American Catholic Philosophical Association
2012 Annual Meeting
Marina del Rey Marriott,
4100 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey,
CA 90292
www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/laxmb-marina-del-rey-marriott
310-301-3000
Program
Friday, November 2, 2012
7:00 am – Holy Mass
Pacific II
7:45-8:00am – Executive Committee Meeting
Sierra II
8:00-11:00am – Executive Council Meeting
Sierra II
11:00am-8:30pm – Registration
California: Pre-function Area
11:00am-8:00pm – Book Exhibit
Palisades
11:00am-1:00pm – Satellite Sessions:
- Society for Thomistic Natural Philosophy Catalina
- Society for Thomistic Personalism Malibu
- ACPA Committee on Priestly Formation I Pacific III
- Society of Christian Philosophers Santa Monica
- ACPA Sponsored Satellite Session I Venice
- ACPA Sponsored Satellite Session II Pacific I
2:00-4:00 pm – Satellite Sessions:
- ACPA Committee on Priestly Formation II Pacific III
- Joint Meeting of the Lonergan Society and the Enduring Relevance of Hegel Group - The Lonergan-Hegel Session Venice
- The Society for Aristotelian Studies Pacific I
-
Aquinas and the ‘Arabs’ International Working Group, Session 1 Catalina
-
ACPA Sponsored Satellite Session III Malibu
-
Gabriel Marcel Society Santa Monica
-
ACPA Sponsored Satellite Session IV Peninsula
4:30-6:30 pm – Satellite Sessions:
-
Society for Medieval Logic and Metaphysics Malibu
-
Joint Meeting of the Lonergan Society and the Enduring Relevance of Hegel Group - The Hegel-Lonergan Session Venice
-
Thomas Aquinas College I Pacific I
-
Aquinas and the ‘Arabs’ International Working Group, Session 2 Catalina
-
ACPA Satellite Session V Santa Monica
-
The Institute for Saint Anselm Studies Pacific III
8:00-10:00pm – ACPA Contributed Papers
Session I: Jewish and Arabic Philosophers Pacific I
Chair: John Michael Chase, CNRS, Paris
Speaker: David Bradshaw, University of Kentucky
“Divine Simplicity and Divine Freedom in Maimonides and Gersonides”
Commentator: Sarah Pessin, University of Denver
Speaker: Luis Xavier Lopez-Farjeat, Universidad Panamericana, Mexico City
“Albert the Great between Avempace and Averroes on the Knowledge of Separate Forms”
Commentator: Steven Baldner, St. Francis Xavier, Antigonish
Session II: Contemporary Ethical Problems Pacific II
Chair: Daniel Thero, Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute
Speaker: Bernard G. Prusak, King’s College (PA)
“Paying for the Priceless Child”
Commentator: James Hanink, Loyola Marymount University
Speaker: John Zeis, Canisius College
“What Contradicts Intention”
Commentator: Christopher Kaczor, Loyola Marymount University
Session III: Medieval Christian Arguments for God’s Existence Santa Monica
Chair: Lorelle Lamascus, Mexican American Catholic College (TX)
Speaker: Michael Oliver Wiitala, University of Kentucky
“Anselm’s Ontological Argument and Aristotle’s Elegktikos Apodeixai”
Commentator: Montague Brown, St. Anselm College
Speaker: Daniel DeHaan, University of St. Thomas (TX)
“Why the Five Ways? Aquinas’s Avicennian Insight into the Problem of Unity in the Aristotelian Metaphysics and Sacra Doctrina”
Commentator: Therese Scarpelli Cory, Seattle University
Session IV: Intellectual Virtue Catalina
Chair: Domenic D’Ettore, Marian University
Speaker: Scott Cleveland, Baylor University
“The Distinctiveness of Intellectual Virtues: A Response to Roberts and Wood”
Commentator: Bonnie Kent, University of California, Irvine
Speaker: Bogumil Misiuk, Seton Hall University
“A Richness Diluted in Translation: An Analysis of Pope John Paul II’s Notion of ‘Knowing’ in the ‘Introduction’ to Fides et Ratio”
Commentator: Anthony Giampietro, CSB, University of St. Thomas (TX)
10:00pm-12 midnight – Reception hosted by Loyola Marymount University Bayview Ballroom
(Penthouse Level)
Saturday, November 3, 2012
7:00 am – Holy Mass Pacific II
8:30 am-6:00 pm – Registration California: Pre-function Area
8:30 am-6:00 pm – Book Exhibit Palisades
