Apologetics-low level scholarship

[RobbyS]

Jennifer123:

Hear hear. The main problem I have with Catholics these days is that there’s plenty of “head knowledge” but little “heart knowledge”. I know that’s somewhat of a carryover from my dabblings in Protestantism (I’m a convert/re-vert), but I think it’s true to a degree. A lot of society’s ills were and are perpetuated by some of our most celebrated scholars (an example that comes to mind is the eugenics movement championed by Sanger now embraced by the likes of Bill Gates, etc.).

Some of the Church’s greatest saints weren’t all too intellectual, but still had profound thoughts about the nature and love of Christ. Just “be still and know that I am God”.

You mention “eugenics.” If there is anything certain, it is that eugeneics is crackpot science, but it has an appeal to the elites of our society, and Sanger furthered her movement by appealling to the fears of humanitarians like J.R. Rockefeller, Jr. that civilization was about to be swamped by the poor.

 

[amarischuk]

Midgie wrote:

Adam, maybe your problem is that you have yet to recognize the fact that all your goodness is nothing but filthy rags in God’s sight? I think we must get to the point that we recognize there is nothing good in us and that we are sinners who need a Savior. No repentance, no salvation.

Okay, so everyone says I need to put down the books and do good works, now you say no good works…But your whole argument has missed the point. I would rather be a pelagian than your brand of Jansenist Calvinism. That negative view of humanity is a great reason why the Church has nearly completely collapsed in Quebec and the rest of the western world.

Georgeaquinas wrote

My answer to your crisis is simple: the people you are reading who are drawing you away from the Faith are wrong.

Let’s look at the books I read over the year:

Marie-Dominique Chenu’s “Aquinas and His Role in Theology”
Jacques Maritain’s “Introduction to Philosophy”
Stanly Jaki’s “The Savior of Science”
Chesterton’s “Autobiography”
Etienne Gilson’s “The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy”
Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy” and “Heretics”
“Do We Agree?” Chesterton and Shaw
“Is the Catholic Church Anti-Social?” Lunn and Coulton
Jacques Maritain’s “Aquinas: Angel of the Schools”
Josef Pieper’s “Aquinas”
Frederick Copleston’s “Aquinas”
Evelyn Waugh’s “Edmund Campion”
Chesterton’s “The Thing”
Vincent Brome’s “Six Studies in Quarrelling”
Theodor Klauser’s “A Short History of the Western Liturgy”
Lawrence Boadt’s “Reading the Old Testament”

And now I am reading Chenu’s “Nature, Man and Society in the 12th Century”

I fail to see how these books could be harmful to the faith unless there is something fundamentally wrong with Catholicism itself. I have no problem saying “no” to much of modern philosophy; however, I will not be a hypocrite and therefor I must apply the same critical approach to Catholic philosophy.

You are right about the faith crisis though. Not only do I find myself without the faith I used to have; but I have come to a position where I cannot honestly say I even think faith is a good thing. Faith is a delusion, a very useful delusion but a delusion nonetheless.

SteveG wrote:

think instead you need to be challenged on some of your frankly silly assumptions and statements.

Oh I always love a challenge…in the next post.

 

[Pace]

amarischuk:

 

[Pace]

amarischuk:

Oh I always love a challenge…

Then watch “Mulholland Drive” (at top volume) and tell us all what you saw.

Also: Have you read Dostoevsky’s “Notes from Underground”?

 

[Sherlock]

Thank you, thank you, SteveG,

I haven’t had the time to respond to amarischuk’s post, but you’ve done an excellent job of saying just about everything I would have said.

Amarischuk, you wrote: “I thought the sacraments were meant to give grace, but there is absolutely no evidence for this.”

What sort of eveidence are you looking for? A chemical change in the person affected that can be measured by some clever instrument? I don’t think you will have to search very far before finding Catholics who will tell you that grace was imparted to them by a sacrament or sacraments. Although this is merely anecdotal, I can assure you that I myself experienced a tremendous outpouring of grace some years back during the sacrament of confession, and that experience of sacramental grace made a significant difference in how I live my life.

