Zenit: ON ST. JOHN OF THE CROSS
"If a Man Has a Great Love Within … He Endures Life’s Problems More Easily"
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
While I was driving home and thinking of my recent hospital experience, I asked if part of the problem was not an inordinate desire for health, and if the amount of money being spent on research was not an indication of our wrong priorities. If we found that a majority (if not most or all) diseases of civilization were due to diet, would our society continue to spend so much money on research? I say "so much" since the amount of funding and grant money required to pay scientists and their staff and keep medical, pharmaceutical, or biological research laboratories running must be great. Even if we eliminated 70 or 80% of the diseases that plague us as we age, would we nevertheless demand 100% eradication? Would we not be satisfied with our lot in life?
This is assuming that everyone doing research is doing so with pure intentions, and not because they seek to make money from it. We could once again ask how the surplus wealth that is necessary for research is being obtained--if our research is a form of prodigality and the means by which the money is being obtained involves great injustice, then wouldn't the whole enterprise be doubly compromised?
Still, collective sin as it is used in contemporary discourse can seem like it is poorly-defined. How much responsibility do those who benefit from the system bear, as compared to those who are in control of the system?
It's been a long day...
This is assuming that everyone doing research is doing so with pure intentions, and not because they seek to make money from it. We could once again ask how the surplus wealth that is necessary for research is being obtained--if our research is a form of prodigality and the means by which the money is being obtained involves great injustice, then wouldn't the whole enterprise be doubly compromised?
Still, collective sin as it is used in contemporary discourse can seem like it is poorly-defined. How much responsibility do those who benefit from the system bear, as compared to those who are in control of the system?
It's been a long day...
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Happiness Surveys and the Good of Ethics
We have often received reports through the MSM of the results of surveys trying to find the world's happiest country, and so on.
The most recent item I've seen that makes use of such surveys is Jim Bannon's "The Pursuit of Happiness" (EB), which uses the results of astudy comparing the 50 states, which attempted to link objective criteria with respondents' subjective life-satisfaction scores.
How does one determine unhappiness, or dissatisfaction? The failure to attain the goods that one wants or expects? How is this quantified in a survey? Some surveys may find a correlation with simplicity in lifestyle--others may not, especially when the top 5 happiest countries are industrialized. The definition of happiness is left up to the individual -- though external markers are sought to justify their impression. As far as I have seen, these surveys do not rely upon a notion of happiness universally applicable to all, a standard by which societies (and their ways of life) everywhere can be judged.
But on to my main point: it seems natural to us to think of goods as things that we possess. If we have the good or goods, then we are happy. Is this a problem of language? Does the word "good" lend itself to thinking in terms of abstractions and habits, things that we have? That is, because the word "good" is an [abstract] noun, are we inclined to seek a res that is a substance, rather than an accident. Do we find this problematic conception in other languages, or is it limited only to English? (Merriam-Webster, etymology)
Or is it more the psychology of fallen nature -- we spend much time thinking about what we wish to acquire in order to satisfy inordinate desires? Then, when we come across the word in a writings dealing with ethics, we first think of things before anything else. (Did utilitarianism/consequentialism play any role in promoting this understanding?)
Which of the Greek or Latin Fathers talked about goods as being things that are possessed? I can't remember St. Augustine's treatment. I do remember Boethius talking about the goods that are constitutive of happiness. He seems to share that conception of the relationship of "good" to happiness with many moderns. From The Consolation of Philosophy: Aristotle does enumerate "goods" (things to be possessed) which are identified by various people as being happiness in the first book of the Nicomachean Ethics, but this is a dialectical discussion(?) aimed at showing that these opinions are incorrect.
What needs to be recovered is an understanding of good(s) of happiness primarily as an activity, and not as something that we have/possess, either "internal" to us (e.g. virtue or office/power/ability) or external to us (e.g. family). These latter goods are instruments or occasions for activity or the exercise of virtue.
If they are to be really meaningful, these surveys should not be a "sociological" study of what people want and desire and are missing, but a study of how people live. But that would probably require too much of an academic survey.
*Boethius's account, or any traditional Catholic theology for that matter, does seem to be right with respect to naming God as our first ("highest") good. But this requires a nuanced explanation.
The most recent item I've seen that makes use of such surveys is Jim Bannon's "The Pursuit of Happiness" (EB), which uses the results of astudy comparing the 50 states, which attempted to link objective criteria with respondents' subjective life-satisfaction scores.
How does one determine unhappiness, or dissatisfaction? The failure to attain the goods that one wants or expects? How is this quantified in a survey? Some surveys may find a correlation with simplicity in lifestyle--others may not, especially when the top 5 happiest countries are industrialized. The definition of happiness is left up to the individual -- though external markers are sought to justify their impression. As far as I have seen, these surveys do not rely upon a notion of happiness universally applicable to all, a standard by which societies (and their ways of life) everywhere can be judged.
