Current Trends in Catholic Philosophy?

[Strider]

de Chardin, mentioned above, began well integrating evoloution with Church teaching but went too far, diving into the “Gaia” movement and is not viewed favorably by the Church.

While he’s a philosoiphy professor, Peter Kreeft has done a massive amount or work in his own right. Anything he writes is, in my opinion, very good.

 

[kliner]

I’ve read this thread on my phone’s screen, so forgive me if I’m repititious.

Definitely check out these “recent” Catholic philosophers:
Josef Pieper
Fr. James Schall, SJ
Yves Simon
Fr. W. Norris Clarke, SJ
Etienne Gilson
Peter Kreeft
Jacques Maritain
Ralph McInerny

And, last, but not least, my two favorite “philosophers”:
GK Chesterton
Hilaire Belloc

 

[tpw]

Umm, as a matter a fact, I have.

Are you aware of the Pontifical Institute on the Social Sciences? It integrates traditional Catholic thought while studying and employing methodologies from the human sciences. I realize this is not a popular topic on Catholic Answers but Catholicism moves forward adapting as it always has to significant intellectual developments.

Another way to look at this is that it’s nice to talk about mysteries…the human sciences open those mysteries up and challenge us to walk with them. If we cannot converse, we cannot participate, evangelize, etc.

 

[tpw]

By all means. Modernism is incorporated in scholarly activity like biblical interpretation (historical-literary critical method which is certainly taught in every seminary and major institution of Catholic learning in the country.

John Paul Il’s Pontifical Institute on the Social Sciences (might be human sciences) engages the best of the Catholic philosophical tradition with disciplines like anthropology, psychology, political science, et al. From a Catholic perspective we offer a corrective to some of the false understandings of human personhood (false from our perspective) while employing methodologies, etc. to study human society.

In short when modernism was dropped as a heresy all those years ago, the question was how to respond to the claims that those in the human sciences were bringing to the table. That was one of the major contributions of Vatican II - to open us to the world. The long, road since then has meant coming to terms with what the human sciences could contribute to our understanding of the world.

That is a most unusual statement…care to elaborate a bit on what you mean?

 

[itinerant1]

By all means. Modernism is incorporated in scholarly activity like biblical interpretation (historical-literary critical method which is certainly taught in every seminary and major institution of Catholic learning in the country.

John Paul Il’s Pontifical Institute on the Social Sciences (might be human sciences) engages the best of the Catholic philosophical tradition with disciplines like anthropology, psychology, political science, et al. From a Catholic perspective we offer a corrective to some of the false understandings of human personhood (false from our perspective) while employing methodologies, etc. to study human society.

In short when modernism was dropped as a heresy all those years ago, the question was how to respond to the claims that those in the human sciences were bringing to the table. That was one of the major contributions of Vatican II - to open us to the world. The long, road since then has meant coming to terms with what the human sciences could contribute to our understanding of the world.

There appears to be some ambiguity with your use of the term modernism. As it was defined by Pope Leo XII in Testem Benevolentiae Pope Pius X in Pacendi Dominici. Modernism as so used referred to ideas that would have the Church relax its standards in not only disciplinary matters but also with regard to matters affecting the deposit of faith. In light of this what is the basis for your claim that the Church no longer considers modernism to be a heresy?

Advances in biblical sciences such as the historical-literary critical methods are not modernism in itself, though such methods can be misused to promote modernist interpretations of Scripture (as defined above) such as we see with Fr. Raymond Brown’s later works.

Do you consider the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, whose mission is to promote the natural sciences, to be modernism?

The question becomes, What definition are you attaching to the word modernism? Etymologically, “modernism” means an exaggerated love of what is modern, an infatuation for modern ideas. There is also use of “modernism” to refer to 20th century liberal Protestant theology. Amongst Catholics, modernism was seen as essentially “the critique of our supernatural knowledge according to the false postulates of contemporary philosophy”.

You appear to conflate modernism with the Church’s legitimate endeavors to learn from and promote the various sciences, as well as influence scientists, et al. with the Catholic perspective in matters of faith and morals.

 

[Betterave]

There appears to be some ambiguity with your use of the term modernism. As it was defined by Pope Leo XII in Testem Benevolentiae Pope Pius X in Pacendi Dominici. Modernism as so used referred to ideas that would have the Church relax its standards in not only disciplinary matters but also with regard to matters affecting the deposit of faith. In light of this what is the basis for your claim that the Church no longer considers modernism to be a heresy?

Advances in biblical sciences such as the historical-literary critical methods are not modernism in itself, though such methods can be misused to promote modernist interpretations of Scripture (as defined above) such as we see with Fr. Raymond Brown’s later works.

Do you consider the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, whose mission is to promote the natural sciences, to be modernism?