You clearly fancy yourself an intellectual, but frankly I’m not impressed: I’ve never known a truly wise person who was terribly keen on making sure others were apprised of it. Somehow, humility and wisdom go hand and hand…

Let me guess: you’re young and not married. Your attitude is strikingly similar to others I’ve come across who have also prided themselves on their intellectual capabilities and have expressed that pride in similar fashion. In these cases the combination of youth, the unmarried state, and genuine intellectual gifts can produce an attitude, an attitude that thankfully breaks down rather quickly when the self-absorption of youth matures and the married state chips away at the silly notions one has fashioned about oneself.

So there’s hope for you yet…in the meantime, check out Rand’s Objectivism. It’s shallow and selfish and not based on real human beings, but I have found that self-styled intellectuals just eat up that stuff…

Sherlock

 

[SteveG]

amarischuk:

SteveG wrote:
Oh I always love a challenge…in the next post.

I assure you, I am not intimidated in the least. Since I have lots of responsibility (a wife, kids and a full-time++ job), I may often be slow in responding, but I’ll stick with it as best as time permits. From all I have seen, I feel very good about my prospects of holding my own.

 

[georgeaquinas]

Adam

Thank you for your response. I did notice that many of the books you are reading are books about books or books** about** someone’s thoughts and theories. As an editorial aside, this is the problem with much of modern philosophy—no one thinks, they just spit up partially digested theories (no, this is not directed at you).

I also noticed that the Bible was not on your list, nor much of anything of a spiritual bent. You may read the Bible everyday, but that fact that you don’t list it is telling.

Perhaps you are are merely thirsty from reading the dust of academia?

Here is a suggested reading list (this is meant in seriousness):

• The Bible-perferably one with little or no footnotes and no commentary, just text.
• The Quest for the Holy Grail- the Penguin classics edition–to really understand the pious mindset of the middle ages.
• Leaf by Niggle-by Tolkien. To help put things in prespective.
• The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe- by Lewis. Because you are thinking way too much.
• The Consolation of Philosphy-by Boethius. Because anyone who can mix poetry and philosophy should be read.
• Dante or Milton-Your choice.
• Maybe a biography of St. Thomas Moore—to remember the cost of Faith.

Then submit a twelve page paper comparing and contrasting (with footnotes)!

Seriously, you are going down this path because you want to go down this path.

Faith is not lost, it is given up.

 

[georgeaquinas]

amarischuk:

however, I will not be a hypocrite and therefor I must apply the same critical approach to Catholic philosophy.

Forgive the double post but the question begs to be asked…

what exactly is your critical approach to philosophy?

By the way I envy you living in B.C. I am originally from Washington State and know how beautiul it is where you live.

Tim

 

[amarischuk]

SteveG, I could care less about your boasting of being able to hold your own. It is my experience from debates that both parties almost always leave believing that they won regardless of the actual outcome.

But perhaps I should begin with a definition of “conservative” Catholic as to your request. For simplicity I will simply borrow the term “orthodox” from the “orthodox or liberal” thread and exchange the word “conservative”: “orthodox: assent to the Church’s moral and doctrinal teachings, don’t use contraceptives, attend Mass weekly, don’t support women, gay, or married priests, agree with Catholic Answers voter’s guide, pray and go to confession regularly…” http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=3373

I hope this definition is satisfactory.

And on to the Abraham and Isaac passage. I would say that I have presented my reading (which is informed by the readings of Lawrence Boadt, Raymond Brown and Donald Senior) and I still find the passage disturbing. The faith that is presented in the passage is pure blind obedience…and from an anthropological perspective it has a very clear message to the Jews of the time, regardless of whether the events in the passage actually ever occurred. The message of faith is the same faith that caused certain Muslim “brothers in faith” to insert airplanes into New York buildings. Not only this, but Aquinas himself trips over this passage. Aquinas advances a Natural Law theory of morality while the passage only lends itself to divine command theory. For Aquinas it is never permissible to murder the innocent (natural law), yet here God is commanding Isaac to murder his innocent son. Kierkegaard uses this for his teleological suspension of the ethical (in Fear and Trembling) but I have a difficult time differentiating between the man of faith and an insane man…how can you suspend the ethical? Aquinas’ answer however, is not consistent with the rest of his theology as Professor Joe Hartel indicated to me. Here is Aquinas’ passage http://www.newadvent.org/summa/306406.htm

