Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:21 AM By ANNE
I don’t know Ms. Wood, but I went to Marquette University. This is a ‘Catholic’ University in name only – like many other Jesuit institutions. Read your CCC to make sure you know when and if the truth is spoken.
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:45 AM By FHKJ
Another “catch word” which must go: “Scriptures Unlocked”! My Catholic Bible does not have a lock on it!
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:57 AM By JMJ
Sounds as though Miss Wood might be missing something. Hilosophy? How about Jesus and obeying Him? Much easier and not so corny. +JMJ+
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:43 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Anne: The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is a catechism. As such, the CCC does not directly, let alone extensively, discuss questions on the order of those addressed by Christine Wood in her Marquette University doctoral dissertation on “The Metaphysics and Intellective Psychology in the the Natural Desire for Seeing God: Henri de Lubac and Neo-Scholasticism” (2011). For comparative purposes, I would recommend Lawrence Feingold’s study, _The Natural Desire to See God According to St. Thomas and His Interpreters_, second edition (Sapientia Press of Ave Maria University, 1910). For my part, I look forward to reading Christine Wood’s dissertation as well. In the meantime, for the simple purpose of evoking the daunting character of the truly difficult terrain Christine Wood has chosen to explore, I’ll confine myself to quoting from Steven A. Long’s review of Lawrence Feinberg’s book on the question of the natural desire to see God. “Lawrence Feinberg,” Long writes, “has perfomed an invaluable service to all who seek to understand the profound and difficult question of the character of the natural desire to see God. His magisterial command of the doctrinal tradition, exegetic care, and capacity to unfold an argument while appreciating all the delicate reticulations of commentatorial interpretation highly commend this book.” That Feingold’s book is directly relevant to Christine Wood’s dissertation on Henri de Lubac is conveyed incidentally by Stephen Long’s comment that the scope of Lawrence Feinberg’s book includes “all the principle commentators engaged with this question, up to and including Laporta and de Lubac.”
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:49 AM By Paul
OK. I was at the first presentation in this series of studies that is being offered at the John Paul the Great University. It wasn’t great, but it did offer me some food for thought.
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:46 PM By Clinton
de Lubac perpetuated a “new theology’ that has lead to the loss of Catholic tradition after Vatican II. We instead should be focusing on Pius XII’s encyclical humani generis which condemns falsehoods that undermine Catholic Doctrine.
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:02 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Clinton: Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical Letter HUMANI GENERIS is a splendid document, and Henri de Lubac’s work should — need I say? — be studied in the light of HUMANI GENERIS. At the same time, we need to keep in mind that theology advances as a science in its own right, that is, on analogy to the empirical sciences, which is also to say, by way of the collaborative critique and revision of one’s fellow theologians’ work. On this point, Fr. de Lubac would have been the first to agree. ~ Pope John Paul II, in acknowledging the work and the ethos of Henri-Marie de Lubac, “appointed the holy and beloved theologian a Cardinal” on February 2, 1983 (Tracey Rowland [book notice], Rudolf Voderholzer, _Meet Henri de Lubac: His Life and Work_ [San Francisco: St. Ignatius Press, 2007], Ignatius Insight, online).
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:57 PM By JLS
Why worry about what Lubac had to say, when we can read primary sources for ourselves? Now, if Lubac were on a blog, then of course we should jump into that fray. But these professors never really make themselves publicly available, since it would dent their income considerably, and their universities would lose money … and more people would begin to discover that you do not need college to learn this stuff. Gee, what would the Church do without thousands of theology professors at any given time?
Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 11:53 AM By John F. Maguire
Henri-Marie Cardinal de Lubac is in this thread because Christine Wood’s doctoral dissertation has helped put him here — and rightly so. The Church, moreover, has always defended theologians and their work against ‘religious’ irrationalism, on the one hand, and ‘rationalist’ irreligiosity, on the other hand. Here is an excerpt from Pope Benedict’s defense of discipline of theology and those who work in this discipline: “Rooted in Sacred Scripture, read with the Fathers and Doctors, theology can be a school of sanctity, as shown by Blessed John Henry Newman.” Indeed, “knowing God in his true nature is also the sure way to ensure peace. A God who was not perceived as a source of foregiveness could not be a light along the path of peace.” Source: “Theology must be a work of love for God, Pope tells theologians,” CNA/EWTN News, December 3, 2011.
Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 8:54 PM By JLS
Maguire, I always like your, “and rightly so”, phrases. They warm the heart, while providing full confidence in your judgment.
Posted Saturday, February 18, 2012 2:15 AM By Pat
Maguire, most of us wish to see God someday. – This is nothing new. Anything coming out of most, but not all, Jesuit Universities these days must be reviewed with a skeptical eye. For those who have not read the CCC in entirety, the best way to know their Faith is to study it – since the Bishops and Priests can not cover everything.
Posted Saturday, February 18, 2012 2:21 AM By MAC
I don’t know Dr. Wood, BUT is was wayward Theologians who promoted most of the abuses after Vatican II.
Posted Saturday, February 18, 2012 4:39 AM By MIKE
Maguire, back in 1971 and even through the 80’s and part of the 90’s if it had been left to the States, there would be no legal abortion in the USA. You seem to forget that the majority of people of the USA in those times did not want legalized abortion, and most States had referendums so this can be proved. You must stick to today’s politicians and not lump everyone together, since each politician must stand on his/her own public actions and public voting record. Since the “National Democratic Party” still has pro-abortion in its platform, it is still the “Party of Death”. Again, that being said, there are a few (but not the majority) good Democrats.
Posted Saturday, February 18, 2012 7:51 AM By JLS
Abortion became legal in California in 1967 or 1969 or was it 1970. Ronald Reagan, then governor, signed it into state law.
Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 11:18 PM By Abeca Christian
JLS so what is your point there? Pontuis Pilot went with what the people wanted, it was to crucify an innocent man.
Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 9:35 PM By JLS
Pontius Pilate went with the people so as to avoid a rebellion. He had already said that he found no guilt in Jesus. Interesting comparison with Reagan, Abeca! A rebellion would have cost Pilate his rulership; not to have signed the abortion bill into law, Reagan might have though to be politically devastating, ie losing his rule. It took three centuries before a great ruler legalized Catholicism, and instituted some of the laws of God. European govt began to move towards the law of God, whereas today Euro-American govt has begun to move away from God’s law. It has been a great seventeen centuries, though!!!
Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 11:20 PM By Abeca Christian
JLS it’s just thoughts that came when you brought up Reagan. I don’t know why they came but you seemed to have put the puzzle together. Pretty neat!
Posted Thursday, February 23, 2012 3:01 AM By Kenneth M. Fisher
I was present on the Robert K. Dornan show when then Governor Reagan publicly stated that he was very sorry for not vetoing that Bielenson Bill, he was lied to as to the actual effects it would have, and he said he should have known better than to trust the advocates of that Bill. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher
Posted Thursday, February 23, 2012 11:43 PM By Abeca Christian
Mr. Fisher thank you for posting what you posted in regards to Reagan. I think that Pontius Pilot was lied to too in a different way but deception can come in different ways. Oh well, who knows but I am glad that you shed some light to this.
Posted Monday, March 05, 2012 10:41 AM By Bulgie
I’m not sure what Ronald Reagan and Pontius Pilot have to do with the Gospel of Mark or Dr Wood’s (as yet undelivered talk). I think it sounds super interesting, but I think I’ll wait to decide what I think about Dr. Wood, de Lubac, and a Marquette education until AFTER I’ve listened to the talk.
Posted Monday, March 05, 2012 12:34 PM By Kermit
Actually, I’ve heard that there are some extraordinary professors over there at Marquette — faithful to Church teaching and doing a lot of good work for the Church. Who knows, perhaps Dr Wood actually learned something good there…
Posted Monday, March 05, 2012 1:24 PM By Wren
What do the responses here remind me of? Oh yes, that’s it: John 1:46. Not that Dr. Wood is Jesus Christ, but let’s try listening to her talk before we all completely dismiss her due to her background.