The question becomes, What definition are you attaching to the word modernism? Etymologically, “modernism” means an exaggerated love of what is modern, an infatuation for modern ideas. There is also use of “modernism” to refer to 20th century liberal Protestant theology. Amongst Catholics, modernism was seen as essentially “the critique of our supernatural knowledge according to the false postulates of contemporary philosophy”.

You appear to conflate modernism with the Church’s legitimate endeavors to learn from and promote the various sciences, as well as influence scientists, et al. with the Catholic perspective in matters of faith and morals.

And my two cents: Job security is very low on Robert Pasnau’s (et al.) list of concerns.

 

[tpw]

But if modernism and the attacks against it were essentially dropped in 1967, how can one continue calling it heresy?

It appears what you’re looking for is some clearcut definition of modernism. What Leo XII and Pius XII meant by modernism may not be how it is underrstood now.

I never said contemporary biblical studies were in fact modernism. Yet the influences of the social sciences and historical understanding have shaped them - so it seems we are in agreement there.

I am not referring to the Pontifical Institute of the Sciences. I am referring to the Ponitifical Institute on the Human/Social Sciences which Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon headed at least initially.

If you are going to reduce modernism to rule out supernatural knowledge, then I suppose it would be threatened. I don’t have a problem with questioning miracle stories or trying to make sense of extraordinary phenomenon. Frankly, it’s one of the many reasons why I stay Catholic. I think its dangerous to accept on face value the miracle stories in the NT. I’m not denying the miraculous. I don’t have problems with healing miracles. I do have questions about nature miracles - should they be accepted as straight forward or are there different levels of meaning to them which may make them miraculous in some other sense which doesn’t necessarily rule out sacred intervention.

In short - we are a church in dialogue. Those who are confused or uncomfortable with the dialogue should simply stay out of it, rather than point fingers and condemn those who do engage in it. That’s one of the major issues now causing division in the Church today. It’s a very, very sad state of affairs.

Peace be with you,
Tpw

There appears to be some ambiguity with your use of the term modernism. As it was defined by Pope Leo XII in Testem Benevolentiae Pope Pius X in Pacendi Dominici. Modernism as so used referred to ideas that would have the Church relax its standards in not only disciplinary matters but also with regard to matters affecting the deposit of faith. In light of this what is the basis for your claim that the Church no longer considers modernism to be a heresy?

Advances in biblical sciences such as the historical-literary critical methods are not modernism in itself, though such methods can be misused to promote modernist interpretations of Scripture (as defined above) such as we see with Fr. Raymond Brown’s later works.

Do you consider the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, whose mission is to promote the natural sciences, to be modernism?

The question becomes, What definition are you attaching to the word modernism? Etymologically, “modernism” means an exaggerated love of what is modern, an infatuation for modern ideas. There is also use of “modernism” to refer to 20th century liberal Protestant theology. Amongst Catholics, modernism was seen as essentially “the critique of our supernatural knowledge according to the false postulates of contemporary philosophy”.

You appear to conflate modernism with the Church’s legitimate endeavors to learn from and promote the various sciences, as well as influence scientists, et al. with the Catholic perspective in matters of faith and morals.

 

[Betterave]

But if modernism and the attacks against it were essentially dropped in 1967, how can one continue calling it heresy?

In short - we are a church in dialogue. Those who are confused or uncomfortable with the dialogue should simply stay out of it, rather than point fingers and condemn those who do engage in it. That’s one of the major issues now causing division in the Church today. It’s a very, very sad state of affairs.

Peace be with you,
Tpw

1. Aren’t we all more or less confused and uncomfortable at times?
2. Is this possibly a rather anti-dialogical model of dialogue you’re promoting here? (“Dialogue is great… as long as you do it my way.”)

 

[tpw]

Catholic philosophical thinking seems to be running in several directions. The influence of Augustine and Aquinas is very powerful, and for understandable reasons Catholics are interested in medieval philosophy. There is also an interest on strands of Greek philosophy which influence Christian theological ideas in that time period. But there are also Catholics who are interested in analytical philosophy and its applications (the English Dominicans such as Brian Davies and Herbert McCabe were highly conversant in analytical philosophy) and also those who are interested in continental thought such as that of Heidegger. John Paul was also strongly influenced by the phenomenology of Husserl and Husserl also influenced Edith Stein, a doctor of the church. Also some Catholics were influenced by Indian and Asian philosophical thought.

Bernard Lonergan, SJ is another significant figure. His 1957 book Insight opened up neo-Thomism and offered Catholics a deeper and more contemporary epistemology accord with a 20th century understanding of knowledge. Likewise his 1971 book Method in Theology is widely studied.

