Saturday, May 16, 2015

On the Virtuous Pagan, Limbo and the Theology of Damnation

As some of you might have noticed, Christine Niles of Church Militant recently hosted a webcast which explored the thrice-defined dogma of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), or "No salvation outside the Church." I took this as a wink from God, because I've been meaning to write something on this very important teaching for quite a while now. After months of procrastination, it seems the time has arrived to put my thoughts down on paper... or whatever blogs are made of. I offer them for your consideration.

Instead of going through the list of familiar papal pronouncements which treat the doctrine of EENS, I'd like to approach the teaching from a completely different angle. In particular, from that of the theology of damnation. This might at first seem to be a rather odd point of entry, but there are good reasons for exploring the theology of damnation before attempting to digest EENS. Three such reasons concern us here:

  1. Damnation is the theological complement to salvation. Any doctrine which explicitly defines matter related to salvation implicitly defines matter related to damnation, as the one is the logical and eschatological complement of the other. Thus, EENS has just as much to do with damnation as it does with salvation.
  2. Damnation is the rule, not the exception. It is often assumed that nearly everyone is saved, and that only a few exceptionally bad individuals - Hitler, Stalin, the guy who invented reality TV - are damned. On the contrary, damnation is the condition into which all of us are born, and unless we receive and die in the saving grace of God, damnation will also be our eternal reward. Christ came to save us from damnation, and it's a miracle every time a soul is saved precisely because, according to God's law, we fully deserve that damnation. This is essential background knowledge for approaching the doctrine of EENS.
  3. Damnation is poorly understood. While damnation is the logical and eschatological complement to salvation, it is not simply the inverse of salvation. That is to say, the state of damnation is positively differentiated in a way which is not reflected in the order of salvation. Understanding this qualitative differentiation is essential for putting EENS in its proper theological context.

While the first two points should be readily grasped by all, the third stands in need of some clarification. In what does the qualitative differentiation of damnation consist? And how does it help elucidate the doctrine of EENS? Before we attempt to answer these important questions, it behooves us to identify the prevailing view of damnation, as this is what we will be attempting to correct as we proceed. This preliminary step proves to be key, because much of the disdain for the doctrine of EENS arises from a faulty understanding of damnation - which, incidentally, many Catholics have adopted from their Protestant neighbors.

As a general rule, Protestants believe that there are two possible fates for each individual soul - fates which are instantaneously awarded and diametrically opposite to one another: heaven and hell. One minute you're eating a delicious strip of crispy bacon, and the next, you're either sitting on a cloud strumming your harp or you're down in the pits of hell being roasted over hot coals while listening to Kenny G for all eternity. Of course, I'm taking some creative license with the imagery - it could well be Zamfir - but the dichotomy referred to is nonetheless an unmistakable feature of the Protestant's theological landscape. So much so, in fact, that, next to bashing the mother of Our Lord, there's little else Protestants love more than attacking the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. In their strictly two-category system, Purgatory is like a third-party American President: interesting to think about but utterly impossible.

Most Catholics in the West have unconsciously absorbed this way of thinking about damnation. Sure, they know about Purgatory, but it's generally treated like a quirky doctrinal addendum and imagined to be not unlike a really horrible waiting room. This is a rather unfortunate state of affairs, because Catholic teaching on damnation is not only intellectually and morally satisfying, but also demonstrates the perfect harmony of God's mercy with His justice.

Back in the day - i.e. before the ecumenicidal leveling of every distinctively Catholic doctrine into the feel-good mush regularly served up in parishes around the world - theologians worked at providing genuine insight into the truths of our Catholic Faith. And damnation was, believe it or not, something of a "big deal" - so big, in fact, that theologians spent a lot of time examining it in great detail. They discovered that there are actually four kinds of damnation, each with their own variety of poena or "penalty" and each with their own proper spiritual 'location', though all can be considered as parts of "Hell", viz:

  • poena aeterna damni et sensus of Hell proper, i.e. the Inferno
  • poena temporalis damni et sensus of Purgatory
  • poena aeterna damni of the Limbo of the Unbaptized/Infants
  • poena temporalis damni of the Limbo of the Fathers

For those of you with a working knowledge of Latin and an appreciation of the Scholastic art of logical division, the breakdown here is as clear as it is precise. For everyone else:

There are two primary forms of "penalty", "punishment" or "pain" (all of which are etymologically related to Latin poena): (1) poena damni, the punishment of damnation, and (2) poena sensus, the punishment of the senses, i.e. sensory pain. Each of these can be either eternal (aeterna) or temporary (temporalis) in duration.

