Critique of John Paul II's Personalism & Defense of Thomism
Thanks very much for this post, Philly.  I read both articles, and may well read them again, if I find the time (I don't really have it even now).  I think this is going to be very important for me in the not-too-distant future, as I live in a house with three philosophy majors, and am taking classes in the PHIL dept at Catholic U.
I got turned onto to personalism through Kreeft's short article. It seems to me that the method Aquinas used is valid today as it was then -- namely, take whatever is good and fruitful from others. Leave aside that which is not. I understand and have much more clarity oft the human person and dignity through John Paul II than Aquinas. That's just a fact. I have even read Thomists who say that it is lawful to use someone (sorry don't recall where), whereas the personalists say that love is always the proper attitude, which is opposed to use. I find that a very fruitful path of inquiry and very fitting with Catholic doctrine and morals..
I'm a little concerned with the Church's newfound interest in human dignity (which appears to have started with Pope John XXIII).  I tried to suggest that it can be lost over at CAF and was told that, "that isn't Catholic teaching," even though I cited St. Thomas Aquinas (II-II, q. 64, a. 2, ad 3) and Romano Amerio (Iota Unum).  Further proof that dignity can be lost is what happens to those who die in mortal sin, the teaching of Scripture (Wis. xiv, 9: "God hates both the sinner and his iniquities") and from Pope Leo XIII, who wrote:

"If the mind assents to false opinions and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption" (Immortale Dei, n. 32).

Pope John Paul II would eventually totally oppose capital punishment in principle, based upon his understanding of human dignity: "I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary" (January 26-27, 1999, St. Louis, MO).
From this website I know  :thumb: ...

Quote:..."human dignity" in the post-Conciliar era is a concept much more aligned with the Masonic idea of the exaltation of man. Honoring "human dignity," and all the political ramifications thereof, is the general focus of the new theology and is the impetus behind many scandalous behaviors. This worldview sees the Incarnation as having united all men, as a collective, to Christ for all time in a way that disregards the need for individual conversion. Its soteriology is universalist, and so, the Gospel message is lost because "all men" are saved.

The Truth is, there is no dignity inherent in being human aside from the dignity inherent in our being His creatures, made in His image. We become truly dignified when we are born again through Baptism, and only then, or by some extraordinary act of God, may we share in the Divine Nature. Adam was created in the image and likeness of God, but lost the dignity of "likeness" through sin. Until we repent and receive His grace, we, too, are lost in sin and have lost our likeness to God.
:Hmm:  :LOL:
It's true that the post-Conciliar Church places too much emphasis on human dignity, but those who completely reject the concept because they want to say that Vichy France was a model of good government are also wrong.
(10-25-2012, 01:19 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: It's true that the post-Conciliar Church places too much emphasis on human dignity, but those who completely reject the concept because they want to say that Vichy France was a model of good government are also wrong.

What dignity does the fallen, anti-Christ rebel have?
Human dignity being emphasized was in contrast to the absolute carnage of humanity against humanity in this time. Do I need to remind anyone of that? WWI, WWII, Hilster, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, nuclear bombs, abortion(!), suicide, self-mutilation, pornography and the world-wide sex trade, depictions in media or every sort of dehumanization, and many other ailments. The teaching on human dignity is not masonic, but based on the teaching that we have a rational soul in the image and likeness of God -- we are not simply "worm feed".

As for the death penalty, none other than someone like Alex Jones has discussed how the death penalty leads to a devaluation of human life in society. There is a very fine line between portraying order, punishment, and deterrence, and portraying devaluation and condoning of killing. The minute you decide this one is less valuable than that one, you're on the road to a lot of compromises in morality.
(10-25-2012, 01:48 PM)Walty Wrote: What dignity does the fallen, anti-Christ rebel have?

An immortal soul, created by God, for which He gave His life on the Cross. That dignity is actually never lost. "Deus, qui humanae substantiae dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti, et mirabilius reformasti".

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)