On the contrary, his argument is brilliant. The Pope is a humanist--all his writings, his speeches, his actions, show this beyond a shadow of a doubt. It explains Assisi I and II--which are a scandal to the rest of us and a violation of the First Commandment. This Pontiff's grounding is not in Thomistic realism but in the methodologies of personalism and phenomenology--where truth itself is a shifting thing, according to one's experience of it.
Thius is a matter of taste.
In point of fact, Derksen is saying nothing new, nothing accurate and is simply stringing together a tissue of his own interpretations of someone else's words as evidence.
Few consider this kind of argumentation as "brilliant", let alone competent.
The Pope is a humanist--all his writings, his speeches, his actions, show this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
St. Thomas More was a humanist. I was not aware that his orthodoxy was in question.
It explains Assisi I and II--which are a scandal to the rest of us and a violation of the First Commandment.
"Humanism" does not explain these phenomena. Disciplinary slackness and overeager eirenicism does.
This Pontiff's grounding is not in Thomistic realism but in the methodologies of personalism and phenomenology--where truth itself is a shifting thing, according to one's experience of it.
Phenomenology does not posit that truth is a shifting thing. It posits that our knowledge of a thing or person is always imperfect because our faculties of perception are not infallible.
Coincidentally, this is also the position of St. Thomas.