Benedict XVI Meets With Muslim Philosopher

Benedict XVI Meets With Muslim Philosopher

Mustapha Cherif Tells of Cordial Dialogue

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 13, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI received in audience a Muslim philosopher from Algeria who is known for his commitment to battling religious hatred.

"I was impressed by his welcome and attention, face to face," said Mustapha Cherif, an expert on Islam at the University of Algiers, after the audience Saturday. His comments were reported in a message sent to ZENIT.

Cherif, 50, had requested the audience prior to the Muslim reactions to the Pope's address in Regensburg, Germany, on Sept. 12.

The Holy Father had read an appeal for dialogue, launched by Cherif in the Parisian newspaper Le Monde. The Algerian professor also expressed concern after Benedict XVI's decision to appoint the same cardinal to head the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Pontifical Council for Culture.

The Muslim leader had interpreted this latter gesture as a lack of sensitivity by the Pope to interreligious dialogue, lessening the weight and identity of that Vatican dicastery.

The audience took place as the Holy Father prepares for his Nov. 28-Dec. 1 trip to Turkey, an overwhelmingly Muslim country.

Speaking about the audience, Cherif said that the Holy Father assured him that Christians and Muslims are "allies and friends."

However, the professor continued, "the return of racial and religious hatred, of anti-Semitism, which has as its objective Muslims in particular, is a threat to all."

Cherif said: "The Holy Father, better than any one, knows that, at the ethical level, one of the missions of the Church is to oppose this foul beast, Faustian logic and warmongering policies, the deformation of religions.

"We Muslims, I told him, are convinced that Your Holiness will say what is right in regard to the problems of the world so that injustices and racism will recede. He shared fully the idea that we have need of objective critical thought and messages of fraternity."

What Islam asks

Cherif said he expressed his vision of Islam and "the Pope listened to me with kindness. … In regard to violence, I explained that Islam asks each one of its believers to forgive in the face of adversity, to be patient and merciful.

"In regard to collective responsibility in the face of aggressions, in order to avoid entering the logic of the wolf and the lamb [and] to protect the right of peoples' existence, Islam codifies in a strict manner recourse to the 'just war' -- which the Prophet described as 'little' jihad -- as legitimate defense."

The principle of the "just war" and not of the "holy war" implies "never being the aggressor, protecting civilians -- and in particular Christian monks, the weak -- the environment and always being equitable," said Cherif.

"St. Augustine did not propose something different. He assented with a smile," added the Muslim. "The great jihad is the effort for self-control, toward spiritual elevation, toward beautiful works. This definition seemed to him to be a salutary illumination, which should be known."

The Algerian philosopher explained that "our duty consists in criticizing vulgar blends between Islam and extremism. The Muslim community can regenerate itself and help the modern world, which is going through a tragic moment, despite the prodigious scientific progress, to reinvent a new civilization which is so necessary."

Cherif said that Benedict XVI "told me that one of the problems of our time is the extreme secularization and that we must witness with courage and reason the religious dimension of existence."

The Algerian professor said he made three proposals to the Holy Father:

-- "the holding of an interreligious colloquium on the topic of the struggle against religious hatred."

-- "the sensitization of the international community on the condemnable character of offenses and attacks against religions' sacred symbols," and on respect for the right "of freedom of expression and criticism."

-- The "expansion of groups and networks of friendship, dialogue and Muslim-Christian research throughout the world."

Cherif added: "The Holy Father told me that he shares fully our concerns, and totally supports these noble objectives. This unforgettable dialogue of faith and thought, open to others, opposed to all hatreds, is a sign of hope."

Christendom job

Apparently the college is hiring...

Full-Time Academic Position Available in Philosophy

Christendom College announces the opening of a full-time faculty position in the Department of Philosophy, to begin August 15, 2007. Consideration will be given to applicants at all academic ranks. Qualified applicants who are ABD will also be considered.

The applicant should be a THOMIST willing to teach the courses of Christendom's core curriculum and major courses in PHILOSOPHY. Our Faculty Handbook states, "In accordance with the mind and discipline of the Church for the formation of the young, Christendom College is committed to a Thomistic educational policy: programs of instruction in Philosophy and Sacred Theology shall be taught according to the spirit, method, and principles of the Common Doctor." Area of specialization within the Thomistic tradition is open. The Philosophy core, required of all students, consists in an ordered sequence of semester courses in Greek philosophy; traditional logic; philosophy of human nature; metaphysics; medieval philosophy; and modern philosophy.

Located an hour and a half west of Washington, D.C., in the foot hills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, Christendom College is a small coeducational liberal arts institution dedicated to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. As a positive expression of the specifically Catholic character of Christendom College and in accord with the desire of the Holy See as expressed in the Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae, members of the faculty voluntarily make a public Profession of Faith (the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed) and take the Oath of Fidelity.

