The Divorce of Fatih & Reason

[Grace_and_Glory]

Mystophilus:

This is also true, but the analogy only applies to doctrines which were changed by addition and not to those which were changed by alteration, e.g., the position regarding Galileo’s heliocentric model, of which the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, “In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false principle as to the proper use of Scripture.”

Having said all of this, I should hasten to point out that I do not regard this as a failing of the Catholic Church. Churches are composed of humans, and humans were designed by God to be imperfect. What matters most is not whether or not you fail (because you certainly will), but whether you have the maturity to admit it and learn from it.

The position regarding the heliocentric model was never an official doctrinal position of the Church. The ecclesiastical authorities certainly sanctioned a false principle, but that doesn’t mean that the Church itself officially taught against the heliocentric model. Any knowledgeable Catholic will tell you that the Church doesn’t have the authority to make doctrine about science.
I agree that humans are imperfect and that they will fall. I think, though there is a distinction between the humans who compose the Church falling, even if they are leaders in the Church, and the Church itself making a mistake. Doctrine can be misinterpreted, misunderstood, and misapplied, even by those who are charged with teaching it. We certainly need to learn from our mistakes, but just because the people in the Church make mistakes doesn’t mean that the Church itself is mistaken.

 

[mosher]

stanley123:

The problem I see with deduction reasoning is that the entire system is based on certain axioms, or self-evident propostions. It is true of course, that you can have a beautiful system deduced from certain axioms, but what if one of the axioms is a bit wobbly, such as the paralle postulate in Euclidean geometry. A change in one axiom would lead to a different system.
Further, there is the question of the consistency of the axioms and whether or not they really are self-evident and then of course there is the enormous work in setting up your axioms or first principles and then deducing from them.

Very true but this is why the Church herself has recognized in Realism and in particular St. Thomas an objective system that is not based upon a construct but rather reality itself. The reason cited is perhaps the reaon why there has been a hesitation for the modern and post-modern to accept deductive reasoning.

 

[stanley123]

mosher:

Very true but this is why the Church herself has recognized in Realism and in particular St. Thomas an objective system that is not based upon a construct but rather reality itself. .

I submit that this is a bit vague for a deductive system. To say that it is based on Realism or reality. It does sound great, but what exactly are the assumptions or axioms for the deductive system bsed on Realism?
Secondly, let’s take a look at some of the conclusions of the objective or deductive system of St. Thomas:

1. Heresy should be punishable by death.
2. Women are intellectually inferior to men, and should be subject to them.
3. Masters have the right to strike and punish their slaves. I would guess that there are some Catholic theologians today who would not agree with one or more of these conclusions. So the natural question is, assuming that the logic is correct, where did the assumptions go wrong?

 

[Mystophilus]

Grace and Glory:

The position regarding the heliocentric model was never an official doctrinal position of the Church. The ecclesiastical authorities certainly sanctioned a false principle, but that doesn’t mean that the Church itself officially taught against the heliocentric model.

You must have read that part too quickly: the mistake mentioned by the Catholic Encyclopedia was in “the use of Scripture”, not in science. This was a mistake committed in the Church’s own field, not one outside of its specialty.

I think, though there is a distinction between the humans who compose the Church falling, even if they are leaders in the Church, and the Church itself making a mistake. Doctrine can be misinterpreted, misunderstood, and misapplied, even by those who are charged with teaching it. We certainly need to learn from our mistakes, but just because the people in the Church make mistakes doesn’t mean that the Church itself is mistaken.

You seem to be trying to abstract the Church from the people who comprise it, and I am not sure how you hope to achieve that, or even why.

The Church is made of people. The people are imperfect. The Church is imperfect.

The seems self-evident to me, and I begin to suspect that your resistance to it is due to something outside of the discussion thus far.

 

[LukeQ]

Hmmm - There appears to be some considerable pseudo Interlectual rigour regarding reasoning semantics comprising of some healthy disagreement but as yet, are we in any shape to handle the question on the divorce of faith and reason?

What is this relationship and why does it’s facade appear to be fractured in the minds and hearts of some? Note I say facade as the reality of faith and reason are mutually inclusive in matters regarding the mysteries. Have I opened up another hornet’s nest?

Is the possible polarisation of faith and reason, dare I suggest it, gender based? ie: When referring to the creation and development of heresy through to its maintenance, I suggest that men generally develop heresy through interlect, (reason), and women follow heresy through the heart, (faith). An exception to this is the philosophy of feminism and it’s related theology.

How do we return from the abiss of heresy through disequilibrium and move towards absolute TRUTH?

