how a priest had admonished people for being picky and choosey as to which Masses they attended.

It can be rather easy to do some amateur "psychologizing" about groups of people, in order to draw some sort of moral point. I've done it as well. But it has to be couched in terms of hypotheticals; and is it really that helpful for the intended audience? It can easily degenerate into condemnation of the "other." But it does get boring, whether it be from the right or the left, when there is a failure to grasp reality and the nature of the problem. Are both just different forms of Americanism? Do older, "left-leaning" Catholics really think institutionally? Or is their comfort level first and foremost?

Mr. Cantirino writes:

This is anecdotal, but virtually all of the youngish (say, under-35) orthodox Catholics I know, for example, don’t attend Mass at their local parish. They’ll travel long distances–sometimes, clear across cities–to certain “special” chapels or “traditionalist parishes” or order houses where a dynamic priest keeps them coming back. In many ways this is highly commendable: That someone is willing to take significant additional time out of their day to commute to church signifies a deep commitment to the liturgy and an impressive grasp of its importance. And it’s a sympathetic dilemma: Certainly, young people don’t do this to spite their canon-law pastor, but they do often find the services on offer in their bailiwick in some sense impoverished, or the preaching theologically wayward, or the architecture grossly midcentury, and for the good of their spiritual health decide they can and must find a home elsewhere.

But should this be the end goal? Might it be fruitful to encourage a way of thinking that emphasizes not only the individual’s conscious embrace of orthodoxy (key though individual response has always been in Catholicism), but which also sees this commitment as eventually settling, becoming the norm, and integrating itself into the existing framework rather than subsisting outside of or in a subculture of it? This, then, would seem to be an emerging challenge for the “movement” back towards orthodoxy. We’ve become, maybe by accident, accustomed to a sort of “remnant” mindset rather than an institutional one, to prophetic denunciations from without but with not enough “working within.” So perhaps it’s time for “self-conscious” young Catholics to start seeing themselves less as dissidents and “choosers” and more simply as part of the future of the Church, and begin working out what that means.

Traddies and conservative Catholics may put a premium on orthodoxy and good liturgical praxis and sometimes, their ability to live as a community suffers since they have to travel over long distances to their church. Many may be ignorant that this is not the idea, but even if they are aware of the problem, when looking to the good of their family, a strong parish life may not compare. Sure, some may have a mindset which is opposed to an awareness of communion with those who are ignorant. But should the burden be on them or on the priests and ultimately the bishop of the local Church?

Commonweal and the like belong to the past, even if that crowd may feel good at the moment because a SWPL Democrat occupies the White House, because it is tied to a dying, unsustainable political economy. How many go beyond an easy, painless progressivism to make real sacrifices for others that is in accordance with the order of charity (rather than following their own notions of victim classes and the "preferential option")?

Not a “Swerve,” but a “Slouch” by Anthony Esolen
Modern atheists may think they’ve found an ally in ancient Epicureanism. They’re quite mistaken.

Feast of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, 20 August

On the Love of God

Fr. Augustine's Book Talk Rescheduled

I saw Fr. Augustine today and asked him to sign some copies of his book. I mentioned the book talk at the DSPT and he responded that it had been rescheduled for January, so that Regis Martin could participate. (? I think I am remembering the correct name.)

Fr. Augustine may also be giving a talk at the National Shrine of Saint Francis of Assisi in October, but that has not been finalized yet.

Sister Vassa Larin

Sister Vassa Larin from George Kokhno on Vimeo.

John Allen on Archbishop Dolan

Lake Effect: The Mind of the Archbishop - mp3

Audio files for Orientale Lumen XVI Conference

Ancient Faith Radio - website for the annual conference


Related:
Diaconate in Christ: Orientalium ecclesiarum No. 17. Commentary Part II

Simonopetra

A Thousand Years are as One Day

NCReg: Catholic University Looks East (1851)
Ukrainian Father Mark Morozowich is the first Eastern Catholic to lead CUA’s School of Theology.

