Showing posts with label Thomas Aquinas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thomas Aquinas. Show all posts

Monday, June 3, 2019

Adriano Oliva's Amours: L'Église, les divorcés remariés, les couples homosexuels — On the Pastoral Implications of Aquinas' Recognition That Homosexuality Is Natural



In my last posting some days ago about Adriano Oliva's Amours: L'Église, les divorcés remariés, les couples homosexuels (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2015), I noted that Oliva finds Thomas Aquinas teaching that sexual attraction to members of one's own sex is natural for those who are homosexual. As part of the natural order, the homosexual inclination some people have is to be treated with every bit as much respect as is reserved for the sexual attraction that the majority of people display towards members of the opposite sex.

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Adriano Oliva's Amours: L'Église, les divorcés remariés, les couples homosexuels — Aquinas on Inclination to Homosexuality as Natural



As I have promised in previous postings, I'd like to share some more reflections about Adriano Oliva’s book, Amours: L’Église, les divorcés remariés, les couples homosexuels (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2015). In several recent postings (here and here), I've discussed the first part of Oliva's book, which deals with Thomas Aquinas' theology of marriage and its implications for the debate about how the church should deal pastorally with divorced and remarried Catholics. I've also offered an excerpt from the second part of Oliva's book, which is about how Aquinas treats the topic of what we now understand as homosexuality. Now I'd like to offer some further reflections regarding that second part of Oliva's book (pp. 75-124):

Sunday, May 19, 2019

Adriano Oliva's Amours: L'Église, les divorcés remariés, les couples homosexuels — Response from a Reader re: Aquinas' Theology of Marriage

One of my Facebook friends, Jean-François Garneau in Montréal, has responded to my recent posting about how Adriano Oliva's book Amours: L'Église, les divorcés remariés, les couples homosexuels — deals with the topic of procreation in Thomas Aquinas' theology of marriage. As my posting noted,

Friday, May 17, 2019

Notes on Adriano Oliva's Amours: L'Église, les divorcés remariés, les couples homosexuels — On Sexual Relations Between Women as Less Sinful Than Sodomy



As a footnote to what I posted yesterday regarding Adriano Oliva's book Amours: L'Église, les divorcés remariés, les couples homosexuels (Paris: Cerf, 2015) and its discussion of Aquinas' views regarding the sacrament of marriage, I'd like to offer  you the passage above as a reminder of some aspects of Aquinas' worldview that affect his understanding of sexuality, gender, and marriage. I offer this passage from pp. 78-9 of Adriano's book both as a footnote to the discussion of his theology of marriage, and as a prelude to his discussion of homosexuality, on which I'll focus in my next posting (or two) about his book.

Thursday, May 16, 2019

Notes on Adriano Oliva's Amours: L'Église, les divorcés remariés, les couples homosexuels — Procreation in Aquinas' Theology of Marriage



Back in January 2016, I shared with you some notes about Adriano Oliva's book Amours: L'Église, les divorcés remariés, les couples homosexuels (Paris: Cerf, 2015). As I shared my comments about Oliva's book, which was written as theological reflection on issues central to the synod on the family in 2015, I told you that my comments were more a set of notes than a review of the book per se.

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Adriano Oliva's Amours: L'Église, les divorcés remariés, les couples homosexuels: Book Notes



I've just finished reading the new book by the noted French Dominican Thomist scholar Reverend Adriano Oliva, Amours: L'Église, les divorcés remariés, les couples homosexuels (Paris: Cerf, 2015), and would like to offer you today some notes about this important new study. Oliva is a distinguished student of the very important Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas, on whose understanding of natural law much Catholic theology has been built over the centuries. He is president of the Leonine Commission, the group charged with producing and publishing faithful critical editions of Aquinas's work, and is a research fellow at the Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes, and a researcher with the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), both in Paris.

Friday, November 23, 2012

Same-Sex Marriage and Families of Gay Couples: Two Theological Perspectives (and a Poem)


The video: poet Alvin Lau declaiming his poem "Full Moon" at the opening round of individual finals at the 2006 National Poetry Slam.  The poem reflects on the marriage of Lau's sister to another woman.

