Conversion/Reversion Frustration

[William777]

Greetings Brethren:

I have a conversion/reversion question, which depends a bit on my background, so allow me to introduce myself to this philosophical forum. I was born into a Catholic Family, and I was raised Catholic; I went to a Catholic High School, where I claim as one of (if not THE) the best experiences of my life. Later, I earned my BA from Saint John’s College in Annapolis, MD, Alumni '93, where I studied the great books of the Western World. Here is the reading list of the stuff we read.

After I graduated, I floated around for a bit enjoying the things I had learned; there were struggles, and, while I didnt really do anything too terribly bad, I’m sure a lot of people would see me as pretty heretical… but I think I had a good time with the knowledge I had acquired. But this brings me to my point…

Around 2003 I had a really bad year, and I was determined to go back to religion. And, then, I found St Francis of Assisi! Aside from Christ himself - Saint Francis seemed to be everything I thought a Catholic should be - and I went very deep into Franciscanism. I call this a reversion… not really a conversion, as I didnt really cease being Catholic, but I started going back to mass more regularly (even daily), started serving at mass, started praying a lot, started reading volumes and volumes of (classic) religious writings.

In this “process” - I not only saw sides to Catholicism I’d never seen before, but I was also starting to put the things I read at Saint John’s in perspective. While St John’s does have a strong Theological component to it - it is also very much a secular school for philosophy. I used my classical studies as a way of identifying and penetrating a lot of the more important works of the church, but there was also a strong contrast in the secular/spiritual differences.

Well, as I have been studying Catholicism, I’ve learned a lot of the distinctions I once thought were okay with Catholic teaching - well arent! For instance, Kant and Hegel (some of my favorites) are not okay with Catholic teaching. Edith Stein seems to indicate Husserl is okay, and Deitrich Von Hildebrand has suggested Kierkegaard is kosher.

All this leaves me kind of confused, as I’ve been trying to figure out why those other philosophies are incompatible with Catholicism. I mean, I’m not sure of where the church and Hegel/Kant disagreed… I find it frustrating because how do I know if there arent more errors in some of the other things I read - which I dont know about! Or how I could even tell if there’s disagreement…

Aaaargh…

Well, anyway, I wonder if anyone out there might be able to identify with what I’m talking about…

Thanks and many blessings,

wm

 

[Julia_Mae]

Well, anyway, I wonder if anyone out there might be able to identify with what I’m talking about…

Thanks and many blessings,

wm

I don’t identify, but I can tell you that I think we need to take from the world what we can of the Truth. So, an atheist might write all kinds of things that I know are not correct. But in his incorrectness, he often reveals things that are True: like how much people misrepresent God. Or, how much people without God long for the world to be a place of peace and love without understanding they just express their desire for God.

Embrace the path God is leading you down, try not to worry about what someone thinks of Kant, et al, and take from all you have read the things of Truth you have found. I suspect if you put them aside for a couple of years while you explore Catholic theology and mysticism and really delve into the Deposit of Faith, if you come back later and read them again, you will have gained new insights into their works.

 

[fred_conty]

Greetings Brethren:

I have a conversion/reversion question, which depends a bit on my background, so allow me to introduce myself to this philosophical forum. I was born into a Catholic Family, and I was raised Catholic; I went to a Catholic High School, where I claim as one of (if not THE) the best experiences of my life. Later, I earned my BA from Saint John’s College in Annapolis, MD, Alumni '93, where I studied the great books of the Western World. Here is the reading list of the stuff we read.

After I graduated, I floated around for a bit enjoying the things I had learned; there were struggles, and, while I didnt really do anything too terribly bad, I’m sure a lot of people would see me as pretty heretical… but I think I had a good time with the knowledge I had acquired. But this brings me to my point…

Around 2003 I had a really bad year, and I was determined to go back to religion. And, then, I found St Francis of Assisi! Aside from Christ himself - Saint Francis seemed to be everything I thought a Catholic should be - and I went very deep into Franciscanism. I call this a reversion… not really a conversion, as I didnt really cease being Catholic, but I started going back to mass more regularly (even daily), started serving at mass, started praying a lot, started reading volumes and volumes of (classic) religious writings.