Unfortunately, even Walter Farrell skips over this important point in his Companion to the Summa (Vol. III, p. 191) and Etienne Gilson ignores the passage, both in Le Thomism and in the Christian Philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

My reading of the passage might be narrow and heterodox to you, but that is the state of scholarship in the Catholic Church. As for context, I have read Boadt, Brown and Senior; which I would suggest to you. Simply throwing out names like Hahn and hoping one sticks is not scholarship. If you are such an expert on Hahn, please at least have the courtesy to help me find a relevant text from his voluminous works.

As for mortal sin, I am well aware of the three criteria: full consent, grave nature, knowledge of the grave nature. Invincible ignorance is another thing and St. Paul takes such persistent ignorance as a sign of reprobation, not as a sign of invisible ignorance. But it was Fatima I was referencing along with the debate between G.G. Coulton and Arnold Lunn (Is the Catholic Church Anti-Social?). I would suggest you read the debate book, Mr. Keating does have a selection in his excellent book “Controversies”.

As to Baptism (let’s throw in ordination too, because both supposedly affect an ontological change in the person) the old theology is quickly passing away. Infant baptism is no longer necessary for salvation, despite Aquinas’ statements that the non baptized cannot enjoy the beatific vision. Baptism, confirmation and ordination share the characteristic of being sacrament without theologies as Bausch, Noll, Osborne, Cooke and even Cardinal Dulles indicate. Cardinal Dulles even goes as far as rejecting both the sacral and the ministerial models of the priesthood (presbyters=elders, not hierous or sacredos in both the Bible and VII documents)…

 

[amarischuk]

But I am curious about the repeated questioning of whether I am married. Since I have repeatedly stated that I left the seminary just a month ago, I suppose I made a leap of faith in either your reading ability or deductive abilities. I am not married, but I wonder if you would question the advice the Pope would give you given his marital status. Seeing that not only was he never married but he was raised with almost no exposure to married life (I have read both Weigel and Kwitny’s biographies).

As concerns dualism, I am glad to hear you are familiar with the Hebrew concept ruah. However, especially concerning the writings of St. Paul, there is a spirit/body dualism in the Bible. Not only that but Etienne Gilson and Frederick Copleston both note that Aquinas’ teaching of the soul as the substantial form of the body leaves Aquinas (in Aristotle’s footsteps) with the problem of loosing the immortality of the soul. For Augustine’s Platonist dualism this problem was not present; however, with the death of the corporeal body comes the death of the soul given the nature of the relationship between matter and form for Aquinas. Aquinas tries to salvage the immortality of the soul by noting an obscure reference in Aristotle which notes the immortality of the intellect (though for Aristotle the intellect is non-personal). Unfortunately, modern science no longer attributes most of the functioning of the mind to the soul, but merely the physical brain. All in all, Aquinas’ argument for the immortality of the soul is weak and relies on outdated science; though his understanding of the unity of the human being is fabulous and more consistent with the Hebrew than Augustine.

But getting back to that unmarried man the pope and theology of the body, isn’t it strange that Paul VI bases his argument against contraception on natural law, but the natural law arguments have admittedly failed (even according to Jacques Maritain) so John Paul II invents a whole new series of arguments, and with propagators like Christopher West, who needs real Catholic scholarship? Or better yet, Germain Grisez invents a whole new ethical philosophy to accommodate for the miss-match of Catholic teachings. Much like the sacraments mentioned before, what we have with the case of contraception is a teaching struggling to find a justification.

Would you care to discuss any of these points in more depth?