Application Deadline: February 2, 2007

Christendom College emphasizes teaching excellence in faculty hiring and advancement. Interested applicants should send a cover letter outlining their teaching philosophy and research interests, a curriculum vitae, three letters of recommendation, a sample of scholarly writing, and any other relevant supporting material to Dr. John Cuddeback, Dept. of Philosophy, 134 Christendom Dr., Front Royal, VA 22630. Inquiries about the position may be directed to Dr. Cuddeback (jcuddeback@christendom.edu; 540-636-2900, ext.332)

I'm not sure if someone is leaving... who is currently in the department? Dr. Andres, Mr. Brown, Dr. Cuddeback, Dr. Flippen, and Dr. Snyder. Mr. O'Herron is still teaching a course or two for philosophy, evidently.

Papal Address to Academy of Sciences

Papal Address to Academy of Sciences

"Cannot Replace Philosophy and Revelation"

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 6, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is the address Benedict XVI delivered today to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the occasion of their plenary assembly being held in Rome.

* * *

Your Excellencies,
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am pleased to greet the members of Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the occasion of this Plenary Assembly, and I thank Professor Nicola Cabibbo for his kind words of greeting in your name. The theme of your meeting -- "Predictability in Science: Accuracy and Limitations" -- deals with a distinctive attribute of modern science. Predictability, in fact, is one of the chief reasons for science's prestige in contemporary society. The establishment of the scientific method has given the sciences the ability to predict phenomena, to study their development, and thus to control the environment in which man lives.

This increasing "advance" of science, and especially its capacity to master nature through technology, has at times been linked to a corresponding "retreat" of philosophy, of religion, and even of the Christian faith. Indeed, some have seen in the progress of modern science and technology one of the main causes of secularization and materialism: why invoke God's control over these phenomena when science has shown itself capable of doing the same thing? Certainly the Church acknowledges that "with the help of science and technology …, man has extended his mastery over almost the whole of nature", and thus "he now produces by his own enterprise benefits once looked for from heavenly powers" ("Gaudium et Spes," 33). At the same time, Christianity does not posit an inevitable conflict between supernatural faith and scientific progress. The very starting-point of Biblical revelation is the affirmation that God created human beings, endowed them with reason, and set them over all the creatures of the earth. In this way, man has become the steward of creation and God's "helper". If we think, for example, of how modern science, by predicting natural phenomena, has contributed to the protection of the environment, the progress of developing nations, the fight against epidemics, and an increase in life expectancy, it becomes clear that there is no conflict between God's providence and human enterprise. Indeed, we could say that the work of predicting, controlling and governing nature, which science today renders more practicable than in the past, is itself a part of the Creator's plan.

Science, however, while giving generously, gives only what it is meant to give. Man cannot place in science and technology so radical and unconditional a trust as to believe that scientific and technological progress can explain everything and completely fulfill all his existential and spiritual needs. Science cannot replace philosophy and revelation by giving an exhaustive answer to man's most radical questions: questions about the meaning of living and dying, about ultimate values, and about the nature of progress itself. For this reason, the Second Vatican Council, after acknowledging the benefits gained by scientific advances, pointed out that the "scientific methods of investigation can be unjustifiably taken as the supreme norm for arriving at truth", and added that "there is a danger that man, trusting too much in the discoveries of today, may think that he is sufficient unto himself and no longer seek the higher values" (ibid., 57).

Scientific predictability also raises the question of the scientist's ethical responsibilities. His conclusions must be guided by respect for truth and an honest acknowledgment of both the accuracy and the inevitable limitations of the scientific method. Certainly this means avoiding needlessly alarming predictions when these are not supported by sufficient data or exceed science's actual ability to predict. But it also means avoiding the opposite, namely a silence, born of fear, in the face of genuine problems. The influence of scientists in shaping public opinion on the basis of their knowledge is too important to be undermined by undue haste or the pursuit of superficial publicity. As my predecessor, Pope John Paul II, once observed: "Scientists, precisely because they 'know more', are called to 'serve more'. Since the freedom they enjoy in research gives them access to specialized knowledge, they have the responsibility of using that knowledge wisely for the benefit of the entire human family" (Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 11 November 2002).

Dear Academicians, our world continues to look to you and your colleagues for a clear understanding of the possible consequences of many important natural phenomena. I think, for example, of the continuing threats to the environment which are affecting whole peoples, and the urgent need to discover safe, alternative energy sources available to all. Scientists will find support from the Church in their efforts to confront these issues, since the Church has received from her divine founder the task of guiding people's consciences towards goodness, solidarity and peace. Precisely for this reason she feels in duty bound to insist that science's ability to predict and control must never be employed against human life and its dignity, but always placed at its service, at the service of this and future generations.

There is one final reflection that the subject of your Assembly can suggest to us today. As some of the papers presented in the last few days have emphasized, the scientific method itself, in its gathering of data and in the processing and use of those data in projections, has inherent limitations that necessarily restrict scientific predictability to specific contexts and approaches. Science cannot, therefore, presume to provide a complete, deterministic representation of our future and of the development of every phenomenon that it studies. Philosophy and theology might make an important contribution to this fundamentally epistemological question by, for example, helping the empirical sciences to recognize a difference between the mathematical inability to predict certain events and the validity of the principle of causality, or between scientific indeterminism or contingency (randomness) and causality on the philosophical level, or, more radically, between evolution as the origin of a succession in space and time, and creation as the ultimate origin of participated being in essential Being.

