Seeking the Good through the Intelligence.

**Blog title was changed, based on some emails**

According to an Aristotelico-Thomist format, the 'good' is designated as 'that which is in accord with the nature of the thing.'  We use words, phrases and expressions on a daily basis, but at times we forget essentially what they mean.  Vocabulary in the west has been hijacked and thus we are left with using words all the while not really knowing what they truly mean.  Our current crisis, is one of intelligence, not properly knowing how to think.  Our experience and emotions become the navigational tool instead of right reason and judgement.

Our current climate is seeing a clash of civilizations, to paraphrase Samuel Huntington.  It seems ideological standard bearers on either the so-called right or so-called left have hijacked the political and religious landscape essentially leaving no room for common sense.  The religious right, backed by fierce evangelical Christians particularly in the United States adhere to a fideistic, fundamentalist notion of what they understand as their Faith.  (Ie, Homosexual marriage is wrong because the Bible tells me so, and refuse any serious discussion as to the 'whys' of the Biblical commandment.)  Those on the left, adhere to a false social justice, and claim a subjectivist man-centered equality in marriage.  (Ie  Homosexual marriage is my right, because we are all equal.  They refuse any discussion of either authentic metaphysics or anthropology.)  The solution is the why's of certain proposals which never seem to make it to light. 

The crisis if one of anthropology.  What is a human being?  According to the Aristotelico-Thomist model which built Europe, we are a body/soul composite.  There are certain faculties proper to the soul and are immaterial.  Intelligence, and will for example. Now, we don't need the Bible or Catechism to show us that there is an inherent gap between the two.  My intelligence freely knows that 'broccoli' is 'good' for me, but my will is predisposed toward donuts.  For a human being to make a free decision, he must adhere to his intelligence, training his willpower to follow it, and thus create a habitus. (habit.)  On the other hand, when he adheres exclusively to his emotive and experiential side, negating the knowledge he may possess because he deems it to hard, he will create an addiction or a vice.  To adhere to the higher faculties of intellect and reason over sense and emotion is indeed the complex situation that we find ourselves in. Still it remains the path to true freedom, or doing what you ought. (As distinct from 'license,' doing what you want.)

Today's relativism will soon give way to an individual choosing to put orange juice in their car because it is cheaper than gas, thereby becoming a pedestrian.  An individual getting hurt, because he jumped out a ten story window claiming it was his right to 'fly.'  A quadriplegic will be suing the Olympic commitee for discrimination because he cannot compete in a downhill slolem.  Finally people attempting to marry their 'pets' as they are the only ones they 'feel' truly 'loving them' and it will be their 'right' to do so.

Into this vaccuum of false anthropology, comes ideology whereby the 'good' is ultimately what the deity decides in their particular holy book.  There is no room for questioning, or intellectual discourse, only blind obedience.  As thinking people, we need to stop labeling, and separate the person from the ideology.  A member of Isis has intelligence and can love, while radical islam cannot.  There is no such thing as an 'alcoholic,' instead there is a person who is suffering an addiction to alcohol.  We are men and women, equal but different.  We can be 'conditioned' but retain an actual capacity to discover Truth.

In closing, our current crisis is one of intelligence.  I pray that I don't come off as a right-wing nutjob(some of you accuse me of being) or a bleeding heart liberal. (Others accuse me of being.)  All I am asking for is an authentic search for what the Truth is in all the bio-ethical, moral, civil, and social issues affecting us today.  Millions of lives lost through abortion, yet we will willingly dive in front of a bulldozer to save a tree.  We are in the middle of bathroom issues with regards to so-called transgendered.  We blame pitbulls and guns, but what about trucks?  (That last attack was with a truck.)   We need to reclaim responsibility for ourselves and stop passing the buck.  I don't blame the dogs, instead I question the intellectual and moral acumen of a person with a young family buying such a dog.

Until we rediscover authentic anthropology, true metaphysics, and seek the proper 'good?'  We will remain at the mercy of Isis, and the new 'evangelization' will remain futile.

My ADD came out full force on this one.

Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis!

Thought Chaos...

