neo-Thomism

[argent_paladin]

The evil is not in the act of unfruitful intercourse, which would be absurd. The evil is in the act of deliberate, intentional sterilization of the person, whether temporary or permanent as well as in the intention of sexual intercourse ordered toward selfish reasons, rather than the universal divine law.

[Cam42]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 7 2005, 05:24 PM']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:
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.
[right][snapback]714664[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[b]I understand where you are coming from. I believe that I mispoke when I said he was the head, my apologies. I was confusing New Natural Law and Neo-Thomism.[/b]

However, his views on Thomism are very similar to and coincide with Neo-Thomistic thought. Let's not forget that Grisez considers von Hildebrand a mentor. While there are some differences, I think that NNL and neo-Thomism are compatible. Both rely on classical Thomistic thought. Both rely on the understanding of Thomistic metaphysics as applied to the modern world.

Thanks for helping me remember and set my bearings in regard to Grisez.

[argent_paladin]

I am willing to accept that one could argue that Grisez is compatible with Thomism (indeed, that is a hot topic in thomistic circles at present). But it definitely goes to far to say that he is the standard. And just because one has a teacher in a certain school doesn't mean that you will be part of that school as well. After all, Aristotle isn't a Platonist.
Obviously, Grisez has contributed greatly to our continued understanding of Thomas, and in a broad sense, he is certainly a thomist. But I was educated in the Dominican Thomist tradition, where, if you weren't wearing a white habit, you weren't really a Thomist.

[Cam42]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 7 2005, 06:58 PM']I am willing to accept that one could argue that Grisez is compatible with Thomism (indeed, that is a hot topic in thomistic circles at present). But it definitely goes to far to say that he is the standard. And just because one has a teacher in a certain school doesn't mean that you will be part of that school as well.  After all, Aristotle isn't a Platonist.
Obviously, Grisez has contributed greatly to our continued understanding of Thomas, and in a broad sense, he is certainly a thomist. But I was educated in the Dominican Thomist tradition, where, if you weren't wearing a white habit, you weren't really a Thomist.
[right][snapback]714741[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I know....I actually shot him off an email (Dr. Grisez) earlier today. I am hoping to hear back soon. I do know that he has a lot on his plate at the moment, but he is usually good at getting back to me, when I ask a question.

It most certainly is a hot topic. I think that the compatibility is most harmonious. However, I hope that he gets back to me soon, since this is precisely what I asked him about.

[qfnol31]

I personally would have thought that NNL was under neo-Thomism.

Speaking of NNL, would it say that none of these is an evil act, in that there is no sin involved?

[qfnol31]

I would say they're all evil, but very little sin is involved.

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

Moral evil is the privation of a due order of goods. Just because there is such a thing, it doesn't mean a person is culpable (responsible) for it.