UPDATE 2/19: An update on what happened, to counter various unwarranted speculations I’ve seen here and elsewhere. My understanding from official sources is that my social media activity was judged to be controversial, and in particular that the archbishop had received complaints from some who had concerns about my having been critical of Pope Francis. No specific views or remarks of mine were cited. My understanding from other credible sources is that the complaints came, specifically, from a number of older priests in the L.A. area who had seen an announcement about the talk that had been sent to parishes. (This makes sense given that the talk was cancelled very soon after it was announced – within a day or so – and the print and online announcements were highly unlikely to have been seen before that time by many except people with some connection to or special interest in the seminary.) That is all I am able to say at this time.
In today's culture, if you are not cancelled, you are not speaking enough truth.
ReplyDelete“Feedback is a gift”, or so they say. Well done, good and faithful servant. You’re doing the right thing. Keep it up.
ReplyDelete"Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you"
ReplyDeleteGive us some details on why your were cancelled. I didn't see any negative comments on Facebook or Instagram relating to your appearance.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I'm not surprised ... thanks be to God, lest I go mad at the direction of this increasingly crazy world!
ReplyDelete“The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.”
― Flannery O'Connor
This is odd--presumably someone behind the scenes was upset about the (relatively) mild criticism of Pope Francis? One can of course disagree with many of your positions, but they are standard recognised, if not universal, orthodox Catholic positions and nothing one wouldn't expect in terms of doctrine.
ReplyDeleteConversely (and perversely) someone there does not like your sharper criticisms of Trump.
Dr. Feser does openly dissent from 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and has more than a dozen posts defending his position. I don't know if that was the issue here (I doubt it, somehow), but given that the Pope has recently affirmed this teaching in no uncertain terms, I can see how a bishop might not think Dr. Feser's theological record is completely spotless.
DeleteHe’s argued for the death penalty, but his core contention (that it’s not intrinsically wrong), the dreaded “prudential judgement,” is—probably—granted by the wording of more “effective detention systems.” This is one of the areas I disagree with him on, though really doubt it can be *that* unusual for classical natural law theorists.
Delete(Ironically and perversely I am increasingly inclined to think it might be the anti-Trump stuff, especially with regards to the polices of certain special Levantine States)
@OA Police
DeleteThe anti-Trump stuff is the main reason I hesitated to conclude that this is a liberal-backed "cancellation." Trump supporters are notoriously vindictive, and treat disloyalty to their lord and master as political and religious apostasy. I can absolutely see them deciding that a certain meddlesome Thomist needed to be taught a lesson.
It's a shame either way. I like when Dr. Feser does metaphysics, and think he can't have too big an audience for that.
He is correct about the death penalty.
Delete> Dr. Feser does openly dissent from 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church
DeleteDoes every Pope (who has spoken on the topic) before Francis, along with Scripture itself, not to mention many of the Fathers and St. Thomas, also dissent from the non-authoritative, changeable catechism?
Is the death penalty intrinsically immoral? If so, has it always been so? If so, are the above-named all wrong?
Thurible:
Delete"Trump supporters are notoriously vindictive, and treat disloyalty to their lord and master as political and religious apostasy. I can absolutely see them deciding that a certain meddlesome Thomist needed to be taught a lesson."
I have some tinfoil for you if your head covering is getting worn down, Thurible.
I think we know who the culprit for this cancellation is. It's the same ones that have done it from Branden Eich to Ralph Martin.
@English Catholic
DeleteI'm not interested in relitigating this issue, which has been done a thousand times in every comment thread of every post Dr. Feser has on the topic. The point is that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the formal position of the Church as an institution with the authority of the Pope behind it, and whether or not Dr. Feser's position on the DP is theologically or historically legitimate, it is contrary to expressed teachings of the Catholic Church. Maybe that Church is corrupt, or apostate, or all its claims about its own authority are all false. The point is that if someone (like a bishop) is acting as a representative of the institutional church, it would make perfect sense for them to regard Dr. Feser as theologically suspect because he openly and publicly dissents from what the Church reports to be its own official teachings.
But again, we have no idea if that's what's actually going on here. It's all speculation right now.
@Tim Lamber
DeleteYou'll notice I wasn't ruling out the other interpretation—just pointing out that there is another raging mob that might be chanting "Down with Feezer!" (That's a throwback reference for you oldheads). The fact that the event organizers didn't include BMSHBBS in Feser's bio does suggest that they consider his position on that issue problematic, which favors the liberals being the culprits. But then again, Doc Feser has been in far more hot water over the past few months because of his posts about Trump than his posts about the DP. I certainly hope the seminary chooses to explain itself.
The Archbishop holds the canonical authority to prevent Professor Feser from speaking at a seminary under his jurisdiction if he considers that to be inappropriate. Regardless of whether we like the Archbishop or not, or whether we consider his reasons to be well-founded or not, he has the canonical right to make such a decision and the Canon Law of the Catholic Church is binding on all members of the Church. However, if the decision to cancel Professor Feser does not belong to the diocesan ecclesiastical authority, then things are completely different.
DeleteYour logic does not follow. Neither statements by clerics nor the CCC are identified with the "expressed teaching of the Catholic Church". (The exception is if infallibility is invoked by a council or pope, which obviously doesn't apply here.)
DeleteIf they were to be so identified then Catholicism would be false, since many contradictions about allegedly unchanging subject matters could be identified.
Similarly, if scripture, tradition and many popes say X, and the most recent (two?) popes say not-X, it is not dissent to say X.
English Catholic:
DeleteWell, then, don't you have an irreconcilable contradiction, or at least a right royal mess on your hands? Catholics like to take refuge in the notion that they have a definitive interpreter that enables them to know for sure what the Truth is, but whenever that becomes awkward, all of a sudden those grandiose statements about papal infallibility get hedged into oblivion, and now we aren't talking about submitting to the Pope anymore, we're talking about how the Pope can, in very specific circumstances that almost never occur, ensure that he doesn't say anything that's explicitly wrong. In other words, the teaching authority of the Church becomes rather muddled and useless, because discovering the "true position of the Church" becomes basically impossible, certainly for any layman. So, listen to the Pope, unless he contradicts this ideological/interpretative/traditional structure that I have constructed for myself, at which point, defer to the structure and disregard the Pope.
@English Catholic
DeleteBenedict XVI called the Catechism "a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine." John Paul II called it "a sure norm for teaching the faith." I'm sure I don't have to explain to you that "sure" means "worthy of trust" and "authoritative," and that it makes no sense to claim that something can be a "sure norm for teaching the faith" and yet not in any way constitute the "expressed teaching of the Catholic Church." Your minimalist construal of the Church's teaching authority is certainly convenient if you consider yourself the definitive interpreter of the Magisterium (and don't want any bishops or popes to get in the way of your one-man defense of the Apostolic Deposit), but it would certainly be news to the Pope that his teachings are mere suggestions (given prsumably to be ignored) unless made explicitly ex cathedra.
> Regardless of whether we like the Archbishop or not, or whether we consider his reasons to be well-founded or not, he has the canonical right to make such a decision and the Canon Law of the Catholic Church is binding on all members of the Church. However, if the decision to cancel Professor Feser does not belong to the diocesan ecclesiastical authority, then things are completely different.
DeleteWhy does it make any difference whether it's the Archbishop or the dean? Both have authority to forbid speakers in Catholic universities; it doesn't change the goodness or otherwise of the decision.
@EXE:
DeleteThere is no contradiction. My position is "clerics' statements/CCC are not the same as the Church's teaching"; it is not "one can disregard anything that isn't infallible, if it goes against what one already believes and likes". You are claiming I'm saying the latter. I'm not. If one implies the other, you need to state how.
@Thurible:
Similar comment. I haven't said the Pope's non-infallible teaching or the CCC are mere suggestions. I've simply said they're not correctly identified with Church teaching. If they were so identified, it would follow either that Church teaching contradicts itself, or that its subject matter (faith and morals) could change over time.
Neither of you are responding to anything I've said, just what you imagine I've said.
