A preoccupation with modesty - "sex on the brain."

[AuditVocemMeam]

The advance of theology did not stop with Aquinas. There is a reason why sexual sins are as serious as they are, and it is because they dehumanize other people. Blessed John Paul talked about this. This is not a separate moral Theology, it is an expansion on the foundation which Aquinas has already put in place. It is not an either/or. It all fits together as part of the vast moral Theology of the Latin Rite Church.

Fair enough, I just think that the Scholastic system is itself sufficient to understand the moral truths of Catholic theology (i.e. I can make a Scholastic argument for why sins of lust are gravely wrong), but of course additional approaches and developments can contribute additional depth of understanding.

 

[thewanderer]

Fair enough, I just think that the Scholastic system is itself sufficient to understand the moral truths of Catholic theology (i.e. I can make a Scholastic argument for why sins of lust are gravely wrong), but of course additional approaches and developments can contribute additional depth of understanding.

And I don’t understand why someone would want to limit their understanding of moral Theology by refusing to accept or think about anything outside of the Scholastic system, but to each their own I guess.

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

And I don’t understand why someone would want to limit their understanding of moral Theology by refusing to accept or think about anything outside of the Scholastic system, but to each their own I guess.

Probably because of the precision of the Scholastic system and the fuzziness that other systems can enable without an understanding of the Scholastic system as the basis of other systems.

 

[thewanderer]

Probably because of the precision of the Scholastic system and the fuzziness that other systems can enable without an understanding of the Scholastic system as the basis of other systems.

But I’m not suggesting anyone ditch the scholastic system, I’m suggesting you use it as your base and then continue to expand your knowledge. What if I were to say, sorry, I’m not going to bother with scholastic theology, I’m going to stick with only the Church Fathers and if you suggest I ever think about things via Scholastic Theology I’m just going to ignore it because I like the way things are presented in the Theology of the Church founders wouldn’t that seem a little unreasonable to you? Aren’t we supposed to love truth and knowledge no matter where it is coming from? Anyway, as I said, I can’t force you to expand your Theology to include more recent lines of thought, so I guess I’ll have to leave it at that.

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

But I’m not suggesting anyone ditch the scholastic system, I’m suggesting you use it as your base and then continue to expand your knowledge. What if I were to say, sorry, I’m not going to bother with scholastic theology, I’m going to stick with only the Church Fathers and if you suggest I ever think about things via Scholastic Theology I’m just going to ignore it because I like the way things are presented in the Theology of the Church founders wouldn’t that seem a little unreasonable to you? Aren’t we supposed to love truth and knowledge no matter where it is coming from? Anyway, as I said, I can’t force you to expand your Theology to include more recent lines of thought, so I guess I’ll have to leave it at that.

Sure, it would seem unreasonable. I am not rejecting modern thought, just having an attitude of “wait and see” about it because while it can certainly do a lot of good, it can also cause misunderstandings, and Scholasticism has made a name for itself out of precision. I’m just not convinced that it is useful so I am not willing to dive right in (at least yet). If I gave the impression of total rejection, I apologize.

 

[Phil_Marinus]

Just a little thought …
You are exactly what you have allowed yourself to become......