tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5045594892581784506..comments2024-03-28T10:15:27.193-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: A clarification on integralismEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger180125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37521762775803724352021-12-09T02:28:17.805-08:002021-12-09T02:28:17.805-08:00Biden and Pelosi may do what they do partly becaus...Biden and Pelosi may do what they do partly because the State separates itself from the Catholic Church. Since Biden and Pelosi believe in that separation, they may live like Catholics in their private lives. But it's hard to see any hint of Catholicism in their political careers.Bill McEnaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079667321417382656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71060405169167910432021-11-26T14:11:04.418-08:002021-11-26T14:11:04.418-08:00@W.LindsayWheeler:
In your original reply to Bons...@W.LindsayWheeler:<br /><br />In your original reply to Bonshika Jackson, you state, "Libertarianism is quasi anarchist. Libertarianism means almost the same thing as Anarchism."<br /><br />I think what you say there is true of certain strains of Libertarianism, and perhaps true of all the strains with which you are familiar. But it isn't true of all strains of thought that call themselves "Libertarian," many of which explicitly reject Anarchism* as being the opposite-end error of the error of Statism which they more-famously oppose, and position Libertarianism as thus the middle-road between the two errors. Although I wouldn't usually call myself "Libertarian" <i>now</i> since I am a Catholic, the form of Libertarianism with which I identified twenty years ago thought of Anarchism as a horror equally as bad as Stalinism. (But, they were quick to add, one not as likely to be experienced any time soon, in North America, hence the constant prioritization of opposing statism.)<br /><br />Now, one might object that these other formulations of Libertarianism, by rejecting the anarchist error, are not "true" Libertarianism. But that seems to be the No True Scotsman fallacy...and at any rate, since there is no Libertarian Magisterium for defining what Libertarianism is or isn't, surely persons who call themselves "Libertarian" get priority over those who don't, when it comes to rulings about what does and doesn't qualify as Libertarianism!<br /><br />* In the above, I use the term "Anarchism" to refer to Anarchism the way it's described and promoted by the most good-hearted, if ridiculously naïve, of those who call themselves Anarchists, also including anarcho-capitalists: They picture it as a stable state of government either not existing, or at least not interfering in people's affairs or doing much of anything, such that all social arrangements are sustained by entirely voluntary systems and the organized use-of-force is functionally extinct. Like gossamer-winged fairies and green energy powered by unicorn flatulence, I take such a state-of-affairs to be actually very <i>unstable</i>, and in fact chimerical, in practice.<br /><br />But I felt I should define it so that nobody supposed I was talking about the sort of Left-Revolutionary "Anarchism" which more commonly goes by the name "Anarchism" these days. Since <i>that</i> only exists as a transitional affair consciously induced to tip society towards left-authoritarian statism, its ends are utterly incompatible with Libertarianism.<br /><br />Of course, the chimerical "happy" Anarchism would probably, in the end, reduce quickly to the transitional Revolutionary Anarchism of which Left-Authoritarian Statism is the <i>telos</i>. (That's one reason it's pure chimera.) But its proponents, dupes tho' they may be, don't think so...and their fantasy is the only version of Anarchism that's compatible with any form of Libertarianism. So that's why I make the distinction.R.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04182007029480402615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52330787187280138852019-08-19T08:11:29.882-07:002019-08-19T08:11:29.882-07:00Another important question: when Caesar forgets Go...Another important question: when Caesar forgets God, will Caesar almost always fill the void, ie, become an integralist secular state? <br />I think a fair reading of the Pian magisterium and Leo XIII, and recent experience in the West, especially, in the USA, says yes. Michael Ortizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12823627318269572922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47121282141661147782019-08-18T11:52:22.484-07:002019-08-18T11:52:22.484-07:00Dr. Feser,
