G
Geremia
Guest
This reminds me of St. Thomas Aquinas saying that he learned more at the foot of a cross than in all the books besides the Bible he has ever read.
- Status
G
Geremia
Guest
Apparently his problems were his politically liberal views, not his work in metaphysics and epistemology.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I followed your link and I don’t think that article was very helpful. The writer says Maritain was not totally orthodox. However, there is no explanation as to in what way Maritain was supposedly “not totally orthodox”. I am not taking a position on the issue here, I am just pointing out that this is an unsubstantiated assertion. The writer should have presented something from Maritain’s works that supports his opinion.
Next, the article states, “In any case, Maritain’s political views are definitely un-Thomistic and questionable (he tries to defend democracy based on Thomistic principles, whereas Aquinas and all of his traditional followers are obviously royalists / monarchists).” I found this statement to be very problematic.
First, Aquinas offered his opinion as to what he thought was the best form of government. What Aquinas described was a constitutional monarchy. This was an excellent opinion for his time, the high middle ages. However, a Thomist need not agree in the 20th century that this is the best form of government, especially for every nation. Even the Church does not endorse any particular form of government. What form of government is best for a particular nation depends on its history.
There is absolutely nothing un-Thomistic or un-Catholic about advocating a democratic form of government in accordance with Thomistic principles. The question is whether anything in Maritain’s political philosophy is unsound. If so, what is it?
If the writer of the article in question thinks the problem is that Maritain does not promote a constitutional monarchy, then I would have to say he does not understand Aquinas as well as he should.
A constitutional monarchy can be an excellent form of government, but as America’s founders and framers of the U.S. Constitution pointed out, no form of government will work if the people are not a moral people.
I hope my comments are not construed as implying that I think Maritain’s political philosophy is above criticism. Maritain has certain political views I do not necessarily agree with.
In any case, a good introduction to Maritain was written by Fr. James Schall: Jacques Maritain: The Philosopher in Society. “Schall explores Maritain’s political philosophy, demonstrating that Maritain understood society, state, and government in the tradition of Aristotle and Aquinas, of natural law and human rights and duties.”
I
itinerant1
Guest
You would profit much by studying Maritain’s “The Degrees of Knowledge”. Lonergan is the one to be cautious about.
M
Mary_Cooney
Guest
I am learning so much from this wonderful conversation. Keep it up.
I
itinerant1
Guest
The conversation seems to have dwindled for now. Feel free to post questions or comments about Maritain.
A
alforo
Guest
In spite of all of the commentary, it is still not clear what the charge against Maritain is. I, for one, have never heard any of the so-called ‘abundance’ of negative rap about the philosopher. Where can this information be found?
A
awatkins69
Guest
I think that post is wrong. Aquinas was not necessarily a strict monarchist. If you read his “De Regno” and his commentary on Aristotle’s Politics, he basically just believes the same thing as Aristotle, which is that ideally monarchy is the best form. And of course, monarchy was the preferred form of government in his time. However, he never gives an outright condemnation of polity. He does condemn democracy, but Aristotle’s use of the term ‘democracy’ is more like absolute tyranny by the people, as opposed to a constitution, which is rule by the people but with constitutional balancse. Our modern “democracies” (eg the United States) are a lot more like Aristotle’s constitution. So I don’t think Aquinas would condemn democracy as we moderns understand it. With all that said, I think Maritain was a little bit too liberal for my taste, but he certainly doesn’t fall outside the realm of “Thomistic orthodoxy”.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I agree that Aquinas was not a strict monarchist.
What about Maritain is, as you indicated, a little too liberal for your taste?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Someone correct me if I am off base, but I think the bad press on Maritain comes from several directions at once. The Protestants have always resented him because he turned Catholic and out shined most all of them as a thinker. They couldn’t ever get over that.
He was despised by the secularists partly for the same reason, but also because they thought he was too modern a thinker to be stuck in the medievalism of Aquinas.
He was suspected by conservative Catholics as too liberal (yet he opposed doing away with the Latin Mass … a position he later withdrew). He was hated by the liberal Catholics because he was shocked at the way liberals took over and tried to destroy orthodoxy after Vatican II.
