An Anthology of Critical Thomist Jurisprudence, Vol. 2 (book)

8/15/2019 An Anthology of Critical Thomist Jurisprudence, Vol. 2 (book)

1/103

1

An Anthology of Critical Thomist Jurisprudence, Vol. 2

By

Anthony J. Fejfar, Esq., Coif

Copyright 2006 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Introduction

This book is an Anthology of previously published Tract Books or

Essays dealing with Critical Thomist Jurisprudence.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Description Page

1 A Second Refutation of Ockhams Razor 4

2 Bergson, Duration, and Metaphysics 6

3 Biblical Miracles and Quantum Physics 10

4 Canon Law and Equity 15

5 Christianity, the Bible, and Karma 18

6 Critical Thomism and Gadamers Hermeneutics 21


2/103

2

7 Critical Thomism and Economics 24

8 Critical Thomism and Liberation 27

9 Critical Thomism, Creative Form, and Jesus Christ 30

10 Ethics, Natural Law, and Responsibility 32

11 Hegelian Phil., Dialectic and LL-T Law 35

12 Jungian Psychology, the Bible, and Spirituality 37

13 Law and Liberation Theology 40

14 Law and Love 47

15 Law, Science, Statistical Probability,

and Standard Deviation 49

16 Metaphysics and Quantum Physics 54

17 Natural Law, Divine Law, and Equity 56

18 Parenting Children for Social Justice and Equality 61

19 Philosophy of Law, Evidence,

and A Fallacious Argument 64

20 Reincarnation: A Critical Look 68

21 Separation of Church and State 73

22 Statutory Construction and the

United States Constitution 76


3/103

3

23 The Bible and Natural Law 78

24 The Bible and Social Justice 82

25 The Bible, Jesus, and Social Justice 84

26 The Bible, Equity, and Law:

Unclean Hands and Good Faith 90

27 The Bible, Evolution, and Multidimensional Reality 93

28 Zen Realism and Critical Thomism 98

29 Zen Satori and Critical Thomist Insight 101

THE END 103


4/103

4

Chapter 1

A Second Refutation of Ockhams Razor

By Anthony J. Fejfar


Previously, I argued that Ockhams Razor is invalid because in order

for a concept to be valid, it must at least allow for its own existence.

Ockhams Razor does not allow for its own existence because it excludes

itself as an unnecessary metaphysical assumption. In this Tract Book, I

explore an alternate refutation of Ockhams Razor.

In essence, Ockhams Razor provides that a simple explanation of

some phenomenon is to be preferred over a more complex explanation. So,

for example, if it is possible to argue for or prove or even theorize the origin

of the Universe in purely physicalist terms, excluding any discussion of God

or metaphysics, then, such a simple physicalist explanation is to be

preferred.

I would like to propose an alternative approach, however. Let us call

this Fejfars Rubberband. Fejfars Rubberband argues that a more complex

explanation is to be preferred over a simple one. The argument is that


5/103

5

intellectual people generally prefer more complex explanations of

phenomenon over those which or simple at best, simpliste, at worst.

Fejfars Rubberband would prefer an explanation of the origin of the

Universe which involves God, or metaphysics, over a simple physicalist

explanation.

Now, let us assume the role of a judge who must determine which

approach is more valid, Ockhams Razor or Fejfars Rubberband. Looking

at the arguments from a more critical point of view, it is clear that there is no

rational basis for preferring Ockhams Razor to Fejfars Rubberband. The

choice of selecting a more simple explanation over a more complex

explanation is purely subjective. There is no value neutral argument which

favors Ockhams Razor over Fejfars Rubberband. Ockhams Razor is

revealed not as critical science, but as a subjectivist, purely arbitrary,

irrational, assumption.


6/103

6

Chapter 2

Bergson, Duration, and Metaphysics



In his philosophical work, Introduction to Metaphysics, Henri

Bergson showcases the metaphysical concept of Duration. Instead of

discussing the metaphysical concepts of being, or substance, or logos,

Bergson explicates the idea of Duration. What is Duration? Well, it is not

easy to say precisely. Duration represents an enduring moment in time.

One wonders whether duration is found precisely in space-time, or beyond it

in some sense.

Metaphysics are typically thought to function beyond space-time, but

perhaps they can manifest in the duration of space-time. Metaphysical

concepts or quiddities such as being, form, logos, and substance are thought

to operate independently of the knower outside of time. Bergson, however,

places duration within time, although it must be stated that duration does not

represent ordinary time.


7/103

7

Perhaps we can better understand duration by considering some

examples. For many Native Americans, time flows. Those on indian

time have a very difficult time showing up on time for appointments. If a

Native American says that he will be at a certain place at a certain time, this

is traditionally seen as an approximation. If a Native American tells you

that he will be there first thing in the morning, he might show up at ten

oclock, rather than eight oclock. I am not saying this as a criticism. Nor

am I saying that all Native Americans who have been acculturated into

western linear time necessarily function this way. But, some Native

Americans do experience time this way. Perhaps, then, Indian time is an

example of duration where space-time is curved or bends to manifest in an

alinear way.

In addition to Indian time, there is also farm time. While it took a

phenomenology class to critically reflect on the experience of time that I had

growing up. On my Grandpas farm in South Dakota, where I spent

summer vacations, growing up, time flowed differently. This Bohemian

Farm time was very different that the school time that I was accustomed

to during the school year. Similarly, for some people, it is possible that they

experience vacation time as qualitatively different. If you are on the type


8/103

8

of vacation where you do not have to keep a schedule, vacation time is

qualitatively different different than work time.

My point for the foregoing discussion of time is that it does lend

support for Bergsons concept of Duration. Perhaps Duration is a different

sort of time than we are normally accustomed to. Perhaps space-time

bends a bit to manifest duration.

The notion that space-time can bend is consistent with Quantum

Physics. Because of Quantum Non-locality at a subatomic level, it is

possible that time might bend or endure as a moment of duration, where

the change in time is qualitative. This is because with Quantum Non-

locality, the shortest distance between two points is not necessarily a linear

straight line.

Now, a point that can be made is that perhaps meditation can

change enough of ones subatomic structure in a persons brain that time

will be experienced differently. Perhaps this accounts for the fact that some

people say that time slows down in an emergency situation. Moreover,

some athletes say that time can slow down so that it is easier to play a sport

effectively. At some moment points a baseball, or a tennis ball can

slow down in a way that makes it easier for the ball to be hit.


9/103

9

The point I wish to make is that if one can experience moment

points of duration as part of a persons ordinary life, then it makes it easier

to imagine that some scientists, philosophers, or theologians, can intuit

being, substance, or logos, or other metaphysical quiddities which manifest

outside of space-time. Such metaphysical quiddities such as quantum

form or quantum cause, then, manifest in the duration of curved space-time,

within space-time, while the others do not.

Bibliography

Henri Bergson, Introduction to Metaphysics

Edmund Husserl, Phenomenology


10/103


11/103

11

Luke. Matthew refers briefly to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, of Judea,

and Matthew also refers to the three wise men or magi. Neither the gospels

of Mark, nor John, refer to the birth of Jesus. Now, why do I point this out?

Well, the implication of the whole thing, whether explicit or not, was that

there was really no virgin birth, nor flight to Egypt, etc., etc., etc. In other

word no Christmas.

So, I went home to Lincoln, Nebraska for Christmas break, in a little

bit of a quandry. Was Christmas really real? Did the miracles in the Bible

really take place, or was it all hyperbole? Was there a virgin birth or was

Jesus an illegitimate child? Well, I went to Christmas Mass, probably

Midnight Mass, and I was almost convinced that the miracles were

true,...somehow, someway. Then, I sat up late, like I usually did, and stared

into the Christmas lights on the Christmas tree, and the homemade cretch

scene, with Jesus in the manger with the three wise men, and Mary, Joseph,

the shepherds, and the sheep, and meditated. Then somehow I knew that it

was ture, intuitively. I had not lost my Faith with the Jesuits, but had

strengthened it, somehow. I knew the miracles were true, I knew Christmas

was real.