9:00 am-11:15 am – Plenary Session Sierra
Chair: Richard C. Taylor, Marquette University
Speaker: Ayman Shihadeh, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
“Religious and Non-Religious Philosophy in the Islamic Tradition”
Speaker: R.E. Houser, Bishop Wendelin J. Nold Professor of Philosophy, Center for Thomistic Studies, University of St. Thomas (TX)
“Why the Christian Magistri turned to Arabic and Jewish Philosophi”
11:30am-11:45am – Business Meeting Sierra
11:30am-1:00pm – Women’s Luncheon Stone’s Restaurant
(Reservation Required)
1:00-3:00pm – Satellite Sessions:
-
Philosophers in Jesuit Education Peninsula
-
Society for Catholicism and Analytic Philosophy Pacific III
-
Society for the Study of Cardinal Newman Catalina
-
Thomas Aquinas College II Pacific I
-
ACPA Sponsored Satellite Session VI Venice
-
The Dietrich von Hildebrand Legacy Project Santa Monica
-
Institut International D'Herméneutique Malibu
3:30-5:30 pm – ACPA Contributed Papers
Session V: Thomas Aquinas Pacific I
Chair: Judy Miles, Cal-Poly at Pomona
Speaker: Sean B. Cunningham, The Catholic University of America
“Aquinas on the Natural Inclination of Man to Offer Sacrifice to God”
Commentator: Randall Smith, University of St. Thomas (TX)
Speaker: Maria Carl, Seattle University
“St. Thomas Aquinas: The Unity of the Person and the Passions”
Commentator: Elizabeth Murray, Loyola Marymount University
Session VI: Arabic and Christian Philosophy Pacific III
Chair: Daniel P. Maher, Assumption College
Speaker: Katja Krause, King’s College, London
“Albert and Aquinas on the Ultimate Goal of Man: Philosophy, Theology, and Beatitude”
Commentator: Michael Waddell, St. Mary’s College (South Bend)
Speaker: Nathan Poage, Center for Thomistic Studies, University of St. Thomas (TX)
“The Subject and Principles of Metaphysics in Avicenna and Aquinas”
Commentator: Therese-Anne Druart, The Catholic University of America
Session VII: Physical Bodies and God Catalina
Chair: Glen Coughlin, Thomas Aquinas College
Speaker: Travis Dumsday, Concordia University College of Alberta
“An Argument for Hylomorphism or Theism (But Not Both)”
Commentator: Gyula Klima, Fordham University
Speaker: Patrick J. Rooney, The Catholic University of America
“Duns Scotus on Elements and Organs in a Mixed Body”
Commentator: Timothy B. Noone, The Catholic University of America
Session VIII: Love and Moral Thought Santa Monica
Chair: Jack Carlson, Creighton University
Speaker: Thomas A. Cavanaugh, University of San Francisco
“Double-Effect Reasoning Defended: a Response to Scanlon”
Commentator: Christopher Tollefsen, University of South Carolina
Speaker: David T. Echelbarger, Baylor University
“Aquinas on the Passions’ Contribution to Moral Reasoning”
Commentator: Anthony Crifasi, Benedictine College (KS)
6:00-7:00pm – Holy Mass Sierra
7:00-7:30pm – Reception hosted by Loyola Marymount University Bayview Ballroom Terrace
(Penthouse Level)
7:30-9:30pm – ACPA Banquet Bay view Ballroom
(Penthouse Level)
Presentation of the ACPA Young Scholar’s Award:
Katja Krause, King’s College, University of London
Aquinas Medalist: Robert Spaemann, University of Munich
Reading the Aquinas Medalist’s Address for Dr. Spaemann:
Tobias Hoffman, The Catholic University of America
Sunday, November 4, 2012
7:00am – Holy Mass Pacific II
8:30am-12:30am – Book Exhibit Palisades
9:30-11:30am – Plenary Session
Chair: John P. O’Callaghan, University of Notre Dame
Speaker: Barry S. Kogan, Clarence and Robert Efroymsen Professor of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, Hebrew Union College and Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati.
“Visions, Verities, and Voices: The Love of God and the Pursuit of Wisdom in the Jewish Philosophic Tradition”
Speaker: Richard C. Taylor, Professor of Philosophy, Marquette University, and Member, DeWulf-Mansion Centre, Institute of Philosophy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.
