Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family

possibilities in God that are dramatically different from ours, as in his discussion of whether God could intuitively imagine the whole world.Adams encourages us to read early modern thought anew, seeing in it both encouragement and challenge to theology, in their-and his-conception of God, neither radically apophatic nor flat-footedly anthropocentric.

Biomedicine and Beatitude: An Introduction to Bioethics by Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P., is a very important and valuable book. His presentations and discussions of the major bioethical iss...

Reviews in Religion & TheologyVolume 19, Issue 3 p. 388-390 The Analogy of Being: Invention of the Antichrist or the Wisdom of God? – Edited by Thomas Joseph White Tracey Rowland, Tracey Rowland John Paul II Institute, MelbourneSearch for more papers by this author Tracey Rowland, Tracey Rowland John Paul II Institute, MelbourneSearch for more papers by this author First published: 05 July 2012 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9418.2012.01085.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume19, Issue3July 2012Pages 388-390 RelatedInformation

This chapter contains sections titled: Several Habits of Highly Effective People The Habit and Hope of Worship References

Traditionally, the problem of infinity in cosmology appeared in the form of questions concerning space and time. These questions were notoriously difficult and led to paradoxes. Does space extend to infinity? If so, how can something by definition beyond empirical control be a subject matter of scientific inquiry? If not, what is beyond the edges of space? Similar questions were involved in the time problem: If time had a beginning, what was "before" the beginning? If the age of the universe is infinite, what supplies infinite amounts of energy indispensable to compensate for dissipative losses? Relativistic cosmology did not solve these questions; it only tamed them by elaborating strict mathematical tools, in terms of which they could be expressed while awaiting more empirical data that would help to further elucidate them.

L’autore parte da un breve resoconto del suo coinvolgimento nella questione, concentrandosi sugli incontri dei filosofi morali/teologi, medici, giuristi e infermieri che presiedette nel 1986 per discutere l’argomento in profondità, dopo la dichiarazione della Pontificia Accademia delle Scienze del 1985 che affermava che il trattamento delle persone in uno stato di incoscienza permanente non è obbligatorio ma che tutta l’assistenza, compresa la nutrizione, dovrebbe essere loro profusa. Questi incontri portarono l’autore stesso e alcuni altri a cambiare le loro precedenti opinioni, secondo cui non era obbligatoria la nutrizione, e a scrivere un documento, pubblicato nella rivista Issues in Law and Medicine nel 1987 e firmato da più di 90 studiosi, in cui vengono fornite le ragioni per cui tale nutrizione è moralmente necessaria in modo ordinario. Egli analizza quindi i punti di vista delle diverse fonti sull’argomento, compresi i vescovi cattolici e gli studiosi, dai primi anni ‘80 fino al pronunciamento di Giovanni Paolo II del 20 marzo 2004. In particolare egli presenta l’argomento assai influente presentato da Kevin O’Rourke, O.P., che afferma che un’adeguata lettura del discorso del 1957 di Papa Pio XII sosterrebbe l’opinione secondo cui tale somministrazione di cibo/acqua è straordinaria perché non permette al soggetto in stato di incoscienza permanente di perseguire il fine spirituale della vita. L’autore mostra che questa interpretazione di Pio XII è grossolanamente imprecisa. L’autore, quindi, riassume il discorso di Giovanni Paolo II del 20 marzo affermando che la nutrizione di tali persone è una questione di assistenza ordinaria ed è obbligatoria. Egli poi esamina l’accoglienza estremamente ostile che questo discorso ha avuto da parte di molti teologi, che hanno affermato che esso non è compatibile con l’insegnamento della tradizione Cattolica, o che impone gravi pesi non necessari a coloro che forniscono le cure, o che non era ben ragionato, ecc. L’autore conclude con la difesa del discorso di Giovanni Paolo II, rispondendo alle obiezioni sollevategli contro. ---------- The Author begins with a brief account of his own involvement in the question, focusing on the meeting of moral philosophers/theologians, doctors, lawyers and nurses he chaired in 1986 to discuss the issue in depth after the 1985 declaration by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that treatment of permanently unconscious person is not required but that all care, including feeding, should be lavished on them. These meeting led him and some others to change their carlier views that considered such feeding not obligatory and to prepare a paper, published in Issues in Law and Medicine in 1987 and signed by more than 90 scholars, proving the reasons why such feeding is ordinarily morally required. He then reviews the views of different sources, including both Catholic bishops and scholars, over this issue from early 1980s until John Paul II’s statement of March 20, 2004. He in particular presents the highly influential argument advanced by Kevin O’Rourke, O.P., claiming that a proper reading of a 1957 address by Pope Pius XII support the view that such provision of food/hydration is extraordinary because it does not enable the permanently unconscious to pursue the spiritual goal of life and shows that this interpretation of Pius XII is grossly inaccurate. He then summarizes John Paul II’s March 20 address affirming that feeding such persons is ordinarily a matter of ordinary care and is obligatory. He next surveys the extremely hostile reception this address received from may theologians, who declared that it was not compatible with traditional Catholic teaching, that it imposed unnecessarily grave burdens on care givers, that it was not well reasoned etc. He concludes by defending John Paul II’s address and responding to objections leveled against it.

(2003). The Way of Suicide, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, or Evangelium Vitae’s Way of Mercy and Compassion? The Linacre Quarterly: Vol. 70, No. 4, pp. 301-315.