At the same time, there is a higher level that necessarily transcends all scientific predictions, namely, the human world of freedom and history. Whereas the physical cosmos can have its own spatial-temporal development, only humanity, strictly speaking, has a history, the history of its freedom. Freedom, like reason, is a precious part of God's image within us, and it can never be reduced to a deterministic analysis. Its transcendence vis-à-vis the material world must be acknowledged and respected, since it is a sign of our human dignity. Denying that transcendence in the name of a supposed absolute ability of the scientific method to predict and condition the human world would involve the loss of what is human in man, and, by failing to recognize his uniqueness and transcendence, could dangerously open the door to his exploitation.

Dear friends, as I conclude these reflections, I once more assure you of my close interest in the activities of this Pontifical Academy and of my prayers for you and your families. Upon all of you I invoke Almighty God's blessings of wisdom, joy and peace.

[Original text: English; released by Vatican press office]

Link Seen Between Love and Common Good

Link Seen Between Love and Common Good

Cardinal Caffarra Gives Address at John Paul II Institute

ROME, NOV. 6, 2006 (Zenit.org).- There is a direct relationship between the common good and the capacity to love, says the president of Rome's John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family.

"It is the capacity to love that makes the common good practicable," contended Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, archbishop of Bologna, in an address he gave at the opening of the academic year.

"Charity alone makes man capable of pursuing his own good, not at the expense of the other," he noted.

The cardinal expressed this conviction in view of the fact that "legislation in the West is changing its fundamental attitude in regard to the institution of marriage and the family, having moved from 'favor juris' to neutrality."

It is "a neutrality that generates the progressive equating with marriage of communities of life that until now were considered and treated as essentially different," said the cardinal.

Western countries' lack of support of marriage and the family is "the final outcome of the interpretation that the values of autonomy and equality have suffered, which are the basis of our Western society," said Cardinal Caffarra. This, in turn, is possible given "the negation that a human common good exists."

This is the case, despite the fact that a "common reference of values," which historically is that of the Christian tradition, is what has sustained the West's democratic functioning, he noted.

"Instead, these years we are witnessing an event the extent of which is not easy to calculate," the 68-year-old cardinal continued. "The common reference to the Judeo-Christian cultural matrix has been breaking up and eroding little by little."

No limits

"In the context of this disintegration and erosion," he said, "the pure doctrine of equality and autonomy" leads to what is already evident: "The state must consent to what is technically possible; the state must not prohibit what the individual prefers. It is not difficult to understand that this principle, applied to the letter, implies simply the destruction of all forms of sociability.

"A 'favor juris' can be granted to the institution of marriage only if in the conjugal relationship a goodness, a specific value is seen: a goodness, a value that fulfills, in its own way, the idea of the human common good, as such. What is more, it fulfills it to an eminent degree."

But, on the contrary, the "'favor juris' … has no strong justification if there is no recognition that the interpersonal relationship has in and for itself an intrinsic goodness of its own, … that it only offers usefulness to realize one's own idea of happiness."

He added: "The negation that a truth exists about the human common good leads to reducing political action to mere procedural action.

"In other words, either one believes that the end of political activity is the common good -- and then all experiences of such good must be protected, promoted and favored -- or one believes that a human common good does not exist, but only coexistence of private goods, and then there is nothing to do, on the part of the political authority other than to institute 'traffic rules' for individuals' race to their own happiness."

In this way, the cardinal contended, "the 'favor juris' which marriage enjoys remains or falls together with the idea of the common good."

D. Brendan Nagle, The Household as the Foundation of Aristotle's Polis

Cambridge University Press
Prof. Nagle's faculty site

Review by Robert Mayhew

Northeastern Political Science Association Annual Meeting

Friday, November 10

4:15-5:45

panel f21: Roundtable: The Household as the Foundation of Aristotle’s Polis, by D. Brendan Nagle (Cambridge University Press)
Chair: Thornton Lockwood, Fordham University
First Commentator: Bernard Yack, Brandeis University
Second Commentator: P.L.P. Simpson, City University of New York
Authorial Response: D. Brendan Nagle, University of Southern California

Powers and seeds

An addendum to the post on Alexander Pruss and first potentiality:

From ST I, 77, 8:

I answer that, As we have said already (5,6,7), all the powers of the soul belong to the soul alone as their principle. But some powers belong to the soul alone as their subject; as the intelligence and the will. These powers must remain in the soul, after the destruction of the body. But other powers are subjected in the composite; as all the powers of the sensitive and nutritive parts. Now accidents cannot remain after the destruction of the subject. Wherefore, the composite being destroyed, such powers do not remain actually; but they remain virtually in the soul, as in their principle or root.