Friday, September 28, 2012

A Reader Writes: "There's a Rich Vein of Understanding about Marriage That Remains to Be Discovered"



Another stellar comment here in the past few days by boltingmadonna, who writes the following in response to my posting earlier in the week about Archbishop Cordileone and Cardinal George and the knotted knickers of Catholic leaders vis-a-vis their gay brothers and sisters:

Monday, August 13, 2012

Frank Cocozzelli on Ryan's Aquinian Epiphany: So Much Smoke and Mirrors



At Talk to Action, Frank Cocozzelli has just reposted a piece he wrote last May on Paul Ryan's p-r driven Aquinian epiphany in the weeks leading up to his appearance at a debate on economic issues at Georgetown this past April.  As Frank's detailed chronology of Ryan's faux epiphany reminds me, Ryan has had ample help in his repackaging project from "centrist" beltway commentators, who will say and do anything to promote powerful folks who tack right and give the appearance of being rising stars--no matter how extreme their tacking.  We can look for much more of this mainstream media repackaging of Ryan in days to come--Ryan the nice guy, Ryan just one of the folks, Ryan the intellectual (!), Ryan the exemplar of the work ethic who pulled himself up by his bootstraps, Ryan the exemplar of Catholic values.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Droppings from the Catholic Birdcage: Paul Ryan and "Give Me Thomas Aquinas"



After Paul Ryan discovered that there was a downside to his infatuation with Ayn Rand (a radical individualist who also happens to have been a pro-choice atheist), he then informed the world that he's Thomas Aquinas all the way, all the time.  In a speech to a group of Rand devotees in 2005, Ryan said, 

Monday, January 23, 2012

On Conscience, the U.S. Bishops, and Manufactured Battles with the Obama Administration: David DeCosse at NCR



National Catholic Reporter is now carrying valuable commentary by David DeCosse, director of campus ethics programs at Santa Clara University, about the model of conscience the U.S. Catholic bishops are applying in their clashes with the Obama administration over "religious freedom" issues.  DeCosse focuses, in particular, on the recent battle about the HHS guidelines recommending coverage of contraception in health care plans, including in religiously owned institutions.  

Friday, January 6, 2012

Minnesota Archbishop Nienstedt Seeks to Bludgeon Consciences of Clergy re: Marriage Equality



An important posting yesterday at Michael Bayly's Progressive Catholic Voice site, to which I want to draw readers' attention: last month, Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul-Minneapolis issued a letter to the priests and deacons of his archdiocese, instructing them that, vis-a-vis the issue of marriage equality, they are either to get on board with his anti-marriage equality crusade or keep silent.  Michael publishes the text of the letter, which Nienstedt originally gave as a presentation to diocesan clergy last October.

Monday, October 10, 2011

Thomas Aquinas, Natural Law, and Occupy Wall Street



This could well be a sign held by an Occupy Wall Street demonstrator: 

Those things which some possess in excess of reasonable needs are owed by natural law to the sustenance of the poor.

The Catholic theologian who stated this?  Thomas Aquinas, the "angelic doctor" who is often cited by the magisterium as the Catholic theologian of all time.  The citation is from Aquinas' Summa Theologiae II.II, 66, art. 7.

Friday, November 19, 2010

A Gloss on Catholic Theology of the Body as Bogus Science Propping Up Bad Theology



A gloss on what I've just posted about the ludicrous science now being used to prop up bad theology, as proponents of the theology of the body now assert that the superiority of male-female sex is proven by the response of the vagina to semen: 

I want to make the theological point crystal clear.  That is, I want to make crystal clear my point that this particular rendition of the theology of the body is bad theology clothed in preposterous science.  Here's why: it actually moves Catholic ethical thinking backwards in the area of sexual teaching, while claiming it is doing so in response to good science.  It retrieves ethical conclusions long since discarded by the Catholic tradition itself, at its best, while it also claims to be offering an entirely new, scientifically astute reading of sexual ethics:

Monday, October 12, 2009

Engaging the Issues: Abortion as Murder, Genetic Evidence about the Beginning of a Human Person

As the posting I just uploaded notes, I’ve fallen behind in recognizing and responding to comments about my postings of the last several days. I appreciate the lively discussion about my weekend comments re: the abortion and health care debate. And I intend to take note of those postings soon, except when they’re part of a discussion between several respondents on which I don’t want to intrude.

