Current Trends in Catholic Philosophy?

[tpw]

Have you studied Lonergan? If Lonergan is so far off the beaten track - why hasn’t Rome condemned his work? Bernard Lonergan in the 20th century was to the Catholic Church what Thomas Aquinas was in the 13th century. Lonergan is an heir to neo-Thomism not “an off-beat Thomist”.

He alway said it would take 100 years before he was fully embraced…another 60 more years for you my friend…

 

[StAnastasia]

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ideas about the liturgy, recognizing Anglican orders, and changing the Church’s teaching on birth control are as outdated and naive as free love.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?” l]

Professor Hans Kung’s letter was lucid, thoughtful and timely. And Weigel’s ad hominem response – like your “mash your meds” comment – was childish, petulant, and embarrassing to mature Catholics.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Have you studied Lonergan? If Lonergan is so far off the beaten track - why hasn’t Rome condemned his work? Bernard Lonergan in the 20th century was to the Catholic Church what Thomas Aquinas was in the 13th century. Lonergan is an heir to neo-Thomism not “an off-beat Thomist”.

He alway said it would take 100 years before he was fully embraced…another 60 more years for you my friend…

TPW, I agree. Bernard Lonergan was a brilliant an influential thinker, like Karl Rahner. I have to get back to reading him; my trajectory in doctoral school was historical rather than systematic, but I’ve got to give a good read to Insight and Method in Theology. I see that the the University of Toronto Press will publish his work in a projected 25-volume collection edited the Lonergan Research Institute.

StAnastasia

 

[Betterave]

Professor Hans Kung’s letter was lucid, thoughtful and timely. And Weigel’s ad hominem response – like your “mash your meds” comment – was childish, petulant, and embarrassing to mature Catholics.

StAnastasia

lol! I guess if you’re on that team, that’s how the world looks. I prefer intelligent, truthful, charitable to “mature” (i.e., out of touch with reality, melodramatic, no sense of humor).

 

[anns82]

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/

just checked out the site - thanks for posting

 

[StAnastasia]

I prefer intelligent, truthful, charitable t.

Weigel is none of those.

 

[itinerant1]

Have you studied Lonergan? If Lonergan is so far off the beaten track - why hasn’t Rome condemned his work? Bernard Lonergan in the 20th century was to the Catholic Church what Thomas Aquinas was in the 13th century. Lonergan is an heir to neo-Thomism not “an off-beat Thomist”.

He alway said it would take 100 years before he was fully embraced…another 60 more years for you my friend…

I was referring specifically to epistemological issues. I’m not sure what your over-reaction is about???

 

[tpw]

“The reality of history is that the Catholic Deposit of Faith has remained intact since the Apostles”

“Intact” is a somewhat relative term…the core teachings of the apostles as found in the four gospels and Pauline letters were summarized in the late 2nd century in the baptismal formula known as the Apostles Creed. Nicea expounded on questions esp: the identify of Christ…Chalcedon responded to the 4th and 5th century debate about the co-existence of the human and divine in Jesus. Doctrine evolves…

 

[itinerant1]

I have no sympathy for dissident theologians like Hans Kung. Kung even goes the extra-mile to defend and rationalize early term abortions. Kung cites Aquinas to support his pro-abortion stance, but he completely misrepresents the context of Aquinas’ statements.

Apparently, Kung has never heard of the Fifth Commandment: “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, or the Didache and Church Fathers’ condemnations of abortion.

It seems that Kung is always right there in the popular media’s eye to defend some "politically correct"or trendy issue and in the process distorts and denies some Church doctrine. But when a theologian denies or restricts the most fundamental of all human rights, the right to life, he has gone completely over to the Dark Side.

In addition, if a pro-abort advocates for any other basic human rights, that endeavor remains unadulterated hypocrisy:

“The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights–for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture–is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.”
~Pope John Paul II (Christifideles Laici)

 

[itinerant1]

Bernard Lonergan in the 20th century was to the Catholic Church what Thomas Aquinas was in the 13th century. Lonergan is an heir to neo-Thomism not “an off-beat Thomist”.

Do you know why Etienne Gilson would strongly disagree with your opinion?

 

[itinerant1]

Cardinal Ratzinger once remarked that it took him many years before he realized Karl Rahner was on a completely different theological planet. :coffeeread:

 

[tpw]

Which simply means Ratzinger recognized that Rahner’s theological approach was different from his. Rahner is clearly orthodox and has never been condemned by the church, nor has Ratzinger ever condemned him.

 

[tpw]

Etienne Gilson is certainly a part of the Catholic tradition. Lonergan (and Rahner) as transcendentalism Thomists took the tradition and advanced it. Again - no where will you see condemnation of either Lonergan or Rahner among those fully familiar with Catholic tradition in philosophy and theology.

 

[itinerant1]

Etienne Gilson is certainly a part of the Catholic tradition. Lonergan (and Rahner) as transcendentalism Thomists took the tradition and advanced it. Again - no where will you see condemnation of either Lonergan or Rahner among those fully familiar with Catholic tradition in philosophy and theology.

