Crisis Magazine: Germain Grisez’s Defense of Orthodox Faith by John M. Grondelski
Germain Gabriel Grisez, 88, died February 1, 2018. Philosophy and Catholic theology in the United States lost a giant in his passing. After Karol Wojtyła, I probably owe my greatest [...]
Monday, February 05, 2018
Sunday, February 04, 2018
Germain Grisez Has Passed
Eternal memory.
In Memoriam: Germain Grisez, Great Defender of Humanae Vitae (1929-2018) by Matthew E. Bunson
The Christian ethics professor, called ‘a towering figure in contemporary Catholic thinking about morality,’ died Feb. 1 at the age of 88.
In Memoriam: Germain Grisez, Great Defender of Humanae Vitae (1929-2018) by Matthew E. Bunson
The Christian ethics professor, called ‘a towering figure in contemporary Catholic thinking about morality,’ died Feb. 1 at the age of 88.
Saturday, February 03, 2018
CNA: Cardinal Marx endorses blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples
CWR: Cardinal Marx openly promotes false news about blessings and “homosexual unions” by Carl E. Olson
Will Pope Francis correct the German Cardinal, who has stated that Catholic priests can conduct blessing ceremonies for homosexual couples and says “we have no sets of rules”?
CWR: Cardinal Marx openly promotes false news about blessings and “homosexual unions” by Carl E. Olson
Will Pope Francis correct the German Cardinal, who has stated that Catholic priests can conduct blessing ceremonies for homosexual couples and says “we have no sets of rules”?
Friday, February 02, 2018
Orthochristian: “WE CANNOT RE-CHRISTIANIZE EUROPE BY JOINT RESOLUTIONS ONLY”
An English Orthodox priest on the UK, Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy
Sergei Mudrov, Archpriest Gregory Hallam
An English Orthodox priest on the UK, Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy
Sergei Mudrov, Archpriest Gregory Hallam
Thursday, February 01, 2018
If Excommunication Is Not a Remedy, Then What Is?
What ecclesial punishment exists for the senators who voted against the bill to outlaw abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy?
CWR Dispatch: The Bloody 14 and the question of excommunication by Edward N. Peters
CWR Dispatch: The Bloody 14 and the question of excommunication by Edward N. Peters
Preparing for the Great Fast
CWR: “Exceeding glad shall he be of thy salvation”: On Handel and preparing for Lent in the East by Dr. Adam A. J. DeVille
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Given that our Lord and His Apostles and Evangelists transmitted very little about political life and political arrangements (beyond the importance of obedience), would it be erroneous to conclude that political life is not important? Yes. It would also be erroneous to think that Catholic Social Teaching is not subject to change or correction, as its moral theology is only as good as the one doing it.
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Psychological Impediments to Marriage
What would be considered as such in the Byzantine canons?
In the west there is a consideration of factors that would eliminate consent or voluntariness. But what of broader psychological impediments to contracting marriage, i.e. moral or spiritual impediments?
And deception is not the same as the lack of good judgment on the part of the person who doesn't really know the other person.
Is lack of moral maturity (which is different from emotional maturity but may include it?) sufficient to nullify the marriage? If one of the parties is selfish or narcissistic and cannot make a real commitment despite a verbal willingness to state that intent, can that party truly marry? Or can the law only limit itself to cases in which one deliberately lies about making a permanent and stable commitment to be with the other person?
What of other personality disorders?
How would one prove that a party never had the properly intentionality with respect to marriage? The mere fact that the party left the marriage? But someone could just change his mind and break his vow. It seems to me that it is psychologically possible for someone to merely mouth the vow without intending it; saying the words in order to attain some goal other than a true marriage. Would that be a conscious lie? Perhaps.
And what if the parties are psychologically or morally unable to fulfill the roles in marriage; i.e. the male is unable to lead and care for the other, or the female is unable to follow/obey and care for the other?
In the west there is a consideration of factors that would eliminate consent or voluntariness. But what of broader psychological impediments to contracting marriage, i.e. moral or spiritual impediments?
And deception is not the same as the lack of good judgment on the part of the person who doesn't really know the other person.
Is lack of moral maturity (which is different from emotional maturity but may include it?) sufficient to nullify the marriage? If one of the parties is selfish or narcissistic and cannot make a real commitment despite a verbal willingness to state that intent, can that party truly marry? Or can the law only limit itself to cases in which one deliberately lies about making a permanent and stable commitment to be with the other person?
What of other personality disorders?
How would one prove that a party never had the properly intentionality with respect to marriage? The mere fact that the party left the marriage? But someone could just change his mind and break his vow. It seems to me that it is psychologically possible for someone to merely mouth the vow without intending it; saying the words in order to attain some goal other than a true marriage. Would that be a conscious lie? Perhaps.
And what if the parties are psychologically or morally unable to fulfill the roles in marriage; i.e. the male is unable to lead and care for the other, or the female is unable to follow/obey and care for the other?
Monday, January 29, 2018
Latin Sacramental Theology
Were there any alternative explanations by the schoolmen for the Real Presence in the Sacred Species, other than that offered by St. Thomas? Or was his the "standard" explanation?
Is it possible to formulate an explanation of the Real Presence without relying on Aristotle's metaphysics, and at the same time acknowledging that the Sacred Species is a sign (sacramentum) and a symbol, but not a symbol that refers to something else completely apart from itself? The Sacred Species conveys or signifies the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, localizes and realizes this Presence. Can the Real Presence be explained through participation? It is more than the causal presence of Christ in the natural matter or artifact of bread, nor is it the accidental conjunction of two different things.
Can the Real Presence be explained by other than an analogue to the Hypostatic Union?
It does not seem that if bread is not a substantial unity but an accidental unity that this would pose a problem for a "Aristotelian" explanation -- we would hold that the Real Presence is in all of the parts of bread which are substances.
Is it possible to formulate an explanation of the Real Presence without relying on Aristotle's metaphysics, and at the same time acknowledging that the Sacred Species is a sign (sacramentum) and a symbol, but not a symbol that refers to something else completely apart from itself? The Sacred Species conveys or signifies the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, localizes and realizes this Presence. Can the Real Presence be explained through participation? It is more than the causal presence of Christ in the natural matter or artifact of bread, nor is it the accidental conjunction of two different things.
Can the Real Presence be explained by other than an analogue to the Hypostatic Union?
It does not seem that if bread is not a substantial unity but an accidental unity that this would pose a problem for a "Aristotelian" explanation -- we would hold that the Real Presence is in all of the parts of bread which are substances.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)