Talk:Thomas Aquinas/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

2004

Hello. You may notice that I have moved the text copied from the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia to the Summa Theologica article. (Actually exactly the same text was already there, but unwikified.) I think Wikipedia only needs one copy of that text, and it seems more appropriate in the article dedicated to Summa Theologica alone. Other works by Thomas Aquinas should also get their own articles, I think. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 04:23, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Existing text of talk page as of today. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:23, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


This appears to be copyrighted material from http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/aquinas.htm

Is it or is it not copyrighted?


They seem to have imported it from the same public domain source and I notice that they haven't done as good a job as Alan Millar has been doing. see this sentence on that link:

But from another side God is the cause of all things, so he is efficacious also in sin as *-ctio but not as ens.

and here:

But from another side God is the cause of all things, so he is efficacious also in sin as actio but not as ens.

Both theirs and ours are from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religion, available online and public domain. Alan Millar has been importing lots of it for wikification. --MichaelTinkler.

One awkward thing about importing these old encyclopedia articles is all the internal cross-references to other encyclopedia articles. Ideally, someone (who, me?) would go through and either remove the cross-references or, even better, link them to the appropriate wikipedia article. --Wesley

Welcome to wikification, Wesley! That's the process. If you'd like to see one that is reasonably complete, look at Tertullian. Alan is importing lots of these, and he and others of us are plowing through them. Edit at the same time. These arebase texts - it's sure better than anyone here can do as fast as we're expanding wikipedia, but they're not perfect. For instance, one element of fact that needs to be updated in this entry is the section on authentic vs. inauthentic works; scholarly opinion has shifted on some of them. Another thing - the tone of the Schaff-Herzog, though fairly middle of the road for a 19th c. resource, needs a bit of NPOV and a lot of explanation; the vocabulary is less tricky than the 1880s and 1910s Britannicas, but it still needs work. Edit and wikify away! --MichaelTinkler

fixed old sig

I have reverted the newest version of this article to a previous revision for the following reasons:

  • Critics of Aquinas should be allowed to have final say in the section entitled "Modern criticism." Admirers of Aquinas have the rest of the article to make their case.
    • [You must not incorporate sarcasm into an encyclopedia, nor mark entries as m when they are major 207.192.130.197 16:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)]
  • The newest version lacked clarity. It strongly appeared as though the editor was deliberately trying to complicate a simple issue with circumlocution.
    • [St. Thomas wrote complicated things; the metaphysical and philosophical relations among things are complex 207.192.130.197 16:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)]
  • Masturbation is "gravely disordered." Rape is "intrinsically evil." The editor utterly fails to show how the phrase "gravely disordered" is meant as a harsher condemnation that "intrinsically evil."
    • [This is a reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: it is not the job of a Catechism to show metaphysical or philosophical relations among things 207.192.130.197 16:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)]
  • The editor suggests that the gravity of all sins is mitigated when the sinner is unaware that he is committing a sin. The author then suggests that the reason this was added to the paragraph on masturbation but not to the paragraph about rape is because everyone already knows rape is a sin, so there is no reason to point this out. The editor omits the fact that there are additional factors that may lessen or extenuate the moral culpability of masturbation, and these additional factors do not apply to rape. "Force of acquired habit" is a valid excuse for masturbation, but not rape.
    • [The editor is writing about theology, which in Catholicism includes the need for awareness that something is grave matter before it is culpable 207.192.130.197 16:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)]
  • The editor suggests the final sentence of paragraph 2352 was meant pastorally (as advice), not theologically (as doctrine). Obviously, it was meant as both. Advice on how to behave springs from beliefs on what is good and what is bad. If it wasn't meant doctrinally, it wouldn't have been in the Catechism in the first place. Pope John Paul II called the Catechism "a sure norm for teaching the faith," not "a good book of pastoral advice." And the fact that the Catechism is shorter than the Summa Theologica is irrelevant.
    • [There is a social difference in how people regard rape and masturbation, and the Catechism is intended to reach people and help bring them into the Catholic faith. Therefore it must take account of what people know. St. Thomas labors under no such burden, so he can simply expound the relations among things directly. 207.192.130.197 16:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)]
  • On a personal note, I would suggest that anyone who entertains the notion that masturbation is a graver sin than rape has never met a rape victim and seen the absolute devastation it causes. That a God would consider the waste of a few cubic centimeters of semen a graver crime than a horrendous violation of a human being is clearly contrary to what the Catechism teaches, as well as all human decency. I would also suggest that the editor ask his mother her opinion. Phrase it like this: "Mom, if I raped you, wouldn't that be less evil than masturbating?" If the editor's mother is deceased, I would suggest he ask a nun.

