Henry,
Christ is Born! First, thanks for reading the blog, offering comments and asking questions. Second, here is my response which might be much more than the answer you're looking for here but this is a good opportunity to explain the (il)logic behind my posts on this topic.
As I'm sure that you've noticed that was my fifth post on the Manhattan Declaration. This is my sixth post. Refer to all the articles or links referenced here (first, second, third & fourth), but especially those in the first post.
Allow me to back up and explain a little bit of my background and the conversation I'm trying to generate with these posts. Back in 2001-2002 I developed a friendship with a Catholic convert from Dutch Calvinism. He introduced me to the thought of Abraham Kuyper and Francis Schaeffer. Since then I have studied Calvinism off and on reading various classic Calvinist thinkers from John Calvin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards and contemporary ones such as J.G. Machen, John Murray, Cornelius Van Til, R.J. Rushdoony, Greg Banhsen, Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, D.G. Hart, R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, John Piper, Keith Mathison, etc. Here is the one-stop shop for everything Calvinist and here is their best magazine.
During my year-long deployment to Iraq I developed a close friendship with a Military Chaplain who was Presbyterian. Every Friday night we had theological discussions which over the year ran the whole gambit from Predestination to Justification, Sanctification to Glorification, Baptism to the Real Presence, Primacy of Peter to the Apostolic Fathers, Sola Scriptura to Sacred Tradition, the first 6 Ecumenical Council to Mary, T.U.L.I.P. to Double Predestination, etc. He threw all the classic anti-Catholic arguments and authors against me from William Webster to James White but he relied most heavily on R.C. Sproul. In my experience all the anti-Catholics are Calvinists, either Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian. I appreciate the orthodox Calvinists for they are Protestants who know what they believe and why the believe it. As my friend and Scripture says, "Iron sharpens iron."
Recently I eat dinner with him and our topic of discussion was the Manhattan Declaration. He doesn't support it, following R.C. Sproul's lead. (Refer to link on my first post for Sproul's explanation of non-support.) My initial reaction was one of disgust. I felt Sproul, Horton and others were being polemical for polemics sake. This is not strictly a theological document, but what one can say for sure it is especially not on the topic of justification or soteriology. It's a moral or ethical document on life, traditional marriage and religious freedom. R.C. Sproul's arguments don't fly with me. The best Protestant critique that I have found is that of Phil Johnson's. M.D. is not rooted on nor depends upon Scripture. The best Eastern Orthodox critique that I have found is the one referenced by Rod Dreher on his post about M.D.
Now here's a little background information on Phil Johnson if you're not familiar with him. His website, Pyromaniacs, is a major Reformed website with great graphics. He's a pastor at Dr. John MacArthur's mega-church (mega-ministry) in north L.A. It's a Reformed Baptist and Dispensionalist, which is a weird combination. Most Reformed are either Postmillenial or Amillenial. Dispensionalists are notoriously anti-Catholic. Refer to Old Scofield Reference Bible, the Left Behind series, etc. MacArthur is on the major Reformed speaking circuit with Sproul and Piper. They give talks at each others conferences.
So that's why I referenced to Phil Johnson's post. And yes I'm aware that he links to Dr. James White and many other anti-Catholics. As Dr. Peter Kreeft says... Catholicism can and does answer all the critics.
I'm much better at asking questions than answering them therefore here are some that I've been chewing on and I hope you do so as well:
1. Do you support the Manhattan Declaration? If so why? And have you signed it?
2. What critique(s) of the Manhattan Declaration do you feel is/are valid and if so why?
3. Are you aware of any Catholic critiques of it? If not what could one or many be?
4. Are you aware of the significant differences between traditional (Thomistic) natural law tradition versus the New Natural Law tradition? Which one do you support and why? Is there a flaw in following the New Natural Law which becomes visible in the M.D. and/or in Dr. George's larger agenda? (Refer to the NYTIMES Magazine article on George.)