Now, many years later, as an adult in my forties, I am revisiting the


12/103


13/103

13

meaning, or prayer, can change subatomic particles non-locally at a distance.

And, if meaning or prayer can change subatomic particles non-locally at a

distance, then it is certainly possible that atoms and molecules, and even

cells, which are ultimately composes of subatomic particles, could also

change.

A virgin birth is thus scientifically possible, as well as moving large

amounts of water, and healing the blind and the lame. The foregoing is

confirmed by the fact that modern scientific prayer studies show that prayer

provides a statistically significant difference in the healing of heart attack

patients. Quantum particles, called quanta, and the Quantum Field that they

compose, can change matter physically. Underlying material physical

reality is not atomic separateness, but instead the Quantum Field, masking

itself as various subatomic particles.

Thus, miracles are not only scientifically possible, but probable. Not

only are the modern scientific miracles of the microwave oven, the

television, the computer, the gameboy, the playstation, the dvd player made

possible with Quantum Physics, so too are the scientific miracles of the

virgin birth of Jesus, Jesus healing the blind and the lame, the parting of the

Red Sea, and Daniel and the lions den.


14/103

14

Bibliography

Larry Dossey, M.D., Recovering the Soul

Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality


15/103

15

Chapter 4

Canon Law and Equity

By

Anthony J. Fejfar


Ordinarily, Roman Catholics are bound by the Code of Canon Law.

However, there is at least one exception to this. The Code of Canon Law,

following Divine Law and Natural Law, has a provision which parallels

Aristotles treatment of Equity. This is done in the first instance by the

Doctrine of Epikeia, and in the second instance by Equity itself.

The Doctrine of Epikeia provides:

Epikeia is an interpretation exempting one from

the law contrary to the clear words of the law

and in accordance with the mind of the legislator.

Epikeia is used where: (a) the strict interpretation of the law would

work a great hardship,

and (b) in view of the usual interpretation it may

be prudently conjectured that, in this

particular case, the legislator would not


16/103

16

wish the law to be strictly applied.

Let us take, then, this example. Suppose that a person was stranded on a

desert island with some food and drink, including a box of soda crackers and

a bottle of grape juice. While Canon Law would ordinarily prohibit the use

of grape juice for the eucharist, and while Canon Law ordinarily requires

that Mass be said by an ordained priest. In these exceptional circumstances

the lay person would be permitted to say Mass, as a priest, with the materials

available. The lay person would be entitled under Natural Law, Divine Law,

and Canon Law, to make an exception to the ordinary Canon Law rule so

that the lay person would not be denied the sacrament of the Mass and

eucharist.

A second use of Equity is that Canon Law is to be applied equitably:

Canonical equity may be defined as a certain human moderation with

which canon law is to be tempered, so that the text may be prudently, even

benignly applied to concrete cases. This equitable interpretation of law

means that every Canon Law rule can be equitably interpreted so as to

promote Divine Law and Natural Law in the interests of justice. Thus, a

priest could interpret canon law in a particular situation to allow, the one

hour fast before mass rule, to be relaxed for a person who has just gotten of


17/103

17

the night shift and needs to eat a snack before Mass.

Bibliography

Bouscaren and Ellis, Canon Law


18/103

18

Chapter 5

Christianity, The Bible and Karma



Christianity is often thought not to have anything to do with the eastern

concept of Karma. The idea of Karma is that everything, including human

beings, is bound by the law of cause and effect. In the west, we sometimes

say, for every action there is an equal a opposite reaction. Karma is a

similar idea. The general idea is that every action that a person undertakes

has an effect, sometimes immediate, sometimes delayed. Additionally, in

Christianity, it is argued that Christ transcends Karma. This Chapter

explores these issues.

In the Bible, there is a quotation which says, As you sow, so you shall

reap. What this means is that the actions you perform reflect back upon

you. So, if you treat others unjustly, you will be treated unjustly. If you

harm others, you will be harmed. If you help others, you will be helped. If

you love others, you will be loved. If you hate others, you will be hated.

Sometimes the effect is immediate, sometimes it is delayed.

The Bible also says, Judge not, lest you shall be judged. What this


19/103


20/103


21/103

21

Chapter 6

Critical Thomism and Gadamers Hermeneutics



In Hans Georg Gadamers book, Truth and Method, Gadamer

discusses at length the problem of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is that

discipline concerned with meaning. Gadamer points out that no language

can have meaning outside a hermeneutic context. Meaning, then, in some

sense preceeds reason. Meaning is the light which enables us to see the

forest and the tree. Without meaning we would simply have a jumbled up

world of meaningless sense impressions. Meaning provides the context

through which we not only interpret reality, but in some sense construct

reality.

Because meaning in some sense preceeds reality, we have the

problem of the hermeneutic circle. Since meaning preceeds knowing, all

that we know must in some sense be meant, and since meaning is seen as

essentially subjective, we know what we mean and we mean what we know.


22/103

22

This is the hermeneutic circle.

I would argue, however, that conceptual meaning involves, in the

strict sense only the level of understanding. As I have argued before,

Critical Thomism takes the position that knowledge comes from a three part

cognitive operation involving sense experience, meaningful understanding,

and reflective intuitive judgment. Reflection and judgment sublates

meaningful understanding by performing a different cognitive function.

While understood meaning is rational and analytic in its pure form,

reflection and judgment are alinear, arational intuitive cognitive functions.

Thus the intuitive function of reflection and judgment transforms the

hermeneutic circle into a hermeneutic spiral. Therefore, a certain

vantage point can be found using judgment and reflection which leads one

out of the illogical hermeneutic circle. Because of the intuitive function

of judgment and reflection, that which is know is that what is judged and

reflected upon, not simply that which is meaningfully understood

analytically.

Finally, Gadamer also points out that there are certain

forestructures of knowing which enable better understanding.

Additionally, Gadamer also discusses what he describes as enabling


23/103


24/103

24

Chapter 7

Critical Thomism and Economics

By

Anthony J. Fejfar


The Critical Philosopher, Bernard Lonergan wrote an extensive

unpublished manuscript dealing with economic theory. I had an

opportunity to read that manuscript quite some time ago. Following

Lonergans work, I would like to start the discussion of Critical Thomism

and Economics with the following equation:

S x SC x SP x SPR x E x SCM x V

= D x BP x E x BCM x V

= EQ

Put in longer form the equation reads: Supply x Supply Cost x Supply

Price x Supply Profit x Supply Cost of Money x Externalities x Value =

Demand x Buyer Price x Buyer Cost of Money x Externalities x Value =

Equalibrium.

Supply means the amount of the commodity available for sale.


25/103

25

Supply Cost means the cost of the good to be sold incurred by the seller.

Sale Price means the Price demanded by the seller. Supply Profit means the

amount of money realized over costs as profit for the seller. Supply cost of

money means the cost and availability of money to the seller. Externalities

means indirect costs such as a the costs of transportation of the commodities.

Value means the value that is placed upon the sale of the commodities, as

value.

Demand means the amount of the commodity wanted by the buyer for

purchase. Buy Price means the Price demanded by the buyer. Buyer Cost

of Money means the cost and availability of money to the Buyer.

Externalities again means indirect costs such as the cost of transportation of

the commodities. Finally, Value means the value that is placed upon the

sale of the commodities, as value.

Let us imagine a hypothetical sale between a lawn mower

wholesaler and a hardware store that can sell lawnmowers. Let us imagine

that the Seller starts out with ten lawmowers potentially for sale at a price of

$100 per mower. Let us suppose that the supply cost per mower is $70 per

mower. Let us also assume that the Supply Profit desired is 10%. The

Supply Cost of Money is 5%. There are no externatilities. Finally, the


26/103

26

Seller places a high Value on the supply and use of lawnmowers. Given

this situation it is quite possible that a deal will be made at the equalibrium

price of $100 per mower.

