Apologetics-low level scholarship

[shopkeeper]

Adam, I’m really glad you’re here. I hope you don’t leave; together we’re bound to help, as there are many good people here.

I’m also a former seminarian with a very strong penchant for matters intellectual (four degrees and counting, from four universities). I’ve read a good portion of this thread—but not all, as it’s rather long. Pardon me if I duplicate anything here. I’ll be succinct at the risk of being blunt, which I don’t want to be at all whatsoever.

My short answer: Find a holy priest experienced in spiritual direction, preferably one with a strong intellectual background so the bridge between faith and reason is not ignored. (Ask around to find him. If not, let me know. I’ll try to help.) You must deepen your experience of Christ, experience him as a person, a true friend. This profound, quasi-mystical experience that we’re all meant to have changes everything; it renews and vivifies our perspective on everything, something very difficult to explain except with perhaps a hundred exclamation points? With such an experience, our restless heart can start resting in Christ, to paraphrase St. Augustine.

The road to Christ is truly narrow, as Our Lord himself warns, so we must have someone experienced leading us. On this road we have to beg Christ incessantly to enlighten us and strengthen us. (Seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened to you… Christ really means these words.) But an experienced spiritual director is indispensable throughout our life. I’ve been out of the seminary for just over eight years, and I know I need consistent direction to deepen my love affair with God and my charity towards my fellow man.

My experience of Christ is everything to me. Before this experience—mind you, I didn’t experience Christ profoundly in the excellent seminary I attended—I can’t say I really had found my faith, except intellectually, which isn’t bad at all, just not enough, far from enough… *theoretical, not life-changing. If Christ isn’t changing us, changing our hearts, effecting his redemptive restoration of our fallen self/nature, if we don’t sense this reality in our lives, we truly need a spiritual director who will lead us there. * And we mustn’t fear the cross along this journey.

Adam, I hope I haven’t missed the mark. I assure you of my prayers. Pax Christi.

 

[SteveG]

amarischuk:

A great deal of your “contextualizing” to make Abraham more sympathetic has missed the point. Whether Abraham performed the task happily or hesitantly with “Fear and Trembling” (from which Kierkegaard derives the title of his book on the subject) is irrelevant. Surely Abraham’s hesitation to execute Isaac would reduce his own culpability; however, the objective disorder of killing the innocent remains. The problem I have with the passage is the demand of God and the valuation of the faith of Abraham.

Let me start off by saying that you have me at a great disadvantage here. As I mentioned, I have a full-time++ job, and a family. It’s simply impossible for me to address you in the detail you deserve. I say this not as a criticism, but you continue to expand the scope of this discussion to areas that while I am well acquainted with, I simply lack the time to delve into as you have. Your occupation on your profiles says ‘student’, and from your previous posts it is clear to me that you have quite a bit more free time on your hands than I. I write this not as a cop out, but only as a request that you not take the absence of addressing certain points you raise as either ignorance, disinterest, unfamiliarity, or inability to address them. I simply must choose what I respond to carefully as I’ll end up with a wife wringing my neck for forum addiction if I do spend as much time as is needed to tackle everything. I hope you can respect and understand that.

OK, back to it…

But now you have moved the target, and I believe I anticipated that. You originally stated that your problem was the ‘Pure blind obedience’ of Abraham. Let us look at this purely as a story for a moment, and at least admit, that in the context of the ‘story of Abraham’, that the faith was built on the trust built up through the relationship, and that this was not ‘blind’ obedience as you originally suggested.

So the criticism you level now is that he was willing to take the life of an innocent at all, rather than that he did it out of blind obedience (which WAS your original objection). Obviously this is a fair issue to raise. I just wanted to clear that you have already changed the criticism somewhat.

In any event, this ‘killing of the innocent’ still needs to be addressed.

amarischuk:

Sadly, there is a marked shift in the text at that point which negates your comment about the both of them returning. You will hopefully recall that the Pentateuch is a composition of four sources, the Yahwist, the Elohist, Priestly and Deuteronomic.