'God come to my assistance, O Lord make haste to help me.'  The opening line from morning Prayer, whether you are a machine and pray 'Matins' or just begin with 'Laudes.'  It seems that I repeat this line often throughout the day without recourse to any Psalm.  The reason?  More often than not I meditate upon my potential impending priesthood and society's current 'metaphysical crisis.'

I have blogged before about 'Truth.'  What is Truth?  To paraphrase Pontius Pilate's words to Christ.  Yet, today nobody seems to want to search for Truth anymore.  Well a ray of light happened this morning, that before training, myself and two of my teammates had a conversation regarding Philosophy, from the pre Socratics, to the Greeks (Plato and Aristotle) to Aquinas (Woohoo!)  all the way to the so-called modern era, as in Descartes, Spinoza right up to contemporary, Heidegger and Schelling.   As I've mentioned before, (you can search the archives..) I have always divided thinkers into those seeking objective Truth and those who look at things through their own particular lenses, subjectivists and phenomenologists.  Whether or not we agree is a different story, but the fact is that the conversation took place outside of a traditional intellectual arena, but three guys about ready to train chokes, armlocks, and other takedowns.

Leaving Gracie Barra, and assisting at Mass, saw me especially meditate upon today's First Reading. (2 Corinthians 11: 1-11)  St Paul speaks and warns again of how easy it is for people to preach another 'Jesus.'   The Holy Spirit has a habit of sometimes winking at me, (in my case smacking me upside the head..)  This new 'Jesus' is the result of subjectivist thought.  How many of our generation grew up in the 1980s?  Our experience in the Parish was at times painful, Fr 'Nice' talked about how 'nice' Jesus is and that He is our friend, and we love crayons and bunnies and blah blah blah,.. The other type of priest was the so-called 'social justice' (closet marxist) preaching a false liberation theology turning Jesus into a revolutionary.  Their formation reflected the times, so they were taught Karl Marx, Fuerbach,..etc,.but Maritain?  Nooo, that's too rigid!  Today's heresy is more along the lines of rehashed gnosticism, and voila!  Oprah's Jesus, (who I believe is a creation of satan.)  The problem through all of this was that there was no anchor.  Meaning that these false 'Jesus's' and false Gospels are due to lack of proper intellectual training.  So us, the younger guys are called 'rigid' and 'Traditionalist' and all sorts of buzz words because in the end, we believe that objective Truth does exist and that reason can lead you there!  (Aristotle, Aquinas, Maritain, Gilson...)  Philosophy properly ordered will always be the handmaid of Theology.

Our generation drank the kool aid, and we have been in recovery since.  It is by Grace that I can make it through the day.  I am a sinner, a sex addict, a drunkard and tempermental, yet through it all it is Jesus who Redeems me.  If I fall, I get back up and frequent the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  I will not however let my experience override Truth!  Truth just is!  We don't make it up.  We can't decide that gravity doesn't exist because we (our ego) possess a desire to fly on our own.

My ADD kicked in, so I'll stop writing for now.


St Thomas Aquinas,...........................ora pro nobis!

God Bless Idiots,..

Maybe that's a little harsh,. but,..

A short post today, a little anecdote,………….Ahhh,…So it happened again, calm, cool, and collected Marco turned into Optimusmastro  and needed to cut a WWE style promo on the Jack T Chick fanclub.   I recently bought Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating, (Again) and low and behold inside the book was inserted a little comic book by these Chick devotees. 

My friends, Christian formation begins when one encounters the Risen Christ, and then seeks to understand Reason in the light of Faith and vice versa.  What that means is that your brain isn’t handicapped by refusing to search through the natural order of reason why things are the way they are!  I know that there are many a good Fundamentalist with a sincere Faith in Christ and God bless them!  We have some differences, but ultimately we pray that they search for Truth.  Some as well meaning Christians do more with less!  

As a Catholic, our formation begins with philosophy, and proper understanding of what we can know about things in nature.  Revelation builds upon philosophy.  My dear protestant friends, kindly keep an open mind, remember any authentic dialogue, we need FUNdamentalists who are cool, not fundaMENTALists who are completely insane and devoid of any coherence!

St Thomas Aquinas,……………………………..ora pro nobis!

The Fr Copleston SJ TKO of Russell,..