It must be pointed out, however, that if any of the significant variables

is changed then the equalibrium price will change. If for example, the

Buyer, or society in general place a relatively low Value on the supply and

use of lawnmowers, this might result in a discounted sale equalibrium of

$90.

The point I wish to make is that Value comes into play in every

economic situation and must be taken into account. Economics, then,

involves Value and values.


27/103

27

Chapter 8

Critical Thomism and Liberation

By

Anthony J. Fejfar


Classical Philosophy in general, and Thomism, in particular, is

typically thought to be conservative, even reactionary. This is because

Classical Philosophy is thought to privelege a world view where society is

static, and those in control, or in power, because of the static nature of

reality, stay in control, or in power, presumably to the detriment of everyone

else.

The idea expressed above, that Classical philosophy is conservative or

even reactionary, in a negative way, is, however, false. First of all, classical

philosophy is based upon the idea that reality is structured by material forms,

substantial forms, or even immutable platonic forms. However, even if the

foregoing is true, it can certainly be argued that concepts such as freedom,

liberty, liberation, autonomy, self-determination, individual rights, etc., are


28/103


29/103

29

society will never happen unless Liberation of the individual mind also takes

place.


30/103

30

Chapter 9

Critical Thomism, Creative Form, and Jesus Christ



Critical Thomism is based, in part, upon a metaphysic of Form.

Form is a metaphysical quiddity which forms the basis for the Immutable

Platonic Forms. It is argued that all of reality, especially, linguistic reality

is structured by the Forms. There is one Form, however, that is more

important than the ordinary forms, and that is Creative Form or Logos.

While the Immutable Platonic Forms are that, that is, precisely

immutable, a sort of change is possible. Logos or Creative Form is

responsible for making changes in the World of the Forms. It has been

said of the Forms that they can be added to but not subtracted from,

rearranged but not changed. It is precisely Logos, or Creative Form that

is responsible for adding to but not subtracting from the Forms, rearranging

them but not changing them. This provides a certain amount of creative

change in the context of stability.

Creative Form can also be translated as the Creative Word, or


31/103

31

Word, as Logos. Thus, a secondary argument can be made that Jesus

Christ, who is the Word, or Logos, referred to as God, in the prologue to

the Gospel of John, is also the Creative Form or Creative Word, or Logos,

who gives us the Forms found in the World of the Forms in the first place.

It is God, in Jesus Christ who is responsible for adding to but not

subtracting from the Forms, rearranging but not changing them. This is

very powerful position to be held by Jesus Christ, and shows us that our

God is one who is Creative Form, Who is both creative and structuring at

the same time.


32/103

32

Chapter 10

Ethics, Natural Law, and Responsibility

By

Anthony J. Fejfar


There are different approaches to Ethics. Philosopher Richard

Neibuhr suggests that we start with the concept of responsibility.

Responsibility is a conservative ethic. Put best, I suggest that the

formulation: responsible for self, responsible for other, is best. In this

way the balance is found for concern for the other, as well as for the self.

The Responsible Self, is the Jungian Self of the Holy Spirit. It is the

Holy Spirit within our hearts and minds that helps us to be responsible. To

start, one must begin first with the Self that is you. You have a

responsibility to be Ethical and responsible. As an adult this does not just

mean financially responsible, it also means ethically responsible.

Being ethically responsible, both to Self and to Other, in my view,

means starting with the Natural Law Ethical principles of: Reciprocity,

Utility, Proportionality, and Equity. Reciprocity means treating another


33/103

33

you would wish to be treated in similar circumstances. Many of us learned

this in grade school from our Mother. Mom, who, after seeing Billy hit

his sister Sally, said to Billy, Now, Billy, how would you like it if your

sister Sally hit you. You know you wouldnt like that, so, you shouldnt do

it to her.

Utility, means maximization of value. Here one asks whether or not a

particular actions fits within some scale of values. Is there really value in

Billy hitting Sally? Answer, no. Nothing positive is accomplished.

Nothing of value is really gained, rather only the negativity of pain and

suffering is produced.

Proportionality, means a perfect reflective ratio is present. For

example, damages in money should be owed in perfect proportion to the

amount of physical damage incurred. Thus, ethically, with Proportionality,

Billy owes a certain amount in damages, or in the alternative, in proportional

punishment, for hitting Sally.

Finally, Equity, makes an equitable exception from a general rule based

upon need. In the case of Billy, and Sally, it can be argued that Billy should

not be required to pay damages or to be severely punished because he has

the special need of being a child and thus is not considered fully responsible


34/103

34

for his actions.

It is my position, that using the foregoing Natural Law Ethical

principles promotes responsibility to Self and Other.

Bibliography

Anthony Fejfar, Jurisprudence for a New Age

Richard Neibuhr, The Responsible Self


35/103

35

Chapter 11

Hegelian Philosophy, Dialectic, and Landlord Tenant Law


Copyright 2006, by Anthony J. Fejfar

The Philosopher Hegel is most widely known for his philosophical

theory of Dialectic. Dialectic takes place where two seeming opposites

are reconciled through the use of a third approach. Thus, Hegelian

Dialectic can be summarized as having three movements: 1. Thesis; 2.

Anti-thesis; and 3. Synthesis. Such a dialectical approach is similar to the

approach found in the scholastic philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas: 1.

Argument; 2. Counter-argument; and 3. Conclusion.

Dialectic, then, has a noble history, and can be found in a number of

modern contexts, including, Law. Generally, in Law, an adversarial

approach is used as follows:

1. Plaintiffs Argument

2. Defendants Counter-argument


36/103

36

3. Judgment of the Court or Conclusion

Let us consider the following example. Imagine that in an rental

apartment there is a dripping faucet in the kitchen. The Tenant complains to

the Landlord, and asks that the faucet be fixed. The Landlord refuses.

Tenant then has a plumber come in and has the faucet fixed at a cost of

$100. Tenant then deducts the $100 cost of repair from the $200 per month

rent that is owed, paying only a rent of $100 for that month. The Tenant

argues that the reduced rent is appropriate because the Tenant has a right to

repair and deduct (See, Pugh v. Holmes, Pennsylvania Supreme Court)

because the Landlord is not complying with the Implied Warranty of

Habitability which requires that the Landlord provide leased premises which

are safe, sanitary, and habitable. Landlord argues that a leaking faucet does

not constitute leased premises which are unsafe, unsanitary, or non-

habitable.

The foregoing, then, in Dialectic is presented as follows:

1. Argument/Thesis: Leaking Faucet is habitability violation

2. Counter-argument/Anti-thesis: Leaking Faucet is not a

habitability violation

3. Judgment of the Court Damages to Tenant


37/103


38/103

38

develop what Depth Psychologist, Carl Jung, describes as the Self. The Self

is the Spirit in you, and is contrasted with the persona or the ego, which is a

more superficial way of being which lacks spiritual depth. Saint Paul, in his

letter to the Ephesians, explicitly prays for his readers that they may be

strengthened with power through [Christs] Spirit in the inner self....

Ephesians, Chapter 3, verse 16, New American Bible. Thus, the real me,

the true self, the inner self, that is really me, is in fact the Spirit in me. And,

somehow the Spirit in me is more me than the superficial me which is my

ego identity. The Self flows, the Self is, while the ego is merely a puffed up

false representation of the the Self. The task of Spirituality, then, is to

develop the Self and to replace the ego.

Should one do away with the ego? Some Buddists would say we

should not only do away with the ego, but also the Self. This is wrong.

