Orestes Brownson on Catholicism and Republicanism by Jude P. Dougherty (Modern Age 45:4, Fall 2003) - 03/12/09

Orestes Brownson’s presence looms large in Russell Kirk’s celebrated 1953 tome, in large part because, for Kirk, Brownson represents a luminous thinker unjustly neglected by modern scholars. Even further, Brownson seems to be a central figure not only in the nineteenth-century development—or maintenance—of order in American society, but, for Kirk, is someone whose prose remains genuinely instructive for contemporary citizens; he is “one of those dead who give us life. . . .”

Public Discourse: Christopher O. Tollefsen: Liberty, Authority, and the Good of Religion

Has the Church infallibly taught that human life begins at conception?

And does this mean that the soul is infused at conception? If not, then can the conceptum really be called human except equivocally? Can it be said that a teaching that the soul is infused at conception can be found in the Deposit of Faith? It seems not--it appears that in the past, some reason has been given for the prohibition of abortion other than that the conceptum is a individual human being, and therefore abortion is murder and unjust. What, then, do recent papal pronouncements that abortion ends human life mean with regards to the status of the conceptum? To this Thomist, it appears that to hold that the conceptum is human and a rational soul is nonetheless absent (or that the soul may not be infused at conception) is incoherent.

Some contemporary authors such as Robert George have argued that it can be shown from science that the conceptum is human. It seems to me that at best these arguments do show material continuity but do not rule out the possibility that a [brute] animal soul is present and is responsible for development, rather than a rational soul. One could posit some principle of parsimony, and that a transient soul is not necessary, as the rational soul could be responsible for development and much more (and therefore a rational soul is present from the very beginning and hence infused at conception), but it seems very difficult (impossible?) to justify this assumption of parsimony. (Would Ockham's razor actually lead to the conclusion that a brute soul is present and not a rational one?)

If this reasoning concerning the identity of the conceptum is correct, then to claim that one can know from natural reason that the conceptum is a human life at conception is wrong, unless, again 'human' is being used equivocally. And, by extension, the natural law argument for the prohibition cannot definitively be founded upon the injustice of murder.

[It should be noted though that for the materialist, considerations about rational and irrational souls do not matter. As the rational soul is not needed as a formal cause defining something to be human, one could give a (false) argument that the conceptum is human, based on causality and continuity. But this seems to be a dishonest way to persuade someone of the evilness of abortion.]

Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body
By Brian Thomas Becket Mullady

(via the Western Confucian)

Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective (via VFR)

From Kevin R. C. Gutzman, Did somebody say “Democracy”?:

The idea that a polis should rule itself was called “eleutheria”—“freedom”—by the ancient Greeks, by the way. As the example of Sparta shows, freedom in the Greek sense did not necessarily have anything to do with democracy.

Available for pre-order: The Writings of Charles De Koninck, Volume Two

Insight Scoop: Governmental expansion and the principle of subsidiarity

A letter from Magdi Cristiano Allam to Pope Benedict XVI: « CAN THE CHURCH LEGITIMATE ISLAM AS A RELIGION AND CONSIDER MOHAMMED AS A PROPHET? »

The original(?) in Italian. (His website.)

Zenit: Middle Eastern Priest Explains Islam (Part 2)

Zenit: Middle Eastern Priest Explains Islam (Part 1)

Middle Eastern Priest Explains Islam (Part 1)

Interview With Father Samir Khalil Samir

By Annamarie Adkins

BEIRUT, Lebanon, MARCH 4, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Confusion over Islam -- among Christians and Muslims -- may have peaked after Sept. 11, 2001, but many questions still remain.

That's why Jesuit Father Samir Khalil felt called to offer some answers, as an Islamic scholar, Semitologist, Orientalist and a Catholic theologian born in Egypt and based in the Middle East for more than 20 years.

The Jesuit priest teaches Catholic theology and Islamic studies at St. Joseph University in Beirut, is founder of the CEDRAC research institute and is author of, most recently, "111 Questions on Islam" (Ignatius).

In this interview with ZENIT, Father Samir speaks about his experience and efforts to build a mutual understanding between followers of the two Abrahamic faiths.

Part 2 will appear Thursday.

Q: Why did you agree to produce this book?

Father Samir: Two reasons. It was a year before 9/11 that I started discussing this topic with journalists, having interviews together. I noticed a great ignorance of Islam in the West -- Christians, non-Christians and nonbelievers.

In general, they had very poor knowledge of Islam. I thought I had to clarify. Their ignorance pushed some of them to be aggressive and negative toward Muslims. Some of them were very naïve, believing everything they heard. Some even were using Islam to be aggressive toward Christianity. All of that is a consequence of ignorance.

The second reason was to help Muslims reflect on their own religion and faith. In a previous experience with Muslim youth in a Paris suburb, I noticed they didn't know almost anything about their own religion.

Speaking with different Muslim people I met in Europe -- in Germany during the summer, or in France where I teach, or in Italy where I was living -- it was always the same. Most Christians don't know their religion, either.

I wanted to give good information about Islam to help people not to have any false information or prejudice against it.

Q: How did the interviewers choose the 111 questions from the thousands that could have been asked?

Father Samir: The journalists I worked with had a lot of questions themselves, and questions from what people were asking them: about violence; whether Muslims would accept Western civilization; and about Muslims having problems with equality between men and women.

So, in fact, the questions are more directed to Western society so it could understand Islam better.

Q: Do you think most Muslims would be satisfied by the objectivity of your answers to the 111 questions? Why or why not?

