Another Gilson Masterpiece

 Etienne Gilson, the French Thomist, has written many excellent works. This work summarizes many of Leo XIII writings. It includes the writings but Gilson's summaries are exceptional in detail but are brief and to the point. As one looks at Leo XIV, who has indicated he looks back to Leo XIII, this becomes a timely text. Leo XIII was a strong anti-socialist, as he defines socialism. He was a strong supporter of property rights and the rights of workers. An interesting mix. Leo XIII advocated universal adherence to Thomistic philosophy, abjuring the philosophers of the 19th century.

Overall it is an exceptionally clear work and worth reading in our current environment. One may disagree yet knowing what the views are helps.

Pope and President

 In 601, Gregory, the Bishop of Rome, there was no singular "Pope" back then and would not be for another 100 years, deferred to the Emperor in Constantinople. In addition for the previous 500 plus years decisions were made by Councils, including Bishops, no Cardinals for again another 400 years. It was a Councillor Church. However there was always tension between Emperor and Bishops. From Constantine, to Justinian and beyond, the Emperors dictated much Church doctrine. Nicaea is an example as is the Arian controversy. The Bishop of Rome, senior amongst Bishops but equal as well, was elected by the people of Rome. Thus we see a Church making decisions based on councils of learned Bishops, often with vicious infighting, and Bishops being elected in a democratic manner.

Then by 1348 the now Pope was in Avignon, a captive of the French King, Rome was a mess and Ockham declared the Pope a heretic. He may have had a point. But I leave that for another day.

The in 1870 at the First Vatican Council, Pius IX squeezes through the "doctrine" of infallibility. Namely the "Pope" can never be wrong in faith or morals. One wonders when that really started and why it took two millennia.

Now as The Hill reports:

Catholic bishops who voted to advance an effort that could deny President Biden Communion over his stance on abortion are being accused of hypocrisy by critics of the decision. Biden, just the second Catholic U.S. president in history, regularly goes to church and touts his faith as a deeply personal aspect of his life. Yet the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) voted last week to proceed with drafting a formal statement on the meaning of Communion, which will include whether pro-choice politicians such as Biden should be denied it. The decision runs counter to the wishes of Pope Francis and has put the church at the center of a roiling debate over Biden, abortion and Catholicism. It has also invited comparisons to former President Trump, with critics of the vote pointing in outrage to examples where Trump was not aligned with the church.

Now the Church has rules and Councils of Bishops have precedence. Break the rules and you are out of the club. One can say, "Remember Avignon".  Perhaps that may concern the current Bishop of Rome.

Individualism: Lost in Translation?

The current Bishop of Rome is again condemning individualism. Let us be clear, individualism is the fundamental belief in the equality of each person, each individual, and the rejection of the collective. It is a principal one can strongly argue is consonant with New Testament teachings, perhaps excluding some of Paul. Individualism is the principle by which each person has the same rights as every other and that the persons individual actions count not those of the collective.

In a Vatican release for the colossus at Davos the Bishop states:

In these years, the World Economic Forum has offered an opportunity for the engagement of diverse stakeholders to explore innovative and effective ways of building a better world. It has also provided an arena where political will and mutual cooperation can be guided and strengthened in overcoming the isolationism, individualism and ideological colonization that sadly characterizes too much contemporary debate. 

One would find it rather difficult to relate colonization with individualism, in fact it was the Colonial efforts of many countries that destroyed the very individualism that made for the lands before their capture. Slavery is in essence a destruction of individualism and it was a fundamental element of Colonial control.

Again we must go back to the battle between Ockham and John XXII to see the initial growth of individualism. Salvation is an individual act, an act of freedom by the person and not the collective. Marxism is fundamentally a belief in the collective and a rejection of the individual.

Moses and the Lost Tablet?