 

[SteveG]

Yes I am aware of the JEPD theory, and that it is the prevailing wisdom at present. But without going into that, let me again ask you to look at this simply as ‘story’ and suggest that dismissing the story as it has come to us because of the aforementioned shift misses the point. If one has faith, then I can accept that regardless of who and when the story was written, this is how the story was intended to come to us, and that’s the parameters within which a someone of faith need read it. This statement is also not meant to imply blind faith, or circular logic. Much more goes into coming to that point than I can go into here. The bottom line here is that if we read the story as it is, it does indeed imply that Abraham expected Isaac to return with him. It seems you want to not allow Abraham to explain himself and use the dissection you mention (the shift), to avoid the obvious explanation

Further, you have put the burden on me to justify Abraham’s actions. Let me ask you to explain the actions under the following parameters. We have a trusting relationship between Abraham and God (which indeed has been built up via the many promises God has made and kept to Abraham (many seemingly impossible). And as I indicated earlier, Abraham is now faced with a contradiction…

God has promised to bless me through Isaac. I know God’s promise is good (otherwise I wouldn’t have Isaac). Now God asks me to sacrifice Isaac. How can this be? I am not sure, but I know God’s promise is not void. I will trust that Isaac will come to know harm despite the ambiguity here.

… If you further remove the possibility of resurrection (as you suggest), what choices are now available. It now comes down to Abraham trusting that in the end he will not have to harm Isaac. There are no other alternatives. We’ve already ruled out blind obedience, and bodily resurrection. How else cans one explain his willingness to ‘go ahead with it’? Anything other than the ‘sparing’ scenario seems illogical.

amarischuk:

But whether Abraham thought God was a liar, or could change his mind or a tyrant who demands Isaac’s death only then to raise him immediately hardly helps your argument. My argument is that the God presented in the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament is not a pleasant God but one demanding blind obedience.

 

[SteveG]

This is just simply wrong. It is NOT blind obedience. It is always obedience couched in the terms of what has been done previously. It’s always a test to trust in someone who has blessed you, delivered on his prior promises, etc. It’s almost always about ‘Trust me, based on what I have already shown you.’ This is most definitely not blind obedience. This is the obedience any son gives a good father. It’s giving the benefit of the doubt that even though what your saying may not be clear to me, you’ve not steered me wrong in the past, thus I will trust you. To not see this is to miss the whole point of both OT and NT alike.

amarischuk:

Okay, firstly let us look at the sacramental statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God.” newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XI

Yet in the same article it says…
[Editor’s note: On this subject, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.”]

…and…
In general, we may state that the Church claims no authority over unbaptized persons, as they are entirely without her pale. She makes laws concerning them only in so far as they hold relations with the subjects of the Church.

…and further we would need to bring in the issue of invincible ignorance if we were to address this fully.

amarischuk:

Yet now the CCC 1261 states: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God”.

Firstly, you chopped out the rest of the CCC statement which says…
Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allows us to HOPE that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.
…HOPE. How does hoping for such either stating that baptism is no longer necessary, or contradicting what came before?

 

[SteveG]

amarischuk:

Their books are:
Raymond Noll:
Keenan Osborne:
Bernard Cooke:
William Bausch:

That’s unfortunate that you are only reading those who are confirming your doubts. What does this prove? That there are some scholars and theologians who think this way? Certainly, and there are plenty who don’t, and think and write in the ‘old’ way without being radical traditionalists. But you give yourself away in the next line….

amarischuk:

And I have heard of Archbishop Schonborn and Ratzinger (in fact, the young Ratzinger has some articles in Karl Rahner’s Sacramentum Mundi…but as Kung said, sold his head for a red hat).

So when someone like Kung makes such a vicious, spiteful comment about Cardinal Ratzinger, you repeat it at face value. That’s actually quite disgusting. It seems as though you’re caught in a trap. Anyone who confirms your doubts, fears and suspicions is a worthy scholar and deserves your study. But those who argue a different position are defective, anti modernists who were bought off. I’ll suggest what I did earlier. I think you need to expand you selection and read some of the modern readers addressing the same issues from the ‘old theology’ perspective. I am not sure where to go with this, as I am not impressed with the authors you list above (I consider several of them nothing short of heritical), and you are not impressed with the ones I mention. I too have Jurgens ‘Faith of the …’, many writings of Aquinas, Newman, have read tons of papal encyclicals, etc., etc., etc., etc. but come to the opposite conclusions.

 

[SteveG]

amarischuk:

So you concede the point.

Yes, in principle, though I’ve not yeard heard the wisdom from you on these matters (in particulare contraception) that I have from the pope. That’s not meant to be insulting or a personal attack.

