Friday, April 24, 2009

Errata

It is the stuff of life to find that things one missed in proofs will survive to print. Herewith errata found. Please post any other typos to this post, and I will amend as time permits.

page 6 line 31: for principle read principal
page 94 line 30: for conclusion read inclusion
page 112 box line 3: add closing quotation mark after transgression of the law
page 115 line 1: for Galatians 3:25 read Galatians 3:28
page 116 line 16: for Turllo read Trullo
page 128 line 26 for later read latter
page 130 box text line 4: delete the first a at the end of the line
page 130 box text line 5: add a comma after man
page 149 line 13: for it read is
Posted by at
Labels:

6 comments:

Paul (A.) said...

page 6 line 31: for "principle" read "principal".

Query whether page 86 line 5: for "beg" read "raise" : I don't see an assumed premise stated.

Page 112-113 bottom box: quotation marks missing or misplaced within quoted material but I do not have access to original to compare.

Query page 153 lines 11-12 as inconsistent with church doctrines described page 154 lines 20 to 34, or is "spiritual" being used in a mysterous sense?

June 23, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG said...

Thanks for catching these. I will add to the list.

The one on page 86 would have been clearer as "tends to be a form of begging the question:" -- that is, decisions about moral issues often rest on presuppositions and "assuming the premise" rather than careful examination.

Page 112 is missing a closing quotation mark after "transgression of the law" on line 3 of the bottom box. Hopkins liked to pepper his remarks with scriptural tags in this fashion. (As do I -- though I usually dispense with the quotation marks!)

On your final query, I'm not finding what you reference. Could you give me more context?

June 24, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Chas Hefling said...

There seems to be some confusion in lines 4-5 of the boxed text on p. 130 -- the three indefinite articles. The general sense is clear enough, but you might want to add or delete something.

July 17, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG said...

Thank you, Charles. There is an extra "a" in line 4. It would probably also be clearer in English to have a comma after "man" in line 5

July 18, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Paul (A.) said...

Ah. For "153" read "154":

"... as far as the church is concerned, there is no spiritual difference between men and women."

with

"The church . . . embraced beliefs . . . of women as 'defective males' . . . codified by Aquinas . . . ."

These differences were not "spiritual"?

August 6, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG said...

Dear Paul, thanks for the correction on the page number. Now I see what you're concerned about.

Actually this is all part of the same thought: Aquinas knew that there was no "spiritual" difference between men and women; but he believed there was a "natural" difference. And the influence of that teaching about the "natural" came to infect the "spiritual" rather than the other way around -- thus the spiritual office of priest is forbidden to women on the basis of the "natural likeness" the celebrant is to have to the male Christ. Though the spiritual should have primacy, the physical (even when it is a mistaken Aristotelian natural science) gets in the way.

A similar thing happens with Aquinas teaching on sexuality: he acknowledges the physical, emotional, and moral levels corresponding to the "ends" of marriage (procreation, fellowship, fidelity) but then places the limiting aspect for humans on the point of congruity with animals, rather then looking to the qualities that make marriage uniquely a human phenomenon.

Thanks again for your keen eye, and the opportunity to clarify. I think I will repost this under the appropriate chapter.

August 6, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)