Rev. John R. Fortin, OSB


            There have been many advances in recent years in the human genome project, which studies the gene sequence of humans.  For the most part, these advances have great promise for humankind, especially in the early detection and curing of diseases.  The tools for genetic research are becoming more and more sophisticated; genome sequencing is becoming less expensive and more available. Further, researchers examining the DNA of cells are able to find things that they had not expected to find things for which they were not even looking.  But a problem has arisen.  Donors and research organizations sign legal documents that stipulate that the donors are to remain anonymous and are not to be contacted for any reason.  This has resulted in an interesting ethical dilemma for the researchers.  Here are two examples.

 

At the Center for Translational Pathology at the University of Michigan, a researcher found something unexpected.  He noticed that a man with cancer, a subject in one of his studies, had the genes of the virus that causes AIDS.  Only further testing could tell if the man actually had AIDS.  But there was a problem: the man had donated his cells on condition that he remain anonymous and that he not be contacted by the Center no matter what.  Because of the non-disclosure agreement signed by both the subject and the Center, neither the researcher nor anyone else at the Center could contact the man and inform him of what had been discovered and advise him to seek appropriate treatment.

 

Another case is fraught with even more serious consequences.  A young woman, in whose family there was a strong history of breast cancer, signed up for a study being conducted by the National Institutes of Health that was trying to find cancer genes that, when mutated, greatly increased the risk of breast cancer.  The woman, who was aware of her family history and fearful of her risk of contracting breast cancer, had, previous to donating her cells for this research project, decided to undergo surgery to have her breasts removed prophylactically.  When she consented to donate cells for the study, she clearly indicated that she did not want to be contacted by the researchers, whom she had told of her plan for the surgery during her initial screening process for donors.  The research ultimately showed that the woman did not have her family’s breast cancer gene, but the researchers were legally barred from informing her of the discovery and thus preventing her from proceeding with the now completely unnecessary double mastectomy.

 

Dr. Francis Collins, Director of NIH, has said: “We are living in an awkward interval where our ability to capture information often exceeds our ability to know what to do with it.”

 

Here are some thoughts on this issue.

 

  1. The NIH and similar medical research organizations are in the business of improving the standards of health and physical well-being of the general public.  Their findings are used to develop and advance our knowledge of those procedures and practices and products that can ensure the health of the people.  Even though these organizations are not in the business of treating people for medical conditions, the results of their work directly affect treatment.
  2. The consciences of the researchers ought not to be weighed down by their discoveries when, as the above situations indicate, the donor really needs to be informed of these discoveries in order to make a more informed decision about obtaining medical attention or  reviewing a medical decision than he/she might have without that information.  In other words, the burden of the decision for medical treatment or not ought to rest with the donor.  It is unfair to force the researcher in a situation where he/she would violate legal documents and agreements when the health and/or life of a donor is potentially at stake.
  3. It would seem a commonplace to assert that the privacy right of a donor discovered to have a condition or disease that is a potential general health threat (bubonic plague, for example) ought to be informed of this in spite of the privacy right because that right should not be held higher than the right of the general public to a healthy environment and information about potentially harmful and/or lethal situations.  That donor must seek medical treatment whether voluntarily or not, and the general public needs to be informed in general terms about the threat.  Privacy rights, then, clearly have limits within the context of the commonweal.
  4. While someone who voluntarily participates in such research programs as conducted by the NIH and other organizations does indeed have a right to privacy and anonymity, and certainly these research organizations ought to respect that right of the person as an individual.  However this standard operating procedure only to the extent that the welfare of the general public is not jeopardized.  Further these organizations might have other obligations to the donor who is not only an individual but also a member of the general public which these organizations are established to serve.  Thus the NIH and other organizations need to create documents for their donors that will enable the organization to inform a donor of any medical information that is learned about that donor during the time of the research that pertains to the donor’s individual health.  Then it would be up to the donor to determine what course of action to take: ignore the information, act on it, wait it out.
  5. If whatever is discovered has ramifications for the health of the general public, the research organization, in addition to contacting the donor, ought to inform the appropriate government agencies about the threat posed by the situation.  Any individual who does not wish to abide by the stipulations in these documents ought not to be accepted as a donor for research purposes.

 

What do you think?  How would you advise the NIH and other research organizations on this issue?