The Bishop of Rome seems to have discovered the lost tablet that Moses had forgotten to recover. As he notes:

Instead, an elementary sense of justice would require that certain conduct, for which corporations are usually responsible, does not go unpunished. In particular, all those that can be considered as “ecocide”: the massive contamination of air, land and water resources, the large-scale destruction of flora and fauna, and any action capable of producing an ecological disaster or destroying an ecosystem. We must introduce – we are thinking about it – in the Catechism of the Catholic Church the sin against ecology, the ecological sin against the common home, because it is a duty.

I can recall my early days of Catechism, and learning the ins and outs of the Ten Commandments. The one that always intrigued me was "Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife." Now the lady next door was not a nice person and no matter how I tried to twist the interpretation I could never envision that happening. 

Now along come the Bishop of Rome with "ecocide". I looked through the Bible as best I could and as best I can see there was no such sin. But that does not seem to stop the folks back there in Rome. Did Moses forget this one, had he broken it? Had he just thought that since he had all these folks in a desert for such a long time that worrying about tree and flowers would be a bit too much.

I thought that God handed down the laws and that we were to follow. I wonder when this snuck in and also if there may be other tablets yet to be found.

The Creed, or Whatever

The book by Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, is exceptionally well written and approachable by the lay reader. It addresses the topic of Christology, namely just what was Jesus Christ, man, God, both, and are there three Gods, one, a blend. This has been a major issue in Christianity. It is a monotheistic religion, namely one God, but in the Gospel writing we see Jesus as Son of God, but equal to the Father, and then the Holy Spirit, somehow a third entity acting upon the Apostles. Add to this mix the background of many in Greek philosophy and Greek philosophical terms. Finally add the ascension of Constantine, the "first" Christian emperor in Constantinople who see a cacophony of voices with opinions on this "Trinity" of Gods, yet being just one God. Rubenstein notes that battles would ensure at bakers, merchants, sailors, bar keeps as to what Jesus and the three really were. To Constantine he needed unity not dissension.

The battle was between, at this time, Arians and non-Arians. Arians saw Jesus as Son of God with all that such a relationship brings. The non-Arians are those who saw unity in the Trinity, unity and equality.

Enter Greek, its words, its meanings, its philosophical underpinnings. Enter also the collection of egos acting as Bishops fighting viciously against opposing sides, seeking the approval of Constantine with execution being the adversarial tactic.

The book takes you from before Nicaea to during the Council to many of the events proximate to its ending. It covers the theological issues, the political intrigues, and the religious infighting. There were Councils after this which settled a few issues but not all.

A key set of observations that the author opines on are:

1. The dominant role of Constantine, who at this point is frankly not even a Christian not having been baptized until just before his death.

2. The lack of almost any role by the Bishop of Rome, now the Pope in the Catholic Church. It would not be until the beginning of the next millennium that the concept of a powerful Pope would evolve.

3. The sustaining of a multiplicity of views in the context of deadly conflict.

In the end Rubenstein alludes to the fact that Mohammed and his interpretation had but one God, the Father if you will, and that Jesus was a prophet, as was Moses and in turn as was Mohammed. This simplicity Rubenstein argues was what the Muslim faith spread so rapidly, it simplified so much of the extreme complexity of the Christology. Yet I would argue that this was but one of the many reasons for its spread. One must remember that Muslim faith spread from about 625 onwards whereas the events in this tale are surrounding the period of Nicaea, 325, three hundred years earlier. I would argue that it also was the oppression of the Emperors in Constantinople, the wars with the Persians, the influx of Germanic tribes and a conflux of many other factors.

There is also the maintaining of the Arian faith amongst the newcomers such as the Lombards which lasts well into the 7th Century. There is the detailed theological work using Aristotle by Aquinas in the 13th century and finally the abandonment of this by Ockham in the 14th century, reverting to faith rather than reason.

The greatest challenge in a book of this type is setting the stage for Greek words and meanings circa the 4th century. Such terms as person, essence, substance, and so forth, have meanings in Greek at the time which were modified from Aristotle and his followers, and then as we get to the Scholastics, modified again, and frankly read today may have no nexus to the reality of the time and place of these arguments. I would like to have seen some discussion of this issue, one which I have struggled with in trying to understand early 7th century works. Add to this the complexity of meanings as one crosses the Mediterranean, from Constantinople to Alexandria, then to Syria and beyond.

