American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 83 (3):441-459 (2009)
|Abstract||Neither Augustine nor Aquinas can accept a political order in which religious doctrine as such is barred from serving as an explicit basis of political, legal, and economic norms. Certain twentieth-century commentators indebted (wittingly or not) to Kantianism or to other Enlightenment ideologies ignored this fact, or minimized its importance. Aquinas was misread as a forerunner of modern liberal democracy; Augustine was portrayed, with equal injustice, as seeking to dissuade Christians from participation in the political arena. In reality, the political philosophy of each is consistent with a robust Christian presence in the public square, and is incompatible both with theocracy and with the modern secular state. A better understanding of the distance separating these philosopher-theologians from some of their prominent twentieth-century commentators may shed light on the history of the reception of Vatican II’s Gaudium et spes|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David F. Ford & Rachel Muers (2007). Epilogue: Twelve Theses for Christian Theology in the Twenty-First Century in the Modern Theologians : An Introduction to Christian Theology Since 1918. In David Ford (ed.), Shaping Theology: Engagements in a Religious and Secular World. Blackwell Pub..
Eugene TeSelle (1988). Toward an Augustinian Politics. Journal of Religious Ethics 16 (1):87 - 108.
J. Thomas Howe (2013). The Republic of Grace: Augustinian Thoughts for Dark Times by Charles Mathewes (Review). American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 34 (1):82-86.
Benjamin Smith (2010). Political Theology and Thomas Aquinas. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 84:99-112.
Thomas (2002). Political Writings. Cambridge University Press.
Yanqing Chen & Xinsheng Wang (2006). Revival and Significance of Political Philosophy at Present Time. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 1 (3):506-515.
Christian Emden (2008). Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics of History. Cambridge University Press.
Catherine H. Zuckert (ed.) (2011). Political Philosophy in the Twentieth Century: Authors and Arguments. Cambridge University Press.
Craig J. N. de Paulo (2003). The Augustinian Constitution of Heidegger's Being and Time. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (4):549-568.
Carl Schmitt (1996/2008). The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes: Meaning and Failure of a Political Symbol. University of Chicago Press.
John Arthos (2004). “The Word is Not Reflexive”. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 78 (4):581-608.
Rory Fox (2007). Culture and the Thomist Tradition After Vatican II. By Tracey Rowland. Heythrop Journal 48 (1):148–149.
John M. Finnis (2011). H.L.A. Hart : A Twentieth-Century Oxford Political Philosopher. In Catherine H. Zuckert (ed.), Political Philosophy in the Twentieth Century: Authors and Arguments. Cambridge University Press.
Andrew Beards (2007). Assessing Anscombe. International Philosophical Quarterly 47 (1):39-57.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads6 ( #145,673 of 549,124 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,124 )
How can I increase my downloads?