RE: Peter Kreeft
Thanks Therese for your analysis. Jesus chose MORE than 12 disciples and EXTENDS his ministry to far more than Israel.
This is another, as you say, Therese, fatal flaw of Kreeft's crazy arguments against women priests:
Jesus chose WOMEN Apostles and Disciples and creates a new heaven on earth and makes a BIG change in extending his ministry to include WOMEN and Jesus has MORE than 12 disciples, apostles. Mary of Magdala and Junia are women, so is Susanna and Joanna, or does Kreeft want to pretend they are men too! Ridiculous of Kreeft to deny the truth as set out by our Lord Jesus and God.
It is NOT same old same old patriarchial "women are worthless evil Eves" to Jesus.
One of Jesus's first public acts is to SAVE the LIFE of the ADULTRESS and FORGIVE HER. This is a major teaching example of his new minstry that women are equally valuable and not inherently more sinful or less worthy than men.
Kreeft's slander of "feminists" is equally wrong and harmful as much as his wrong ideas about Jesus, priests and the Eucharist. Women can be priests too and sexual intercourse by male only priests (supposedly "celibate?") is NOT what the Eucharist is about despite Kreeft trying to claim that that is what Eucharist is. Yuck, how vile Kreeft is to have such notions and how he slanders the sacred sacrament of Jesus. Feminists are not evil women who hate their wombs or seek abortions and do not want children. The feminists of yesterday who worked hard to get women the vote were not evil women who hated wombs either. Many married women who loved their children and husbands have worked for equality in votes, equality in the workplace and in the law and now in our church. Women contribute to the income of the family and unfortunately some men die or some men leave the family, some men are unfaithful or are homosexuals who leave their wives, , some are irresponsible and women work to support the family. Feminists love men and children too and love their wombs and their femininity. To claim all feminists are like Kreeft writes about them is just hateful rhetoric to slander and demean anyone who disagrees with his bizarre and erroneous ideas. There is no valid theological, scriptural reason or tradition of the church of Jesus Christ and God to exclude women from ordination. The tradition of Jesus and the early church was to have women anointers women preachers, women church leaders, women prophets, as well as men and Paul praises female Apostle Junia, female deacon Phoebe, as well as praising other women leaders. Kreeft's ideas are full or errors and hate and contempt of women and Jesus and do not reflect the Catholic or Christian church. Jesus did not ordain either male or female priests however he gave to women and men the same ministerial tasks that we now call priestly tasks. Equality is the theology of Jesus and not communion eucharist as sexual intercourse enactment carried out by priests like Kreeft claims. That is not the teachings and doctrine of Jesus. God bless from Angelina
RE: Peter Kreeft
I have been following the dialogue about Peter Kreeft. I see mention has been made of the 1975 Pontifical Biblical Commission Report to Pope Paul VI. If you are not familiar with it, a copy of it is here: Report of the Pontifical Biblical Commission
In the late 60's and early 70's, the civil rights movement was on the rise. New voices speaking out for women's rights were a prominent feature on the Church's horizon. Because critics were clamouring, Pope Paul VI identified the need for a definitive, conclusive and rational response to critics charging that Rome was being sexist for failing to open its doors to women priests. Assessing that a thorough review of Scripture might neatly sew up the case, Paul commissioned a study by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) In its Report, the PBC concluded that the ordination of women could NOT be excluded on the basis of Scripture.
If you have questions, please let me know.
with love and blessings,
RE: Peter Kreeft
I've been reflecting a lot about what it is Peter Kreeft means to say when he speaks these words in his lecture: When feminists become saints, we will become their pupils.