Adding sig I neglected before: Darnel, a.k.a. 198.81.26.15

    • [St. Thomas provides a theological study, not a list-out of what people consider morally acceptable. 207.192.130.197 16:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)]

I think this article is too technical for a general purpose encyclopedia. It's fine for maybe a theology graduate, but I have a mere BSc and it largely reads as theo-babble, defining his work in terms of a dozen things I've never heard of. My question was, "What was St Thomas Aquinas known for?" and a general purpose encyclopedia page really should have a couple-paragraph explanation for that without me having to learn what the theo-technical meanings of "exegetical, homiletical, and liturgical, dogmatic, apologetic, ethical and philosophical" are. -- User:Daniel MacKay [The page points to entries explaining words that are complex, and it is safe for people to get a taste of how St. Thomas actually wrote. Also, the issue of St. Thomas on masturbation is one that is not really treated in an accessible way elsewhere on the internet. Furthermore your efforts to alter the entry are inflected with heavy sarcasm; that really has no place in an encyclopedia. 207.192.130.197 16:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)]

207.192.130.197

First, please don't put your comments in between the paragraphs of other editors'. It makes the discussion extremely difficult to read. If you want to reply to another editor in context, you can quote them using italic text.

Secondly, I have removed nearly all the material under "Modern Criticism" because it is not encyclopedaic -- rather, it has the tone of a paper or article that argues for particular conclusions. This is certainly terrific and valuable work, and I encourage you to publish it elsewhere on the internet, or on your User page here -- however, it does not fit in an encylopedia. To that end, I have deleted that section, and archived it as Talk:Thomas Aquinas/Modern Criticism. Please don't take it personally -- your work is excellent, it's just not encylopedaic. — Adam Conover † 18:04, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

After seeing your response, I must commend you for your sensible handling of what could have been a very contentious issue. You're a great Wikipedian! :) — Adam Conover † 18:30, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Aquinas Highschool in Rochester New, York is named after Thomas Aquinas.

Thomas Aquinas is importnat because of his incorrect view if the space time historic fall in the garden. Aquina's believed only the 'will' of man was fallen and that mans intellect was not affected by the fall. This lead to a natural theology and also set up and area of autonomy in mans intellect. The framework for a humanist society begins here with Thomas Aquinas. His natural theology involves attempting to answer mans problems beggining with man as the sole integration point for finding all knowledge and truth. Plato knew for true morals to exist there must exist a true moral absolute otherwise we would have only arbitrary laws. Plato never found his universal. Leonardo Davinci also tried to find his universal that explained all that we see and know. He also failed. These men as a result of Thomas Aquinas' incorrect view of the fall in the garden all failed to find a unified field of knowledge. Aquinas may be famous to the Catholics, but he is the father of natural theology and he was responsible for setting up an area of autonomy in man. Catholicism is basically theistic evolution. The Vatican teaches that humans first began as monkeys and developed into what we are today. God intervened at a certain point and so we have the Church. However, Catholicism is the opposite of protestantism in the the protestant was looking to the Bible for answers, the Catholics began with man and not the Bible. If you look a Catholic countries you will see atrocities and unjustice on a mamoth scael. This is because when you begin with monkeys, it is not so difficult to watch them die. This is the Catholic humanist system.