From this, we can draw several illuminating conclusions, many of which I will leave to you, gentle reader, to discover on your own. One critical insight which deserves to be highlighted, however, is this: the punishment of damnation and the punishment of sensory pain are not the same thing. In point of fact, the punishment of sensory pain is limited to Hell and Purgatory. This makes good Catholic sense, because Hell and Purgatory are the respective sentences for mortal and venial sin, and are therefore predicated upon the moral fault of the individual. Where there is no personal moral fault, as is the case with those who die with nothing other than the stain of original sin on their souls, there is no punishment of sensory pain. And how could it be any other way? God, being omnibenevolent, is not going to allow a person to be tormented for something of which he is not personally guilty.

At the same time, however, God is all-holy and all-just, and nothing bearing the stain of sin can stand before Him. And this is the essence of salvation: to be fully reconciled to God by removal of the stain of sin and to stand in His presence, i.e. to enjoy the beatific vision. Yet, the stain of original sin can only be removed by the waters of baptism. Thus, baptism is absolutely necessary in order to avoid the punishment of damnation and to enjoy the beatific vision, and the souls of those who die free from all personal sin but who are nonetheless stained with original sin are, technically speaking, damned. In this category would fall not only babies who die before baptism, but also virtuous pagans who never receive the opportunity to hear the Gospel and be baptized. But - and this is important - such a person does not suffer the positive pains of Hell.

This is not merely speculation culled from theological manuals. At least two Popes and an Ecumenical Council have said as much:
The Roman Church teaches [...] that the souls of those who depart in mortal sin or with original sin only descend immediately to Hell, nevertheless to be punished with different punishments and in disparate locations. - Pope John XXII, Nequaquam sine dolore
That is to say, the unbaptized who die without personal sin (i.e. "only original sin") are, strictly speaking, "damned," as they endure the poena damni or punishment of damnation. But the extent of their damnation is limited to the deprivation of the beatific vision, and they dwell in a "disparate location," i.e. not in Hell proper, as the place of sensory punishment. This teaching was confirmed by the Council of Florence in the following terms:
...the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to Hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. - Council of Florence, Laetentur Caeli
Pope Pius VI later taught the same in his condemnation of an error widely held at his time:
The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of Limbo of the Children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire [...] is false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. - Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei
This statement is clearer still in that it identifies "that place of the lower regions," i.e. Limbo, as receiving not merely children but all who die free from personal sin yet with the stain of original sin, and that such persons, while undergoing the poena damni, do not experience the poena sensus, i.e. the "punishment of fire."

This same teaching was summarized by Fr. L. E. Latorre in his Guidebook for Baptism:
The great majority of theologians teach that such children and unbaptized adults free from grievous actual sin enjoy eternally a state of perfect natural happiness, knowing and loving God by the use of their natural powers. This place and state is commonly called Limbo.
This statement goes even further, claiming that, more than simply being free from sensory pain, those in Limbo actually experience natural happiness. This, however, appears to be a point upon which there was heavy disagreement among theologians. As one historian notes:
In the fifth session of the Council of Trent, the Dominicans advocated the stricter view, making of the limbus infantium [Limbo of the Infants] a dark, underground prison, while the Franciscans placed it above in a region of light. Others made the condition of these children still better: they supposed them occupied with studying nature, philosophizing on it, and receiving occasional visits from angels and saints. As the Council thought it best not to decide this point, theologians have since been free to embrace either view.
Finally, I offer the following useful summary, which appeared in the July, 1849 edition of Brownson's Quarterly Review:
Suppose now, - and if the supposition is inadmissible the objection vanishes, - that among the gentiles there are persons who die out of the Church, free from all actual sin: they, certainly, will never see God, will never enter heaven, will not be saved; yet nothing obliges us to believe that they will be doomed to the punishment of sense, or to the positive sufferings of hell. What will be their fate, beyond the fact that they will not be saved, we do not know, and do not attempt to determine. We remit them, if such there are, to the bounty of God, who, for aught we know, may place them in the category of unbaptized infants who die in their infancy. But no injustice is done them in not admitting them to the beatific vision; for to see God by the light of glory is a gratuitous reward, promised only to supernatural faith and sanctity, never due and never promised to mere natural innocence or to mere natural virtue. The defect of natural innocence or of natural virtue excludes from it, but the possession of either or both does not and cannot entitle to it; and natural innocence and virtue are all that it can be pretended that these have. Hence, supposing such persons, supposing them to die free from all but original sin, no injustice is done them in excluding them from salvation, and therefore the dogma which denies the possibility of salvation out of the Church asserts nothing contrary to the justice or even to the fidelity of God.
This quote brings us neatly back to our original question:  How does the qualitative differentiation of damnation help to elucidate the doctrine of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus? I hope the answer is already sufficiently clear. But allow me to highlight what I consider to be the most salient point:

