![]() |
Disputations''For true and false will in no better way be revealed and uncovered than in resistance to a contradiction.'' -- St. Thomas Aquinas Navigation
Disputed sites
Undisputed sites
< # MetroBlogs ? >
Atom Feed
May 2002 June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 April 2016 July 2016 August 2016 October 2016 December 2016 January 2017 September 2017 February 2020 June 2020 July 2020 September 2020 May 2024 |
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Mary Timeline
The Marian Library/International Marian Research Institute's Mary Page -- actually an extensive set of pages, hosted by the University of Dayton -- includes a list of New Testament references to Mary, adapted from Mary, of Galilee: Mary in the New Testament by Fr. Bertrand Buby, S.M. What's interesting about the list of references is that it's ordered chronologically, beginning with the letters of St. Paul. This presents a different picture than the usual book ordering, which would start with the Gospel According to St. Matthew, which of course talks about Mary in the very first chapter. In his letters, St. Paul is not at all interested in the person of Mary, except insofar as she signifies the fact that "God sent his Son, born of a woman," "descended from David according to the flesh." In other words, his point is that Jesus is both human and divine, which means He did have a human mother, but he draws no implications, he doesn't even imply that there are any implications, about the Christian's relationship with Jesus' mother. Then we have the Gospels (and Acts):
Scripture itself, then, presents a gradual unfolding in understanding Mary's role in the salvation worked for us through Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Little surprise, then, that this unfolding has continued since the death of the last Apostle, and that a sola Scriptura approach to the Christian faith has such trouble achieving the level of understanding the Church has achieved. Objections to Marian doctrines, even those raised by Catholics, will not be overcome by reasserting the doctrines, but by going all the way back to points of agreement and carefully recapitulating the threads of insight that led to the statements of the doctrines the Church has made. This, of course, presupposes a relationship, a friendship even, capable of such patient dialog. Link | 0 comments | Tweet Monday, June 09, 2008
You can't get there from here
To Matthew, Jesus said, "Follow." To the Pharisees, He said, "Go." The Pharisees may well have been closer to God than Matthew was, but he recognized the way when he saw it. They had to go away from where they were if they too wanted to come into the Father's house. Link | 0 comments | Tweet
Fathers know best
So, have you learned the meaning of the words, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice," yet? Checking with the Catena Aurea, I find St. John Chrysostom wrote this by way of explaining Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees: As much as to say; How do you accuse me for reforming sinners? Therefore in this you accuse God the Father also. For as He wills the amendment of sinners, even so also do I. And He shews that this that they blamed [i.e., eating with tax collectors and sinners] was not only not forbidden, but was even by the Law set above sacrifice; for He said not, I will have mercy as well as sacrifice, but chooses the one and rejects the other.A gloss attributed to St. Anselm suggests: Yet does not God contemn sacrifice, but sacrifice without mercy. But the Pharisees often offered sacrifices in the temple that they might seem to men to be righteous, but did not practise the deeds of mercy by which true righteousness is proved.And from Rabanus: He therefore warns them, that by deeds of mercy they should seek for themselves the rewards of the mercy that is above, and not, overlooking the necessities of the poor, trust to please God by offering sacrifice. Wherefore, He says, "Go;" that is, from the rashness of foolish fault-finding to a more careful meditation of Holy Scripture, which highly commends mercy, and proposes to them as a guide His own example of mercy, saying, "I came not to call the righteous but sinners."I like Rabanus's final point, that Jesus' own example of mercy should guide our careful meditation on Hosea's prophecy. He himself has provided the one necessary and sufficient sacrifice. It now remains for us to carry the mercy manifested on the cross to the world. Link | 0 comments | Tweet Friday, June 06, 2008
It's not a feature
Don't get me wrong: I am firmly committed to the moral soundness of the principle of double effect. That doesn't mean I'm happy about it. The PDE is usually defined in terms of the conditions that, when met, make an act that has negative consequences morally permissible. That's really more of a heuristic, though, a description of how to reason about something. If we want to stress the fact that the PDE is a principle, we might simply say, "Sometimes it's okay to act in a way that has bad side effects, and sometimes it's not." The "sometimes it's okay" part answers rigorists, although I suspect most rigorists either suffer from scruples or are merely contrarian. An intellectually rigorous rigorism against the PDE leads to moral paralysis, psychosis, and death. (I speculate somewhat.) The "sometimes it's not okay" part answers laxists, which is to say most everyone most of the time, including those of us who think of the PDE as a license to act, a principle directed only against the rigorists. But the fact that sometimes it's okay to act in a way that has bad side effects doesn't mean that, at those times, it's great or wonderful to act that way. We don't celebrate the fact that the injury to my family is outweighed by the good I do staying up till 2 a.m. instructing the ignorant and admonishing the sinner. We accept that fact, recognizing that our world is one with very few choices that have only good consequences. But we wish it weren't so, and we look forward to the day that has no evening when it will be so. This should be especially clear in the special case of the PDE that we call "remote material cooperation with evil." The very expression contains the term "cooperation with evil." That should clue us in to the fact that we aren't talking about something that is altogether nifty. But don't we often think it is altogether nifty? Once we satisfy ourselves of the moral liceity of a particular instance of remote material cooperation with evil, aren't we often wholly satisfied with ourselves, with no thought of the evil we are cooperating with troubling our minds further? The PDE may justify our remote material cooperation with evil. It doesn't justify our satisfaction. Link | 0 comments | Tweet Monday, June 02, 2008
We're all Traducianists now
Traducianism, as you know, is the false doctrine that the human soul is produced through generation by the parents rather than directly by God. The old Catholic Encyclopedia distinguishes between "corporeal Traducianism" -- "the materialistic doctrine of the transmission of the soul by the organic process of generation" -- and Generationism -- "according to which the soul of the offspring originates from the parental soul in some mysterious way analogous to that in which the organism originates from the parent's organism." All materialists are corporeal Traducianists -- or should be, though I guess it'd be possible to believe the human soul is a material thing that comes from something outside the organic process of generation. There are, or at least have been, plenty of Christians who were Generationists. If you're familiar with the old saw, "100% of Church Fathers were 85% orthodox," you won't be surprised to find traces of Generationism within the Church during the Patristic Age. Even St. Augustine, God love him, thought it gave a better explanation of Original Sin than did Creationism (the Catholic doctrine that every human soul is immediately created by God). Not, perhaps, a matter of daily concern, but note how risky Generationism is in a time when scientific materialism is the reigning philosophy. If you want to argue that human souls are generated in a way mysteriously analogous to the way human bodies are generated, then your theology is dependent upon, and will change along with, the physical sciences. Creationism may strike the scientific materialist as cheating, but a charge of invalid philosophy is better than a charge of bad philosophy. ("Are sperm- and egg-souls immortal, then? Or merely potentially so? Etc.") The difference between Generationism and Creationism is a difference in recognition of just how intimately, immediately, and personally God relates to every human person. Generationism, and still more Traducianism in general, posits a kind of absence of God where God is indeed present. Almost all of us, though, posit a kind of absence of God where God is indeed present. Whatever we think God is indifferent to, whenever we say, "God doesn't care," whatever we pretend He won't notice -- all that says, "God is not here. God is not involved." All that savors of Traducianism. Link | 0 comments | Tweet
|