Wow. Just as Deborah, Bradley and Angelina point out, Kreeft sure doesn't think much of feminists. His anti-woman sentiment goes much deeper than appears at first glance. He sure doesn't know much about feminists. Is it his suggestion that it is impossible for feminists to be role models to students for what it is to live holy lives? Impossible for feminists to have deep faith in God? Impossible for feminists to be knowledgeable enough about faith to be catechists to others? He comes across as someone who makes blanket negative assumptions about feminists. There are many faith filled ways that feminists are role models for good Christian life. I wonder what Kreeft would say if we asked him about the following feminists:
- Jesus: Just like Leonard and Tony point out, and as acknowleged by John Paul II, Jesus is a feminist. You are right Tony. Based on what Kreeft says, he'd probably kick Jesus right out of the Church!!! Is Peter Kreeft at all familiar with Jesus? or has Kreeft built up his own distorted image of who Jesus is? or is Kreeft familiar with what JPII says about Jesus in his (JPII's) Letter to Women? He point out: 'Unfortunately, we are heirs to a history which has conditioned us to a remarkable extent. In every time and place this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of women. Women's dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented women from truly being themselves, and it has resulted in a spiritual impoverishment of humanity. Certainly it is no easy task to assign the blame for this, considering the many kinds of cultural conditioning which down the centuries have shaped ways of thinking and acting. And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the church, for this I am truly sorry. May this regret be transformed, on the part of the whole church, into a renewed commitment of fidelity to the Gospel vision. When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the Gospel contains an ever relevant message which goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself. Transcending the established norms of his own culture, Jesus treated women with openness, respect, acceptance and tenderness. In this way he honored the dignity which women have always possessed according to God's plan and in his love. As we look to Christ at the end of this second millennium, it is natural to ask ourselves how much of his message has been heard and acted upon.' Jesus is a feminist.
- Mary: the first and best disciple of Jesus was an independent woman of deep Christian faith. She was attentive to God. She acted with God. Her 'yes' to God was freely and independently given. She didn't seek permission from her husband. She takes initiative, makes independent decisions, stands up for herself, sings about liberation for the oppressed, lives a life in the public sphere just as much as the domestic sphere of life. Mary is a feminist.
- the Samaritan woman at the well: an independent thinker, she is the first person in the Gospel of John to engage in theological dialogue with Jesus. Jesus quickly recognises her ability to comprehend what He is about. He commissions her to go off to teach the people -- including men -- of her village. Maybe she is one of the feminists Peter Kreeft talks about: a feminist woman saint who is commissioned by Jesus to be a teacher ot male pupils! The Samaritan woman is a feminist.
The list goes on: Mary and Martha of Bethany, Mary Magdalene, Junia, and on into history -- the Apostle Nina in Georgia, St. Catherine of Siena, Sr. Mary Ward, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Therese of Lisieux.... hmm...and there are also many men in the mix.
Hello Peter Kreeft..... I also have something to say about sexual symbolism and the ecclesiastical common good! Don't run away!
RE: Peter Kreeft
Hi folks. I am not a feminist . I am a mid-western housewife and even I can recognize that this Kreeft is a woman-hating crackpot with wierd ideas about male priests sex acts during mass. Holy Mother of Pearl, this guy is the nut inside the shell!
I do not agree to abortions and I love being a wife, a mother and I love being a woman. Kreeft is so far off base I do not know what planet he is on. I certainly hope his ideas are not new Roman Catholic view of the mass. I am going to inquire of my bishop and try to contact the archbishop too because if this garbage Kreeft spews out is the way the mass is viewed now by priests, this is gross! talk to you later from Janet
RE: Peter Kreeft
Holy Mother of Pearl! Good words. I was thinking Holy Toledo!
RE: Peter Kreeft
Is Peter Kreeft at all familiar with Jesus? or has Kreeft built up his own distorted image of who Jesus is? or is Kreeft familiar with what JPII says about Jesus in his (JPII's) Letter to Women?
Is Kreeft is familiar with Pope John Paul II's Letter to Women
? What do you think?
With love and blessings,
RE: Peter Kreeft
I certainly hope his ideas are not new Roman Catholic view of the mass.
It is good to hear a new voice! My name is Sophie. As moderator of discussions, I am here to serve. If I can be of any help, please let me know. Your comment about 'new ideas' of the Roman Catholic mass caught my eye. A prominent late twentieth century Catholic theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar -- a favourite of Pope John Paul II's -- promotes a similar view to that of Kreeft's. Catholic theologian Dr. Tina Beattie from Britain provides insightful analysis as to how von Balthasar's analysis of the mass (and by extension Kreeft's arguments, too) does violence to the heart of the gospel. If you do speak to your Bishop and Archbishop, you may want to review her article, too. A copy of it is available here: ‘The Female Body and the Sacramental Priesthood in neo-orthodox Catholic Theology’
In her article, Beattie explores:
Beattie exposes Rome's current trend in thinking for what it is when she writes:"through a complex process of symbolic transformation, the patriarchal structures of the church have solidified around a phallocentric theology...[It] makes it almost impossible for a woman to find herself as a symbolic presence in the church’s life. She is more truly than ever before absence, negation and non-being, a body surrendered to animality with no access to the symbols of theological personhood." Beattie's challenge: as an act of fidelity, we must conscientiously resist. llluminating and thought provoking, she'll make you think!