Joseph Trabbic on Maritain

Some Critical Comments on Maritain's Political Philosophy

Finally, I cannot accept Maritain’s thesis about democracy’s privileged connection to Christianity. As I read ecclesiastical history, the Church has always been very pragmatic about her relationships with the various types of political regimes, never teaching in any binding manner that some one kind of regime in particular has its roots in the Gospel. And yet, as I argued [earlier in the review], it does appear that Maritain would have to insist that Christians are in some sense bound to promote democracy. There is not the space here sufficiently to reflect on the papal teaching of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that, in fact, was quite critical of some of the same democratic tenets held by Maritain. It is ironic that in reviewing Christianity and Democracy in 1945 the prominent Unitarian theologian James Luther Adams questioned the Catholic nature of Maritain’s political thought: “How, then, does M. Maritain, the Thomist and the Roman Catholic, manage to become here the apostle and the mentor of the democracy of the future? He does it by ignoring Roman Catholicism and by ignoring the antidemocratic heritage of pre-eighteenth-century Christianity.” No doubt there are many who would say that previous Catholic teaching on political matters has since been superseded by John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris and Vatican II’s pronouncements in Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes. But if we apply the hermeneutic of continuity proposed by Benedict XVI, we might discover that the story is far more complex than the hermeneuts of discontinuity and rupture would have us believe.

I think there is an impulse to an equality rooted in fraternity "within Christianity," such that Christian polity leans towards becoming a republic whenever possible. Perhaps Maritain's bigger mistake was identifying democracy with the contingent historical form of the modern nation-state and not addressing the problem of scale with respect to community.

Fr. Spitzer, in his Ten Universal Principles, talks about adjudicating between competing rights claims. Evidence that there is a problem with contemporary rights theory, that there can be competing claims? Or is the problem in the identification of rights with a specific understanding of ownership?



More from TEDxPannonia

Fr. Augustine's Lecture Cancelled?

A book party of sorts for his biography of St. Augustine - it was scheduled for September 26, but there is no longer any mention of it.

There is some discussion of the relationship between Church and State in the combox for Thomas Storck's Liberalism and the Absence of Purpose. My short contribution: "...while it may be somewhat useful to think of the division between the sacred and the secular in terms of supernatural and natural (especially with respect to the limits of secular authority), this can lead to be problems if we do not consider the underlying reason why this division is apt, namely the goods themselves. The political common good is communal well-being, or the virtuous life of the community – civic friendship. All friendships are open to something higher serving as a source of unity joining friends together – in this case, the higher good is God Himself. While secular authority may not be able to directly bring about man’s salvation through the imparting of grace, a Christian polity can nonetheless promote conditions which facilitate the observance of the Christian life (for example, removing obstacles)."

Mount Athos • The Holy Mountain

Mauricio Kuri on Religious Freedom

Metropolitan KALLISTOS Ware Salvation in Christ - The Orthodox Approach -Lecture

Met. Kallistos Ware | PRP Special : The Jesus Prayer

My Conversation with Professor Robert Pope on The 21st Century Renaissance

Ancient Faith Radio: Metropolitan Kallistos Ware on the Neopatristic Synthesis

The Second Vatican Council according to Albino Luciani by ANDREA TORNIELLI

It is also interesting to look at the way Luciani experienced the long process that lead to the Council’s declaration on religious freedom «Dignitatis humanae». “Religious freedom, interpreted in the right way“ wrote Luciani “ so we would not misunderstand. We all agree that there is only one true religion and those who are aware of this truth must practice this religion and no other. That said, there are also other things that are right and we must say them. In other words, those who are not satisfied with Catholicism have the right to profess their own religion for various reasons. Natural Law states that each one of us has the right to search for truth, especially religious truth. One cannot find it by staying shut in a room, reading some books. We truly search for it by talking with other people, by sharing opinions…. The right to the truth is just a common saying, but there are only physical or moral people who do not have the right to search for truth. Therefore do not be scared of slapping truth in the face when you give someone the right to use their freedom”.


