William Oddie, The call for a new Syllabus of Errors, this time on Vatican II, should be heeded (via Fr. Z)
The text of the address by Bishop Athanasius Schneider (via Fr. Z and Rorate Caeli)
If such a syllabus were to come out, I do not think it would be issued before negotiations with the SSPX ended?
Friday, January 21, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
DSPT: Aquinas Lecture 2011
Fr. Bryan Kromholtz, OP "The Dead in Christ Will Rise: Thomas Aquinas and Current Ideas on the Time of the Resurrection"
Wednesday, March 2, 2011, 7:30 pm at the Dominican School of Philosophy & Theology
Previous lectures, including last year's:
DSPT Aquinas Lecture, March 3rd, 2010
"Christ and Israel: An Unresolved Question in Catholic Theology"
- presented by Bruce Marshall, PhD
Wednesday, March 2, 2011, 7:30 pm at the Dominican School of Philosophy & Theology
Previous lectures, including last year's:
DSPT Aquinas Lecture, March 3rd, 2010
"Christ and Israel: An Unresolved Question in Catholic Theology"
- presented by Bruce Marshall, PhD
Tyranny and consent of the governed
Thomistica.net notes that some articles have become available at Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism, including one by Michael Pakaluk (Aristotle, Natural Law, and the Founders) and Christopher Tollefsen (New Natural Law Theory). The last appears to be an abridged version of his essay for Lyceum. There is also this piece by Paul Sigmund, Ockham to Hooker: Late Medieval Transformations of Natural Law.
Ah, the Liberal innovations in natural law... something I still need to study further.
Sigmund writes:
If someone is unjustly deprived of political power or citizenship, what recourse does he have, should he nonetheless obey the government? Is his aspiration to change the government or constitution wrong in itself (as opposed to being wrong because it is against prudence)? Is respect for custom/law a sufficient reason to prevent a polity from changing from one constitution to another (as might seem justified when more and more members of succeeding generations are virtuous and deigned worthy of citizenship)?
Hooker's theory on the origin of government is echoed later by someone else -- the first name that popped up in my head was Calhoun, but that's not quite right. Of whom am I thinking? It's actually John Finnis, and I'll have to double-check to see if this is common among liberal theorists.
There is so much more to investigate...
Ah, the Liberal innovations in natural law... something I still need to study further.
Sigmund writes:
Hooker argues that human reason can discover the existence of God and our moral obligations to others, who are “our equals in nature.” “In those times wherein there were no civil societies,” (when Locke quotes this passage, he adds “i.e, in the state of nature”), men were bound by the natural and divine law “even as they are men.” In order to resolve the conflicts that result from self-interest and partiality, men agree to establish government, and because they are all equal this requires the consent of all. This consent, once given by the community, is binding on subsequent generations, a striking difference from the individual consent to majority rule given by the participants in the social contract in Locke’s Second Treatise. Hooker also argues that, in the English case, consent was given to an established church, an institution that Locke rejects in his Letter on Toleration (1685). Therein he argues that true religion must be based on the individual conscience rather than governmental coercion.Does it make sense for liberal democrats to talk of consent, rather than acquiescence? If one's forefathers made the decision and one has duties to the community one is born into, as well as affection, then one shouldn't have much of a choice about the community. If a government is tyrannical but cannot be overthrown, then do those who suffer under its rule and reject it consent? Or acquiesce? Is a tyrannical government legitimate? Does it have the "right" to rule (as opposed to having power or coercive force)? Should an illegitimate government be obeyed? (Does the virtue of obedience come into play rather than prudence?)
If someone is unjustly deprived of political power or citizenship, what recourse does he have, should he nonetheless obey the government? Is his aspiration to change the government or constitution wrong in itself (as opposed to being wrong because it is against prudence)? Is respect for custom/law a sufficient reason to prevent a polity from changing from one constitution to another (as might seem justified when more and more members of succeeding generations are virtuous and deigned worthy of citizenship)?
Hooker's theory on the origin of government is echoed later by someone else -- the first name that popped up in my head was Calhoun, but that's not quite right. Of whom am I thinking? It's actually John Finnis, and I'll have to double-check to see if this is common among liberal theorists.
There is so much more to investigate...
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
All is connected
The German physicist Hans-Peter Düerr talks about connectiveness. Interviewed by Helena Norberg-Hodge. Filmed by Constantin Dumba
Parts 2, 3, 4, 5
Reductionism? Or analogy? I'll have to watch the videos.