For now, I do want to engage several comments in the two weekend threads that, in my view, deserve attention. The first of these has to do with the question of whether abortion is murder.

I brought that topic up in a comment in the thread following Saturday’s posting. And then I said more about it in Sunday’s posting.

As I’ve noted, from early in the period following Roe v. Wade, when the Catholic response to that Supreme Court decision began to develop, I attended public seminars at some Catholic universities at which highly respected theologians questioned the accuracy or wisdom of the tactic of some pro-lifers to call abortion murder.

And then all careful, reasoned discussion of the topic of abortion got shut down in Catholic circles, and anyone working in Catholic institutions and asking for further discussion of this topic (as well as of sexual ethics and women’s ordination) was likely to find himself or herself out of a job and/or silenced. After what happened to Charles Curran, Catholic theologians have trodden very gingerly around these questions.

And, in my view, the result has been disastrous, not just for the church, but for the pro-life movement in general, insofar as it seeks to engage the general public and not merely true believers on the political and religious right. That movement has moved more and more away from reasoned discussion as its primary approach to shifting cultural views of life-oriented issues, and more and more towards what I called shouting and shoving in my weekend postings.

As I noted in those postings, I remember attending a seminar about abortion and the pro-life movement at my alma mater, Loyola University in New Orleans, not very long after Roe v. Wade came down. And as I also noted, I remember several elderly, very traditional, middle-of-the-road Jesuit theologians noting in that seminar that it is inaccurate and dangerous for some pro-lifers to call abortion murder.

Why did they make this assertion? In the first place, in traditional Catholic moral theology, the moral meaning of an act depends not merely on the act itself. It depends as well on what one intends by an act.

If a man backs his car over his wife and kills her without intending to do so, he is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. If he backs his car over his wife and kills her while fully intending to kill his wife, having premeditated the act, he is guilty of murder.

Same act. Two different intentions. And those different intentions radically alter the moral meaning of the act.

As those wise, traditional elderly Jesuit mentors noted in their seminar about abortion more than thirty years ago, when we call abortion murder, we are implying (and assuming) that anyone who chooses an abortion is deliberately, with malice aforethought, choosing to kill another human being.

And yet many of those who choose an abortion do not think about what they are doing in those terms at all. Many of those who choose an abortion in the very early stages of pregnancy (e.g., those who take the morning-after pill) are not at all convinced that they are ending a human life.

The decision of many of those who choose to end a pregnancy is anything but a deliberate, premeditated decision to murder a baby. The use of the term “murder” to characterize abortion in general muddies the waters and does not contribute to careful analysis of all that is going on in decisions to end a pregnancy, or all that is going on in the complex moral and civic debates about abortion.

And so, in part because that discussion was decisively shut down in the Catholic church, we have ended up with a pro-life movement that slings around the phrase “baby killer,” without making any distinction between what people believe, based on scientific evidence, is happening at the earliest stages of conception, as opposed to the later stages of pregnancy.

And we’ve ended up with a pro-life movement in which those shouting baby-killerare often likely to promote capital punishment, wars against our religious “enemies,” the denial of health care coverage to poor citizens including undocumented immigrants, racist ideologies, and abuse of gay and lesbian citizens. We’ve ended up with Randall Terry showing up at a Human Rights Campaign to wave a picture of a dismembered fetus.

What’s that all about? And how does it promote the pro-life movement and its central claims? How does it do so in any constructive, reasonable way that might bring more thinking, concerned people into the pro-life camp?

The second point I want to address is the claim that contemporary science validates the Catholic magisterial teaching that a human being is fully present at the moment of conception, from the moment sperm and ovum unite. Again, this is a claim that demands much careful, reasonable reflection. It demands discussion between a number of constituencies, including the scientific community.