- essentialising masculinity: the sacramental priesthood and the maleness of Christ
- symbolic femininity and the female body
- the phallus, the priesthood, and the symbolic transformation of the mass
We have many more articles in our library from various authors and experts that will help this unfold. I'll take a look around and offer a bit more. In the meantime, welcome aboard! I look forward to hearing from you more.
called to serve and
with love and blessings,
Beattie's main areas of teaching and research are in theologies and theories of gender, symbolism and ethics, and in religion and human rights. Her doctoral research was on the theology and symbolism of the Virgin Mary, and analysis of Christian writings on Mary and Eve in both the early Church and recent Roman Catholic theology. Her thesis formed the basis of her book, God's Mother, Eve's Advocate: A Marian Narrative of Women's Salvation (2002). Her latest contribution, Marian Reader: Resources for the Study of Doctrine And Devotion (Bayou Press) is co-authored with Dr. Sarah Jane Boss. Click here for a partial list of Dr. Beattie's credits
**Related discussions about this theme are found in our threads Bride and Bridegroom in Ephesians? and Women Priests as Viewed from Theology
post edited by Sophie - 2007/04/30 05:13:21
RE: Peter Kreeft
It seems that the idea of a masculine God is more of a pagan notion. Pagan gods (Zeus, Athena, etc.) were distinctly masculine and feminine. In monotheism (Judeo-Christian religion) God is neither male nor female. Both men and women are created in God’s image. There is no special masculine nature of God. God’s nature is in both men and women. Because there is no appropriate pronoun in our language to describe God, the pronoun “he” was used in the inclusive sense of “he and she”, not to confer masculinity to God. Since God is a spiritual being it would not be appropriate to refer to God as “it.”
Peter Kreeft’s ideas of God being masculine contradict my Christian understanding of God as a spiritual being.
RE: Peter Kreeft
Second, Christ, the perfect human image of the Father, is male because God is Father.
Thinking more about what Kreeft is trying to argue. What he says above is absolutely wrong. It goes against scripture, against what Jesus says, against the Catechism, against something shared by Pope John Paul I, etc, etc, ad infinitum, too. This was posted elsewhere showing us that Scripture tells us God is not male:
Female images of God in the Bible:
Genesis 1:26-27 Women and Men created in God’s image
“Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness…So God created humankind in God’s image, in the image of God s/he created them; male and female God created them.”
Hosea 11:3-4 God described as a mother
God: “Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk, I who took them up in my arms; but they did not know that I healed them. I led them with cords of human kindness, with bands of love. I was to them like those who lift infants to their cheeks. I bent down to them and fed them.”
Hosea 13:8 God described as a mother bear
God: “I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs…”
Deuteronomy 32:11-12 God described as a mother eagle
“As an eagle stirs up its nest, and hovers over its young as it spreads its wings, takes them up and bears them aloft on its pinions, the Lord alone guided him…”
Deuteronomy 32:18 God who gives birth
“You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.”
Isaiah 66:13 God as a comforting mother
God: “As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.”
Isaiah 49:15 God compared to a nursing mother
God: “Can a woman forget her nursing child, or show no compassion for the child of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you.”
Isaiah 42:14 God as a woman in labor
God: “For a long time I have held my peace, I have kept myself still and restrained myself; now I will cry out like a woman in labor, I will gasp and pant.”
Jeremiah 44:25 Queen of Heaven
“Thus says…the God of Israel: You and your wives have accomplished in deeds what you declared in words, ‘We are determined to …make offerings to the queen of heaven and to pour out libations to her.’ By all means, keep your vows and make your libations!”
Psalm131:2 God as a Mother
“But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; my soul is like the weaned child that is with me.”
Psalm 123:2 God compared to a woman
“As the eyes of a servant looks to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the Lord our God, until God has mercy on us.”
Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 God as a Mother Hen
Jesus: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!”