I have to thank you for your clarifica...Dr. Feser,<br /><br />I have to thank you for your clarification on this. Seeing some Catholics arguing for this particular theory , I was beginning to despair. Many people arguing to bring integralism to fruition seem to be arguing a very extreme integralism where burning heretics would be imposed, thought police would be rampant (not stated outright in many places, but must be assumed based on the policies), and protestants and other religions would be smashed under a boot. I think we have to be very careful in advocating for any type of integralism because there are some very zealous traditionalists that are all for letting the good times of the inquisition roll. CS Lewis talks about how he would never want to live under a theocracy, because where an atheist would have some type of remorse for torturing and imprisoning others, a theocrat would be far too zealous to ever allow remorse to enter their thoughts. After all, they'd be murdering and torturing for Jesus Christ, the ends justify the means. There's a lot here to swallow with regards to integralism. I'm not sure I could adhere to it unless I knew with 100% certainty that this is an infallible teaching of the Church. I favor an anarcho-capitalist society, or at least a libertarian society of minimal government (I'm aware many believe these to be irreconcilable, but the arguments don't seem to prove enough to be conclusive to me) as opposed to a massive government that would be necessary to implement integralism. I am all for Church authority coercing me to do certain things that fall within their jurisdiction, but I can't say the same about the state. Lots to think about and unpack here. I will say that we have never been able to keep a government in check that sets out to be intrusive such as what integralism calls for. I think it could work well in the short-term but would be disastrous in the long-term. Jordan Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32451064967721363432019-06-28T22:54:58.631-07:002019-06-28T22:54:58.631-07:00In a democracy, how is it realistically possible t...In a democracy, how is it realistically possible to separate our religious values from anything? When people vote, no one can force a person to not use their values in their selections.Peter Aiellohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16412959736819415329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68639034985750297942019-06-15T03:41:47.407-07:002019-06-15T03:41:47.407-07:00Thanks Mr. Stork for discussing this. It would hav...Thanks Mr. Stork for discussing this. It would have been good if you'd responded to the distinction I mentioned, which St. Thomas clearly makes:<br /><br />"The children of unbelievers either have the use of reason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to control their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural law. And therefore of their own accord, and against the will of their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract marriage. Consequently such can lawfully be advised and persuaded to be baptized. <br />If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves... Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents' will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will...<br /><br /><br />Man is ordained unto God through his reason, by which he can know God. Wherefore a child, before it has the use of reason, is ordained to God, by a natural order, through the reason of its parents, under whose care it naturally lies, and it is according to their ordering that things pertaining to God are to be done in respect of the child."<br /><br />You wrote: "But individual non-Catholics would be left free to raise their children in error, and meet privately with other non-Catholics for worship."<br /><br />None of this follows from what St. Thomas asserts in the Summa, where he is emphatically not establishing a right based on natural law to hold error or to bring up children in error, but simply the acknowledgement that Baptism cannot be imposed against human will. <br /><br />Far from establishing a right to private worship based on human nature, St. Thomas writes here that, as soon as children have attained the use of reason, they may be persuaded and baptised against the will of their parents - under who tutelage they may still be. St. Thomas does not deal in any shape or form with any positive action based on human nature of holding error here, only the fact that confessing God and receiving baptism before the age of reason is done through the parents, by natural law, and therefore cannot be presumed of infants whose parents are unbelievers. Nothing more than this is asserted by St. Thomas. <br /><br /><br />Indeed, we will have to look somewhere very far indeed from St. Thomas for a justification based on human nature for any right to profess error. <br />Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47776502708857261612019-06-14T12:02:07.818-07:002019-06-14T12:02:07.818-07:00Thanks Mr. Stork for discussing this. It would hav...Thanks Mr. Stork for discussing this. It would have been good if you'd responded to the distinction I mentioned, which St. Thomas clearly makes:<br /><br />"The children of unbelievers either have the use of reason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to control their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural law. And therefore of their own accord, and against the will of their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract marriage. Consequently such can lawfully be advised and persuaded to be baptized. <br />If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves... Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents' will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will...<br /><br /><br /> Man is ordained unto God through his reason, by which he can know God. Wherefore a child, before it has the use of reason, is ordained to God, by a natural order, through the reason of its parents, under whose care it naturally lies, and it is according to their ordering that things pertaining to God are to be done in respect of the child."<br /><br />You wrote: "But individual non-Catholics would be left free to raise their children in error, and meet privately with other non-Catholics for worship."<br /><br />None of this follows from what St. Thomas asserts in the Summa, where he is emphatically not establishing a right based on natural law to hold error or to bring up children in error, but simply the acknowledgement that Baptism cannot be imposed against human will. <br /><br />Far from establishing a right to private worship based on human nature, St. Thomas writes here that, as soon as children have attained the use of reason, they may be persuaded and baptised against the will of their parents - under who tutelage they may still be. St. Thomas does not deal in any shape or form with any positive action based on human nature of holding error here, only the fact that confessing God and receiving baptism before the age of reason is done through the parents, by natural law, and therefore cannot be presumed of infants whose parents are unbelievers. Nothing more than this is asserted by St. Thomas. <br /><br /><br />Indeed, we will have to look somewhere very far indeed from St. Thomas for a justification based on human nature for any right to profess error. <br /><br /><br /><br />Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37989460423833561672019-06-13T21:56:00.402-07:002019-06-13T21:56:00.402-07:00Michael S. You know you could click on my name whi...Michael S. You know you could click on my name which is linked to blogger that has a link to my website which has the articles you are seeking. <br /><br />You are surprised by my claim!?! Yes, Colleges and Universities are nothing more than propaganda mills. <br /><br />In order to understand that the Spartans had the Natural Law, one must understand their form of government--which was a True Republic, just as Plato said. From the knowledge of their form of government, philosophy and the natural law are apparent, so you must read this paper first that is 61 pages over 200 footnotes and the last fourth of the paper is the discussion of the Philosophy of Mixed government:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/5280564/" rel="nofollow">The Classical definition of a republic</a><br /><br />Next is this paper: <a href="https://www.academia.edu/1619268/" rel="nofollow">Doric Crete and Sparta, the home of Greek philosophy</a><br /><br />Next, to understand the connection of republicanism to the Natural Order one must know this concept/system of the Natural Law: <a href="https://www.academia.edu/1619468/" rel="nofollow">Macrocosm Microcosm in Doric Thought</a><br /><br />And finally a free and online PDF book that expands on the previous paper on the home of Greek philosophy; it takes all the circumstantial and ancillary evidence to prove that Doric Crete and Sparta are the most ancient and fertile home of Greek philosophy--just as Socrates said in the Protagoras:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/7574633/" rel="nofollow">Part I, The Case of the Barefoot Socrates</a><br /><br />Why do you think that Plato calls out the fact that Socrates went barefoot for?<br />W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71769404144059071392019-06-13T21:43:34.918-07:002019-06-13T21:43:34.918-07:00Boshinka, you make fine distinctions that don'...Boshinka, you make fine distinctions that don't meet what is actually going on. The Congressional Representative for my district is Justin Amash, Eastern Orthodox, Libertarian. He is absolutely deracinist. "The State" is synonymous with the group! It is like the organs of the body refusing to accept the spinal cord and the brain! What a hoot. "Involuntary civil government". Is another hoot! The Rule of God is Involuntary. St. Paul said, "Be obedient to all authority". Whether you like it or not. How one can have "law-n-order" without the "State" is beyond me. You are actually a gnostic. Automatic hatred toward something that is integral to any nation, its government. I've lived in Switzerland, it is quite the "involuntary" state--it is about as restrictive as any communist state in some/many matters.W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37059474702749985652019-06-13T16:45:43.052-07:002019-06-13T16:45:43.052-07:00I think I'll restate my position one last time...I think I'll restate my position one last time and then bow out of this conversation.<br /><br />The common good is the chief regulating principle as regards the toleration of error. In a Catholic state the common good normally would not permit efforts to propagate false religions or to allow for public expression of those false religions, e.g., processions, public meetings, etc.