If this claim means that there is unique genetic matter—DNA uniquely different from that of either the father or the mother—from the moment of conception, then that’s certainly a piece of information that needs to be taken into consideration by those debating abortion from a religious and/or philosophical standpoint.

But to say that there is unique genetic matter in the fertilized ovum is hardly the same thing as saying a human person is fully present in the zygote. As one respondent points out in the weekend threads, if a human person is present when sperm and ovum unite, what are we to make of the phenomenon of twinning—the division of some zygotes to form two and not one person at a point further down the road from conception? And what to make, as this poster also notes, of the fact that the twinned zygote also sometimes recombines into one zygote again?

The genetic and biological evidence is far more complex than the human-being-fully-present-at-conception position would like to have us believe. Given its complexity, if we want to promote an ethic of life and convince others in a pluralistic society, we need to do our homework and sit down with those others at the table and talk—not scream at them about their murderous ways and refusal to recognize that taking the morning-after pill is killing a baby.

The vast majority of fertilized ova do not implant in the womb. Nature is designed so that most concepta naturally abort. If they did not naturally abort, we’d be overrun with so many people in a short time that the resources of the earth would not sustain its population. One could well argue from a theological standpoint that God designs procreation in such a way that the majority of fertilized ova spontaneously abort, because life on this planet would be insupportable otherwise.

And, as other posters have noted, there’s a process, a time-coded one, by which those zygotes that do develop implant themselves in the uterine wall. That process does not occur at the moment of conception. Some of those who think about the morality of abortion nowadays have seen in this contemporary scientific finding evidence to support the very traditional theory of Aristotle and Aquinas following him, that the fetus does not attain the status of a person—does not become “ensouled—until the moment of uterine implantation.

I have great difficulty imagining Aquinas, or contemporary believers or citizens who see a difference in the ontological status of the conceptus and the implanted zygote, as murderers or advocates of murder. We would have long since been better served, if we want the ethic of life to be taken seriously, to permit reasonable discussion (and education) about these issues.

Finally, it’s important to note that raw scientific data will never resolve complex questions about precisely when a human person is present in the process of conception, or when human life ends. These are both scientific and philosophical decisions. They require both scientists and philosophers at the table.

And yes, they also require religious adherents and theologians around the table. But not as final authorities issuing fiats that shut down the discussion.

Not, that is, if those believers hope to be taken seriously in a pluralistic society where reason and not ecclesial fiat is the path to moral consensus.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Thomas Aquinas on the Fecundity of Creation (and the Necessity of Gay Persons to Mirror God's Fecund Nature?)

These are two separate journal entries from the spring of 1990, on a similar theme:

A theological theme keeps popping into my mind. It has to do with the fecundity of creation. I have a notion that some classic theologians—Meister Eckhart? Julian of Norwich? Maybe even Aquinas?—have written on this theme. I don’t know that I’ve ever really seen this phrase: I’ve coined it in my mind to express the idea that the great diversity and richness of the created world points back to the diversity and richness of the creator.

I think this is significant as a theological grounding for Christian acceptance of sexual diversity—in accepting the much richer diversity of sexual orientation outside the bounds of natural law narrowly construed, Christians praise and acknowledge the largesse of the creator. I want sometime to study the theme of creation more specifically.

+ + + + +

I think I’ve written this elsewhere, but I believe Walden could be used as the basis for an interesting article on nature and homosexuality. Thoreau develops throughout the book a concept of nature as diverse, manifold, open-ended, that is at once philosophically profound and typically American (Transcendentalist).

This intersects well with the ideas I’ve sketched in previous journals on the fecundity of nature, as a basis for a gay-affirming ethic.

Brennan Hill, Paul F. Knitter, William Madges, in Faith, Religion, and Theology: A Contemporary Introduction (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third, 1990), pp. 373-4, cite Aquinas, Summa, pt. I, ques. 47, art 1, to say that the multiplicity of life forms is necessary for us to appreciate the grandeur and infinite nature of God, that God brought things into being in order both to communicate divine goodness to them, and be represented by them via all their diversity. Diversity, Aquinas thinks, is necessary because what’s lacking to one in representing God’s goodness is supplied by another.

