The entirety of your argumentative style seems to be putting words in peoples mouths (misquoting me saying ‘proof’, conflating creationists with Christians, telling me what I mean when I say creationist); so why don’t you tell us what Thomas Aquinas meant when he said...
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
Certainly a pro-contraception liberal like you would be a good judge of what Aquinas really means. We see that not only have you recruited the Popes as support for Deism or materialistic atheism or whatever it is you're selling, now even Aquinas is on your side. Ho boy! We should believe your commentaries on Aquinas (and on the Popes) and all your commentaries on things Catholic for that matter, because you are so very credible.
Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) "to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened." But this can be said of no science except sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science.Other sciences are called the handmaidens of this one: "Wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower"
Sacred doctrine derives its principles not from any human knowledge, but from the divine knowledge, through which, as through the highest wisdom, all our knowledge is set in order...
The principles of other sciences either are evident and cannot be proved, or are proved by natural reason through some other science. But the knowledge proper to this science comes through revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore it has no concern to prove the principles of other sciences, but only to judge of them. Whatsoever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science must be condemned as false: "Destroying counsels and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).
-Aquinas, Summa Theologica, first part.
The quote where I used ‘proof’:
You cite a single home page as ‘proof’ that Creationists “almost invariably” reject HIV as the cause of AIDS. Is that all there is?
Since you object to ‘proof,’ I will rephrase: You cite a single home page as a demonstration that Creationists “almost invariably” reject HIV as the cause of AIDS. Is that all there is?
Can you now bring yourself to answer, or must you find another objection?
”conflating creationists with Christians”
I’ve stated that, by definition, Christians are Creationists. Does your Boyarin superiority demand that you correct me on everything, or else you fail to maintain the pretense of your Alpha Male status? Earlier you seemed to agree with me. Now you find objection?
”so why don’t you tell us what Thomas Aquinas meant when he said... ”
So why don’t you take care of a number of items you’ve left unanswered:
You sent me a picture of Page 8 – Jesus and the Dinosaurs, from the Beginner’s Bible Coloring Book. So I can get a feel for what the book is like, do you have page 7 and page 9 you can send? (or a website where I can peruse the entire book)
Besides the above, do you have a source for the other fascinating pictures you sent to me (second request)?
And the item above where you gagged on the word ‘proof,’ although it’s a perfectly appropriate word in the context used.
I believe in ‘give & take.’ You seem to want to play ‘you demand - I comply.’ Like any other arrangement would demean your station.
On your Aquinas quote. Do you have a source you can cite, so I may go check context? Or did you just pick it off a ‘bag of quotes’ site where they don’t even give a source? The quote seems vaguely familiar, yet it doesn’t quite read like Aquinas. Maybe it’s the translation.
In any event, if you want a response, you have some catching up to do.