There is absolutely nothing harsh or judgmental in the doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. On the contrary, a proper understanding of the teaching reveals both God's supreme justice as well as His infinite mercy, as He neither punishes nor rewards arbitrarily. If we approach the teaching with a wrong understanding of salvation and damnation, then we are bound to misunderstand what it means. We do not need to adjust the meaning of the term "outside," as some have attempted to do; we do not need to adjust the meaning of the term "Church," as others have attempted to do; and we certainly do not need to abandon the doctrine of Limbo, as still others have attempted to do. The Catholic teaching on salvation and damnation, including the teaching on the absolute necessity of the Church, is inextricably intertwined with her teaching on countless issues, being of central importance to moral theology, soteriology and eschatology, and a doctrine such as EENS cannot be "tweaked" to appease the sensibilities of a decadent and unrepentant generation without distorting a whole host of intimately related truths. 

Now, I understand that some might be concerned that the approach taken above - and it is nothing more than one possible approach - could be seen as demoralizing to the Church's missionary efforts. After all, if the Virtuous Pagan can attain something resembling natural happiness without being a member of the Church, then why should Catholics risk life and limb to bring them the message of the Gospel? In response, I would point, first, to Our Lord's positive commandment to "teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Second, I would highlight that, as Catholics, we know that man was created to live in the presence of Almighty God, and that to fail in attaining this, our proper end, is always a tragedy, even if it does not necessarily bring with it the painful torments of Hell. That is to say, our goal in evangelization and mission is not merely to assist the Church in her work of saving souls from Hell (or Purgatory, or Limbo), but also to assist her in bringing souls to the throne of majesty to enjoy the beatific vision of Our Lord in all His glory. That is the true mission of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

Dante and Vergil Visit the Virtuous Pagans in Limbo
"Lost are we and only so far punished that, without hope, we live on in desire."
Gustave Doré (1832-1883)


  1. Radical Catholic,

    Your article is good and I appreciate you putting it out there for us. I just want to make sure I am not understanding you to say that a virtuous pagan would be common, since I believe it is extremely rare for anyone to be virtuous as a whole apart from God's sanctifying grace. I understand actual grace to simply zap us into a disposition in which we would be more open to God, to His sanctifying grace.

    In all honesty, I find it hard to swallow how a pagan would be "virtuous" yet not be sent an angel from heaven, enticing him to desire baptism. Thus, I think the "Virtuous Pagan" may be a category for the unbaptized that is not necessary. Since the pagans I am talking about have reason, then I would think they would be proselytized somehow prior to death and either reject the Gospel and go to hell or accept the Gospel and desire to be baptized. I would actually consider the lack of such an opportunity to accept the Gospel to be a bit unjust since they have obtained the very reason God gave them, enabling them to seek the Truth and to accept it. I am not saying God would be unjust for sending them to hell but only to grant them reason without giving them the opportunity to accept what every man of reason and "good will" would desire.

    What are your thoughts?

    God bless.

  2. Dear Athanasius,

    Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I'm glad you enjoyed the article.

    I think it's safe to say that God desires to have all men with Him in Heaven. But He has specifically and explicitly entrusted the work of spreading the Gospel and administering the Holy Sacraments to His Church. That is to say, He desires our active cooperation in the work of salvation. For this to even be possible, it requires that God would allow any virtuous pagans - if they should exist - to end up in Limbo in the event that they do not receive baptism, even if they have been responsive to God's actual grace. In other words, if the hypothetical virtuous pagan exists - which is posited to explore a theological and not an anthropological possibility - then it would be quite fitting for him to reside in a place removed from the presence of God but free from any kind of positive punishment or sensual pain. To put it another way - and perhaps this is getting more to the point of your comment - we have to be careful not to think of (natural and not theological) virtue in the pagan as some kind of merit deserving of God's favor, e.g. that He would be in some way obliged to miraculously provide access to His sanctifying grace. We know that this is not the case. Sanctifying grace, as I'm sure you know, is a gratuitous gift, and the merit belongs to Our Lord alone. As He has entrusted the work of salvation to His Church, the obligation - as well as the blame of failure - falls to the human members of the same.