5. Can one approach life, traditional marriage, and religious freedom without seriously engaging Revelation (both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition)? Can it be done by "reason" alone or initially and primarily through reason which seems to me is what Dr. George is attempting to do here. Is this method or tradition consistent with Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic thought?
6. Do you support Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) ~ the legacy of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus and Chuck Colson? Why or why not?
I'm going to do a separate post on the New Natural Law tradition. I need to review my notes and paper on it from grad school though before doing so. My UD professor, Dr. Mark Lowery, of Moral Theology and Social Ethics was a traditional Thomist regarding natural law and was critical of John Finnis, Germain Grisez, William May, etc.
In the mean-time I'm going to ask some friends of mine who are much smarter than I am on these topics to lean in on these questions and give their position regarding the M.D., traditional natural law vs. new natural law, and Dr. George's larger agenda. In fact I have forwarded this post out to them and I hope they respond with brilliant and profound thoughts much greater than anything I will ever write.
23 comments:
From Mr. Maedoc
Well, thats a handful. I'll have to get back to you on it. I did sign the M.D. and view it more as a political document which issues largely from philosophy since we are to engage in a multi-denominational and religious effort.
Don't know when I'll have time to flesh out what in the document presents a controversial position.
David,
Indeed, Christ is born and He dwells among us!
I am dashing off a quick note to tell you that I have read your great response and that I will reply to it either tonight and/or tomorrow.
VSS, VPM.
Henry A.
From Dr. Echeverria (Part One)
Hi David, Here are some very brief replies to your questions.
1. Do you support the Manhattan Declaration? If so why? And have you signed it?
Yes, I support it; I signed it because it made a public statement about a set of fundamental beliefs (the dignity of unborn human life, marriage and conscience) that are in jeopardy or under assualt in our contemporary culture, and it made that statement from a ecumenically Christian standpoint. I am an evangelical Catholic ecumenist. See my recent book, Dialogue of Love, Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic Ecumenist (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010).
2. What critique(s) of the Manhattan Declaration do you feel is/are valid and if so why?
Honestly, the only critiques I have read of the declaration come from those Protestants who did not sign it for fear of their signing suggesting that Catholics and Orthodox had a sufficiently valid understanding of the Gospel. Obviously, I don't agree with these Protestants because their position implies that one can't hear the Gospel in the Catholic Church, that the Church's confession is valid and hence an acceptable Christian communion; indeed, on their view, if there are Catholics that are Christians that is (to quote Michael Horton) because "for whatever reason [they] do not self-consciously assent to the precise definitions of the Roman Catholic magisterium regarding justification, the sole mediation of Christ, the relation between faith and the sacraments...despite Rome's official position." In other words, you can't be a Christian, a brother in Christ, if you know and agree with what the Catholic Church teaches; they only recognize Catholics as Christians who don't really understand what the Church teaches. Any self-consciously and self-reflectively committed Catholic is outside the boundaries of orthodox Christianity. I think this is an absurd position to hold, or, as Os Guinness recently said, a pathetic one.
From Dr. Echeverria (Part Two)
3. Are you aware of any Catholic critiques of it? If not what could one or many be?
I am not aware of any Catholic critiques of the statement, which doesn't mean the declaration is perfect. Of course not.