Luke

 

[Cleb_Calimutan]

The divorce of faith and reason that you seemingly suppose as practice by some Catholics is caused by lack of Doctrinal orientation among the lay.
Reason is the essential faculty of the intellect to recognize the veracity of Faith. Hence reason is the servant of Faith; and clarifies it, since both of them came from God they are harmonius.
Evidiently it cannot be divorced for it might lead someone to heresy. The church accepts all truth from different aspects and it will not fall into contradiction since they are grounded by principles with harmony.
The challege is how to educate the Catholic lay people…

 

[LukeQ]

Cleb,
I do believe you have answered the question and so eloquently. i recognise the truth in what you have written.

Thank you for clarifying this. I shall not write more for fear of contaminating the essence of your explaination.

I would love to hear your comments Mosher on Cleb’s writing.

As an aside, I have been in this forum for just on a month and regardless of religious persuasion, I have found a high degree of intelligent thought over many issues and generally expressed with graciousness.

Luke

 

[stanley123]

mosher:

Perhaps, the battle for the union of faith and reason will also require a reassertion of the primacy of deductive reasoning over inductive reasoning so that reason itself is intact.

Do you say that St. Thomas Aquinas has used inductive or deductive reasoning?

 

[Topher]

stanley123:

Do you say that St. Thomas Aquinas has used inductive or deductive reasoning?

Deductive absolutely!

 

[stanley123]

Topher:

Deductive absolutely!

I am not so sure that it is 100% deductive.
Let’s suppose that it is deductive. If so, then what went wrong in one or more of the following conclusions of St. Thomas:

1. Heresy should be punishable by death.
2. Women are intellectually inferior to men, and should be subject to them.
3. Masters have the right to strike and punish their slaves.

 

[Topher]

stanley123:

I am not so sure that it is 100% deductive.
Let’s suppose that it is deductive. If so, then what went wrong in one or more of the following conclusions of St. Thomas:

1. Heresy should be punishable by death.
2. Women are intellectually inferior to men, and should be subject to them.
3. Masters have the right to strike and punish their slaves.

As to number one, the church has always held that the death penalty is a viable option when, the crime is especially grievous, there is reasonable certitude that the person being punished is the person guilty of the crime, and there is no other reasonable way to protect society from that person. As is the case with arch-heretics of the past, who virulantly spread their heresy, they would fit all three of these requirements. The crime of spreading heresy is more grievous than murder because it can damn people’s immortal souls for all eternity. As is often the case, it is very clear if a person was spreading heresy in centuries past was guilty or not. Finally, at times in the past, methods of imprisonment were not necessarily good enough to protect society from the heresy of some of the arch-heretics.
So, yes, in some cases, the death penalty for heretics would be a viable option.
As to the second two points that you made, I have to get back to work but will respond as soon as I get the chance.
But I would like to ask you for an exact quote from Thomas Aquinas that says that women are intellectually inferior to men and one concerning the hitting of slaves.

 

[lillysan]

I must say that I would like to see this quote about the inferiority of women by St. Thomas

 

[LukeQ]

I think we would all like to see this mysterious quote!

The claim is unsubstantiated by a centurry of data on IQ testing.

There is no distinction in intelligence between a man and a woman.

The only measured difference is in regards to spacial ability -ie: reading maps and reversing parking a car.

Luke

 

[stanley123]

LukeQ:

I think we would all like to see this mysterious quote!

lillysan:

I must say that I would like to see this quote about the inferiority of women by St. Thomas

Topher:

But I would like to ask you for an exact quote from Thomas Aquinas that says that women are intellectually inferior to men and one concerning the hitting of slaves.

OK

I am interested to know what you think St. Thomas would be saying in the following:

Notice he says:

in man the discretion of reason predominates

as a rule women are not perfected in wisdom

since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection,

But man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation.

But in a secondary sense the image of God is found in man, and not in woman: for man is the beginning and end of woman; as God is the beginning and end of every creature.
Continued

 

[stanley123]

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/109201.htm

“Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates.”

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/317702.htm

Speech may be employed in two ways: in one way privately, to one or a few, in familiar conversation, and in this respect the grace of the word may be becoming to women; in another way, publicly, addressing oneself to the whole church, and this is not permitted to women. First and chiefly, on account of the condition attaching to the female sex, whereby woman should be subject to man, as appears from Gn. 3:16. Now teaching and persuading publicly in the church belong not to subjects but to the prelates (although men who are subjects may do these things if they be so commissioned, because their subjection is not a result of their natural sex, as it is with women, but of some thing supervening by accident). Secondly, lest men’s minds be enticed to lust, for it is written (Sirach 9:11): “Her conversation burneth as fire.” Thirdly, because as a rule women are not perfected in wisdom, so as to be fit to be intrusted with public teaching.

