So then, is it possible that there is bias there toward the above three from Catholic philosophers? Can there be something like the halo effect going on which can sully the waters?
The more that I see of Mankind, the more I prefer my dog.
Blaise Pascal
lol I would have loved to have been there when he said that.
From what I have read, Thomas Aquinas had integrated medieval Christian faith with ancient Greek philosophy by following the long established Platonist intellectual tradition of putting the wisdom of divine truth above the always derived power of human reason. In 1277 a few years after his death crucial features of Thomas’s integration of Aristotelian philosophy and Christian theology were condemned by Steven Tempier the Bishop of Paris.
That condemnation signaled the advent of what was eventually to seem like a fundamental fork in the road for scholars. Either staying with the church the pathway of faith where reason is firmly situated underneath dogmatic fades and ecclesiastical authority or follow philosophy the fearless and independent pathway of reason which had no interest in doctrine or ecclesial authority.
Subsequently, the autonomy of philosophy from theology became the defining reality given to secular modernity. The Franciscans Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, he of the famous razor, were pivotal in the development of secular modernity.
I’ve studied him. But not formally or exhaustively.
From what I understand Thomas believed the divine wisdom and valid human reason could not contradict one another because truth is a unity. When Aristotle’s philosophy appeared to contradict the Bible or the teachings of the church Aquinas either pointed out that the contradiction was not in fact real or showed where Aristotle was wrong by appeal to other intellectual authorities such as logic and/or the orthodox interpretation of the Bible.
Aquinas’ theology was a culmination of the tradition of Christian Neoplatonic metaphysics which envisioned reality itself as multi-layered and composed of different orders of being nested within one another all nested within God. Duns Scotus departed from this tradition with his notion of the univocity of being.
Well, perhaps it may not be as it was some years ago but I still find your above statement to be profoundly irresponsible.
Obviously, you have a high regard for priests. But they are human and many of them are still or were nothing more than slithering snakes hiding out under rocks waiting to destroy childrens’ lives. Do you really believe that they have died out or that some are not capable of “slipping into” the church and becoming priests? Do you believe that church law or state law would stop them or would fight their urges. I don’t think so!
If people do not remain vigilant, monsters can rear their ugly heads again at some point - or if they are made to automatically believe ludicrous statements like yours above.
FreeSpirit, If you have children or grandchildren, would you let a priest who you do not know (or even one who you “believe” you know) alone with them without any supervision?
Priests are no more likely to abuse than other men. Less than 5%.
A public school teacher is more likely to abuse children.
“According to the best available data (which is pretty good, coming from a comprehensive report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004, as well as several other studies), 4 percent of Catholic priests in the U.S. sexually victimized minors during the past half century. No evidence has been published at this time which states this number is higher than clergy from other religious traditions. The 4 percent figure appears lower than school teachers during the same time frame, and certainly less than offenders in the general population of men.”
“We don’t see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else,” said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
These days I would be very highly suspicious of the RCC if they were NOT being unrighteously accused and accosted. I would have to wonder what made them so protected from political punditry and abuse.
The problem is not the proportion of pedophiles in the RCC. The problem is how the church administration handled identified pedophiles … basically allowing them to continue the abuse.