“A Common Negotiation: The Abrahamic Traditions and Philosophy in the Middle Ages”
Abstracts of Contributed Papers
Session I: Jewish and Arabic Philosophers
“Divine Simplicity and Divine Freedom in Maimonides and Gersonides”
David Bradshaw, University of Kentucky
From the standpoint of belief in divine freedom (or, more precisely, free choice), the medieval Aristotelian understanding of divine simplicity is deeply problematic. This is for two reasons. First, if the divine will and wisdom are identical, it would seem that God’s action must be wholly determined by His rational apprehension of the good. Second, if the divine will is identical with the divine essence, it would seem that for God to be able to do otherwise than He actually does would mean that the divine essence could be other than it is, a result that is plainly unacceptable. In this paper I focus on two leading Jewish philosophers who both believed in divine free choice and divine simplicity, Maimonides and Gersonides. My goal is to ascertain whether their views are subject to these problems, and, if so, what ramifications this fact has for their larger natural theologies.
“Albert the Great between Avempace and Averroes on the Knowledge of Separate Forms”
Luis Xavier Lopez-Farjeat, Universidad Panamericana, Mexico City
From the standpoint of belief in divine freedom (or, more precisely, free choice), the medieval Aristotelian understanding of divine simplicity is deeply problematic. This is for two reasons. First, if the divine will and wisdom are identical, it would seem that God’s action must be wholly determined by His rational apprehension of the good. Second, if the divine will is identical with the divine essence, it would seem that for God to be able to do otherwise than He actually does would mean that the divine essence could be other than it is, a result that is plainly unacceptable. In this paper I focus on two leading Jewish philosophers who both believed in divine free choice and divine simplicity, Maimonides and Gersonides. My goal is to ascertain whether their views are subject to these problems, and, if so, what ramifications this fact has for their larger natural theologies.
Session II: Contemporary Ethical Problems
“Paying for the Priceless Child”
Bernard G. Prusak, King’s College (PA)
As the sociologist Viviana Zelizer has observed, the twentieth century saw a “profound cultural transformation in children’s economic and sentimental value”: in brief, “the priceless child displaced the useful child.” Yet the great value that we place on children of our own has gone hand-in-hand, again in Zelizer’s words, with a “collective indifference to other people’s children.” This paper focuses on the question of public responsibility for children: that is, on who should pay for the priceless child. I claim that, within the framework of a liberal state, public responsibility for children is not inconsiderable, despite and even because of the great value that we place on our own children. To make this case, the paper examines a not so modest proposal: namely, that the family be abolished. I argue that there is good reason to reject this proposal, but that this rejection comes with costs that call for compensation.
“What Contradicts Intention”
John Zeis, Canisius College
The controversial Phoenix Hospital case demonstrates that there is significant disagreement in Catholic casuistry on what constitutes intention. Some hold that a causal closeness entails intention while others deny that there is any necessary connection between causal closeness and intention. One of the strongest supporters of the causal closeness thesis was Elizabeth Anscombe. It will be argued, however, that her works on intention provide support for a position on certain types of cases, such as the Phoenix Hospital case and the termination of an ectopic pregnancy, which contradict intentional killing.
Session III: Medieval Christian Arguments for God’s Existence
“Anselm’s Ontological Argument and Aristotle’s Elegktikos Apodeixai”
Michael Oliver Wiitala, University of Kentucky
Saint Anselm’s ontological argument is usually interpreted either (1) as an attempt to deductively prove God’s existence or (2) as a form of prayer, which is not intended to “prove” God’s existence, but rather to deepen the devotion of those who already believe. In this paper I attempt to find a mean between these two interpretations, showing that while Anselm’s argument is not a deductive proof, it is nevertheless a proof of God’s existence. I argue that Anselm’s ontological argument is analogous to Aristotle’s to elegktikos apodeixai (retorsive argument) for the truth of the principle of non-contradiction in Metaphysics IV: an argument that does not move from premises to conclusion, but rather demonstrates the truth of its conclusion by showing that its conclusion is always presupposed. I argue that interpreting Anselm’s ontological argument in this way exempts it from the most common objections against it.
“Why the Five Ways? Aquinas’s Avicennian Insight into the Problem of Unity in the Aristotelian Metaphysics and Sacra Doctrina”
Daniel DeHaan, University of St. Thomas (TX)
This paper will aim to make clear the order, unity, and purpose of Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways. I will argue that in the Five Ways, Aquinas appropriated an Avicennian insight that he used to order the wisdom of the Aristotelian and Abrahamic philosophical traditions towards the existence of God, who is subject of sacra doctrina. I will begin with a central aporia from Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Aristotle says that the science of first philosophy has three different theoretical vectors: ontology, aitiology, and theology. But how can all three be united into a single Aristotelian science? In his Metaphysics of the Healing, Avicenna resolved the impasse by taking the ontological vector as the subject of metaphysics. He then integrated the question of the four first causes into the penultimate stage of his demonstration of God’s existence, thereby placing aitiological and theological questions among the ultimate concerns of a unified Aristotelian metaphysics. In the Five Ways, Brother Thomas integrated Avicenna’s Aristotelian search for the first four causes into the last four of his Five Ways, by showing that each of the four aitiological orders terminate in a first ultimate cause that we call God. Finally, by appending the proof from Physics to the beginning of the Five Ways, Brother Thomas was able to show that both the ultimate aim of natural philosophy and metaphysics is the divine first principle, which is the beginning and subject of sacra doctrina.
