Time and Eternity
By Brian Leftow
Publisher: Cornell University Press
Review Author: Linda Zagzebski
This book is the most advanced treatment of eternity to date. Brian Leftow critically examines a wide range of material, from Augustine to contemporary discussions. Leftow then presents and defends a new account of a timeless God and his relations to a temporal creation. He argues that his picture of divine timelessness has a number of advantages. It resolves the dilemma of divine foreknowledge and human free will in a way that related views cannot, and it can be defended against major contemporary attacks on timelessness, including the objections that a timeless God is not a person or cannot be the object of human experience. The relations between timelessness and the attributes of omniscience and simplicity are given special attention.
Leftow is in the Anselmian tradition of a high metaphysical view of the deity. On Leftow’s account God is the absolute source of everything that is not God, including time itself. Since God creates time, both God and his act of creation must exist outside of time. This means, Leftow argues, that the product of creation exists in eternity simultaneously with God’s creative act. All temporal beings, then, exist in eternity along with God. The temporality of temporal beings is real, but, following Augustine, Leftow argues that temporal beings are lower in reality than timeless beings, having an existence that is dreamlike in contrast with the reality of God. In eternity, all at once, God knows all that He ever knows, and wills all that He ever wills. This means that He knows events that to us have not yet happened and wills responses to prayers that have not yet been prayed. But in spite of His timelessness, God is actually closer to spatiotemporal creatures than any spatial or temporal creature can be.
The alleged incompatibility of divine foreknowledge and human free will is one of the most long-lived theological problems. In his attempt to resolve the dilemma, Leftow argues that the Boethian view of timelessness, along with its contemporary version expounded by Stump and Kretzmann, is insufficient in that it is committed to the position that in some temporal reference frame the existence of an eternal God’s knowledge is simultaneous with the existence of temporal things. Leftow argues that this implication ruins the Boethian solution to the foreknowledge dilemma, but that the solution can be rescued by the Anselmian view that God and temporal things exist simultaneously in eternity (which allows for the causal connection between God and temporal objects), but not in time.
Leftow then proposes two ways a timeless and simple God could know the free actions of created agents without causally depending on their actions for His knowledge. The first way is quasi-Molinist. God has a full intuitive knowledge of each agent’s nature, and this knowledge permits God to know the agent’s free choice to do A in circumstance C. In the second scenario God does not know what free agents would do. Still, a perfect knowledge of a free agent’s nature may permit God to “predict” just what a free agent will freely choose to do.
Time and Eternity will appeal most to philosophers and theologians who are looking for the latest work on time and timelessness, and who appreciate the metaphysical complexity involved. Those who are inclined to the view that God is temporal will find much to challenge their position, and those who are inclined to the view that God is timeless will find much to illuminate the concept of timelessness — a concept that too often in the history of Christian philosophy has been explicated almost solely by way of metaphor.
Moral Absolutes: Tradition, Revision and Truth
By John Finnis
Publisher: Catholic University of America Press
Review Author: Gerard V. Bradley
One of this year’s movie megahits casts Robert Redford as a buyer of female attention. A million bucks, he says, for a night with the beauteous Demi Moore, who is married, faithfully and happily, to Woody Harrelson. Redford knows it. He offers the money to them for a night with her.
Receipts for what the producers had the decency to call Indecent Proposal approach $100 million. The couple’s earnest deliberations evidently engage. The moviegoer, I suppose, wonders with Demi and Woody: Are there some things that, no matter what, it is never right to do? Are there, in other words, absolute moral prohibitions? Is adultery one of them?
In this formidable volume, Oxford philosopher John Finnis cogently defends the common answer (for millennia, until just a few decades ago) of Jews and Christians: There are moral absolutes. Adultery is among them. It may never be rightly chosen.
Finnis explicates and justifies his claim that the moral absolutes are foundational to Christian life in Chapter 1. “Clarifications” (Chapter 2) contains the most strictly philosophical work in the book, being a very compressed account of some of the main features of the moral theory he has worked out with Germain Grisez and others over the last 20 or so years. This project is in my view the most important philosophical achievement of our time.
Perhaps the central feature of Chapter 3 is the Pauline injunction not to do evil that good may come out of it. It is better, therefore, to suffer wrong than to do it. Chapter 4 is an extended defense of the norm that every marital act ought to be open to new life. This of course is the teaching of Humanae Vitae: Contraception may never be rightly chosen. Finnis argues that whatever else is wrong with the choice to contracept, it necessarily proceeds from and in turn shapes a contralife will.
Contraception is therefore not necessarily a sexual sin, though commonly it is. Note well: Finnis’s defense is controversial even among Catholic moralists who accept the Church’s teaching. Neoscholastic defenders of the teaching, including Janet Smith in a recent book, have sharply challenged the “contralife” defense of Humanae Vitae.
In any event, Finnis is surely right that the “formal attack on the moral absolutes emerges, among Catholics, in response to the problem of contraception.” The alternative moral calculus most often proposed by dissenters is some kind of proportionalism, which characteristically holds that the right action is the one likely to produce a better state of affairs — the highest net benefit — of premoral goods. Most proportionalists agree that, say, adultery is wrong. But not always. Suppose that Demi and Woody have a handicapped infant who needs an expensive operation, or wish to fund research into the causes of marital breakup.