I must disagree. Transcendental Thomism ends up not being Thomism. It is an eclecticism that vitiates Thomistic principles. Since you have a concern about “condemnation”, there is plenty of condemnation of transcendental Thomism by various Catholic scholars. One only need read the many lectures by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki that condemn what he calls the Aquikantists because, for one reason, their epistemology has negative consequences for scientific knowledge.

Transcendental Thomism, while trying to save knowledge, undermines methodic realism and thereby cannot even justify itself. Hence, transcendental Thomism, whatever its contribution may be in certain fields, undermines true philosophical knowledge.

Do you know why in “The Peasant of the Garonne”, Jacques Maritain made it clear that he is a Thomist and not a neo-Thomist?

Also, Etienne Gilson “condemns” modern attempts to incorporate aspects of Kantianism and Descartes cogito into Thomism. The neo-Thomists Gilson had in mind have never been able to make an adequate response to his critique. Thus far, Gilson has the superior argument, and remains the defender of sound philosophy.

 

[itinerant1]

Which simply means Ratzinger recognized that Rahner’s theological approach was different from his. Rahner is clearly orthodox and has never been condemned by the church, nor has Ratzinger ever condemned him.

It has not been clear at all that Rahner’s progressivist liberalism in theology was orthodox in all matters Catholic. Unmasking the meanings behind many things Rahner said would be an interesting thread for the future when I have more time.

Meanwhile, you might want to read over the linked page below, just for starters, and glimpse a different view of that darling of modern theologians. The essay begins by discussing Rahner’s secret 22-year lover affair and then goes into some theological issues and Church prohibitions against writing on certain subjects, etc.

Fr. Karl Rahner’s Girlfriend

 

[TheAtheist]

Comment from the Peanut Gallery.

So, reviewing this thread i started back a few years ago, i take it then that the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas still remains the touchstone/hallmark for Catholic philosophy/theology?

The from the way things have been illustrated, it seems to be the case that its a matter of exactly what direction should that particular philosophy should be taken in - variously combining itself or at least taking some inspiration from modern/post-modern philosophical trends.

 

[itinerant1]

Just FYI:

Regarding the article “Karl Rahner’s Gilrfriend”, I should have said previously that I do not necessarily agree with everything John Vennari says. For example, I take a different position than both Vennari and Rahner on the nature of the Church, just as pertains to several of the specific points mentioned in the essay.* **
*

 

[itinerant1]

Comment from the Peanut Gallery.

So, reviewing this thread i started back a few years ago, i take it then that the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas still remains the touchstone/hallmark for Catholic philosophy/theology?

The from the way things have been illustrated, it seems to be the case that its a matter of exactly what direction should that particular philosophy should be taken in - variously combining itself or at least taking some inspiration from modern/post-modern philosophical trends.

So now we are being subjected to wise cracks from the Peanut Gallery.

Actually, you are generally correct. Thomism is “the” philosophy and theology in the Church, though one certainly does not have to be a Thomist to be an orthodox Roman Catholic.

The problem is certain neo-Thomists are turning Thomism from a moderate or methodic realism into an idealism while still trying to be realists. Traditional Thomists rightly see this as courting philosophical disaster.

I say Thomism should be, and can only be, developed and progressed strictly along traditional Thomistic principles. There is no legitimate philosophical need for even attempting to adapt Thomism to modern trends in philosophy. If a Catholic philosopher has an itch for new wine, he needs to put it in a new wineskin…and take it somewhere else.

 

[tpw]

Catholic philosophers always have disagreements among each other. The fact remains if Lonergan or Rahner were actually condemned by the Church, Rome has never indicated so…Lonergan said it would take 100 years for people to fully grasp what he was saying. We’re at 40 and counting…and no condemnation by Rome…

Re: Rahner’s “girlfriend”…what a tragedy a priest falls in love with a woman, does not consumate the relationship and the orthodox are scandalized…

I can think of a whole lot of other things that I’d be scandalized by…maybe we can begin with the Legionnaires of Christ and their founder…

 

[itinerant1]

Catholic philosophers always have disagreements among each other. The fact remains if Lonergan or Rahner were actually condemned by the Church, Rome has never indicated so…Lonergan said it would take 100 years for people to fully grasp what he was saying. We’re at 40 and counting…and no condemnation by Rome…

Re: Rahner’s “girlfriend”…what a tragedy a priest falls in love with a woman, does not consumate the relationship and the orthodox are scandalized…

I can think of a whole lot of other things that I’d be scandalized by…maybe we can begin with the Legionnaires of Christ and their founder…

I fail to see what point you are driving at with your insistence that Lonergan and Rahner were not condemned by the Church. Such a matter seems to have no relevance whatsoever to whether or not Transcendental Thomism is an inherently flawed philosophical system. The question can be narrowed down to whether a “critical” realism is realism at all, and whether it is ultimately destructive of knowledge and hence metaphysics.

The Vatican does not condemn philosophers for these kind of errors. So, for the sake of emphasis, I must add that your point is moot.