Session IV: Intellectual Virtue
“The Distinctiveness of Intellectual Virtues: A Response to Roberts and Wood”
Scott Cleveland, Baylor University
Robert Roberts and Jay Wood criticize Aquinas’ distinction between intellectual and moral virtues. They offer three objections to this distinction. They object that intellectual virtues depend on the will in ways that undermine the distinction, that the subject of intellectual virtues is not an intellectual faculty but a whole person, and that some intellectual virtues require a virtuous will. They hold that each of these is sufficient to undermine the distinction. I defend Aquinas’ distinction and respond to each of their objections. I then briefly motivate why this is a distinction worth keeping.
“A Richness Diluted in Translation: An Analysis of Pope John Paul II’s Notion of ‘Knowing’ in the ‘Introduction’ to Fides et Ratio”
Bogumil Misiuk, Seton Hall University
Pope John Paul II’s encyclical letter Fides et Ratio examines the foundations of epistemology within the Abrahamic tradition and encourages a renewed discourse on what it actually means to know truth. The pontiff— both a philosopher and a theologian— reevaluates through the prism of man’s proper relation to truth the age-old question about the compatibility of faith and reason as means of acquiring knowledge. John Paul offers his perspective on the matter in the “Introduction” to Fides et Ratio by employing in his native Polish four non-exchangeable epistemological terms. Due, however, to the rather imprecise translations of his work, the profundity of John Paul’s thought has largely been obscured. The author of this paper attempts to recover the pope’s particular understanding of the nature of knowledge by expounding on the epistemological paradigm and norm presented by John Paul in addition to critiquing his view that modern society’s pursuit of knowledge parallels sinking in quicksand. Uncovering these insights ultimately leads him to a fuller interpretation of what kind of “knowledge,” according to Pope John Paul II, properly reflects the totality of man’s innate personhood and therefore what ought to constitute the underpinnings of knowledge itself.
Session V: Thomas Aquinas
“Aquinas on the Natural Inclination of Man to Offer Sacrifice to God”
Sean B. Cunningham, The Catholic University of America
Aquinas says offering sacrifice to God is “of the natural law” because man has a “natural inclination that he should tender submission and honor” to God. (ST II-II.85.1c.). Aquinas’s characterization of sacrifice as natural undermines two common mischaracterizations of Aquinas’s natural law theory: that “natural inclinations” means pre-rational “urges” generally and that natural law pertains exclusively to secular matters. For Aquinas, inclinatio naturalis in the sense proper to natural law means those inclinations that follow upon man’s substantial form in a teleological order; the “natural” for man includes properly human things, e.g., virtue and political life. Worship—an act of justice—is natural for man, even if specific rites are determined by divine law. Aquinas’s account of sacrifice as natural illustrates the proper sense of inclinatio naturalis. His teleological account of natural inclination raises questions about attempts to disengage Aquinas’s natural law from natural teleology or sectarian religious claims.
“St. Thomas Aquinas: The Unity of the Person and the Passions”
Maria Carl, Seattle University
One of St. Thomas Aquinas’s most ingenious yet underappreciated philosophical innovations is his synthesis of Plato’s dualism and Aristotle’s hylomorphism in his theory of the human person. Aquinas’s view of the person expresses itself in a number of aspects of his thought. In this paper I explore how his understanding of the passions is a reflection of his account of the unity of the human person. Just as Aquinas’s view of the person reconciles elements of dualism and hylomorphism, his explanation of the passions steers a middle course between intellectualist and physicalist accounts of the emotions and resists the reductionism characteristic of these dominant kinds of theories. Because Aquinas depicts the passions as engaging the whole person, I conclude the paper with a brief discussion of the significance of the passions for his moral theory.
Session VI: Arabic and Christian Philosophy
“Albert and Aquinas on the Ultimate Goal of Man: Philosophy, Theology, and Beatitude”
Katja Krause, King’s College, London
In strikingly different ways, Albert and Aquinas present beatitude in their Commentaries on the Sentences. While Albert’s theory of beatitude is an account purely based on theological conceptions and sources, Aquinas makes extensive use of philosophers such as Aristotle, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Avicenna, and Averroes. While recent scholarship has formidably shown that Aquinas derived his philosophical argumentation for the beatific vision from Averroes’ conjunction theory, the reasons for Albert’s and Aquinas’ disparate theories of beatitude have not yet been investigated. In this paper, I shall show that it is Albert’s and Aquinas’ divergent conceptions of the relationship between the two sciences of philosophy and theology that explain their disparate theories of beatitude. Once we understand the diverging conceptions of the two sciences in Albert and Aquinas, the initial problem relating to beatitude is solved.