    Perhaps another of looking at it is to say that, instead of expecting God to find a way for all men to enter Heaven, we should be praising both God's mercy and His justice for the very possibility of Limbo, which accords perfectly with the nature of man divorced from the supernatural life of God. Anything higher than that is a magnificent gift of which none of us are worthy.

    Thanks again and God bless,


  3. RC,

    Thank you for following up on my comment. I was thinking that the virtuous pagan could be taken as one meriting something apart from God’s Sanctifying Grace. I see you were not making that claim but wanted to understand it better on my end. I have done my best to defend Limbo in the case for unbaptized infants but I never delved into the idea that an unbaptized adult with reason could possibly go there. I do understand that it is a theological possibility but just find it hard to come up with an actual case in which it can be applied. Due to Original Sin, every man’s natural (fallen) inclination is towards actual sin. By default, we are sons of Satan and sentenced to death. As you mentioned, every man is damned from conception and only redeemed via baptism, where we become adopted children of God and moved from death to life. With this in mind, again, I just don’t see how anyone born with O.S. and not baptized can mature through life without ever committing a single mortal sin. In potency, I will grant it though.

    Am I understanding properly?

    Afterthought: I guess the virtuous pagan could be a person who just gained reason, then his first moral act was for the good, and then died shortly thereafter. The only issue I see though is that I would think (and very well could be wrong) God would make it so that that person, seen or unseen to others, would be moved to send an angel or prophet to that person just before death. If this were the case, then that person would not be headed for limbo as a virtuous pagan but to heaven as a Christian who desired baptism.

    I know God owes us nothing and that we should rejoice in the infinite mercy he pours out on those who seek justice. It just seems to me that the virtuous pagan who seeks justice or righteousness would truly experience mercy if the glory of God was granted to him. Limbo would only seem right if the opportunity to accept the Gospel was never given, which may very well be the case and your position.

    Where does the baptism of desire come into this? Are only those with an explicit desire to be baptized counted among those who receive baptism by desire? Is an implicit desire or “good will” sufficient?

    God bless.

  4. Dear Athanasius,

    Yes, your summary is correct. The virtuous pagan - or simply one who dies in "original sin alone", to use the phrase mentioned by the Popes - is a hypothetical person posited to explore a theological possibility, and not a claim that such a person actually exists.

    On baptism of desire, I hold a rather conservative position. That is, I think the more traditionally and logically consistent position is that one must have an explicit desire for baptism, i.e. be in the state of catechumen. I am well aware of the letter from the Holy Office which was published during the Feeney Affair, as well as of the work of Msgr. Fenton attempting to explain how one can be both inside and outside the Church at the same time. I won't say it's impossible, given the relatively recent and authoritative pronouncements on it, but I readily admit that I don't understand it, and I have a very difficult time squaring the idea with past papal pronouncements. And, if one considers Limbo a theological possibility, as I do (following Pius VI), then it's an inconsequential distinction. While I think there is a strong case for God making use of extraordinary and even sometimes miraculous means to distribute His sanctifying grace to those with an explicit desire, it seems to me that extending the same to those with a merely implicit desire is granting too much, and universal salvation is just around the corner.

    It goes without saying, of course, that I'm not passing judgment on any concrete case here. For example, in the case of the Muslim who was recently killed along side his Christian friends after confessing his faith in "the same God," I would never presume to know whether this was, in fact, an expression of an explicit desire to accept Christ and receive baptism. I pray that it was, for the sake of that soul. But that's for God alone to know and judge.

    Thanks for the thoughtful comments, and God bless.

    - RC

  5. Radical Catholic,

    I appreciate the time you have taken with me. I understand the Church’s teaching on implicit desire to be, by necessity for salvation, “animated by perfect charity” and “supernatural faith” along with invincible ignorance. It seems the Church has actualized that which was a theological possibility (since it is hard to believe all those conditions could exist at the same time in a person who has the stain of Original Sin and never baptized), and also made it the norm after Vatican II. I see your point about universal salvation being just around the corner. If we were to ask the average Catholic on the street, we would find out just how common the belief is that all people who are “good” will go to heaven.