Again, the Catholic anti-DP position is indefensible. People who hold it will never state openly whether they think the death penalty is intrinsically immoral; if so, whether it has always been so; and if so, whether every Pope who spoke on the topic before Francis was wrong (not to mention Scripture, St. Thomas, etc). They just try to bully the other side by claiming they're bad Catholics. We know that, occassionally, even Popes teach things fallibly that are wrong or even heretical. See poor Pope Honorius, condemned as a heretic by several subsequent ecumenical councils.
Feser has gone to great lengths to be careful about his criticisms of the Francine stuff on the DP, and at the same time Francis himself expressed explicit limits on his own declarations, i.e. that his teaching was in conformity with past teaching. If one is able to thread a meaning for the old statements and the the statements so as to not be essentially contradictory, doing so is NOT "rejecting what Francis taught" even if its tenor tends to be uncomfortable to Francine styles of preference. Furthermore, the Vatican's own authoritative teaching office taught that disagreement with the pope's prudential judgment regarding the DP is not sinful. And Feser primarily has (since after Francis changed the CCC) limited himself to a narrow thesis that IS NOT contradictory to what Francis said, their comments are on different planes. (And if it is NOT POSSIBLE to square what Francis said (taught fallibly) with the Church's consistent 2000-year doctrine, then wouldn't that mean Francis's teaching was not magisterial, since one and the same magister cannot teach A and also teach not-A?)
Delete@English Catholic
Delete"Why does it make any difference whether it's the Archbishop or the dean? Both have authority to forbid speakers in Catholic universities; it doesn't change the goodness or otherwise of the decision."
I doubt that Professor Feser was invited to speak at the Seminary without the Dean's and the Rector's knowledge. Usually, their approval is obtained first, and only then are invitations sent out.
Tony, you're making distinctions and using logic. I would assume that the people in power and/or the people whispering into the ears of the people in power are too stupid and/or malicious to effectively do that kind of thing.
DeleteSure, I'll admit you didn't say that. But that's what ends up happening most of the time, isn't it? Every man builds for himself a concept of what the Tradition says, and filters his obedience to the Pope and the Church through that. Besides, you still have the issue of how anyone is supposed to get at the True Teaching of the Church, if they cannot rely on the priests, bishops, popes, Catechism, etc. It's rather like saying that there is a Treasure Chest buried deep in the woods, but you can't trust the terrain, the place is filled with fog, magic regularly re-arranges the paths, and the local guides are all swindlers and brigands. Even if you are genuinely telling the truth and the Treasure is actually there, how in the blue blazes do you expect anyone to find it?
DeleteSeems like one of the greatest honors one could receive these days!
ReplyDeleteI think your right wing political views got you disinvited.
ReplyDeleteThis just reflects how ridiculous the world we live in nowadays is -- and what these "institutions of education" really aim at.
ReplyDeleteThese people's minds must go like this:
"Oh, this guy is really good, and he's going to talk about the immortality of the soul, which is a cornerstone of catholicism....wait? what? Is he a conservative?... AND HE IS ALSO FAVORABLE TO THE DEATH PENALTY??? He's too controversial and a danger to our ideology! Cancel him!"
Meanwhile, "Oh, we love these liberal fathers, look at how he tries to make us look good and inclusive to the gay community! Call him in!"
What makes me really upset about all this is that Ed is not even politically aggressive to begin with (unlike a lot of the figures we are all bringing up to mind right now). He's just a good old conservative Catholic (just like most of us), a chill guy (and always willing to help) that we all know (even the dissidents), and a philosopher worried about truth (which is a relic in itself), that we all know and hang out here in the blog. (I wonder if these unknown critics, being the usual liberal minds that they are, would even allow 5% of the freedom of speech that Ed himself allows in the comment section.)
At the end of the day, for these people, it doesn't matter if you are polite, friendly, or charitable to their arguments; you are simply judged and stigmatized for the views you endorse. All of this is just outrageous.
Ed, if you are reading this, YOU ARE DEFINITELY NOT THE PROBLEM; THESE PEOPLE ARE. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter to these people that you are not radical; all that matters to them is that you hold views that are contrary to theirs. Your mission there would be to deliver the truth about the immortality of the soul. You would be there to fight the good fight. If talking about the soul is also, somehow, included in the pack as "controversial," it really makes me wonder if these institutions are Catholic or a mere façade (adding to the fact that these institutions allow people like Fr. Martin, who, to say the least, is clearly controversial and opposite to two thousand years of tradition).
"At the end of the day, for these people, it doesn't matter if you are polite, friendly, or charitable to their arguments; you are simply judged and stigmatized for the views you endorse. All of this is just outrageous."
DeleteWell, let me flip this around into a context where it might make more sense to you. Imagine you are having a meeting, and one of your speakers is a very nice, articulate, friendly, and charitable man. However, his core belief is that Conservatives are all ontologically evil and deserve to be killed or shut up in prison for life. You would hardly be blamed for not wanting to associate with the man after that, surely? Regardless of his personal disposition, his views logically entail doing great harm to you and yours. Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration for the sake of effect, but you get my point - that being that it can be perfectly reasonable to disqualify someone on the basis of their beliefs rather than their actions or attitudes, if those beliefs are sufficiently noxious.
@EXE, you said: "You would hardly be blamed for not wanting to associate with the man after that, surely? Regardless of his personal disposition, his views logically entail doing great harm to you and yours."
DeleteAre you trying to say that Ed's views are noxious or something like that? If so, how? How his views are "sufficiently noxious"?
My example was exaggerated to make a point, but yes, many of Ed's views could be considered as noxious, at least by the standards of contemporary society. Not, in this example, the ones he's specifically lecturing about (I don't think anyone regards the existence of immortal souls as morally noxious) but certainly his broader views about the death penalty, homosexuality, etc are repugnant to modernity, and if implemented as public policy would logically entail the suffering and oppression of significant chunks of the population. Yes, those are also the traditional views of the Catholic Church, but that doesn't change anything. Now, I'm sure that Ed would be very happy to hear that he's out of step with modernity, but then he can hardly complain if modernity bites back at him for standing apart from itself.
DeleteThis is probably a lost cause, but you do realise Feser's general views especially on foreign policy are far less blood-thirsty, might-makes-right, than a significant percentage of the current Republican byline? Because the view you describe for rhetorical effect sounds far more like the associated (rightly or wrongly) with pro-Israel types against Palestinians. One can disagree with states legalising or refusing to legalise gay marriage/or capital punishment, but that's still less extreme than purported ethnic cleansing or random wars of expansion.
DeleteYou are correct, but that doesn't really matter. I wasn't thinking of those types of Republicans in my comment, in my mind they have already crossed the moral event horizon with gusto in their zeal to "own the libs". I specifically had Feser's type of conservative in mind, and yes, I do still consider those kinds of views to be beyond the pale, even if they're less aggressively vile than the typical Trumpian Conservative's. Even if I didn't, modern society certainly does, as likely do the organizers of this event.
DeleteYes, those are also the traditional views of the Catholic Church, but that doesn't change anything.
DeleteIt doesn't change your point, but it matters to others. Here's how:
If Ed had been invited to speak at a non-Catholic venue in order to give his ideas a wider audience than Catholics, and others (like the KGB_LGBQXTVNKVD crowd) got upsot and got him disinvited, that would be something like "normal reaction of those who hate Catholic teaching". Fine, nothing odd there. Whoever operates that venue doesn't have to platform Catholic teaching if they don't want.
It's quite another thing for that disinvite to come from a seminary. Whoever pushed the button on the seminary officials was effectively saying "we don't want no stinkin' Catholic teaching around here". That's disturbing. If the seminary official who rescinded the invite isn't effectively a subordinate of the complainer / objector, his decision to go along with the complaint means he is also on board with the complainer, or at least accepts the idea that "a controversy between those who teach Catholic doctrine and those who don't shouldn't be allowed to be brought out in the open here by someone who teaches Catholic doctrine." But that's effectively an admission that the seminary doesn't teach Catholic doctrine, cause otherwise a Catholic professor who teaches Catholic doctrine speaking at the seminary wouldn't be controversial, it would be the OTHER party who is controversial. So...either way, black marks on them.
