Saturday, November 18, 2017

Two further ideas about development of doctrine


Go read Mike Pakaluk’s excellent brief article “Four Ideas About Development” at First Things, then come back.  Welcome back.  Here are a couple of further thoughts to add to his:

Fifth, development is properly spoken of in the passive voice rather than the active voice.  It always drives me crazy when Catholics, including churchmen, go around talking about whether a pope will or will not “develop” this or that doctrine.  Development is essentially something that happens.  It is not an activity that a pope or anyone else decides to carry out when he gets some bright idea into his head.
 
Through the course of the centuries, the Church faces various doctrinal crises – involving Arianism, Pelagianism, or what have you – and has to make a decision as to what orthodoxy requires.  In hindsight, we can see how doctrine developed as these decisions were made.  Naturally, the decisions involved conscious deliberation, but they were essentially reactive rather than proactive.  The question was: “We’re faced with this new idea; what does the deposit of faith force us to say about it?”  The question was not: “We’ve come up with this new idea; can we get away with saying it, given the deposit of faith?”

In a blurb on the back cover of E. Christian Brugger’s book Capital Punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition, Germain Grisez notes that Brugger “explores and defends the proposition that the Catholic Church could teach that capital punishment is always morally wrong” (emphasis added).  But development is not a matter of looking for loopholes by which the Church “could teach” some novel doctrine you’ve come up with.  The Church either already teaches something, at least implicitly, or she does not.  If she does, then naturally she could teach it.  But if she doesn’t, then she can’t teach it.  As the First Vatican Council taught:

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

And as Pope St. Pius X exclaimed: “Far, far from the clergy be the love of novelty!”

In his book on Aquinas, Chesterton says, concerning the development of doctrine:

When we talk of a child being well-developed, we mean that he has grown bigger and stronger with his own strength; not that he is padded with borrowed pillows or walks on stilts to make him look taller.  When we say that a puppy develops into a dog, we do not mean that his growth is a gradual compromise with a cat; we mean that he becomes more doggy and not less.

Now, part of the point here is that a true development of doctrine is neither the introduction into Catholic teaching of some novelty from outside (which would be like putting pillows and stilts on a child) nor the reversal of past teaching (which would be like a puppy becoming less dog-like).  But the example also illustrates the point (whether Chesterton meant it to or not) that development is something that happens rather than something the Church does.  A child’s developing is not like a child’s stretching.  It is not something he tries to do.

Unsurprisingly, then, proposals that doctrine be actively “developed” in this or that direction end up resembling amputations of doggy parts or strapping pillows, stilts, and the like onto a child.  To cash out the metaphors, such proposals involve ignoring aspects of past teaching that conflict with a proposed novelty, strained reinterpretations of texts that contradict the novelty, claiming to see novel theses asserted in ancient texts that have never historically been understood to assert such theses, and so forth.

That brings us to a sixth point: Much of what is peddled as “development of doctrine” these days is precisely the kind of thing Pius X condemned as modernism.  Go read Pascendi Dominici Gregis.  And weep.

49 comments:

  1. Why do the hegelians deny the PNC and why isn't everyone reading Garrigou-Lagrange?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They don't. Well, not really. That's an old slur. The principle of noncontradiction Simply applies precisely where it applies, which is in the realm of propositional logic. What the slur is trying to get at is their overall philosophy of nature. Hegelians are a kind of monist. So, to the extent that they denied the principle of noncontradiction, what they're really saying is that the principle of noncontradiction doesn't apply where it is usually said to apply because the things being spoken about are not really distinct things but one. If two things are not really distinct and I claimed that the principle of noncontradiction does not apply when making claims about them that I'm not really denying the principle of noncontradiction but I am in fact denying that the two things really are two things which is simply a kind of affirmation of part of the principle of noncontradiction. Now of course there might be an actual problem with Hagel, but the PNC is not it.

      Delete
    2. My comment was not extensive enough of course and it was directed at the development of Doctrine type Hegelians attacked by Garrigou-Lagrange (something which has been on my mind for a while now). He argues that they do deny it and I would agree, across time in the moral realm and the realm of truth. The whole Amoris Latitia and death penalty debate is just an extension of the debate that was going on in Where the New Theology is Leading Us and God His Existence and His Nature. So for a Catholic hegelian in 1650 only Catholics could be saved, but in 2017 protestants as well, you can twist Doctrine in any way you want because time leads to breaking of the PNC and two contradictory truths exist at the same time in the same framework.

