johnnykins:
I suppose the terms liberal and consevative are are terms of such inexactitude that perhaps it would be better to eschew them whenever possible.
Though they are not perfect, some terminology is required to describe the various theological and philosophical positions along a spectrum. I prefer liberal and conservative to orthodox/heterodox, faithful/heretic, left/right wing etc.
Whether Aquinas, Ignatius, et al., would qualify today as “liberal” is, i think, pretty clearly no.
No but in their day, not only were they considered liberals (I speak more for Aquinas, Ignatius had no real philosophical/theological position to maintain) but Aquinas was even condemned as one.
You are essentially defining liberal as “a theologian.” Nice twist, but not exactly intellectually honest.
Huh? No, I am defining liberal as people who disagree with conservative/traditional Catholic teaching or disagree with various historical magesterial positions. My list only included the names of scholars of such a position. I did not include Garrigou-Lagrange or Hans Urs von Balthasar for a reason (though arguments can be made that von Balthasar was a closet liberal, just like the young Ratzinger or the young Avery Dulles).
But if you define liberal as a rejection of the past - its theology, doctrine, modes of worship - not merely development, it’s hard to call Aquinas a liberal - or Newman.
The scholastic method was considered a regection of the past and many saints, including the reactionary St. Bernard was vehemently against the intrusion of philosophy into theology. The quote in my signature is from Copleston’s ‘History of Medieval Philosophy’ chapter on Albert Magnus and Thomas Aquinas and is refering to the condemnation of Aquinas as being reactionary and insighted by the conservative theologians at the Sorbonne.
This OP dealt with the claim that conservatives are intellectually inferior - a ridiculous assertion.
That is correct however I thought it necessary to correct the inappropriate appelation of Benedict, Ignatius or Aquinas as conservatives.
I would define any theolgian who accepts the Magisterium and its dogmas and pronouncements to be conservative.
That is a good starting point for a definition and fits well with my definition of liberal though it remains incomplete. Many liberals claim to follow all DOGMATIC pronouncements and there are many disagreements about what constitutes a dogmatic pronouncement. Would the Syllabus of Errors be considered dogmatic?
Newman was certainly conservative by that definition - as was Aquinas.
Um, I would strongly argue no. Newman was known as a liberal is his day and Belloc calls him such. Aquinas was condemned (not in name but in theology) as a liberal innovator.
So, let’s avaid the terminology and agree that neither liberals not conservatives have a lock on intellect or stupidity. Now what does that say about the OP?
It is kind of funny that in the same sentence you want to avoid terminology, then later in that sentence use the terminology. I se no problem with those terms if properly understood. At least they are generally more agreeable than most alternatives from a liberal perspective. It would be the equivalent of biologists not talking about human beings because there are some disputes about what constitutes a human being…the classic acorn to the oak tree dilema.
Getting back on topic though, it is unclear if the opening post means seminarians are required to take IQ tests. I happen to know that most seminaries (all the ones I have been to, studied at or worked for) use some form of test to evaluate a candidates scholastic abilities (not to mention personality tests). From experience I can say with certainty that the top students at the seminaries I have had contact with (both extremely conservative to moderately liberal) have been on the liberal side of the theological spectrum. Sometimes this resulted in a clash between professor and student, sometimes it resulted in active encouragement. Unfortunately often the tops students don’t tend to remain seminarians…neither do the bottom students though.
From my experience theological training tends to have a liberalizing effect on seminarians while apologetics has a conservativizing (if I can invent the word) effect. Most serious seminaries or seminaries with serious courses of study tend to be liberal. One only needs to look at the list of names I gave earlier and see how many of them have SJ or OP behind them.
I believe that this is likely from the fact that the vast majority of historians, philosophers and theologians who excel in their field tend to be liberals or have liberal tendancies. Why? I believe it is because that is where the truth lies…but that is the opinion of a liberal/heretic.