I am reminded of Empedocles teaching concerning the two basic forces of the universe, love and strife--I think this has been repeated by someone more recent?
OUP is having a 20% off sale
Until February 28, 2011. Promo Code: 28913 for Theology, 28904 for Philosophy, 28911 for Politics & International Relations.
My wish list:
The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy
A. Edward Siecienski
Some other books to examine:
Reclaiming Conservatism: How a Great American Political Movement Got Lost--And How It Can Find Its Way Back
Mickey Edwards
There is a paperback edition of The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas by Fr. Gilles Emery, O.P.
My wish list:
The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy
A. Edward Siecienski
J. M. Hussey, Andrew Louth
Reclaiming Conservatism: How a Great American Political Movement Got Lost--And How It Can Find Its Way Back
Mickey Edwards
There is a paperback edition of The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas by Fr. Gilles Emery, O.P.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Acting Reasonable: Democracy, Authority, and Natural Rights in the Thought of Jacques Maritain by Brian Jones, M.A.
(via Insight Scoop)
"It seems that the Rowland/Schindler argument against "rights talk" (as well as other aspects of current social and political thought) is rooted in a misunderstanding of St. Thomas's teaching on man's two ends. Maritain actually seems to be more faithful to the Thomistic understanding of man's natural end, along with providing legitimacy to the temporal order, which would have tremendous effects then in the realm of culture and social/political philosophy. Maritain's work is truly Thomistic because he makes distinctions in order to unite."
I think this may be a oversimplification of Rowland and Schindler, but I just gave away the copy of Rowland that was most handy, so I can't support it at this point. But I think it is a mistake to identify man's natural end with the temporal good (or the political common good), if that is what the author is doing here.
As for the use of the word democracy -- I'll have to read Maritain on this point. But using democracy (as opposed to polity) to name any good constitution/form of government seems to strain the word too much, if this is indeed what Maritain does.
(via Insight Scoop)
"It seems that the Rowland/Schindler argument against "rights talk" (as well as other aspects of current social and political thought) is rooted in a misunderstanding of St. Thomas's teaching on man's two ends. Maritain actually seems to be more faithful to the Thomistic understanding of man's natural end, along with providing legitimacy to the temporal order, which would have tremendous effects then in the realm of culture and social/political philosophy. Maritain's work is truly Thomistic because he makes distinctions in order to unite."
I think this may be a oversimplification of Rowland and Schindler, but I just gave away the copy of Rowland that was most handy, so I can't support it at this point. But I think it is a mistake to identify man's natural end with the temporal good (or the political common good), if that is what the author is doing here.
As for the use of the word democracy -- I'll have to read Maritain on this point. But using democracy (as opposed to polity) to name any good constitution/form of government seems to strain the word too much, if this is indeed what Maritain does.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
"Permanent deacons are deacons."
Pertinacious Papist passes on some links concerning a thesis put forth by Dr. Edward Peters regarding the obligation to celibacy for all deacons. If the thesis is correct and the obligation is restated, that would close the "cheat" for Catholic men who are tempted to seek the "best of both worlds."
History Professor Shannon Awarded 2010 Best Essay Prize
Dr. Shannon's essay, ""From History to Traditions: A New Paradigm of Pluralism in the Study of the Past" was published in Historically Speaking.
Dr. Shannon's essay, ""From History to Traditions: A New Paradigm of Pluralism in the Study of the Past" was published in Historically Speaking.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Eighth Day Books sponsoring two symposia
January 29: Imagination & Soul: Harry Potter, Twilight and Spiritual Formation with John Granger
February 12: Patristics Symposium: On the Tree of the Cross, The Patristic Doctrine of the Atonement
More information.
February 12: Patristics Symposium: On the Tree of the Cross, The Patristic Doctrine of the Atonement
More information.
Haldane and Lee (and George) and ensoulment
I'm not posting any really new material here, just summarizing what I have written in other posts.
John Haldane and Patrick Lee are probably correct in their criticism of Pasnau's application of Aquinas to contemporary embryology. (See their followup.) I'm not going to read those parts carefully. They are correct to emphasize that development (not just growth but organization/differentiation of organs) is caused by the conceptum itself, and not by something external to it. Development it is a natural operation of the conceptum.
You'll find the same sort of argumentation in the pieces written collaboratively by Lee and Robert George, and probably in George and Christopher Tollefsen's book Embryo (which I haven't had the chance to read yet).
But I would argue that development occurs in other animals as well and cannot be attributed to the rational soul alone. One cannot claim absolutely that a rational soul is present at conception, when the presence of a sensitive soul could explain what is taking place.