Kirk Cameron always pops up on my radar screen along with his Australian buddy attempting to prove God's existence, you remember my banana example?  (Search Kirk Cameron in my search engine on the site.)  Well, I have decided to publish a paper I did regarding the Fr Copleston SJ vs positivist philosopher Bertrand Russell.  Obviously not an Optimusmastro rant and rave but instead a breakdown of how Fr Copleston PWNS Russells!!!!!!!!!! Booooyaaaaa!  (There are footnotes and a Bibliography as this paper was done as an academic commentary.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          This paper will seek to analyze whether or not Fr Copleston scored a decisive knockout over Bertrand Russell in their famous debate over the existence of God.  The next question we would have to ask ourselves is whether or not, the media would adhere to such a reality.  Our culrure, educated and modern seems to take a more or less aggressive if not downright condescending attitude toward belief in God. Richard Dawkins, the internet atheist challenge as well as modern science has all too often forgotten that when debating an issue concerning God or a First Cause, this exercise requires not so much a physical endeavor, but instead must resort to using a metaphysical approach.   Too often this same culture wrought with nominalism cannot adequately assign a name for the hybrid belief system that is ‘Atheist’ (False) or more precisely ‘Agnosticism.’  In today’s world, this agnostic position dressed up as so-called atheism seems to be ‘en vogue,’ and to paraphrase Pope Benedict XVI, only adds fuel to the dictatorship of relativism.  Our world’s way to rationalizing is in crisis, in part due to there being a crisis in metaphysics.  This reality is essentially what is causing the reality of God, the belief if you will, to be called into question.  The thesis will highlight not just the deficiencies in contemporary thought, but will attempt a ‘tale of the tape,’ References which will be later expanded upon throughout this paper will be Fr Copleston’s usage of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s ‘Contingency’ argument which seemed to completely catch Russell off guard.  To go one further, we can even go further back to Aristotle, and at one point again, which will later be expanded upon, Russell argues that it is useless to speculate about a ‘First Cause.’  Physicist vs Metaphysicist.  To reiterate the thesis, is that did Copleston score a definitive knockout in his debate with Russell, and the answer is yes.  What remains in this paper is to articulate how that got to be so.  The breakdown will follow the Contingency argument, the Religious Experience argument, and finally the Moral argument. 

The Players 2.

         

          Bertrand Russell, a contemporary philosopher, versed in various schools of thought and famous for authoring, among other books, his Why I am not a Christian.  In is within this book that Russell includes the transcript from the 1948 BBC(British Broadcasting Corporation) debate.  [1]Bertrand Russell, the child of an aristocratic family is credited as the founder of atomic propositons whereby this becomes evident in his debate with Fr Copleston. 

Father Fred Copleston SJ,(Society of Jesus) a Catholic priest, specifically a Jesuit and convert from Anglicanism.  Fr Copleston was a professor of the history of philosophy and lectured at Heythrop College in England.  Besides his radio debates with notable philosophers, Fr Copleston also was a Thomist scholar who attempted to synthesize Thomas Aquinas 5 Arguments by separating and expanding upon them in an easier format so that a ‘lay’ person could understand.  In this debate, although his thinking is very Thomist, his contingency argument comes from the mind of Leibniz and serves to be the determining factor in what many people see as a knockout of Bertrand Russell.

    

         

The Debate 3

          The debate itself took place on the BBC radio in 1948, and transcripts can be found anywhere outlying the various topics.  At the outset, Fr Copleston set the tone by defining what they both mean when they refer to God.  In doing so, Fr Copleston SJ, determines the rules as how both men will proceed within the debate context, which in many respects was along the lines of a back and forth exchange and not much a structured ordered affair.  The follow up was to determine what belief system he (Fr Copleston) was going up against, and after having come to a common definition of God, Russell also was asked whether he fell into the Atheist or Agnostic camp.  Russell answered with the latter.  Russell also fell right into the next issue with Copleston asking if Russell agreed that if God doesn’t exist, human beings and human history as we know would have no other purpose that essentially what they gave themselves.  In this light, Fr Copleston, is drawing a clear line between something that is searching for a truth or a cause of things, as opposed to something that is subjectivist and therefore would have no reason to exist.  Thus no God, no values!  For this issue, Russell disagrees and believes that they can be logically distinct from each other.  Following the fight analogy, Fr Copleston seems to be ‘jabbing’ and ‘hooking’ his opponent, thereby setting up his flurry of big punches, his rights, and his uppercut. 