Overall Rubenstein does a great job for a book of this type. The writing is clear, focused, organized. The explanation and very reasonable and the interplay with the Greek is included. For anyone interested in the battle with Christology this is a superb beginning.

Creeds and their enforcement are sensitive issues. The Eastern Orthodox Church still has core differences, and even amongst Western churches there are material discrepancies. Thus public shows of reciting one Creed or another can and do often result in conflicts, often based upon gross ignorance of the underlying issues. Rubenstein adds to our understanding greatly.

No Horse in the Race, But...

I know the Nicene Creed and its derivatives somewhat well. It and its changes resulted in the break in the Church with the Orthodox going one way and the Romans the other. It frankly is a contentious document. But The Washington Post seems to make a big issue over the Presidents failure to make a public attestation to another variant of this old Doctrine.

The article states:

The Creed came about two-thirds through the service, shortly after the homily. While it’s a standard part of an Episcopal funeral, it’s not always said during high-profile funerals at the Cathedral; it depends on the wishes of the person who passed. U.S. Sen. John McCain was raised in the denomination but the Creed wasn’t said at his funeral earlier this year. Bush specifically wanted a proper, formal Episcopal service, some involved with the planning said. Most Christians (or those who have been to church, especially a baptism or funeral) have heard the Apostles' Creed. There are varying translations, but its few lines include something like: “I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. … I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.”

In fact having such a set of specific statements would most likely be supporting a State Religion more than likely opposed by a few from other or no religions. You see this Creed has specific forms for many different Christian sects. The Roman Catholic one is different as is the Orthodox. Would reciting it in public make one an apostate? I leave that to professional theologians, it is well beyond my twelve years of study.

I even remember from my childhood that it was a sin to be seen in a Protestant service. I needed permission to go to a Cub Scout Pack at a Protestant church. In those days it would have appeared as if I were as an eight year old supporting this variant.

On the other-hand the same paper may have complained if he did not join in singing Deutschland Uber Alles at a rally in Munich. Thou doth protest too much perhaps.

Oh and by the way:

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα
πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν·
καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν
τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ,
γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ
τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρος
Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ,
Φῶς ἐκ Φωτός,
Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ,
γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα,
ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί,
δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο
τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ,
τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, καὶ
διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν,

κατελθόντα,
καὶ σαρκωθέντα,
καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,
παθόντα,
καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ,
ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς,
ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς.
καὶ εἰς τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα.
Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας Ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν,
καὶ Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν,
καὶ ὅτι Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων εγένετο,
ἢ Ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς φάσκοντας εἶναι
ἢ κτιστόν
ἢ τρεπτόν
ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ,
τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία.

It should also be noted that this creed was mandated by Emperor Constantine. The reason was massive positions on Jesus his person, soul, etc. Massive heresies were afoot and actual wars was resulting from the differences in opinions. Constantine then used this creed, as he approved it, to say what was correct. It was in Greek. Then is was modified by multiple meetings thereafter with Greek wording moving into Latin. Differences between Christ as man, God, both, became considerable. Also clearly if one were a non Nicene adhering Christian one would not and could not say this creed. It would be akin to having a Russian hockey team recite the Pledge of Allegiance or worse. Perhaps those who knew something bout this would comment, not just those throwing stones. The Creed has had a rather rocky road for 1700 plus years.

More Papal Infallibility

The Pope and the Professor by Howard is an exceptionally well written book. It details the travails of Prof Dollinger and he fight against Papal Infallibility. Dollinger is an impressive character and the authors presents him and his ideas superbly.