The self should never be rejected, and, the ego should be transformed into a

transcedental ego, that is an ego which is geared toward transcendence, not

inane ego projects. The ego which transcends survives. It is oriented

toward overcoming obstacles. It is oriented towards accomplishing goals by

overcoming obstacles. The transcendental ego is spiritual. If nothing else

it is oriented toward the transcendental precepts: be attentive, be intelligent,


39/103

39

be reasonable, be responsible, be loving. (See, generally, Bernard Lonergan,

Method in Theology).


40/103

40

Chapter 13

Law and Liberation Theology

By

Anthony J. Fejfar


Liberation Theology is best summed up by the idea that Jesus leads

us by coming down off the Cross in a Liberating Action. The Human Jesus

refuses to die on the Cross, but instead comes down from the Cross to lead

us in Liberation and Social Justice. Although, two of the most influential

liberation theologians are Gustavo Gutierrez and Juan Segundo, perhaps the

most influential Liberation Theologian is Pedro Arrupe, who led the Jesuit

Order in the General Congregations affirming the Preferential Option for

the Poor. It is within the foregoing tradition, of liberation theology, that I

am writing this Chapter.


41/103

41

Liberation is the key of Liberation Theology. What is Liberation?

We can see a eight fold movement of Liberation:

1. Individual Cognitive Liberation

2. Individual Metaphysical Liberation

3. Individual Ethical Liberation

4. Social Liberation Critique of Unjust Social Structures

5. Liberative Social Political Action

6. Liberative Social Norming

7. Liberative Law

8. Liberative Law Enforcement

Individual Cognitive Liberation involves the self appropriation

of ones mind in a quadrilectical movement of experience, understanding,

judgment-reflection, and love. Each of us must experience: experience,

understanding, judgment-reflection, and love. Each of us must understand:

experience, understanding, judgment-reflection, and love. Each of us must

judge and reflect that we know reality through experience, understanding,

judment-reflection, and love. Finally, each of us must love, experience,

understanding, judgment-reflection, and love.

In order to Liberate, we must first experience what is going on. In


42/103

42

order to Liberate, we must each then understand what is going on. In order

to Liberate, we must then each know what is going on, through judgment

and reflection. Finally, to really act to Liberate we must love. In the final

analysis love Liberates. Love is Liberation, more than anything else. Love

moves the will to Act when we are afraid to act.

The Second Movement of Liberation is Metaphysical Liberation.

Metaphysical Liberation involves structuring ones consciousness with

Being, Logos, and Substance. Being is Form of Form, an Unrestricted Pure

Act of Understanding. Being is the basis for the Incomprehensible God the

Father. Being is the basis for much of our Intuition of Reality. Logos is

Creative Form, Creative Word, or Creative Reason, or Reason itself. Logos

is the basis for The Word which is the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Finally,

Substance is Formless Form, which paradoxically is a combination of Truth,

with a small amount of Form and love. It is the appropriation of Being,

Logos, and Substance, that causes Liberation to Flourish. Being Liberates!

Logos Liberates! Substance Liberates!

Individual Ethical Liberation is the Third Movement of Liberation.

Ethics teaches us what is right or wrong, better or worse, to do, both


43/103

43

individually, and socially. There are four basic Natural Law Ethical

Principles:

1. Reciprocity

2. Utility

3. Proportionality

4. Equity

Reciprocity requires that the individual treat another as that person

would like to be treated in similar circumstances. Utility means

Maximization of Value. Value implies individual values, and a scale of

values. Proportionality is seen best in a one to one ratio. Damages paid

should be proportional to damages sustained. Proportionality means

equality before the law. Finally, Equity means that Equity makes an

equitable exception from a general rule based upon need. Need is based

upon love. Reciprocity Liberates! Utility Liberates! Proportionality

Liberates! Equity Liberates!

The Fourth Movement of Liberation is the Social Liberation

Critique of Unjust Social Structures. Here, experience, understanding,

judgment-reflection, love, Metaphysical Intuition, and Ethics, combine to

critique unjust social structures. Rules which are wrong in the face of


44/103

44

experience, are impractical and unjust. Rules which are obtuse or irrational

violate substantive due process, and are unjust. Rule which are unwise in

their rejection of good judgment or reflection, are unreasonable and unjust.

Rules which lack love as their basis, and rather are based upon hate, are

unjust. Rules which reject a transcendent Metaphysical basis for Reality

are unjust. Rules which are Unethical are unjust. So, too, rules which do

not involve reciprocity, utility, proportionality, and equity, are unjust.

The Fifth Movement of Liberation is liberative Social Political

Action. Liberation requires social and political action. In order for just

laws to be enacted in the first place, social and political action is required.

In order for unjust laws to be repealed, social and political action is required.

In order for just laws to be enforced, social and political action is required.

Just because a just law is on the books, does not necessarily mean that it will

be enforced. Liberative Social and Political Action Liberates!

Liberative Social Norming is the Sixth Movement of Liberation. As

Saint Thomas Aquinas said, Law is to support the common good.

Similarly, Liberation must support active Social Norming. Liberative

social rules must be taught in school and at home. Society must reward

those who engage in Liberatory consciousness and action, and society must


45/103

45

sanction those who oppose Liberatory consciousness and action. This is

the natural societal function. Thus children are taught not to steal as a

moral rule long before they are taught this as a legal rule.

Liberative Law is the Seventh Movment of Liberation. Just as the

Founding Fathers of the American Revolution fought a Revolutionary War

of Liberation against King George, so to those who are oppressed in

undemocratic, unjust regimes, must also fight. In the case of a democratic,

just, or near just society, such as we have in the United States, only

democratic, non-violent means of social, political, and legal change, is

required. Law Liberates!

Liberative Law Enforcement is the Eight Movement of Liberation.

Those responsible for the administration of justice, especially, lawyers,

legislators, police officers, and judges, are required to Liberate and to be

Liberated. Even lay persons are required to stay informed and involved in

law enforcement. Law Enforcement must Liberate!

All eight movements of Liberation are required for a just society to

exist. Both individual as well as societal liberation is required.

Bibliography


46/103

46

Fejfar, Jurisprudence for a New Age

Lonergan, Insight

Lonergan, Method in Theology

Lonergan, Cognitional Structure, in Collection

Rawls, A Theory of Justice


47/103

47

Chapter 14

Law and Love

By

Anthony J. Fejfar


Most people think that law doesnt have much to do with love, and I

have to admit that in teaching law for over ten years, I dont recall ever

saying in class that law has anything to do with love. But, upon reflection, I

think that law does have something to do with love.

Law is supposed to have something to do with Justice. But, what is

Justice? How is law to be applied? In the end there are, I suppose, three

options. Law can be applied using love, or hate, or some sort of antiseptic

neutrality. Lets start with hate. It law is based upon hate then all law is

interpreted in such a way as to support harm and destruction. The worse

criminal sentences are handed out, and, there is no guarantee at all that a

civil litigant will have hae2 day in court. Hatred is irrational. Hatred

breaks up things and rends them asunder. Justice is supposed to bind the

polity together, and hatred simply is incapable of doing this.

2Hae is the neuter pronoun, used here rather than his or her.


48/103

48

The second option is love. While this may seem unlikely as a basis

for applying law, I think that it works. Love heals, love brings people

together, love is the basis for compassion. How then, can love dole out

punishment, or award damages? Love is capable of these things because

love is intelligent. Love may seem to be irrational, but it is not. Love is the

nature of reality. Love is totally consistent with the doctrine of Karma, or

cause and effect, which says as a matter of Natural Law, we are responsible

for our actions. While love forgives, loves still asks, even demands that we

serve others. Love sees public service as the punishment for a crime, not

jail time or worse.

The last option is some sort of antiseptic neutrality. I argue that

neutrality in law is really not possible. Either, ultimately, one loves or one

hates, even if this disposition is unconscious or subconscious. In the end,

it is my view that those who espouse some sort of antiseptic neutrality are

really espousing hatred. It may be masked, but neutrality is still a sort of

cruelty, although it may not appear to be so.