I do still consider those kinds of views to be beyond the pale, even if they're less aggressively vile than the typical Trumpian Conservative's. Even if I didn't, modern society certainly does, as likely do the organizers of this event.
Yes, it is possible that those in control of who is allowed to speak for the event hold many of the same views as modern society's anti-Catholic crowd. But that just is saying that those in charge hold Catholic teaching beyond the pale, and join with the anti-Catholic elements in the larger society.
@EXE, I am very upset with your comment about Ed, but I will try to express my ideas in a very respectable way.
DeleteI really don't know which Ed you are talking about, but it is definitely not the EDWARD FESER I know. You or even modern society may disagree with what Ed has to say, but he never, ever talked any absurdities about homosexuality, DP, or anything in that way. I dare you to bring a single piece of evidence that shows Ed being "noxious" while defending his positions. He never said, for example, that homosexuals should die or that they will burn in hell or anything like that (just like muslims do, and, btw, people are way more tolerant to them than to us Catholics); also, if anyone dispassionately read 'By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed,' they would also see and agree that he didn't say anything degrading about human life in it at all (it is absurd to me that even though Ed and Bessette put a lot of effort trying to make their views clear, people who didn't even bother to read the book would simply label them as generic vindicative persons who endorse DP for the sake of it -- this is so outrageous).
Also, whether or not "Modern Society" thinks that his views are noxious is irrelevant. It's not simply his views; it is the Catholic Church's view, which goes way beyond in relevance and scope than the views of modern society. The Catholic Church's view is the natural view of humanity from centuries ago until the world got indoctrinated to accept things contrary to human nature. The fact that Ed is defending what was natural is not a shame or even noxious -- it is a shame to the people nowadays who would love to rejoice in the cesspool of immorality and decadence that the world presents instead of the sane views that our ancestors once partook in.
It is easy for the extreme leftists to say that we conservatives (simply labeled as "Trumpists") are vengeful, ignorant, and all, but what is really hard for them to see is that we are people who want to be left alone, grow our own families, and share the ideas that made us the people we are. It is hard for them to see the harm they actually cause because they are so virulent and slaves of an anti-human ideology that the mere fact of disagreeing with them just turns us into their dearest enemies. They bring the noise, they bring the violence, and the diabolical division of nowadays political views (people like Trump are just an effect of this).
Also, finally, you haven't brought any arguments at all for why Ed "deserves" this kind of treatment or how his views bring "great harm" to anyone; all you have shown is that his views are contrary to modern society and that, for simply disagreeing with them, he was cut off. You should really think about what you said and think if it is really the right thing to defend.
Thanks, Vini!
DeleteWhat you considered beyond the pale is different from what a given society does though. I mean I consider the standard naturalist/atheist nonsense to be pretty much beyond the pale especially when its coupled with moralising, but would hardly expect this social climate to do so. If Ed's views with regards to the death penalty are the legal standard in some states they can hardly be beyond the pale in the US. Likewise some countries in Europe e.g. Greece, have only recently legalised gay marriage (I voice no opinion for or against this) and could hardly have been said to be brutalising gay people beforehand.
DeleteI suspect I am in more radical disagreement with Ed and a lot of the people here, albeit not in popular ways. Having commented on this blog under one name or another for over a decade, and have never felt attacked let alone brutalised by him or his arguments.
(I am all for the Church condemning the death penalty on the prudential grounds of weakening the power of the secular State which is the greatest threat to persons today. People make inaccurate scare-mongering hark-backs to the Inquisition nearly half a millennia go, seemingly obvious to the fact that Bush, Biden, Trump and Starmer wield power undreamed by the most zealous inquisitor or even the author of Leviathan himself)
Ed,
DeleteI am very sorry to hear about your cancellation, but I am not surprised. Defending the natural law positions on the death penalty and human sexuality is just common sense; these used to be held by most people regardless of their religious affiliation, including the non-religious. In addition to the natural law and Biblical teachings, you have shown the support that these teachings have historically had in Roman Catholicism. The same holds historically for Reformation Protestantism in its Lutheran, Calvinistic, Anglican, Baptist, and Wesleyan traditions. Nowadays, people who defend these views in public are liable to cancellation in the liberal branches of any of these denominations and their associated educational institutions. You are in good company, Ed. I also want to echo Vini's comments; EXE is completely out of line here. Comments by Norm, Tony, and Miguel are also spot on. Modernists are dying out and there is a pre-modern revival happening that crosses denominational bounds. The truth will prevail, Ed. Be of good courage.
Thanks, Tim
Delete
Delete“It is easy for the extreme leftists to say that we conservatives (simply labeled as "Trumpists") are vengeful, ignorant, and all, but what is really hard for them to see is that we are people who want to be left alone, grow our own families, and share the ideas that made us the people we are. It is hard for them to see the harm they actually cause because they are so virulent and slaves of an anti-human ideology that the mere fact of disagreeing with them just turns us into their dearest enemies. They bring the noise, they bring the violence, and the diabolical division of nowadays political views (people like Trump are just an effect of this).”
Laughable. It is a denial of reality to constantly-no matter what - assert leftism as THE cause of violence in this country. It is not true, empirically, factually, historically. The greatest terrorist threat in the US remains domestic, right wing white supremacists. *Every* other marginalized group wants this power structure to leave them alone. Stop using the government to invade their lives, inspect their genitals, and tell them who they can marry or how they present themselves to the world. Stop destroying public education because you want to install Christian indoctrination schools. Stop destroying public health and reintroducing diseases to vulnerable people because you don’t believe in the science and think this justifies YOU endangering everyone else. Stop having work places where it’s okay to harass people for any reason. They want YOU to stop creating roadblocks for their advancement. You don’t actually leave anyone alone. Are you serious?!? Look at this government. A veritable paradise of heritage zealots and other fundamentalists - decades in the making, wreaking havoc across the entire country. When do facts ever enter into these theories of lefty oppression?
Nice fanfic, anon. It really says much about the lore you guys fabricate for the real world.
DeleteBtw, "Stop using the government to invade their lives, inspect their genitals" is just gross. You guys think about this subject way more than we do lol.
“You think more about this stuff than we do.” If ever there is fanfic, my guy, this is it.
Delete@Vini Tadeo
Delete"Also, finally, you haven't brought any arguments at all for why Ed "deserves" this kind of treatment or how his views bring "great harm" to anyone; all you have shown is that his views are contrary to modern society and that, for simply disagreeing with them, he was cut off. You should really think about what you said and think if it is really the right thing to defend."
For reasons that are beyond the scope of this discussion, leftist mentality has come to dominate the contemporary world, and there are few who are still willing to listen to the voice of reason and think things through deeply. My rather lengthy experience has made me realize that arguments, however well-founded they may be, don't have any power to penetrate beyond the wall of prejudices and laziness of thought that this godless mentality induces in all those who fall prey to it. But it is not this mentality that leads someone to seek happiness in this world, obviously without ever being able to find it? Those who are faithful know that this world is a valley of tears and that being persecuted for the Faith is a gift and blessing from God Almighty!
Tony: "his decision to go along with the complaint means he is also on board with the complainer, or at least accepts the idea that..."
DeleteThe other option is, the complainer had the goods on him and he was blackmailed. My understanding is that such things are not rare in seminaries. Lavender mafia: real thing. (Trumpist mafia infiltrating the Church? Nah.)
@ David: Well, sure, that's possible.
DeleteWhich leads me to ask this question: Don't you think that that particular worry has run its course by now?
Suppose you were in the seminary 30 years ago, and there you were forced / pressured into accepting a bed "entertainment" that you detested, but you never complained so you weren't ejected. Now the complainer "has the goods on you". But really: they've got the goods on (to all appearances) some 90+% of everyone over the age of 50. Which means that 90% of the people in charge know perfectly well that the "threat" that "he's homosexual" or "he slept with men" is (a) not true in any dangerous sense, and/or (b) pointless, since it can be levied equally against the other 90%! That is: they ALL already know that they all are under the same threat, from the same sources, and the threateners are in the same boat, so: why would anyone WHO MATTERS take issue; the decision-makers being all in the same boat, TO WHOM do they make a threat that carries any worry? The response to a blackmail threat should be to laugh in their face.