“The choice of religious belief must be free.” explained the bishop of Vittorio Veneto “ The freer and more earnest the choice, the more those that embrace the Faith will feel honoured. These are rights, natural rights. Rights always come hand in hand with duties. The non Catholics have the right to profess their religion and I have the duty to respect their right as a private citizen, as a priest, as a bishop and as a State”.

Memorial of St. Dominic, 8 August

A photo taken by Fr. Lawrence:



EWTN
wff
St. Dominic's Church in SF
St. Dominic's Church in Benecia
Contemplation and action: Pope reflects on example of St. Dominic
General Audience: Pope speaks about prayer of Saint Dominic

On the Prayer of St. Dominic

Was this movie ever completed and released?

Going to NYC to attend a wedding. Planning to be back by Monday!

Finally!

I've been waiting at least 6 or 7 years for this book to be released by Ignatius Press; it should be out in November - Enchiridion Symbolorum, new, updated bilingual edition.

Two on Mathematics

The Purpose of Mathematics in a Classical Education by Thomas Treloar
History of Mathematics Education in the European Middle Ages

Zenit: Papal Letter to Knights of Columbus
"concerted efforts are being made to redefine and restrict the exercise of the right to religious freedom"

Wesley J. Smith, Incorporate and Lose Your Religious Liberty?

Faith and Religious Liberty

Rorate Caeli: De Mattei: "Religious Liberty - or liberty for Christians?"

"Further, the right of being immune to coercion, or rather the fact that the Church does not impose the Catholic Faith on anyone, but requires the freedom of the act of faith, does not arise from a presumed natural right to religious freedom or a presumed natural right to believe in any religion whatever, but it is founded on the fact that the Catholic Religion, the only true one, must be embraced in complete freedom without any constraints."

This does not seem to explain why the act of faith cannot be coerced. Should it not be said that the act of faith, by its very nature, must be free? The will moves the intellect to assent to God as First Truth, and the will cannot be coerced.

Secondly, if one is motivated to assent to propositions of the Faith for a reason other than God Himself, then it would not be an act of Faith but of some other sort of belief.

Since Faith cannot be coerced or compelled and its object is Divine and it is an act possible only through God's grace, it falls outside the competence of human authority. Human authority may act to protect the Church but it cannot punish those who have deliberately rejected Faith, except in so far as they threaten the good of the community? Does the Church have the authority to punish those who have sinned in rejecting Faith? It seems to me that Aquinas is wrong on this point. Even if Christians are obligated to keep the Faith, once they have turned away from it, how can they be compelled to return to it? How can anyone but God move them to return to Faith?

Did St. Thomas Aquinas Justify the Transition from "Is" to "Ought" by Piotr Lichacz, O.P.

(Fribourg)

General Audience: The Pope explains St. Alphonsus Liguori and importance of prayer


Zenit: On Prayer According to St. Alphonsus Liguori

Pope's personal secretary Monsignor Georg Gänswein turns 56

St. Hildegard of Bingen: Writer, composer and future Doctor of the Church

Rome Reports

As announced in a comment, there is a new blog: The Absolute Primacy of Christ.

An Interview with Fr. Maximos Davies

From a year ago, before the monastery moved to Wisconsin.

Sister Vassa (Larin) on Divine Liturgy and History

Sister Vassa (Larin) on Divine Liturgy and History from George Kokhno on Vimeo.

A Book About One Aspect of Congar's Theology

A Church Fully Engaged: Yves Congar's Vision of Ecclesial Authority by Anthony Oelrich

A Response to Mary Rosera Joyce on the Soul

New Oxford Review: A True Turnaround, A Real Revolution by Mary Rosera Joyce

It seems obvious that our sexuality is basically biological. When a baby is born, we can tell immediately whether the child is a boy or a girl based on the physical evidence. This fact leads us to believe that sexuality revolves around these bodily organs. But if we were to examine further, we would realize that the function of the genital organs depends upon the brain, the physical source of all the nerves in the body. The earth similarly depends upon the gravity, energy, light, and heat of the sun for its various functions.