According to its website, WikiLeaks is “a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing
important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous
way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish
material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources
anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored
injustices” (http://wikileaks.ch/).
WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, are under investigation by the United States
government for espionage. Using the terms of the Patriot Act, a federal magistrate signed an
order on January 4, 2011, that required Dynadot, the domain registrars for WikiLeaks, to release
to the government all information it holds on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. Twitter has
likewise been ordered to provide all the information it has on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.
The issue is whether or not WikiLeaks has deliberately tried to undermine the security of the
United States by publishing documents that, while being declassified, are not sanitized and
whose contents could negatively affect efforts to keep the United States and its citizens safe.
So, here’s the question: is it morally permissible for me to use WikiLeaks?
On the one hand, one could argue that WikiLeaks is an online, free access source of information,
which is open and available to the public. It may be the case that some of that information is
sensitive, but that is not my responsibility. If there is an ethical concern here, either in regards
to how the information is obtained or whether or not it should be made public, it is not an ethical
issue for me as a user because I am using the material post factum. It is WikiLeaks which
must decide what its ethical practices are. Even if there is some truth to the charge that it has
veered away from its stated mission of exposing information that would reveal “suppressed
and censored injustices” and has posted information that has nothing to do with injustices
but is apparently concerned only to embarrass governments and/or government and non-
government officials by publishing documents that are highly sensitive and/or that complicate
the relations among nations and/or businesses, that is not an argument that my use of WikiLeaks
is morally forbidden. Like any other source for research, I should be able to use it as long as
I cite it accurately as a source. What if fellow students or professional colleagues are availing
themselves of that resource but I, thinking I am taking the moral high ground, opt not to? I am
only putting myself at a marked disadvantage, perhaps even an almost insurmountable one,
because I deliberately turn away from information that could make my arguments more cogent
and germane. Therefore it is at least morally permissible to use WikiLeaks.
On the other hand, one could argue that WikiLeaks is not simply releasing information from
unnamed sources that reveals corruption in government and/or business, despite its mission
statement. It has a subversive element that seems to delight in defying the need for secrecy in
government and in business. What, for example, was the purpose of revealing the secrets of
Scientology? Such revelation hardly qualifies as exposing corruption and unethical behavior.
There is some material on WikiLeaks, such as the Afghan War documents, that reveals
information about military operations that have the potential of putting our military personnel
in grave personal danger. In 2009 WikiLeaks posted 251,00 State Department documents that
do not black out the names of foreign activitists and dissenters who spoke to US diplomats, thus
putting their lives in danger because of the hostile environments in which they live. Although
it could be argued that some of what WikiLeaks has posted is ethically permissible, perhaps
even ultimately harmless, there are other postings whose intention is suspect. How is one to
distinguish between important information and gossip or prejudice? Further, how can one
rely on WikiLeaks to avoid the trap of sensationalism in order to market its product? The
organization itself is international and very fluid, with people coming and going. How then can
it manage proper safeguards to ensure that what it posts will do no harm? This is especially an
issue given that WikiLeaks has not yet published an ethical code to govern its editorial policy as
regards to fairness, accuracy, completeness, and fairness. Since, therefore, WikiLeaks’ postings
reveal intentions that are manifestly hostile rather that in the public interest and since using the
site gives the impression of its legitimacy, as can be claimed by WikiLeaks on the basis of the hit
count, then using WikiLeaks for any purpose is not morally permissible.
What do you think?


According to its website, WikiLeaks is “a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices” (http://wikileaks.ch/).

WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, are under investigation by the United States government for espionage.  Using the terms of the Patriot Act, a federal magistrate signed an order on January 4, 2011, that required Dynadot, the domain registrars for WikiLeaks, to release to the government all information it holds on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.  Twitter has likewise been ordered to provide all the information it has on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.  The issue is whether or not WikiLeaks has deliberately tried to undermine the security of the United States by publishing documents that, while being declassified, are not sanitized and whose contents could negatively affect efforts to keep the United States and its citizens safe.

So, here’s the question: is it morally permissible for me to use WikiLeaks?