      Delete
  2. Dr. Feser, have you read David Bentley Hart's review of your book on capital punishment? https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/christians-death-penalty He really attacks you in this review; at times honestly sounding unprofessional in his dismissals. Would be a pleasure to see you take him down on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somehow I am not surprised that DBH's diatribe is found in Commonweal, that purveyor of liberal novelty. I admit he lands about 2 punches accurately in his lengthy spleen-venting, the ratio of polemics to actual argument is disturbingly high. His one main argument, (were he consistent), that the Gospel upends justice for mercy, if carried through fully would unfortunately require of Christian states that there be NO SUCH THING as police, magistrates, a justice system, or a penal system of any sort: forgive and forget, that's the Gospel dictum. Naturally, he is not consistent and undermines this thesis anyway, but just once I would like to see the people who argue that Jesus's overturning of "the Law" would accept the consequences in print and admit that they are calling for an eradication of all human law, because there is to be no enforcement of it. One wonders if he thinks the same applies to parents too (he must, if he wants to be consistent).

      Delete
    2. I think he does, in the book. Hart really just pompously asserts them wrong, but Feser and Bessette's arguments stand on their own.

      Tony, as a kid I would have preferred that punishment was abolished. If only my parents read David Bentley Hart! But then again, I look at certain of my cousins (once removed) and see what no punishing or disciplining has done.

      I also think that generally Hart could get his point across in half as many words, and more clearly, if he wrote with less pomp. On the other hand, it is still fun to read or listen to, at least when there is an argument in such prose.

      I love this line "Moreover, whenever one party to a debate dismisses the ethical concerns of the other side as “sentimental,” it is usually an indication of the former’s inferior moral imagination."

      But calling others as prone to irrational passions is indicative of true moral enlightenment, right Hart.

      His while tactic seems to poison the well. They try to twist your emotions, after giving two rather emotionless chapters on the philosophical, scriptural and Catholic basis for the Death Penalties, and then after the chapters that do describe the enomrities of actual brutal murders, to go on and dispassionately address the arguments of Catholic abolishionists within the bishops. Yes, emotional polemetics at its finest.

      Delete
    3. Tony,

      "His one main argument, (were he consistent), that the Gospel upends justice for mercy, if carried through fully would unfortunately require of Christian states that there be NO SUCH THING as police, magistrates, a justice system, or a penal system of any sort: forgive and forget, that's the Gospel dictum."

      Why is to fully carry through the Gospel’s dictum the only alternative? To “carry it through as well as you can” is much closer to God’s will than “just ignore it”. Or even worse “use a lot of legalisms and layers of quoting authorities of various kinds to paper over the fact that you are in fact ignoring the Word of God”.

      Delete
    4. Dianelos, with great fear that you have already dismissed anything I can possibly say about the matter, or that your premises are so violently opposed to mine that there cannot possibly be any meeting of minds, I will attempt a short answer.

      To "carry it through as well as you can" for Christian judges would be to dismiss any penalty. It's not like a judge can't manage to say "no time in prison", if he is able to say "one year in prison", as if the 0 were a much harder thing to say, like a weight just a little beyond his strength to pick up. For a Christian legislature, it would be to NOT ATTACH any penalties to a law (which would mean the law would be unenforceable, of course), it's not like in trying their hardest they might only get down to ONE year in prison. It's not HARDER to say "no penalty" than it is to say "one year prison". For a parent who is faced with a son who is hitting his sister, trying "as hard as you can" is simply a matter of not exerting the effort to punish, which isn't something that one can TRY to do but only succeed partly because it's hard. "Hard" simply doesn't come into it. How can a parent TRY not to punish a child and only partly succeed?

      Delete
    5. Tony,

      To "carry it through as well as you can" for Christian judges would be to dismiss any penalty

      I disagree. That would obtain only if the Christian judge were a saint who follows Christ’s commands to the inch. But a saint would not become a judge, since she would recognize that she would be unable to discharge her duties properly.