Pax et bonum,

Adam Marischuk

 

[amarischuk]

Georgeaquinas,

Firstly, I would like to agree with you. I do love the Okanagan, especially since I live near Okanagan lake and can take my sailboat out or go scubadiving with my brothers. I cannot think of a nicer place to live, and I have done my share of traveling.

Your comment that the books I have read are books about books or ideas is a little off and a little odd. I would say that every book is about thoughts and theories, but the books I have been reading are mostly biographies (4 about Aquinas alone). If I were you, I would pick up Evelyn Waugh’s biography of Edmund Campion. A fantastic book about the Jesuit Saint/Martyr by one of the English literary converts. The books I listed however have nothing to do with modern philosophy and prior to VII many of them were Thomistic textbooks.

And thank you for the reading suggestions; however, I would prefer to watch Monty Python’s Quest for the Holy Grail than read the book. Actually, I did my BA with a major in Medieval History and minors in Philosophy and Medieval Literature. I have read sections from Boethius’ consolations, along with Dante’s Divine Comedy, Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, Troilus and Creseyde, Langman’s Piers Plowman, Mallery’s Le Morte DArthur, Beowulf, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight etc. But yuk, Milton’s Paradise Lost? You realise that that is an anti-Catholic piece of literature…and was placed on the index…but St. Thomas More had no better luck (I have read both Utopia and Roper’s life of More). I do enjoy Tolkien though, only having had read the Hobit and Lord of the Rings. I recently bought the Name of the Rose and hope to do some lighter reading soon.

The reason the Bible was not on the list, much like Walter Farrell’s Companion to the Summa or Charles Herbermann’s Catholic Encyclopedia or Rahner’s Sacramentum Mundi, or the CCC etc. is that I only listed books I read cover-to-cover. Nor did I list books I read for class. I have not, nor will I likely ever, read the Bible cover to cover: that is a protestant thing to do.

As for

Faith is not lost, it is given up.

You are quite right. But still I have not heard a good definition of faith which is meaningful. I am gradually taking the position of Edward O Wilson towards faith, it is a beneficial delusion in that it aids the survival of our species. Wilson was a guest speaker at the 1986 (1987?) Science and Religion pavillion organized by the USCCB and the Bishops published a book (which I found, but cannot find any more copies) of the proceedings.

 

[SteveG]

amarischuk:

SteveG, I could care less about your boasting of being able to hold your own. It is my experience from debates that both parties almost always leave believing that they won regardless of the actual outcome

True enough. And while it surely came across as such, I actually didn’t intend to boast. Rather I was pre-addressing comments such as this…

amarischuk:

Would you care to discuss any of these points in more depth?

…After two posts worth of information, which in both tone and content, make it is obvious that you think that someone engaged in dialogue with someone of your intellectual caliber, surely will be cowed, or emberassed into not responding.

Since you’ve thrown out a quite a bit of information on various topics, it will take some time to to go through your posts and even make an attempt at an intelligent response. I’ll likely do it in pieces.

Finally, something I remembered (after my post unfortunately). I am not at all interested in ‘winning’ a debate with you. Sometimes dialogue and debate are enjoyable and one get’s wrapped up in them. But in truth, I hope that at some point in your journey you will regain your faith, and for what it’s worth, I will pray for such. My apologies for forgetting the purpose here, and forgetting my own humility. Surely I won’t convince you as you rightly indicate how such ‘debates’ usually turn out. Nonetheless, much of what you said deserves to be answered. For my part, I’ll turn down the ‘volume’ and do my best to do so. Apologies for starting on the wrong foot.

 

[SteveG]

amarischuk:

But perhaps I should begin with a definition of “conservative” Catholic as to your request. For simplicity I will simply borrow the term “orthodox” from the “orthodox or liberal” thread and exchange the word “conservative”: “orthodox: assent to the Church’s moral and doctrinal teachings, don’t use contraceptives, attend Mass weekly, don’t support women, gay, or married priests, agree with Catholic Answers voter’s guide, pray and go to confession regularly…” http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=3373
I hope this definition is satisfactory.