From Dr. Echeverria (Part Three)
4. Are you aware of the significant differences between traditional (Thomistic) natural law tradition versus the New Natural Law tradition? Yes, it's the difference between traditional interpretations of Aquinas' natural law, such as one finds in, for example, Jacques Maritain, Ralph McInerny, J. Budziszewski, on the one hand, and the interpretation of Germain Grisez, John Finnis, of whom Robert George is a student, on the other. Which one do you support and why? I don't think that one needs to choose as such between these two interpretations. Yes, there is a fundamental difference on the question of the foundation of the first principles of practical reason, but the differences are subtle and philosophical, which doesn't mean they are unimportant, but I don't see them making any significant practical difference to the issues addressed in MD. For myself, have always tried to draw on both interpretations in my thinking, when they are relevant. For instance, Robert George and Patrick Lee have a marvelous book, the Self-Body Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics, and their chapter on sexual ethics is simply brilliant; a philosophical attempt to defend traditional sexual morality that is rooted in the Tradition's understanding of Holu Scripture regarding fornication, homosexuality. In short, I don't think one needs to reject either tradition of interpretion outright. Is there a flaw in following the New Natural Law which becomes visible in the M.D. and/or in Dr. George's larger agenda? (Refer to the NYTIMES Magazine article on George.) When Robert George says he persuaded some Protestants of wounded reason's integrity to grasp some truth even in its fallen state I think he is simply claiming--and I agree--that reason as it actually functions can still grasp some truth. Can anyone coherently deny that claim? Still, certainly wounded reason cannot the whole truth about God, man and the world. As JPII says in Fides et Ratio, reason needs redemption (no. 22). I quote him:
"The blindness of pride deceived our first parents into thinking themselves sovereign and autonomous, and into thinking that they could ignore the knowledge which comes from God. All men and women were caught up in this primal disobedience, which so wounded reason that from then on its path to full truth would be strewn with obstacles. From that time onwards the human capacity to know the truth was impaired by an aversion to the One who is the source and origin of truth. It is again the Apostle [Paul] who reveals just how far human thinking, because of sin, became “empty”, and human reasoning became distorted and inclined to falsehood (cf. Rom 1:21-22). The eyes of the mind were no longer able to see clearly: reason became more and more a prisoner to itself. The coming of Christ was the saving event which redeemed reason from its weakness, setting it free from the shackles in which it had imprisoned itself."
From Dr. Echeverria (Part Four)
5. Can one approach life, traditional marriage, and religious freedom without seriously engaging Revelation (both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition)? Of course not. Any suggestion that this is what Catholic thought argues is just plain wrong. See, for instance, the quoted passage above from JPII. This is representative of Catholic thought at its best. Can it be done by "reason" alone or initially and primarily through reason which seems to me is what Dr. George is attempting to do here. Well, the question is: Can one construct arguments whose premises can be grasped by reason alone, in principle, and on the basis of which one then goes on to draw conclusions that are valid? The tradition of natural theology--advancing arguments for the existence of God--is based on that claim. I think, in general, natural law thinking is based on the premise of General revelation: God has revealed himself in, by and through the works of creation, including man. Human reason can, up to a certain point, know something of the structures of creation. Humane reason is savagely wounded by the fall into sin but is still able to have knowledge of the structures of creation, such as the institution of marriage. In order words, fallen reason can still grasp truths about the structures that God created. Of course human reason needs to be renewed, restored, indeed redeemed or reconsecrated to Christ in order to grasp fully the whole truth of creation. Faith needs reason, but reason also needs faith. This is the Catholic position as expressed fundamentally in John Paul II's 1998 encyclical letter Fides et Ratio. Is this method or tradition consistent with Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic thought? Yes, properly understood the idea of the interdependence of faith and reason--faith needs reason; reason needs faith--is central to both Catholic thought and the Reformed tradition--for my monet, Dutch neo-Calvinism of Kuyper, Bavinck and Dooyeweerd. I argue this in my recent book, Dialogue of Love, Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic Ecumenist (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010). Of course there are differences, of divergences between the two traditions, but also significant points of convergences. See the study of natural law by Daryl Charles (Retrieving the Natural Law: A Return to Moral First Things) and Stephen Grabill (Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics), both of whom defend the natural law tradition from a Reformed Protestant perspective.
6. Do you support Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) ~ the legacy of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus and Chuck Colson? Why or why not? I support ECT because it is an ecumenical venture grounded in an effort to seek the truth that binds us together as Christians; it is not an ecumenism of a common denominator; it isn't reductionistic, in other words. It reflects the vision ecumenism of the Catholic Church, of John Paul II's 1995 encyclical letter, Ut Unum Sint.