So it is false that, as some say, these powers remain in the soul even after the corruption of the body. It is much more false that, as they say also, the acts of these powers remain in the separate soul; because these powers have no act apart from the corporeal organ.

This is the distinction I was aiming for! So it seems that Aquinas would hold that the powers of the sense, and so on, are not really present in the conceptum before a certain stage, since the proper organs are not yet formed. They can be said to be there "virtually" (in so far as they are contained in their source, the soul) but not there "really."

Excellent.

As the powers of the soul are really distinct from the soul, and are accidents, it would seem that withotu the organs, these accidents are not yet present. It seems to be the case then that one who maintains that the soul and its powers are not really distinct, but one, or denies that the powers are accidents of the soul, but part of the soul itself, would disagree with what has been said.

Politics: The Eighty Percent Pay Cut

Politics: The Eighty Percent Pay Cut

by John Michael Greer

How exactly our economy manages to truck along, and the consequences of that economy are certainly worth investigating for anyone who cares about political life. Surely we cannot merely be complacent and assume that "all is ok with the world" while enjoying the benefits of the system.

Do cries that the wealth of certain First World countries is gained through injustice false? Should we be allowed to exploit as we please, so long as we can find those who are willing to be exploited?

At what cost?

From Dr. John Hittinger's political philosophy course at ICU:

Husband/wife - (see POL I.12 and Simon p60 ST I.92.1.ad2 man woman in innocence)

This relationship is constituted among free and members for a common good; the difference in rule stems from function and excellence. According to Aristotle the husband rules a one permanently in office, thus initiates common action, with the consent and possible resistance of the wife. He also demarks various spheres of influence, assigning the domestic to the woman. Obviously this ia most controversial part of Aristotle's teaching. But it must be observed that he does not equate women to slaves or children. He claims a natural basis for this rule on the function of reason; he claims that men have a more decisive reason and women a weaker rational power. Again whatever we are to make of this claim, Aristotle is honestly dealing with the question of the body and the limits of politics. The household is devoted to the generation and preservation of life. The biological necessities of the generation of life places greater burdens upon the mother; and by the same token, the preservation of life, the defense from physical harm up to and including war, places greater burdens upon the man. Again perhaps modern technology has equalized this factor. How much does a full equality as sameness for women demand release from childbearing responsibilities? That is do contraceptives and abortion condition such political claims? And also has technology equalized men and women in terms of service in the Armed Forces? Yves Simon points to the need for new forms of discipline and service as we become more liberated from nature (PDG 9-10, 18). In any case, it is important to note that Aristotle designates the relationship of husband and wife as political - ie it requires discussion and consent.

More liberated from nature, but through what means? Through more advanced technology, but upon what does this technology depend? The consumption of limited resources, like fossil fuels? And does an economy that relies heavily on such technology ultimately exploitive? (If not at home, then overseas? Both of human beings and natural resources?)

Christianity and Other Religions

Christianity and Other Religions, by Bernhard Blankenhorn, OP

Derveni papyrus

Review of Gabor Betegh, The Derveni Papyrus. Cosmology, Theology and Interpretation.
(Richard Janko's bio)

The Derveni Papyrus in the Homeric Scholia
The Derveni Papyrus and the Homeric Scholia

From Dissoi Blogoi:
Judging On the Merits
On the Difficulty of Understanding Papyri

Ellopos Blog
PhDiva

Holy See Address on Promotion of Human Rights

Code: ZE06103022

Date: 2006-10-30

Holy See Address on Promotion of Human Rights

"The Time Has Come to Apply Principles of Authentic Religious Freedom"

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 30, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is the address delivered last Friday by Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Holy See's permanent observer to the United Nations, to a General Assembly committee. The panel was reflecting on the "Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Human Rights Questions, Including Alternative Approaches for Improving the Effective Enjoyment of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms."

* * *

Mr. Chairman,

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election and leadership of this Committee and thank the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief for her report on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance.

Three of the themes considered during her June 2006 visit to the Vatican merit particular attention, namely, the coexistence of different religions and religious communities, the propagation of religion, including the sensitive issue of proselytism, and the relationship between freedom of expression and religion. My delegation shares the Special Rapporteur's position that the need for interreligious dialogue at all levels is of crucial importance not only for resolving disputes, but also for fostering peaceful coexistence that enables all religions to live side by side and in mutual respect.

As we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, my delegation is seriously concerned that freedom of religion or belief does not exist for individuals and communities, especially among religious minorities, in many parts of the world. We are also concerned that the high level of religious intolerance in some countries is leading to an alarming degree of polarization and discrimination. We share a grave duty to work together to reverse this trend.

While religious tolerance is sometimes characterized as accepting or permitting those religious beliefs and practices which disagree with one's own, the time has come to move beyond this type of religious tolerance, and to apply instead the principles of authentic religious freedom.

Hrm... authentic religious freedom eh? And in what is this rooted? Dignitatis Humanae could be reconciled with the Tradition, especially since it's concession to the public good leaves a lot of wiggle room, imo.