My own experience is one of having lived a purely secular life for most of my life and partaking of contraception and a secular sexual morality, and then having converted to the faith and practice the church’s sexual ethic. The fruits of both periods line up with the Church’s teaching and the Pope’s theology of the body, rather than with your’s

 

[SteveG]

amarischuk:

Well, I think that all I would need to do to show that Natural Law theories concerning contraception (those espoused in Humane Vitae) are not satisfactory would be to quote the most eminent and conservative Catholic philosopher of the 20th century, the late Jacques Maritain:
articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_10_128/ai_75445694

Firstly, I see nowhere in this quote where this cast doubt on the natural law arguments. In addition, I read the article provided, and frankly he shows such stupidity in writing on this subject as to render him useless on the topic.

The key point he falters on is this…

• One may very well ask if technical progress will not eventually find a solution to the great moral problem of birth control, by giving man the means to avoid procreation without altering the act of intercourse in its very exercise in order to turn it away from its proper end.*

…In speaking of the possibility of a pill which will someday render a couple sterile for a time. Just becuase there is no latex involved does not mean that the act of intercourse has not been altered. Altering a woman’s body chemistry to render her artificially infertile certainly does change the act (at least during the times she would have otherwise been fertile). To in any way compare the abstaining of an act in order to not become pregnant, with engaging in the activity with the express intent and knowledge of thwarting it’s natural end shows a lack of clear thinking on this. Avoiding the consequences of eating and entire chocolate cake by vomiting up the contents of your stomach after eating it, is NOT the same as foregoing the cake, or taking a small slice in a temparate manner. The two are manifestly not equivalent.

amarischuk:

As someone who has been involved in pro-life for a number of years, including getting into a published debate with the head of planned parenthood British Columbia while at University.

Thanks for your work in the pro-life area.

amarischuk:

I find those arguments ridiculously bad.

I wasn’t listing those as a comprehensive argument against contraception. The were just off-hand anectodatal comments to illustrate some areas where I think an argument certainly can be made. If you find them ridiculous, please explain why based on what I’ve explained below.

 

[SteveG]

amarischuk:

To blame contraception for the low birthrates is an invalid argument. Other nations with relatively high birthrates have just as much access to contraception.

Which countries are those, I’d be interested to know? In addition, I don’t think I implied that the mere existence or access to contraception is all it takes to bring birth rates down. But certainly the widespread USE of highly effective contraception has been the main factor leading to low birthrates in developed countries. I don’t blame contraception. I blame the contraceptive mentality that makes use of contraception. This mentality (the desire not to have children) may in fact have been present well before the advent of modern contraceptive, but it’s quite clear that use of those contraceptives has made the fulfillment of that desire real. How one can argue differently boggles the mind. What’s your explanation for the declining birth rates in the developed world?

amarischuk:

And the breakdown of sexual mores coinciding with the acceptance of contraception is just that a coincidence. To quote the Simpson’s “Did you know that there has been a direct correlation between the decline of ‘spirograph’ and the rise of urban gang activity? Think about it.” The same (weak) argument could be made against industrialization and higher education.

Sorry if I don’t take your word for it, but this is clearly more than coincidence. I understand that correlation doesn’t necessarily impy causation, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t. The main difference between this and your Simpson’s example is that there is no logical link between spirograph and gang activity; while clearly there is a logical linkage between contraception and sexual behavior. Let me illustrate a few different ways. Currently, my wife and I practice NFP. Our youngest right now is 1 year old and my wife is experience a post-partum transition from breastfeeding infertility to return of fertility. This period is often very ambigous and can last several months. Since we currently are planning on post-poning pregnancy. Now without contraceptives, our only choice is to abstain until she has clearer signs from which we can determine fertility. This means we can not engage in the activity until such time. IF we were to use contraceptives we would then eliminate the need for abstaining and could engage whenever we liked. It should be obvious enough that this does indeed effect sexual behavior.
…

 

[SteveG]

Now, let’s take it out of marriage and say we have two young people who are unmarried. Similarly, if contraceptives are not availble and not accepted by the couple, their only recourse to reliably avoid pregnancy is abstinance. If on the other hand contraceptives are widespread AND accepted, they need not abstain. Again, it’s obvious that sexual behavior is changed contraception (or rather the use of it). I could continue on with example after example, but it’s unecessary. I am not suggesting that contraception is SOLELY responsible for the moral decline, but how anyone can argue that it hasn’t significantly contributed by claiming to take the ‘danger’ of pregnancy away is beyond me.

