Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic Word of the Day: NEO-SCHOLASTICISM, 12-27-11 ^ | 12-27-11 | Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary,

Posted on 12/27/2011 9:38:23 AM PST by Salvation

Featured Term (selected at random):


The name given by certain Scholastic philosophers to the revival of medieval Scholasticism since the beginning of the twentieth century. These Catholic thinkers wished to revive among the public and for the people's use the teachings of the great Scholastics of the past, bringing their theories up to date and putting them in touch with modern scientific research. They do not aim to revive unchanged systems of medieval Scholasticism but rather to harmonize modern science with the fundamental doctrines and principles of this school of thought especially as related to the physical world. The movement was begun in Italy and Germany even before 1879, when Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Aeterni Patris gave the movement a major impetus by his approbation. Since then it has become developed, especially in Catholic circles.

All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.

TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: catholic; science
Can science EVER explain faith?
1 posted on 12/27/2011 9:38:28 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper; Allegra; BlackVeil; Straight Vermonter; Cronos; SumProVita; AnAmericanMother; ...

Catholic Word of the Day – links will be provided later by another FReeper.  (Would anyone like to help with this?)




Opus Dei



In Synodo Episcopali

Universal Bishop







Precious Blood


Transitional Diaconate


Winged Lion

Society of Precious Blood

St. Michael Scapular

Restored Nature





Physical Miracle

Epistle of James



Knowledge of God







Catholic Word of the Day Ping!

If you aren’t on this Catholic Word of the Day Ping list and would like to be, please send me a FReepmail.

2 posted on 12/27/2011 9:40:45 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Can science EVER explain faith?

That's not really the problem. Scholasticism was greatly informed by the Metaphysics of Aristotle and by others of his works. For the most part this worked very well.

But Aristotle's physics were not the best and his biology was sometimes, um, fanciful would be a nice way of saying it.

So even though Thomas's teacher, Albertus Magnus, was very keen on the importance of observation, the real and important distinction between the empirical sciences/the philosophy of science/other sorts of philosophy was not clearly or usefully delineated.

Among the interesting results and consequences is Aquinas's rejection of the Immaculate Conception which was based on his faulty understanding of embryology. In general he thought that the semen (remember, not much of a notion of cellular critters like gametes) provided the "form" -- that which made a human a human, while the woman provided the "matter" -- that which has informed, you might say and thus became human. So he would have argued against abortion because it was perverse, but not because the conceptus was human right away. We understand now that a human zygote is human from the instant of fertilization.

(These days embryology from a moral point of view is corrupted by the metaphysics of the left.)

SO, because the conceptus was not really human, neither sin nor moral innocence really applied, therefore Mary could not have been immaculately conceived. The "Immaculateness" would have had to wait for 40 days or so.

So of course, science doesn't explain faith, but it can help refine it and its expression.

For the sake of rigor: everything I said about Aquinas, Mary, and embryology I did NOT learn from primary sources but from various teachers. I'm just passing on info more than vouching for it.

3 posted on 12/27/2011 11:49:35 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Jesus, I trust in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
The irony being that most scientists claim they don’t have a metaphysics. But if you want to know what it is, you can read Hume, or just look at the Startrek character “Data”. Their presupposition is that the only knowledge is what is quantifiable. So B.F. Skinner’s is the only possible psychology. All human qualities are ruled out.
4 posted on 12/27/2011 11:12:03 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

They build on sand, their edifices change with every tide.

5 posted on 12/28/2011 6:26:45 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Jesus, I trust in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson