The anthropocentrism of Pope Francis’ integral ecology in Laudato Si’ serves two strategic functions. First, it allows the pope to foreground the concerns of humans vulnerable to the ravages of ecological devastation, especially in the Global South. More importantly, privileging human beings justifies the responsibility Pope Francis places on us to engage in more sustainable relationships with one another and the environment. The encyclical’s investment in an ethics of care and the heterogeneity of its citational practice enhances its cosmopolitan appeal (...) to audiences across religious affiliations and those with secular leanings. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Dei Filius IV:On Faith and ReasonCajetan Cuddy, O.P.In this essay, we will examine the presentation of faith and reason in the fourth chapter of the First Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution Dei Filius.1 Our examination focuses primarily on the intelligibility of the constitution's exposition of faith and reason in its fourth chapter. Secondarily it looks for the implications that this intelligible teaching bears for Catholic thought in our own contemporary (...) moment.To achieve this twofold finality, we will divide our essay into four parts. The first will identify what makes this chapter textually unique in relation to the three chapters that precede it. In light of chapter 4's textual distinctiveness, we will then attempt, in the second part, to unpack what we suggest is the speculative foundation of the constitution's presentation of faith and reason. Thirdly, we will examine how this speculative foundation serves the document's integrated account of faith and reason. Fourthly, we will conclude with a summary of the chapter's integrated account of faith and reason with an eye towards its theocentric orientation.The late Avery Cardinal Dulles once observed that "without actually mentioning Thomas Aquinas, Vatican I endorsed his [Aquinas's] position" on faith and reason.2 Our analysis of Dei Filius IV will largely proceed [End Page 873] along Thomistic lines. Although we recognize that one need not be a Thomist in order to profit from a study of Dei Filius, we do believe that Aquinas's teaching about faith and reason helps to illumine its central themes.What Makes Dei Filius IV ("On Faith and Reason") Unique?We begin our study of faith and reason in Dei Filius with a question: What makes chapter 4 unique when considered in relation to the whole of Dei Filius?In order to answer this question, we note that Dei Filius comprises six main parts: a prologue, four chapters, and a series of canons (divided into discrete groups associated with particular chapters).3 According to their respective titles, the first chapter is about God, the creator of all things (De Deo rerum omnium creatore). The second chapter is about revelation (De revelatione). The third chapter is about faith particularly (De fide). And the fourth chapter is about faith and reason together (De fide et ratione).Dei Filius, unsurprisingly, refers to "God" (the subject of chapter 1) in each of its five other parts. It references "revelation" (the subject of chapter 2) in chapters 2–4 and in the canons associated with chapters 2–4. "Revelation" is thus absent only in the prologue and in the first chapter. The subject of chapter 3 (i.e., "faith") appears in the prologue, in chapters 2–4, and in the canons associated with chapters 3–4. Finally, the constitution references "reason" in the prologue, in chapters 2–4, and in each group of canons.This terminological recurrence reflects the constitution's integrity. Each individual chapter coheres with the other parts that precede and (or) follow it. This cohesion, however, can occlude the precise formal distinction between chapters 3 and 4. Both of these final two chapters treat of faith. The third chapter considers faith while the fourth chapter considers faith in relation to reason. Consequently, we might be tempted to identify reason as the specific difference between chapter 3 and chapter [End Page 874] 4. This suggestion has merit. Reason does receive unique consideration in the fourth chapter. Nonetheless, as we have already noted, chapter 3 also mentions "reason" (as does every other part of Dei Filius except chapter 1).4 From these considerations, chapters 2–4 each appear to treat of "faith and reason" in some way and to some degree.5Again, we ask our question: What makes Dei Filius IV unique when compared to the constitution as a whole? And thus far a clear answer to our question does not immediately appear. Given that the conciliar fathers deemed the subject "faith and reason" worthy of a separate chapter, however, we reasonably assume that chapter 4 does contribute something proper and distinctive to its subject.6 This proper and distinctive contribution is the object of our inquiry.We propose that the... (shrink)

Preoperative informed consent is a legal and ethical requirement that ensures patients understand a procedure, its associated risks and benefits, alternative treatment options, and potential complications to make an informed decision about their care. This cross‐sectional study evaluated the informed consent process for major orthopaedic surgeries at a tertiary hospital in Nigeria. A self‐administered questionnaire was used to collect data from 120 adult participants. Results showed that many patients do not read the consent form before signing it, and surgeons do (...) not adequately explain the alternatives to surgery, potential risks, and available anaesthetic options. Higher‐educated patients are more likely to read the consent form. Surgeons performed well in explaining the nature of the condition and prognosis, the procedure's potential benefits, and answering patients' questions. The study emphasises the need to improve the informed consent process to ensure patients understand and can make rational decisions about their healthcare. (shrink)

In Cajetan's Biblical Commentaries, Michael O'Connor argues that Cajetan's motive was more 'Catholic Reform' than 'Counter-Reformation', and that his method was a bold hybrid of scholasticism and Renaissance humanism, correcting the Vulgate's errors and expounding the text according to the literal sense.

What role does Scotus‘s understanding of univocity play in Cajetan‘s development of a theory of analogy? In this paper I examine three relevant texts from Cajetan (question 3 of his commentary on Aquinas‘s De Ente et Essentia, his treatise De Nominum Analogia, and his commentary on question 13, article 5 of Aquinas‘s Summa Theologiae) in which Cajetan articulates his understanding of analogy at least in part through dialectical engagement with Scotus‘s arguments about univocity.

In the first half of the fifteenth century, the Italian logician, natural philosopher, and doctor of medicine Cajetan of Thiene wrote a commentary on William Heytesbury’s Regulae solvendi sophismata, which later became a part of the printed edition of Heytesbury’s treatises. Several late fifteenth century reprints sustained its circulation and further influence. Following Heytesbury, Cajetan listed four alternative treatments of paradoxes, where the first three were formulated in general logico-semantic terms and the last one in terms of obligationes. (...) The present analysis reconstructs the first three positions in terms of the theories of logical operators endorsed as part of the solution to paradoxes. This reconstruction uncovers different underlying views of operators, namely context-sensitive, value-functional, and supervaluationist.Priore dimidia parte saeculi 15 Caietanus de Thiena, logicus, physicus et medicus, commentarium super G. Hentisberi Regulis solvendi sophismata conscripsit, quod posterius una cum Hentisberi tractatibus typis impressum est. Cuius commentarii notitiam auctoritatemque continuam iteratae nonnullae eius editiones in fi ne 15 saeculi factae sustinebant. Caietanus quattuor vias tractandi insolubilia distinxit, quarum tres primae conceptibus generalibus logico-semanticis, quarta doctrina de obligationibus innixae sunt. In analysi hic proposita auctor primas tres vias reconstruit, doctrinas varias de logicis coniunctionibus vel notis reserans, super quibus illae viae solvendi paradoxa fundantur. Quarum prima vim notarum a contextu sermonis dependentem facit. Altera notas pure “compositionaliter” tractat. Tertia iuxta modum doctrinae de “supervaluatione” omnes formales tautologias servat, aliis considerationibus neglectis. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Vitoria, Cajetan, and the ConciliaristsKatherine Elliot van LiereFrancisco de Vitoria, professor of theology at the University of Salamanca from 1526 until his death in 1546, is widely recognized as the leader of the sixteenth-century scholastic revival and one of the foremost Catholic political thinkers of his day. His surviving relectiones (the lectures given in Salamanca at the end of each university term) cover a wide range of issues (...) from the morality of cannibalism to the legality of Henry VIII’s divorce. 1 Yet modern scholarly interest in Vitoria and his disciples (collectively known as “the School of Salamanca”) has focused mainly on issues relevant to the moral and legal problems of secular nation-states. Between this century’s two great wars Spanish and American scholars took a renewed interest in Vitoria’s published relectiones, seeing in them early expressions of the doctrine of international law, and arguing that Vitoria deserved some of the credit generally given to Hugo Grotius as the inventor of this concept. 2 Since then Spanish, American, and British scholarship on Vitoria and the School of Salamanca has continued to center mainly on such issues as just war, conquest, and slavery. 3 In the 1980s Anthony Pagden [End Page 597] revisited these questions, interpreting the School of Salamanca’s neo-Scholastic teachings as part of the “ideological armature of what [was arguably] the first early modern nation state.” 4 From a similar methodological perspective, Richard Tuck and Quentin Skinner have described the neo-Thomist revival of natural law as an important influence on the development of modern legal and political concepts like the subjective theory of natural rights and the Lockean contractual theory of political obligation. 5 Most recently, Pagden and Jeremy Lawrance have edited and translated into English a selection of Vitoria’s “political writings,” which will serve as a welcome aid for future research on any of these themes. 6Yet Vitoria’s end-of-term lectures in Salamanca also discussed a number of other themes apart from the political theory of secular states. Among these, the theme of the structure and power of ecclesiastical government has so far received less attention than it deserves. 7 Ecclesiastical power, or “the power of the Church,” was one of only two subjects to which Vitoria devoted two relectiones each (the other being the famous debate about Spanish rights to dominion in America). Vitoria delivered his two lectures on ecclesiastical government, both entitled De potestate ecclesiae, in 1532 and 1533. In 1534 he lectured on the closely related theme of “the power of the pope and the council” (De potestate papae et concilii). 8 Vitoria’s treatment, in these three lectures, of the authority of the Church, the pope, and the general council is worth examining more closely not only for the intrinsic interest of these issues but perhaps even more for the light it sheds on the formation of Vitoria’s thinking about secular political power. All three relectiones preceded the two famous Relectiones de indiis (“On the American Indians”) which Vitoria delivered in [End Page 598] 1538 and 1539. For churchmen like the Dominican Vitoria, ecclesiastical and secular political power were inextricably linked; theories posited in one sphere had implications in the other, and in some cases these implications proved politically or theologically awkward enough to force a thinker back to the drawing board. The political theories about the natural origins of secular political power which Vitoria articulated in the late 1530s in his Relectiones de indiis reflect this painful process. They were not only inspired by Vitoria’s awareness of the plight of the American Indians under Spanish colonial rule; they were also shaped by his protracted struggle with the theological implications of natural law theory, a struggle which can be observed in his lectures of the early 1530s on ecclesiastical power.Observing this intellectual struggle in Vitoria’s writing affords more than just one more illustration of how all political thought is rooted in particular social contexts. For Francisco de Vitoria stood at a particularly significant juncture in the history of political thought. The position he carefully defined in the 1530s was characterized by a strong emphasis on the distinction between... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Vitoria, Cajetan, and the ConciliaristsKatherine Elliot van LiereFrancisco de Vitoria, professor of theology at the University of Salamanca from 1526 until his death in 1546, is widely recognized as the leader of the sixteenth-century scholastic revival and one of the foremost Catholic political thinkers of his day. His surviving relectiones (the lectures given in Salamanca at the end of each university term) cover a wide range of issues (...) from the morality of cannibalism to the legality of Henry VIII’s divorce. 1 Yet modern scholarly interest in Vitoria and his disciples (collectively known as “the School of Salamanca”) has focused mainly on issues relevant to the moral and legal problems of secular nation-states. Between this century’s two great wars Spanish and American scholars took a renewed interest in Vitoria’s published relectiones, seeing in them early expressions of the doctrine of international law, and arguing that Vitoria deserved some of the credit generally given to Hugo Grotius as the inventor of this concept. 2 Since then Spanish, American, and British scholarship on Vitoria and the School of Salamanca has continued to center mainly on such issues as just war, conquest, and slavery. 3 In the 1980s Anthony Pagden [End Page 597] revisited these questions, interpreting the School of Salamanca’s neo-Scholastic teachings as part of the “ideological armature of what [was arguably] the first early modern nation state.” 4 From a similar methodological perspective, Richard Tuck and Quentin Skinner have described the neo-Thomist revival of natural law as an important influence on the development of modern legal and political concepts like the subjective theory of natural rights and the Lockean contractual theory of political obligation. 5 Most recently, Pagden and Jeremy Lawrance have edited and translated into English a selection of Vitoria’s “political writings,” which will serve as a welcome aid for future research on any of these themes. 6Yet Vitoria’s end-of-term lectures in Salamanca also discussed a number of other themes apart from the political theory of secular states. Among these, the theme of the structure and power of ecclesiastical government has so far received less attention than it deserves. 7 Ecclesiastical power, or “the power of the Church,” was one of only two subjects to which Vitoria devoted two relectiones each (the other being the famous debate about Spanish rights to dominion in America). Vitoria delivered his two lectures on ecclesiastical government, both entitled De potestate ecclesiae, in 1532 and 1533. In 1534 he lectured on the closely related theme of “the power of the pope and the council” (De potestate papae et concilii). 8 Vitoria’s treatment, in these three lectures, of the authority of the Church, the pope, and the general council is worth examining more closely not only for the intrinsic interest of these issues but perhaps even more for the light it sheds on the formation of Vitoria’s thinking about secular political power. All three relectiones preceded the two famous Relectiones de indiis (“On the American Indians”) which Vitoria delivered in [End Page 598] 1538 and 1539. For churchmen like the Dominican Vitoria, ecclesiastical and secular political power were inextricably linked; theories posited in one sphere had implications in the other, and in some cases these implications proved politically or theologically awkward enough to force a thinker back to the drawing board. The political theories about the natural origins of secular political power which Vitoria articulated in the late 1530s in his Relectiones de indiis reflect this painful process. They were not only inspired by Vitoria’s awareness of the plight of the American Indians under Spanish colonial rule; they were also shaped by his protracted struggle with the theological implications of natural law theory, a struggle which can be observed in his lectures of the early 1530s on ecclesiastical power.Observing this intellectual struggle in Vitoria’s writing affords more than just one more illustration of how all political thought is rooted in particular social contexts. For Francisco de Vitoria stood at a particularly significant juncture in the history of political thought. The position he carefully defined in the 1530s was characterized by a strong emphasis on the distinction between... (shrink)