    

          Father Copleston begins with the ‘Contingency’ argument right away and is into his assault early and fast, and explains to Russell that he wants to divide the argument, three ways, essentially using Leibniz’s argument as the cannon.  (See Leibniz’s argument)  Russell counters that he doesn’t know how to counter the argument but puts forth the idea of necessary being.  That it can only be applied to propositions.  For this we must know define what a proposition is and do the two players agree to the same definition.  By Russell putting forth the idea of [2]necessary being and having already been clarified at the onset of the debate, he must accept the Thomistic understanding, which is essentially where Fr Copleston is headed.  Russell concedes that the Contingency argument cannot be debated at that time, and that it would be in their best interests to move onward.  Round one,  Copleston scores a knockdown on Russell.

          The second issue to be brought up is the question of the ‘Religious Experience.’  Copleston begins by stating that he himself does not regard this particular point as a ‘proof’ for the existence of God, but seems to venture into the idea of Love in the agapic sense.  Although Copleston readily admits that this can’t be used as an argument to prove God, it is important nonetheless to show that this round in my opinion goes to Russell.  Copleston basically said that the basis of Religious Experiences can point to God, but again , he must rely contextually upon the notion of the Contingency argument, which is still leading the charge.  Copleston begins the ‘Round’ with clarifying what he does not mean, and that is ‘not just feeling good.’  What happens next, is that Russell points and tears into Copleston reasoning by interrupting and equating the ‘feel good’ experience with Japanese novelists unable to feel good unless they have driven many people to suicide. In citing a statement as such, Russell plays into more of the psychological approach, and can lead  to viewing God as the simplistic ‘pie in the sky.’  While Copleston claimed to not see the relevance between the two, and brought into the debate citing the experiences of someone such as St Francis of Assisi, that there was never a serious psychological consideration hampering his view that God (personal Love) must exist.  Russell counters with citing many imbalanced people who ‘hear’ Satan speaking to their hearts and goes on to reassert again, that it is not the existence of God that he is questioning but merely the dogmatic definitions that have been formulated. 

          The third issue tackled within this debate was the argument from ‘Morality.’  In this respect, once again it can be safely said that the edge went to Fr Copleston.  Essentially Copleston argues that mankind’s development of a moral code can be used as a proof for the existence of God.  Russell, weakly counters that that is an assertion which cannot be proven.  Russell believes that morality could have developed as part and parcel of the natural evolution of man.  Therefore, his instinct for survival, (and good government?) would eventually create a moral law regardless of the existence of a God or not.  In this light, [3]Russell clearly shows that he is a relativist. 

          Early on, Fr Copleston, did not let up especially after having established the pace within this debate.  One could easily see that it in many respects transcended the very idea of the simplistic God vs Evolution debate that saturates the modern subjectivist camp in every form of media, print or news program. 

The Knockout/Tap out blow ‘Contingency’ Argument. 4.

            Where Fr Copleston scored his knockout, or as is more accurate, where Russell seemed to abdicate by not being prepared for, or by simply dismissing it, is when Fr Copleston brought up the ‘Contingency’ issue, otherwise known as Leibniz’Cosmological argument.  To leave out an explanation of the Contingency argument would presuppose that the reader already knows the theory.  First we must define what exactly is ‘Contingency.’ From the latin, [4]contingere (to happen).  Therefore inside this logic, an event must be contingent if there is a chance that it might not have happened.  This becomes evident when Russell states that it is useless to argue this point despite the claim from Fr Copleston that he accused Russell of not understanding the argument and that it is, in fact rooted in reason.  This argument, to paraphrase protestant theologian, William Lane Craig reconstructs Leibniz argument basically into four categories., instead of the usual five.

a)    Anything that exists has an explanation or cause for it, whether it be the subject in question or something outside of it, causing it.

b)   Should the universe have an explanation, then that explanation would logically have to be God.

c)    The universe does exist so therefore, we reaffirm the first part, (a)

d)   Therefore the explanation of the universe, its ‘causality’ must be God.