On the one hand, one could argue that WikiLeaks is an online, free access source of information, which is open and available to the public.  It may be the case that some of that information is sensitive, but that is not my responsibility.  If there is an ethical concern here, either in regards to how the information is obtained or whether or not it should be made public, it is not an ethical issue for me as a user because I am using the material post factum.  It is WikiLeaks which must decide what its ethical practices are.  Even if there is some truth to the charge that it has veered away from its stated mission of exposing information that would reveal “suppressed and censored injustices” and has posted information that has nothing to do with injustices but is apparently concerned only to embarrass governments and/or government and non-government officials by publishing documents that are highly sensitive and/or that complicate the relations among nations and/or businesses, that is not an argument that my use of WikiLeaks is morally forbidden.   Like any other source for research, I should be able to use it as long as I cite it accurately as a source.  What if fellow students or professional colleagues are availing themselves of that resource but I, thinking I am taking the moral high ground, opt not to?  I am only putting myself at a marked disadvantage, perhaps even an almost insurmountable one, because I deliberately turn away from information that could make my arguments more cogent and germane.  Therefore it is at least morally permissible to use WikiLeaks.

On the other hand, one could argue that WikiLeaks is not simply releasing information from unnamed sources that reveals corruption in government and/or business, despite its mission statement.  It has a subversive element that seems to delight in defying the need for secrecy in government and in business.  What, for example, was the purpose of revealing the secrets of Scientology?  Such revelation hardly qualifies as exposing corruption and unethical behavior.  There is some material on WikiLeaks, such as the Afghan War documents, that reveals information about military operations that have the potential of putting our military personnel in grave personal danger.  In 2009 WikiLeaks posted 251,00 State Department documents that do not black out the names of foreign activitists and dissenters who spoke to US diplomats, thus putting their lives in danger because of the hostile environments in which they live.  Although it could be argued that some of what WikiLeaks has posted is ethically permissible, perhaps even ultimately harmless, there are other postings whose intention is suspect.  How is one to distinguish between important information and gossip or prejudice?  Further, how can one rely on WikiLeaks to avoid the trap of sensationalism in order to market its product?  The organization itself is international and very fluid, with people coming and going.  How then can it manage proper safeguards to ensure that what it posts will do no harm?  This is especially an issue given that WikiLeaks has not yet published an ethical code to govern its editorial policy as regards to fairness, accuracy, completeness, and fairness.  Since, therefore, WikiLeaks’ postings reveal intentions that are manifestly hostile rather that in the public interest and since using the site gives the impression of its legitimacy, as can be claimed by WikiLeaks on the basis of the hit count, then using WikiLeaks for any purpose is not morally permissible.

What do you think?

Halloween approaches, and the usual round of “it was a cold and rainy night” stories of haunted buildings and cemeteries, ghosts, evil spirits, and other other-worldly phenomena will once again circulate on campus.  So it seems to me this is as good a time as any to say something about hell.  Heaven knows, any attempt to wed beauty and hell is a bit of stretch — well, to be honest, it is more than a bit of a stretch — nonetheless, in the thought of Anselm hell has a distinct place in the universe as created by God and further hell is necessary so long as those who have been granted intellect and free will ultimately and definitively choose not to follow the commandments of God, who, in other words, rebel against the goodness and loving kindness of God.  Hell is a necessary part of God’s eternal design.  When all things are made new at the end of time, the rebellious angels and humans have to be “somewhere” that is not heaven, and thus it is necessary for the good order of the universe that a place be set aside for them.  Literary accounts of hell, the underworld, Hades, abound from the classical narratives of Homer and Virgil in the voyages of Odysseus and Aeneas to the medieval masterpiece of Dante’s Inferno to Milton’s grand vision of Pandemonium in Paradise Lost to Jean Paul Sartre’s No Exit.  But none of these describe hell as beautiful or as an aspect of the beauty of creation.  Rather the image is at least one of hopeless desolation, barrenness, and complete deprivation of all that is good, if not of fire and brimstone or the frozen lake that precludes all movement of limb or will.  All that remains that might have any semblance to beauty, it seems, is the basic metaphysical good of existence.