“The Subject and Principles of Metaphysics in Avicenna and Aquinas”
Nathan Poage, Center for Thomistic Studies, University of St. Thomas (TX)
This paper argues that in spite of interpretations to the contrary Avicenna and Aquinas are fundamentally agreed as to subject and principles of metaphysics. The first part shows the common starting points of both philosophers in their use of the fundamental principles of metaphysics in the realm of assent and the realm of conceptualization as well as their common use of the distinction between principles common by causality and common by predication to provide the overall structure for their metaphysics (Avicenna Physics of the Shifa’ 1.2.8-10; Aquinas De Trin. V.4); 2) the second part argues that both philosophers have similar descriptions of God and common being as being without addition and thus similar views on the relation between God and the subject of metaphysics; and 3) the third part, by surveying some remarks by Avicenna on Sufism and the use of the Qur’an’s description of God’s attributes argues that Avicenna is not forced by his naturalistic theory of prophecy to include God under the subject of metaphysics.
Session VII: Physical Bodies and God
“An Argument for Hylomorphism or Theism (But Not Both)”
Travis Dumsday, Concordia University College of Alberta
Substratum theory remains a key competitor in the substance ontology literature. Here I argue that an internal worry for the theory gives rise to an interesting dilemma: Either (1) the substratum theorist should abandon the theory in favor of hylomorphism, or (2) she can keep substratum theory but must add to her ontology a powerful causal agent or agents able to operate outside the laws of nature (which would get us part of the way to theism, and at the very least a denial of metaphysical naturalism).
“Duns Scotus on Elements and Organs in a Mixed Body”
Patrick J. Rooney, The Catholic University of America
John Duns Scotus provides a theory of elemental mixing that is striking in the way it denies some rather plausible interpretations of empirical facts while fiercely attacking rival theories that claim to explain these facts. In brief, Scotus denies that the forms or qualities of the elements are present in a mixed body (mixtum). This theory is surprising because, as Richard Cross has noted, it seems that Scotus’s theory of body-organ unity could serve as the basis for a more plausible Scotistic account of mixing. Here I will explore the possibility that Scotus’s discussion of the unity of a body and its organs may provide Scotus with the principles for a better theory of mixing. I will argue that Scotus cannot use body-organ unity as a model for his theory of mixing unless he accepts a position developed by Richard of Mediavilla, namely that forms of one species can enjoy different grades. As Scotus rejects this position, I conclude that he must retain his somewhat unattractive theory of mixing.
Session VIII: Love and Moral Thought
“Double-Effect Reasoning Defended: a Response to Scanlon”
Thomas A. Cavanaugh, University of San Francisco
The Abrahamic religions and common morality typically endorse some form of an exceptionless prohibition against killing innocents. Natural law and Catholic moral tradition employ double-effect reasoning (DER) to address hard cases involving deaths of the innocent. Current deontologists (Scanlon and Thomson) criticize DER-proponents as conflating act- with agent-evaluations. Scanlon develops this critique extensively. I respond to his criticism. He maintains that the DER-advocate tells a badly-motivated agent to refrain from an obligatory act. Thus, he asserts, the natural lawyer who employs DER errs. Instead, Scanlon proposes, one ought to assess the act as permissible while blaming agent. I argue that DER does not succumb to this critique. Moreover, Scanlon’s particular criticism nicely shows the reasonableness of the approach the DER-thinker takes, namely, that defective agents produce defective acts. Thus, employing DER does not lead to a confusion of act- with agent- evaluations. Rather, it results in coherent assessments of both.
“Aquinas on the Passions’ Contribution to Moral Reasoning”
David T. Echelbarger, Baylor University
In the following paper, I seek to develop Aquinas’ view of the passions contribution to moral reasoning by discussing the role he sees the passions as playing (or not playing) in each of practical reason’s three acts. (§I) I begin by focusing on his proposal in Summa Theologica I-II, q. 44, a. 2 that certain passions can improve the act of counsel. I also address what appears to be a contradiction in his account. (§II) Next, I turn to his claim from De malo q. 3, a. 11 that the passions should not be given weight in our moral judgments. Particular attention is paid to explaining why Aquinas allows the passions to contribute to the act of counsel but not to the act of judgment. (§III) Finally, I end by briefly exploring whether Aquinas allows the passions to contribute to the act of command. I suggest that he does.