“Certain things are required in the recipient of a sacrament as being requisite for the validity of the sacrament, and if such things be lacking, one can receive neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament. Other things, however, are required, not for the validity of the sacrament, but for its lawfulness, as being congruous to the sacrament; and without these one receives the sacrament, but not the reality of the sacrament. Accordingly we must say that the male sex is required for receiving Orders not only in the second, but also in the first way. Wherefore even though a woman were made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she would not receive Orders, for since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing, but the signification of the thing, is required in all sacramental actions; thus it was stated above (32, 2) that in Extreme Unction it is necessary to have a sick man, in order to signify the need of healing.* Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection*, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order . . . Summa Theologica Suppl. qu. 39 art. 1

I answer that, It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a “helper” to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say,* since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works*; but as a helper in the work of generation . . . .
Among perfect animals the active power of generation belongs to the male sex, and the passive power to the female. And as among animals there is a vital operation nobler than generation, to which their life is principally directed; therefore the male sex is not found in continual union with the female in perfect animals, but only at the time of coition; so that we may consider that by this means the male and female are one, as in plants they are always united; although in some cases one of them preponderates, and in some the other.
*But man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation. Therefore there was greater reason for the distinction of these two forces in man; so that the female should be produced separately from the male; although they are carnally united for generation. *Therefore directly after the formation of woman, it was said: “And they shall be two in one flesh” (Gn. 2:24). Summa Theologica I, qu. 92, art. 1.

continued

 

[stanley123]

The image of God, in its principal signification, namely the intellectual nature, is found both in man and in woman. Hence after the words, “To the image of God He created him,” it is added, “Male and female He created them” (Gn. 1:27). Moreover it is said “them” in the plural, as Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iii, 22) remarks, lest it should be thought that both sexes were united in one individual. But in a secondary sense the image of God is found in man, and not in woman: for man is the beginning and end of woman; as God is the beginning and end of every creature. So when the Apostle had said that “man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man,” he adds his reason for saying this: “For man is not of woman, but woman of man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man.” Summa Theologica I, qu. 93, art. 4 ad 1.

 

[stanley123]

A master may strike his slave so that instruction may be enforced by correction:
St Thomas:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/306502.htm

“And since the child is subject to the power of the parent, and the slave to the power of his master, a parent can lawfully strike his child, and a master his slave that instruction may be enforced by correction.”

 

[LukeQ]

Notice he says:

in man the discretion of reason predominates

as a rule women are not perfected in wisdom

An unlikely suport for St Augustine’s statement comes from Feminist Theory - I kid you not. its application in psychological therapy acknowleges that:
Man reasons with his head while women think through thier heart.

I can’t supply references at the moment but it surely is a strange concept that Feminism in its pure form supports a Doctor of the Catholic Church as regards this issue.

Given a problem, a man will tend to argue on principles and forsake relationships while a woman will maintain relationships at the cost of principles. Both relationships and principles need to be upheld. The disposition of man and woman is singularly deficient but wholesome when combined.

This leads to a hypothesis of mine that Heresy is generally created by men through faulty reasoning and followed by women through the heart or emotion. I shall elaborate later depending on where this thread leads but it is linked to my first posting in this thread.

I would be intrested in what Augustine states about the virtues of women.

Luke

 

[mosher]

Thank you Stanley for the quotes - I am trying to figure out what is wrong with them however. I know many will be upset with tem but that does not mean that they are not true. Truth has nothing to do with feeling or vote or passing mores of a time. I would gladly defend the statements of St. Thomas but that would be for another place and time.

Here the thread is about the divorce of faith and reason which is already being demonstrated in this thread by creating intellectual constructs.

The point of John Paul II of recent memory is that today people associate their feelings with their faith instead of as was mentioned by Cleb that reason is the handmaid of faith. For a person to believe without reason is absurd and a heresy (Fideism). It is because of this divorce that so many people today do not understand nor accept many teachings of the Church because they don’t feel that these precepts are true or apply to them because they feel it is another way or they feel that a loving God would not be as such or do as such. This is a dangerous direction to go in and is not Catholic as such.

 

[stanley123]

mosher:

The point of John Paul II of recent memory is that today people associate their feelings with their faith instead of as was mentioned by Cleb that reason is the handmaid of faith. For a person to believe without reason is absurd and a heresy (Fideism). It is because of this divorce that so many people today do not understand nor accept many teachings of the Church because they don’t feel that these precepts are true or apply to them because they feel it is another way or they feel that a loving God would not be as such or do as such.

Basically, I agree with you on this.
However, since Vatican II, there has been a growing charismatic movement in the RCC. Isn’t this charismatic movement and charismatic liturgy or practice approved by the RCC? If so, then this would appear to be somewhat of a counterindication of the importance of reason in the RCC. Also there is a whole thread started by someone with a degree in philosophy, which asserts that emotions should be an important factor and not ruled out when it comes to faith. “The heart hath reasons, which reason knoweth not.”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=74710