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.
Thomas More was not a secular humanist--which is the implication in Derkson's piece. Read again the following scandalous quote:
"Man in the full truth of his existence, of his personal being and also of his community and social being - in the sphere of his own family, in the sphere of society and very diverse contexts, in the sphere of his own nation or people (perhaps still only that of his clan or tribe), and in the sphere of the whole of mankind - this man is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission: he is the primary and fundamental way for the Church, the way traced out by Christ himself, the way that leads invariably through the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption."
MAN IS THE PRIMARY ROUTE THAT THE CHURCH MUST TRAVEL IN FULFILLING HER MISSION: HE IS THE PRIMARY AND FUNDAMENTAL WAY FOR THE CHURCH, THE WAY TRACED OUT BY CHRIST HIMSELF...
First of all, what the hell does this mean? If it means we must love our neighbor as Christ did--why doesn't he just say this? But he seems to be intimating something else. It is the focus on ourselves that somehow is supposed to lead to salvation, that is going to be the primary route for the Church from now on. If so, then it is not to the saints, it is to Freud and Husserl and Karl Marx and the other big names that the world venerates and celebrates to whom the Church will turn for direction from now on--and this is reprehensible and unCatholic. It is secular humanism at its very worst.
Wow, My "Truth" is just as true as your "Truth". How convenient.
Granted that Mr. Derksen over reached on some of his points unnecessarily, when his point was made very well with less words rather than more.
That he chose the route of sedevacantism to register his frustration doesn't really take away from his arguments, just calls to mind his rash judgement.
The facts he points out speak for themselves. The Church is literally falling apart, and if we are to give any credence to Derksen at all, John Paul is reliving his liberal college theses, and is imposing on the Church, themes, that only affected college students, and their liberal proffesors would sit around discussing. Themes that have no answers, only questions.
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."
We don't know that it is a disciplinary slackness. To even think that is to suggest JP is not in charge - or worse - that he is so out of it he doesn't even know.
To me, it seems like a natural extension of every goofy thing he has done, and a logical progresion of his continuing theme of 'humanism'. I'm not qalified to really comment on his scholarship, but I can look at the fruits. (come on now, we all know some of his actions were goofy, and not Catholic)
"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."
I don't know what phenomonology posits, but to say that it is not a 'shifting thing' but is imperfect because we are imperfect, (and it depends on how we perceive it) tells me that whatever it expounds should not be an article of faith.
Don't we have real things to iron out, rather than the subjectivity of of something as elusive as quicksilver?
The Pope, if we are to believe his mandate, is to lead everyone that he has been given to salvation, just as Jesus told His Father that he has lost none that he had been given.
If the Pope wants to dabble in this crap in his spare time, fine. But let's not foist it on pilgrims who have a hard enough time finding their own way. Reaffirm in us the basic principles such as Grace, sin, Hell, chastity, reverence, etc. Not examining the lint in our belly buttons looking for Christ.