op-stjoseph: Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Aquinas: An Imagined Encounter
A talk by Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, O.P.

Another CMT contributor -- Subsidiarity and the Case of the Missing Lunch
By: Jana Bennett

Meanwhile, we non-politicians tend to see only the distinctions between federal and state levels, but much less so at local levels. But if we’re taking the principle of subsidiarity seriously, the feds and the state should be supporting local schools in all the ways it can, but stay out of decisions that schools themselves ought to be making – including whether it is appropriate to “teach to the test,” and how to measure their student populations’ successes. Someone teaching special education on a reservation, which has undoubtedly unique aspects compared to, say, the wealthy school district in my area that everyone wants part in. Or, the impoverished “Teach to the test”, even in statewide measures, make no sense, but because education is big bucks, the state and the feds are involved far more than I think is warranted. We ought to trust each other more – especially the people on the ground.

Just as we ought to trust a principal to know her school and make a determination about lunches. She’s not being unfair or unjust; she’s giving students with very particular needs an out, but she’s also making a fairly-considered decision for her school.

I won't address the question of American federal system and the locus of sovereignty. The problem is that not all authority is the same, just set in hierarchical order. The sphere of authority will differ in accordance with the nature of the good of the group. When it becomes possible that attendance at schools is 100% voluntary for all children then we can talk about what powers a principal may have under contract. Asserting that a principal has authority (even if conceded in law) does not mean that it is true -- tyrants claim the protection of the law.

One should be wary of limiting the authority of parents, even if it is under the guise of protecting children's health or promoting a good learning environment -- the school is not the state, and even the state should be restrained in what it can and cannot legislate for the sake of legitimate liberty.

Perhaps one should not expect much from a blog, including a careful analysis of all of the terms that are involved (though this would be necessary for rigorous argumentation), but professional academics should be careful of writing a blog, less their competence be judged by it.

Is There Still a Male-Female Wage Gap? by Charles Camosy

Though this certainly complicates the issue for me, it still seems that women being primarily responsible for child-rearing puts them at a competitive disadvantage in the workforce…and that this is de facto structural sexism. But I’d be interested in comments from people who know more about this stuff than I do. What is the reply here?

The manosphere has a term for men like this.

On a group blog in which everyone is equal, who will uphold and judge according to Tradition? One can allege that there are novelties in Church teaching concerning the role of the wife and mother, but more work is going to have to be done to show that they are not concessions to the demands of a society in which economic freedom is lacking.

Sunday Night Prime - On the Last Day - Fr. Benedict Groeschel w Fr. Bryan Kromholtz - 04-03-2011

The video begins with Father Kromholtz, O.P. talking about the GTU.

John O'Callaghan, Great God, It's the Great God Debate (via First Things)

Francis J. Beckwith, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Inadequacy of Intelligent Design

"Ethan" comments and cites St. Thomas:

Accordingly, there is diversity and inequality in things created, not by chance, not as a result of a diversity of matter, not on account of certain causes or merits intervening, but from God’s own intention…

The distinction of things is not from chance… those things which are distinct by their forms are not distinct by chance, but perhaps those things are, whose distinction is from matter. But the distinction of species is from the form, and the distinction of singulars in the same species, is from matter. Wherefore the specific distinction of things cannot be from chance…

It follows therefore that theform of the universe is intended and willed by God. Therefore it is not from chance: for we ascribe to chance those things which are beside the intention of the agent. Now the form of the universe consists in the distinction and order of its parts. Therefore the distinction of things is not from chance.

Therefore the specific distinction in things, which is according to their form, is not on account of their matter: but on the contrary matters were created diverse, that they might be suitable for diverse forms. Hereby is excluded… the opinions of any who held the distinction of things to be the result of various material principles.

I'll have to look this up when I get a chance.