From the beginning of his career Martin Luther thought intensively about questions concerning the human being’s capacities for loving God and the neighbor. The relation between human nature and love was a vital issue throughout his whole theological work even though he explicitly connected it with the concept of ‘imago Dei’ only quite late. Luther discusses human nature mostly in its fallen state, where the image is almost totally lost, but presents also his view of human nature in its pure (...) state. He avoids identifying the Divine love and the image of God. Nevertheless, love clearly belongs to the image. The article aims at investigating the reason for this view and the question of ontological difference between Christ as the essential image of God and the ‘ordinary’ human being as having the image of God. Luther’s understanding of the role of love in the relation between the human being and God will be compared with that of his Catholic contemporary, Cardinal Cajetan. The article intends,furthermore, to describe how Luther understands the restoration of the image of God through the outward means of the Gospel and Sacraments and the inner but given affects of faith and love. (shrink)

The influence of Cajetan’s De Nominum Analogia is due largely to its first three chapters, which introduce Cajetan’s three modes of analogy: analogy of inequality, analogy of attribution, and analogy of proportionality. Interpreters typically ignore the final eight chapters, which describe further features of analogy of proportionality. This article explains this neglect as a symptom of a failure to appreciate Cajetan’s particular semantic concerns, taken independently from the question of systematizing the thought of Aquinas. After an exegesis (...) of the neglected chapters, which describe the semantics of analogy through the three levels of cognition (simple apprehension, composition and division, and discursive reasoning), the article concludes with observations about the relationship between Cajetan and Aquinas and the philosophical and historical signifi cance of Cajetan’s approach to the semantics of analogy. (shrink)

The problem of divine attributes was one of the most intensely debated topics in the 17-18th century Irish philosophy. Simply put, the problem revolves around the ontological question (i) whether human and divine attributes differ in degree or in kind, and the semantical (ii) how we ought to describe these divine attributes by means of our human language. While there was a consensus that analogies play a key role in solving the semantical problem there was a controversy about the kind (...) of speech they allow for. Especially, it was contested if using analogies for divine predication allows for a separate kind of speech, i.e. allows us to speak neither literally nor metaphorically but analogically. The aim of my paper is to contextualize George Berkeley's position on the problem of divine attributes as developed in § 21 of the IV. Dialogue in Alciphron.More specifically and contrary to what most scholars hold, I argue Berkeley fails to follow Cardinal Cajetan with remarkable closeness. Despite paraphrasing parts of Cajetan's De Nominum Analogia in § 21, the solution Berkeley advances is closer to the position of John Duns Scotus – and hence, ironically, with the position Cajetan aimed to reject. (shrink)

Cajetan’s analogy theory is usually evaluated in terms of its fidelity to the teachings of Aquinas. But what if Cajetan was trying to answer questions Aquinas himself did not raise, and so could not help to answer? Cajetan’s De Nominum Analogia can be interpreted as intending to solve a particular semantic problem: to characterize the unity of the analogical concept, so as to defend the possibility of a non-univocal term’s mediating syllogistic reasoning. Aquinas offers various semantic characterizations (...) of analogy, saying it involves, for instance: signification per prius et posterius; or a ratio propria which is only found in one analogate; or diverse modi significandi with a common res significata. Examined in turn, it is clear that none of Aquinas’s rules for analogy solve the semantic problem described. Cajetan thus cannot be reasonably expected to have intended his analogy treatise primarily as an interpretation or systematization of Aquinas’s teaching on analogy. (shrink)

In 1498 Cajetan published a short book, On the Analogy of Names, which is often regarded as a masterly summary of Aquinas's doctrine of analogy. It opens in the very first paragraph with an attack on three views of the concept of being (ens): first, that it is a disjunction of concepts; second, that it is an ordered group of concepts; and third, that it is a single, separate concept which is unequally participated by substances and accidents. A number (...) of questions immediately spring to mind. Why are concepts being discussed when analogy is said by Cajetan to be a theory of language? What is meant by ‘concept’? Who held the views under attack and why? So far as I can tell, the extensive literature on both Aquinas and Cajetan offers no satisfactory answers to these questions. (shrink)

Aristotelian philosophers have been always puzzled by the ambiguous status of essences: it is not clear whether an Aristotelian should admit that an essence, taken in itself, is real, even though essences do not exist over and above particular things, as Platonists posit; furthermore, it is not clear whether an Aristotelian should endorse the view that essences have a certain unity, even if they are taken in themselves, namely, by abstracting from the individuals of which they are essences. I tackle (...) Thomas Cajetan’s analysis of this problem: this analysis is more sophisticated than that developed by Aquinas—whose texts had been commented upon by Cajetan. Cajetan distinguishes two senses of “real” and of “unity,” in order to speak of the reality and of the unity of essences, taken in themselves, though not endorsing a Platonist’s ontology. I suggest that his solution is appealing for the contemporary debate about this problem. (shrink)