You likely already know of Dr. Janet Smith. Just in case you don’t, I’d suggest reading the transcript of a talk she regularly give called ‘Contraception, Why Not?’
catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

amarischuk:

The only way that the pro-life movement will ever affect the legislative system is if it distances itself from such weak arguments and concentrates on the one important argument, the fact that the unborn foetus is indeed a individual human being deserving all the rights and protection of other persons under the constitution (or in Canada the charter of rights and freedoms). Arguments for sustainable birthrates are a two edged sword as the same arguments can be used in favor of abortion in over-populated regions.

I am not making such an argument here, and in general I agree with you that these arguments need not be made. In fact I see very few pro-life Catholics using such an argument. On the contrary my point was only to mention that our own Supreme Court in a 1992 decision made that linkage. I’ll let Justice O’Connor speak for herself…
(e) The Roe rule’s limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.
…It’s not we on the pro-life side who made this linkage, but the pro-abortion side have. Generally, we only bring it up in response to such arguments from the other side. For me anyway, I understand clearly that the two issues are distinct and separate moral issue.

 

[Salena]

The liberals are the ones who are hurting the Catholic Church…those who teach against the doctrine.

 

[SteveG]

OK, final post for a while. Two things.

First, I’d like to reformulate your original equations as I now understand it after moving through this thread…

Conservative scholarship = shallow scholarship → blind faith
Modern academia= ‘liberal’ deeper scholarschip → faith crisis

…I am not suggesting here that all of what you’ve studied and read is ‘liberal’ (for lack of a better term), but certainly for the most part, the modern theologians and scholars you’ve studied fall into that category. So you are looking at everything in the light of that modern liberal scholarship, and giving no creedance to the modern conservative scholarship, because in your estimation it is shallow (which really means you simply don’t agree with it). How do we prove which scholars/theologians are correct? This is why such debates break down.

Finally, I have seen you ask repeatedly for a ‘definition’ of faith that is satisfactory. You will not get one becuase faith for those us who have already struggled with it, and accepted it, is a lived experience that defies definition. How can I convey to you the utter transformation, redemption even, that has taken place in my life through living the faith? I can give you the details of my secular, sinful past, and the havoc they wreaked in my and others lives, then contrast that with the abundance of life and love I am now living in because of the faith that transformed my being. But what does that do? These are only words on a screen, and can’t touch the profoundity and groanings of thanksgiving in my very being. How can I ‘define’ that for you?

I suggested in a much earlier post that once you’ve been through that, one sees themself in scripture, and much that was unintelligable becomes clear. I am the leper who was healed, the blind man who can now see, Lazarus raised, etc. In fact in the story of Israel (the nation), I can see my own journey in so many ways. Abraham’s trust becomes understandable in this light becuase one has lived the experience of salvation history in themselves in some small form. This is the personal encounter that we are all talking about. This is the experience of faith which can not be put into words and defies ‘definition’ as you’d like. Until you experience it in this way, it will be unintelligable to you despite your studies (which I am in no way criticizing). Until this is the light in which you see everything, it will be undefinable. And once that does happen, no defintion will be needed.

 

[amarischuk]

Hello SteveG and thank you for the rapid reply. There is no need to excuse your absence, in fact you responded remarkably fast. Besides, your family responsibilies must come first. I on the other hand will be moving next week to live in my VW van while studying over the summer (I hope to return home for the weekends). Therefore I doubt I will be able to continue this conversation for long.

So the criticism you level now is that he was willing to take the life of an innocent at all, rather than that he did it out of blind obedience

To clarify, my intended criticism is that the faith required of Abraham and held up as THE model of faith is a faith which not only suspends reason (in a Kierkegaardian sense) but abandons reason almost entirely. This not only irration but seemingly anti-ration (or to borrow a phrase from Fr. Most, “hold on in the dark”) faith is not something I concider to be a positive attribute.

I still believe in God, but the message of this passage, along with others has lead me (along with my study of scripture) to really doubt the traditional view of inspiration.

As to Isaac returning, the issue is not really whether Abraham except Isaac to return or not, or how; but rather that Abraham willingly suspended his rational faculties and was willing to commit an objectively evil act ordered directly by God. In fact we see God ordering any number of objectively evil acts in the Old Testament which only further hightens my serious distrust of scripture. This blind faith in a seemingly juvenile and petty God is able to be explained by anthropology and I see no reason to believe in the inspiration of scripture given a traditional understanding of inspiration. Not only that but I also find much of scripture offensive, racist, disturbing, bigoted and anti-intellectual.