Luke 15:8-10 God as woman looking for her lost coin
Jesus: “Or what woman having ten silver coins, is she loses one of them, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it? When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’ Just so, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
The Catechism: Catholic Catechism does not ascribe gender to God. God is neither male nor female. The reference to God's role of parent is meant to portray relationality as opposed to male or female gender. Like Scripture and Tradition say, God is "I Am Who I Am." How do we describe an "IAWIA?' Through a panoply of symbols for the Divine. Scriptural references to God as mother or female include things like: dairymaid, laundress, midwife, bakerwoman, a woman giving birth, a woman nursing her young, a hovering mother bird, an angry mother bear, a protective mother hen.... The Catechism says:
42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God--"the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable"--with our human representations.16 Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.
239 By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.
370 In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.
Pope John Paul I
- Pope John Paul I (the 'smiling pope') taught, "Yes, God is our Father but more than this, he is our Mother, too. The feminine side of God, as Mother as well as Father was a favourite theme of Pope John Paul I -- Albino Luciani. He was the first Pope to take the text in Isaiah to refer to the maternal aspect of God.
So Mr. Kreeft: you are right out to lunch when you insist that God is either male or masculine. Mr. Kreeft: isn't what you are doing called 'making God in one's own image?'
How many flat tires in his wagon so far? three or four? Mr. Kreeft better pull out the jack and his spares because he's got more flats yet to come.
with my eyes fixed on Christ,
post edited by Therese - 2007/04/30 02:22:09
RE: Peter Kreeft
To the person in post 28: I like the way you express this. God can't be reduced to one metaphor. That's just what Mr. Kreeft is trying to do.
Kreeft makes one argument that I must admit is new to me: the ecclesiastical common good. Kreeft might be on to something here. At the bottom of all of Rome's/von Balthasar's/Kreeft's theological contortions and shapeshifting, my instinct says Rome's reasons for strongly opposing women's ordination boil down to two:
- once Rome let's women in, the cult male priesthood loses its elite status and privilege.
- as Kreeft articulates -- the ecclesiastical common good. Read in other words: We have held down the fort on this point for 2,000 years. If we now concede that we (ie, Rome) have been wrong all along, won't we have big pie on our face.
Kreeft's arguments about the ecclesiastical common good? He asserts:
- once you start monkeying with the data, a whole bunch of other things are going to come into question
- he tries to throw in: women priests would demean women. It would make them look like a bunch of cross dressers wearing male sex organs. It would remove the distinctiveness of women. It would turn them into spiritual lesbians and not brides. Not good for the big picture. (Mr. Kreeft: you are way out to lunch on this.)
- He says point blank: priestesses would undermine people's confidence in the Church because for 2,000 years we've taught that things are this way. If we change the story now, the faithful will start to ask all kinds of questions. [yeah Mr. Kreeft....and who wants to face all kinds of questions?]
- If women are ordained as priests, the faithful will doubt the validity of ordination and therefore all of the other sacraments will come into doubt.
- Parish hopping will start. Parishes will be created along ideological boundaries instead of geographical boundaries.
- It will tear the Church apart.
- It will start 'break away' Churches. The effect will tear Christendom apart instead of uniting it.
- It will be an ecclesiastical disaster.
When I listened to Kreeft explain this, a Canadian criminal court case from a few years back kept coming to mind. A fellow named David Milgaard, convicted of murder at about the age of 16, sat languishing in prison for about 25 years while claiming he had been wrongfully convicted. Had he been willing to admit guilt, he would have been released on early parole. But because of principle -- Truth -- he stuck to his story. Some people said he was 'stupid' or 'crazy' or an 'idiot.' "Just say you did it and you'll get out of jail."
If it weren't for his mother's persistent advocacy on the outside, Milgaard would probably still be sitting in jail. But she persisted....for years. Finally the federal Minister of Justice relented and ordered a review of the case.
The crown prosecutor who handled the case years before was all up in arms. His position: Let sleeping dogs lie. Even if Milgaard is innocent, if he is exhonerated, the whole system will fall into disrepute. Better to let an innocent man rot in jail than bring the whole system into question. How will people ever be able to trust a conviction?
What happened? Milgaard was completely exhonerated. The review of the evidence (I think it was DNA) pointed to another convict as the brutal murderer. This guy was also doing lengthy time in the penn for a string of brutal assaults, sexual and otherwise. In the end, justice prevailed, and he was convicted.
And Mr. Crown Prosecutor stormed away with pie on his face mostly for being so darn stubborn about protesting the review.
The last time I looked, the Canadian justice system was still up and running. Imagine that!
In a nutshell, Mr. Nutcase aka Kreeft sounds exactly like Crown Prosecutor Serge Kujawa.