Eduardo J. Echeverria, S.T.L., Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy
Graduate School of Theology
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
Detroit, MI 48206
From Mnsgr. Lorenzo Albacete
David, you are 100% right. Read my sussidiario article about it last week.
(If somebody finds this article first and can translate it via Google it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.)
Found it and it was already translated!
HEALTH CARE/ A success for Democrats. And the Bishops? by Lorenzo Albacete
I knew I wasn't crazy and Msngr. Albacete just confirmed and articulated what I was trying to say in the above article...
Paper Clippings blog on Robert George
http://www.crossroadsculturalcenter.org/blog/2009/12/18/thats-our-focus.html
David - I have to post in sections.
***********************************
David,
Yes, Christ is born and He dwells among us, Alleluia!
Your blog is great and I read it often.
I appreciate your wonderfully thorough response but it doesn’t actually answer my questions because, as I now see, I was unclear. My questions referred to a particular link, the link to the article “Idealism vs. Normally-Wise Pragmatism” and the comments listed therein. I wasn’t, and I am still not sure if your intention was/is to discourage people from signing the Manhattan declaration, etc. And so, I decided to post my questions and spark a conversation.
So that you have a context for my remarks, I will give you a brief sketch of my journey to the Catholic Christian Faith.
I grew up in a non-religious home and so I would say that I was an indifferent agnostic for many years. In my teens I started studying martial arts and thus became a Zen Buddhist. I was a Zen Buddhist until I was 22 when, because of a movie on the life of St. Francis, I started investigating Catholicism. I studied the Faith with a great, orthodox, Franciscan priest for three years and then – to use the Protestant phrase – I gave my life to Christ.
I quickly discovered that my fellow Catholics 1) did/do not know their Faith; and 2) that they were/are embarrassed (to greater or lesser degrees) to proclaim that the Catholic Faith is the one true Faith and that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, and so I decided that the best way I could demonstrate my gratitude for the great gift I had received was to help Catholics understand and be proud of Christ and the Faith – i.e., I want to help keep Catholics Catholic.
Regarding my relationship with Protestants, my sister (who I love dearly) is a dedicated Baptist who calls herself a 3.5 Calvinist (referring to T.U.L.I.P). I have learned much of certain strands of Protestant theology from conversations/debates I have had with her and friends and from books but Protestant theology is not, quite honestly, my primary focus.
Alright, that gives you a brief sketch of my background so let me know look at and comment on your post.
I wholeheartedly agree that “Iron sharpens iron.” I really enjoyed and still enjoy apologetics but I stopped “doing apologetics” because I felt that my desire to “win” was becoming more important than my desire “to proclaim” Christ and His Beauty. Hence, as I said, I stopped. I have the impression though, that we have probably read many of the same books and or know the same people. However, I firmly believe that a healthy zeal for the clarification, illumination, and defense of the faith is something that’s vitally needed in certain parts of the Body of Christ and that one can successfully argue that the best “form” of apologetics can be derived from the New Testament authors themselves, who present quite a robust apologetics modeled on the words and actions of the incarnate Truth.
Let me now address your questions:
1. Do you support the Manhattan Declaration? If so why? And have you signed it?
Yes, I support it and yes I signed it. Why? Because I agreed with it and because I believe that it’s an ecumenical attempt to address the tyranny of liberalism.
2. What critique(s) of the Manhattan Declaration do you feel is/are valid and if so why?
I certainly do not agree with the idea that signing the Manhattan Declaration (hereinafter referred to as MD) means that I agree with the theological beliefs of the Protestants and/or Orthodox.
I believe that a valid critique is that it reduces Christianity to ethics.
3. Are you aware of any Catholic critiques of it? If not what could one or many be?
Not of the document but many of Professor George. BTW, his book “The Clash of Orthodoxies” provides a better insight into his thinking than the NYT interview – which, from my experience with the arts/media has taught me, is probably edited in a particular way.