      We don’t live in the kingdom of God. We live in a fallen world in which we try to build civilized societies. To that end we produce our own laws, and the judges are a significant part in their enforcement. Within her specific duties as a judge I think the Christian should do the best she can to be as true to Christ as possible. Which, in the case of an accused who is beyond reasonable doubt a murderer and a grave danger to society, may be to pass a sentence of life imprisonment. Not in order to punish the murderer (it’s not for us to punish our neighbor) nor in order to give an example to others (our neighbor should not be used as a means to an end), but in order to 1) protect society, and 2) help the criminal – by giving her the opportunity to do something useful with her life even from behind prison walls, and even more importantly by giving her the opportunity to repent and save her soul.

      Come on, Tony, spiritual truth is not something one understands because of an argument. Spiritual truth is something one sees by meeting Christ. Theology’s task is to point towards Christ and motivate people to take a look. Given that God is rational so too is truth, and it is good and useful that philosophers find the arguments that pertain even to spiritual truths. After all God has given us a rational mind to use. But reason only goes so far, and reason can positively deceive us when we let go of the vision of Christ. It seems to me that in the present context Feser is an example of that failure. Though in that negative sense he may still be benefiting the church.

      Delete
    6. "But reason only goes so far, and reason can positively deceive us when we let go of the vision of Christ."

      Unless the topic is abortion. You can't see the logic in life beginning at conception. You've adopted, wholesale, the secular logic on the matter, rejecting the teaching of the Church (to include the Orthodox).

      Delete
  3. Excellent. I have been unable to find my copy of Newman (for some time, alas). But it was surely a key book for me; in my Anglican days I was quite influenced by Chillingworth, and Newman gave the answer.

    The point about development happening is dead on target. The point is that it is a matter of the belief of the Church, not of some bright thinker (not even Aquinas or Augustine) from which it springs. Theologians can only explicate it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm still waiting for a rebuttal of the CWR article by Fastiggi. (Not tongue in cheek, I'm really waiting for it... There are some really slippery moves in there, and I'm confident you see some that I don't.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My reply to Fastiggi will appear at CWR next week, and my reply to Brugger and Tollefsen (in three parts) will appear at Public Discourse next week too.

      Replies to Griffiths and Hart also forthcoming.

      Delete
    2. You could make a whole second volume of just responses and replies...

      Delete
  5. Just had to delete a bunch of worthless comments that were either (a) trollish, (b) troll-feeding, (c) off topic, and/or (d) descended to childish name-calling.

    For goodness' sake, people, cut this crap out already. Since you won't police yourselves -- despite my repeated pleas -- I will have to do more policing than I want to, and certainly more than I really have time for. It's not like I charge you for the content here. The least you could do in return is act like adults. @#$%

    From here on I will try to delete more of anything that I judge to be trollish behavior, troll-feeding, or flame wars. But I do so with great annoyance. Please do the best you can to police yourselves so that I can minimize the amount of time I have to devote to this nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would a perfectly just God allow such evil in your comment section? Your book on the existence of God is thus refuted.

      Delete
  6. For you doc I won't call anyone names from now on.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi,

    thanks for this interesting post. I would like to suggest a piece, which discusses about the difference between doctrine and discipline.

    Good quote from Chesterton mentioned:

    "Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."

    Best regards,
    Lurking Reader

    ReplyDelete
  8. I abhor capital punishment, but cannot convince myself that it is inherently wrong. What does seem to me the case that it is no coincidence that the idea of capital punishment's being wrong has come at a time when it is almost universally accepted that death is the ultimate evil.

    jj

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi John,


      Soldier´s perspective:

      To be able to fight you must accept the fact of killing of opponent's soldiers. Most of them are just regular guys, lov their family, like to watch football and drink Cocacola etc.

      ...and it seems that every politician, party and every nation accepts this kind of killing of another human beings. And it is executed on regular basis by many governments.


      How can one be against capital punishent and at the same time support war machine, which brings (or is designed to deliver) sort of "capital punishment" for many many people (some of them guilty, some of them just victims of the circumstances)




      Delete
    2. John,

      Peter Hitchens makes the same point. The increased opposition to the death penalty is bound up with attitudes a Christian should find more disturbing than thinking it is okay for the state to kill a murderer. Christian society used to affirm life after death and that the death penalty moved the criminal to a higher court. Opposition to it comes partly from a waning of these beliefs. The death penalty, especially when it was carried out relatively swiftly (i.e., offenders did not spend decades on death row) did also provide a scope for reconsidering one's life and the state of one soul, and hopefully repentance, like Barnardine in Measure for Measure. I don't think life imprisonment has the same effect.

