CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Teaching Series - moral theology
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 4th June 2008, 03:56 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,570
Default

I don't recommend Janet Smith's moral theology.

The article you cite openly opposes the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, and openly defends the moral theology of proportionalism (which does not hold any act to be intrinsically evil and always immoral).

In her article that you cite, she deliberately uses a set of terms and definitions, constructed so that there is no such thing as an objective sin. Now it is true that culplable sin only occurs with a knowing intention (actual sin), but it is not true that, lacking culpability due to a defect of knowledge, there is no sin at all but merely a deficiency that is not of the moral order (she gives the example of limping).

She claims that the Magisterium is not talking about moral evil or sin when it says something is intrinsically evil. So she has re-defined the term intrinsic evil so that it no longer refers to morality or culpability at all.

She further claims that intrinsically evil acts only refer to the intended end, not to the act itself.

She repeatedly and deliberately opposes Magisterial teaching, even openly, and she uses the clever definition or re-definition of terminology in order to negate the clear and definitive teaching of the Magisterium. She openly supports proportionalism.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 4th June 2008, 04:28 PM
St. Thomas More St. Thomas More is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York State
Posts: 367
Default Finis

Did I misread this article? I thought Dr. Janet Smith was arguing against proportionalism and upholding the Thomistic view, which she refers to as "the tradition" in this article.
__________________
St. Thomas More
--"The King's Good Servant, but God's First"
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 4th June 2008, 05:41 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,570
Default

Yes, you misread the article. She re-interprets St. Thomas and she re-defines his terminology in order to support proportionalism and undermine the teaching of Veritatis that certain kinds of acts are always immoral. She does this in a way so as to claim that she is within the traditional theological view (not Sacred Tradition), but I've studied St. Thomas' work extensively and her presentation is a severe distortion of his ideas.

Let me make a general recommendation to all the members.
Read the Bible, the Catechism (or the Compendium), encyclicals and Magisterial documents, inspirational writings of Saints and Blesseds and Doctors and Fathers of the Church.

Be very cautious about which theologians works you read. There is a lot of harmful theology being written, even by theologians who have positions at respected Catholic institutions, or who have various credentials, or who have good reputations.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 4th June 2008, 08:04 PM
St. Thomas More St. Thomas More is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York State
Posts: 367
Default Finis & Smith

Excellent. Thanks.
__________________
St. Thomas More
--"The King's Good Servant, but God's First"
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 7th August 2008, 08:11 AM
Sacredcello's Avatar
Sacredcello Sacredcello is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Posts: 954
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
Let me make a general recommendation to all the members.
Read the Bible, the Catechism (or the Compendium), encyclicals and Magisterial documents, inspirational writings of Saints and Blesseds and Doctors and Fathers of the Church.

Be very cautious about which theologians works you read. There is a lot of harmful theology being written, even by theologians who have positions at respected Catholic institutions, or who have various credentials, or who have good reputations.

Excellent suggestions. I had been reading both Christopher West and Janet Smith in preparation for marriage and it has caused some problems between me and my fiance, since he is a philosopher trained in the analytical tradition. He will be delighted to know that these can now be set aside. Unfortunately, though, because of his training, he has a hard time accepting Humanae Vitae, though he is at least willing to practice what it teaches.

Incidentally, my fiance is one who wrote the featured critical review of Peter Kreeft's Summa of the Summa on amazon.com. It is anonymously written.

Last edited by Sacredcello : 7th August 2008 at 08:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 7th August 2008, 12:05 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,570
Default

Good review of the 'Summa of the Summa'.

I'd be interested to know (for any of the members) who teaches marriage prep and what the teaching program is like.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 7th August 2008, 04:20 PM
Sacredcello's Avatar
Sacredcello Sacredcello is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Posts: 954
Default

During the Engaged Encounter, we received a bibliography for suggested reading, but we are not required by our parish to read any of these or attend any classes. It is an extensive list of both primary and secondary sources. Both Christopher West and Janet Smith are suggested reading under the topic of Intimacy in Marriage, with the other two being Humanae Vitae and Theology of the Body (the actual transcript).

It would be great to see your article about the Immaculate Marriage Bed in the bibliography, Ron.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 8th August 2008, 06:46 AM
myLivingBread myLivingBread is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
Good review of the 'Summa of the Summa'.

I'd be interested to know (for any of the members) who teaches marriage prep and what the teaching program is like.

Ron,

Me and my wife is attending a seminar on marriage counselling a facilitators training a pre Cana. It is a 7 saturdays conducted by priest and some speakers like lawyers(on legal matters on marriage). We are on NFP and Prolife subject tomorrow.

We were recommended by our Priest to represent our Parish. I will be having a compilation of the teaching soon (to be provided by the host), I will share it here.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10th September 2008, 06:55 PM
Shane Shane is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
this article
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1504092.story
describes a soldier who received the Medal of Honor for
throwing himself on a grenade in order to save four fellow soldiers.

1. Was his act moral? Why or why not?

2. Apply the three fonts of morality to his act.
1. Intention - to save the lives of his four comrades = good

2. Object of intention - throwing himself on a grenade to take the damage = bad

3. Circumstances - one death vs. four lives saved = good

If the second font is bad, then technically the act should be immoral, but since the third and first fonts are good, i.e. he did not willingly throw himself on the grenade to selfishly end his own life but to save the lives of four others, so I would think the act was moral?

(I still have some work to do on this).
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10th September 2008, 08:49 PM
Rob Rob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sicily, Italy
Posts: 966
Default

All three fonts must be good in order for an act to be moral. If even one if immoral, then the act alltogether is immoral. The act of throwing himself on the granade to save others is not intrinsically evil per se.
__________________
For to me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain (Phil 1:21)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.