<br /><br />But individual non-Catholics would be left free to raise their children in error, and meet privately with other non-Catholics for worship. However, this latter could not be advertised or promoted.<br /><br />By what principle are these activities of non-Catholics to be allowed? St. Thomas says that this involves justice, hence it becomes a question of rights. It is true that this is not a right to embrace error, as such, but a right to a certain degree of individual and familial freedom or, if you prefer, privacy.<br /><br />If we accept what St. Thomas said, I don't see how we can say such freedom as he ascribes to parents is not founded on human nature. What else could it be founded on?<br />Thomas Storckhttp://www.thomasstorck.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80231359351125671322019-06-13T15:30:39.779-07:002019-06-13T15:30:39.779-07:00Pius IX rejected this proposition in the Syllabus:...Pius IX rejected this proposition in the Syllabus: Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. <br /><br />I know we are repeating ourselves, but toleration does not amount to recognising a freedom to error or a right to toleration founded on human nature. In speaking of baptism of children of unbaptized, St. Thomas Aquinas drew our attention to the fact that free will is necessary in order to embrace the faith. Here the only will that mattered was that of the parents. He had something very different to say of apostates, who could be forced to hold to the promises made at their baptism. <br /><br />Religious liberty based upon nature refers only to the true religion.<br />Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8967265214841860832019-06-13T14:57:49.195-07:002019-06-13T14:57:49.195-07:00Gentlemen,
I really have to thank both of you for...Gentlemen,<br /><br />I really have to thank both of you for your continued challenging of my thesis, for you're forcing me to make my thinking more precise and to express it better. No, I'm not being sarcastic either, for I've come to appreciate the opportunity to express myself more clearly on this subject, which until now I hadn't engaged closely with anyone about.<br /><br />So I didn't express well what I meant when I spoke of a "a right to be allowed to continue in error." There obviously is no right to error, as such, and I've always made that clear. But what I should have said is a right to a certain sphere of individual and familial freedom which necessarily entails (given our fallen nature) the freedom to err, although I entirely agree that the ability to err is a defect of our freedom.<br /><br />But I do maintain that if the children of the unbaptized are not to be taken away and baptized against their parents' desires, this does entail a certain sphere of freedom. If DH is interpreted as I've suggested, then I see no difficulty in harmonizing it either with Leo or St. Thomas.Thomas Storckhttp://www.thomasstorck.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86805121224759519572019-06-13T08:11:26.569-07:002019-06-13T08:11:26.569-07:00Avraham:
Church and state are both "part of ...Avraham:<br /><br />Church and state are both "part of society." They function in all sorts of ways. They are just not wed to one another. <br /><br />So my perception of LA is different from yours, clearly. LA has improved over the years by many, many objective measures. <br /><br />And is this all that conservative Thomists and Orthodox Jews want from a place like Los Angeles, a bit of innocuous civil religion in the public schools? <br /><br />And Ayn Rand was an atheist, and so I wonder if she would agree with you. I'm pretty sure she would cut off public schools root and branch as having no legitimate part of the state.Santi Tafarellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16762380188083321201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62936041301801759732019-06-13T08:01:04.341-07:002019-06-13T08:01:04.341-07:00"The ideal is to afford everyone 'an auto..."The ideal is to afford everyone 'an autonomous social space,' since the State is, in principle, incompetent in matters of religion, etc.". <br /><br />Yes, and isn't that already Los Angeles?Santi Tafarellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16762380188083321201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18642673427055437872019-06-13T07:57:34.149-07:002019-06-13T07:57:34.149-07:00Eroteme:
I'm speaking loosely when I use the ...Eroteme:<br /><br />I'm speaking loosely when I use the word religion here. Would ideology, "pragmatic method," or implicit worldview be better? I think most civic leaders in LA lack fundamentalist or Orthodox passions. They're secular lawyers, they're pragmatists, they have private political ambitions, etc. They look out at the landscape and can see that there is no majority consensus on religion in California, and so they look for some sort of way to offer deference and respect to various constituencies. That translates into a weak tea multiculturalism. In some ways, one might argue that LA is a very conservative place to live because one is never at risk of a sweeping, consensus movement toward one worldview over another. Everybody keeps the other in check. Each community has to make its own mini-community within the community, if they want something more. Nobody has the expectation that their views will overtake the whole community. That's why I ask, How does LA look different under Thomism? Why isn't the basic arrangement already in keeping with the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity? Santi Tafarellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16762380188083321201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46850870016526687762019-06-13T05:20:38.314-07:002019-06-13T05:20:38.314-07:00Stop pretending to be me you troll. Begone.Stop pretending to be me you troll. Begone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62228633150975444102019-06-13T02:51:14.695-07:002019-06-13T02:51:14.695-07:00Why would secularization cause religious wars? It ...Why would secularization cause religious wars? It would be more correct to say that it was because of them that the state began to adopt some principles of secularism, especially in the holy roman empire, that was how they were able in part to curb religious disputes(sorry if my english is bad,I'm not fluent in the language)<br /><br /><br /><br />bismarckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00881957898744591525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60671707811650246662019-06-13T00:35:17.444-07:002019-06-13T00:35:17.444-07:00Thanks for your reply. Yes parental rights are ba...Thanks for your reply. Yes parental rights are based on nature, and surely that is what St. Thomas referred to, not the right to profess or continue in error?Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41310020228086174992019-06-12T22:17:22.041-07:002019-06-12T22:17:22.041-07:00Dear Mr. Storck,
Leo XIII opens his encyclical on...Dear Mr. Storck,<br /><br />Leo XIII opens his encyclical on liberty as follows: "Liberty, the highest of natural endowments, being the portion only of intellectual or rational natures, confers on man this dignity - that he is "in the hand of his counsel"(1) and has power over his actions." This what I said above, that the capacity to choose certainly adds a great dignity to nature. But I maintain that it is simply a mistake, an error, to suppose that the capacity to err is thereby rooted in this dignity. Properly understood, the opposite is the case. Leo continues, "there are many who imagine that the Church is hostile to human liberty. Having a false and absurd notion as to what liberty is, either they pervert the very idea of freedom, or they extend it at their pleasure to many things in respect of which man cannot rightly be regarded as free."<br /><br />And then, "as the possibility of error, and actual error, are defects of the mind and attest its imperfection, so the pursuit of what has a false appearance of good, though a proof of our freedom, just as a disease is a proof of our vitality, implies defect in human liberty. The will also, simply because of its dependence on the reason, no sooner desires anything contrary thereto than it abuses its freedom of choice and corrupts its very essence. Thus it is that the infinitely perfect God, although supremely free, because of the supremacy of His intellect and of His essential goodness, nevertheless cannot choose evil; neither can the angels and saints, who enjoy the beatific vision. St. Augustine and others urged most admirably against the Pelagians that, if the possibility of deflection from good belonged to the essence or perfection of liberty, then God, Jesus Christ, and the angels and saints, who have not this power, would have no liberty at all, or would have less liberty than man has in his state of pilgrimage and imperfection. This subject is often discussed by the Angelic Doctor in his demonstration that the possibility of sinning is not freedom, but slavery."<br /><br />A right, as already pointed out, is only ever a correlative of a duty; the duty is what gives rise to, defines, and justifies any "right." It is therefore absurd to say, as DH does, that there is a natural right to religious liberty.<br /><br />Choosing a false religion is slavery. DH speaks of it as if it were freedom.<br /><br />Regards,<br />John.Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53681575543861455792019-06-12T19:04:17.052-07:002019-06-12T19:04:17.052-07:00Dear Mr Storck,