Another influence on JP II was the French Catholic existentialist Emmanuel Mounier especially his work, Personalism.

 

[itinerant1]

Bernard Lonergan, SJ is another significant figure. His 1957 book Insight opened up neo-Thomism and offered Catholics a deeper and more contemporary epistemology accord with a 20th century understanding of knowledge. Likewise his 1971 book Method in Theology is widely studied.

Lonergan?? A rather off-beat Thomist.

A contemporized version of Thomistic epistemology compromises Thomism. Modern epistemological theories have not escaped the debacle created by Descartes and furthered by Kant.

So, by what criterion does one consider a Kantian neo-Thomist to be a Thomist? Or, a neo-Thomist who endeavors to create a “critical” epistemology that incorporates the Cartesian cogito?

To be new or modern is not necessarily better.

 

[StAnastasia]

In short when modernism was dropped as a heresy all those years ago, the question was how to respond to the claims that those in the human sciences were bringing to the table. That was one of the major contributions of Vatican II - to open us to the world. The long, road since then has meant coming to terms with what the human sciences could contribute to our understanding of the world.

TPW, I certainly appreciate Vatican II opening the Church’s windows to let in some fresh air. But I wonder if some in the Church now regret those windows having been opened. The Rome conference on evolution last year is regarded as a threat by some on CAF, in that it seemed to show a church willing to being in dialogue with science.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Lonergan?? A rather off-beat Thomist…

Thomist or not, Lonergan was one of the more creatively insightful theologians of the twentieth century.

 

[itinerant1]

Thomist or not, Lonergan was one of the more creatively insightful theologians of the twentieth century.

Do you have a favorite work by Lonergan?

 

[StAnastasia]

Do you have a favorite work by Lonergan?

Insight and Method in Theology.

 

[grannymh]

TPW, I certainly appreciate Vatican II opening the Church’s windows to let in some fresh air. But I wonder if some in the Church now regret those windows having been opened. The Rome conference on evolution last year is regarded as a threat by some on CAF, in that it seemed to show a church willing to being in dialogue with science.

StAnastasia

The Catholic Church has been in dialogue with science before Thomas Aquinas. The institution of universities is one example of Catholicism’s desire to understand the world created by God. As Aquinas put it, both faith and science seek truth.

The reality of the modern world is that there is a difference of opinion regarding the meaning of truth. Consequently, there is quite a speculation spread between philosophy writers within Catholicism and outside of it. Matthew Fox is a good example. The reality of history is that the Catholic Deposit of Faith has remained intact since the Apostles.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

 

[StAnastasia]

The Catholic Church has been in dialogue with science before Thomas Aquinas. The institution of universities is one example of Catholicism’s desire to understand the world created by God. As Aquinas put it, both faith and science seek truth.

Of course – there is a chapter on that in Catholicism and Science (2008).

The dialogue was strengthened with Vatican II, along with the world of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Rahner, and many contemporary Catholics (as well as Protestants). Rahner’s astonishing little book Hominisation : the evolutionary origin of man as a theological problem. Other Catholic authors in dialogue with science who are worth reading include Celia Deane Drummond, Ilia Delio, Jack Haught, and Denis Edwards.

 

[Ace_of_Spades]

The Classical Western Philosophical tradition is not dead yet.
An accessible Philosopher of that type is Edward Feser.
Check out that bad boy here: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

 

[tpw]

Lions and tigers and bears…oh know!

TPW, I certainly appreciate Vatican II opening the Church’s windows to let in some fresh air. But I wonder if some in the Church now regret those windows having been opened. The Rome conference on evolution last year is regarded as a threat by some on CAF, in that it seemed to show a church willing to being in dialogue with science.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Lions and tigers and bears…oh know!

So, does that make Rome the emerald City? And who is the little man behind the screen? And do the inhabitants all wear tinted glasses?

 

[Betterave]

I’m not familiar with the brilliant Hans Kung. Sadly, perhaps, this is the only one I know of:

But apart from the errors, obfuscations, and lies, Kung’s letter is notable for its utter lameness, and sadness. There are people who tell me that I just “don’t get it,” and “it” is the 1960s. They play the records and try to tell me how it felt to listen to them. Hans Kung is a lot like this. Vatican II is his Woodstock. Oh Ratz, you were one of us. Now you’ve become “the Man,” man.

Kung’s protesting missive is befuddling; it’s as if someone decided to defiantly burn a bra today. The gesture is so antique, it borders on the endearing. His treasured ideas about the liturgy, recognizing Anglican orders, and changing the Church’s teaching on birth control are as outdated and naive as free love. “It was the spirit, man – a liberation. And we need more of that today.” No, we really don’t, one thinks, before politely asking, “Want me to mash your meds in some hummus?”

insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8006&Itemid=48