The issue is simple. Is the Pope infallible? Now this issue arises after two thousand years and somehow gets addressed in the midst of the diminution of the Papal States as nationalism reaches its peak. The author takes on a journey examining Dollinger and his thought and intermingles it with the ongoing changes in Europe at this time. We go through the revolutions of 1848, the restructuring of Italy as a single nation, and the Franco Prussian war, a prelude to the 20th century.

In the midst of this is the long venue of Pius IX and the fact that besides being Pope he is also a Prince in charge of the Papal States. A bit of a messy situation as Italy is going through its own revolution with Garibaldi and others.

As a means to establish his primacy Pius proposes a Council, and this gives him the chance to promulgate the infallibility of the Pope, when speaking ex cathedra. Of course this means that when a Pope says something in this manner it must be true.

Overall the author does a splendid job and in today's environment of Catholicism this is an essential read. My main concern is the lack of historical precedence.

For example, Gregory I was a famous Pope, but at the time he was the Bishop of Rome, elected by the people in Rome and subservient to the Emperor in Constantinople and the Bishop in Ravenna. Thus with one of the most famous Popes we see a person not only subject to others but deferential to them in any thing he may postulate or promote. Thus in 600 AD there was no concept of Pope and definitely no idea of infallibility.

Skip to 1328 and Avignon. We have the battle between John XXII and William of Ockham. After Ockham's escape in the night he writes his Work of Ninety Days which demonstrates that John was not only wrong but a heretic! So much for infallibility.

It would have been useful, albeit expanding a bit too much, but place this tale in historical context. However the author presents all of it as it happens at the moment.

In summary, this is a wonderful work, erudite, well written, and telling a tale that must be evaluated in the context of an ever changing papacy.

Papal Infallibility?

Vatican I by O'Malley is a short but superbly written summary of the issue of Papal Infallibility and Vatican I in 1870. The author is a well known Jesuit, and one will see the influence and pervasiveness of the Jesuits throughout. This book does not seem to be a polemic for one side or the other on first reading. It does show how some limitations on the proposed position of Pius IX was attained, namely that he wanted unlimited infallibility and the best the Council could delimit is infallibility on matters stated ex cathedra, namely limited to things the Pope would pronounce as coming from the successor of Peter.

The book is divided into five sections and a conclusion. The author goes back and forth between the issues at the time and those proximate to the Council and integrates them into the decision process. The issues driving Pius IX were the development of nationalism, liberalism, freedom of religion, Protestantism, freedom of the press, and the development of citizens as compared to subjects. Pius IX was one of the last hold outs of the days of divine rights of rulers. As forms of democracy were developing, challenges from socialism and communism were being addressed, Pius IX saw a need to strengthen the papacy.

The author does a reasonably good task at showing the counter efforts such as Gallicanism which was the French approach of running the Church the way the French wanted to. Strangely Gallicanism was present before the Avignon papacy and was intensified during the 14^th century when the Pope was in Avignon. Although not officially part of France at the time the popes then followed the French crown in many ways. Pius IX saw this as an anathema. Thus any extension to the 19^th century would have to be wiped out and Pius did this via his call for infallibility.

Even more compelling was the fact that when all of the issues started with Pius he was also a head of state with his dominion over the Papal States, the central lands of what was becoming Italy. The Pope owned and controlled most of central Italy and as nationalism was evolving his control was under attack. Eventually just months after the Council declared his infallibility Rome was invaded and taken over by the Italian nationalists, thus Italy was effectively formed as a nation.

The author blends these facts in a well presented narrative. He also brings to the fore the opposition of many of the theologians, often non-clerical and German, who opposed this infallibility dicta. Key amongst them would be Dollinger, a Bavarian theologian strongly opposed to this new idea. In fact many of the best theologians were opposed since there was no basis and furthermore the Conciliar theories dominated, namely such decisions were made by Church Councils, bishops in concert, and not singularly by a Pope.

Overall the books is superb. However one can raise a few issues:

1. The Jesuits played a key role in supporting Pius. The author's document is replete with references and the author himself is a Jesuit. The rule of the Jesuits frankly should have been more detailed, for their role was to support the Pope and as such infallibility would logically strengthen their positions, somewhat.