4. Are you aware of the significant differences between traditional (Thomistic) natural law tradition versus the New Natural Law tradition? Which one do you support and why? Is there a flaw in following the New Natural Law which becomes visible in the M.D. and/or in Dr. George’s larger agenda? (Refer to the HYPERLINK "http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/magazine/20george-t.html?_r=1" NYTIMES Magazine article on George.)
Yes, I am aware of the differences between the traditional and “new” natural law tradition – although I am certainly not an expert on those differences. I support the traditional version because, to paraphrase from Edward Fesser’s new book on Aquinas, those that promote the “new” version seem to “hold that natural law requires neither an Aristotelian metaphysical conception of the natural order and/or an appeal to theological premises concerning the existence and will of God.” Of course, that’s not to say that what Germain Griesz has written is useless and without merit.
I am not sure what you mean when you assert that the “new” natural law tradition is being promoted by the MD document. I read the MD listed here ( HYPERLINK "http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration" http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration) and I don’t see what you see.
Regarding Dr. George’s agenda, I certainly don’t see it as harmful and I certainly don’t ascribe malicious intent to it (N.B. I am not saying that you do!); and I can tell you that I do wholeheartedly support his (and anyone else’s) efforts to fight for the Church’s freedom to speak, convince, act, and build in the public square.
5. Can one approach life, traditional marriage, and religious freedom without seriously engaging Revelation (both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition)?
Until I understand how you are defining the words “life”, “traditional marriage”, and “religious freedom”, I am going to answer, “of course they can but that does not mean that their “approach” is true.” For example, I am currently studying the writings of Xunzi, which I like very much, and he touches upon these three points. There have been, and are, many non-Western (or non-Christian) cultures that have reflected on these three points but they do so without the benefit of Divine Revelation.
Can it be done by “reason” alone or initially and primarily through reason which seems to me is what Dr. George is attempting to do here.
If by “here” you mean the MD, then I disagree. The MD is made of words and it means what the words say. From my reading of it, I don’t see that the authors are asserting that revelation must bow to reason. I would, however, agree that the authors seem to have accepted as valid a definition of reason that is based on the assumptions of metaphysical materialism.
Is this method or tradition consistent with Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic thought?
If you are implying that man can fully know himself without Christ, then no, that is not consistent with Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic thought.
6. Do you support Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) ~ the legacy of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus and Chuck Colson? Why or why not?
I only have a superficial knowledge of ECT, and until I study it, I don’t have an answer.
So David, we have had quite a walk around this garden and I will end by again repeating what I wrote at the start: “my questions referred to a particular link, the link to the article “Idealism vs. Normally-Wise Pragmatism” and the comments listed therein. I wasn’t, and I am still not sure if your intention was/is to discourage people from signing the Manhattan declaration, etc., and I’d appreciate a clarification.
Pax,
Henry
From Mnsgr. Albacate
Our Lady IS the natural law.
From Dr. Mario Ramos-Reyes
Dear David: thanks you for asking these thoughtful and necessary questions. I have thinking and pondering these issues for a while and, yes, I did sign up the Declaration. Do I believe all the arguments of how they were presented there…probably not but this is not the main reason I did. There are a few reasons why I did it but I have no much time to address this issue now. However, you touched my heart by referring to the issue of the possible more than one version of natural Law and the need for Revelation. This is a very difficult issue among natural law theorists; it is an “in-house” debate. I experienced some of this in my training at the U. of Navarre in Spain while studying with Javier Hervada long time ago.
The question may be this: Is it sufficient to propose, strictly philosophical and/or biological arguments, to support issues on ethics of life? . There is a claim (and some others) made by Prof George (whom I respect dearly) which concern me greatly.. it refers to the foundations of ethics which reads as follows…”[O]ur position in this book is that claims based in religious traditions or revelation are simply not necessary (and are probably not even sufficient) to arrive at correct understandings of embryo science, technology and ethics. It is found on a text on the issue of Embryo; etc. It is a rather not key text of his thinking but I sense his desire to be congenial with others for whom faith may not play a role in dealing with these issues. This is, I may add, an old temptation among some Thomists – among whom I belong. Reason may suffice to make the case, But I became lately, a little bit skeptical of the reasonableness of this position…and, indeed, became more and more distant, above all, reading Ratzinger carefully for about two years in his views on political issues.