But on to my main point: it seems natural to us to think of goods as things that we possess. If we have the good or goods, then we are happy. Is this a problem of language? Does the word "good" lend itself to thinking in terms of abstractions and habits, things that we have? That is, because the word "good" is an [abstract] noun, are we inclined to seek a res that is a substance, rather than an accident. Do we find this problematic conception in other languages, or is it limited only to English? (Merriam-Webster, etymology)
Or is it more the psychology of fallen nature -- we spend much time thinking about what we wish to acquire in order to satisfy inordinate desires? Then, when we come across the word in a writings dealing with ethics, we first think of things before anything else. (Did utilitarianism/consequentialism play any role in promoting this understanding?)
Which of the Greek or Latin Fathers talked about goods as being things that are possessed? I can't remember St. Augustine's treatment. I do remember Boethius talking about the goods that are constitutive of happiness. He seems to share that conception of the relationship of "good" to happiness with many moderns. From The Consolation of Philosophy: Aristotle does enumerate "goods" (things to be possessed) which are identified by various people as being happiness in the first book of the Nicomachean Ethics, but this is a dialectical discussion(?) aimed at showing that these opinions are incorrect.
What needs to be recovered is an understanding of good(s) of happiness primarily as an activity, and not as something that we have/possess, either "internal" to us (e.g. virtue or office/power/ability) or external to us (e.g. family). These latter goods are instruments or occasions for activity or the exercise of virtue.
If they are to be really meaningful, these surveys should not be a "sociological" study of what people want and desire and are missing, but a study of how people live. But that would probably require too much of an academic survey.
*Boethius's account, or any traditional Catholic theology for that matter, does seem to be right with respect to naming God as our first ("highest") good. But this requires a nuanced explanation.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Fr. Michael Himes
Someone in the OLOP Young Adult Group posted this video on FB:
I was a bit curious, since I had heard one of Fr. Himes's homilies and was not impressed, despite the presence of what I considered a personality cult at his Mass. He didn't strike me as someone orthodox, but the typical American theologian who thinks he is a better authority than the bishop of Rome. I suppose I should listen to the video and read some of his stuff to have a better judgment of him as a theologian, teacher, and priest.
The talk he gave as part of BC's Last Lecture series--Boston College Front Row:
(fora.tv)
Food for Thought
Foundations of Christianity: Faith and Hope
He offers some guidance on discernment.
Heights article
Something on him and his brother.
2008: Dominican University Presents Michael Himes in Mazzuchelli Lecture
I was a bit curious, since I had heard one of Fr. Himes's homilies and was not impressed, despite the presence of what I considered a personality cult at his Mass. He didn't strike me as someone orthodox, but the typical American theologian who thinks he is a better authority than the bishop of Rome. I suppose I should listen to the video and read some of his stuff to have a better judgment of him as a theologian, teacher, and priest.
The talk he gave as part of BC's Last Lecture series--Boston College Front Row:
(fora.tv)
Food for Thought
Foundations of Christianity: Faith and Hope
He offers some guidance on discernment.
Heights article
Something on him and his brother.
2008: Dominican University Presents Michael Himes in Mazzuchelli Lecture
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Robert Araujo, Law as a Moral Idea -- a short note about Nigel Simmond’s Law as Moral Idea.
Related: Natural Law “Externalism” v. Law as a Moral Idea
Juriprudence Discussion Group
Positivism and Separation of Laws and Morals, Fifty Years On
Related: Natural Law “Externalism” v. Law as a Moral Idea
Juriprudence Discussion Group
Positivism and Separation of Laws and Morals, Fifty Years On
Loving God More than Yourself
Aquinas argues that we should love God more than ourselves, for example in the Summa Theologiae here (with reference to the angels and the natural love of God) and here (with reference to us and charity). Now, it seems that if you were to ask a simple Catholic the reason why we love God more than ourselves he would not talk about God being the common good of all creation or as the cause of happiness.
Loving God more than ourselves seems to be part of Sacred Tradition; is it explicit in Sacred Scripture? One could interpret "greatest commandment" (Matthew 22:36-40) as implying this order. It is only implicit in Luke 10:27 -- it must be read into it, from Tradition and perhaps from Matthew 22:37?
It seems that through the theological virtue of Faith we believe that God is more lovable than us or more worthy of love. If pressed for a reason we might talk about His goodness and His relationship to us as Creator to creature. He is the cause, we are the effects, we are subordinate to Him. He is also "greater" in perfection, "better" than us. It seems to me that Aquinas's argument with God as the universal good is a more sophisticated version of this line of reasoning. If asked to give an explanation of the order of charity as it pertains to God, I think many of the faithful could manage an explanation with the sort of amateur theology I've outlined above.
Loving God more than ourselves seems to be part of Sacred Tradition; is it explicit in Sacred Scripture? One could interpret "greatest commandment" (Matthew 22:36-40) as implying this order. It is only implicit in Luke 10:27 -- it must be read into it, from Tradition and perhaps from Matthew 22:37?
It seems that through the theological virtue of Faith we believe that God is more lovable than us or more worthy of love. If pressed for a reason we might talk about His goodness and His relationship to us as Creator to creature. He is the cause, we are the effects, we are subordinate to Him. He is also "greater" in perfection, "better" than us. It seems to me that Aquinas's argument with God as the universal good is a more sophisticated version of this line of reasoning. If asked to give an explanation of the order of charity as it pertains to God, I think many of the faithful could manage an explanation with the sort of amateur theology I've outlined above.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Polygenism
Nathan O'Halloran, SJ, Moving forward with polygenism?
