Taking Catholic Intellectuals Seriously

By the logic of Eduardo's argument. if I understand it accurately, we should not bother trying to understand the hard parts in Aquinas. In other words, if it is all a matter of "fides", why bother trying to understand the "ratio"? Besides the vulnerability of his argument to this kind of reductio ad absurdam critique, it also seems to presume that the Catholic intellectual who is faithful to the magisterium is cynically contriving arguments that will "fit" the Church's teaching, and not     genuinely trying to understand and express the teaching through the tools of reason - a task typically regarded as a moral imperative.  It also ignores that type of intellectual's obligation to discern and explicate the enormous complexities that arise when one attempts to apply church teaching in the "real world." For example, one who accepts the moral evil of abortion has not therefore been presented with a set of readymade responses to the whole range of political, legal and moral questions that arise from that basic recognition.The tools of reason are needed, not just to understand the basic moral principle, but to understand what it means for us.  And, finally, the argument does not sufficiently acknowledge the tendency of at least some secular thinkers to built elaborate reasoned edifices upon unquestioned (and unacknowledged) shibboleths. I know Eduardo did not mean this, and I know he is wrestling in good faith with the question of what it means to be a Catholic intellectual or theorist or thinker, but the argument he puts forward reminds me of the old canard used to keep Catholics out of the "elite" professoriate, i.e., their minds are made up for them by the Vatican, thus they cannot be first rate thinkers.

--Mark