You’ve written and taught about moral prohibitions which have no exceptions. Thomas Aquinas gives as an example the prohibition of lying. Aristotle would never deny that someone has the right to lie to his enemies, but as you explain, Aquinas holds that lying is always immoral.
If legislators and judges all accepted the philosophical theory of determinism, what would be the effect on criminal sentencing? I haven’t found any clear consensus. Since the subject is heavily debated, could you tell me your view on the philosophical principles which guide or ought to guide legislators and judges?
The Church believes that because Holy Scripture is inspired by God, its authentic teachings cannot contain any real contradictions. It follows that apparent contradictions have to be harmonized. This interpretive principle is called Continuity.
MS-NOW moderator Katy Tur has been righteously roasted for her question to a panel on May 18: “What about this passage from [House Speaker] Mike Johnson declaring that our rights do not derive from government, they come from you, our Creator and heavenly father. Is this him putting God over the Declaration of Independence?”
Folks, I never thought I’d be recommending Tik Tok videos, but you may be interested in these one to fourteen minute outtakes from my recent long-form interview on Matt Fradd’s “Pints with Aquinas” podcast. (No, they’re not all from Tik Tok. So sue me.)