Serge Kujawa -- still arrogant after all of these years: "It doesn't matter if Milgaard is innocent... The whole judicial system is at issue-it's worth more than one person."
Peter Kreeft: "Once you start monkeying with the data, the whole thing comes into question."
Read between the lines: "I don't really care about what is right or even Christian at this point in time. Let's just leave things as they are."
Mr.Kreeft: catch my drift?
With my eyes fixed on Christ,
post edited by Therese - 2007/04/30 04:04:55
RE: Peter Kreeft
Hello Therese You express this so well! You show this creep Kreeft for exactly what he is--full of nonsense and wrong thinking about the Roman Catholic religion and the mass and his opinion about women.
Thank you so much. Brilliantly deciphered and puts Kreeft's rants right in the garbage where they belong.
We women and our husbands see through your nutty nonsense Kreeft. You, Kreeft, are so wrong it is not funny! from Janet
RE: Peter Kreeft
I wondere where the person is who posted the kreeft article? So far, staying away from trying to explain why Kreeft makes sense? because s/he is now realizing Kreeft's point of view belongs right in the trash?
RE: Peter Kreeft
How very very sad. Peter Kreeft is not in love with Jesus. He is in love with an ideology. Would Jesus say, 'Stand up for this wrong because it will be painful to change?"
No. Our Jesus groans with the birth of creation. Our Jesus does not flinch because of the fear of pain. Our Jesus walks the path of justice, of righteousness, of Truth and of Light.
This sadly is so far eyond the comprehension of Peter Kreeft...I pray for Peter Kreeft.
RE: Peter Kreeft
I am stunned by Peter Kreeft. I cannot believe that man would have the audacity to publicly say the things he has said.
God a man? sexual symbolism? lesbianism? How about the last 2.000 years of homoeroticism?
And ecclesiastical common good? My advice to the Vatican is: if this is your bottom line, better keep it quiet. As soon as you start trumpeting that, what is now suspected will be shown true.
To whomever shared this segment by Peter Kreeft. Thank you. Very enlightening.
RE: Peter Kreeft
Kreeft's argument about the ecclesiastical common good says this to me: it doesn't really matter what is right or wrong. Damned be the Truth. It's reputation that counts.
RE: Peter Kreeft
Professor of Philosophy
Chestnut Hill, MA 02167
44 Davis Avenue
West Newton, MA 02165
A.B. Calvin College (1959)
M.A. Fordham University (1961)
Ph.D. Fordham (1965)
Yale University - Post Graduate Study
Woodrow Wilson Fellowship
Newman Alumni Scholarship
Danforth Asian Religions Fellowship
Weathersfield Homeland Foundation Fellowship
Full-time: Villanova University, 1962-65
Boston College, 1965-present
Part-time: Fordham University, St. Peter’s College, Haverford College, Rosemont College, La Salle College, St. Joseph’s College, St. Charles Seminary, Emmanuel College, Regis College, Newton College of the Sacred Heart, Boston State College, Berklee College of Music, Cambridge Center for Adult Education, Boston Center for Adult Education, Jesuit Center for Adult Education, Gordon College, St. John’s Seminary, Our Lady of Grace Seminary,
Logic, Epistemology, Cosmology, Metaphysics, Ethics, Nursing Ethics, Philosophy of the Person, Philosophy in Literature, Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Human Sexuality, The Future of Man, The Creative Person, Death and Dying, Life After Death, Science Fiction, Philosophy of Love, Oriental Philosophy, Now and Zen, Greek Philosophy, Medieval Philosophy, Modern Philosophy, Contemporary Philosophy, Socrates, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Marcel, Teilhard de Chardin, C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Augustine’s Confessions , Aquinas’ Summa , Plato’s Republic , Lost in the Cosmos, Christian Existentialism, Thinking About Religion, The Meaning of Life, Philosophy of Happiness, Philosophy of Love, Peacemaking, Abortion as a Philosophical Problem, Philosophy in Fantasy, Socrates and Jesus, The Three Greatest Men in the World, World Religions, Catholicism: A Philosophical Inquiry; Angels, Devils, Ghosts and Miracles; Three Philosophies of Life; Philosophy in the Bible; Philosophy of Education, Introduction to Philosophy,Philosophy in Cinema, Perspectives in Western Culture