Could be a threat against a pedophile, and then law enforcement cares. But really, are there any left who haven't had lawsuits already?
When are we going to get a pope who kicks them all out?
"The response to a blackmail threat should be to laugh in their face."
DeleteSure, and that should be our response to any demonic temptation I suppose, strictly logically considered. But power dynamics are powerful psychologically, not logically. The really important thing is (comes to be) to comfortably maintain one's comfortable double life at all costs. (Daphne du Maurier's novel 'Rebecca' is quite good at exploring this kind of thing.)
I think Gene Thomas Gomulka, though a bit obsessed with married priests, has some worthwhile material which informs my understanding of what goes on in the clerical subculture.
DeleteVini, you have the logic exactly backwards, precisely as you were taught to. Catholic morality is not natural, it is artificial. If it were natural, you wouldn't need so many rules about it, and you wouldn't need to spend so much time and energy trying to enforce it. People would instead be naturally inclined towards it. The secret is that Christianity was so wildly successful in imposing itself upon Europe for so long that some people have mistaken its views for the natural and obvious. Anything that you're exposed to for long enough becomes "second nature", after all. You also believe in a fictional version of the past, where everything was good and great and everyone understood why your views were good and natural, and have projected that backwards into the past. That's not what it was like, and you're also overlooking the fact that there were very good reasons why people rejected those views, which to this day the Scholastic Tradition has yet to convincingly deal with.
DeleteFriend Anon:
DeleteYou truly are a strong person to continue here. Let me comfort you and give what insight I can on this behavior. Modern conservatism, starting from Burke and le Maistre, is far less intellectual than it pretends to be. Oh, for sure, I'm not denying that there are ANY conservative intellectuals, but they are very few and far between throughout history, and usually don't reach the heights of their Liberal and Leftist counterparts. Of course, they tend to explain this through bias, unfairness, groupthink, or somesuch. The real reason, however, is that fundamentally conservatism exists for one reason above all: to protect and preserve the existing social hierarchy. This is their core animating principle, much like fairness is for the Left. It's the basic instinct that drives everything they do. Burke and le Maistre are explicit about this, even - Burke's entire worldview is hostile to reason and is based on aesthetics instead, on "the Beautiful" and "the Sublime", feelings that he raises above reason. He often resorted to mere mockery and bare assertion that his preferences were obviously true. Thomas Paine and Mary Wollstonecroft both tore him to shreds. De Maistre, meanwhile, actively argued that reason was "worthless for preserving social, political, or religious order" and that people required dogma and prejudice in order to function effectively. Basically, they were aristocrats terrified of losing their privileges. These two are the fountainhead of conservatism, and it has never really stopped being about that. Protect power, shield it from criticism, obscure it under florid metaphor and clothe it with transcendental splendor so that it may be presented as something one owes uncritical obedience to. Its job is to provide the smoke and mirrors needed to protect Oz the Great and Powerful.
This whole project is imperiled if society at large values critical thinking. The more people learn to think and question things, the greater the odds that they will question Authority, that thing that must be held beyond question. They might even get the idea that the King is just a man and the Queen just a woman. Imagine that! Unacceptable! For this reason conservatives simply do not value the intellectual life as much as liberals do. There cannot be too much thinking or else things may go wrong. But they can't admit that's the reason why they have so little presence in academia, so they invent excuses about victimhood.
This tendency to automatically defend the status quo also explains why they keep losing culturally, because once the Left is finally able to marshal enough power to make the unacceptable normal, the Conservatives immediately shift to defending that, because it's now the Status Quo (at least after a few years have passed). Notice how few Conservatives are willing to fight against gay marriage, and how even fewer are willing to contest the moral licity of homosexuality.
Finally, the anti-intellectualism of the Burkean tradition is part of why Conservatives feel the need to impose their views on others with such force. Burke is suspicious of reason and so does not put much stock in rational persuasion. However, since his worldview is based on feelings, it is incapable of persuading anyone whose natural inclinations do not align with it. Obviously, if you want people to share your beliefs, but rational persuasion is not open to you, force is the only option left.
Anon who replied to Vini:
DeleteHey, Anon, you ever stop and think that there might be a good reason why most people do not share your beliefs? Sure, I know it's nice to think that it's because you are the rational one and everyone else is just lazy and sinful, but come on. That's just a story to soothe the soul. Catholic Conservatism in the modern day mostly doesn't even try to interact with secular thought anymore. That's not the sign of a strong and vital force, it's the sign of an intellectual tradition in utter decrepitude.
Not even gonna waste my time on your manichean comment again, EXE. If you think you are the stroke of a genius and the only person to ever put these phony and half-baked objections on the table (like the stupid idea that conservatives see the past as the only "golden standard" of morality while the future eras as problematic -- really can't believe you said something like that), knock yourself out.
DeleteHey Vini.
DeleteIf I'm not mistaken, you said these two things:
"[...] instead of the sane views that our ancestors once partook in"
"The Catholic Church's view is the natural view of humanity from centuries ago until the world got indoctrinated to accept things contrary to human nature."
These statements suggest that you believe that your views are supported by the majority of people throughout history - that they are the human default, and that their lack of popularity in the modern day is an aberration that needs to be actively maintained by hostile forces ("indoctrination") lest it snap back to your own position. This, I submit, is wrong-headed, and requires a view of history that is wrong, based more on wishful thinking than study. That is what I meant by my comments.
EXE, you raised a very disappointing objection (again), and this will be the last time I will ever answer anything you say directly to me in the comment section.
Delete"[...] instead of the sane views that our ancestors once partook in"
I don't know if you noticed, but "once partook in" does not imply in any way the same as "always did in the past" or "always followed ininteruptly in the past." You are reading too much into it -- and it is definitely not a charitable interpretation of yours. It is also important to note that I am not excluding these points to Catholics only, but a major part of history, composed by non-catholics (or pagans) that also shared similar views in major points of history (Indian, Japanese, and Chinese philosophy, we do find a lot of common ground, even though there are major metaphysical or theological differences).
Now, to the second point.
"The Catholic Church's view is the natural view of humanity from centuries ago until the world got indoctrinated to accept things contrary to human nature."
This is highly specific. When I said the natural view of humanity, I'm talking about the major philosophy core tenets of Plato, Aristotle, and Co. That's why I also said earlier that the scope of the Catholic Church is greater than what modern society thinks. Of course, even in the time of Plato and Aristotle, immorality already existed (nobody is denying that), but my point is that our ancestors' views dominated a great part of the history of the world (when it comes to the history of the West, it is undeniable). And, finally, "indoctrinated to accept things contrary to human nature" goes way beyond sexual immorality and extends to an array of metaphysical views too (again, not to deny that these views never existed before).
Now, cherry-picking specific parts of what I said and "suggesting" that I think this or that way (to fit the strawman in your head) is a very low blow. I'm not even responding to this comment just for you specifically, but to others who might venture into this comment section and think that I or other conservatives have such a preposterous, simple-minded representation of a view that you are imposing on us.
To be clear to everyone else: nobody thinks that "there was a great time in history where things were just great and then boom, leftists appeared" or something as simple as that -- this is a minority view, and most people knows that the history of the world is way more complicated than this; nobody thinks that the Catholic Church always maintened a good control of the world when it had power or that the human intentions behind the power where always good -- the human body of the Church is fallible and God permited a lot of stuff to happen in the history of the Church itself.
So, whenever any of you guys see Klugscheißer in the comment section (elaborating specific lore of how conservatives would organize society, or cognitive patterns for how conservatives *must* think or suggesting how they must think), be alert, these commenters may not know what they are talking about and are wishfully thinking what they ought to believe their adversary side must think. It is easier to paint your political enemy as a simplistic, overly religious, dull-headed person than to actually interpret or even hear what he has to say.