          Boxing has evolved in today’s understanding whereby ‘contact’ sports not only rely upon the knockout, but can also rely upon the ‘tap-out,’ whereby the opponent literally claims he’s had enough.  Fr Copleston’s reference to contingency is in many respects this tap out that is insinuated.  What was most interesting, is that the first actual right hook is thrown by Fr Copleston right at the beginning of this debate, whereby he proposes a definition of God thereby eliminating any chance of Russell attempting to create a straw man argument. 

Conclusion 5

         

          Too often we are presented especially in today’s high tech information age that belief in a Deity, a personal creator of some sort is at best superstitious while at worst dangerous.  The American Political landscape is littered with political candidates who must present a position of whether or not they are ‘believers’ or not.  Television has its share of controversy with satirists such as Bill Maher claiming to not to believe in the God who sits upon the clouds wearing a grandfatherly white beard and gently watching over all mankind.  To the shock and dismay of such people, the Catholic does not profess this idea of God either.  While Richard Dawkins is promoting his books and agendas, the secular press is busy readying the Theist’s defense with an apologetical strategy consisting of well meaning but intellectually inept characters representing a fideistic view of not just Christianity but of God as a whole.  St Thomas Aquinas five proofs are not cited, not going further back is any consideration given to either Plato or Aristotle.  Therefore the classic search for Truth, ‘Arche’ is not respected.   [5]Philosophy(Lover of wisdom) as a metaphysical(beyond the physical) exercise is not given any consideration.  Why metaphysics?  The answer is quite simple, because metaphysics, in its proper sense is not something esoteric, but is very much a proper science and can go where physics can’t.  The same holds true for [6]philosophy, which is in and of itself another proper science.  Epistomology is the science of knowing things and knowledge can come through experience inside the arena of cause and effect.  It is through this technique that Copleston TKO’s Russell in the debate, as he had no clue about what to do with the contingency argument.

         

            For anyone who was present for this debate or heard it live, it would seem that Bertrand Russell was 

unprepared to face up to a philosopher of the caliber of Father Copleston.  Bertrand Russell would critique 

metaphysics as a whole in his work ‘Mysticism and Logic,’ and in reality his inability to step up to Fr

Copleston due to his lack of metaphysical training was his own undoing.  Any exercise in attempting to prove

the existence of God, can always make a person think of Pope John Paul II’s Fides et Ratio and thus

through history show that there has never been a conflict between Faith and Reason.  After going through this

debate, an argument can be made, that not only from the Contingency issue which made Russell more or

less ‘TKO’(Technical Knock Out) instead of a full blown knockout.  To conclude, any debate between a

theist and an atheist (agnostic) presupposes both relativism, as well as chaos theory.  If the world is not

ordered, then every other thing that hangs on everything else, (ie Contingency again) will naturally be called

into question.  Something the so-called educated new-atheists have forgotten to think about.  Every effect

has a cause, everything except for the uncaused cause must depend upon something else for its own

existence, it is not itself the cause of its own existence and it is precisely in this light that the atheist 'logic' falls

into an epic fail.

Bibliography

1.      Capaldi, Nicholas, Kelly, Eugene&Navia, Luis E, Journeys Through Philosophy, New York, Prometheus Books, 1982

2.      Fazio, Mariano, Labastida, Francesco Fernandes, A History of Contemporary Philosophy, Rome, Italy, Scepter Publishers, 2011

3.      Honderich, Ted, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, New York, Oxford University Press, 1995

4.      Kreeft, Peter, Summa Philosophica, South Bend, Indiana, St Augustine’s Press, 2012

5.      Maritain, Jacques, The Degrees of Knowledge, Notre Dame Indiana, University of Notre Dame Press, 6^th edition, 2002

6.      Stevenson, Jay, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Philosophy, New York, Alpha Books, 2005

***Other Sources

Transcript of the debate from BBC availiable at  www.philvaz.com

---

[1] Fazio, Mariano, Lebatista, Francisco Fernandez, A HISTORY OF CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY, Scepter Publishers, p174

[2] Honderich, Ted, THE OXFORD COMPANION TO PHILOSOPHY, Oxford, p608.

[3] Stevenson, Jay, THE COMPLETE IDIOTS GUIDE TO PHILOSOPHY, Alpha publishing, p331

[4] Reese, W.L.  DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION, Humanities Press, p105.