In this “process” - I not only saw sides to Catholicism I’d never seen before, but I was also starting to put the things I read at Saint John’s in perspective. While St John’s does have a strong Theological component to it - it is also very much a secular school for philosophy. I used my classical studies as a way of identifying and penetrating a lot of the more important works of the church, but there was also a strong contrast in the secular/spiritual differences.

Well, as I have been studying Catholicism, I’ve learned a lot of the distinctions I once thought were okay with Catholic teaching - well arent! For instance, Kant and Hegel (some of my favorites) are not okay with Catholic teaching. Edith Stein seems to indicate Husserl is okay, and Deitrich Von Hildebrand has suggested Kierkegaard is kosher.

All this leaves me kind of confused, as I’ve been trying to figure out why those other philosophies are incompatible with Catholicism. I mean, I’m not sure of where the church and Hegel/Kant disagreed… I find it frustrating because how do I know if there arent more errors in some of the other things I read - which I dont know about! Or how I could even tell if there’s disagreement…

Aaaargh…

Well, anyway, I wonder if anyone out there might be able to identify with what I’m talking about…

Thanks and many blessings,

wm

It seems to me that there are commentaries or books written on modern philophies and ideas which point out where these have gone wrong from the Catholic perspective. You may need to read these books to understand what the fallicies are in their presentation. They are not easy to pick apart on your own. The Catholic Encyclopedia may be a some help here.

Just a thought.

 

[Warandpeace]

I’ve found that studying philosophy has actually strengthed my faith. Many seminarians study philosophy as their background…perhaps you should seek their counsel. And hey, you know, Edith Stein became Saint Teresia Benedicta of the Cross

 

[snarflemike]

I bet Edward Feser could help you out. www.edwardfeser.com

 

[Warandpeace]

NIETZSCHE is probably the least Catholic…but DOSTOEVSKI and GOETHE are much in line with Catholic teachings.

 

[littlestsouls]

I bet Edward Feser could help you out. www.edwardfeser.com

I concur. I think Feser mentions SOME of Kant’s philosophy in his book ‘Philosophy of Mind’ (a good introductory book).

Peter Kreeft has also written an excellent series called ‘Socrates meets…’ (Kant, Descartes, Hume, Sarte etc.). They might not explicitly address the contradiction between Catholic doctrine and particular secular philosophies (then again, they might; I don’t remember), but they will become apparent. Kreeft’s book ‘Summa Philosophica’ is another good one. It is very informative, concise, entertaining, and it covers a LOT of different topics. I can’t say that it specifically addresses Kant and Hegel, but you will learn much that you can apply to various philosophies.

God bless.

 

[empther]

Well, as I have been studying Catholicism, I’ve learned a lot of the distinctions I once thought were okay with Catholic teaching - well arent! For instance, Kant and Hegel (some of my favorites) are not okay with Catholic teaching. Edith Stein seems to indicate Husserl is okay, and Deitrich Von Hildebrand has suggested Kierkegaard is kosher.

Among Christians…

Kant doesn’t have 1,150,000,000 followers.
Hegel doesn’t have 1,150,000,000 followers.
Stein doesn’t have 1,150,000,000 followers.
Hilderbrand doesn’t have 1,150,000,000 followers.

The Pope has 1,150,000,000 followers.

God is a winner. Who do you think he’s backing?

 

[William777]

Thank you for the many good replies.

I’d like to ask respondents to stick to the point of the questions at hand. And, if you’re not going to take the questions seriously, please know it tends to detract from those who may wish to engage in the conversation.

To clarify and reemphasize the initial point - my concern wasn’t to doubt the church, but was more of an attempt to try and identify and assess distinctions between the church’s teachings vs those of the various philosophers I mentioned.

The points I made are significant.