To see how this relates to the thread name is this: apologetics is the art of taken a given set on principles and building a defense of the faith (such as scripture); however, truly deep scholarship explores those underlying assumptions and evaluates the entire system from within and without.

 

[amarischuk]

Thank you for citing the rest of the CE article and proving my point. The fact is that the article, while citing the CCC notes:

allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism

This is clearly contrary to Aquinas’ teaching and previous theological views concerning the nature of baptism and grace. The old theology is slowly passing away, like it or not.

Just look at the two quotes again and see that in 1913, there was not even hope for the unbaptized. The Church ruled on the fate of those “outside her pale” then but backed away now, giving hope.

But this is just one example. Like I mentioned earlier, the theology of the priesthood has changed as well, such as even in VII documents which prefer the greek presbyter (elder) over the Latin sacrados/English priest in an attempt to curtail the sacredotal model of the priesthood.

Anyone who confirms your doubts, fears and suspicions is a worthy scholar and deserves your study

And yet you essentially say:

Aquinas, Kierkegaard and Most are “narrow”
Cooke, Noll, Osborne, Bausch are heretics
Maritain is “stupid”
And pretty much anyone who isn’t a reactionary ultramontanist is liberal.

Yes, Coke, Noll, Osborne and Bausch commited the unpardonable sin of including histories of the development of the sacraments in their books. Much like the trouble Louis Olivier Marie Duchesne recieved for his scholarship under Pius X.

The very fact that you called Maritain stupid is indication enough to me that you are not nearly half as well read in Catholic philosophy and theology as you claim. I doubt you have ever read anything by him prior to the link I provided.

But what amazes me most is that a nobody professor from a small university in Lublin, who couldn’t get his books published in a scholarly press or even translated into English until his elevation to the Papacy (1981) should suddenly be elevated above every other scholar on earth throughout time. It just makes me conclude that the excitement surrounding the book and his opinions has more to do with arguments from authority than actual scholarship. But Martin D’arcy noted the same thing about defenses of Aquinas being motivated more out of piety than scholarship in his book on Aquinas.

 

[amarischuk]

Which countries are those, I’d be interested to know? In addition, I don’t think I implied that the mere existence or access to contraception is all it takes to bring birth rates down. But certainly the widespread USE of highly effective contraception has been the main factor leading to low birthrates in developed countries.

Firstly, I should point out that nations like Pakistan and India which essentially have just as much access to contraceptives as western nations and European nations have rocketing birthrates (31.22/22.8 compared to Germany’s 8.45 or Romania’s 10.69). And even America has a birthrate of 14.13 cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

This mentality (the desire not to have children) may in fact have been present well before the advent of modern contraceptive, but it’s quite clear that use of those contraceptives has made the fulfillment of that desire real.

England had a dismally low birthrate prior to the invention of ‘modern’ contraception in the early 20th century. There is a serious flawl in the argument from birthrates as with or without contraception people seem to only have as many children as they want. One History professor suggest the link between birthrates and development has nothing to do with contraception (as we saw in England) but rather in alternatives in recreation as financial stability, higher education, and recreational alternatives become more prevalent.

But I am curious why you assume a low birthrate is a negative thing.

You likely already know of Dr. Janet Smith. Just in case you don’t, I’d suggest reading the transcript of a talk she regularly give called ‘Contraception, Why Not?’
catholiceducation.org/ar…ity/se0002.html

LOL: “Is there an impact of the loss of grace on marriages. And I think that the fact that 50% of marriages are ending in divorce, among Catholics as well as the rest of the population, suggests that there’s an impact of the loss of grace in this.”

I suppose Muslim marriages which have extremely low divorce rates yet use contraceptives somehow managed to have more grace than Catholic marriages. Earlier in the thread I noted that ‘grace’ provides no measurable change yet here is “Dr. Janet” saying there is as spouses who use contraceptives have higher divorce rates. There is a sociological explanation for this, no need to fall back on ‘grace’.

 

[amarischuk]

Finally, I have seen you ask repeatedly for a ‘definition’ of faith that is satisfactory. You will not get one becuase faith for those us who have already struggled with it, and accepted it, is a lived experience that defies definition.