2. Infallibility took almost two millennia to be stated. As such one would wonder why no one ever thought of this before? The Councils were always a way to reach doctrinal decisions. But now one ascribes such a singular power to a singular man. This is certainly questionable give the cast of characters who have occupied the seat of Peter over the ages.

3. As with many such efforts one should be drawn back to the 14^th century and the battles between John XXII and Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham. Ockham went as far in his Work of Ninety Days to claim John a heretic. His contention has merit. Marsilius predated Montesquieu in the ideas of representative governments and the fact that divine rights had no basis. The 14^th century players frankly should be mentioned in many of these discussions.

Overall O'Malley provides a timely, well written, and balanced presentation of Vatican I, a Council whose closure never occurred due to the capture of Rome by the Italian forces. O'Malley in the conclusion makes reference to the impact of this dictum, such as the problems Kennedy had running for President, for the dictum was interpreted as making Catholics citizens of a foreign lord and master and demanded fealty to their assertions.

The Vatican and Politics

Over the last two thousand years the Vatican, or the Papal forces wherever they may have been located (like Avignon), have ventured into politics. Each time they do so they seem to strike a multiplicity of hornet nests. Add to this mix the Jesuitical philosophy and sophistic speculations on various individuals and you have a rather messy mix. John Paul II was on the verge of banning the Jesuits with their extreme proponents of Liberation Theology (see Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation, Orbis, 1996).

Now comes the current Bishop of Rome and his minions declaring that major portions of American Religious groups are Manichean. To be a Manichean one must believe in gods of good and gods of evil and they are at war with one another.

Along comes the Vatican noting as follows:

Religion has had a more incisive role in electoral processes and government decisions over recent decades, especially in some US governments. It offers a moral role for identifying what is good and what is bad. At times this mingling of politics, morals and religion has taken on a Manichaean language that divides reality between absolute Good and absolute Evil. In fact, after President George W. Bush spoke in his day about challenging the “axis of evil” and stated it was the USA’s duty to “free the world from evil” following the events of September 11, 2001.  Today President Trump steers the fight against a wider, generic collective entity of the “bad” or even the “very bad.” Sometimes the tones used by his supporters in some campaigns take on meanings that we could define as “epic.” These stances are based on Christian-Evangelical fundamentalist principles dating from the beginning of the 20^th Century that have been gradually radicalized. These have moved on from a rejection of all that is mundane – as politics was considered – to bringing a strong and determined religious-moral influence to bear on democratic processes and their results.

There is no basis for this set of conclusions. Frankly it is sophistic and polemical and lacking of the slightest scholastic insight. Then they state:

A third element, together with Manichaeism and the prosperity gospel, is a particular form of proclamation of the defense of “religious liberty.” The erosion of religious liberty is clearly a grave threat within a spreading secularism. But we must avoid its defense coming in the fundamentalist terms of a “religion in total freedom,” perceived as a direct virtual challenge to the secularity of the state.

 The authors grossly misunderstand the concept of religious freedom in the United States. Unlike France, which proclaims itself to be totally secular, ironically a result of the extensive interference of the Jesuits against the Government and even the people of France, in the US we have an express right of religious freedom devoid of any interference of the state.

Then the authors make the following statement:

There is a shocking rhetoric used, for example, by the writers of Church Militant, a successful US-based digital platform that is openly in favor of a political ultraconservatism and uses Christian symbols to impose itself. This abuse is called “authentic Christianity.” And to show its own preferences, it has created a close analogy between Donald Trump and Emperor Constantine, and between Hilary Clinton and Diocletian. The American elections in this perspective were seen as a “spiritual war."

  Humorous, yes, but reflective of all Americans, hardly! Now they also note:

Pastor Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001) is the father of so-called “Christian reconstructionism” (or “dominionist theology”) that had a great influence on the theopolitical vision of Christian fundamentalism. This is the doctrine that feeds political organizations and networks such as the Council for National Policy and the thoughts of their exponents such as Steve Bannon, currently chief strategist at the White House and supporter of an apocalyptic geopolitics.