Religious freedom is the right to believe, worship, propose and witness to one's faith. It grants the opportunity and creates the occasions for people to profess freely the tenets of their faith. Furthermore, it includes the right to change one's religion and to associate freely with others in order to express one's religious convictions. Religious tolerance is simply a starting point, a basis for universal religious freedom and there cannot be full religious tolerance without an effective recognition of religious freedom.

But: are there limits to this right or freedom? Is any faith permissible? Or only that which is compatible with "natural religion"?

We know well that, historically, tolerance has been a contentious issue among believers of different faiths. However, we have come to a turning point in history which demands more of us, including a commitment to interreligious dialogue. At the same time, my delegation is increasingly convinced of the indispensable importance of reciprocity, which, by its very nature, is apt to ensure the free exercise of religion in all societies.

So is this more of a diplomatic statement, like certain parts of DH, or a theological one?

The Holy See continues to be concerned by a number of situations where the existence of enacted or proposed legislative and administrative measures for placing limits on the practice, observance or propagation of religion are a reality. Likewise, the Holy See is concerned with those situations where religion or freedom of religion is used as a pretext or a justification for violating other human rights.

Furthermore, there appears to exist a recurring case of intolerance when group interests or power struggles seek to prevent religious communities from enlightening consciences and thus enabling them to act freely and responsibly, according to the true demands of justice. Likewise, it would be intolerant to denigrate religious communities and exclude them from public debate and cooperation just because they do not agree with options nor conform to practices that are contrary to human dignity.

National and global decision making, legal and political systems, and all people of good will must cooperate to ensure that diverse religious expressions are not restricted or silenced. Every individual and group must be free from coercion and no one should be forced to act in a manner contrary to his or her beliefs, whether in private or public, whether alone or in association with others. It is important here to pay particular attention to the needs of the weakest groups, including women, children, refugees, religious minorities and persons deprived of their liberty. The disturbing signs of religious intolerance, which have troubled some regions and nations, at times affecting even majority religious groups, are much to be regretted.

Free from coercion--this is to be found in DH. But what of rightful suppression of religion? Is there such a thing?

Part of the founding ethos of the U.N. is the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Therefore, it is this Assembly's duty to continue to provide the leadership that ensures and protects these fundamental rights and fosters full religious freedom in every land.

Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion: there can be no legislation of what goes on in the "internal forum"--our thoughts and desires. But outward observance and communication--there can be legislation regarding these actions, can there not?

In our diverse and ever-changing world, religion is more than an internal matter of thought and conscience. It has the potential to bind us together as equal and valuable members of the human family. We cannot overlook the role that religion plays in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick and visiting the imprisoned.

Nor should we underestimate its power, especially in the midst of conflict and division, to turn our minds to thoughts of peace, to enable enemies to speak to one another, to foster those who were estranged to join hands in friendship, and have nations seek the way to peace together. Religion is a vital force for good, for harmony and for peace among all peoples, especially in troubled times.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Original text in English; adapted]

Notes on Aristotle

Indication that the Prime Mover is not only the Ultimate Final Cause but also the First Efficient Cause? Movement of Animals, Book I, 1
(see Broadie)
Whether soul is moved (On the Soul I 3-4); how the First Mover moves it (Metaphysics Book Lambda, 7) -- final cause only?

Nature of light:
On the Soul II, 7 (necessity of a medium)
Is speed of light instantaneous? Is this what Aristotle is arguing here against Empedocles? If this is the position of Aristotle, is it consistent with what he says about change?

See Richard SORABJI, "Aristotle on colour, light and imperceptibles,"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (Bull. Inst. Class. Stud.) ISSN 0951-1253

2004, n^o47, pp. 129-140 [12 page(s) (article)]University of London, Institute of Classical Studies, London, ROYAUME-UNI (1984) (Revue)

Stuff on torture

At Against the Grain:
The Torture Debate: Part 1, 2, 3, 4
(Dave Armstrong participates in the comments.)
Dave Armstrong's own blog

Fr. Harrison, O.S.: LT118, 119
Tom McKenna
Rerum Novarum

Plus: Cardinal Dulles on the death penalty
McGinley lecture
First Things (An exchange between Cardinal Dulles and his critics)
His review of Noonan's A Church That Can and Cannot Change

On touch

An addendum to the sex post which Sarge found so shocking...

The hands (and fingers) are the tools for touch manipulation. The hand is proportioned for these functions. I don't think the same can be said for the tongue.

Theologians to Discuss the Economy

Theologians to Discuss the Economy

ROME, OCT. 29, 2006 (Zenit.org).- A theologians videoconference organized by the Congregation for Clergy will be held this Tuesday on the theme "Economy: Love of God, Production and the Free Market."

It will mark the 50th such worldwide videoconference organized by the Vatican dicastery. The monthly videoconferences over Internet link theologians from around the world.

The conference can be followed live, beginning at noon (Rome time), on the dicastery's Web page, www.clerus.org. Texts of the talks will be posted there later.

Internet users must install "Real Player" in their computer to follow the event with images and audio. The organizing dicastery's Web page gives the link to download it.