A biocentric or creation-centered ethic of homosexuality would thus see acceptance of gays as a requisite for appreciating God’s lavish goodness, the fecundity of the divine nature.

Also apropos here is Newman, “Preface to the 3rd Edition,” The Via Media of the Anglican Church: “Still more readily will that true theology, which teaches that He ever was a Father in his incomprehensible essence, accept and proclaim the doctrine of the fertility, bountifulness, and beneficence of His creative power . . . . ” (lxxii-lxxiii).

Thursday, September 11, 2008

9/11: Do Good, Avoid Harm--In Memoriam

My memories of September 11, 2001, will forever be intertwined with the death of my mother on September 15 the same week. September 11 was Tuesday. The 15th was Saturday.

And I certainly mean no disrespect to the thousands who died on the 11th, and their families, by remembering the week as I do. It’s just that when a huge tragedy intersects with a personal loss, the two become part of a single memory in one’s heart.

About the 11th, I have—as almost everyone who recalls that day will have—sharp memories. The clear blue skies as we drove to work, when the first plane was already careening into the first building, though we knew nothing of that at the time.

The faculty who came to my office (I was academic dean at Philander Smith College in Little Rock at the time), frightened, uncertain what to do, when the news broke. To my shame, I actually thought they were joking when they told me the twin towers had been hit by a plane and that the Pentagon was on fire.

The sudden recognition that this was no joke, and my own fright: why are they coming to me, when I have no more clue than they do about what to do? The prayer assembly that ensued, which made the drama so much worse for some of us unused to such piety, since some students wailed, shouted, spoke in tongues, fell out with religious emotion.

And the week of endless arrangements to try to assist students whose lives had been directly touched by the tragedy, who had family involved, who knew someone in the towers, who were traumatized (as I was, as we all were) simply by the images on the t.v. screen, the planes crashing into the buildings, people jumping out of windows, women with purses streaming along, the collapse of the towers. I went to bed night after night as though plugged into an electric charger, unable to exorcise those pictures from my head, unable to sleep, rigid with shock.

The president of Philander Smith at the time, Dr. Trudie Kibbe Reed, was a good Methodist who rose to this occasion admirably by taking to heart John Wesley’s dictum that we must live in such a way that we do all the good we can, by all the means we can, in all the ways we can, in all the places we can, at all the times we can, to all the people we can, as long as ever we can. She mandated that my office set up counseling-support groups for students comprised of faculty and staff with experience in this area.

I spent much of the week coordinating those arrangements and participating in a group. Many students were, indeed, traumatized, and it was good that the president anticipated their needs—a demonstration of what being a faith-based community should be all about in practice and not merely in proclamation.

At this time, my mother was in a care facility suffering from advanced dementia. She had not known me for several years. Her oldest sister, a maiden aunt I loved dearly, who exemplified selfless love within our family, was also in a nursing home, severely impaired physically by a series of strokes, though mentally sharp.

I spent much of each week when I wasn’t working going from nursing home to nursing home, checking on my mother and aunt, seeing to their comfort and needs. I was, as we say in the South, frazzled. My work has always received full attention, such that I take it home, work long into the night and before office hours in the morning, as well as on weekends and holidays. Not a virtue but a vice, since life is more than work.

But my parents taught me a strong work ethic, and I have worked always in church-based colleges with a strong work ethic, where many folks are also adroit at playing the I-work-harder-than-you game. I noticed this game early on in each church-based school at which I have worked: some folks would show up early in the day and again as office hours ended, to spend time in their offices after hours, to make it appear that they were working harder than those who are continuously in their office from the time the workday begins until it ends.

I knew the game. I knew that the game players kept tabs on those of us who left when the workday ended, and reported this, as though it were an indicator we were sloughing off. I believed that anyone with sense and integrity who received such a report would see how false it was, and the malice motivating it. I protected myself against such games the best way I knew how, by working and not pretending to work, trusting that my record and output would demonstrate my hard work in an environment of faith-based game-playing.

By Friday of the week of September 11, I was exhausted—emotionally, physically, mentally. Since we expected my aunt to die soon, my mother’s youngest sister, Steve, and I had attended a seminar on the 11th designed to help family members make the transition of a loved one to hospice care.