I note that the author writes "proved" with scare quotes? The modern scientific method does not provide demonstrations; at best it gives probable arguments, if that. The "epistemological status" is even worse when it's not just a scientific claim (concerning causes and effects) but a historical one as well.
Something from Mark Shea in 2009.
I note that the author writes "proved" with scare quotes? The modern scientific method does not provide demonstrations; at best it gives probable arguments, if that. The "epistemological status" is even worse when it's not just a scientific claim (concerning causes and effects) but a historical one as well.
Something from Mark Shea in 2009.
Center for Thomistic Studies Aquinas Lectures
Thomistica.net: Online Aquinas Lecture from the Center for Thomistic Studies
Thomistica.net includes links to Germain Grisez, “The Restless Heart Blunder” and Msgr. John F. Wippel, “Thomas Aquinas and the Controversy Concerning Unity of Substantial Form in Human Beings”
the archive
Thomistica.net includes links to Germain Grisez, “The Restless Heart Blunder” and Msgr. John F. Wippel, “Thomas Aquinas and the Controversy Concerning Unity of Substantial Form in Human Beings”
the archive
Friday, February 11, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Zenit: PAPAL ADDRESS TO MEMBERS OF EDUCATION CONGREGATION
"To Educate Is an Act of Love"
An act of love? To educate is ordered to love, since the act is directed to the perfection of another, but it is not necessarily an act of love. There are plenty of educators who do so not from charity, but from self-love, or love of their own glory, with no consideration for the well-being of his students. Or the raging egomaniac who believes himself to be a prophet, bringing enligthenment to the ignorant masses. He may desire their good, but it is on his terms. There's something wrong about his love, if indeed he has rejected the Holy Spirit.
The office of the teacher bears with it a great burden, as truth is the foundation for right desire.
Pope Benedict XVI links theology to the life of prayer:
He touches upon what is necessary for those involved with Catholic universities:
"To Educate Is an Act of Love"
An act of love? To educate is ordered to love, since the act is directed to the perfection of another, but it is not necessarily an act of love. There are plenty of educators who do so not from charity, but from self-love, or love of their own glory, with no consideration for the well-being of his students. Or the raging egomaniac who believes himself to be a prophet, bringing enligthenment to the ignorant masses. He may desire their good, but it is on his terms. There's something wrong about his love, if indeed he has rejected the Holy Spirit.
The office of the teacher bears with it a great burden, as truth is the foundation for right desire.
The educational endeavor seems to have become ever more arduous because, in a culture which too often makes relativism its creed, the light of truth is lacking, more than that, it is considered dangerous to speak of truth, thus instilling doubt on the basic values of personal and community life. Important, because of this, is the service carried out in the world by the numerous formative institutions that are inspired in the Christian vision of man and of reality: to educate is an act of love, exercise of "intellectual charity," which requires responsibility, dedication, consistency of life. The work of your Congregation and the choices you will make in these days of reflection and study will certainly contribute to respond to the present "educational emergency."Charity is the central virtue for Christian educators, but also for all Christians!
Pope Benedict XVI links theology to the life of prayer:
However, the theologian must not forget that he is also the one who speaks to God. Hence, it is indispensable to have theology closely united with personal and community prayer, especially liturgical prayer. Theology is sciencia fidei and prayer nourishes faith. In the union with God, mystery is, in some way, savored, it comes close, and this proximity is light for the intelligence. I would also like to stress the connection between theology and the other disciplines, considering that it is taught in Catholic Universities and, in many cases, in civil ones. Blessed John Henry Newman spoke of the "circle of knowledge," to indicate that an interdependence exists between the different branches of knowledge; but God is He who has a relationship only with the totality of the real; consequently, to eliminate God means to break the circle of knowledge.
In this perspective, the Catholic universities, with their very precise identity and their openness to the "totality" of the human being, can carry out a valuable work of promoting the unity of knowledge, orienting students and teachers to the Light of the world, "the true light that enlightens every man" (John 1:9). These are considerations that are valid also for Catholic schools. First of all, there must be the courage to proclaim the "great" value of education, to form solid persons able to collaborate with others and to give meaning to their life. Today there is talk of inter-cultural education, object of study also in your Plenary Assembly.
He touches upon what is necessary for those involved with Catholic universities:
Required in this realm is a courageous and innovative fidelity, which is able to combine the clear awareness of one's identity with openness to others, because of the exigencies of living together in multi-cultural societies. Emerging also for this end is the educational role of the teaching of the Catholic religion as scholastic discipline in inter-disciplinary dialogue with others. In fact, this contributes widely not only to the integral development of the student, but also to knowledge of the other, to mutual understanding and respect. To attain such objectives particular attention must be given to the care of the formation of leaders and formators, not only from a professional point of view, but also religious and spiritual, so that, with the consistency of one's life and with personal involvement, the presence of the Christian educator will be expression of the love and witness of the truth.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)