Darnel's Replies to 207

  • St. Thomas wrote complicated things; the metaphysical and philosophical relations among things are complex.

Masturbation is either worse than rape or it isn't. How is that complex?

  • This is a reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: it is not the job of a Catechism to show metaphysical or philosophical relations among things.

If the Catechism wasn't interested in showing the relative difference in sinfulness between masturbation and rape, it wouldn't have called one "gravely disordered" and the other "intrinsically evil;" it would have simply said that both are bad.

  • The editor is writing about theology, which in Catholicism includes the need for awareness that something is grave matter before it is culpable.

The editor just did it again: he ignored all of the other additional factors that extenuate the moral culpability of masturbation. The editor seems to have difficulty dealing with the issues head-on, instead choosing to rely on transparently bogus attempts at verbal prestidigitation in the hopes of distracting the readers from his argument's weaknesses.

  • There is a social difference in how people regard rape and masturbation, and the Catechism is intended to reach people and help bring them into the Catholic faith. Therefore it must take account of what people know. St. Thomas labors under no such burden, so he can simply expound the relations among things directly.

So? Again, you're only dealing with one of the factors that extenuate the culpability of masturbation, and ignoring those that hamper your argument, such as maturity. Infants masturbate; are you really claiming that infants are committing a graver sin than rape?

  • St. Thomas provides a theological study, not a list-out of what people consider morally acceptable.

I agree, but so what? Both the Catechism and the Summa Theologica are theological studies, not guides to contemporary behavior. Unfortunately, they contradict each other. And I will also take that remark to mean you're afraid to ask your mother what I suggested, probably because you are unable to reconcile what the Church has taught and the dictates of your conscience. I hope it doesn't take the rape of a loved one to make you see the error of your heartless philosophy.

Darnel 13:03, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Darnel Suddenly Realizes Something Important

Some people cannot be swayed by logical arguments or appeals to human decency; they have their faith, you are their persecutor and that's the end of it. To argue with them is to argue with a brick wall.

I'm not going to stick around to hear the latest reply from 207. I've met my migraine quota.

That's all, folks. It's been fun.

Darnel 12:14, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

A previous contributor wrote:

"The modern Church seems to differ with Aquinas on another issue, and that is the use of torture. Aquinas said: "Hence just as by public authority a person is lawfully deprived of life altogether on account of certain more heinous sins, so is he deprived of a member on account of certain lesser sins" (Secunda Secundae Partis, Article 65, Part 1) QUOTE. The Catechism, by contrast, says: "Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity" (paragraph 2297 QUOTE)."

This would appear to be an incoherent statement, as what Aquinas said does not imply the use of torture. Aquinas referred to the "consent of the owner" as a necessary precondition, stressing furthermore that "it is always possible to further one's spiritual welfare otherwise than by cutting off a member, because sin is always subject to the will". Additionally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not parallel to the Summa Theologica, as the former is a summary of faith and the latter is a treatise that delves into greater detail. Since the contributor appears not to have understood the matter on which he commented, this section should be excised from the entry. Trc | [msg] 22:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Some would say, however, that St. Thomas clashes not only with contemporary ethics, but apparently with the newest version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well. The Catechism refers to masturbation as "gravely disordered" (paragraph 2352) and rape as "intrinsically evil" (paragraph 2356). Some interpret this as a direct repudiation of Aquinas' hierarchy of sin; some do not."

Anyone who would say this doesn't know too much about the history of what the Catholic church has taught. Of course the modern Catechism differs from Aquinas since almost all the theologians and clergy of the church since Vatican II have held radically different beliefs then what preceded them. Not just in the order of how bad masturbation is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.124.242.129 (talk • contribs) 11 June 2004 .

Is the Automata thing real? I can't find anything to back it up, and it doesn't seem to exist in any other translation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brubakerj (talk • contribs) 11 December 2004.