  Guilt by association? Possibly. 

One wonders why the Vatican has taken up a battle against the U.S. Not really if one truly understand South American Jesuits!

A Well Done Presentation of an Important Movement

The book by Fenton, Religious Liberties: Anti-Catholicism and Liberal Democracy in Nineteenth-Century U.S. Literature and Culture, is an interesting, valuable and well done work discussing the existence of and impact of the anti-Catholicism in the United States. It is the result of a doctoral thesis and as such reads somewhat like one but is is readily accessible and to the point. The author argues that the anti-Catholicism was a major factor in shaping our democracy during this period.

She begins with a summary of the work and that section is well worth the read. Then she discusses the Canadian issue regarding French speaking Quebec and the rules that allowed them to practice Catholicism. On the one hand the "Founders" of the US had considered attracting all of Canada as well as the Colonies but the very presence of a potentially ever expanding Catholic only area was of significant concern. On p 31 the author introduces Thomas Paine and his considerations related thereto. Paine argued that the Inquisition, that Church State chimera, was a problem just because it was a fusing together of the Church and State. Thus because there was a dread among Protestants of the Inquisition, especially as exercised by Spain, then the issue was not the exercise of religion in a private sense, but the politicization of religion in any sense. His conclusion were two fold. First people should be able to practice whatever religion they wanted in private. Second, there must be no nexus between politics and religion, between the state and the church. The author's presentation is exceptionally lucid here and it exemplifies how many of the Enlightenment types were capable of excelling above their inborn prejudices.

The author then moves on to the Constitution and discussion of Madison. On p 43 is the discussion of republics, their size and their viability. Montesquieu is discussed as being the prime source. It can be argued by many, including Ullmann, that these ideas well preceded Montesquieu with 14th century writers such as Marsilius  of Padua. Again on p. 55 Paine is quoted as stating that the American priest is as good a citizen as any.

The author continues discussing the well known 19th century anti-Catholics such as Mark Twain, who seemed to be anti everything, and Nathaniel Hawthorne. Hawthorne's book, The Marble Faun, is a typical example of the aggressive anti-Catholicism of the New England "elite" which infested Boston and its environs.

Overall it is a well written and well argued piece and worth reading to better understand the 19th century and its connection to what the Founders managed to put in the Constitution and why. However it would have been of interest to see this stretched a bit to the 20th century. From the rejection of Al Smith to the election of Kennedy. Also it would have been interesting to examine the same strong anti Catholicism of academics such as Dewey and Hofstadter. There was a whole class of "Intellectuals" whose main focus was the expression and exercise of mass anti-Catholicism. The two aforementioned, both at Columbia, demonstrate the very institutional attitude of that University well through the 1960s. For example, while I got into MIT, I was denied admission to Columbia because I was educated at a Catholic secondary school. That was told me in a three page single spaced letter from the Dean. A far cry from what anyone would do today! Thus this work takes us far, but not all the way!

Ockham versus the Scholastics

Friedman’s book, Medieval Trinitarian Thought, is an exceptionally accessible work discussing the complex issue of the Christian concept of the Trinity. Many of the early heresies in the Christian Church dealt with what was interpreted as false views on what the Trinity was. The complexity of the Trinity is driven by the acceptance of Jesus as God but also man and the incorporation of the Holy Spirit as a separate manifestation of God. The former was a result of the acceptance of the four Gospels, especially that of John and the latter the acceptance of the Acts of Paul. The complexity was further complicated by the inclusion of Greek philosophical thought and terms of philosophical understanding that became the tools to make this interpretation.

It was left to Augustine to lay for the Western Church a foundation that lasted almost a millennium until Aquinas delved into the process again in the 13^th Century. To some degree the development ends as so many of these pursuits with Ockham. Ockham rejects the Academics and states that one can accept the Trinity sola fide, on faith alone. It is Ockham who introduces the concepts of Nominalism, the importance and criticality of the individual, the ability to rely on faith, and of course his accusation of heresy to the Pope in Avignon.