Speakers will include Bishop Gerhard Müller of Regensburg, who will address the theme "Model of the 'Social Market Economy' and Its Roots in the Social Doctrine of the Church," and Monsignor Michael Hull of New York, who will talk about "Moral Criteria of the Managerial Function."

Is everything really ok between a married couple?

Warning: this post is somewhat explicit.

Many Catholic theologians and apologists claim that so long as the placement of the sperm within the vagina is not thwarted or replaced by something else, then anything goes--anal sex, oral sex, etc.

For examples, this seems to be a typical response over at the EWTN Q&A section:

The rationale for the Church's stance that deliberate sexual stimulation (of any type, not just oral sex) outside of completed marital intercourse is wrong is, in part, because it is inherently selfish. Rather than giving completely of themselves to the other, the couple is using each other for sexual satisfaction while avoiding the responsibilities involved (e.g., complete unity, openness to new life).

The implication is that deliberate sexual stimulation within completed marital intercourse is ok, when used as a means to an end. Similarly:

Hi,

To make it absolutely clear:a couple can never have oral sex as a replacement for normal sex.

Oral sex is only allowed as a prelude to normal sex. I suggest you get Christopher West's book, "Good News About Sex and Marriage." It's available through shopcatholicl.com. It would be good for both of you to read it.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

I need to read Love and Responsibility, but I doubt that John Paul II directly addressed the question of oral sex and anal sex. Some, however, have used what he has written to justify oral sex. From a blog, Catholic Writings:

Before he was elected Pope John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla wrote in his book “Love and Responsibility” that in an act of sexual intercourse, the couple should strive to attain climax at the same time. This highest point of the sexual union between husband and wife should be shared by both.

This ideal certainly is hard to achieve, given that, as said above, men reach orgasm much quicker than women. It is therefore the husband’s responsibility to slow down and “read” his wife’s body language, which will tell him when she is about to climax.

This is one area when oral sex is allowed between husband and wife - to help the woman to climax at the same time as the husband.

However, in the event that the man does climax first, it is also his responsibility to ensure that his wife also climaxes during this act of sexual intercourse by physical stimulation.

If the husband is engaged in coitus with his wife, how is he going to give oral sex at the same time? Manual stimulation, perhaps, but oral sex seems to be physically impossible, even for a contortionist.

Again, over at EWTN:

Dear Fr.:

In a recent post, you answered that oral sex deviates from the unitive and procreative aspects of the marriage act. However, I think some detail must be made clear to arrive at the fullest picture of truth, otherwise incorrect conclusions might be drawn and sometimes those incorrect conclusions can bring great sorrow to the marriage bed and that's not what the church intends.

Although oral sex may not be licitly performed to completion, as that inhibits the procreative aspect of married sex, it should be noted that 1) oral sex as a prelude to intercourse is licit and 2) the statement is only fully true when discussing oral sex from wife to husband; oral sex to fulfill sexual pleasure for a husband TO his wife actually aids in the unitive aspect of married sex. As long as the completed sex act end with sperm ejaculated into the vagina, other techniques for aiding the wife's sexual pleasure are actually encouraged, be it oral or manual. John Paul II wrote as much when he spoke of the obligation of a husband to give his wife sexual pleasure in Love and Responsibility. It is no secret to know that very many women simply cannot achieve orgasm with direct intercourse alone. For a wife to be left without this unitive aspect of lovemaking is actually against the teachings of the church. If you think about it, it's basic biology as God created us and human body parts are part of His design (a theology of the body, so to speak): God created a man with one sexual organ, a penis, and it allows the man to assist in procreation and it gives the man (and woman, to a lesser extent) sexual pleasure. God created a woman with a vagina for procreation and a clitoris that does nothing else but give the woman pleasure. For all parts of the body to be used as God planned it surely is good.

However, having said that, it is quite clear that oral or manual sex in place of completed intercourse is always sinful. In this day and age, when we are bombarded with deviant sexual behavior in and out of marriage, it is imperitive that clear teaching of Catholic sexualtiy not be shyed away from, as that is what will keep marriages strong. (By they way, I got much of this information from the previous priest who did the Q&A for the EWTN NFP forum; it's legit, I promise!)

Pleasure is the unitive aspect of lovemaking? Unitive in an equivocal sense, or common in praedicando. What is actually unitive is coitus itself, when a man and woman join as one flesh.
Is pleasure the purpose of coitus? Or is it, as Aristotle teaches, the completion of the act? I think the reason we have problems understanding traditional sexual morality is because we are so engrossed with pleasure, and don't understand its place within natural teleology.

This is almost as bad as the position which says anything is ok between two consenting adults.
Where does this confusion arise? Perhaps it is an attempt to reconcile proportionalism (or a system that focuses exclusively on the intention) with the Church's teachings about contraception and sex (in so far as they remain 'physicalist'? or so the critics would say), leaving as much freedom as possible for the moral agent. (The "new" casuistry.) Or perhaps it arises from some form of "personalism" (though it is not clear to me that personalism has different historical sources and causes as proportionalism).