I think it’s a fair definition of the externals. But as I said, my issue was that the behavior you attributed to those you were calling conservative looked little or nothing like the conservative Catholics I know, it seemed out of kilter. In any event, that’s a matter on both our parts of our subjective experience, so I’ll suggest we put this one aside.

 

[Hananiah]

amarischuk:

Not only this, but Aquinas himself trips over this passage. Aquinas advances a Natural Law theory of morality while the passage only lends itself to divine command theory. For Aquinas it is never permissible to murder the innocent (natural law), yet here God is commanding Isaac to murder his innocent son.

Abraham figured that God would raise Isaac from the dead. He knew that God was good and that God could not command evil, and so he trusted in His integrity. Even though it appeared to Abraham that God was commanding murder, Abraham had faith in God so he knew that this could not be the case. And it wasn’t.

As to Baptism (let’s throw in ordination too, because both supposedly affect an ontological change in the person) the old theology is quickly passing away. Infant baptism is no longer necessary for salvation, despite Aquinas’ statements that the non baptized cannot enjoy the beatific vision. Baptism, confirmation and ordination share the characteristic of being sacrament without theologies as Bausch, Noll, Osborne, Cooke and even Cardinal Dulles indicate. Cardinal Dulles even goes as far as rejecting both the sacral and the ministerial models of the priesthood (presbyters=elders, not hierous or sacredos in both the Bible and VII documents)…

It’s improper to say that the old theology is passing away just because it is not taught at your seminary. Seminaries which do teach the old theology (FSSP, SSPX, etc.) are thriving whereas seminaries that don’t are closing fairly frequently.

 

[SteveG]

amarischuk:

And on to the Abraham and Isaac passage. I would say that I have presented my reading (which is informed by the readings of Lawrence Boadt, Raymond Brown and Donald Senior) and I still find the passage disturbing. The faith that is presented in the passage is pure blind obedience…and from an anthropological perspective it has a very clear message to the Jews of the time, regardless of whether the events in the passage actually ever occurred…how can you suspend the ethical? Aquinas’ answer however, is not consistent with the rest of his theology as Professor Joe Hartel indicated to me. Here is Aquinas’ passage newadvent.org/summa/306406.htm

My reading of the passage might be narrow and heterodox to you, but that is the state of scholarship in the Catholic Church. As for context, I have read Boadt, Brown and Senior; which I would suggest to you. Simply throwing out names like Hahn and hoping one sticks is not scholarship. If you are such an expert on Hahn, please at least have the courtesy to help me find a relevant text from his voluminous works.

For YOU to accuse me of name dropping is nothing short of ironic. I wasn’t at all trying to get one to ‘stick’. My suggestion was only that. A suggestion that you might want to expose yourself to someone who has a different perspective than you have seen elsewhere. It is was in relation to biblical interpretation overall, not specifically to the ‘killing of an innocent’ issue you raise here (I don’t know that Dr. Hahn has even written on that). Further, did I proclaim to be an expert on Hahn? Not that I recall. And I suppose it’s fine that you can refer me to Boadt, Brown & Senior, as above without ‘helping me find the relevant text from their voluminous works’, but I have to do more for you?

With regard to Abraham and Isaac, I read the link you provided and can understand why you’d be unsatisfied. I’ll be honest and say I’ve not read Boadt, Brown, or Senior, but I’ll give you the fundamentals of what I HAVE read and understood this episode to mean.

You’ve said several times now that you read this episode as blind obedience by Abraham. As if Abraham, almost automoton like, marched to Moriah without a word or thought to carry out his dasterdly deed. What you are actually missing is the larger context of the entire episode, and even more importantly the larger context of Abraham’s dealings with God throughout their prior relationship.

First, Let’s talk about the context of the specific episode itself. In the story of the “Binding of Isaac” the narrator selects only the details needed to make his point. The passage is so focused on the determined commitment of Abraham and his absolute confidence that he would NOT lose his divinely given son Isaac, that the background details are stripped out of the bare events to drive this point home. There is virtually NO dialogue or background given in the passage, which is highly unusual.