It seems to me that Anselm’s view of hell as having beauty can only be understood in the context of his understanding of heaven, and from that perspective, hell as a place of eternal punishment does have, as strange as it may seem, a necessary beauty.  For Anselm heaven is the model of right order.  There are three kinds of order in heaven: first, heaven is a moral order in that sin and punishment are precluded from being there; second, heaven is a salvific order in that heaven is the reward granted to those who persevere in the faith; third, heaven is a mystical order in that it is inhabited by a perfect number of beings.  You can read my remarks about these three orders of heaven in The Saint Anselm Journal Vol. 6, No. 1 (Fall2008) at:

http://www.anselm.edu/Documents/Institute%20for%20Saint%20Anselm%20Studies/Abstracts/4.5.3.2a_61Fortin.pdf

The sharpest contrast between the saved and the damned in the writings of Anselm I think is found in De humanis moribus. In this work Anselm set out four-fold conditions to which human nature was susceptible: to be miserable [miser], the condition of those who live in the world; to be most miserable [miserrimus], the condition of those who are permanently fixed in the fires of hell; to be happy [beatus], the condition of those who enjoyed the earthly paradise before the fall, viz., Adam and Eve; to be most happy [beatissimus], the condition of those who reside with the saints in heaven.  The beatus condition no longer obtains and the miser condition is limited to this life.  Thus at the end of time, all rational beings will exist either in a state of beatissimus or miserrimus.  Those who order their lives according to the will of God will enjoy the condition of beatissimus.

Earlier in the same work, Anselm had set out fourteen opposed pairs of beatitude and misery.  The first set of seven belongs properly to the body: beauty and ugliness; agility and slowness; strength and weakness; freedom and servitude; sanity and insanity; calmness and anxiety; long-lived and short-lived.  The second set of seven belongs properly to the soul: wise and foolish; friendly and unfriendly; agreeable and disagreeable; honorable and shameful; powerful and impotent; peaceful of mind and fearful; joyful and sad.  Those in heaven will enjoy the fullness of all fourteen beatitudes and are most blessed, while those in the underworld will be cursed with the fourteen miseries and will be most miserable.

With this brief background, let us try to approach Anselm’s understanding of hell.  Anselm offered no tour through hell à la Homer or Virgil or Dante.  Except for one instance he did not describe what awaits those who deserve eternal death.  With the exception of two occasions in which Anselm spoke of hell as the place where all souls went prior to Christ’s redemption act, all other references to hell simply referred to the place of eternal damnation.  Anselm used three terms to refer to hell: the most frequent term was infernus, but in a few instances he used the Scriptural term Gehenna and the pagan term Tartara.  While the three terms are scattered throughout his writings, it is in Meditation II: A Lament for Virginity Unhappily Lost that one finds his most concentrated references to hell and in which, incidentally, all three terms are used.

This meditation is, as the title indicates, a lament on his own failings as a sinner despite his religious profession (i.e., his virginity).  Anselm opened the meditation with a pitiful statement of his present condition as a sinner, and not only a sinner, but a sinner who had professed religious vows: “Once I was washed with the whiteness of heaven,” he wrote, “given the Holy Spirit, pledged with the profession of Christianity; I was a virgin, I was the spouse of Christ.”  But now because of his sins, the one to whom he had made his pledge and vows was now longer “the kind spouse of my virginity, but the terrible judge of my impurity.”  He derided himself who was once “the spouse of the king of heaven and with alacrity you have made yourself the whore of the tormentor of hell [tartarorum].”  Anselm continued to develop this rhythmic and balancing effect in his prose between what he once was and what he is now with similar metaphors.  For example, he declared that he wanted nothing to do with consolation, security or joy unless the forgiveness of sins brought them back to him: “Be far from me before death, so that perhaps mercy will give you back to me after death.”  He meditated on hell, “the land of darkness and the shadows of death,” in order to exhort himself to return to the Lord.  Here, and only here in Anselm’s works, do we have some brief graphic description of hell: sulphurous flames; flames of hell, eddying darkness, swirling with terrible sounds; worms living in fire; devils that burn with us, raging with fire.  The meditation ends with a plea to the Lord to hear his prayer for mercy and forgiveness as he takes full credit for his sins:

Lord, you do not lie; would it be truly not “to desire the death of a sinner” to bury into hell [Gehenna] a sinner who cries out to you?  Is to thrust down a sinner into hell [infernus] to “desire not the death of a sinner”?  Surely it is rather that “I will that the sinner turn and live.”  Lord, I am indeed the sinner….  Good Lord, do not recall your just claims against your sinner, but remember mercy towards your creature.

Hell was what it was, in Anselm’s thought, and as that which was the absolute rejection of divine grace and beatitude was not deemed worthy of any more than what one might call almost casual mention.  It was the epitome of the disorder and chaos caused by disobedience toward and rejection of the reign of God and his Christ.   As such it was the opposite of heaven, wherein right order reigns.  Heaven being the only logical goal of every rational being, hell’s beauty in the plan of creation then lay in providing a place for those who chose total disorder and irrationality.  In the eternal design of God, whom truth and beauty surround, hell had its proper place.  Lacking the rebellious sin of angels and humans, hell need not have existed.  But given sin, hell takes its place, however unfortunate that is, within the beauty and order of creation.  Right order requires that rational creatures who have utterly and completely rejected God cannot abide where there is perfect moral, salvific, and mystical order.