Satellite Sessions
Satellite Time Slot I: Friday, November 2, 11:00am -1:00pm
1. Society for Thomistic Natural Philosophy Catalina
Organizer: Michael Tkacz, Gonzaga University
Chair: Steven E. Baldner, St. Francis Xavier University
Speaker: Michael Tkacz, Gonzaga University
“Albertus Magnus and Error Ptolemaei”
Commentator: Daniel C. Wagner, University of St. Thomas (TX)
“Comments on Albertus Magnus and Ptolemy’s Conception of Science”
2. Society for Thomistic Personalism Malibu
Organizer and Chair: R. Mary H. Lemmons, University of St. Thomas, Minnesota
Speaker: Rev. Alfred Wierzbicki, Ph.D., Director of the John Paul II Institute at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin
"Karol Wojtyla's Personalism"
Speaker: Mary Catherine Sommers, Director of the Center for Thomistic Studies at the University of St. Thomas, Houston
"'Fidelity': Virtue or Vice?"
3. Society of Christian Philosophers Santa Monica
Topic: God and Freedom
Chair: Stephen R. Grimm, Fordham University
Speaker: Kevin Timpe, Northwest Nazarene University
"Why Responsible Agency Requires You Have a History; Unless You're God"
Speaker: Dan Speak, Loyola Marymount University
"On an Advantage of Open Theism"
4. ACPA Satellite Session I Venice
Chair: James Capehart, University of St. Thomas (TX)
Speaker: Christopher Buckels, University of California, Davis
“John Duns Scotus on Divine Illumination: Did Scotus Extinguish Illumination of the Intellect?”
Speaker: Chad Engelland, John Carroll University
“Animate Minds: Augustine’s Alternative to Descartes”
Speaker: William Tullius, Independent Scholar
“Husserl’s Concept of ‘Renewal’ and Phenomenology as ‘Faith Seeking Understanding’”
5. ACPA Satellite Session II Pacific I
Chair: E.M. Macierowski, Benedictine College
Speaker: John Michael Chase, CNRS UPR 76/Centre Jean Pépin
“The Ancient Roots of the Medieval Debate over the Eternity of the World: Proclus and the Plotiniana Arabica”
Speaker: Anthony Ruffus, University of Missouri - St. Louis
“‘Explaining Volition’ in the Ta?aliqat: Avicenna’s View of Free Will”
Speaker: Matthew Robinson, Boston College
“The Arabs, William of Auvergne and the Early Bonaventure: Reconciling Aristotle’s Noetic with the Autonomous Self”
6. ACPA Committee on Priestly Formation I Pacific III
Chair: David Ruel Foster, Athenaeum of Ohio
Speaker: Atherton Lowery, St. Charles Borromeo Seminary
“The Calling of Abraham and the Hope of Edith Stein”
Satellite Time Slot II: Friday, November 2, 2012 – 2:00-4:00pm
7. ACPA Committee on Priestly Formation II Pacific III
Chair: David Ruel Foster, Athenaeum of Ohio
Speaker: Sister Prudence Allen, John Vianney Seminary, Denver
“Gender Reality vs. Gender Ideology”
Speaker: Catherine Tkacz, Bishop White Seminary at Gonzaga University
“Preparing Seminarians to Preach on Women: Philosophical Realism and the Habitus of Catholic Anthropology”
8. Joint Meeting of the Lonergan Society and the Enduring Relevance of Hegel Group - The Lonergan-Hegel Session Venice
Organizers: Elizabeth Murray, Loyola Marymount University
Robert E. Wood, University of Dallas
Chair: Robert E. Wood, University of Dallas
Speaker: Mark Morelli, Loyola Marymount University
“Lonergan’s Reading of Hegel”
Speaker: Michael Baur, Fordham University
"Self-consciousness in Hegel and Lonergan: Clarification by Contrast"
9. The Society for Aristotelian Studies Pacific I
Organizer and Chair: Glen Coughlin, Thomas Aquinas College
Topic: Mathematics in Aristotle
Speaker: Erikk Geannikis, Catholic University of America
“An Aristotelian Ontology of the Geometrical Object”
Speaker: David Grothoff, Catholic University of America
“Geometrical Proportion and Continuity in Aristotle's Physics”
10. Aquinas and the ‘Arabs’ International Working Group, Session 1 Catalina
Co-organizers: Richard C. Taylor, Marquette University
Luis López-Farjeat, Universidad Panamericana, Mexico City
Chair: Richard C. Taylor, Marquette University
Speaker: Yehuda Halper, Tulane University
“Averroes on Man's Search for Meaning (ma‘nà)”
Commentator: Richard C. Taylor, Marquette University