[5] Reese, W.L.  DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION, Humanities Press, p431

[6] Kreeft, Peter, SUMMA PHILOSOPHICA, St Augustine’s Press, p43.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soooooooo,...Now all you guys know that I'm a Thomist!  I've never hid it from anyone!  Comes back to the old adage,..Why do I believe in God?   Because its true!!!!!!!   To my protestant or other non-Catholic/non Christian friends, Ask your self why I'm Catholic???  And your right, this isn't exactly Kirk Cameron and his bananas,..

St Thomas Aquinas,......................................................................ora pro nobis!

Why The Priest Needs Philosophy

Okay,...time to step away from the Optimusmastro character and revert back to Marco (imagine Bruce Banner!)  The following is a paper that was done a few months back regarding why Priests need philosophy.  In light of the recent metaphysical dimension of the last few posts, I thought I would reprint it!  Please look past any spelling mistakes as I had to translate it,..(I had originally written it in french...)

Today's fast paced multicultural society has become a haven for ideas, fads, cultural norms and trends

each adhering to a certain set of guidlines or rules. The same can be said for religion as it is interpreted

by today's standards. What exactly do I mean by 'standards?' Well by way which humanity looks

upon religion as a cafeteria of differing beliefs, myths and superstition. It can be said that thanks to

mass media, the religious landscape is littered with not just differing and competing 'Christianity(s)' but

but also differing viewpoints on Catholicism as a whole and priesthood in particular. Therefore it is the

thesis of this paper to argue the necessity of philosophy in training future priests. Priests of today are

facing an up hill battle from the secularized world, differing religious traditions and finally it could

noted an internal identity crisis threatening the very fabric of Holy Orders.

Too often the Christian or Catholic can be labelled 'superstitious and closed minded clinging to

mythological truthes concerning a divine which orders humanity to its natural end. It is in this light,

where we must put aside the lense of Faith and thus put on the lense of Reason to justify not only

proofs or arguments for God's existance but also enable the future priest to speak to the world on moral

issues or ecumenical ones by establishing universal 'Truthes' based upon critical thinking. Topics such

as Abortion, euthanasia, and homosexual marriage have presented themselves upon the radar screen

within the politcal agenda, and thus need warranted attention from a priest seeking to better educate his

flock. In these case, the fallacious argument that 'its in the Bible!' would not suffice especially when

speaking with an unbeliever. In this instance, philosophy must step up to answer by proposing a

common universal truth based on logic.

1.What is Philosophy?

According to its greek root words, Philo and Sophia, philosophy literally translates as lover of wisdom.

In this light, the philosopher is one constantly seeking 'truth' to answer life's basic questions. Before

the Church, or Revelation for that matter was even a considered thought in the minds of men, the pre

-Socratics attempted to find the source, or 'arche' of all things. Sifting through different ideas and

theories, mankind sought to achieve the common goal of 'happiness' true authentic 'happiness.' Vatican

II reiterated in Optatum Totius; '

15. -Philosophical subjects should be taught in such a way that students are first of all gradually led to a solid and coherent knowledge of human nature , the world and God, guided by the philosophical tradition of lasting value.-

Taking this into account, the potential future priest candidate will no doubt have the rational tools and

intelligence necessary to combat the many differing mosaic of ideas and morality our current world is

now experiencing.

2. Philosophy as Anchor for Truth.

Authentic, true philosophy is properly speaking, studying a series of effects back to its cause. Pope

John Paul II is his encyclical 'Fides et Ratio' (Faith and Reason) argued that a proper

understanding of theology can never divorce itself from Truth. His opening line clearly outlines and

surmises his premise;

-Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2). -

In his encyclical the Holy Father outlines the complamentary nature between Faith and reason. Faith

by itself only reveals what is mystery whereas reason seeks understanding in attempting to

intellectualize and show the Faith not as mere 'superstition' but as a full completion and answer to what

the profound thinkers without revelation could naturally grasp at. In other words, theology must take

off where philosophy leaves us, and thus provide us with an intellectualized Faith capable of standing

on its own. Simply put Truth is Truth. Therefore in comtemplating the mystery of God, whether we

get there by blind faith, or by reason, we are still ordered towards the same end. Herein lies at the core

the beauty of Catholicism, by which through its compatibility with reason, today stands alone through

its unique priestly formation stressing at first Truth as we can know it, and then Faith as the natural

answer to many of these philosophical questions.

The following is taken from the CCCB, (Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops) Decree on the

Training of priests

-Why do future priests need philosophical training? What are the principal reasons?Philosophy for seminarians should be given atheological context, so that they may grasp “with everincreasing clarity the Mystery of Christ, which affectsthe whole course of human history, exercises anincreasing influence on the Church, and operatesmainly through the ministry of the priest” (Decree on

the Training of Priests, 14).-

-

Once again, going back to the beginning, the priest, who as an 'alter Christus' is seen as much more

than just a 'minister as the protestant understanding who have it, must be prepared to dialogue and

discourse in a world filled with differing opinion. Knowledge of philosophy becomes a tool for in my

opinion three key areas. Morality, Inter Faith and Ecumenism, the last two being somewhat

synonimous. Once again, returning to John Paul II,..another encyclical by the name of 'Pastores Dabo

Vobis, the priest in his time writes,.

• For this reason the synod desired to "contextualize" the subject of priests, viewing it in terms of today's society and today's Church in preparation for the third millennium. This is indicated in the second part of the topic's formulation: "The formation of priests in the circumstances of the present day."

The challenges facing the Church, include, among other religions, especially Islam, is secularlism.

Truth is seen as something relative and thus emptied out of its objectivity has given us the fruits of

Abortion as was seen with the 'Hebert' article whereby even the disputability of a human being is

called into question. Philosophy steps in to answer these questions and show that you do not

necessarily have to resource yourself to Faith and the Bible especially while engaging a worldly

person. If the person is religious, a muslim,..then it becomes an entirely different story.

3. Philosophy as a starting point for Inter Faith dialogue.

Pope John Paul II started calling different religious leaders of different faiths to Assisi in order to pray

for peace. Apart from the secularist attack,.the Church it can be argued since the reforms of the

Second Vatican Council has found Herself more open to understanding Her interfaith and ecumenical

mission. Since dialogue and more importantly fruitful dialogue must be achieved so as to push

forward with her goal of evangelization, philosophy can used as a starting point to find common

ground. In other words, to seek what we share in common so that we may be able to better understand

where our friends in other religions are coming from so as to determine how far they are from

Catholicism. St Thomas Aquinas compaired the relationship of other religions to the Church in terms

of 'potentials' or by how much Truth they already possessed. In this light, the priest while speaking

cannot begin a theological discourse without establishing certain 'universalities' and how they got

there. Deep within the fabric of every human being, lies at the very core a true desire for Truth and

for the Divine. Both are one. Thus, philosophy can allow us that window to use our intellects with

adherents of other religions to bring them into a fuller understanding of who God is,.and how we as

man can be happy. A socratic dialogue can take place with a muslim whereby commonalities can be

establishment thus paving the way for Truth to prevail.

4. Philosophy as a key to Morality

Abortion. The very word conjures up debate and stirs emotions. As was briefly alluded to earlier, our

generation is faced with a moral vaccuum giving no clear indicator of whether or not Truth exists or

can be attained. Thus, our morality has suffered and one of the great holocausts of our time, Abortion

exists on a thin line enjoying support at times from well meaning people. The future priest knowing

that he'll have to deal with this said issue can resource himself within the philosophical context and

present to mankind, politicians and other just exactly when a human being is a human being. The same can be said for the just war argument. Peter Kreeft writes,.

• Most of the controversies in our world today can be understood and solved only by good philosophy and theology; for instance, the relation between world religions, especially Islam and Christianity; human life issues such as abortion, euthanasia and cloning; the justice of wars; the meaning of human sexuality and of the "sexual revolution"; the relation between mind and brain, and between human intelligence and "artificial intelligence"; the relation between creation and evolution; how far we are free and responsible and how far we are determined by biological heredity and social environment; the relation between morality and religion, and between religion and politics; and whether morality is socially relative or universal, unchanging and absolute. -

Can it thus be sufficient to say that philosophy can at least attempt to produce a coherent plan for

humans to act in a just moral manner? The future priest knowing that he is dealing with essentially all

of these issues must be ready to give intelligent answers, cognitive and well thought out essentially

being able to dismantle the opposition's argument and present in its place a strong testimony of truth

regardless of whatever Faith tradition one belongs to especially in light of these moral issues,

Abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia and contraception.