      Delete
    3. Growing opposition to the death penalty goes hand-in-hand with the increased rate of divorce, reduced rate of marriage and even abortion. Many of our moderns abhor the notion of a decision that can't be changed. We want to be able to change our minds. (Not that that can be done after the abortion.) Chesterton talks about true liberty including the freedom to bind oneself irrevocably.

      Delete
  9. 'Anonymous' above - yes, understood, and I agree. My point was different. I said that I cannot think capital punishment inherently wrong, though I abhor the idea - for the record, I abhor the thought of fighting in a war and having to kill someone. But my point was not that; it was that it seems to me unsurprising that, coincidental with what people apparently think - that death is the ultimate disaster, with the corollary that they don't really believe in any life after death, even if they formally do so - that it is no surprise that the idea of capital punishment's being wrong would arise.

    jj

    ReplyDelete
  10. And - PS - though, as I said, I also abhor the thought of war and fighting and killing, I cannot think it inherently wrong. With fear and trembling, if someone were attacking those I love, I would do my best to stop him, killing if necessary and if I could. War is simply an extension of that.

    Capital punishment, however, seems to me different. It is not a matter of defence of society - at least, that cannot be its sufficient justification. It must be a matter of desert - as both Ed Feser and C. S. Lewis, to name a couple, have cogently argued.

    jj

    ReplyDelete
  11. And another PS :-) - though, as Gandalf points out to Frodo, many who die deserve life; we who cannot give them what they deserve need not be too hasty to give death to those who deserve it. I do not think that anyone who believes that capital punishment is right and proper necessarily thinks it should be applied in every case where it is deserved. There may well be grounds for reserving it in some cases.

    jj

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks John,

      wise words. Yes, that would definitely throw us back to Hammurabi's times. No further questions :)

      I see the matter of life after death uplifting (in the war the death is not the end for you OR your opponent if you've lived accordingly).

      Delete
  12. C. S. Lewis (I think in "The Problem of Pain") has an imagined scene in which an English and a German soldier kill one another simultaneously - and after death, find one another and laugh uproariously.

    God help us! The condemned man used to have the priest accompanying him to the last moment, urging his repentance. I was much moved by St Therese's experience with her prayer for Pranzini - and his conversion on the scaffold.

    Enough from me. Death is not the end. May our world come to know it and to take it seriously.

    jj

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it was in "Mere Christianity", but I'm not sure.

      Delete
    2. “I have often thought to myself how it would have been if, when I served in the first World War, I and some young German had killed each other simultaneously and found ourselves together a moment after death. I cannot imagine that either of us would have felt any resentment or even any embarrassment. I think we might have laughed over it (p. 119).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

      Delete
  13. Applying this to the those who argue for a "development of doctrine" on the issue of capital punishment, lets first try to imagine a church that mirrors the Catholic Church in every way except that it has, from its inception, always and everywhere taught that abortion is not only morally permissible but that it is a right properly enforced by the state for the good of society, but has just recently reversed itself and proclaimed that abortion is gravely morally wrong without exception. Regardless of the veracity of the new teaching, would it not be true that this imaginary church had forfeited its doctrinal claim of the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium on moral matters? I believe that would clearly be the case. If not, how could proponents of the new categorical moral prohibition of capital punishment distinguish it from other moral teachings of the ordinary magisterium so that the doctrine of infallibility survives?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I've said it before and I will say it again. As a proponent of Capital Punishment I would rather see Capital Punishment banned worldwide then to see the Pope attempt to teach CP is intrinsically evil. If CP is intrinsically evil then God commands the intrinsically evil. Opponents of CP need not disfigure the faith or erode trust in the office of the Pope to obtain their goal. Pope Benedict called for the worldwide abolition of CP & he did so without making theologically questionable statements about it in his speeches like Pope Francis did. As far as the Pope may oppose CP under his legitimate authority I support him and I am loyal and obedient but this is a bridge too far.

    Still ya got to trust the Holy Spirit to keep Pope Francis from making his questionable speeches on the matter the dogma of the Church.

    I do. Matt 16:18 is all.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Papal institution has lived through various phases throughout the history and it's quite clear that some Popes have not been so successfull in keeping it straight and narrow.