Father Samir: My effort was to be objective; I tried, but you can never truly reach a perfect objectivity.

Certainly, not everybody will be happy. Some think Islam is a violent religion, or a religion against women; they will not be happy because they will say I am not clear enough about the violence and inequality of men and women.

People who think Islam is a religion of peace and equality between men and women, and that Mohammed elevated the status of women, will not be happy either.

Everyone has a position. Few people will be satisfied, if they are against or for Islam.

But those who want to know something serious about Islam will be able to make their own opinion, because they will have the facts in front of them in my book.

Q: The introduction to the book notes that it is an attempt to foster mutual understanding between Christians and Muslims. But many of your answers paint Islam and its origins in a very negative light. How do you think the average Christian's opinion of Islam will change after reading the book?

Father Samir: I don't think it was very negative, or negative at all; my intention is a better understanding. Not a feeling, but an understanding -- something that uses the head first, then the heart.

You have to first give serious information to promote dialogue and mutual understanding. If I don't say the whole truth, the truth will appear anyway, and the situation will be worse.

I am trying to build a mutual understanding, not built on compromises and false information. Dialogue starts with serious, academic, honest information about Christianity and Islam.

The answers are trying to be useful information; some answers are negative because the point is negative.

I don't know what the average Christian thinks. Nowadays, I suppose the majority has a negative opinion of Islam, before reading any book.

We, Arabs and Muslims, are in a crisis. When we Arabs -- Muslims and Christians -- speak together, we recognize we are in a bad situation. We had a glorious time in other centuries, but now we are at the bottom.

I hope that the book will help people understand things that concern them, like terrorism; there are some explanations, but not justifications. I can't justify terrorism, but I can explain why others are led to terrorist acts, I can also show that it has some support in the Koran and the Tradition -- sunnah.

Most Muslims choose peace and nonviolence. The 10% that chooses violence is stronger than the 90% that doesn't. Sometimes the bad part of humanity, though smaller, is stronger.

Q: Is a critical examination of Islam's history and sacred texts -- that is, subjecting the faith to reason -- even possible in the Muslim world? Why or why not?

Father Samir: Usually, in the Muslim tradition, faith is over everything; it is above reason.

If you tell a Muslim the Koran says something, but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says something contrary, the Muslim will say, "We have to follow God's words and law, and not the human rights laws."

In the Christian tradition, we find more people interpreting the Bible than Muslims interpreting the Koran. They had an interpretive movement in the Islamic world in 9th, 10th and 11th century, but then they went backward.

As for the relationship between reason and faith, today Muslims are in a negative period of their history. Certainly it is possible to unite the two, but they would have to work very hard. There are many reasons for this regression, but fundamentally, there is ignorance on the part of the Muslim clergy.

Thomistica.net: New Latin-English edition of the Summa Theologiae -- the website.

"Fair"

Does it mean the same thing as equal?

Online Etymology Dictionary:

fair (adj.)
O.E. fæger "beautiful, pleasant," from P.Gmc. *fagraz (cf. O.N. fagr, O.H.G. fagar "beautiful," Goth. fagrs "fit"), from PIE *fag-. The meaning in ref. to weather (c.1205) preserves the original sense (opposed to foul). Sense of "light complexioned" (1551) reflects tastes in beauty; sense of "free from bias" (c.1340) evolved from another early meaning, "morally pure, unblemished" (c.1175). The sporting senses (fair ball, fair catch etc.) began in 1856. Fair play is from 1595; fair and square is from 1604. Fair-haired in the fig. sense of "darling, favorite" is from 1909. Fairly in the sense of "somewhat" is from 1805; it earlier meant "totally." Fairway (1584) originally meant "navigational channel of a river;" golfing sense is from 1910. First record of fair-weather friends is from 1736.

Merriam Webster:

6 a: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism b (1): conforming with the established rules : allowed (2): consonant with merit or importance : due c: open to legitimate pursuit, attack, or ridicule

The definition MW gives for "just" (2 a (1): acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good : righteous (2): being what is merited : deserved b: legally correct : lawful) conforms to our understanding of what is legally just.

I ask because some have tried to defined justice in terms of fairness. Level is a kind of equal, but it appears that fair has no link to level.

Insight Scoop: First Millennium Petrine Ministry (the article by Joseph Previtali)

Kenneth L. Grasso, Francis Canavan, S.J. (1917–2009)

What's Wrong with the World: Aquinas on Usury

Albino Barrera, "Exchange-Value Determination: Scholastic Just Price, Economic Theory, and Modern Catholic Social Thought," History of Political Economy.1997; 29: 83-116.

link

$15 to access the article for 2 days? Crazy.

A question about profit

In a society where there is perfect justice (and virtue), would it be possible for producers to make a true profit?

From the California Catholic Daily calendar:

Berkeley: Renowned Univ. of Notre Dame professor and author, Dr. Jean Porter comes to Dominican School of Philosphy and Theology (DSPT) to present a lecture on Christianity and Human Rights. Titled "The Natural Law and the Law of Nations: A Medieval Perspective on a Contemporary Dilemma," the lecture will be held on Mar. 12, at DSPT Classroom 1, 2301 Vine Street, at 7:30 p.m. Dr. Porter's lecture is part of DSPT's Faith in Human Rights Project. The project will run from Jan. 12 through May 12, and will include a variety of components that will be offered to the general public, such as: courses of study, lectures, workshops, a film festival, and art exhibits.

Michael Liccione, Picking your hermeneutical circle