Speaker: Francisco Romero Carrasquillo, Universidad Panamericana, Guadalajara
“The Dialectical and Scientific Status of Revealed Theology: Averroes' Rationalism and the Nuanced Position of Aquinas”
Commentator: Timothy Noone, The Catholic University of America
11. ACPA Satellite Session III Malibu
Chair: Mirela Oliva, University of St. Thomas (TX)
Speaker: Fr. Anselm Ramelow, OP, Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology, Berkeley
“The Person in the Abrahamic Tradition”
Speaker: John Macias, University of St. Thomas (TX)
“Tradition, Relativity, and MacIntyre”
Speaker: Brandon Dahm, Baylor University
“The (In)Adequacy of Human Wisdom: Comparing Avicenna’s Metaphysics of the Healing and Aquinas’s Summa Contra Gentiles”
12. Gabriel Marcel Society Santa Monica
Co-organizers: David Rodick, Xavier University
Brendan Sweetman, Rockhurst University
Chair: David Rodick, Xavier University
Speaker: Brian E. Gregor, Fordham University
“Availability, Responsibility, and Revelation: Marcel and Bonhoeffer on Interpersonal Relations”
Speaker: David Rodick, Xavier University
“Gabriel Marcel as Christian Philosopher: An Experiential Approach”
13. ACPA Satellite Session IV Peninsula
Chair: Thomas Osborne, Center for Thomistic Studies, University of St. Thomas (TX)
Speaker: Joshua Schulz, DeSales University
“Marriage Vows and Unbreakable Promises: A Virtue Defense”
Speaker: Christopher Tollefsen, University of South Carolina
“Double Effect and Two Hard Cases in Medical Ethics”
Satellite Time Slot III: Friday, November 2, 2012 – 4:30-6:30pm
14. Society for Medieval Logic and Metaphysics Malibu
Organizer: Alex Hall, Clayton State University
Topic: Natural Theology Then and Now
Chair: Michael Sirilla, Franciscan University Steubenville
Speaker: David Twetten, Marquette University
“A Classical Cosmological Argument without the Infinite Regress”
Speaker: Alex Hall, Clayton State University
“The Burden of Proof: Aquinas and God Science”
Response: Michael Sirilla, Franciscan University Steubenville
15. Joint Meeting of the Lonergan Society and the Enduring Relevance of Hegel Group - The Hegel-Lonergan Session Venice
Organizers: Elizabeth Murray, Loyola Marymount University
Robert E. Wood, University of Dallas
Chair: Elizabeth Murray, Loyola Marymount University
Speaker: Robert E. Wood, University of Dallas
"The Notion of Being in Hegel and Lonergan"
Speaker: Martin de Nys, George Mason University
"Lonergan and Hegel on the Idea of God"
16. Thomas Aquinas College I Pacific I
Organizer and Chair: Brian Kelly, Thomas Aquinas College
Topic: Aristotelian Natural Philosophy 1
Speaker: Ryan Shea, Catholic University of America
“The Figure Analogy in De Anima II.3 and the Methodology of Aristotelian Natural Philosophy”
Speaker: David Arias, Thomas Aquinas College
“Hylomorphism and Organ Transplants”
17. Aquinas and the ‘Arabs’ International Working Group, Session 2 Catalina
Co-organizers: Richard C. Taylor, Marquette University
Luis López-Farjeat, Universidad Panamericana, Mexico City
Chair: Luis López-Farjeat, Universidad Panamericana
Speaker: Therese Scarpelli Cory, Seattle University
“What Does the Intellectual Light Do? Aquinas and Some Arabic Theories of Light”
Commentator: Luis López-Farjeat, Universidad Panamericana, Mexico City
Speaker: Ahmad Alwishah, Pitzer College, LA
“Avicenna on Immediacy, Continuity, and Self-Referentiality of Awareness”
Commentator: R. E. Houser, Center for Thomistic Studies, University of St. Thomas (TX)
18. ACPA Satellite Session V Santa Monica
Chair: John O’Callaghan, University of Notre Dame
Speaker: Michael Baur, Fordham University
“The Nature of Freedom, the Goodness of Natural Inclinations, and the Viability of Contemporary Natural Law Theories”
Speaker: Daniel Shields, Xavier University
“Aquinas on the Moral Life of the Non-Believer”
Speaker: David Seltzer, Pennsylvania State University
“The Death of Monica and the Death of Socrates”
19. The Institute for Saint Anselm Studies Pacific III
Organizer and Chair: Montague Brown, St. Anselm College.