To clarify, do you agree that St....Dear Mr Storck,<br /><br />To clarify, do you agree that St. Thomas here has in view the natural right of parents to decide everything for their (underage) children? If so, there's no hint of any right to "continue in error" at all. What there is can be summarised by saying that children under the age of reason have no capacity to decide for themselves, so parents have that responsibility (and therefore right). Obviously this entails the danger that they will decide badly, but so does their own responsibility (and therefore right) to decide every other moral question.<br /><br />Also, note that St. Thomas and other Catholic authorities characterise the possibility of error and sin as a _defect_ in true liberty. This is in contrast with the liberal notion that true liberty is in effect essentially constituted of the possibility of error. This understanding is supported by Our Lord's statement that "the truth will make you free." If the truth makes us free, then freedon itself cannot consist in the capacity to err, or to choose evil. <br /><br />Regards,<br />John.Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70848384388345604352019-06-12T16:49:41.271-07:002019-06-12T16:49:41.271-07:00But wait a minute. Didn't I just deny that the...But wait a minute. Didn't I just deny that there was a right to profess error? My last sentence was, "Note that I didn't say a right to error, rather a right to be allowed to continue in error, which is something different." If justice allows the parents to raise their children in error, what is this except what I called it, "a right to be allowed to continue in error"?<br /><br />And as to human nature - I think parental right do indeed have something to do with human nature.Thomas Storckhttp://www.thomasstorck.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21274959457532458602019-06-12T16:22:31.196-07:002019-06-12T16:22:31.196-07:00Indeed, nobody should be baptised against their wi...Indeed, nobody should be baptised against their will. This is where the term "religious compulsion" seems equivocal. There is all the difference in the world between trying to compel someone to accept baptism, which must be freely received, and compelling somebody not to promote error. The justice St. Thomas refers to is surely that which corresponds to parents as such, and not to any right based on human nature to profess error. <br /><br />Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74180003695823686502019-06-12T14:25:44.905-07:002019-06-12T14:25:44.905-07:00Well, I think Aquinas' answer is compatible wi...Well, I think Aquinas' answer is compatible with what I said. Consider his answer in the Summa Theologiae III, 68, 10, to the question of whether children of Jews or other unbelievers should be baptized against the will of their parents. The heart of his answer is as follows: "If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients "were saved through the faith of their parents." Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice [contra iustitiam naturalem esset] if such children were baptized against their parents' will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will."<br /><br />You'll note that St. Thomas says it would be contrary to justice, not merely to political prudence or some other policy, though he does add that it would be unwise on account of the danger of apostasy. Now anything founded upon justice is necessarily a kind of right, since the fundamental meaning of justice is to render to each one what is due, i.e., what is his by right. So it would seem to follow, or at least would seem to be compatible with St. Thomas's thought, that there is this right to be allowed to continue in error. Note that I didn't say a right to error, rather a right to be allowed to continue in error, which is something different.Thomas Storckhttp://www.thomasstorck.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54351500948451698362019-06-12T14:10:19.985-07:002019-06-12T14:10:19.985-07:00Also of note, which I forgot to mention yesterday,...Also of note, which I forgot to mention yesterday, is this marvelous prayer from the offertory of the traditional Latin Mass which begins, "Deus, qui humánæ substántiæ dignitátem mirabíliter condidísti, et mirabílius reformásti,..." Thomas Storckhttp://www.thomasstorck.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77430140593350097472019-06-12T09:34:49.876-07:002019-06-12T09:34:49.876-07:00“On another view, Vatican II did not reverse past ...“On another view, Vatican II did not reverse past teaching, but merely made a prudential judgment to the effect that, though the Church retains the right in principle to be favored by the state, it is no longer fitting for her to exercise this right. Furthermore, on this interpretation, Vatican II’s reference to an individual right to religious liberty can be interpreted in a way consistent with the Church being favored by the state. Call this the “hermeneutics of continuity” interpretation.”<br /><br />Dr. Feser – I am surprised that you call this view “the hermeneutics of continuity.” It seems misleading to me because that term is attached to the doctrinal position of Benedict XVI, as expressed in his 2005 Christmas greetings. However, in the relations of Church and State, he held that Vatican II had returned to the gospel; that the indirect subordination of the State to the Church was the product of special historical circumstances, but not the ideal. The ideal is to afford everyone “an autonomous social space,” since the State is, in principle, incompetent in matters of religion, etc. <br />Thomas L.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11346513021097251988noreply@blogger.com