In earlier encounters with God, Abraham is certainly vocal in his ‘pushbacks’ to God. In Genesis 15.2-3, he raised an objection to God’s promise; in 15.8, he raised a doubt; in 17.17f, he doubts and tries to ‘steer’ God’s blessings; and in 18.23-33, he argued with God on the basis of God’s character

• Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing – to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?*

Abraham had heretofore not exhibited blind obedience you accuse him of. Based on all their previous dealing, It is nearly untenable to believe that he didn’t argue with God THIS TIME, and again on the basis of God’s character. But the narrator of the story doesn’t tell us about this. Abraham, Issac, and two servants travel for several days and the text only records one spoken comment. Granted, Abraham may have been lost in his thoughts about the coming challenge, but chances are slim that no other words were spoken on that journey.
Abraham MAY have been guilty of the blind obedience you accuse him of, but it goes against everything we know of him outside this episode. The passages silence in this is not proof that he ‘blindly’ accepted the command as you suggest.

Even if he didn’t do so blindly, you might say, he was still willing to kill his innocent son. How could he do this?

…CONTINUED…

 

[SteveG]

This is where it’s important to bring in overall context of Abraham’s previous dealings with God as well. First, we have to remember that ALL of this takes place within the context of the promise God made that He would bless the world through Isaac. How was this to happen if Isaac was dead? Do you suppose this fact escaped Abraham? The faith Abraham relied on was not blind by any measure. It was faith based on trust built up via the dealings he had with God prior to this. This was a RELATIONSHIP between God and Abraham, and Abraham’s faith would have been formed by the promises kept and made (notably, the seemingly impossible fact that God had given and old man and old woman a son). The faith Abraham had was built on trust. Faith that despite what he was apparently being asked to do, he could trust (based on their previous dealings, he had no reason not to) that God would somehow keep his prior promise to bless him through Isaac.

Contrary to what you assert, THIS is, of course, the main point of the story. Both subsequent Jewish and Christian traditions drew from this lesson. In Hebrews 11.17-19 we see the Judeo-Christian focus on the faith of Abraham…

• By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 19 Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death. *

…Abraham saw an apparent contradiction: (1) God said to sacrifice (kill) Isaac and (2) God said Isaac will have many descendants. Abraham drew an obvious conclusion, either God will raise Isaac back to life, or he will spare him (as was done). This is not a novel interpretation. This is not a ‘trick’ to get around the moral dilemma. It’s the earlist Christian understanding as explained in the quote I cite above.

The Jewish-Christian tradition in Hebrews keyed in on Abraham’s faith, as did the book of James. The confidence of Abraham that Isaac would be spared, or raised from the dead IMMEDIATELY was clear in his words to the servants in vs. 5: He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. WE will worship and then WE will come back to you.” Abraham clearly expected God to either (1) stop him; or (2) revive Isaac within a matter of minutes or hours.

Another point to consider is the willingness of Isaac. Although the biblical narrative is silent about Isaac’s response, that he had to cooperate with Abraham seems rather obvious. Firstly, he is strong enough to carry on his back enough wood to burn his entire body up a mountain. He is old enough to know the procedure for burnt offerings. There is no question but that Isaac was of sufficient strength to resist his elderly father in both the binding and the reclining on the wood. Abraham must have either (1) explained his logic to him (either God will stop me at the last minute and provide the ram, OR God HAS to raise you from the dead quickly) or (2) asked him to trust God–like HE was having to do!–that all would turn out well for both of them.

Subsequent generations of the faithful looked to this event as a ‘challenge point’ by which to gauge our commitment to Him. Are we loyal and do we trust the Lord of Love to ‘make it right in the end’? Have we, like Abraham, experienced enough or seen enough of His faithfulness, kindness, grace to not doubt Him in moments of ambiguity and confusion?

The episode, when taken in full and in context, simply need not create such tension for you as it seems to have done.