So when the nurse from my mother’s gerontologist’s office called on Friday evening to say that my mother had a slight fever, I did not go to the nursing home to check on her. I asked the nurse if the fever were serious. She said it wasn’t: it was slight. She was calling because they had a rule that they must call whenever a patient was running fever.

With the seminar on hospice in my mind, I asked the nurse if she thought we were nearing a point at which my mother needed hospice care. “Absolutely not,” the nurse said. “She’s strong and stable.”

I went to bed somewhat worried, but with the thought in mind that I would see my mother tomorrow. She did not know when I came or went, in any case. She had no idea who I was.

Early the next morning, I had a call from the nursing home staff member who took most loving care of my mother, a deep-souled, compassionate African-American woman named Stephanie Smith. “Come immediately,” she said.

I asked no questions. Steve and I threw on our clothes and went. During the night, my mother had lapsed into a semi-comatose state. Stephanie had not been scheduled to work that day. Something had nudged her to come to work. It was she who found my mother nearing death.

I had a precious hour or so—I really don’t recall the length of time; time becomes meaningless under these circumstances—with Steve and my mother’s youngest sister to stand beside my mother’s bed as she died. To hold her hand and stroke her forehead. To pray with her and talk to her.

Do all good, by all means, in all ways, in all places, at all times, to all people: Wesley’s saying, with its final reminder that our time for doing good is always limited by the time we have left, unfailingly puts me in mind of something that happened in the first several years I began teaching, at Xavier University in New Orleans.

While I was teaching at Xavier and chairing its theology department, a chaplain, Brother Jim, died suddenly. He had had a stroke in the night, was found beside his bed.

I identified with Jim. Like me, he tended to gain weight. Like me, he went on binge diets and lost significant amounts of weight, only to gain the weight back. Both of us had what my family calls the “red Irish face”—complexions that never allow us to hide embarrassment or stress, since we are, as my father’s sister often said, “flushers.” People even sometimes mistook me for Jim, addressing me as Brother Jim.

Jim’s sudden death hit home. It was one of those reminders that come all too frequently in our lives, of how sudden the going home can be. The moral lesson of this death was underscored for me—and remains vivid in my mind more than twenty years later—because of something a colleague in the theology department, Sr. Mary Ann Stachow, said when Jim was found dead.

“Do good. Avoid harm,” Mary Ann said, quoting Thomas Aquinas and his ultimate formula for how we are to live our moral lives. Do good. Avoid hurting others—anyone. Do good all the time, everywhere, in every way possible, to everyone: do good and avoid harm.

Because life is limited: do good as long as ever you can, since our time for doing good (and avoiding harm) will one day end. It is a facile truism to say that those whose loved ones head off to work on any given day, never to return, will inevitably ask themselves what more might have been said and done—what breaches might have been mended—had one only known when the end would come.

I certainly ask myself that regarding my mother’s death. What if I had put aside my own tiredness on Friday night and gone to the nursing home then, when the call about her fever came? Though she would not have known me or have known that I was there, some part of me wants to think it might have made a difference to her, on the night she began her passage from life to death, for me to be there.

But I didn’t go. And she did die. And I must now live with the thought that perhaps I could have done more. And with the hope that, if another such occasion arises in my life, I will respond more readily than I did that night.

Do good. Avoid harm. Life ends. If there are those whose rights we have trampled on; if there are those to whom and about whom we have lied; if there are those whose lives we’ve disrupted out of malice or jealousy or prejudice: there is time, while we are still living, to set things right.

There is time to ask forgiveness. There is time to mend broken bonds. There is time to accord the justice we have denied. There is time to realize that when we practice to deceive, we weave webs that eventually ensnare us. There is time to recognize that in doing violence to others in the manifold ways in which human beings can assault others, we set in motion spirals of violence that eventually bring the violence back to our own doorsteps.

There is time to recover our mere humanity by acting like a human being again.

It is never too late. Except, of course, when the clock ticks down.

That is, after all, what doing good and avoiding harm means. And I say this as a lesson to myself, hoping that the words I am writing today will write themselves on my heart.