    I admit to having trouble in the past understanding the statement, “God is not bound by His Sacraments” since it is usually made by those who lean towards a larger contingency of mankind being saved. I understand God to be bound by His Word though and since He made baptism necessary for salvation, then His justice could not permit Him to allow a person into heaven without it. An explicit desire for baptism would not violate God’s justice and a mere implicit desire, accompanied by the other conditions needed, just seems impossible in our fallen nature.

    Concerning Limbo, I think we would be hard pressed to find many clerics or lay people who subscribe to it. In my opinion, I also think many would even deny the Church’s doctrine on Original Sin.

    On a different note, I am thinking about adopting your pseudonymity and upping it to Radical Catholic Extremist. I have always chuckled at the attempts in the news to avoid blaming the false religion of Islam for anything negative, thus calling the perpetrators Radical Islamic Extremists. I often wonder how wonderful the world would be if we had just as many Radical Catholic Extremists running around doing the will of God according to the commands of Jesus Christ. Besides, I don’t do much justice to the good name of St. Athanasius and would prefer not to attribute my words and thoughts to such a great saint.

    God bless.

  6. Dear Athanasius,

    With comments like yours, you're certainly welcome here. I get a surprising amount of atheist and angry Protestant comments, most of which are simply unpublishable, so comments from faithful Catholics such as yourself are always very welcome.

    You make a good point regarding implicit desire. I wish we had more detailed information on the actual debates which took place between the Dominicans and the Franciscans at the Council of Trent regarding Limbo, because I imagine it would be very relevant to this discussion. The term itself means "border", which lends itself to being seen as either on the "border" to Heaven or on the "border" to Hell; perhaps it's both. What really throws me for a loop in the teaching on implicit desire, however, is the requirement of "supernatural faith." I agree completely that supernatural faith is necessary for Heaven, but I see no way in which this could be given to someone who has exactly zero knowledge of the proper object of that supernatural faith. Natural faith is accessible to the pagan by virtue of his God-given reason, as are all the truths of natural theology. But supernatural faith? I don't see that happenning unless he is exposed to divine revelation.

    From my research into the topic, limited as it is, it seems that Limbo was much more common among theologians prior to the confusion which preceded and then became programmatic after Vatican II. The letter from the Holy Office, for example, gives sufficient grounds for ignoring the traditional teaching completely - and that's exactly what has happened, with the Internation Theological Commission going so far as to suggest that theologians are no longer considered bound to defend the teaching on Limbo, and may instead teach that God welcomes all unbaptized children into Heaven. I love babies as much as the next fellow, but that creates significant problems in the relationship between God's mercy and His justice. As I mention in the post, I think that people - particularly the grieving parents mentioned in the ITC statement - approached the matter of the fate of their miscarried and unbaptized children with a faulty notion of Limbo, i.e. as a place of positive punishment. Had the Council of Trent decided to support the Franciscans faction, perhaps we could have avoided this detour entirely.

    On the name suggestion: I love it. In my humble opinion, we should all be Radical Catholics. To be Catholic requires a radical change of life and way of thinking, and the more radicalized Catholics become, the closer they get to Our Lord, and the better they become as human beings. "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding, and with all thy strength." That's radical talk, and I love it.

    God bless,


  7. Radical Catholic,

    As you can see, I made the jump to the new name.

    I watched the Church Militant episode you referenced and I wanted your input on the "necessity" of receiving the Eucharist they mentioned a few times. I have looked into this in the past and it is my understanding that receiving the Eucharist is not a necessity for salvation. Certainly it is helpful, but not necessary. I am not sure why this is the case since our Good Lord did make the claim very explicitly.

    I completely concur with your thoughts concerning Supernatural Faith. If one has it, then they are Catholic as far as I am concerned, not a pagan. This could easily lead us into a conversation about all baptized Protestants without reason having Supernatural Faith and really being Catholic, and then losing that faith once they obtain reason and choose to accept the heresy they were raised in. I know there are a lot of variables that can come into this and make one less culpable but objectively speaking, they lose the Supernatural Faith given to them at baptism once they knowingly and willingly depart from one teaching of the Church concerning faith and morals.

    It is very concerning to me that every heresy concerning the faith simultaneously allows for some moral or sexual sin. Surely this is not a coincidence on Satan's part, especially since absolution is no where to be found apart from the Catholic Church. And I personally think Perfect Contrition is just as hard to come by as Perfect Charity is.



