D
DL82
Guest
This is just an observation of something I have noticed among some posters on the Catholic Answers Forum, myself included.
It seems that there are many people here who only read authors who they think are ‘100% orthodox’, or only read works which bear an +Imprimatur. Many of these authors seem to take a perspective toward theology and philosophy which begins with the idea that they know all that needs to be known, and are merely presenting the known truths of faith in new words. There is a place for this kind of work, that place is in apologetics and catechesis.
It is not, however, the way the great Doctors of the Church and others have approached theological enquiry across the centuries. There was always a speculative element and a trust in the power of reason, rightly disciplined, to further our knowledge by deductive enquiry. At times, this led even the greatest Doctors into error (St Augustine’s views on marriage, for example, Bl John Duns Scotus on the Eucharist, or Origen on the conversion of the demons at the end of time), provided they were not stubborn defenders of heresy, this did not prevent them being beatified. At times, even those names considered at the heart of orthodoxy, like St Thomas Aquinas, were considered dangerously progressive.
In my pre-Catholic days I flirted with Socialism. I could appreciate the views of some authors influenced by Marxism, but I couldn’t cope with the idea, promulgated by Socialist parties, that those who could be trusted in the struggle were “workers, teachers and honest academics” - the definition of an “honest” academic is one who begins from the presumption that everything Marx and Engels wrote is 100% true and constructs their arguments in reverse from blind faith in the ideology. In other words, an “honest” academic is a dishonest one.
Catholic theological enquiry has never been ideological in this way. There seem to be some dangers in mature well-catechised Catholics only trusting those sources which never attempt anything beyond a re-presentation of what they already know, or think they know, about their faith. There is, it seems to me, something about traditional Catholic thought, as expounded in Fides et Ratio which puts faith in the independence of rational enquiry and its’ genuine ability to arrive at truths about the world and about reason itself, which admits of speculative philosophical and theological approaches, within certain constraints, which are not ‘orthodox’ in the way that those old Marxists were ‘honest’.
It seems that there are many people here who only read authors who they think are ‘100% orthodox’, or only read works which bear an +Imprimatur. Many of these authors seem to take a perspective toward theology and philosophy which begins with the idea that they know all that needs to be known, and are merely presenting the known truths of faith in new words. There is a place for this kind of work, that place is in apologetics and catechesis.
It is not, however, the way the great Doctors of the Church and others have approached theological enquiry across the centuries. There was always a speculative element and a trust in the power of reason, rightly disciplined, to further our knowledge by deductive enquiry. At times, this led even the greatest Doctors into error (St Augustine’s views on marriage, for example, Bl John Duns Scotus on the Eucharist, or Origen on the conversion of the demons at the end of time), provided they were not stubborn defenders of heresy, this did not prevent them being beatified. At times, even those names considered at the heart of orthodoxy, like St Thomas Aquinas, were considered dangerously progressive.
In my pre-Catholic days I flirted with Socialism. I could appreciate the views of some authors influenced by Marxism, but I couldn’t cope with the idea, promulgated by Socialist parties, that those who could be trusted in the struggle were “workers, teachers and honest academics” - the definition of an “honest” academic is one who begins from the presumption that everything Marx and Engels wrote is 100% true and constructs their arguments in reverse from blind faith in the ideology. In other words, an “honest” academic is a dishonest one.
Catholic theological enquiry has never been ideological in this way. There seem to be some dangers in mature well-catechised Catholics only trusting those sources which never attempt anything beyond a re-presentation of what they already know, or think they know, about their faith. There is, it seems to me, something about traditional Catholic thought, as expounded in Fides et Ratio which puts faith in the independence of rational enquiry and its’ genuine ability to arrive at truths about the world and about reason itself, which admits of speculative philosophical and theological approaches, within certain constraints, which are not ‘orthodox’ in the way that those old Marxists were ‘honest’.
God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).”
. In taking such an approach, Singer is simply not doing philosophy, because he isn’t listening to our inherent moral compass, our natural reason, which, irrespective of the logic of his position, cries out in disgust against such an idea. Even the most distorted of pro-abortion materialists find such an idea abhorrent.