To clarify what I had written previously: I don't think that the medieval understanding that there is a succession of forms--vegetative, sensitive, rational--as the embryo is formed from without can be maintained. I use "sensitive" here to distinguish the rational soul from the nonrational souls of other animals. Nor do I think one can rule out a priori with good reason that the rational soul is infused at birth. But one cannot establish the presence of the rational soul either, since there is the absence of rational activity (and the organs required for that activity). The conceptum does have the power in itself to generate those organs ("the brain and nervous system"), but this power in itself does not mean that it possess a rational soul, unless one argues additionally that only a rational soul can bring about the development of organs that are proportioned to the intellect, etc. But what does the rational soul as form of the body have in addition to what is possessed by a sensitive soul that could conceivably develop the embryo into a specifically human body? Even if it is the case that the human sense organs are very different from those of any other animal, this does not mean it is impossible for a sensitive a sensitive soul to generate those organs.
Still, a theological argument based on what the Church's teachings on the Incarnation can be made that the soul is infused at conception, but this will not convince non-believers. I tend to think that changing the laws regarding abortion on the Federal level will never happen. (And it seems unlikely to me that the Federal government will ever let this issue devolve back to the states.) With the refusal of traditional morality regarding sexuality and marriage, the culture and its institutions of many areas and states cannot but have abortion as a legitimate act for women. In those places, for a law against abortion to take hold, many other changes must be implemented. These changes are so great and encompassing that one can speak of the necessity of their people to be converted without exaggeration. Some states may be more sympathetic to stricter abortion laws, but their culture may be changing at a rapid places.
John Haldane and Patrick Lee are probably correct in their criticism of Pasnau's application of Aquinas to contemporary embryology. (See their followup.) I'm not going to read those parts carefully. They are correct to emphasize that development (not just growth but organization/differentiation of organs) is caused by the conceptum itself, and not by something external to it. Development it is a natural operation of the conceptum.
You'll find the same sort of argumentation in the pieces written collaboratively by Lee and Robert George, and probably in George and Christopher Tollefsen's book Embryo (which I haven't had the chance to read yet).
But I would argue that development occurs in other animals as well and cannot be attributed to the rational soul alone. One cannot claim absolutely that a rational soul is present at conception, when the presence of a sensitive soul could explain what is taking place.
To clarify what I had written previously: I don't think that the medieval understanding that there is a succession of forms--vegetative, sensitive, rational--as the embryo is formed from without can be maintained. I use "sensitive" here to distinguish the rational soul from the nonrational souls of other animals. Nor do I think one can rule out a priori with good reason that the rational soul is infused at birth. But one cannot establish the presence of the rational soul either, since there is the absence of rational activity (and the organs required for that activity). The conceptum does have the power in itself to generate those organs ("the brain and nervous system"), but this power in itself does not mean that it possess a rational soul, unless one argues additionally that only a rational soul can bring about the development of organs that are proportioned to the intellect, etc. But what does the rational soul as form of the body have in addition to what is possessed by a sensitive soul that could conceivably develop the embryo into a specifically human body? Even if it is the case that the human sense organs are very different from those of any other animal, this does not mean it is impossible for a sensitive a sensitive soul to generate those organs.
Still, a theological argument based on what the Church's teachings on the Incarnation can be made that the soul is infused at conception, but this will not convince non-believers. I tend to think that changing the laws regarding abortion on the Federal level will never happen. (And it seems unlikely to me that the Federal government will ever let this issue devolve back to the states.) With the refusal of traditional morality regarding sexuality and marriage, the culture and its institutions of many areas and states cannot but have abortion as a legitimate act for women. In those places, for a law against abortion to take hold, many other changes must be implemented. These changes are so great and encompassing that one can speak of the necessity of their people to be converted without exaggeration. Some states may be more sympathetic to stricter abortion laws, but their culture may be changing at a rapid places.
Go Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Go!
Sandro Magister, A New Syllabus for the 21st Century
That is, a document condemning mistaken interpretations of Vatican Council II. It's been requested by a bishop of Kazakhstan, at a conference in Rome with other bishops and cardinals. Also prompting reactions is the announcement by Benedict XVI of a new interreligious meeting in Assisi
(via the Western Confucian)
That is, a document condemning mistaken interpretations of Vatican Council II. It's been requested by a bishop of Kazakhstan, at a conference in Rome with other bishops and cardinals. Also prompting reactions is the announcement by Benedict XVI of a new interreligious meeting in Assisi
(via the Western Confucian)
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)