As the nine bishops correctly note, today there is no one favored philosophy in the Roman Catholic Church, but of course there are traditions in philosophy in which the Logos is not mentioned and might even be explicitly rejected. Once again, this invocation of the Logos shows that the Roman Catholic Church has not abandoned philosophy, even though certain other brands of philosophy have abandoned talking about the Logos.
Of course Roman Catholic tradition of theology has constructed an elaborate theory about the Logos, imagining the supposed Christ figure to be the divine Logos and the Second Person of the divine trinity. In this way, the Logos of ancient Greek and Roman stoic philosophy has become central to the conceptualization of christology and trinitarian theology. But of course if you deny the divinity of the historical Jesus, then you would deny the validity of christology and trinitarian theology as just nonsense. Jews do not accept such nonsense. Neither do Muslims. Nor do I. But orthodox Christians do. Moreover many orthodox Christians today still recite the Nicene Creed as though fourth-century theological formulations were somehow still defensible and relevant. Nevertheless, I think the historical Jesus was fully human, but not divine. As we might expect, the nine bishops are not about to give up such nonsense about the supposed divinity of Jesus and the supposed divine trinity. As a result, they will also fight to keep alive the theory about the eternal Logos.
Related Reading: Incidentally, Lonergan has ably studied Thomas Aquinas' use of the idea of the Logos (translated into Latin as Verbum) in his book VERBUM: WORD AND IDEA IN AQUINAS (1967; 2nd ed. University of Toronto Press, 1997). For courses on trinitarian theology that he taught for many years at the Gregorian University in Rome, Lonergan wrote two survey-type textbooks in Latin that are now available in English: THE TRIUNE GOD: DOCTRINES (1964; University of Toronto Press, 2009) and THE TRIUNE GOD: SYSTEMATICS (1964; University of Toronto Press, 2007).
But let us note that in the above-quoted statement the nine bishops are invoking the eternal Logos as the warrant supporting the created order of being. In short, no eternal Logos, no being no nothing. This supposed warrant is clearly derived from the prologue of the Gospel According to John. But let's watch what else the nine bishops say. Remember that we are supposed to be discussing natural-law theory regarding sexual morality, not all the heady claims of christology and trinitarian theology.
But why are these Catholic theologians (the nine bishops as well as Salzman and Lawler) talking about a supposed natural law at all where does talk in Catholic theology about a supposed natural law come from? Evidently, the discussion in Catholic theology comes from a passage in Paul the Apostle's Letter to the Romans: "When Gentiles, who do not possess the law [of Moses], do instinctively what the law [of Moses] requires, these, though not having the law [of Moses], are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them . . . ." (2:14-15 NRSV).
This key passage may be the kernel form of natural-law theory in Catholic theology, because Catholic theology uses statements in scripture as points of departure for further elaboration. Of course within the ancient and medieval Catholic tradition of thought, stoic philosophy was another source for elaboration of natural-law theory.
Related Reading: Ambrose's treatise in Latin whose title is DE OFFICIS (English translation Oxford University Press, 2001), for example, is clearly based on the Roman stoic philosopher Cicero's DE OFFICIS. For further information about the influence of stoic thought, the interested reader should consult Marcia L. Colish's two-volume study titled THE STOIC TRADITION FROM ANTIQUITY TO THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES (Brill, 1990).
So the conflict between Salzman and Lawler, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the nine bishops comes down to a debate about natural-law theory. Fine, let's have a debate. No, say the nine bishops, there will be no debate because Salzman and Lawler have not stayed within the boundaries of acceptable thought about natural-law theory as the nine bishops want to maintain the old established boundaries on the supposed grounds that the old established epistemology of "taking a good look" that they prefer has established those boundaries beyond question. In short, the nine bishops say that Salzman and Lawler are out of bounds. As a result, the nine bishops see no need for a debate about their revisionist natural-law theory. Go away revisionists.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