We may notice upon further examination that, apart from the brain, every cell in the female body is sexually different from every cell in the male body. The causal power of this cellular difference affects the shape and function of the entire body, including the brain in its three divisions: high, middle, and low.

The high brain, for example, is the cerebrum. There is more connective wiring (corpus callosum) between its two lobes in women than in men. The general effect of this difference on their respective use of logic is that men are generally more gifted for analysis and women for synthesis. Thus, women have been lauded for what is known as their “multitasking” ability. They are able to attend to more than one task at a time. Men are more able to focus on, probe into, and grasp one concept or task at a time.

Besides its centrality in our physical sexuality, the brain is primarily involved in the other dimensions of our personhood: physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual. As a result, the differences between men and women extend into their entire personhood. Human sexuality is not merely biological, or primarily genital. Thus, what seems to be the obvious center of our sexuality — our genital organs — is not the true center. There would be no genital sexuality without the involvement of the brain. And there would be no sexuality in the brain without appropriate sexual causality in the life principle of human personhood, the spiritual soul.

1. I found the essay to be problematic. "Sexuality revolves around these bodily organs"? I think people would be apt to say that the most obvious difference between the two sexes can be found in the reproductive organs.

2. The function depends on the brain? That is prone to reductionism, in so far as the sense organs are not identified with the brain alone. It is true that attraction and desire depend on sense knowledge (not just sight) and instinct, what we found attractive about the other sex, and so on. The brains are differentiated according to sex - sex hormones have an influence on their development.

Sex differences "permeate" the body and its systems (as she somewhat recognizes).

3. As for sexual causality in the soul, what does that mean? That sex differences are the result of differences in form? She goes on to explain:

When we look at a human being as an object, the physical body is the most obvious to our sense of sight. We cannot see the soul. So we are inclined to think of the soul as hidden within the body.

Ordinarily we think that we originate in the union of a sperm and an ovum, and the soul is thought to be infused by God into this newly formed body. Consequently, the soul is considered to be in the body until it leaves at death. But this common idea of the soul “entering” and “leaving,” like the sun rising and setting, is “Ptolemaic” and begs for re-vision.

The idea that the soul enters and leaves the body started to change when Pope John Paul II began, but did not complete, a “Copernican” turnaround in the way we view the human person and human sexuality with his “theology of the body.” In his encyclical “On Faith & Reason” (Fides et Ratio, 1998) he asked philosophers to develop the philosophy of being “without resorting to worn-out formulae” (no. 97). He asked them to complete the revolution he began. Where, then, would we start this process of completion? A plausible point would be the moment of conception.

She seems to be rejecting what might be called a "dualistic" conception of the soul. Fine - let us not attribute more significance to a popular understanding (or, more accurately, imagining) of the soul than it deserves, or mistake it with a more scientific (in the Aristotelian sense) account of the soul. In attributing this problem to Catholic thinkers before John Paul II, she would be exaggerating, no? Unless she is judging the Aristotelian account of the soul to be "dualistic" as well.

Among the “worn-out formulae” that the revolutionary turnaround would abandon is our customary explanation of life’s beginning. We still have a primitive way of interpreting what appears to us to be obvious. That is why pro-abortionists have been able to move in with their seemingly convincing rhetoric, and have successfully cleared the way for the elimination of many millions of new persons. They have even used the “delayed animation” theory of St. Thomas Aquinas to secure their objectives.

St. Thomas was one of the greatest theologians in history. Nevertheless, he believed, along with almost all of his contemporaries, that the earth is the center of the universe. He and many others also thought that human life begins with a vegetative soul, followed by an animal soul, followed by a human soul infused by God into the developing organism. It was this gradualist view that prevented him from acknowledging the immaculate conception of Mary (cf. Summa Theologiae III, q.27, a.3).