I understand, but you have Jurgen’s books. Look in the index under faith and see that the early fathers tought faith was “intellectual assent” (p. 373 vol. 3 #552) not based on “rational evidence” (#557) but on the “authority of God revealing” (#558). Yet “reason is able to demonstrate the basis of faith” (#564). I am sorry but such “mysticism” and inexplicability is the refuge of those unable to account or even describe faith.

I am still wondering why God would put such a high value on a person’s intellectual assent to a series of unprovable propositions (to the point of salvation depending on it). Seems to me like God has some self-esteem issues and needs to be constantly reassured that he is God. But I cannot think of any greater anthropomorphism than that.

As Voltair said, “in the beginning God created man in His image, and ever since, man has been creating god in his.”

 

[SteveG]

amarischuk:

Hello SteveG and thank you for the rapid reply. There is no need to excuse your absence, in fact you responded remarkably fast. Besides, your family responsibilies must come first. I on the other hand will be moving next week to live in my VW van while studying over the summer (I hope to return home for the weekends). Therefore I doubt I will be able to continue this conversation for long.

No problem. I will try to keep you in pray and hope your summer is a fruitful one.

On Abraham, I think we must just agree to disagree. Not much more either of us can say here from what I can see.

 

[SteveG]

amarischuk:

And yet you essentially say:

Aquinas, Kierkegaard and Most are “narrow”
Cooke, Noll, Osborne, Bausch are heretics
Maritain is “stupid”
And pretty much anyone who isn’t a reactionary ultramontanist is liberal.

Yes, Coke, Noll, Osborne and Bausch commited the unpardonable sin of including histories of the development of the sacraments in their books. Much like the trouble Louis Olivier Marie Duchesne recieved for his scholarship under Pius X.

I’d like to clear up a few of statement you make above.

One. I defy you to show from any post I have made to this thread where I have ever said that Aquinas is narrow. With regard to Kierkegaard, my exposure to him is a brief reading in a college philosophy course of which I likely could recall little, as well as what I have seen ‘second hand’. So I make no judgement whatsoever of what he has written. If at any point I implied something that they held was narrow, it would have been limited to that topic only and would be a stretch for someone to think I meant to call either narrow in any broader sense.

With regard to Cooke, Noll, Osborne and Bausch two things. 1) After re-reading what I posted (but after the edit period expired), I recognized that was worded more strongly than I would have liked. I would have done better to say that from what I know of them (which in honesty is not extensive), some of their writings strike me as if not, at least bordering on heresy. I can admit when I have spoken wrongly and erred. Let me couch it even a bit more. IF what my very brief research of some of their writings indicated is true, then I would say that they held some heritical opinions, yet would dare not call them heretics themselves as I am emberassingly unqualified to do so. It’s what I get for rushing to get my responses posted.

With regard to Maritain. I think you again stretched what I said past what I intended. I make no judgement on Maritain as stupid. I will however stand by the statement that what he wrote in specific regarding contraception in the link provided was utter nonsense. I think it’s fair to say that even the most brilliant minds say some stupid things. Take my criticism of him in that vain, and in relation only to what he wrote in that article. It was meant to mean no more or less.

 

[SteveG]

amarischuk:

The very fact that you called Maritain stupid is indication enough to me that you are not nearly half as well read in Catholic philosophy and theology as you claim. I doubt you have ever read anything by him prior to the link I provided.

It does get a bit tiresome when you continue to place words or motives in my mouth that I never uttered. I am not so sure that I ever claimed exactly how well read I was. I know that you have laid your resume out several times, but I don’t believe I ever did. I have absolutely no problem admitting that your link was the first I have read of Maritain, and… that proves what? Is my criticism of his statement invalid because of that? For the record, I am just a laymen with a fairly decent IQ, a bachelor’s degree in business, and a Masters in Information Technology, a deep love of my faith, and a decent library that slants less towards theology and philosophy than towards authors such as Chesterton, Lewis, Hahn, Jurgens, Scripture study, lives of the saints, JPII, and lots of books geared towards growing in prayer and holiness, with a good bit of Aquinas, Pieper, Newman and the like thrown in. I have also read a fair amount regarding biblical scholarship. While I have not ‘studied’ many of the names you list, I am familiar with most of them and have come across their names in the course of my other personal readings. I list this lest anyone get the false impression that I am claiming to be something I am not. I never claimed in any regard to be a scholar. But then I guess someone with such lowly credentials as myself is unworthy to speak on such issues. But that after all was one of you main points, and why many folks accussed you of intellectual pride. Nonetheless, there are scholars whether you choose to recognize them as valuable or not, who disagree with much of what you hold.