49/103

49

Chapter 15

Law, Science, Statistical Probability, and Standard Deviation



The Law, in the person of the Legislature, uses statistical studies all

the time in determining whether or not to enact particular legislation. Once

a hypothesis or theory, or a position, is generated, then statistical probability

can be used to prove its validity. A statistical analysis uses what is known

as a standard deviation in order to rule certain data as valid or significant,

while other data is excluded as insignificant. If the data falls within the

range of the standard deviation used, then that data is considered significant

or valid.

Let us use a simple mathematical equation as an example of a

scientific theory. Let us assume the equation A + B=10, as our starting

point. Then, let us assume a standard deviation of 2, plus or minus 10, as

valid. What this means is that any actual, factual answer which falls within


50/103

50

the range of 10 (plus or minus 2) that is, between the range of 8 to 12, is

considered statistically significant or valid. The range of 8 to 12 is

determined by taking 10+2 to 10-2, or 8 to 12. So, the following factual

equations produce statistically significant results from our starting theory of

A + B=10, with a standard deviation of 2:

Study A

1. A=6, B=5, 6+5=11 (11 falls within the range of 8-12)

2. A=7, B=4, 7+4=11 (11falls within the range of 8-12)



Thus, all four equations produce statistically significant or valid responses,

given the original equation and a standard deviation of 2.

What if, however, we use a different standard deviation, such as 4,

while staying with the same original starting equation of A+B=10? Now,

the statistically significant range has broadened to 6 to 14 (10-4 to 10+4).

Now, the following factual equations produced statistically significant

results from our starting theory of A+B=10, with a standard deviation of 4:


51/103

51

Study B


2. A=5, B=2, 5+2=7 (7falls within the range of 6-14)


4. A=5, B=8, 5+8=13 (13 falls withing the range of 6-14)

Thus, all four equations produce statistically significant or valid responses,

given the original equation and a standard deviation of 4.

Now, if a Bill were introduced in Congress which found a social

problem that needed correcting given the equation or theory, A+B=10, then

both study A and Study B, above would support the enactment of the

legislation.

However, what if Study C, below were performed, instead?

Let us assume the equation A + B=10, as our starting point. Then, let us

assume a standard deviation of 2, plus or minus 10, as valid. What this

means is that any actual, factual answer which falls within the range of 10

(plus or minus 2) that between the range of 8 to 12, is considered statistically

significant or valid. The range of 8 to 12 is determined by taking 10+2 to

10-2, or 8 to 12. So, the following factual equations produce statistically


52/103

52

significant results from our starting theory of A + B=10, with a standard

deviation of 2:

Study C

1. A=3, B=4, 3+4=7 (7 falls outside the range of 6-12)

2. A=5, B=2, 5+2=7 (7falls outside the range of 6-12)



Thus, while Study B with a standard deviation of 4, supports the

theory A+B=10, and the accompanying legislation, Study C with the same

data and a standard deviation of 2, does not support the theory A+B and

the accompanying legislation. Merely, by changing the standard deviation

from 4 to 2, the exact opposite result is produced. One standard deviation

supports the legislation, and another standard deviation opposes the

legislation.

Now, the critical point, here, is that there is no scientifically,

objective way of favoring a standard deviation of 4 over a standard

deviation of 2, and, what is more, this is true with respect to any standard

deviation, contained in any study. At present, only social convention

determines what standard deviation is considered valid in a particular type of

study.


53/103

53

Now, I could stop here, but I choose not only to deconstruct, but also

to reconstruct. Using metaphysics, I propose the following chart as

normative for the use of standard deviations in science and politics:

Level 5, A standard deviation of 5 for Psychology, Psychiatry,

History, English, Hermeneutics, Philosophy, Theology,

and Quantum Physics

Level 4, A standard deviation of 4 for Law, Political Science, and

Sociology.

Level 3, A standard deviation of 3 for Newtonian Physics

Level 2, A standard deviation of 2 for Biology and Medicine

Level 1, A standard deviation of 1 for Chemistry

The foregoing is based upon the idea found in Ken Wilbers work, that there

are enfolded levels of metaphysical reality which find empirical support.

Bibliography

Capaldi, The Art of Deception

Wilber, Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality


54/103

54

Chapter 16

Metaphysics and Quantum Physics

By

Anthony J. Fejfar


Quantum Physics is most clearly associated with the philosopher

scientist Heisenberg. Metaphysics is credited as starting with the

philosopher-scientist Aristotle. Do Quantum Physics and Metaphysics have

anything in common? They do. The metaphysical quiddity of Form.

Both Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas spoke of material form. The

idea was that materiality was formed by the metaphysical quiddity of

Material Form in conjunction with Material Cause. Many consider

metaphysics to be outdated, but I dont think so. The same type of

arguments used by Aristotle and Aquinas can also be used in Quantum

Physics.

The building block of the universe is not the atom, it is the

subatomic quanta particle. The quanta particle is a chameleon. The quanta

can change valence and function so as to form what appear to be other


55/103


56/103

56

Chapter 17

Natural Law, Divine Law, and Equity

By

Anthony J. Fejfar


In Great Society, and in Utopia, it is promised that everyone

will be taken care of from cradle to grave. In the Great Society the

poor are no more. The poor are provided a social welfare net which

places them in the same position, or perhaps better than the lower middle

class. This is the Social Welfare State. The social programs involved

provide food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and even education. Maybe

even more.

What is the legal basis for the Social Welfare State? How do we

justify it? John Rawls argues that a rational person in an original

position of ignorance would be risk averse and would rationally choose a

society with a social welfare net. Rawls also argues that those persons who

cognitively have formal operations as a matter of developmental psychology

would choose to help the poor and less fortunate as a matter of essentially

aesthetics. For Rawls, an intelligent person finds it distasteful to live in a


57/103

57

world where poverty exists. Poverty is distasteful. No one likes walking

down a street and seeing homeless people starving. The rational choice is to

help them, not exterminate them.

I would argue, also, that based on the Natural Law Principle of

Reciprocity, I, as a person maximizing value as a Utilitarian, would choose,

reciprocally, to have the protection of the social welfare net. Physical or

mental illness, and even financial misfortune, can strike anyone at one time

or another, and the rational person using the Ethical Matrix, chooses the

insurance policy of the social welfare net. We pay our insurance

premiums through taxes and charitable giving.

Now, a different result is reached if we start at Law, using the

Natural Law Principle of Proportionality. Under Proportionality, one is

compensated at Law for what one produces. Just as damages are

proportional to the amount damaged, so too, compensation is to be

proportional to the amount earned or produced. If I work a job which pays,

justly, $100 per hour as a lawyer, I deserve to be paid $100 per hour as a

lawyer. Natural Law requires this. Now, if I am unable to work at all,

then under Proportinality at Law I am not entitled to compensation.

However, under another approach to Proportionality it can be argued

that the poor and disadvantaged must be taken care of in a positive way. If


58/103

58

the underlying secondary principle used, accompanying Proportionality is

need, then it is apparent that needs met should be proportional to needs

sustained. To the extent that I have a need, Proportionality requires that

that need be proportionately satisfied. To the extent that a poor or mentally

disabled person has a need, then Proportionality requires that such a need be

proportionally satisfied using a one to one ratio of perfect proportionality.

In Equity, however, one can also argue for compensation. Equity

requires that each be compensated according to need. Since all human

being need food, clothing, shelter, education, etc., they are entitled to it in

Equity based upon need. Can equitable need be prioritized, however? In

a world with limited resources are all needs to be treated equally?

Under Divine Law, as found in the Bible, in the Book of Isaiah, it is clear

that taking care of the poor and the ill is the highest priority. This would

also be true using need based Proportionality under Natural Law. But what

about Natural Law in another context?

