neo-Thomism

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Sep 7 2005, 03:37 PM']
Malum Non Culpa
Malum Non Culpa
Malum less culpbaility.
Based on [b]just these[/b] facts, is the man committing an [b]evil[/b] act?
[right][snapback]714101[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[right][snapback]714554[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

James, you seem to be saying what I tried to say at first...an evil, but not guilt. Is that true?

*doesn't know why the quote feature isn't working*

Edited September 7, 2005 by Raphael

[Cam42]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Sep 7 2005, 11:36 AM']ah in other words "modernise". ah ok i gotcha.
[right][snapback]714341[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No.....not modernize.....but rather teach in a new manner. There is nothing modern about Thomism.

It is applying Thomistic thought to the modern world. BIG DIFFERENCE.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Sep 7 2005, 02:48 PM'][right][snapback]714554[/snapback][/right]


James, you seem to be saying what I tried to say at first...an evil, but not guilt.  Is that true?

*doesn't know why the quote feature isn't working*
[right][snapback]714569[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yes,

(Rethinking the first one) Contraceptive act was commited though they are not completely at fault. Though I would say that they do have some fault in that the townspeople could go get different water.

*doesn't know why the quote feature isn't working either*

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 7 2005, 02:52 PM']No.....not modernize.....but rather teach in a new manner.  There is nothing modern about Thomism.

It is applying Thomistic thought to the modern world.  BIG DIFFERENCE.
[right][snapback]714576[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Amen.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Theoketos

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Sep 7 2005, 03:56 PM']Yes,

(Rethinking the first one) Contraceptive act was commited though they are not completely at fault. Though I would say that they do have some fault in that the townspeople could go get different water.
[right][snapback]714582[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's why I said "maybe"...I suppose that if they simply intended to drink, the principle of double effect could apply, but the only time I've ever seen that principle used is when the doctors are doing everything they can to save as much life as possible...and if we transfer the "doing everything we can" aspect over, then it seems that they would be guilty if they knew of the uncontaminated water but didn't use it instead.

[philothea]

[quote name='philothea' date='Sep 7 2005, 01:20 PM']Considering the first case, would chemical-induced sterility (as from pollutants) make a married couple's intercourse evil also?  What about the natural effects of aging on a woman's fertility?  What about intercourse during non-fertile times?
[right][snapback]714495[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If anyone wants to answer this I'm still curious about your opinions.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='philothea' date='Sep 7 2005, 04:01 PM']If anyone wants to answer this I'm still curious about your opinions.
[right][snapback]714588[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Depends on intent, quite frankly. Even NFP can be abused as a contraceptive if the intent is to use it as one.

The age one you can't really control. As for the chemicals...depends on knowledge of the situation and will.

[philothea]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Sep 7 2005, 03:05 PM']Depends on intent, quite frankly.  Even NFP can be abused as a contraceptive if the intent is to use it as one.

The age one you can't really control.  As for the chemicals...depends on knowledge of the situation and will.
[right][snapback]714593[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, of course, but some (including yourself) have said that the first example -- of being unwillingly and unknowingly given a contraceptive, and then having intercourse, is evil.

So where is that line of "evil" since neither will nor knowledge have anything to do with it?

[Cam42]

Neo-Thomism is a twentieth-century movement (encouraged by Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris in 1879) that attempts to defend the philosophical and theological doctrines of Thomas Aquinas in a contemporary context. Prominent neo-Thomists include Gilson, Maritain, and Lonergan.

The main proponent of the neo-Thomistic movement was a teacher of mine in grad school. His name is Dr. Germain Grisez. The neo-Thomistic movement is attributed to him.

He brought the thoughts of Pieper, von Hildebrand (both), Maritain, John Paul II, et. al, together. Grisez argues that there are several intrinsic goods that it is reasonable for humans to pursue. These include life, authenticity and knowledge. Grisez argues for the gravity of human choice, insofar as persons, by their free choices constitute their moral identities, the one aspect of life which people truly own.