    So.. nothing new under the sun. Not an idea to support passive stance, but you should perhaps not be so depressed about it. Humans after all.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To Matt 16:18

      If you ever visit Vatican there's this huge ca. one kilometer long museum full of statues and paintings.

      And yes, it's the same religion, which Scripture says "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."

      Ok, one could argument that they're not owned by any individual. But there still aren't any religious aspect or rational reason for having such collection - it's something else.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anon

      I'm not sure quite what the relevance of your comment vis a vis doctrinal development is but please allow me to make a few comments in reply.

      1) If you look carefully OLSJC was addressing a particular person and his vocation in life, yes there are people who are supposed to live the Evangelical counsels to the fullest, but that doesn't apply to everyone.

      2) Religious Art is supposed to glorify God and lift the mind of man to God (we are after all visual creatures) and to aid in daily devotions - that's not just me saying that, you go to any exhibition of religious art in a secular institution and that's what they'll tell you. I see it as a logical development of the art that God commanded to be built to glorify him in the Temple, and in the Ark of the Covenant.

      3) As to the volume of the art; remember that this has accumulated over centuries and centuries, and I suspect that whilst a fair chunk was commissioned by various cardinals (and not always for pious reasons), that quite a bit of it was given as gifts to the papacy, either by the artists themselves or commissioned by monarchs (again sometimes for pious reasons, other times just to show off).

      4) You are right to say that it is not 'owned' by any one person but by the Papacy as a whole, and it is owned for the benefit of all mankind, sometimes the beauty of our Churches is the only 'free' beauty that the poor have access to. If it wasn't held in trust by the papacy then think of all the beauty that would be locked away in private collections where only the exceptionally wealthy had access to it.

      I hope that this has gone some way to answering your comments.

      Delete
    3. I think we have 100% common ground regarding the importance and meaning of public religious art.

      But it seems that you have never visited the place and as you stated we are visual creatures.

      i) There are huge flow of tourists
      ii) Tickets cost
      iii) Pretty good place for modest evangelism - people from different cultures have come to see the main place of worship. Do you have any? No, you just pay the ticket and go through the security like in any other national gallery.
      iv) The rights of Michelangelos art are owned by Japanese company Nippon TV - due bidding. You're not allowed to take any photographs.
      v) Amount of e.g. statues is senseless, there really aren't any grace or beauty in collecting hundreds of statues in one room.
      vi) You have info boards outside, which look really crappy (despite the quality of art and ticket prices).

      How does this relate to anything?

      Do you like to read the Bible in your own language?

      Who made the first important translation?

      Who was against that?

      What was the main reason of Martin Luther (devout Catholic at that time) 95 thesis?

      What was the purpose of the money?

      Who was Erasmus of Rotterdam?

      What did he wrote?

      Was he still a Catholic?

      Does it take courage to go against institution which has burned faithfull opposers (right or wrong) because of opinion?

      What has Pope John Paul II said about Jan Hus and his destiny?

      --

      If you've read any history the dogma of papal infallibility just sounds so ridiculous. Product of the First Ecumenical Council and Pope Pius IX. Mark the years: 1846–1878.

      --

      I appriciate your kind answers and I'm not trolling. But pls, read history, read the Bible, see it yourself on location and even play with the idea that all humans are mortal and make mistakes.

      Delete
    4. Sidenote:

      Why the term "papal infallibility"?

      If it is related to ex cathedra only why not to be more precise? Why to mislead people with words?

      In general it is quite a long way from Matt 16:18 to dogma of infallibility, isn't it?

      Delete
    5. I think perhaps that this isn't the best forum for your questions. The people at Catholic Answers would be able to help your more I think.

      Delete
    6. I asked.

      "Uhmm, well you see.. You're not so old are you? It's good to head for pure truth, I mean really. But as you grow older you notice that always when there are humans there is fight for the money, power and it easily leads to corruption and lies. Even the institutions, which stand for justice and truth are not free of those.

      Don't want to be cynical - many people aim for good and you should never abandon the practice, but accept the reality. If you've doubts start from the Bible, read classics, don't rush to any radical conclusion, discuss with your priest, parents and people whose opinion is valuable. Don't be affraid of different opinions. Let them sink and see what comes out. Reiterate.