Vini,
DeleteI apologise for hurting your feelings. No, genuinely. Now, no longer in the heat of the moment, I realize that was excessive and cruel. I'm sorry. That's not a good thing to do to another person, and it's a bad way to spend our time here on Earth.
Well, whoever would disinvite Prof, it's their loss. Don't worry Prof, you are great!
ReplyDeleteThe professor complained that the "controversial" Rev.James Martin, S.J. will be speaking at the seminary. What the professor doesn't say is that on September 1, 2025, Pope Leo met with Fr Martin at the Vatican, and according to Martin, encouraged him to continue his LGBTQ ministry. The professor's opposition to that kind of ministry probably got him disinvited.
ReplyDeleteFr. Martin is also giving a talk at an education workshop—one of twelve that attendees can choose from in that slot—not giving a keynote address on a theological topic. Many of the other speakers are lay people; one is even a Jewish rabbi. The situations are not really comparable at all.
DeleteThurible, Feser obviously pissed off someone at that seminary. Yes, it's all speculative. DP, LGBTQ, his Republican politics, a little bit of each? Maybe it will come out eventually.
DeletePope Leo and Fr. James Martin are instruments of Divine Providence calling the faithful to repentance and works of reparation.
DeleteI gotta laugh at this: Fada jeeemmy Martin is going to be welcomed to talk that the "3 Days of Darkness" conference! Well, that's going true to form. Of course, if Feser had been asked to speak there, nobody would have objected: they're so far out in space that they don't even know who Feser is or how teaching the immortality of the soul would contradict anything they believe. Ya know: the world-soul is everlasting, man.
ReplyDeleteBut you get invited to speak at the seminary on The Soul, and someone in the power chain nixes it because ... wait for it...controversy? Total BS. Oh, I don't mean that he (whatever power-monger got a stick up his ...nose) won't like what you teach - he will. But the reason given is BS. What they really don't like is that Feser teaches as if the Church's doctrines from before Vatican II still carry weight, and are authoritative. That's the unforgivable sin here. That you could pull out the popes and the Fathers, cite from Denzinger, and state DEFINITIVE teaching that all must hold. Nobody gives a nit about "controversy" in the old sense any more, that's just hogwash.
Feser, you musta done something very right to get this kind of treatment!
"Well, they did invite me. I believe the pressure came from outside. All I can say at the moment."
ReplyDeleteYou will reveal more right, Prof ? In time ?
Hopefully!
DeleteAlso Prof, despite this slight by your own Archdiocese, for what it's worth, your work resonates with people all around the world ,something I can very much attest to
DeleteI have also been sharing your advice for men, 1 day at a time, coincidentally you had mentioned 7 points, so I framed it as one for each day of the week.
Thanks for everything.
Thanks, Norm!
DeleteSomething strange going on here. I'm worried about Prof Feser.
ReplyDeleteDisgusting, but typical of liberals. These people can't stand a "free market" of ideas that doesn't pay lip service to their worldview. Our modernists are getting older and older though. This won't last.
ReplyDeleteAm sorry to read this, Professor. When one is viewed as counter-cultural, one is labelled controversial. Those who wield power do not always do that wisely.
ReplyDeleteI’m from the UK so I am not familiar with this seminary, but I wondered if it has been involved in this sort of cancelling before?
ReplyDeleteIn response to several comments, I want to make clear that from what I can tell at the moment, it appears that the pressure to disinvite me came from outside both the seminary and the archbishop's office. They were responding to that pressure - pressure from certain other circles in the Church here in L.A. -- rather than initiating it themselves, as far as I know. That's all I can say at the moment.
ReplyDeleteSeems like either cowardice to cave in, or these groups otherwise have power that perhaps they shouldn't, for one reason or another.
DeleteWhile one may disagree with you on various points, to call you "too controversial" is, frankly, such a bizarre claim. And to find these people in the Church is even weirder.
You know, I've already respected you for hashing out your differences with your critics in public—getting to the bottom of things in an open and honest way. No intrigue, no sneaking around, no behind-the-scenes dealing. Sorry they've put you in this situation. It's very unfair.
DeleteI had a feeling it was outside pressure because the seminary seems to be a traditional Catholic seminary. Too bad they gave in to that pressure. Makes no sense. Dr Feser is a world-renowned Thomistic philosopher. He is conservative in his religious and political views, but not radically so.
DeleteAnd Ed wasn't even going to speak about anything controversial. I mean, what's controversial about the immortality of the soul? Yes, some people don't believe we even have a soul, but It's not exactly a hot button issue like abortion, LGBTQ, etc .
DeleteThanks, guys
Deleteit appears that the pressure to disinvite me came from outside both the seminary and the archbishop's office.
DeleteIt may be somewhat of a footless enterprise to speculate on who it was who initiated the disinvite. But not necessarily to consider the characteristics of whomever that was - I'll call him the Initiator. Someone at the seminary had to do the formal DISinvite to Feser, someone had to agree with the initiator that Feser should receive a message disinviting him, and decide to send the disinvitation - I'll call him the Decider. It would seem that the Decider has to be somewhere in the formal lineup of the seminary. If the Initiator were not part of the official chain of command of the Decider, (which chain of command seemingly would have to be in the seminary or in the archdiocesan offices), then they are someone who wields a considerable influence without being in the chain of command. Someone in a political position (like a Trump appointee), would have virtually no capacity to influence the chain of command or the Decider to that extent, so it makes little sense for it to be a political operative. Someone in a national (religious) capacity who could lean on the seminary might make a bit of sense (say, from the Nuncio's office), but frankly there is very little likelihood that would happen without running the pressure through the diocesan offices, i.e. not directly just calling up the seminary rector to complain. Pretty much the same from any other bishop, or anyone from Rome. What makes the most sense is that the pressure came from a major donor, someone who could exert pressure without directly working through the diocese, probably with the implicit capacity to complain to the archbishop and be heard.
I don't propose the following, I am just pointing it out: a seminary official like Decider who could be pushed to nix Feser because of such pressure could also be moved in the opposite direction due to opposing pressure. If a few wealthy people, or many others, complained to the seminary that they had looked forward to Feser speaking and are upset that he was nixed etc blah blah..., it could make them a little more cautious in the future, or more ready to resist a stupid complaint from an (effective) anti-Catholic heretic. Ultimately, someone who has the bishop's ear needs to make it clear that his seminary is being run by people who either (a) don't really like Catholic doctrine much, or (b) don't have a spine and are willing to cater to people who don't much like Catholic doctrine. But that's a decades-old problem, and the same people who pick bishops effectively also pick seminary authorities, it's all wrapped up together, and Gomez turns 75 (retirement age) this year.
I am sorry Ed, both for them cancelling your part of the event (which looked good), and for them being too disingenuous to discuss conflicts of ideas at the start.
DeleteI have seen some people online comment that it's Prof's views on the Death Penalty that led to this nonsensical decision, if that's true, it has to be one of the stupidest things ever, especially when you have someone like Prof Robert P George himself calling it shameful, despite the fact that he is from the school of thought whose founders (Grisez, Finnis etc) are partly responsible for the shift in the Church's prudential stance.
ReplyDeleteProf George is as anti death penalty as you can get and if he is calling out this cancellation of Prof as shameful, people who are cheering this on for that reason really need to take good hard look at the mirror.
Where are you seeing online comments about this particular matter?
DeleteCurious on the details. I consider you a decent person with some very unfortunate views. I don’t consider *you* hateful but I also don’t see the value in preaching or defending views that just enable the worst amongst us to justify their bigotries, etc.
ReplyDeleteI will say, it is amusing that some of your interlocutors- people who define themselves by their hatreds of other people ( because of their sexual orientation, race, religion, gender, or immigration status ) act outraged at things like this when the regime they overwhelmingly support doesn’t just ‘disinvite’ people but is doing far worst things: defunding and extorting universities, corrupting the entire govt apparatus and actually *murdering* people daring to protest them. “Cancelations,” are always this big deal for conservatives but they’re in no danger of losing their livelihoods or in actual physical danger from the alleged frothing liberals. While, in real life, entire states are under siege from govt thugs, people, children included, are getting rounded up and dumped in warehouses for the crime of being immigrants. Among other escalating atrocities. But what demographics overwhelmingly support all this? The corrupting of the govt? The trampling of ‘constitutional rights’? The people that tell you they’re being canceled, who will be in churches tomorrow, STILL acting as if they’re being oppressed when they’re the biggest and loudest supporters of the boots on everyone else’s neck. It is an absurdity.
