This latest offering from the bishops further qualifies the overall errors of Sr. Johnson’s book and is prevalent in dissent in general. Sr. Johnson is not a bad or evil person but is accepting of the philosophical presuppositions and notions that lead away from that which is divinely revealed. I believe these presuppositions and notions are related to the deficient philosophical notions accepted by the culture overall. Is it not our underlying beliefs of what we think is “true” and what is “truth” used to judge that which is presented to us and which colors what we add to our body of knowledge in our intellect?
If we use Kant, as mentioned in the Bishops reply, as an underlying presupposition as to how we know, we will reason Divine truths differently than a Thomistic one. If we know nothing of Thomism other than what others say is wrong with it, using a notion that the “opposite of error is truth”, then seemingly we will not be able to understand those reasonings coming from a Thomistic presupposed notion.
It will not do that the end result reached is apparently acceptable, overlooking the erroneous presuppositions, because the end does not justify the means and that the underlying error may, and in most cases will, lead to other errors. It is necessary that all reasonings be true in and of themselves in the correct context and being understood in the correct level in the hierarchy of truth.
This underlying erroneous presupposed notions and failing to understand the truths of Thomism as well as the error of applying an overall approach denigrating “neo-scholasticism”, is seemingly the problem of “Quest for the Living God”. It is the same underlying philosophical problems related to misunderstanding transcendence, theological problems understanding the true gratuity of grace, misunderstanding the transcendent nature of the office of a bishop and linking it to the personal failings he may have as a justification for dissent from his authority, and misunderstanding God as being closer in nature to His Creation than He is. This immanence error is seen in a lot of Sr. Johnson’s work including this one.
In the end the authority issue and the justification her supporters offer as to why the Bishops have criticized her book (that she is a female! :doh2
place Sr. Johnson in a very bad light, a light dissenters fail to avoid, and often bask in, to their detriment.