1. C.S. Lewis: A Critical Essay (Christendom College Press ‘88; Eerdmans ‘69) Short, 50 p. introduction
2. Love is Stronger than Death (Ignatius ‘87; Harper ‘79) Death as enemy, stranger, Mend, mother, lover
3. Heaven, the Heart’s Dearest Longing (Ignatius ‘89, Harper ‘80) Explores what CSI called “irony”
4. Everything you Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven (Ignatius ‘89; Harper ‘82) What’s in Heaven?
5. Between Heaven and Hell (InterVarsity ‘81) CSL, JFK, & Aldous Huxley alter death argue about’ Jesus
6. The Unaborted Socrates ( InterVarsity ‘82) Socrates argues vs. prochoice doctor, lawyer, & psychologist
7. The Best Things in Life (InterVarsity ‘83) Socrates, on campus, argues the meaning of life wi students
8. Philosophical QuestIons (wI It Purtill & G. MaDona1d, Prentice-Hall ‘84) Intro philosophy ‘anthology
9. Yes or No? Straight Answers to Tough Questions about Christianity (!gnatius’91; Servant ‘84) Dialogs
10. Prayer: the Great Conversation (Ignatius ‘92; Servant ‘85) Dialogs on prayer & sanctity for beginners
11. Back to Virtue (Ignatius ‘92; Nelson ‘86 as For Heaven’s Sakel Virtues & vices, natural & supernatural
12. Making Sense out of Suffering (Servant ‘6) Clues front myth, philosophy, art, literature, & scripture
13. Socrates Meets Jesus (InterVarsity ‘87) Conversion of Socrates as a student at Harvard Divinity School
14. A Turn of the Clock (Ignatius‘87) short book of short proverbs for wise people in unwise worlds
15. The God Who Loves You (Servant ‘88) How God’s love explains everything in theology & scripture
16. Fundamentals of the Faith (Ignatius‘88) Introductory essays In traditional Catholic apologetics
17. Advent: Meditations for the Season (Twin Circle ‘88)
18. Two Arguments from the Heart for Immortality (Eerdmans ‘89; Stob Lectures) From CSL & Ci. Marcel
19. Letters to Jesus: Answered (Ignatius‘89) Jesus’ sayings in Matthew as answers to modem questions
20. Three Philosophies of Life (Ignatius‘89) Ecciesiastes (vanity), (suffering), Song of Songs (love)
21. Does God Exist ? (Nelson, ‘90) introduction & conclusion to debate by J.P. Moreland & KM Nielson
22. Making Choices (Servant ‘90) Seeing clear and detailed goods and evils in a world of moral confusion
23. You Can Understand the Old Testament (Servant ‘90) Book-by-book introduction for beginners
24. Reading and Praying the New Tesatment (Servant ‘91) Ditto; expanded treatment.of & Revelation
25. Summa of the Sumni (Ignatius ‘91) Best intro, to Aquinas’ philosophy: his jgg edited & footnoted
26. A Shorter Summa (Ignatius 93) 350 page book (above, #25) cut to 100 pages, for beginning students
27. ChristIanity for Modern Pagans (Ignatius ‘93) Pascal’s Pensees edited, outlined, explained,. & applied
28. The Snakebite Letters (Ignatius ‘93) Application of CSL’s Screwtape genre to modern Catholic issues
29. Handbook of Christian Apologetics (InterVarsity ‘93) wI B. Tacefli; all the basic arguments outined
30. Your Oucstions. God’s Answers (Ignatius ‘94) Scripture’s answers to modern young people’s questions
31. Shadowlands of C.S. Lewis (Ignatius ‘94) EdIted exerpiS froniCSL on 5 ba1c themes in the movie
32. Women and the Priesthood (Franciscan U. Press, ‘94) w/ Alice vónHlldebrand explaining jy thC ‘no’
33. The Angeiand the Ant (Servant, ‘94) Collection of varied short topical essays in Christian living
34. C.S. Lewis for the Third Millennium (Ignathis ‘94) Is The Abolition of Man a prophecy of our future?
35. Angels and Demons (Ignatius ‘95) 101 common c4uestions answcredby scripture, tradition & Aquinas
36. Ecumenical Jihad (Ignatius ‘95) Call for radically new interfaith cooperationva. “the culture of death”
37. The Journey (InterVarsity ‘96) Socrates teaches 10 basic philosophy & theology lessons, in dialog
38. A Refutation of Moral Relativism (Ignatius ‘9.9) Eleven Interviews with a moral absolutist
39. Prayer for Beginners (Ignatius ‘00) Elementary, practical advice . ‘
40. Catholic Christianity (Ignatius ‘01) the new Catechism of the Catholic Church for busy people; 30 10-page }(nights of Columbus pamphlets collected into one book, covering all of Catholicism