The Aquinas versus Ockham debate is first framed as the Dominican versus Franciscan debate. In Chapter 1 the author in the clearest of terms describes the debate. Here we have the Dominicans trying to rely on Aristotelean constructs and speak of the Trinity as a familiar set of relationships. The Franciscans take a more ethereal approach and lay out the emanation approach. It is Ockham, a Franciscan, who takes the ultimate extreme of rejecting both and stating that faith alone carries the day. This is a brilliantly written Chapter, one of the best I have seen addressing this debate. It may have been improved if it has a preface discussing Augustine a bit more and also the early Church debates, but that in no way detracts from the presentation.

Chapter 2 discusses the Psychological Model, or as the author states on pp 50-51 that the Son is literally the Concept of the Father and the Holy Spirit is the Love produced by the will shared by the Father and the Son. The author clearly explains the evolution of this approach via John’s Gospel and the use of the term logos. In Latin the term is verbum and yet there may be a slight but material difference between the two terms. There is a brief integration of the Augustine thought on this approach.

Chapter 3 discusses the Trinity and Metaphysical thought. Chapter 4 is a key chapter; it introduces Ockham and sola fide. This is an especially clear and well written presentation. The author examines Gilson, the French Neo-Scholastic, and presents a well-structured Gilsonian analysis and contrasts it to Ockham. Whereas Gilson is a Thomist, and Thomism has persevered in classic Catholicism, the Ockham school does lend itself to a bifurcation of Scholastic approach into one that faith exists and can play a vital role to that attempt to use reason to explain all the nuances introduced in the New Testament.

Overall I would highly recommend this exceptional book. Although it deals with a highly complex and specialized issued, it does so fairly and in a quite readable manner. It is not a classic heavy tome of Scholastic formalism but a clearly articulated discussion of a core principle of Christin belief.

Foreign Policy and the Church

Foreign Policy and treaty negotiations is really complex. In my experience back in the 1970s working on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty with the then Soviets I learned that nothing is necessarily as it appears to be. Later while having one of my companies in Russia I was able to add some dimensions to that complexity. Now add to that the Iranian situation, I also had some folks there as well before the revolution, I could see that nothing is really what it may appear to be.

The main interests should be the security of US interests and furthermore a stable world situation is good for all. But we now have many wild cards. Iran is one and unfortunately so is Russia. China has its own games to play and it is not clear that having an unstable Middle East is good or bad for them.

Now add to the mix the US Bishops who for reasons known only to them have written Congress asking approval of a phantom deal. Nothing is in writing, and in fact what was oral was denied by the other side. But the Bishops write:

Despite the challenges, it is vital to continue to foster an environment in which all parties can build mutual confidence and trust in order to work towards a final accord that enhances peace. For this reason, our Committee continues to oppose Congressional efforts that seek to undermine the negotiation process or make a responsible multi-party agreement more difficult to achieve and implement. The alternative to an agreement leads toward armed conflict, an outcome of profound concern to the Church. We welcome the most recent step the United States and its international partners have taken with Iran and encourage our nation to continue down this path. Now is the time for dialogue and building bridges which foster peace and greater understanding. We urge Congress to support these efforts.

Nice but  I recall the days of Soviet nuclear threats and plans such as RISOP 9B, a total devastation of humanity by some insane nuclear power. As I had said in the late 1970s regarding the USSR and its positioning, one must be vary careful who to trust, even more so, trust but verify is perhaps not enough.

The old MAD, mutual assured destruction, plan of Kahn and the others in the 1960s made sense only if the other side wanted to survive. If on the other hand the other side is seeking total destruction as some religious salvation, then one may face a true dilemma. From Xerxes onwards we have been in a push and shove with Persia. Now add a religious element and it makes it ever so more threatening. This is not the distribution of loaves to the poor. This is a matter of the survival of civilization.