In our contemporary world, aided by subsequent developments in science, we now defend the beginning of human personhood at conception. But our interpretation of conception is still philosophically “earth-centered.” We think that the egg and sperm unite; it surely looks that way under a microscope. Actually, these cells interact and die together as a new life begins. We also think that God creates and infuses the soul into the newly “united” sex cells.

This idea of infusion implies that the soul is contained within the body. But the body, as a container, could not possibly express the person. For that purpose we need a turnaround from seeing the soul as inside the body to seeing the body as within the soul. Then, instead of our view being body-based, it would become person-based.

In a person-based view of the moment of conception, we would begin to see the soul as receiving within itself the interacting gametic (generative) cells and expressing itself in the resulting human body. This critical distinction would introduce a reversal in our manner of thinking about conception. The view of the soul as created by God and as receiving the body would replace the previous concept of infusion. In this way, we could better understand how the body, received by the soul, expresses the individual within his being and within the powers of his person.

In our tradition, however, there is no recognition of substantial receptivity in the soul. Instead, the infused soul is viewed as the actuating form of passively receptive matter. But receptivity is not only passive; it is primarily active. By actively receiving the gametic causes of the body, the soul becomes the body’s formative power. Thus, the soul is both receiving and giving in relation to the body. The soul, then, receives the body so that the body can become the expression of the person.

St. Thomas's gradualism seemed to be justified according to what they knew about embryonic development. The science that she claims as support could also be used to support a view of delayed homonization. If we took ideologues at their word and maintained that science is purely empirical then we cannot make a judgment that the rational or human soul is present at fertilization. But we cannot reason to this conclusively either, just based on the evidence alone. (I have maintained that this can be held only through the supernatural virtue of faith.)

But on to the rest of her explanation. Can matter act upon form? (This sloppy thinking about receptivity reminds me of a certain brand of Catholic phenomenology - did the author go to FUS?) How can the soul "receive" without being further actualized? As it it is somehow changed by actualizing the body? Her account destroys any proper understanding of form as act.

The human soul, by actively receiving the interacting gametes at conception, becomes sexually differentiated in its spiritual depths. Seeing the source of our personhood in this way is the beginning of a true sexual revolution.

At conception and thereafter, the inner causal source of human sexuality would be properly understood as spiritual, not physical. The person is basically spiritual, and has a soul that receives physical causes and expresses itself physically. Not only Freud, but many Aristotelian traditionalists, however, would be unwilling to accept such a radical departure. Hugh Hefner and his kind would simply turn their backs. Like those intellectuals who refused to look into a telescope to see the evidence of the Copernican revolution, many twenty-first-century intellectuals would likewise insist that the physical sex urge is the center of human sexuality. But this is the equivalent of saying that the earth is the center of the universe.

The center and source of our sexuality is our spiritually-based being as expressed in our body. True sexual freedom is not genital-centered, but person-centered. It is the freedom to develop well, as a man or woman, by chastely receiving the energy of the sex urge for interior sexual maturation. This process is meant to re-center, in the inner “sun” of awareness, the growing person’s experience of the sex urge. In other words, some degree of spiritual, intellectual, and emotional sexual maturity is meant to precede and prepare the person either for celibacy or marriage, genital intercourse, and children.

Interior sexual maturation results from a special way of thinking about the physical sex urge. Since all nerves in the body receive their impulses from the brain, our way of thinking affects the nerves to the organs of the body, especially those related to our freedom. A re-centering in our thinking, then, affects the powers of the brain and eventually increases our sense of freedom for sexual integration.