The Church's teachings against artificial contraception are on solid ground; but it seems to me that many of the explanations offered to defend her teachings do not pay sufficient attention to the morality of the external act, and its object. Is it commensurate for the penis to be put anywhere other than the vagina? It seems to me that the answer is no.

Certainly, there are health risks associated with anal sex? Frequent anal sex can lead to incontinence after the loss of muscle tone and the diminished ability of the sphincter muscle to contract, etc. But it seems that arguing anal sex is wrong based on future consequences is a consequentialist argument. It is not the same as pointing out that there is an affinity between the penis and the vagina, in so far as there is natural lubrication provided by secretions, and protection against friction given type of cells constituting the vaginal wall, and so on? There are all sort of physiological details that reveal it is proper for the penis to be in the vagina, in contrast to the anus, where there is no lubrication and the muscle wall is rather thin and susceptible to tearing, and so on.

What about the use of the hands for manual stimulation? It seems that between a married couple, the use of the hands to caress, excite and please is ok, so long as the marital embrace is not frustrated or replaced. What of the mouth? There seems to me to be a difference between kissing as a sign of reverence, and using it as a tool for stimulation. And then of course there is the women using her mouth as a substitute vagina. As for men "giving oral sex," one notes that the [chauvinistic] Greeks thought that this practice was unmanly.

While the use of the hands to stimulate the genitalia seems ok, it does not seem to me that the same can be said of using the mouth and tongue. It may be difficult to formulate an argument why, beyond 'modest repugnance,' but as evidence I would point to the fact that the sense of taste has for its organ the tongue, and the sense of smell often works in conjunction with the tongue (and its organ, too, is located in the head, on the face). Given the proximity of the components of the reproductive system to those of the urinary system, without an adequate cleaning of the genital area, one suspects that through the two senses just mentioned there would be sufficient reason to be repulsed from following through on the act.

Of course some may point to homosexual behavior among animals--but it is neither that common nor that dominant within a species; the strength of the desire for pleasure (or in the case of males to ejaculate?) -- can lead to certain acts, but this does not mean that they are "in accordance with nature" except in so far as they proceed from the sense appetite.

Small wonder that the missionary position is the favorite among women -- it fosters intimacy, parity between man and woman. Many of the other positions seem to play to a focused on the self, especially when the male is at advantage -- pleasing him or his ego, or lording his supposed sexual prowess over the female. One comment heard in the past is that certain positions are rather animalistic, since they are those used by brute beasts (and missionary is physically impossible for them); while between human beings, the missionary position does seem optiumum, especially since it fosters communication between two spouses in a way that respects both the complementarity of male and female and the equality based on their nature. Other positions that foster face-to-face orientation seem to be better for that reason--communion, relating to the other at all levels, and promoting what is proper between rational animals, rather than to brute beasts.

This too might be an argument against oral sex; when one is performing oral sex, there is no longer face-to-face parity between the two spouses. How would I otherwise respond to the argument that the man giving oral sex is being "generous" in trying to please his wife? Perhaps
the key is, again, this possibly narrow focus on pleasure. Of course, we tread a minefield when dealing with the statistics behind vaginal versus clitoral orgasms; there is plenty of polemics one both sides, though many argue that only a clitoral orgasms is possible for most women. One wonders if men were more considerate and attentive to the rhythms of their wives that the occurence of vaginal orgasms would be more frequent. Would it not be better to recommend that the husband spends more time preparing himself and his wife for the conjugal act, and spends a little time afterwards embracing her and communicating with her to show his love and affection? If women do not derive much satisfaction from sex and instead look forward to the cuddling, would it not be a sign that sex should be more like cuddling?

(Can a Catholic couple read the Kama Sutra?)

I wonder about the credibility of women who claim they like other positions -- have they been degraded either through abuse or voluntary acts? Or is their response due to a lack of self-respect; they see themselves as nothing more than sex machines and give the response they think males want to hear?

(Dr. Laura unfortunately also believes that anything goes between a married couple, and I believe she is in error on this point.)

Some websites where the answer no is given:
Christdot forum
Presentation Ministries:

Does the Church say that oral sex as foreplay in marital relations is OK?

No, the Church has never said anything officially on this. So the Church has not said oral sex followed by vaginal sex is OK, nor has the Church said it is not OK. In this case we must apply basic moral principles without the help of the Church's specific guidance. In all marital relations, each spouse should have a profound respect for the other. All marital relations should ex-press the total self-giving of the spouses to each other. Therefore, lust, which by definition focuses on self-gratification, is contradictory to love. Also, the natural functions of our bodies should be respected; so unnatural acts are wrong. Applying these principles, I believe that oral sex in marriage is wrong and sows seeds of destruction which will eventually undermine a marriage. Because of this, pastors and caring people should bring up this subject rather than let spouses sow the seeds of destruction in their marriages.

Misc:
On the Impossibility of Same-Sex Marriage

Martin Stone tonight!

