Search

The essay of Lukas Nosek, an arabist and a catholic theologian, deals with Pierre Claverie's relation with the truth. It is based on Claverie's position in the study called Humanite plurielle, which states that Christians are not owners of the truth but rather vice-versa, the truth "owns" Christians. The author asks a question whether this approach isn't overly relativistic, whether Claverie abandoned catholic or even Christian faith. If argumentative skills and syllogisms are not enough and a need of other person is declared, what kind of concept of the truth is it? Therefore, Nosek explores how Christian and Muslim authorities approach the truth. At first he examines On First Philosophy, the work of al-Kindi, a founder of Islamic and Arabic philosophy. Then he analyzes a passage about grace in Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas, the letter De modo studendi accredited to St. Thomas for a long time and finally the work of a medieval reformer Jan Hus. Nosek uncovers that all the above mentioned thinkers have been defending the autonomy of the truth, the impossibility of its possession but also the chance to approach it. The essential point is the necessity to admit that truth can be revealed through somebody different (a foreigner, a member of other religious group, a heretic). We need others to be able to see things from different angles and to observe mysterious unity of the Truth of being from various perspectives and in particular traditions as it has been declared by fathers of the Second Vatican Council after all. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study summarises the objections of some critical voices against the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia, especially against its 8th chapter. It is neither a complete list of critical voices nor a complete list of their arguments; it is limited to the two loudest and apparently the most radical ones. These voices summarise precisely the arguments and objections of the other critics. Firstly, the author looks at the exhortation as a whole and observes the role of the 8th chapter. He focuses on - for the critics - the most crucial passage in article 305, and especially in footnote 351. Then he deals with the so-called four cardinals' Dubia from November 2016 and with the comprehensive letter from summer 2017 titled Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis. Finally, he answers the questions asked in Dubia and Correctio, namely whether AL is contrarious to the traditional doctrine, to sacramentology, anthropology, or to the doctrine on the grace of God. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]