Anon. There are sadly a few posters here who define themselves as you stated, but they are on the fringes. Your point about what the Trump Admin.is engaged in is well-taken and I agree with you. But Dr. Feser was only going to speak about the immortality of the human soul, a rather benign and esoteric topic that is far removed from the actions of Trump and his minions. Dr Feser has tweeted about his dislike of some of things that you mentioned. My wish is that he would be more forceful. But he should be allowed to speak. I am writing this has someone who protested the Vietnam War and marched for Civil Rights and I have the scars to show for it.
DeleteHehehe this is really funny. It would work as parody, if only Anonymous meant it that way.
Delete“Cancelations,” are always this big deal for conservatives but they’re in no danger of losing their livelihoods
Haha snort...Conservatives have had to swallow their beliefs and not speak out, for roughly 45 years, to get or keep their jobs in academia, and more than a few have lost their jobs by speaking out. Bakers and others HAVE been put out of business for sticking to their beliefs. And plenty of people who started out being cancelled "merely" on social media went on to lose their jobs through pressure put on their employers. Get the facts.
corrupting the entire govt apparatus
Whoooboy, what a laugh. After it came out that for all of the Biden tenure, and most likely for 2 decades before, whole bureaucracies have been funneling money to facades of business - to have those businesses fund Dem campaigns. Or with NGOs, same thing. Or to fund even worse things: MN somali day care, anyone?
*murdering* people daring to protest them.
of course, the unborn are unable to protest effectively, their screams being silent as they are ripped apart.
What's funny to me is that your ilk always talk about "people who define themselves by their hatreds of other people," but where are these people you so eagerly talk about on this blog? Where are they hiding? To be honest, this rhetorical behaviour looks like an induced schizophrenia, where you guys wish these kinds of people really exist in abundance for you to point fingers at and say, "Look, I'm not crazy!"
Delete"“Cancelations,” are always this big deal for conservatives but they’re in no danger of losing their livelihoods"
DeleteCharlie Kirk's cancelation quite literally lost stop him his livelihood.
There are people who are utterly obsessed with despising Israel and Jews, but that isn't Trump and it's certainly not Feser. It's a huge one that runs across the political spectrum, and is actively encouraged by Left-wing politicians. That's the only major instance of "people who define themselves by their hatreds of other people".
Not to deny the obvious major Left factor in cancel culture but self-serving dishonest appeals to the Holocaust and Antisemitism + concerned contacting of employers, are part of what started the cancel culture thing. See groups like the ADL’s decade running sabotage campaigns against Norman Finkelstein and other Jewish critics of, well, them essentially. Of course the Left love it because many have no moral exemplars beyond a negative appeal to Nazism. Now with Trump it had became transpolitical once more with all sides fighting for the symbol of victimhood as power—see the sublime absurdity of Pami Bond trying to criticise a Democrat lawmaker for not supporting a resolution against Iran in “this climate of antisemitism” only for that woman to bite back by observing that her own grandparents died in the Holocaust.
DeleteNowadays Catholics face difficulties in calling out Dispensationalism as a heresy incompatible with Church teaching (one can of course still support Israel as a Catholic just not for those reasons).
And we dare not ask the fate of Catholic critics of Jewish theologies.
LMAO. Seriously, guys? This is the best you got? A baker lost his job? You have to suck it up and not be openly homophobic at work? Academia doesn't like you? You really do have the most ridiculously over-inflamed persecution complexes I've ever seen. It requires a truly special kind of moral myopia to not see that "Your Side" is currently doing things far, far worse than anything that's been done to you. Yet you just can't seem to let go of the mantle of victimhood.
DeleteDo you consider supporting th death penalty to be binding upon the ,church, and nonsupport to be heresy?
ReplyDeleteTake heart. I’m in Calgary, AB, Canada - 2508 km from Pasadena and am presently reading “Immortal Souls”, the 6th of your books that I’ve taken up. 189 pages in and enjoying it. A number of my friends read your books and blog, and even my 19 year old daughter has read your short book on Aquinas. Your influence and appreciation of your contributions extend beyond the precincts of the diocese of LA.
ReplyDeleteMany thanks!
DeleteI do not know anything about the cancellation of the talk, but I do want to say something about opposition to Leftism.
ReplyDeleteFirst, most of the Leftist talking points are in bad faith. Much of their supposed discussion is just attempted manipulation. Which can be seen by how quickly leftists switch justifications and policies from calling for impartiality to calling for their opponents to be punished. Also, the justifications are based on lies about history and disingenuous comparisons. Guess what, life back in the day was though for almost everyone. Even a king could die without a short time if he got sick enough.
But secondly, even when the problems Leftists point out are real, the solutions are either fake or worse than the problem.
Some people are poor parents? I know, let's abolish the family.
Some marriages are unsuccessful and some people have children out of wedlock? I know, let's replace a culture based on a common sense understanding of human nature with sociopathic hedonism.
Opposition to all this does not come from stupidity, ignorance, or prejudice. The cat is out of the bag. You don't get to pretend that it's 1850 and these things are all hypothetical. The experiment has been done and no amount of explaining away is going to change what people see all around them.
"Guess what, life back in the day was though for almost everyone. Even a king could die without a short time if he got sick enough."
DeleteOh yeah, the fact that the elites of prior ages sometimes had to face hardship definitely proves that those social hierarchies weren't unjust. Actually wait, that doesn't make any sense at all. You're trying to flatten the injustices of the aristocratic world order into "well, it sucked for everyone". No, no it did not. It sucked a lot more for some people than others, and usually that was based on the structure of society, something that is explicitly a human creation. They are not mysterious, you can read about them in many places. Learn about the horrors of oppression before you dismiss them.
"Some people are poor parents? I know, let's abolish the family."
I have never heard anyone say this, no matter how far Left they were. What you will hear is the contention that the traditional patriarchal model of family ought not to be the only one allowed. In my experience, when Conservatives talk about "abolishing the family", they usually mean "destroying the social dominance of OUR concept of what the family should be".
"Some marriages are unsuccessful and some people have children out of wedlock? I know, let's replace a culture based on a common sense understanding of human nature with sociopathic hedonism."
Really? Modern sexual culture is extremely concerned with consent, to the point that it's sometimes the butt of jokes. Trying as hard as possible to avoid exploitation and abuse doesn't sound like sociopathy to me. And I know that you mean to conjure up images of wicked decadence by the word "hedonism", but why should it mean that? Why can't people pursue pleasure, presuming it doesn't conflict with other, greater moral principles?
"Opposition to all this does not come from stupidity, ignorance, or prejudice."
Burke and le Maistre literally based their opposition to Progress on their irrational emotional horror towards the idea that it would lead to the toppling of the old hierarchies that they held so dear (and conveniently stood on top of). Conservatism since the French Revolution has been little more than one long project of defending the present social order at all costs.
EXE, the thing with your comments it that you never put forward anything positive. You never present what benefits your worldview offers. You keep saying everything else is terrible, but never what is good.
DeleteI may or may not respond to it, but if you wrote a comment like that I would read it.
That’s a real pity and shows a real lack of spine on their part. You always treat your opponents charitably, and your online persona is nothing but wholesome. If you’re deemed too problematic then I can’t imagine any conservative speaker would be welcome there.
ReplyDeleteOne of the premises of Leftism is that "man is good by nature but society corrupts him", and the Leftists imagine that through social engineering they can preserve unaffected man's natural goodness. That is why they want to control in a paternalistic manner every aspect of human life, going so far as to want children to be raised and educated not by their parents, who might corrupt them, but by the Leftist state, which will ensure that they retain their natural goodness.
ReplyDeleteSee, I'm deeply skeptical of the claims about an immutable human nature, especially about a corrupt immutable nature. Conservatives have been making pessimistic arguments about the impossibility of making people and society better for centuries, and they've been wrong every time. Kings and Aristocrats were Natural and Divine and destroying them would surely ruin society, it was just the way we were made! Then we got rid of them and everyone was fine except the Kings and Aristocrats. You couldn't forbid children from working, that would destroy the economy! Then we did it and everything was fine. You couldn't limit the workday to eight hours! Think of the lost productivity! We'd all be poor in minutes! Then we did it and everything was fine. Ditto with women's liberation, civil rights, gay marriage, and so on. That's why I believe that this sort of talk is pure propaganda. Most of the things deemed "impossible", like UBI, Universal Health Care, eradicating prejudice, etc, are generally not impossible. They are simply against the interests of the rich and powerful, thus they do not get done, and the "it's impossible!" story gets sent out as an excuse for this.
Delete@EXE
DeleteThe assumptions and ultimate goals of the Right and the Left do not coincide, just as their value systems generally do not coincide; therefore, your claim that people and society have been made "better" is one that I cannot agree with at all. Of course, you, as a Leftist, see human fulfillment in material comfort and self-gratification, and are resentful of those whom you imagine are made happy by thoroughly enjoying such things. It is normal for a Leftist to think like that. My problem is that while Hierarchy, Authority and Tradition are core values of the Right, nowadays you can see very few people who claim to be on the Right actually committed to these values and related behavior. On the contrary, the ideas and attitudes they express show their attachment to opposing values, belonging to the Left.
Just as someone once believed that kings and aristocrats were part of the natural order and was wrong, we would surely be wrong now to believe that there are only two sexes. Since people have been wrong about the natural order at certain points in history, it's obvious that we must be wrong now as well, and that the so-called "natural order" doesn't even exist... It follows from airtight logic!
DeleteFrom my point of view, the big problem of the contemporary world is not so much Leftism as such, but rather the fact that many of its apparent opponents have come to more or less consciously share some of Leftism's fundamental premises/assumptions, so that the great confrontation on the contemporary public stage is not between Leftism and the Right, but between Leftism and a diluted version of Leftism which, taken to its ultimate conclusion, leads to almost the same aberrations that pure Leftism leads to. The sad truth is that, at present, authentic Right thinking is hardly noticeable on the stage of public debate.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting and worthwhile perspective. I can see though that a "Far Leftist" whether of the Chomskyite or Slavoj Zizek background making a similar point about mainstream political intellectuals being "Right" and "Woke Right" ("Right" here meaning, one presumes, liberal consumerist coupled with interventionist "World-Leader" style foreign policy).
DeleteAs long as the fundamental principles that oppose the Left and the Right and constitute the essential difference between them are not clearly distinguished, things may end up being labeled on the basis of circumstantial-accidental similarities and differences, or even on the basis of pure irrational personal preferences. Regardless of whether "Woke Right" is a contradiction in terms or not, I have noticed that even some of those who use this expression to distance themselves, as men supposedly on the right Right, from its preachers and supporters, tend to share some fundamental principles that pertain to the Left and not to the Right. Just look at how they blame the root of what they see as contemporary social ills on a so-called by them "elite", disconnected from the people, and not on the assumptions of the political system, which, by the very nature of its mechanisms, will always end up bringing to power people having the "qualities" to form such a pitiful pseudo-elite, which is nothing but the mirror image of the moral and intellectual decay of a society.
DeleteQuick Addendum: my apologies, I didn't realise "Woke Right" had a specific use within American political discourse (ironically for those who oppose Israel). I was using it in the sense some Leftists attacked Biden and co for being what they saw as economically consumerist and Imperialist in foreign policy only with "costless" diversity gestures and rainbow flags.
Deleteand not on the assumptions of the political system, which, by the very nature of its mechanisms, will always end up bringing to power people having the "qualities" to form such a pitiful pseudo-elite, which is nothing but the mirror image of the moral and intellectual decay of a society.
DeleteYou seem to think that this is unique, but it isn't. EVERY society, and every political form, confers power on some and not on others. Power is desirable: it offers distinctive personal benefits. Hence it ALWAYS attracts some who seek it for those benefits and not to benefit others. Every system of whatever sort attracts to its power structure those who want it for personal gain. You can't eradicate this condition from humanity.
You might be able to mitigate its extent and its effects, for a time. Until the clever figure out how to game the system of checks and mitigation strategies. Although, in many cases, revolutions are started (or taken over) by the clever who set up the strategies knowing already how to game them, and do so from day 1.
@Anymouse
Delete"You seem to think that this is unique, but it isn't. EVERY society, and every political form, confers power on some and not on others. Power is desirable: it offers distinctive personal benefits. Hence it ALWAYS attracts some who seek it for those benefits and not to benefit others. Every system of whatever sort attracts to its power structure those who want it for personal gain. You can't eradicate this condition from humanity."
That is precisely the problem, "that you can't eradicate this condition from humanity", and this is one of the fundamental assumptions of the Right, which the leftist ideological principles of the current political system oppose, principles which, once put into practice and followed to their ultimate conclusion, can only lead to the collapse of society into selfishness, materialism, and anarchy.
I have a pretty good idea of what happened, but I can't comment at this point in time.
ReplyDeleteWhen Aquinas was alive, the papacy - there were two rivals calling themselves popes - was losing political power, kings were asserting their own power and fighting each other over territory, a merchant class was rising and introducing capitalism at the expense of feudalism ... Turkic warriors were flexing their muscles ... bishops, abbots and secular nobility extracted wealth from all around them ... the Cathars kicked up a row and were suppressed via another row ... But we look back on the days of Aquinas as a pinnacle from which civilization has continued to decline.
ReplyDeleteficino4ml:
DeleteMost people's view of history is biased. For conservatives, this most commonly takes the form of cherry-picking the parts they like while ignoring or denying the parts they don't, creating a fictitious "Golden Age" to which they long to return. Conservative Catholics have a similar relationship with the 19th and early 20th centuries, which are beloved for their "strong" Popes and fierce denunciations of modernity, but they overlook the fact that this was in reality a period of intense soul-searching, internal strife, and weakness for the Church. It also saw the embarrassing spectacle of the Church refusing to accept the fact that the Middle Ages were over and that they could no longer simply "anathema sit" their way to control over Europe. Reminder that this was the period where the Church stubbornly refused to adapt to critical biblical scholarship, evolution, etc. While the Church was certainly not as publicly vocal about creationism as Fundamentalist Protestants, they were still strict, with the Inquisition affirming as late as 1909 that the first three chapters of Genesis could not be interpreted as allegory and must be taught literally. Mosaic authorship was still upheld until as late as Vatican II. The point I'm trying to get at is that Catholics, no less than anyone else, tend to engage in revisionist history, and interpret past events so that they align with what "should have happened" if their theology were correct, rather than with what actually did happen.
Most people's view of history is biased.
DeleteChange that to "everyone's" and I will agree: your view of history too. I don't mean that as a distinction, I include myself in it. EVERYONE bases their understanding of history on LIMITED facts, not all the facts. And almost everyone's facts include extremely poor evidence of the concrete motivations of most events that we know anything about. Even when we have memoirs telling us of the historical person's own motivations, (a) sometimes they are lying, (b) usually they are giving piecemeal info, and (c) sometimes their own motives are muddled and obscure to themselves (as psychology shows us). So, we all have to work on limited AND poor information, and we all have to pick and choose among that set to make a somewhat coherent picture.
Nevertheless: some pictures are more coherent than others, in spite of the limits involved. Hitler's understanding of German history was quite poor. Churchill's understanding of the English-speaking world somewhat better, though certainly could be improved upon. And everyone who has a really bad understanding of human nature is going to tend to form a really bad picture of history.