Maritain lived long enough, into his 90s, to become a friend or enemy to many as he went through successive stages of his intellectual and spiritual development.
I remember him as a man who in his late years could not be kind enough to young people who aspired to the truth … and to virtue. Those who knew him will remember him for for saintliness than for genius, though well endowed with both. When I heard of his death, I was deeply saddened.
He was despised by the secularists partly for the same reason, but also because they thought he was too modern a thinker to be stuck in the medievalism of Aquinas.
He was suspected by conservative Catholics as too liberal (yet he opposed doing away with the Latin Mass … a position he later withdrew). He was hated by the liberal Catholics because he was shocked at the way liberals took over and tried to destroy orthodoxy after Vatican II.
Maritain lived long enough, into his 90s, to become a friend or enemy to many as he went through successive stages of his intellectual and spiritual development.
I remember him as a man who in his late years could not be kind enough to young people who aspired to the truth … and to virtue. Those who knew him will remember him for for saintliness than for genius, though well endowed with both. When I heard of his death, I was deeply saddened.
G
Geremia
Guest
That is true. Have anyone posted this article from his Summa here? St. Thomas’s response briefly summarizes his political views; he appears to favor a sort of “political eclecticism:”
Whether the Old Law enjoined fitting precepts concerning rulers?
I
itinerant1
Guest
Good interpretation of the situation. I think the approach should be that if someone disagrees with something specific Maritain said, he should bring it up for discussion, with the appropriate quotes and references.
For someone to merely say such things like “Maritain was too liberal” conveys no useful information for the reader, especially since the terms “conservative” and “liberal” have been, for decades, overused and abused so as to be practically useless words, unless one first explains clearly what they intend by either term. That is, we should define our terms, and then give examples of what we are talking about.
Otherwise, one can appear guilty of merely repeating what others have said about Maritain, while possessing no real understanding of the matter himself.
I
itinerant1
Guest
“For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers.”
Political opinion doesn’t get any more reasonable than this. Sounds very modern.
A
agapasme
Guest
It appears that Maritain might have silently dissented with respect to the birth control pill (however, this dissent came before the Pill was developed and before Humanae Vitae).
Ref: SILENT DISSENTER : Jacques Maritain on contraception - twentieth-century French Catholic theologian
I
itinerant1
Guest
Interesting link. After reading the article, I suspect the title, “Silent Dissenter” should be followed by a “?”. Also, the title reads Jacques Maritain on contraception - twentieth-century French Catholic theologian. Are the words “French Catholic theologian” supposed to refer to Maritain as it so appears? Maritain was not a theologian, and he would have been the first to say so. Confusing title.
Clearly, Maritain is working through some questions he has, arguments from reason. I am not sure that his erring speculations can be characterized as silent dissent. But maybe so. Before one arrives at the truth of a matter, he must resolve the truth or falsity of how things appear to him. Maritain was doing just what he needed to do.
We have the benefit of Humanae Vitae, to clearly and definitively spell out the status of artificial contraception from the natural moral law perspective. Thank God for *Humanae Vitae. *
And Maritain was an advisor to the author of that document, Pope Paul VI. Do we know what Maritain’s position was at that time of Humanae Vitae?
In comparison, and correct me if I am wrong, William May was an actual dissenter. But he did an about face and is now one of the most reliable sources on Catholic morality. You will find his website very useful: William E. May.
Back to Maritain. There were some problems with his involvement in politics during his early years. I believe it was with Catholic Action in Europe. Maritain was warned and did heed the warning. (My comment implies no judgment one way or the other on groups today called “Catholic Action”.)
Having read the Commonweal article quickly, I did not catch exactly what the alleged problem was with Integral Humanism, but the edition I have is a wonderful book. Maritain develops the idea that a true humanism can only be a Christian humanism.