As per Hegel, according to various commentary made on EWTN, Marx drew a great deal from Hegel’s philosophy; and, while I didnt mention Neitzsche (because his philosophies were in no way religious), Hitler drew from Neitzsche’s philosophy at times. In the Unabomber’s manifesto, he drew from Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason - although many, many well intention, well-educated and wise men throughout history have turned to Kant at times for positive reasons.

As per Edith Stein and Hildebrand - and their respective interpretations of Husserl and Kierkegaard - they are both Catholic. Edith Stein (as point out) is a Saint and Martyr of the church, and Deitrich Von Hildebrand’s widow can be seen on EWTN. While they are in fact subject to errors of private revelation - neither would be in competition with the Papacy. On the contrary, their interest would be in serving the Pope, as that is their calling.

As per the Pope’s themselves, as well as many of the Doctor’s of the Church (such as Thomas Aquinas) - they have often drawn from and used pagan philosophies as well, such as those of Aristotle and Plato.

The question was not a competition as to “how many are taking sides”; nor was it a question of “who’s in charge”; nor was it a question of “who wins”. It was intended as a question of discerning God’s simple Truth in light of the errors we humans all make.

Thanks and many blessings.
Pax,

wm

 

[William777]

I wanted to add some additional commentary on Hegel.

I personally never found Kant or Hegel’s philosophies as heretical.

In Hegel, there is theistic allusion to the way of the cross in the preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit.

Furthermore, Hegel believed in an absolute truth, and God is that Truth. These assertions basically seem to be very much in agreement with Catholic teaching.

Perhaps it is the means by which he arrives at those conclusions which the church disagrees with. I don’t know, but Hegel’s dialectical methodology seems to be the principal means he uses to draw those conclusions.

I have met various clergy who maintain that prayer is very much a dialogue between God and man. Again, you will find this in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit; Hegel’s dialectic is highly abstract, and forms an essentially “empty” logic, which is a lot like reading a book of nothing but math theorems - but the purity of the language tends to form a prayer and meditative dialectic, which gives rise to the book.

This kind of transcendental meditation is important in my own personal prayer life, as I try to experience those moments of pure being in conscience, at least as much as possible for a human. But apparently there is some sort of disagreement between what the church teaches and those meditative practices expressed in the Phenomenology.

This is a more refined version of the question on Hegel. I’m still working on the Kantian thoughts.

Pax and Blessings,

wm

 

[empther]

As per the Pope’s themselves, as well as many of the Doctor’s of the Church (such as Thomas Aquinas) - they have often drawn from and used pagan philosophies as well, such as those of Aristotle and Plato.

Some of Aristotle’s ideas about logic, and God’s existence, and existence in general are very good, and are universal ideas common to all thinkers and so Aquinas and others quote them,
but the pagans knew nothing about the Son of God, or God’s salvation plan for man or other things of that nature.

Your thinking is very confused. A little humility is in order.

 

[R_C]

Well, as I have been studying Catholicism, I’ve learned a lot of the distinctions I once thought were okay with Catholic teaching - well arent! For instance, Kant and Hegel (some of my favorites) are not okay with Catholic teaching. Edith Stein seems to indicate Husserl is okay, and Deitrich Von Hildebrand has suggested Kierkegaard is kosher.

All this leaves me kind of confused, as I’ve been trying to figure out why those other philosophies are incompatible with Catholicism. I mean, I’m not sure of where the church and Hegel/Kant disagreed… I find it frustrating because how do I know if there arent more errors in some of the other things I read - which I dont know about! Or how I could even tell if there’s disagreement…

I used to think that nothing was comparable to Kant mixed with W.D. Ross… Then I came to understand that this was a bit better than others, but still not comparable to the Christian philosophy.

The more I learn about Christianity and the teachings of the Church on all matters, the more I am surprised at how some things I held in high esteem now seem contemptible.