5. Philosophy as an aid to Ecumenical Dialogue.

Unlike Inter-Faith dialogue, Ecumenical dialogue has at its goal, since the second Vatican Council the

mission that all Christians be one as Christ Himself is one. Obviously sin on both sides caused this to

be not quite the case. Philosophy, especially coming from the priest allows him to engage our

seperated brethren in serious thought. Most of the time, the philosophical training is cut and dry and

thus invites a sincere search for Truth. Examples of this can be found with regards to the subjectivist

positions and subsequent morality in some of the more 'liberal' mainstream protestant groups to the

'fideistic' fundamentalist groups clinging to a rigidity not based on common sense. The protestant

mosaic, being what it is offers a variety of opinion, and not much philosophy.

To conclude, Just how important is a philosophical formation in the future priest? It can safely be said

that it is essential. We have seen throughout this age that moral ambiguity, spiritual confusion, and

rampant secularism have all but extinguished any hope of metaphysical thought. The future it would

seem would be for the future priest no longer in a world that was once 'Catholic' be called on the carpet

to justify his views on differing subjects. The priest solidly in trained in philosophy specifically

Aristo-Thomism can be well equiped to articulate his positions from a purely rational point of view. In

this light, the priest, will not have to be seen as some relic of medieval superstition, but an actual

living breathing beacon for Truth! Technology, the fast paced consumerism and other contributing

factors have at times left the metaphysical masterpieces of the Greeks, but we must not forget, what

would they think of all this confusion and questions regarding issues that would be no brainers. In the

letter for the Congregation for Catholic Education, paraphrasing,..The modern culture has without a

doubt a certain hostility towards authentic philosophy. This last statement brings up yet another point

that was not truly addressed, and that is, as much as philosphy can anchor the potential priests faith in

God, it can also destroy it especially by deviating away from the Aristo-Thomistic mindset. (Aristotle

and Thomas Aquinas) Peter Kreeft, a well known Thomist thinker in the US, writes,..

-Philosophy can lead you to God, and theology can lead you further into God (or away from Him). And God is the source of all truth, all goodness and all beauty; that is, of everything we value. (If that is not true, then God is not God.) All truth is God's truth; when an atheist discovers some scientific truth, he is reading the mind of God, the Logos. All goodness is God's goodness; when an agnostic secularist loves his neighbor, he is responding to divine grace. All beauty is God's beauty; when a dissipated, confused and immoral artist creates a thing of beauty, he is using the image of God in his soul, being inspired by the Holy Spirit, however anonymously, and participating in God's creative power. -

Truth exists, it just does, and whether we get 'there' by Faith or by reason, we are still attempting to get

to the same thing. Mankind will always, maybe now more than ever ask himself, 'Who I am? Where

did I come from? Where am I going?' How can I be happy? The priest in his role as alter Christus

must be able to step up and be ready to articulate positions for why we are the way we are as Catholics

and not use theology to do it.

To summarize, future priests need metaphysical training the same way a boxer needs cardio and

stamina. It is the lifeblood of Truth to be able to wonder what is the 'Arche.' Now more than ever,

because of the reasons put forth in this answer,.Because of cultural shifts, because of morality and

because of pluralism and multiculturalism, because of interfaith dialogue and finally because of ecumenical dialogue. It is only through rational discourse that proper arguments can be put forth and

solutions metted out in the arena of reason alone. The Aristo-Thomism of the Catholic Church which

laid the groundwork for what we now call the modern university, is the only way for humanity to

recover its roots, studying a series of 'effect' back to its 'cause.' In this light, this priest, as bearer of

Christ to the world, must be prepared for that changed world, and thus meet it head on! Whether we

like it or not, forty-six chromosones are in a human being when the sperm meets the end! This makes

life fully life, and we didn't need the Bible to tell us, just our own active intellects!

Hope you enjoyed it,..I know, I know, just cause I have muscles, you didn't expect me to be so nerdy!!!