Thank you for this. Throws very helpful light on the whole context of all of Ratzinger's (BXVI) work. It's inspiring and hopefully a gem to be emulated by those currently with a vocation to intellectual work.
Highly recommend a course via the ICC (institute of Catholic Culture). It’s called Catholic Political Thought. It is taught by Dr. Chad Pecknold. …he explains this topic well in one of the lessons. The course is free and well worth your time. 🙏❤️
You mention that some bloggers express being angry with Pope Benedict for resigning from the Papacy and how unfair this assessment of his decision was and is. Too many Catholic bloggers seem incapable of understanding the depth spirituality in Joseph Ratzinger. As for myself, I recommend for them to grow spiritually. They may end up seeing many things much clearer.
All I ever wanted in line was to be a humble educational philosopher and music professor, but God called me not to be pope, but a middle school teacher. So I guess there are worse plans for a life.
A good topic for our consideration, thanks for featuring this, Dr. Chapp, and I wish Fr Ayre well with his dissertation work! I agree with one of the other commenters below that Ayre doesn't seem to have represented Frs. Conedera and Strand's very interesting, carefully argued work so far on this theme very well. Perhaps Dr. Chapp could invite one (or both at once?) of those thoughtful Jesuits on for a follow-up podcast?
As someone who has wrestled with Strand and Conedera's work, I find that this podcast did not do it justice. At the very least Fr. Harrison needs to read the original article, and not merely the article that responded to criticisms. The title of the response article is, "Ratzinger’s Republic: Pope Benedict XVI on Natural Law and Church and State." Their whole thrust is centered around natural law (Strand's original article is more concerned with the natural/supernatural debate). Someone listening to this podcast wouldn't even know that natural law is implicated, much less central.
Your guest's audio is almost always very faint, while yours is robust. I have no idea if this can be fixed via Zoom or whatever software you are using. Unless the listener quickly adjusts audio each time the guest speaks, we often lose a lot of what he says. This seems to be true of most of your podcasts.
I agree that Enlightenment claimed that reason told them that they had right to life, liberty, propert, but that was based in part on church heritage. But, self government was not based on church teaching. Neither were representative government, separation of powers or abolition of slavery, emacipation of women and homosexuals.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](/img/n.gif)
Thank you for this. Throws very helpful light on the whole context of all of Ratzinger's (BXVI) work. It's inspiring and hopefully a gem to be emulated by those currently with a vocation to intellectual work.
Thomson Jefferson wrote: "We hold these truths to be sacred" - Benjamin Franklin changed it to: "We hold these truths to be self-evident" (44:54)
Highly recommend a course via the ICC (institute of Catholic Culture). It’s called Catholic Political Thought. It is taught by Dr. Chad Pecknold. …he explains this topic well in one of the lessons. The course is free and well worth your time. 🙏❤️
Whoa. 57:13. I have long thought this, Father! God bless!
You mention that some bloggers express being angry with Pope Benedict for resigning from the Papacy and how unfair this assessment of his decision was and is. Too many Catholic bloggers seem incapable of understanding the depth spirituality in Joseph Ratzinger. As for myself, I recommend for them to grow spiritually. They may end up seeing many things much clearer.
All I ever wanted in line was to be a humble educational philosopher and music professor, but God called me not to be pope, but a middle school teacher. So I guess there are worse plans for a life.
A good topic for our consideration, thanks for featuring this, Dr. Chapp, and I wish Fr Ayre well with his dissertation work! I agree with one of the other commenters below that Ayre doesn't seem to have represented Frs. Conedera and Strand's very interesting, carefully argued work so far on this theme very well. Perhaps Dr. Chapp could invite one (or both at once?) of those thoughtful Jesuits on for a follow-up podcast?
❤
As someone who has wrestled with Strand and Conedera's work, I find that this podcast did not do it justice. At the very least Fr. Harrison needs to read the original article, and not merely the article that responded to criticisms.
The title of the response article is, "Ratzinger’s Republic: Pope Benedict XVI on Natural Law and Church and State." Their whole thrust is centered around natural law (Strand's original article is more concerned with the natural/supernatural debate). Someone listening to this podcast wouldn't even know that natural law is implicated, much less central.
Your guest's audio is almost always very faint, while yours is robust. I have no idea if this can be fixed via Zoom or whatever software you are using. Unless the listener quickly adjusts audio each time the guest speaks, we often lose a lot of what he says. This seems to be true of most of your podcasts.
I had trouble hearing Father Harrison too.
I agree that Enlightenment claimed that reason told them that they had right to life, liberty, propert, but that was based in part on church heritage. But, self government was not based on church teaching. Neither were representative government, separation of powers or abolition of slavery, emacipation of women and homosexuals.
What’s the difference between Post Liberalism and Post Modernism? Way too many “isms” in my opinion.