The Theological Origin and, Hopefully, End of Modernity by Thaddeus J. Kozinski

Voluntarism, an indifferent will as primary moral agent; nominalism, the rejection of any real reference for universal concepts; disenchantment, the default existential mode of a buffered, self-sufficient “individual”; and desacralization, the “immanent frame” surrounding and conditioning modern social and intellectual life—these were the background assumptions of the Enlightenment, but they seem now foregrounded social, cultural, and political dogmas. The “Regensburg Address” of the Pope, with his account of the three waves of dehellenization, is, I think, a key text for grasping this development. Dehellenized reason closed to intelligible being, a voluntarist God beyond good and evil, a non-participatory cosmos mechanically construed, and a univocal, flattened concept of being supplanting Aquinas’ precarious but precious metaphysics of analogy—these are the metaphysical, epistemological, and theological roots of modernity, and they are deeply planted. As the Pope suggests, these roots have nourished a misshapen cultural tree, nay, a forest; and it cannot be simply cut down and replanted—for it is our home, whether we like our home or not, for, at least for the time being, there is no other domestic domicile into which to move, it would seem.


Now, great fruits came via their heroic attempts: the progress of medicine and human rights; what Taylor calls the “affirmation of ordinary life”; the dignity of persons seen as ends and never means (Casanova); the autonomy of politics, science, and economics from ecclesial control. This represents, as in the words of Maritain, a maturation of the political order and the Gospel seed coming to fruition. This is the true message of Gaudium et spes, when interpreted correctly–that is, not as a replacement of the Syllabus of Errors, but its complement. After Vatican II, no Catholic can interpret the prior social teaching and theology as simply a rejection of modernity, but neither can they reject or dismiss the prior teaching as outdated or simply mistaken.

The question of modernity, again. Kozinski offers a couple of scenarios as to how this all plays out, but I think maybe the analysis starts off on the wrong foot. Was there a rebellion against the authority of the Church? Undoubtedly. Did that rebellion provide the intellectual roots for liberalism? Or merely the occasion for it to develop as a reaction against the wars of religion?

Maybe it is not "modernity" that is the problem, but the power of earthly rulers vying against God; they are the ones who have made of liberalism and a host of other idealogies in order to take power for themselves in the name of liberating the masses.

Will it be possible for a sinner to deny the justice of God's judgment on the Last Day? The damned know that they have sinned and why they are damned. Even if his mind is illuminated or he is convicted by his own conscience, is it possible for him to deny that God's judgment and punishment is just, to lie to himself on these two points, to affirm that their punishment is undeserved? After all, our judgment can be distorted by a bad will.

(Aquinas does not cover this question in his discussion of the will and intellect of the damned.)

It seems that the damned know they have sinned and that they have rejected God in sinning, and that their punishment, being deprived of the beatific vision or union with God, is appropriate, since they do not want this. But what of the poena sensus? "Why doesn't God just leave me alone? Why is He so petty?" And yet the poena sensus is a just punishment for the sins themselves. Is this undeniable?

(Aquinas on the punishment of the damned)

Does God preserve those who sin in the state of ignorance so that their conscience will not convict them? That seems like wishful thinking.


A related question regarding knowledge:
Titus 3:10-11
10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: 11 Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.

God gives us the grace to assent to authority? Can there be obstacles to our recognition that someone holds authority within the Church, if we have been baptized and raised in the Church?

When are we justified in rejecting someone who verbally expresses rejection of God and His Church or the Church's teaching authority?

The Hermeneutic of Continuity: Nail-biting SSPX developments

Not Understanding Nothing
A review of A Universe from Nothing
Edward Feser

Oxford Handbook of Aquinas

Litaniae de Sacratissimo Corde Iesu

Rome Reports: Pope maintains generous offer of Personal Prelature for break away group of Lefebvrists


CNA

Lee Faber, Note on Some Translations of Scotus

I relied more on the English translation by Wolter for studying Scotus than on the original Latin.

MOJ: "Much Ado About Subsidiarity" (which links to this post at VN, which notably does not offer a definition of the common good, but one assumes that the one current in CST is implied). Garnett cites Russell Hittinger for an explanation of subsidiarity, and Hittinger adequately presents contemporary teaching on the concept. What is missing, to circumscribe the definition of subsidiarity and the state? A notion of the common good (life in community) that is tied to an understanding of the proper human scale.

If the common goods that exist at different "levels" do not have the same definition, then how can there be an ordered hierarchy of authorities serving them? If common good1 is not a part of common good 2, then how can authority1 be subordinate to authority2? An authority that serves to preserve the peace of many communities cannot have any sort of authority over the communities themselves - this would go beyond its competence.

I was going through old mail and found a solicitation for Spiritual Life: A Journal of Contemporary Spirituality. Apparently the magazine is still in existence. Is the mass media format of the magazine or journal amenable to teaching about the spiritual life? Or shouldn't it deserve more of an extended treatment? (Or even better, a living guide?) Not everything can be disseminated through the mass media well.

Catholic Church Conservation: Dominican Monks Dance Like Lady Gaga

Good-natured fun, or a display of immaturity and the lack of good judgment? Despite discernment to the priesthood or religious life being postponed until much later in life, has the infantilization that plagues mass industrial 'cultures' affected our seminarians and young adults as well? Fortunately there are not more videos of seminarians doing goofy things - the Star Wars video is still up, though. (Those discerning religious life may be more mature, in so far as it is more demanding than the seminary.)

(How much of this might be due to contemporary "psychology," the need to have a personality and such, versus acquiring virtues nad properly fulfilling a function in caritas and community?)

Something from an older Dominican, fr Wojciech Giertych OP:
Papal Theologian on the 'Pange Lingua'

Religious Liberty and the Human Good, The Conversation

Q&A

via NLM: Fr Aidan Nichols OP on the Future of the Church in England

Dr. Gilbert, At the end of a year of teaching and Pope Gregory the Great on the Holy Spirit’s procession

James Chastek, The order among analogues and An order among analogues, II

Rome Reports: Convents and monasteries survive on their online stores


What are they going to do as the price of oil goes up higher? They need to start adjusting now.

Mattias Caro, Is There Such a Thing as Inalienable Rights?. He refers to Rights You Can't Give Away.

Do we need to take Jefferson's rhetoric (or his theory of rights) so seriously?

CNS: Eastern Christianity's appeal


I had posted the video before but it was part of the CNS website so it may not have played properly for some of you. Now it is available on youtube.

Seven most common mistakes about 'Vatileaks'

James Chatek, A thomistic response to William Lane Craig’s denial of divine atemporality

James Chastek, Integral truth

Mr. Chastek compares theological truth with food and relates both to multiple ends. G-L is making a point though about the epistemology of those supporting the development of a new, up-to-date theology. If theology is not true, then how can it benefit or aid modern man and his vexations? Do we know God via things? Or do we know God through our ideas?

We could also ask the question of whether theology is more speculative or practical in nature.