Finnis devotes considerable space to refuting proportionalism. There can be no doubt after reading Moral Absolutes that proportionalism is not only heterodox but senseless.
It is interesting to note that there is no necessary connection between the Grisez-Finnis moral theory and conservative Republican positions. Grisez and Finnis have unequivocally condemned our counterpopulation nuclear deterrence strategy, and are quite “liberal” when it comes to redistributive economic programs.
The natural law theory articulated by Grisez and Finnis can stand apart from Christian faith. So by anyone’s reckoning this theory is fit to inhabit the public square. The important point is that, at a time when more and more people (Justice Stevens, Bill Clinton, Ronald Dworkin among them) want to equate objective moral norms with religion, so as to keep them out of the public square via constitutional restrictions or democratic theory, the most rigorous account of moral analysis extant stands athwart them.
The Mystery We Proclaim: Catechesis at the Third Millennium
By Francis D. Kelly
Publisher: Our Sunday Visitor Books
Review Author: Justin Gullekson
Msgr. Kelly’s long career in catechetical ministry provides an interesting backdrop for this short treatise. A respected member of the Catholic religious education establishment, he veers sharply away from much of what that establishment has pushed for the past three decades.
The standard way of doing catechesis in America, as is evident in what comes from publishers such as BrownROA, Benziger, Sadlier, and Silver Burdett & Ginn, is experiential and subjective. Kelly outlines an entirely different approach, one that begins, not with experience, but with the Word as found in Scripture and the Church’s living Tradition as enunciated by her Magisterium. Like the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, which Kelly praises, his pedagogy relies upon God’s reaching out to humanity, rather than humanity’s haphazard efforts to grope toward God.
Kelly draws upon his experience as a consultor to the Redaction Committee for the Catechism, utilizing the very same structure it does in presenting the Catholic faith. He contends that this structure can easily be adapted for specific age groups, and he hopes that catechetical publishing houses will be greatly influenced by the new Catechism. Kelly even provides a method of evaluation: No later than the eighth grade, a student should be able to explain intelligently the articles of the Creed.
There are sentences scattered throughout The Mystery We Proclaim that encapsulate Kelly’s position:
– “Until Catholic catechesis has recovered its true purpose, it will continue to wander from one methodological fad to another and leave behind yet more religious illiteracy.”
– “It is not our role as catechists to pick and choose which doctrines, which moral teachings we will share.”
– “We need to be convinced of the importance of solidly and systematically presenting the full scriptural, doctrinal, and historical content of our faith tradition.”
The only problem with this book is that it is too short and sketchy.
All God's Mistakes: Genetic Counseling in a Pediatric Hospital
By Charles L. Bosk
Publisher: University of Chicago Press
Review Author: Richard J. Lanham
This is a confusing book. It is an account of the work of physicians who are genetic counselors in an (unidentified) hospital from 1976 to 1978 and in 1980, by an ethnographer, “a describer of human cultures.”
The confusion begins with why the author waited so long to publish. He gives no reason, but while the manuscript lay in a drawer for 13 years, the field of genetic counseling changed a good deal.
A genetic counselor calculates the chance of a couple’s having a genetically abnormal baby from their history, or diagnoses such an aberration in a fetus or a newborn. On the basis of this opinion, pregnancy is avoided, an abortion is performed, a neonate is treated or allowed to perish, or he is institutionalized or taken home. At times what is diagnosed is not a genetic abnormality but the sex of the fetus.
Since Bosk’s observations, much social and legal controversy has arisen over this activity, new tools of genetic analysis have been invented, even the professions of the personnel involved have changed. Bosk’s book is not current.
Nor is it focused. The study’s goals are mixed and unrelated (to describe the counselors and the management of clinical authority in a hospitab~ The audience is uncertain. Breezy prose and personal emotions ruin it for professionals; jargon and appurtenances of science (e.g., excessive footnoting) destroy it for the lay reader.
And it is poorly written. Terms are not defined. Extraneous material is stuffed into the text, reminiscent of an undergraduate’s paper trying to bloat itself into respectability. However, if all this is disregarded, Bosk does effectively describe — for anyone interested — the everyday frailties of physicians at work, and parents and doctors conferring as to whether children are to live or die.
Enjoyed reading this?
READ MORE! GET A FREE 7 DAY TRIALSUBSCRIBE TODAY
You May Also Enjoy
Slouching Toward Civil War... A Non-Catholic Views Smorgasborg 'Catholics'... Oxford's Bad Grammar... Chesterton: No Curmudgeon... When Catholic Schools Aren't Catholic... ...
Do we have a means by which to judge between true and false possession? Dr. Jean Lhermitte says yes, we do, to an extent.
Pet Partner... Chimp Child... Church of the Jedi... Here's Your Sign... Pre-empted by the Clowns... Doo Unto Others... Public Toilet Privacy... The Three Little Cowboy Builders