This is at the heart of neo-Thomism.

Neo-Thomism is a twentieth century revival of the thought of Thomas Aquinas. Thomism had been the dominant philosophy undergirding Roman Catholic theology from the fifteenth century. Under the pace setting interpretations of such thinkers as Cajetan in the early sixteenth century a complex system which spoke to the needs of both theology and contemporary philosophical questions developed.

[quote name='J. Maritain']The neo-Scholastic programme includes, in the next place, the adaptation of medieval principles and doctrines to our present intellectual needs. Complete immobility is no less incompatible with progress than out-and-out relativism. Vita in motu. To make Scholasticism rigid and stationary would be fatal to it. The doctrines revived by the new movement are like an inherited fortune; to refuse it would be folly, but to manage it without regard to actual conditions would be worse. With Dr. Ehrhard one may say: "Aquinas should be our beacon, not our boundary" ("Der Katholicismus und das zwanzigste Jahrh. im Lichte der Kirchlichen Entwicklung der Neuzeit", Stuttgart, 1902, 252). We have now to pass in review the various factors in the situation and to see in what respect the new Scholasticism differs from the old and how far it adapts itself to our age.[/quote]

Recommended Reading: Gerald A. McCool, The Neo-Thomists (Marquette, 1996); The Future of Thomism: The Maritain Sequence, ed. by Deal W. Hudson, Dennis William Moran, and Donald Arthur Gallagher (Notre Dame, 1992); Conflict and Community: New Studies in Thomistic Thought, ed. by Michael B. Lukens (Peter Lang, 1993); W. Norris Clarke, The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics (Notre Dame, 2001); and John F. X. Knasas, The Preface to Thomistic Metaphysics: A Contribution to the Neo-Thomist Debate on the State of Metaphysics (Peter Lang, 1991).

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='philothea' date='Sep 7 2005, 04:13 PM']Well, of course, but some (including yourself) have said that the first example -- of being unwillingly and unknowingly given a contraceptive, and then having intercourse, is evil.

So where is that line of "evil" since neither will nor knowledge have anything to do with it?
[right][snapback]714597[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, but now that you yourself corrected me, I'm not saving "evil" for sins...

Although I think I need to examine this more.

Using the same language I used at the beginning, yes, those would be evils, but not sins, except depending on the same circumstances I outlined in my last post, I think.

[philothea]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Sep 7 2005, 03:21 PM']Yes, but now that you yourself corrected me, I'm not saving "evil" for sins...
[right][snapback]714602[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Oh. Hm! I don't figure that anyone pays attention to me, sorry.

[quote name='Raphael' date='Sep 7 2005, 03:21 PM']Using the same language I used at the beginning, yes, those would be evils, but not sins, except depending on the same circumstances I outlined in my last post, I think.
[right][snapback]714602[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You can see where this is going, can't you?

Any intercourse that doesn't produce a pregnancy is evil. Use whatever term you want for "evil" -- moral evil, flawed, imperfect, whatever. This seems absurd. Humans are not biologically capable of that, even with the best modern technology.

Before we go chasing after more absurdity, I'd like Q to define "evil" for us in his question.

(This is always the problem with philosophy: wiggly words. Numbers are so much more reliable.)

[argent_paladin]

Since the question explicitly asked what neoThomists would say, I am surprised that we haven't brought out the Angelic Doctor out yet. You aren't really a neo-Thomist unless you quote Thomas every other paragraph.

In the Ia IIae, q. 21.a.2, Thomas distinguishes between "evil" and "sin":
[quote]Evil is more comprehensive than sin, as also is good than right. For every privation of good, in whatever subject, is an evil: whereas sin consists properly in an action done for a certain end, and lacking due order to that end.[/quote]

It seems that these examples are chosen to challenge the consequentialist mentality that people have (or perhaps, to challenge the idea of intrinisic evil).

In the first case, there is evil because of the privation (absence) of the good of fertility. It is a bit of a red herring. The situation would be the same if there were some sort of poison as well. The privation is a privation of health. However, it doesn not stem from an intention of the person. In analyzing the act, the act is "drinking water", with the presumed end of "quenching thirst" or "nourishment". The circumstance, that the water is contaminated, is not known to the agent. The voluntary act is drinking the water, the involuntary act is ingesting the contraceptive. Only in the realm of voluntary acts do we speak of good and evill acts. Therefore, there is no evil in the act, but only in the effect.

The second case is rather confusing. Why is he fearful for his life if he knows that he could "easily" escape with Saddam unharmed out of the country? Based on this, I would say that it is an irrational, and therefore, evil act.
[quote]Now in those things that are done by the will, the proximate rule is the human reason, while the supreme rule is the Eternal Law. When, therefore, a human action tends to the end, according to the order of reason and of the Eternal Law, then that action is right: but when it turns aside from that rectitude, then it is said to be a sin. [/quote] The soldier made a voluntary act (though constrained by fear) to kill when not given orders to (I assume). If he killed because he was afraid without cause, then there is a privation of prudence, he acted irrationally. And there is sin as well. It is more of an interpretation of the situation than of the moral laws.

In the third case, there is no sin, but the evil of privation of life. Now, however, we get in to the concepts of vincible vs. invincible ignorance. [i]Should[/i] he have known that it wasn't a bear? Was he negligent. Since we can only work with the information given, we cannot say that there was an evil act, only an evil effect. (Remember, natural things can be evil in that sense as well).

One of the best treatments on thomistic ethics is, naturally, Ethica Thomistica by Ralph McInerny, I also recommend The Ethics of Aquinas ed. Pope and everything by Servais Pinckaers. Oh, and Cam, would you recommend A Short History of Thomist by Cessario? I've read some of his articles and it seems like an interesting book.

[MC Just]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 7 2005, 02:52 PM']No.....not modernize.....but rather teach in a new manner.  There is nothing modern about Thomism.

It is applying Thomistic thought to the modern world.  BIG DIFFERENCE.
[right][snapback]714576[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


thanks, now that makes more sense.

[Era Might]

Cessario is a good source.

[quote]Other critics wonder why Aquinas does not more frequently and directly appeal in the course of his moral theology to the person and the work of Christ. There are several important reasons why Aquinas structured his moral theology in the way that he did, but suffice it to remark that to the extent that his moral theology aims to place the human person into the concrete rhythms of God's wisdom and love, Thomist moral theology exhibits in fact an eminently Christological dimension.

--Introduction to Moral theology[/quote]

Edited September 7, 2005 by Era Might

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='philothea' date='Sep 7 2005, 04:55 PM']You can see where this is going, can't you?

Any intercourse that doesn't produce a pregnancy is evil.  Use whatever term you want for "evil" -- moral evil, flawed, imperfect, whatever.  This seems absurd.  Humans are not biologically capable of that, even with the best modern technology.

Before we go chasing after more absurdity, I'd like Q to define "evil" for us in his question.

(This is always the problem with philosophy: wiggly words.  Numbers are so much more reliable.)
[right][snapback]714632[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, I would say that if we're defining "evil" as simply "a falling short of the ideal" which is kinda what I was meaning originally, then I would say that intercourse that doesn't produce a pregnancy is evil...excepting that intercourse which takes place during pregnancy.

Let's go to the Garden of Eden...Adam and Eve have not a care in the world...they just love and make love (although, interestingly enough, the Scriptures only say that they had intercourse after the Fall, and it leads me to the highly potential conclusion that no human being ever has or ever will experience intercourse completely as God intended). They, being completely good, want to be completely fruitful. Therefore, it seems that they would desire pregnancy with each and every sexual act and that (original sin not having entered the world), each and every act of intercourse would result in a pregnancy (excepting, again, those acts of intercourse during a pregnancy). Of course, there is one other factor, Eve's cycle...if the cycle was not caused by the fall and she had it anyway, well, one cannot speculate on the fertility in that case, etc.