It is argued that reality is structured by the threefold levels of

Body, Mind, and Spirit-Intellect. Under Natural Law in this reality,

Spirit-Intellect is to be given the highest priority, then the Mental, and last

of all the Body or the physical. In Equity, then, as a matter of faith in

Natural Law, we must prioritize differently. For example, my need for a


59/103

59

happy, fufulling job serving others, intellectually and spiritually, has a

higher priority than my neighbor who has the level one need for a speed

boat to water skiing. Additionally, as between three starving persons,

the spiritual-intellectual person, the mental mind person, and the sensate

body person, the spiritual-intellectual person should be fed first, the mental

mind person second, and the sensate body person last. Interestingly, I

would argue that even a mentally ill or a mentally retarded person could be

very spiritual and thus be entitled to priority.

The tough case is the one where resources must be allocated as

between a spiritual person, so that such a person could live an intellectual,

spiritual, or scholarly life on the one hand, and feeding unspiritual,

uneducated, ignorant, starving people on the other hand. Obviously, poor

people can be spiritual, and many are. But that is not the case I am

considering. I am considering the poor person who is purposefully

ignorant and unspiritual. I would argue that under the Natural Law of

Body-Mind-Spirit/Intellect in the first instance, we must prioritize and pay

for spiritual and intellectual pursuits, before we feed the ignorant, unspiritual

poor. As a matter of Natural Law we only feed the ignorant, unspiritual

poor for level three intellectual and spiritual reasons, or level two mental

political reasons. Just as Rawls says that people in formal operations


60/103

60

detest poverty for aesthetic reasons, I would argue that level three people

detest poverty for spiritual reasons, and level two people detest poverty for

political reasons. So, in the end, I suppose that level two political people

who believe in the great society, and level three spiritual people will order

their lives to both feed and educate the poor. This is of course bolstered by

our earlier analysis finding that Natural Proportionality based upon need

requires that the poor, the mentally and physically ill, and the disadvantaged

be helped.

Bibliography

Anthony J. Fejfar, Jurisprudence for a New Age

John Rawls, A Theory of Justice


61/103

61

Chapter 18

Parenting Children for Social Justice and Equality

By

Anthony J. Fejfar


There are different ways of raising children. One way of raising a

child is for authority and hierarchy. Another way of raising a child is for

social justice and equality. Raising a child for social justice and equality

takes more work, but it is worth it.

The first thing that you can do in order to raise a child for social

justice and equality is to make sure you have not broken the spirit of the

child. It is important that you only discipline your child in regard to serious

infractions of the rules. You also need to make sure that a child is only

disciplined for breaking a rule that the child has been given notice of

previously. You teach a child due process of law by making sure that a

child is only disciplined for breaking a rule that the child has been told

about.

Second, it is important to give your child choices whenever


62/103

62

possible. Once your child is old enough, offer hae3a choice for dinner.

Offer hae the option of having pudding or pureed fruit for dinner from

Gerber or another company. Giving your child a choice teaches

responsibility at an early age.

Third, it is important that when your child interacts with another

child that you treat each child equally as possible. Dont give

primogeniture or priority to an older child at the expense of a younger

child, simply because of age. In fact, teach the older child that it is hae

responsibility to help and protect the younger child, particularly when the

parents are not around.

Fourth, it is important when you are disciplining a child that you

only spank a child or have the child do push-ups when the child refuses to

go to time-out. Putting a child in hae room for time-out is to be preferred

to corporal punishment such as spanking.

Fifth, always explain what are doing to your child. When a child

is told why something is wrong, then the child looks for rationality with

rules. Try never to say no, just because Mom or Dad says so. Rules

should be based upon reason, not arbitrary authority.

Additionally, when a child hits another child you need to teach the

3Hae is the neuter personal pronoun.


63/103

63

child not to hit based upon the Natural Law Principle of Reciprocity. When

a child hits another, dont just say that it is wrong. Instead, ask the child

why it is that hae hit the other. Then, ask the child how hae would like it if

hae was hit by the other child. Typically, the child will say that hae did not

want to be hit. The parent then says, Well, if you dont want to be hit, then

you should not hit your sister.

Finally, try to use positive reinforcement whenever possible.

When the child does something right, encourage the child. When the child

does something wrong, say, well, thats not quite it, why dont you try

again.


64/103

64

Chapter 19

Philosophy of Law, Evidence, and A Fallacious Argument



Law involves the rules of evidence. That which is irrelevant is

inadmissable. It is my argument that the rules of logic preclude certain

fallacious arguments from being used in court. The evidence which an

attorney attempts to introduce using these arguments is fallacious and

inadmissable. One such fallacious argument is the fallacy of assuming the

consequent.

Let us assume a civil tort case for damages, with a bench trial.

Judge Brown must decide whether or not Joe Smith, the defendant,

committed the tort of battery, by throwing a bucket of water on the head of

Bill Jones, causing Bill Jones to have a Wet Head. It is undisputed by the

parties to the lawsuit that Bill Jones had a Wet Head. In pretrial discovery,

three possible theories have been developed to explain how it is that Bill

Jones got a Wet Head:


65/103

65

Theory One: Rain causes Bill Jones to have a Wet Heat.

Theory Two: Joe Smith throws a Bucket of Water and this

causes Bill Jones to have a Wet Head.

Theory Three: Stan Green sprays a hose Nozzle of Water

and this caused Bill Jones to have a Wet Head.

It is the laws assumption that only one of the foregoing theories is

true. In the abstract, however, all three are in some sense true

hypothetically. Thus, put symbolically, we have the following:

1. If Rain then Wet Head

Rain, therefore, Wet Head

2. If Bucket of Water (thrown), then Wet Head

Bucket of Water (thrown), therfore, Wet Head

3. If Nozzle of Water (sprayed), then Wet Head

Nozzle of Water (sprayed), therefore, Wet Head

In a more abstract form, the foregoing is symbolized using symbolic

logic, as follows:


66/103

66

1. If R, then WH

R, therefore, WH

2. If BW then WH

BW, therefore WH

3. If NW, then WH

NW, therefore WH

Now, all of the foregoing is true, in the abstract, and perhaps one

is true in the concrete. Since the cause of action is alleged against Joe

Smith by Bill Jones, let us focus of the following:

If BW then, WH

BW, therefore, WH

While the foregoing is true, the following statement, which commits the

fallacy of affirming the consequent, is fallacious, false, and wrong:

If BW then, WH

WH, therefore, BW

Put informally, the foregoing is as follows:

If Bucket of Water (thrown), then Wet Head

Wet Head, therefore, Bucket of Water thrown

Now, the reason the foregoing is false, is this: it is possible that the Wet


67/103

67

Head was caused by another cause from another causal syllogism. The

Wet Head of Bill Jones could have been caused by Rain or Water Nozzle.

An inductive argument involving affirming the consequent is only valid If

and only if Water Bucket (thrown), then Wet Head. It is quite possible

that the presence of the Wet Head, in the abstract, was caused either by Rain

or the Water Nozzle. Just because there is a Wet Head, it does not mean

necessarily that Joe Smith caused the Wet Head with the Bucket of Water.

It is apparent, then, that an argument which affirms the consequent,

that is moves logically backwards, as a matter of logical proof is fallacious

and inadmissable in evidence. To use such an argument the plaintiff must

prove that the only possible way that the Wet Head could have happened

was with the Water Bucket of Joe Smith.

Bibliography

Capaldi, The Art of Deception


68/103

68

Chapter 20

Reincarnation: A Critical Look

By

Anthony J. Fejfar


I reincarnation a valid doctrine? Apparently, an early church council,

The Council of Nicea, held around the year 400 A.D., did not think so.

Although the Pope from Rome did not attend the council, and apparently

only five bishops participated, a three to two vote defeated the idea of

reincarnation in the Christian Church, at least for a time. (Most protestants

do not consider themselves bound by Nicea, but rather focus on the Bible.)