But this re-centering cannot happen while our view of sexuality remains fixed on the physical aspect alone. By seeing our sexuality as person-based, we can deepen the premises of our traditional conclusions, and strengthen them. And so, when the earth begins to revolve around the sun in our way of thinking about our personhood, manhood, and womanhood, a true sexual revolution can begin. Pope John Paul II’s deep desire for further development in our understanding of ourselves would be on its way to fulfillment.

The author is trying to root the differences between the sexes within the soul. But she is imagining the soul to be some sort of thing which is subsequently "shaped" by being receiving the body, rather than understanding the soul as being proportioned to the body. Insofar as it is spiritual, the souls of males and females are the same. But in so far as they are proportioned to a specific body in actualizing it as the form, with certain sex organs and so on, then they are distinct. She is critical of Aristotelianism without understanding its hylomorphism. It is perhaps telling that she rejects accounts that locate the soul "in" the body, and yet she still uses the language of "inner source." A Thomist will agree that sexual freedom is not genital-centered but person-centered in so far as we have reason, and our sense appetites should be ordered by it. There are differences in the bodies of males and females and also in their behaviors - these differences are "taken up" or "ratified" by the soul but the soul does not "receive" anything as if it is somehow further actualized. (We only need to compare the souls of animals with the souls of human beings to better comprehend this, though perhaps we may need to better understand how the universal is instantiated in the individual.)

If she were merely speaking metaphorically about the soul receiving the body, it would be more acceptable, but it would also renders the account less useful as a way of understanding reality. The soul is, by definition, the form of the body - if it is present at conception then it is the formal cause of development and all of the specification and differentiation of the parts that ensue.

4. Can the gametes said to be "interacting" at fertilization? Only improperly since they no longer exist as distinct entities. There is only the conceptum, which now has the matter that was previously present in egg and sperm.

5. As a result of her premises, her account of chastity (and by implication, sin) seems excessively intellectualistic. "Interior sexual maturation results from a special way of thinking about the physical sex urge." No doubt training in chastity benefits from a proper understanding of human sexuality and its telos, and how this is ordered by love or caritas. But what Thomist would deny this? Our problem with sex does not primarily arise from an erroneous understanding of sex and the person.

Nor should a affective maturity entail a false understanding of members of the opposite sex, such as putting women on a pedestal. This stance can be harmonized with her words here, but proponents of theology of the body may be too "romantic" or "idealistic" in their understanding of relations between men and women and female sexuality.


I'll ignore her characterization of the Copernican revolution and the reaction of "conservatives" to that, for now, but it does seem inaccurate on many levels.

Dr. Phillip Crotty on Newman as Educator

Cherubic Hymn: Extended Melody - Χερουβικόν: Αργό Μέλος- 1st Tone

According to this, Jonah is listed in the Roman Martyrology. Sufficient to establish his historicity?

The Imaginative Conservative: Of Rights and Duties: A Jeffersonian Dialogue
by Paul Crimley Kuntz

Ite Ad Thomam: The Principle of Predilection: "Nothing would be greater if God did not will it more good."

The "inequality" of God's love for us can be reflected in the order of charity - we should love those who are closer to God more than those who are not (i.e. wish them a greater good). (As opposed to the intensity of our love.)

Still, Aquinas touches upon how charity can command acts of other forms of friendship.

"Moreover there is yet another reason for which, out of charity, we love more those who are more nearly connected with us, since we love them in more ways. For, towards those who are not connected with us we have no other friendship than charity, whereas for those who are connected with us, we have certain other friendships, according to the way in which they are connected. Now since the good on which every other friendship of the virtuous is based, is directed, as to its end, to the good on which charity is based, it follows that charity commands each act of another friendship, even as the art which is about the end commands the art which is about the means. Consequently this very act of loving someone because he is akin or connected with us, or because he is a fellow-countryman or for any like reason that is referable to the end of charity, can be commanded by charity, so that, out of charity both eliciting and commanding, we love in more ways those who are more nearly connected with us."

Abide With Me - Hayley Westenra

Rome Reports: Lefebvrists list conditions to rejoin Rome