 

[SteveG]

amarischuk:

As to Baptism (let’s throw in ordination too, because both supposedly affect an ontological change in the person) the old theology is quickly passing away. Infant baptism is no longer necessary for salvation, despite Aquinas’ statements that the non baptized cannot enjoy the beatific vision. Baptism, confirmation and ordination share the characteristic of being sacrament without theologies as Bausch, Noll, Osborne, Cooke and even Cardinal Dulles indicate. Cardinal Dulles even goes as far as rejecting both the sacral and the ministerial models of the priesthood (presbyters=elders, not hierous or sacredos in both the Bible and VII documents)…

This is far too compressed and vague to work with. “The old theology is quickly passing away” is an absurd statement. How do you measure that? By the Catechism? You mention some geezer theologians, but don’t quote them. (I’m curious to know whether you mean Young Dulles or Old Dulles.) You seem unaware of the work of Schonborn, Ratzinger, Driscoll and at least a hundred others who are writing on the sacraments in the same vein (whose bloodline is what you call the old theology). As for baptism, the doctrine has not changed. Aquinas, as well as his predecessors and contemporary successors, taught that we can be saved by our desire or by our blood in martyrdom, but these too are baptismal graces. You probably need to read more of the “old theology” than what appeared in the most basic manuals.

 

[SteveG]

amarischuk:

But I am curious about the repeated questioning of whether I am married. Since I have repeatedly stated that I left the seminary just a month ago, I suppose I made a leap of faith in either your reading ability or deductive abilities. I am not married, but I wonder if you would question the advice the Pope would give you given his marital status. Seeing that not only was he never married but he was raised with almost no exposure to married life (I have read both Weigel and Kwitny’s biographies).

Sorry, I didn’t catch that your departure was that recent. There are a lot of posts in this thread with a lot of info, and we can’t be expected to catch every single detail. In any event, to draw a parrellel to the pope experience is not a good idea. Firstly, I have read that in fact his exposure to married life was quite extensive. He formed his Theology of the Body based in part on extensive dealings and friendships he had with faithful, married Catholics living in Poland during his time as both priest and Bishop. Further, he lived through labor camps in WWII, was ordained a priest when doing so could have cost him his life, experienced the death of his mother at a very young age, lived through communist domination while participating in the fight against it, was part of VII, has been pope for roughly 25 years, has been shot and survived, etc., etc., etc., etc. Your right to say that an unmarried person can give advice on such things. And when you can claim the life and experience JPII has, a lot more people will take what you say more seriously.

amarischuk:

Much like the sacraments mentioned before, what we have with the case of contraception is a teaching struggling to find a justification.

You’d have to explain how the Natural Law arguments have failed? You throw out a lot of vague comments like that out without a bit of evidence or argument. And what exactly is wrong with Christoper West? I guess since he agrees with JPII on this, and you don’t he is automatically ‘not a realy scholar’. Again, you comments are so vague as to have lost meaning.

And as for contraception being a teaching struggling to find justification. The slow death of Europe (due to abysmal birth rates), the breakdown of sexual mores which conincided with acceptence of contraception, and the linkage (even by our supreme court) to abortion as 'back up contraception (thanks Sandra Day O’Conner), are making the case nicely for the justification of the teaching. Again if you have something real or specific to say here, then say it, and leave the sweeping judgements aside.

OK, that’s it for now.

 

[georgeaquinas]

Adam,

You appear to agree with me in saying that faith is discarded, not lost. Obviously, this implies a volition on the part of the subject.

We still haven’t heard from you in regards to the root of the criticism that you are making.

By this I mean you have not answered my question about what type of constructive (or deconsturcitve, if that is your bent) criticism it is that you are bringing to bear on the Church.

Where exactly are you coming from? Are you making a Platonic criticism, Hegelian criticism, Kantian, a modernist criticism, existential, phenomenological, etc, etc.

I know you acknowledge the importance of definitions, so what is it—what are are the basic premises that you use to bring criticism to the Chruch?

I think once we have that we can begin to have a fruitful discussion.

 

[amarischuk]

Pardon my late reply, I am nearly finished it. However, I will be away until Sunday (I am going hicking in Manning park).

I should be able to post then.

Adam Marischuk