      In older times it was sometimes really dirty, people were burned because of their opinion. Quite similar to what you have in some countries in the Middle East nowadays. So there really can be progression."

      Delete
    7. Anonymous, Pope John Paul II, who (as you indicated) was apologetic about the Church putting certain people to death in the past, who thought that the Church made mistakes in that regard, ALSO thought that the gift of infallibility on faith and morals still applied to the Church. So, if he was right to apologize for the Church's mistakes, maybe he was also right to retain the concept and teaching of infallibility?

      Likewise with the DP: JPII never heard of an execution that he was OK with, he constantly asked states to NOT put a convict to death. Yet he still upheld the licitness of states using the DP, and still upheld the principle that there could be occasions even today where its use was warranted.

      Delete
  16. Once again I've had to delete a bunch of off-topic logorrheic threadjacking crap.

    Stardusty and Stardusty sock puppets and soundalikes, you are all hereby banned. Get lost. I will delete all future comments from you or from anyone who sounds like you.

    Everyone else, stop responding to this crap. I will delete it and all replies to it. Just ignore it until I do so. It's probably too late to salvage older threads, but from here on out I will no longer tolerate it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have no sound rational responses to my logical refutations of A-T.

      A man of strong character welcomes strong rational argumentation.

      Delete
    2. Stardusty Psyche: A man of strong character welcomes strong rational argumentation.

      And your perverse inability to come up with strong or rational arguments is why you were banned. (Tip for those with comprehension-problems: "banned" means quit posting.)

      You're also a coward. Do you think nobody has noticed that you always wait until a new post or two has gone up before you reply to an old one, in hopes that Prof. Feser won't notice your nonsense?

      Delete
    3. A man of strong character welcomes strong rational argumentation.

      No, By your own lights he is under no such obligation because those are all relative.

      Delete
    4. @Anonymous:

      Please do not feed the troll. You quite obviously know what I am about to say, but one ought not feed any troll; but to feed one that has been *explicitly* banned and yet keeps cluttering the combox with his inane crap, is highly disrespectful to the owner of the blog. Stardusty is what it is, so one cannot expect from him even the minimum of civility to get lost, but Prof. Feser's blog, Prof. Feser's rules.

      Delete
  17. I'd always thought that development was akin to the unfolding of a flower and the goal directedness of a particular doctrine e.g. the fact that the Eucharist is Jesus. Whilst The Blessed Sacrament was nearly always reserved in the Tabernacle is was a logical development that it be exposed for public adoration.

    ReplyDelete
  18. What is your view on development of doctrine as it applies to salvation outside of the Church? If the Church's current teaching says it is possible, how does it adhere to the criteria in your article?

    ReplyDelete
  19. The current Church teaching does not say that it is possible. Nobody can be saved but those who receive sanctifying grace removing original sin from the soul. For all humans, receiving sanctifying grace comes from the merits of Jesus Christ's death on the cross. Jesus created the Church as the dispensary from which all grace flows, and receiving such grace makes one a member of the Church. Not everyone who receives such grace is visibly a member of the Church. Nevertheless, nobody can be saved who, recognizing that the Church is the ongoing mystical Body of Christ in the world to which Christ commanded us to be members, refuses to become a visible member thereof.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A review of the book has appeared by Ann Barbeau Gardiner in Culture Wars. It is negative though chiefly concerned with empirical claims regarding the US justice system.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Theologians are supposed to continually expand and deepen understanding of, e.g., revelation and the Scripture though. There is a traditionally "actively" contemplative life of the Church. The Church doesn't just resist heresy and dangerous errors; she also grows in knowledge and wisdom of things spiritual and this is a natural desire of the faithful - to know more about God and the Faith.

    I agree with your concerns completely of course; however, I would recommend Saint Thomas's defense of the religious as at many points he talks about how the religious contemplatives are encouraged to study and study exactly so that the Church can increase in her wisdom and understanding of the Faith and spread this wisdom through preaching. I just don't want to see trads clashing with, say, Rome because they had a too passive or reactionary understanding of development of doctrine: doctrine can grow or increase logically and, in a sense, there can be new doctrines for the same reason there can be "new" dogmas (which hitherto were doctrines that the Church taught or believed). But they are implicitly contained and discovered through theological research or from studying holy Scripture or both.

    ReplyDelete