( BTW, I think Commonweal has degenerated into a leftist rag, good only for linning the bottom of your bird cage. Hopefully your bird can’t read. )
As some of you might know, before the Parisian intellectual, Jacques Maritain, converted to Catholicism, he and his wife despaired of life and contemplated suicide. Jacques and his wife Raissa sure came a long way from that sad state of existence.
So, I would not be suprised if I found that Maritain was a bit off on some matters at points along his intellectual and spiritual journey. His book The peasant of the Garonne; an old layman questions himself about the present time reveals where he ended up intellectually and spiritually. After reading the book, one can only stand in awe of this great Catholic.
That’s all folks!
G
Geremia
Guest
Just scanning what he wrote, this is a big contradiction:
He recognizes contraception is sinful because of “an alteration introduced into the very exercise of that act, which turns it away from its finality in its very excellence,” but he doesn’t realize that contraceptive drugs are precisely that: contraceptive; he just says a drug would render “a woman sterile for a given period of time.” It doesn’t appear Maritain was dissenting; he just didn’t know a drug that sterilizes would also be contraceptive in the sense that it interferes with the marital act. I doubt he maintained all his views regarding this once Humanae Vitae was promulgated. I wonder, though, if eating foods that reduce fertility would be sinful for marrieds, too, because it would turn the marital act “away from its finality in its very excellence?”
G
Geremia
Guest
Thanks for the article, though; it seems like an interesting one.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I recall an obvious historical error by Maritain. He is quoted as saying, “In the past there was no contraceptive technique other than that of Onan coitus interruptus].” If the quote is reliable, it suggests that Maritain has yet to study the subject of contraception, at least as far as its history is concerned.
In ancient times up toward the present, in various societies, a variety of herbs were used as contraceptives, some of which were abortifacients.
“There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide.” (Octavius, Chap. 30; A.D. 226; Minucius Felix)
“Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!” (Refutation of All Heresies, Bk 9, Ch.7; A.D. 228; St. Hippolytus of Rome)
In ancient times, various drugs were used to induce abortions, as the following quote reveals. Even though pharmaceutical abortions are not what Maritain is addressing I added the follwing quote to highlight to what degree various concoctions were used in the past – from contraception to the intentional induction of abortion:
“I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder.” (Letters 22, Para. 13; St. Jerome; A.D. 396)
Also, “During the medieval period, physicians in the Islamic world listed many birth control substances in their medical encyclopedias. Avicenna listing 20 in The Canon of Medicine (1025) and Muhammad ibn Zakariya ar-Razi listing 176 in his Hawi (10th century). This was unparalleled in European medicine until the 19th century.” (Wikipedia)
Additionally, in the past, various pessaries (mechanical obstacles to conception) were used, though I do not know how common they were before the 20th century.
It seems then, for Maritain, there was much yet for him to learn about the history of the subject.
In ancient times up toward the present, in various societies, a variety of herbs were used as contraceptives, some of which were abortifacients.
“There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide.” (Octavius, Chap. 30; A.D. 226; Minucius Felix)
“Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!” (Refutation of All Heresies, Bk 9, Ch.7; A.D. 228; St. Hippolytus of Rome)
In ancient times, various drugs were used to induce abortions, as the following quote reveals. Even though pharmaceutical abortions are not what Maritain is addressing I added the follwing quote to highlight to what degree various concoctions were used in the past – from contraception to the intentional induction of abortion:
“I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder.” (Letters 22, Para. 13; St. Jerome; A.D. 396)
Also, “During the medieval period, physicians in the Islamic world listed many birth control substances in their medical encyclopedias. Avicenna listing 20 in The Canon of Medicine (1025) and Muhammad ibn Zakariya ar-Razi listing 176 in his Hawi (10th century). This was unparalleled in European medicine until the 19th century.” (Wikipedia)
Additionally, in the past, various pessaries (mechanical obstacles to conception) were used, though I do not know how common they were before the 20th century.
It seems then, for Maritain, there was much yet for him to learn about the history of the subject.
G
Geremia
Guest
Jacques Maritain and Robert Schuman: Have They Uncrowned Him?
Peter Chojnowski (a Thomist logic professor)
Peter Chojnowski (a Thomist logic professor)
- Status