In our world, however, we have difficulties to deal with, and therefore it is morally acceptable not to contracept, but to delay pregnancy for the greater good. I would say that NFP could be considered a cooperation in an unintended natural evil, that is, the situations surrounding intercourse may make a husband and wife, for the sake of the family, want to delay conception because of their inability to change those situations.

However, I only came up with this on the fly, and it could probably be very easily torn apart. Have at it.

[argent_paladin]

Cam, I would not include Grisez with neothomists (attribute it to him) for two reasons:
1. He is a full two generations after the great 20th century flowering of neo-Thomism. Grisez wrote "Way of the Lord Jesus" in 1983. Maritain wrote "Degrees of Knowledge" in 1932. Ettienne Gilson author of "The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas" was a professor of Medieval philosophy at the Sorbonne in 1927.
In fact, (and this should assure those skeptical of its "modernist" dendencies), neo-Thomism has been around since the 19th century and has been approved by the Church multiple times. See the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) article: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10746a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10746a.htm[/url]
I think the Jacques Maritain center at Notre Dame is a good authority on the subject:
[quote]When the world in the first part of the nineteenth century began to enjoy a period of peace and rest after the disturbances caused by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, closer attention was given to ecclesiastical studies and Scholasticism was revived. This movement eventually caused a revival of Thomism, because the great master and model proposed by Leo XIII in the encyclicai "AEterni Patris" (4 Aug., 1879) was St. Thomas Aquinas. . . . The Thomistic doctrine had received strong support from the older universities. Among these the Encyclical "AEterni Patris" mentions Paris, Salamanca, Alcalá Douai, Toulouse, Louvain, Padua, Bologna, Naples, and Coimbra as "the homes of human wisdom where Thomas reigned supreme, and the minds of all, teachers as well as taught, rested in wonderful harmony under the shield and authority of the Angelic Doctor". In the universities established by the Dominicans at Lima (1551) and Manila (1645) St. Thomas always held sway. The same is true of the Minerva school at Rome (1255), which ranked as a university from the year 1580, and is now the international Collegio Angelico. Coming down to our own times and the results of the Encyclical, which gave a new impetus to the study of St. Thomas's works, the most important centres of activity are Rome, Louvain, Fribourg (Switzerland), and Washington. At Louvain the chair of Thomistic philosophy, established in 1880, became, in 1889-90, the "Institut supérieur de philosophie" or "Ecole St. Thomas d'Aquin," where Professor Mercier, now Cardinal Archbishop of Mechlin, ably and wisely directed the new Thomistic movement (see De Wulf, "Scholasticism Old and New", tr. Coffey, New York, 1907, append., p. 261; "Irish Ecel. Record", Jan. 1906). The theological department of the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, established in 1889, has been entrusted to the Dominicans. By the publication of the "Revue thomiste" the professors of that university have contributed greatly to a new knowledge and appreciation of St. Thomas. The Constitution of the Catholic University of America at Washington enjoins special veneration for St. Thomas; the School of Sacred Sciences must follow his leadership ("Const. Cath. Univ. Amer.", Rome, 1889, pp. 38, 43). The University of Ottawa and Laval University are the centres of Thomism in Canada. The appreciation of St. Thomas in our days, in Europe and in America, is well set forth in Perrier's excellent "Revival of Scholastic Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century" (New York, 1909).[/quote]

2. He is more properly called the founder of the "New Natural Law" school, which, of course, has many similarities to Thomas, who was also a natural law theorist. However, many neothomists, myself included, are a bit suspicious of his approach and consider it a separate branch from the thomism of Gilson, Maritan, Pinckaers, etc.

So, both historically and theoretically, I can't see how you place him in neothomism, let alone at its head.