The issue I have seen is that philosophers struggle with the fact that we are both physical and spiritual in nature. Some of them reject this. Others acknowledge it, and go ahead in trying to understand what this spiritual nature is, and how it relates to life. Of course, this leads to the study of our Creator: who is He? Are we a product of random chaos, or is there an infinitely wise Being? Ultimately we jump into the most intimate aspect, that of morality and ethics. And again there is such a variety, depending on whether there is a Creator, or whether there are universal values, on whether pleasure is all that matters, on whether there is no such thing as good and bad…

To all of these questions, philosophers try to give an answer - much like scientists trying to formulate hypotheses. However, scientists rely on empirical evidence to confirm or dismiss, philosophers - to an extent - do not. I mean that they rely on history and observation, but can hardly perform “experiments” as such.

But the Catholic Church has a different “propriety” in that she receives the fullness of the divine revelation: she knows what our spiritual nature is, and what the supernatural is, and who God is. To an extent, she even knows what God wants for us. And she cannot be wrong, for these teachings are simply passed from God to her, and from her to us.

On the light of the Christian revelation, we do not have - of course - all the answers that philosophers have been trying to find. Yet we are able to be better discerners of the truth, and especially able to detect those very subtle reasonings that some schools of thought have crafted - some, no doubt about it, with the assistance of the father of all lies - and dismiss them on the basis not of faith, or a close-minded, irrational belief in the teachings of an institution, but in the basis of a higher, better, clearer and more rational knowledge, that better fits all the variables taken under consideration.

It is not, then, that these philosophies are incompatible with “Catholicism”…it is that these models are not fully compatible with the truth. They are still worthy of praise, inasmuch as they bring us to a greater understanding of ourselves. Even the gravely erroneous and sinful philosophies teach us a great deal about the dangers that we face if we were to adopt certain ways of thought…

I suggest the reading of Fides et Ratio, one of the most wonderful encyclicals, at least in my poor eyes, addressing this matter.

 

[R_C]

For instance, Kant and Hegel (some of my favorites) are not okay with Catholic teaching. …] I mean, I’m not sure of where the church and Hegel/Kant disagreed…

I found this document of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences interesting.

Other quotes I have found here and there:

Freedom of indifference, founded on external law and commandments, is the power to choose between contraries; the choice between good and evil is considered essential to freedom. It is summarized in the abortion mantra, “freedom of choice”. At best, the Ten Commandments would be the heart of an examination of conscience. Its philosophical roots would be the nominalism of William Ockham and the Kantian moral imperative. (source)

“One source and one root, one form shines out in threefold splendour. From the bright depths of the Father bursts forth the power of the Son, the wisdom that created the whole world, the fruit born of the Father’s heart! And there blazes the unifying light of the Holy Spirit”. So sang Synesius of Cyrene in Hymn II at the beginning of the fifth century, celebrating the divine Trinity, one in source and threefold in glory, at the dawn of a new day.

This truth of the one God in three equal and distinct Persons is not relegated to heaven; it cannot be regarded as a sort of “heavenly mathematical theorem” with no implications for human life, as the philosopher Kant supposed. (source)

Other documents:

• Hegelianism (Catholic Encyclopedia)
• Philosophy of Immanuel Kant (Catholic Encyclopedia)
• The Pillars of Unbelief - Kant (Catholic Education Resource Center)

Some of “our own”

• Hegel(?) (CAF)
• What is the Church’s position on Immanuel Kant? (CAF)

 

[William777]

Some of Aristotle’s ideas about logic, and God’s existence, and existence in general are very good, and are universal ideas common to all thinkers and so Aquinas and others quote them, but the pagans knew nothing about the Son of God, or God’s salvation plan for man or other things of that nature.

I’m well aware of what a pagan is.

My point to you was that many of the Popes and Doctors used pagan philosophies in their Catholic teachings. And, yet, since those quoted philosophers were pagans, there is obviously going to be some point a departure from the Catholic teaching those Popes and Doctors proposed.

The whole thread here has been about - “How do we know when a philosopher’s teachings depart from the teachings of the church vs when they are in agreement with the Catholic faith?”