We need revelation, particularly, in this very poisoned culture; faith is, after all, the “feast” of reason (Giussani). Reason help but it is not sufficient. And this is key: secularism in itself is ALSO a religious position with their “popes,” (Sagan, Nielsen), “prophets”(Dawkins), sacred books, etc even books of “secularist” spirituality (Solomon), etc. Many of their claims are to be believed by “faith” in scientism alone. Take this; human nature is “constructed”….how is that? Is this belief a rational one? One can respect – I do - this position but hardly concede that it is a rational claim not even an empirical one.
This is one point that the Pope, I believe, is making to our culture. Reason needs Revelation to be reason. Just take a look at what Pope Ratzinger says on that issue of the foundation of life. His claim clearly goes farther than reason or philosophy “alone” or, any vitalist argument per se. An example of that it is found in his address to the Threats to Human Life…“Where God disappears; the absolute dignity of human life disappears as well. In light of the revelation concerning the creation of man in the image and likeness of God, the inviolable sacredness of the human person has appeared. Only this divine dimension guarantees the full dignity of the human person. Therefore a purely vitalistic argument…can be a first step, but it remains insufficient and never reaches the intended goal. In the struggle for life, talking about God is indispensable. Only in this way does the value of the weak, the disabled, the nonproductive, the incurably ill become apparent.” Again David, one need to be careful as the Pope is. He is not suggesting is not possible to know something but it is going to be “insufficient” knowledge.
In communion,
Dr. Mario Ramos-Reyes
Professor of Philosophy
From Mnsgr. Albacate
Our Lady IS the natural law.
BRILLIANT, as usual from Msgr. Albacete!
Pax,
Henry
Here's a must-read post (refer to links) on Mere Comments regarding our topic - Robby George and the Manhattan Declaration Revisited.
Warning Order - Christopher Blosser is creating a post which I will reference once it's published.
I'm going to a Junior Brown, the greatest guitar player ever, concert at Knuckleheads Saloon tonight with my son. More comments and posts to follow in the upcoming days.
Communio - NATURAL LAW: FROM NEO-THOMISM TO NUPTIAL MYSTICISM by Tracey Rowland (HT to Jerry in Wichita!)
Remnant - From Manhattan to the Vatican: A Catholic Declaration Is Desperately Needed
My quick take on the M.D.; comments welcome....
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1546
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute on the Constitution
Host, “TheAmericanView” radio show
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
John MacArthur & Pretrib Rapture
Who knows, maybe John (Reformedispy) MacArthur is right and the greatest Greek scholars (Google "Famous Rapture Watchers"), who uniformly said that Rev. 3:10 means PRESERVATION THROUGH, were wrong. But John has a conflict. On the one hand, since he knows that all Christian theology and organized churches before 1830 believed the church would be on earth during the tribulation, he would like to be seen as one who stands with the great Reformers. On the other hand, if John has a warehouse of unsold pretrib rapture material, and if he wants to have "security" for his retirement years and hopes that the big California quake won't louse up his plans, he has a decided conflict of interest. Maybe the Lord will have to help strip off the layers of his seared conscience which have grown for years in order to please his parents and his supporters - who knows? One thing is for sure: pretrib is truly a house of cards and is so fragile that if a person removes just one card from the TOP of the pile, the whole thing can collapse. Which is why pretrib teachers don't dare to even suggest they could be wrong on even one little subpoint! Don't you feel sorry for the straitjacket they are in? While you're mulling all this over, Google "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty" for a rare behind-the-scenes look at the same 180-year-old fantasy.
Pamela
Post a Comment