41. Socratic Logic (St. Augustine’s Press, ‘01) practical Aristotelian logic text for do-it yourselfers
42. How To Win The Culture War (Inter Varsity, ‘01) guidepolnts for spiritual warfare today
43. Three Approaches to Abortion (Ignatius '02)
Books in Progress
44. Philosophy 101 by Socrates (introduction to philosophy via the Apology) 45. Socrates Meets Machiavelli (cross-examination of The Prince) 46. Socrates Meets Marx (cross-examination of The Communist Manifesto) 47. Socrates Meets Sartre (cross-examination of Existentialism and Human Emotions) 48. Socrates Meets Freud (cross-examination of Civilization and its Discontents) 49. Socrates Meets Descartes (cross-examination of Discourse on Method) 50. Socrates Meets Kant (cross-examination of Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals) 51. Socrates Meets Kierkegaard (cross-examination of Philosophical Fragments) 52. Socrates Meets Marcel (cross-examination of”On the Ontological Mystery”)
(All nine of these books will probably be issued by Ignatius in 2002 or 2003 as a series. They are Socratic dialogs where the authors appear in Purgatory (it is their Purgatory and Socrates’ Heaven) to undergo a sort of Oxford “Great Books” tutorial at the hands of Socrates.)
53. An Ocean Full of Angels (a long novel of spiritual warfare, in progress for over 10 years) 54. Sanity (most basic philosophical sanity for an insane world: 100 controversial conunonsense theses) 55. The Golden Key (on the difference Jesus makes)
(4) books on death: 2,3,4,18
(6) books on C.S. Lewis: 1,3,5,28,31,38
(8) books of Socratic dialogs completed: 5,6,7,9,10,13,37,38
(8) books of Socratic dialogs in progress: 45-52
(5) books on great philosophers completed: 20,25,26,27,44
(8) books on great philosophers in progress: 45-52
(5) introductions to philosophy: 8,37,41,44,54
(5) books on philosophical issues: 18,21,37,38,43
(8) books of apologetics: 5,9,13,16,21,27,29,37
(6) books of theology or theological issues: 13,15,21,35,36,40
(7) books on spirituality: 10,12,15,17,33,39,40
(6) books on Jesus: 5,13,15,19,37,55
(5) books for young people: 9, 10,19,30,37
RE: Peter Kreeft
RE: Peter Kreeft
How do you respond to the criticisms which have been made about Kreeft's contribution?
RE: Peter Kreeft
Yes. Sounds like he might be smarter than the Pope. A vitae still can't defend what he's got to say.
So far, this has been a pretty lopsided discussion. If you are a Kreeft fan, how do you defend what he's got to say?
RE: Peter Kreeft
Have you read the Tina Beattie article above?
How does Kreeft explain the homosexual aspects of our current mass? He propped up some proposals about lesbianism in his talk. In his world of sexual symbolism, am I to assume that he is ok with the male homosexuality in the mass but is at all costs adverse to lesbianism?
You might think my question is silly. But if you read Tina Beattie's article, you will see that the sexual symbolism theory that Kreeft talks about leads to exactly just that with either male or female priests. This illustrates therefore why his arguments about sexual symbolism are wrong. Is insulting or repulsive too strong a word?
The mass is not about sex or sexual acts. It is about remembering Christ. It is about sacrifice. It is about thanksgiving and banquet and gathering as the Body of Christ.
And even if it were about sex, why is it that men get to play both roles: the literal man and the figurative woman? while women get to represent only one: the literal woman?
If one has to twist a theological contortion into sexual act to try to keep women out, one really isn't talking about Christianity, are they?
My sense is that Kreeft is bang on in his argument about so called 'ecclesiastical good.' Except that it is not an argument. It is an excuse. It is a way to protect pride. It is not based on Truth. It is based on 'ok, you good wise and pleasant intelligent harmonious peaceful Church loving folks who are sharp enough to see the flaw in the ointment which has been here all along. Be a bunch of good sports. Just avert your eyes and let's just play along. It will be best for everyone in the end!'
Please explain to me why I shouldn't see Kreeft in this way.