For conservatives, this most commonly takes the form of cherry-picking the parts they like while ignoring or denying the parts they don't, creating a fictitious "Golden Age" to which they long to return. Conservative Catholics have a similar relationship with the 19th and early 20th centuries,
It's funny, but I don't find "conservatives" have this "golden age" tendency nearly as strongly as unconservatives project onto them. Most of the time, for the conservatives I know, they like certain aspects of a past period, and not the whole thing together. I'm a lifelong conservative (of sorts) and I don't think any of the decades I grew up in (or preceded my birth) to be golden in any broad sense, only in some very narrow senses. That is to say: certain good things were easier to come by in those times, than they are now. All the same, certain good things are easier to come by now than they were then. Conservatives often lament the failing of those earlier good things, because (typically, though not universally) the loss of them was not intrinsically necessary to get the good new things we enjoy now: it was loss with no gain to justify it. I suspect that many who call themselves liberal have similar views, without necessarily putting 2 and 2 together to realize "hey, we didn't need to lose that old good after all".
It also saw the embarrassing spectacle of the Church refusing to accept the fact that the Middle Ages were over and that they could no longer simply "anathema sit" their way to control over Europe.
Since "the Church" didn't control Europe even in the Middle Ages (see, e.g., Holy Roman emperors dictating terms to popes), see my earlier comments about bias. If you learned more historical facts, is it possible you would have a more nuanced view? I'm guessing it is likely.
"the Inquisition affirming as late as 1909 that the first three chapters of Genesis could not be interpreted as allegory and must be taught literally."
DeleteI don't know what you think happened in 1909, but, even today, we must take these chapters literally.
People simply come to different literal interpretations. Allegory has always been recognized as secondary to the literal. That hasn't changed.
"this was the period where the Church stubbornly refused to adapt to critical biblical scholarship"
Considering how much critical biblical scholarship has gotten wrong, I'd say that could be a good thing. The documentary hypothesis, for example, might be the general view, but over the decades so many major holes in it have been exposed, you have to be extremely skeptical of scholars who continue to promote it at this point. Why should the Church just blindly accept what those people think? Because it's the majority view in the field?
Alright, I'll grant that I've been a bit too curmudgeonly on this thread recently. I still mostly stand by what I said, but I should say that I don't hate anyone on here, I just have very different beliefs and commitments, and feel like you all need a bit of a wakeup call to some of the things you're used to ignoring. I suppose I will always be the opponent of most of the commentariat here, but I don't want to be a spiteful, hateful person either. May you be at peace.
ReplyDeleteEXE,
DeleteNone of what anyone here says really matters. I used to engage in long arguments with some posters until I realized how futile and time-wasting it all was. You really should have your own blog or WordPress account or Youtube channel or podcast if you want to get your message out to others.
Make sure the door clicks when you guys leave.
DeleteLucky for you that you work for a secular institution and not the seminary.
ReplyDeleteContinue. Press on. They found the Lord Jesus offensive.
ReplyDelete"(...) and in particular that the archbishop had received complaints from some who had concerns about my having been critical of Pope Francis"
ReplyDeleteThe Archbishop has the canonical right to make prudential decisions like the one that affected you personally, and I think that the principle of the Church is one of hierarchy and authority.
Of course he does.
DeleteThat doesn't mean he made a GOOD use of that prudential judgment. In fact, if the archbishop wasn't himself critical of some of the things Pope Francis did, he probably would be a bad bishop. And if he made this judgment "we won't host Feser" solely on the basis that some priests popped up with "concerns", without asking about the validity of such concerns, that would be in form a bad use of the prudential power.
And still: it remains improbable that this decision rose to the level of the archbishop's own personal attention. If I was one of those older priests who felt unhappy about the prospect of Feser giving this talk, I might not want to take it directly to the archbishop. I probably would be more likely to take it to the chancellor or the vocations office or the like - someone who could instigate the cancellation without getting me negative attention for making the complaint if the archbishop (for some reason) happened to like Feser or didn't feel happy about senior pastors wasting their time on such petty complaints. Engaging or canceling a talk is usually beneath the level of the archbishop's direct attention, and making it so carries risks.
@Tony
DeleteFor me, it is a matter of principle. Obviously, anyone can question, with more or less thoughtful arguments, the prudential nature of a supposedly prudential decision made by the Hierarch, but starting from there and considering that there are no "objective" criteria of validation, we may end up in total "subjectivism" and anarchy, and I have a deep abhorrence of anarchy.
@Tony
Delete"And still: it remains improbable that this decision rose to the level of the archbishop's own personal attention"
I doubt that it was a decision made without the Archbishop's "own personal attention".
@Anon
DeleteI value law and order, and detest anarchy too. However, the Church has long taught that while we are obliged to obey her in regards to her prudential judgments under her juridical authorities, we are NOT required to think those decisions were well made. We are allowed to critique them when they are flawed. St. Paul demonstrated that. We can't do that unless we are allowed to discuss and consider their actions, and tentatively decide that they seem prudent or not. And ask for transparency and accounting when they seem off. Not being able to question and critique leads to things like the homosexual predator priests scandal.
but starting from there and considering that there are no "objective" criteria of validation, we may end up in total "subjectivism"
I don't know what you're getting at. The objective criteria are those that undergird every and all uses of the virtue of prudence. There are subjective aspects of the practice of the virtue, but it's not entirely subjective, or we would be intrinsically unable to distinguish between prudent and imprudent people. I know some imprudent people, and some prudent people: the latter often achieve the goals they have, because they are able to rightly fit means to ends.
The people who most dislike authority and hierarchies anywhere else, or at any other time in history, are now the very ones who most loudly exclaim "obey the clergy without question!"
ReplyDeleteBut this liberal generation of the clergy will soon pass, and the Church will return to normalcy. We will then see whether some remain this obedient, or if they will revert back to applying their hippie doctrine of "it is forbidden to forbid" to the Church as well once again, as they did before attaining positions of power.
@Anonymous
Delete"The people who most dislike authority and hierarchies anywhere else, or at any other time in history, are now the very ones who most loudly exclaim "obey the clergy without question!"
I know that, and I know that many of them do that with bad intentions, seeking to destroy rather than build. Obedience is a matter of will, and will is rational desire, so that blind submission can never be true obedience.
"But this liberal generation of the clergy will soon pass, and the Church will return to normalcy. We will then see whether some remain this obedient, or if they will revert back to applying their hippie doctrine of "it is forbidden to forbid" to the Church as well once again, as they did before attaining positions of power."
Such unworthy clergy are proportionate to the average rational sheep from the flock they shepherd. Like faithful, like Bishops! But my belief is that everything is in the hands of Divine Providence and that God does not allow any evil to exist unless a greater good is achieved through it.
I agree with you.
DeleteWhy so many Anonymous comments?
DeleteBut my belief is that everything is in the hands of Divine Providence and that God does not allow any evil to exist unless a greater good is achieved through it.
DeleteIndeed. But woe to them through whom evil comes into this world, who fail to repent thereof. It would be better for them to have a millstone around their necks...etc.
We hope in God's goodness, and his mercy applied to us. We should not have complacence about it.
You know, I have wondered about that myself. Maybe Anonymous is paranoid. Or, schizophrenic. Or both? Or, perhaps, anonymous just likes seeing his/ her thoughts, ideas, etc., published? I write comments on a variety on blog topics; keep it civil; take my lumps;and give some back when I think it necessary. Ordinarily, I will not write to critique others---but make exceptions.
ReplyDeletePeople want to be acknowledged. That is how we roll.
For good, or bad, I put stuff out there, "doing the best I can, with what I have and know". Sure.
“Your sexual orientation is an affront to Nature and God. Slavery was justified by the Bible. Moreover, you are genetically and culturally inferior which is why you find yourself where you are in the world. Migrants are thieves and liars corrupting our pure essence. Let’s debate this cordially.” Ok guy.
DeleteDr. Feser: While I may not agree with much that has been written under this topic, I am appalled at the vitriolic, unchristian, and at times obscene comments. This is not what I would expect from this blog that I have read consistently. Disagreements are to be expected - if we don't listen to other points of view, we cannot grow in understanding. I come here to enrich my knowledge not to find verbal abuse and crude remarks about someone's political beliefs. I can get that elsewhere on the internet if I really want it. I come here to learn about my Catholic faith.
ReplyDelete