When a Pope uses a pagan’s philosophy, then it is a perfect example of the need to discern when an errant philosophy is nevertheless somehow working in conjunction with Catholic teaching, and when it isn’t.

Your thinking is very confused.

People usually don’t ask questions about things they aren’t confused about. That’s why, I asked a question about something on which I was hoping to get some moral support.

Perhaps the question could have been better stated, but, since many in this thread were able to offer positive responses to it, those responses indicate my query wasn’t unclear.

Your response was the only one that went completely off topic. The actual question at hand had nothing to do with the statistics you quoted, and I simply didn’t want it to detract from others who actually saw the point to the question and took it seriously.

A little humility is in order.

Matthew 7:3-5

Thanks and many blessings,

wm

 

[empther]

Quibbling from post 39…

My point to you was that many of the Popes and Doctors used pagan philosophies in their Catholic teachings. And, yet, since those quoted philosophers were pagans, there is obviously going to be some point a departure from the Catholic teaching those Popes and Doctors proposed.

The point of departure is when we start talking about Christianity,
about which the pagans knew nothing,
as I already pointed out.

---

This thread’s quibbling is a waste of time. I’m out of here.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Greetings Brethren:

I have a conversion/reversion question, which depends a bit on my background, so allow me to introduce myself to this philosophical forum. I was born into a Catholic Family, and I was raised Catholic; I went to a Catholic High School, where I claim as one of (if not THE) the best experiences of my life. Later, I earned my BA from Saint John’s College in Annapolis, MD, Alumni '93, where I studied the great books of the Western World. Here is the reading list of the stuff we read.

After I graduated, I floated around for a bit enjoying the things I had learned; there were struggles, and, while I didnt really do anything too terribly bad, I’m sure a lot of people would see me as pretty heretical… but I think I had a good time with the knowledge I had acquired. But this brings me to my point…

Around 2003 I had a really bad year, and I was determined to go back to religion. And, then, I found St Francis of Assisi! Aside from Christ himself - Saint Francis seemed to be everything I thought a Catholic should be - and I went very deep into Franciscanism. I call this a reversion… not really a conversion, as I didnt really cease being Catholic, but I started going back to mass more regularly (even daily), started serving at mass, started praying a lot, started reading volumes and volumes of (classic) religious writings.

In this “process” - I not only saw sides to Catholicism I’d never seen before, but I was also starting to put the things I read at Saint John’s in perspective. While St John’s does have a strong Theological component to it - it is also very much a secular school for philosophy. I used my classical studies as a way of identifying and penetrating a lot of the more important works of the church, but there was also a strong contrast in the secular/spiritual differences.

Well, as I have been studying Catholicism, I’ve learned a lot of the distinctions I once thought were okay with Catholic teaching - well arent! For instance, Kant and Hegel (some of my favorites) are not okay with Catholic teaching. Edith Stein seems to indicate Husserl is okay, and Deitrich Von Hildebrand has suggested Kierkegaard is kosher.

All this leaves me kind of confused, as I’ve been trying to figure out why those other philosophies are incompatible with Catholicism. I mean, I’m not sure of where the church and Hegel/Kant disagreed… I find it frustrating because how do I know if there arent more errors in some of the other things I read - which I dont know about! Or how I could even tell if there’s disagreement…

Aaaargh…

Well, anyway, I wonder if anyone out there might be able to identify with what I’m talking about…

Thanks and many blessings,

wm

A lot to cover. A good place to start would be the Catholic Encyclopedia available on NewAdvent.org. And the books by Edward Feser. I have read his ’ Aquinas ’ and ’ The Last Superstition ’ and can vouch for them. He will answer some of your questions at least. In the L.S. just skip pg 146 since it is really suitable for Gynachologists. And I would imagine his ’ Philosophy of Mind ’ would be helpful. Most of his work is based on St. Thomas’ philosophy so its solid stuff and they are also a polemic against the errors of modern philosophy starting with Hume.