From a scientific point of view, Psychiatrist Brian Weiss, M.D., has

written a book confirming the idea of reincarnation from a scientific point of

view. (See, Brian Weiss, Many Lives, Many Masters). Additionally,

Psychologist, Michael Newton, in his book, Journey of Souls, extensively

discusses the reincarnation lives of his clients which were discussed while

the clients were placed in hypnotic trance states. Other new age authors

such as Michael Roads, Edgar Cayce, and Janes Roberts have used


69/103

69

information gathered in trance states to confirm the concept of reincarnation

as valid.

Although Edgar Cayce asserted that the Bible contains numerous

references to reincarnation, I choose to focus only on one passage. In the

Book of Job, Jobs ten children are all killed when the house that they were

having a party in collapsed. At the end of the Book of Job, after Job has

been found righteous by God, Jobs ten children are restored to him. This

either means that Job had ten new children who reincarnated, or

alternatively, all ten were resurrected by God from the dead. I think that

reincarnation is the less intrusive, more likely explanation.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the concept of reincarnation is

valid. One interesting question is the underlying purpose of reincarnation.

There are several options:

1. random

2. Karma

3. Learning

4. Grace

5. experience

While I will discuss all fiver options, I find the Learning option and the

Grace option to be the most sensible and plausible.


70/103

70

The random interpretation of reincarnation simply states that each

person bounces from life to life, without meaning. There does not seem

to be much that is very attractive about this interpretation. Many might

prefer to simply die and go out of existence rather than randomly

reincarnate.

The second interpretation is the Karma interpretation. The Karma

interpretation states that the lives which a person takes is based upon past

Karma. For every cause there is an effect. As a person does, so it will be

done unto that person. Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory are not places but

rather represent states of being which play out in reincarnational lives

which may be a life of Heaven on Earth, or, Hell on Earth, or something in

between. This Karma interpretation is in my view, valid, and is the ground

or baseline interpretation of reincarnation.

Next is the learning interpretation of reincarnation. Once a person

has reached a certain level of maturity after reincarnating, the person takes

on learning lives. While bad Karma could certainly result in a person

taking on mental or physical handicaps in a particular life, it is quite possible

that a person could be using good educational Karma to take on learning

experiences which develop the soul or spirit of the person. We should not

look down on people with mental or physical handicaps. Often such a


71/103

71

person could be an advanced or wise soul who is trying to develop

attributes or experiences which can only be developed through taking on a

handicap. Learning is a very sensible and plausible explanation for

reincarntion.

Grace is also a very sensible and plausible explanation for

reincarnation. It may be that a mature or advanced or wise soul will

take on a life or lives of service to others, as a priest, a nun, a minister, a

teacher, a doctor, a lawyer, an author, a professor, a nurse, etc., etc.

Although these lives may be lives of personal hardship and even sacrifice,

they are undertaken either voluntarily or involuntarily as a matter of Grace,

in the service of God and humanity. Because Grace in Christ transcends all

Karma, it may be many lives of personal service and hardship will be

required to bring a persons bad Karma, back into balance. Additionally,

some saints, with remarkably good Karma, take on lives of Grace, out of

love, simply because they are saints. In my judgment, there are many

reincarnational saints, on earth.

The last, and perhaps most dysfunctional interpretation of

reincarnation is the experience interpretation. On this view, all

reincarnational lives are simply taken for the sake of experience, without

meaning or value, or even education. This is the voyeur view of


72/103

72

reincarnation, and I find it selfish, egotistical, and non-sustainable.

Bibliography

Michael Newton, Journey of Souls

Michael Roads, Journey into Oneness

Journey into Nature

Jane Roberts, Seth Speaks

The Seth Material

Brian Weiss, Many Lives, Many Masters


73/103

73

Chapter 21

Separation of Church and State

By

Anthony J. Fejfar


There are three policy reasons which can be cited for the idea of

the separation of Church and State. First, it is argued that religion is

manipulative and irrational and should be excluded from public debate and

public policy. Second, it is argued that religion is powerful, and, it places

too much power in the government if Church and State are combined. A

Church-State Super State would be oppressive of individual freedom.

Finally, a third argument is that although religion is a good thing, the

problem is that reasonable people can differ as to Church doctrine and

religious authority, and therefore it is not appropriate to privelege one

persons Church doctrine and religious authority over anothers. It is argued

that such favoritism leads to the persecution of religious minority groups. I

would like to argue that the wall between Church and State should be

relaxed but not eliminated. In so arguing, I will address the three policy


74/103

74

arguments favoring separation of Church and State.

The first argument to be addressed is that involving the separation of

Church and State based upon the idea that religion is irrational. This

argument is ultimately based upon the application of Ockhams Razor to

public policy. Those favoring Ockhams Razor argue that theology and

metaphysics must be excluded from pubic debate because they are excluded

by Ockhams Razor. Recall that Ockhams Razor argues that a simple

solution to any problem is to be preferred over a complex solution. Since

God and metaphysics involve complex solutions to problems, they cannot

be discussed. However, it has been argued that Ockhams Razor is bereft.

There is no rational reason to privelege a simple solution over a more

complex one. Moreover, it has been argued that in order for a concept to be

valid it must allow for its own existence. Because Ockhams Razor

excludes itself as a metaphysical assumption, it cannot be taken seriously.

Because Ockhams Razor has been refuted, it is argued that religion or

metaphysics cannot be excluded from the public square on the basis that

they are irrational. Instead, it is argued that they can be included, at least in

some form.

The second argument favoring the separation of Church and State

argues that too much power would be placed in the hands of government, to


75/103


76/103

76

Chapter 22

Statutory Construction

and

the United States Constitution

By

Anthony J. Fejfar


It is a well known rule of statutory construction that statutes in

derogation of the common law must be strictly construed. What this means

is that when interpreting a statute, you must do so in a way which has the

least effect upon the common law. This rule of narrow construction

developed to ensure that the common law would be given priority.

I would like to argue for a similar rule in the case of Constitutional

Law. I would argue that statutes in derogation of the Constitution be

narrowly construed. Thus, a statute must be read in such a way that

Constitutional rights are not infringed upon. For example, one could argue

that a governmental statute relating to sales tax must be strictly construed to

avoid a problem with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Thus, one could narrowly construe the taxing statute so that newspapers


77/103


78/103

78

Chapter 23

The Bible and Natural Law

By

Anthony J. Fejfar


Some think that the Bible has nothing to do with Natural Law. In

fact the idea of Natural Law is that knowledge is available to the human

mind through the use of natural reason, rather than Divine Revelation.

Nevertheless, perhaps there is some nuggets to be mined from scripture

which support Natural Law. Such is the focus of this Chapter.

Both Plato and Aristotle were ancient Greek philosophers, writing in

Greece many years before the Christian New Testament texts were written.

Plato and Aristotle both argued that the human being is essentially

constituted by three levels of manifestation, essentially body-senses; soul-

mind; spirit-intellect. This is consistent with both developmental

psychologys idea of stages, as well as Ken Wilbers idea of transpersonal

stages of consciousness.

Interestingly, St. Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians seems to


79/103

79

have utilized a similar idea:

May the God of peace himself make you perfectly holy,and may you entirely, spirit, soul, and body be preserved

blameless for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians Ch. 5 v. 23, New American Bible (emphasis added).

It is thus appparent, that St. Paul was exposed to Greek

philosophical Natural Law thinking, as well as approving of the same. Thus

it is Biblical and Christian to understand that there are in fact three (or more)

levels of consciousness for a human being: spirit soul body. As

noted above, Plato and Aristoltle both wrote about the three levels of spirit,

soul, and body.

There is a Natural Law Ethic which accompanies the foregoing

formulation. All other things being equal, spiritual-intellectual-wisdom

values are to be preferred over values of soul-mind-moral-political, and

values of the soul-mind are in turn to be valued over values of the body-

senses, such as fancy food or clothes, or sexual excess.