Martin Stone's Talk is "Adrian of Utrecht and the Transformation of Moral Thought in Fifteenth-Century Louvain" and will be presented on Tuesday, Oct. 24th at 7:30 in the Fifth Floor Lounge of McGuinn.

Professor Martin Stone is Associate Professor of Renaissance and Early Modern Philosophy at the Hoger Instituut voor Weijsbegeerte at the University of Louvain and also a permanent Visiting Professor at King's College, London.

He did his BA at King's College, his Maitrise at the Sorbonne, his M. Phil. at Birkbeck College of the University of London and his Ph.D. at The Warburg Institute of the University of London - writing his dissertation under the superivision of David Wiggens and Jill Kraye.

He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Melborne, the University of Wisconsin (Madison) and the University of Cologne. He has lectured at Utrecht, Budapest, Trier, Strasburg, Leipzig, Bayreuth, Munich, Cardif, Helsinki, Belfast, Fribourg en Suisse, Zurich, Prague, Vienna and is now on his way to Salt Lake City. These lectures throughout the world have been on a wide-variety of subjects (liberum arbitrium, grace, probabilism, practical reasoning, casuistry, Jesuit casuistry) and a wide variety of thinkers - some familiar: Molina, Baius, Gerson; and some less familiar: Antoninus of Firenze and Adrian of Utrecht.

As editor or co-editor, he has produced an impressive number of volumes: Humanism and Early Modern Philosophy; The Proper Ambition of Science; Theories of the Will and Human Action: From the Ancients to the Present Day; Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries; and Reason, Faith and History.He is preparing a two-volume series for Oxford University Press entitled: The Subtle Arts of Casuistry: I: The Casuistic Tradition from Aristotle to Kant; II: Ordinary Morality and Practical Reasoning. More related to his present talk is his promised Oxford University Press volume: A Virtuous Man in Sad and Dangerous Times: The Life and Thought of Adrian of Utrecht.

-----------------------------------------
Shirley Gee
Department Administrator
Political Science Department
Boston College
140 Commonwealth Avenue
Chestnut Hill MA 02467
(O) 617-552-4144; (F) 617-552-2435
geesh@bc.edu

faculty page

Johan Huizinga

The importance of leisure?

Homo Ludens
wiki; Age of the Sage; another page

see also Hugo Rahner's Man at Play

Foolishness and wisdom...

Is it not the case that those who have lesser natural gifts with respect to the acquisition of knowledge and wisdom might nonetheless live a more meritorious life, and thus have a greater share in the beatific vision than those with greater natural intellectual gifts but who waste their talents?

Hence another possible understanding of the scriptural inversion of the foolish and the wise?

(Natural gifts -- primarily endowments of the body, especially the inner senses. I don't see how there can be a differences between the intellects of individuals.)

Feasibility Study wanted

1. How possible is it to start an independent college, one that issues a degree equivalent to a Bachelor's but attainable by students of secondary-school age?

2. At this school, there would be a student to teacher ratio of around 15:1 (perhaps 10:1, but that depends on tuition and operating costs).

3. Tuition would be kept as low as possible, in the range of $5000 to $10000 a year.

4. It should not need to be said that the education provided at this independent college would be a true liberal education, following a good plan of studies recognizing the hierarchy of the sciences. It would also have a strong liberal arts component, with special attention given to rhetoric and composition.

5. The number of classrooms needed would be around 6? The size of the student body: around 100 students? The length of studies, 6 years or so, terminating in the Bachelor of Arts.

6. Administrative work would be divided among the faculty as much as possible, and the number of actual administrators and support staff kept to a minimum. In this vein, maintenance and cleaning of the facilities should be done by students and teachers as much as possible, once a week, in order to eliminate the need for a janitorial staff.

7. If the only thing preventing such a project from taking off is that accreditation will not be given by any American agency since it is a threat to the status quo, then the possibility of creating a new accreditation agency that would maintain high standards and requirements, especially with respect to teacher credentials and the curriculum, should be examined.

8. The use of computers and electronic media within the classroom should be discouraged as much as possible. Any vocational training should be kept as separate as possible, especially any involving the use of computers.

9. An urban location might be ideal in so far as it would be better able to attract local students, and a project such as this should emphasize its roots in the local community. On the other hand, given the lack of economically self-sufficient communities in the United States, one should strive as much as possible to create such schools in areas where a healthy agrarian lifestyle is practiced.

10. With these sort of considerations in mind, how difficult would it be to get such a school started? What costs (like rent) be the limiting (and possibly prohibitve) factor? Can they be offset by donations from benefactors (especially donations of land and buildings)?

11. Even if such a project is feasible, does it have a future in this country? Or will it be possible only after relocalization has begun?

Other niceties:
1. An "Asian" understanding of the relationship between teacher and student. (But one removed of the family metaphor and understanding.)

2. Physical training component. (This would of course require additional facilities and equipment.)

Also, we need to examine whether a liberal education should also be universally available, or if only for individuals with certain vocations. If the latter, then what sort of education is to be given to the others?