Topic: Rethinking the Anselmian Corpus: Responses to Sweeney's Anselm of Canterbury and the Desire for the Word.
Speaker: Katherin Rogers, University of Delaware
"Sweeney on Anselm's Metaphilosophy."
Speaker: Kevin Staley, Saint Anselm College
“Coincidence, Opposites, or In-between: Anselm according to Sweeney.”
Speaker: Eileen Sweeney, Boston College
“Response to Rogers and Staley.”
Satellite Time Slot IV: Saturday, November 3, 2012 – 1:00-3:00pm
20. Philosophers in Jesuit Education Peninsula
Organizers: Michael Baur, Fordham University
Joseph Godfrey, Saint Joseph's University
Topic: Intellectual Virtue and Education
Chair: Michael Baur, Fordham University
Speaker: Jason Baehr, Loyola Marymount University
"Why the Aim of Education Should Be the Formation of (Intellectual) Character: A Discussion"
21. Society for Catholicism and Analytic Philosophy Pacific III
Organizers: Jason T. Eberl, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Gavin Colvert, Assumption College
Topic: Theories of Death and Post-Mortem Life
Chair: Jason T. Eberl, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Speaker: Christopher M. Brown, University of Tennessee-Martin
“Aquinas on St. Paul in the Interim State: An Argument from the Perfect Happiness of the Saints”
Speaker: Thomas Cavanaugh, University of San Francisco
“Socrates’ Burial? The Question of an Individual’s Immortality”
Speaker: Russell DiSilvestro, Sacramento State University
“To Sleep Perchance To Dream: What Hamlet Might Tell Us about Bringing Back the Dead”
22. Society for the Study of Cardinal Newman Catalina
Organizer: Michael Baur, Fordham University
Topic: Book Discussion: An Integrative Habit of Mind: John Henry Newman on the Path to Wisdom by Frederick Aquino
Chair: Dominic Balestra, Fordham University
Speaker: Frederick Aquino, Abilene Christian University
"An Integrative Habit of Mind: John Henry Newman on the Path to Wisdom"
Commentator: Terrence Tilley, Fordham University
"Commentary on Frederick Aquino's "An Integrative Habit of Mind"
23. Thomas Aquinas College II Pacific I
Organizer: Glen Coughlin, Thomas Aquinas College
Topic: Aristotelian Natural Philosophy 2
Chair: Glen Coughlin, Thomas Aquinas College
Speaker: John Brungardt, Catholic University of America
“The Existence of the Primum Mobile in Medieval and Modern Science”
Speaker: Tony Andres, Thomas Aquinas College
“Charles De Koninck on Contingency”
24. ACPA Sponsored Satellite Session VI Venice
Chair: David Cory, Seattle University
Speaker: E. M. Macierowski, Benedictine College
“When Abraham Encounters Greek Philosophy—God, Man, and World”
Speaker: Charles Lassiter, Fordham University
“The Abrahamic Tradition and the Social Nature of Linguistic Agents”
Speaker: Brandon Zimmerman, Catholic University of America
“Thomas, Avicenna, and the Philosophical Idea of Creation”
Speaker: Gyula Klima, Fordham University
“Meanings Ain’t in Aquinas’ Head: Nominalist Externalism, the ‘Hyper-Externalism’ of Thomas Aquinas and the Pervasiveness of Forms”
25. The Dietrich von Hildebrand Legacy Project Santa Monica
Organizer: John F. Crosby, Franciscan University of Steubenville
Chair: John Henry Crosby, Dietrich von Hildebrand Legacy Project
Speaker: Robert Wood, University of Dallas
“Virtues, Value, and the Heart: Dietrich von Hildebrand and Max Scheler”
Speaker: Mathew Lu, University of St. Thomas (MN)
“Von Hildebrand and Kant on Love”
Speaker: John F. Crosby, Franciscan University of Steubenville
“Response to Some Thomistic Objections to von Hildebrand's Account of Love”
26. Institut International D'Herméneutique Malibu
Organizer and Chair: Andrzej Wiercinski, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany
Topic: St. Augustine’s Civitas Terrena et Civitas Dei
Speaker: Seamus J. O’Neill, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
“Augustine and Boethius, Time and Providence”
Speaker: Aleksander Bobko, Uniwersytet Rzeszowski, Poland
“Augustine’s De Trinitate and Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason”
Speaker: Andrzej Wiercinski, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany, International Institute for Hermeneutics
“Sensitivity and Receptivity of the Teacher: St Augustine’s Notion of Pedagogical Practice as the Response to the Call of the Students”