Additionally, I have argued that Critical Thomist Natural Law

Ethical principles, such as reciprocity, utility, proportionality, and equity,

also exist and operate. Do these Natural Law Ethical principles also find

support in the Bible? I think so.


80/103


81/103

81

story Mary, Mother of Jesus, equitably intervenes to have Jesus make an

exception from the proportional rule of no miracles at this time, so that

there would be wine for the wedding celebration.

In conclusion, although Natural Law is not strictly speaking based

upon Divine Revelation, the Bible clearly supports some Natural Law

Ethical principles, and Natural Law metaphysical levels of consciousness.


82/103

82

Chapter 24

The Bible and Social Justice



Social Justice is not communism, neither is it unregulated

capitalism. Social Justice is the point of view that we have an obligation to

help the little guy, the poor, the homeless, the oppressed, the sick, the

mentally ill, even the working poor. Social Justice believes in helping

others. Social Justice is a religious attitude that God demands that we help

those in need and that God valued this more than religious rituals, often

empty religious rituals. This is the message of the Bible found in the book

of Isaiah.

In Isaiah, Chapter 58 God makes it clear that we are to help others,

especially those in need, and we are to avoid empty religious rituals. God,

in the person of Isaiah, criticizes Israel, in the modern context the United

States of America for having an empty prayer life and not helping others.

God refuses to help those who fast and afflict themselves in religious self

sacrifice, when those very same persons are selfish, vindictive employers.

God says that He does not want penance, He does not want the

kind of humility where a man bows his head like a reed. Instead God


83/103

83

wants the following:

releasing those bound unjustly

untying the thongs of the yoke [of the employee]

setting free the oppressed

breaking the yoke [of injustice]

Sharing your bread with the hungry

sheltering the oppressed and the homeless

Clothing the naked

not turning your back on your own [friends and family]

Isaiah Ch. 58, verses 6 and 7, New American Bible.

Those who promote and follow Social Justice are rewarded by God.

If you follow and promote Social Justice:

Then your light shall break forth like the dawn,

and your wound shall be quickly healed;

Your vindication shall go before you,

and the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard.

Isaiah Ch. 58, verse 8, New American Bible.


84/103

84

Chapter 25

The Bible, Jesus, and Social Justice

By

Anthony J. Fejfar


In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus starts his public ministry by appearing

in the synagogue in Nazareth, opening the scroll from the prophet Isaiah.

Obviously the scroll from Isaiah contained sayings from the biblical book of

Isaiah, which is concerned primarily with social justice, and, prophecies

relative to the messiah, namely, Jesus himself. It is important to note that

Jesus starts his public ministry with Isaiah, for both of the foregoing reasons.

First, to affirm his, that is Jesus identity as the messiah, and second, to

affirm that the fight for social justice is the most important part of Jesus

ministry. It is also interesting to note that Jesus was a lay reader, apparently

an important office in the Jewish religion.

Luke begins his account of Jesus public ministry by having Jesus

read the following from Isaiah:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,


85/103

85

because he has annointed me to bring

glad tidings to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim liberty to

the captives and recovery of sight to the blind,

to let the oppressed go free,

and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.

Then, after finishing the foregoing reading, Jesus said, Today this scripture

passage is fulfilled in your hearing. Luke Ch. 4, v. 20, New American

Bible.

Now, the passages from Luke which we have just discussed, only make

sense in the context of the readings from the book of Isaiah. As stated

previously, there are two major themes in Isaiah, first the messianic

prophecy, and second, Gods support for social justice. Isaiah, Chapter 8,

foretells Jesus virgin birth in Bethlehem of Judea: [T]he Lord himself will

give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall

name him Immanuel. Isaiah Ch. 8, v. 14, New American Bible.

Further, in Isaiah, Chapter 9, the prophet Isaiah describes Jesus, the

Son of God the Father,


86/103

86

For a child is born to us, a son is given us;

upon his shoulder dominion rests.

They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero,

Father-Forever, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah Ch. 9, v. 5, New American Bible.

What type of messiah is Jesus, our Immanuel? We begin to see this in

Isaiah, Chapter 10. On the lips of Isaiah, God says:

Woe to those who enact unjust statutes

and who write oppressive decrees,

Depriving the needy of judgment

and robbing my peoples poor of

their rights....

Isaiah, Ch. 10, vs. 1 and 2, New American Bible. Thus, Jesus is fully in

favor of liberal rights consciousness, and is opposed to corrupt, unjust

laws.

Additionally, we see in Isaiah Chapter 11, that Jesus rules with wisdom

and justice:

The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him:

A spirit of wisdom and of understanding,


87/103

87

A spirit of counsel and of strength,

A spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord,

and his delight shall be fear of the Lord.

Not by appearance shall he judge,

nor by hearsay shall he decide,

But he shall judge the poor with justice,

and decide aright for the lands afflicted

Isaiah Ch. 11, vs. 2-4, New American Bible. Obviously, the rule of

evidence rule against hearsay found in the Federal Rules of Evidence, is

based upon the foregoing passage.

As referred to in Luke, in Isaiah, it is said that the messiah, Jesus, will

deliver us from harm: Then will the eyes of the blind be opened, and the

ears of the deaf be cleared; Then will the lame leap like a stag, then the

tongue of the dumb will sing. Isaiah Ch. 35 vs. 5 and 6, New American

Bible. Additionally, Jesus is referred to as the Champion of Justice.

Isaiah Ch. 41, v.2, New American Bible. Finally, in Isaiah Chapter 42,

Jesus is once again referred to as bringing justice to the nations:

Here is my servant [Jesus] whom I uphold,

my chosen one with whom I am pleased,

Upon whom I have put my spirit;


88/103

88

he shall bring forth justice to the nations,

Isaiah Ch. 42, v. 1, New American Bible. In bringing about social justice,

however, Jesus does not cause riots (not crying out, not shouting, not

making his voice heard in the streets Id. v. 2), and, Jesus will not bring

about social justice at the expense of the innocent weak or spiritual (A

bruised reed he shall not break, and smoldering wick he will not quench....

Id. v. 3).

Jesus wants persons who support social justice as part of their

spirituality. He does not like mere appearances of holiness such as fasting:

Would today that you might fast so that your voice would

be heard on high! ...The fasting that I wish [is]:

releasing those bound unjustly,

untying the thongs of the yoke,

Setting free the oppressed,

breaking every yoke;

Sharing your bread with the hungry,

sheltering the oppressed and the homeless;

Clothing the naked when you see them,

and not turning your back on your own.

Isaiah Ch. 58, vs. 6 and 7, New American Bible.


89/103

89

Just as Jesus ultimately brings about social justice in an assertive but

non-violent manner, so too we are supposed to do the same. Self-defense is

permitted, but aggressive violence is not.


90/103


91/103

91

faith. It is similar to the idea in English that a person might have dirty

laundry that needs airing in the press.

Analogous to the idea of unclean hands, is its opposite, clean

hands, or good faith. Some courts say that accompanying every

contract, there is an accompanying duty of Good Faith which applies to each

of the parties to the contract. Good Faith implies a standard which is above

that of an ordinary arms length relationship as between the contracting

parties, where each party is considered to be a competitor with the other, and

in some sense, an adversary.

Interestingly, it can be argued that the Equitable Doctrines of

Unclean Hands and Good Faith find their origin in the Bible. In the Book

of Genesis, there is a story involving Abraham, Sarah, and King Abimelech

of Gerar. (See, Genesis, Ch 20, New American Bible). Abraham and his

wife Sarah (who was also Abrahams half

An Anthology of Critical Thomist Jurisprudence, Vol. 2 (book)

Documents

Transcript of An Anthology of Critical Thomist Jurisprudence, Vol. 2 (book)