  8. Dear RCE,

    To understand the point regarding the necessity of receiving Our Lord in the Eucharist, we have to distinguish between what is referred to as the "necessity of means" (necessitas medii) and the "necessity of precept" (necessitas praecepti). In regards to salvation, Baptism is in the former category, being absolutely necessary for all. Receiving Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, on the other hand, is in the latter category, though only for those having attained the age of reason. In other words, we must receive Holy Communion at least once a year, not because it is absolutely necessary, but because we are commanded to do so by the precept of the Church. When it is said that the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, the meaning is as a necessity of precept, not of means.

    I agree very much on the point you make regarding Protestants (which also applies to the Eastern Orthodox). Baptism is a Catholic Sacrament, and all who receive it are incorporated into the Church. This remains the case until the age of reason, at which time the individual begins to be personally culpable for their actions. By the age of majority at the very latest, it is their responsibility to seek out the truth. And God has made it quite easy to learn about the Faith - particularly in this age of the internet - and to find access to a Catholic priest. But, as you mention, perfect contrition is a great gift which requires complete submission to and cooperation with God's grace. And that is indeed hard to come by.

    Though it's a bit early: Have a blessed Pentecost! And don't forget to recite the Veni Creator Spiritus!


  9. RC,

    Thank you for clarifying the teaching on receiving the Blessed Sacrament as a necessary precept.

    And thank you for exhorting me to recite the Veni Creator Spiritus. I did so last night and will do so again.

    What are you thoughts concerning the below philosophy course or lectures?

    God bless!

  10. Dear RCE,

    You're most welcome. And don't forget to spread the word on the Veni Creator Spiritus to friends and family; there's a plenary indulgence attached to its recitation on Pentecost.

    From what little I know of Br. Maluf's work, it is quite good. His spoken lectures might be a little advanced for anyone just getting started, as he is fluent in both Latin and Greek and tends to make heavy use of them - which is perfectly fine, but possibly difficult for beginners. If his teaching style speaks to you, e.g. if you prefer spoken lectures to written texts, then you might consider taking one of his full courses. I don't really know if the prices listed at that site are fair or not; but I'm assuming any patrons are also fine with helping to support that apostolate. If you prefer written texts, however, I can provide you with numerous works for free. Either way, I'm happy to see Catholics take interest in our philosophical heritage.

    If you do decide to take one of Br. Maluf's courses, please let me know how it goes.

    God bless!

  11. RC,

    I have the course now that I linked to. It is a bit challenging and will take a while to get trough. I usually have more time to listen to lectures than read them due to my duties in life and travel times. The bad thing is that I can't really take notes while driving or take time to look up a word definition. This causes me to have to listen to each lecture more than once and try to research later after forgetting most. It is a poor system but I am not in a rush. I figure that what needs to stick will do so.

    Any resources you have in written form would be great. I do eventually read the things that I obtain but it also takes a while since I am usually awake for less than 5 minutes after resting my head.

    Thanks again. God bless!

  12. Dear RCE,

    Which one did you get? I see he has courses covering logic, cosmology, psychology, ethics, epistemology, ontology, and some history of philosophy. I know some good Scholastic works on all of these, and can send you links to free texts depending on the subject. Let me know and I'll get you hooked up.

    God bless!


  13. RC,

    I actually have the complete set.

    I finished the Logic course and am on Cosmology.

    I did enjoy the logic course and could use other resources to reinforce what I learned. Psychology has always interested me and moral theology is one of my favorites, so any resources on ethics would be great. If you prefer to take this conversation off line, as I would not mind, then please just email me directly. I suppose you can view my email somehow since I needed to log in to make comments but if not, let me know.

    God bless!

    Have a blessed Pentecost.

  14. RCE,

    Wow! I like the enthusiasm.

    Actually, I can't view your email; Google does all the cross-posting automatically. I wouldn't mind taking this off the blog combox, though. There are two ways we could do this:

    1) If you write a comment including your email, I will receive it but I won't publish it here - email privacy is kind of a big deal to me - but I will contact you directly, at which time you'll have my address as well.

    2) We can communicate over Google+, as we can have private conversations other there, and you wouldn't have to divulge your email. I'm sending you a private message over there now, just in case you're not familiar with how it works.

    I'm fine with either option.

    God bless you and yours! Veni, Creator Spiritus!



Comments are moderated according to both content and form. If you would like to keep your comments private, please indicate this, and include your email if you would like a personal response. Thank you for commenting.