 

[georgeaquinas]

Adam, Your reply reveals your failure to answer my question.

“external correspondence of a philosophy with reality”

Which reality is that? The reality of the logical empiricists? The empiricism of Locke that leads to skepticism? The reality of Hegel that leads to idealism?

Does your reality allow for the existence of God? If so, is God allowed as a pre-existing premise or does His existence need to be proved.

I could go on ad nauseum…again **what are your basic criticisms? where are you coming from? **And by this I do not mean for you to quote a school of philosophy—rather where are you, as man that wills and stands in relationship to God, where are you coming from?

I must admit that you are starting to sound as if you are typing off of lecture notes.

Also, who is to judge the “internal coherence.” You? and if so again what are basic premises.

You ask for my “sound definition of faith.” As to that, I will be a good Catholic boy and direct you to the CCC:

By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God. With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, “the obedience of faith.” 143

Faith is man’s response to God, who reveals himself and gives himself to man, at the same time bringing man a superabudant light as he searches for the ultimate meaning of life. 26

Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God, At the same time, and inseparbly, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revelaed. 150

Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit…Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed are contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason. 154

The CCC then quotes St. Thomas: “Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace.” 155

Adam, I cannot give you grace and no one on this board can either. Faith is found on the knees before it is found in the mind. If you are looking for someone to play point counter point with you, I am afraid I am not your man. If you want to have an honest dialogue I am more than willing, but come out from behind your quotes and lecture notes.

I may sound harsh, but I think you realize the danger that you have placed yourself in—that is why you started this thread.

You will always find “learned men” that are better at arguing and can offer convincing arguments against your position. Do not let that bother you. Remember, God’s wisdom is beyond the grasp of the wise. Your desire for knowledge is luadable, but be patient. Eventually, we will know God as well as he knows us.

I have spouted enough for the night. You are in my prayers and ask that I am in yours.

One must slay the dragon before the intellect is truly free.

georgeaquinas

 

[SteveG]

amarischuk:

Firstly, I should point out that nations like Pakistan and India which essentially have just as much access to contraceptives as western nations and European nations have rocketing birthrates (31.22/22.8 compared to Germany’s 8.45 or Romania’s 10.69). And even America has a birthrate of 14.13 cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

Ummm…let me do some translation here. These numbers are birth PER 1000 people. The numbers here are
Pakistan 31.22/1000 = 3.1%
India 22.8/1000 = 2.2%
Germany 8.45/1000 = .08%
Romania 10.69/1000 = 1%
US 14.13/1000 = 1.4%

…Hardly ‘skyrocketing’ for even Pakistan and India. In addition, these are crude birth numbers and not a good measure of population growth. The more commonly used number is Number of children per woman which is called the fertility rate. In each of the countries you list above, these numbers are…

Pakistan 4.29
India 2.85
Germany 1.38
Romania 1.35
US 2.07

… The population replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. Even in India, that is barely being met. And despite what you claim, the rates have a direct correlation to industrialization. I’ll trust Demographers rather than an unnamed history professor. Demographers have clearly established four distinct phases of population rates that are directly correlated to the level of industrialization (and named such)…

Pre-industrial Stage - harsh living conditions lead to a high birth rate and a high death rate, and the population grows slowly, if at all

Transitional Stage - beings shortly after industrialization. In this phase, the death rate drops, mostly because of increased food production and improved sanitation and health. However, the birth rate remains high, and the population grow rapidly.

Industrial Stage - industrialization is widespread, the birth rate drops and eventually approaches the death rate. Most developed nations are at this stage.

Postindustrial Stage - takes place when the birth rate declines even further to equal the death rate, thus reaching zero population growth. Then the birth rate falls below the death rate and total population size slowly decreases.

…And it has also been clearly established that the drop in birth-rates is due to several factors. These include 1) Widespread access to contraceptives, 2) changes in values which makes use of contraceptives and smaller families acceptable. 3) More women working outside of the home 4) Governmentally-supported social security programs, and a few others. While contraceptives are not the CAUSE per se, access to and acceptance of their use is absolutely pivotal in bringing birth rates down.