Dominican Liturgy: Primitive Hymn for the Feast of St. Dominic

RADICAL EMANCIPATION: CONFRONTING THE CHALLENGE OF SECULARISM

CALL FOR PAPERS
NOTRE DAME CENTER FOR ETHICS & CULTURE
12th ANNUAL FALL CONFERENCE

James Chastek, From truth to ideology:

We can see this dialectic between truth and ideology quite clearly in the progression of thought after Parmenides. It’s almost impossible for us to exaggerate the exhilaration of hearing Parmenides in his own day. Think of how excited we get when we do nothing but make a machine runs faster than the one that came before it, then think of what a thrill it would have been to discover for the first time all of the following: being as the subject of discourse, the force of logical argumentation, the principle of contradiction, the identity of being and thought, the unity of being and truth and the one, etc. Inseparable from this, however, is the conclusion that motion and change must be considered mere opinions – that is, they are not features that the world has of itself. To put this in modern terms, motion and change are merely “subjective”. The disciple of Parmenides is thus torn between wanting to hold the premises and deny their conclusion. This situation can last for centuries and reach no adequate resolution despite the best efforts of many very brilliant persons.


Enter Aristotle. With a single distinction that everyone knew but no one ever managed to notice, get a hold of, or name (the division between the per se and the per accidens) he manages to resolve the whole Parmenidean problem in a single stroke, and in such a way that preserves and even illuminates more fully logical argumentation, being as a subject of discourse, the various ways in which being and thought are one and many, etc. The solution is so simple and elegant we wonder how no one could have noticed it before. Once someone points it out and we get a clear view of the solution, we feel like fools for not having noticed it before. Over time, it becomes harder and harder for us to see why Parmenides could have even thought what he did.


Ideology and dogmatism have already begun to creep in. We flatter ourselves with the thought that Parmenides was simply a stage of thought that we have moved beyond. And isn’t this true? The difficulty is that Aristotle’s distinction is essentially a solution to a Parmenidean problem, and so in the measure that we no longer see Parmenides as a problem, Aristotelianism becomes the answer to a question that no one is asking. At this moment, the basis of the system is in some measure irrelevant and even arbitrary. Our great truth and great synthesis becomes words that we ask the students to memorize. “The truth” quickly becomes a principle of ignorance and arbitrary will.

A delayed addendum

To this post on abortion -- if those who believe that abortion should be legal make use of the claims that I have laid forth (namely that it can not be demonstrated by reason alone that ensoulment happens at conception), they cannot claim that abortion is therefore permissible because the life that is being ended is not that of a human being. They cannot, on the basis of the "no harm principle," justify abortion because it cannot be demonstrated either that ensoulment has not taken place. From my argument it is the case that one can only be a committed agnostic, and if one cannot know for sure whether the life of a human being is at stake or not, one cannot end that life since one is potentially committing murder (e.g. the hunter in the woods who does not take due precaution that his target is actually a deer and not another hunter).

Besides, even if it could be shown that the conceptum is not human, this would not completely take away from the gravity of the sin of abortion. Abortion would still be a mortal sin, for the reasons given by theologians who accepted that ensoulment took place much later after conception.

Mysteries of the Jesus Prayer

website

High Up, Let Down by Pope Benedict
They are some of the leading traditionalist thinkers. They had wagered on him, and now they feel betrayed. The latest disappointments: the Courtyard of the gentiles and the encounter in Assisi. The accusation that they make against Ratzinger is the same that they make against the Council: having replaced condemnation with dialogue

by Sandro Magister

Death amidst Life: Lenten Gregorian Chant

Death amidst Life: Lenten Gregorian Chant from Province of Saint Joseph on Vimeo.

David Hart on the proper Christian attitude towards capital punishment

The Power of the Sword by David Bentley Hart

Edward Feser, Catholicism, conservatism, and capital punishment

You claim that definitions can only be relative and subjective

But how could this be the case unless you knew you were talking about the same thing?

Another attempt at a Thomistic appropriation of rights discourse

Equal Basic Rights for All, Born and Unborn by Christopher Kaczor

Study in the Dominican Tradition

Study in the Dominican Tradition from Province of Saint Joseph on Vimeo.

(via op-stjoseph)

First Things: Giving Caesar His Due
A review of Defending Constantine by Robert Louis Wilken

The ordination of Joseph Ratzinger to the priesthood

(via NLM)

gloria.tv