Thus hell is, by inference, disordered in all three modes.  It is moral disorder because there can abide in those who inhabit it grave sinfulness and moral turpitude along with a desire to have nothing to do with the grace that could set them free from the slavery of sin.  They will to be separate from the will of God and the order of life and love.  Further, hell is salvific disorder in that the promises of God for the eternal happiness of his rational creatures have been rejected and thus cannot be realized or experienced by those in hell.  They choose to be outside the order of salvation which was open to them and generously offered to them in the saving action of Christ.  Finally, hell is mystical disorder, because there can be no perfection there.  There cannot even be perfect suffering for the suffering in hell had no goal or purpose beyond itself; it is conceived of as a timeless and utter separation from all that is perfect and perfecting of angelic or human nature.

But hell, like sin, cannot lie outside the purview of God’s power and justice and mercy, for God’s omnipotence and omniscience cannot allow that to be.  Thus it is part of the created order, however internally disordered it be, and thus has a beauty in that it was fitting and right and true for those who fully and completely in both intellect and will abandon (dare one say “hate”) the God who had created them for the joys of heaven.

So, what do you think?  Should we speak of hell as having some necessary beauty or is such a concept just plain wrong-headed?  Discuss this next to your favorite carved pumpkin “on a dark and stormy night.”  And Happy Halloween!

The members of the Philosophy Department were asked which book they thought would be important to teach to students in an introductory philosophy course. Their answers are below. You can listen to them all at once or you can click on the name of the individual professor below to listen to each professor’s answer.

All answers in one mp3 file.
click the link to play or right click to download.


-Professor Robert Anderson

David Hume-An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

http://www.amazon.com/Inquiry-Concerning-Human-Understanding/dp/002353110X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222103665&sr=1-3


-Professor Robert Augros

Professor Augros argued that the dialogue between teacher and student was more essential to the philosophical process than any book.



-Professor David Banach

Euclid’s Elements

http://www.amazon.com/Euclids-Elements-T-L-Heath-Translation/dp/1888009195/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222103502&sr=8-1

Albert Camus- The Stranger

http://www.amazon.com/Stranger-Albert-Camus/dp/0679720200/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222102515&sr=1-2



-Professor Montague Brown

Plato- The Republic

http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Plato/dp/0872207366/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222104060&sr=1-1

Online edition

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html

Saint Augustine’s Confessions

http://www.amazon.com/Augustine-Confessions-Oxford-Worlds-Classics/dp/0192833723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222104161&sr=1-1

Online edition

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/Englishconfessions.html


-Professor Drew Dalton

Marcus Aurelius-The Meditations

http://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Penguin-Classics-Marcus-Aurelius/dp/0140449337/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222104796&sr=8-1

Online edition

http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.html

Slavoj Zizek

Violence-Big-Ideas-Small-Books

http://www.amazon.com/Violence-Big-Ideas-Small-Books/dp/0312427182/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222283299&sr=1-1


-Father John Fortin

Saint Anselm- Monologium

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-monologium.html

Proslogium

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-proslogium.html



-Professor Susan Gabriel

Bertrand Russell- The Problems of Philosophy

http://www.amazon.com/Problems-Philosophy-Bertrand-Russell/dp/160597899X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222104969&sr=8-3

Online edition

http://books.google.com/books?id=33jP5wdnt7YC&dq=the+problems+of+philosophy&pg=PP1&ots=iYnhLWaJnI&sig=IsMx9A1hbcpsZWLGZFZ40Ihs56Y&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA3,M1


-Professor Sarah Glenn

Sophocles- Oedipus Rex

http://www.amazon.com/Oedipus-Rex-Literary-Touchstone-Sophocles/dp/1580495931/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222105258&sr=8-1



-Professor Matthew Konieczka

Leo Tolstoy-The Death of Ivan Ilyich

http://www.amazon.com/Death-Ilyich-Stories-Wordsworth-Classics/dp/1840224533/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222105435&sr=1-3

Plato- The Apology

http://www.amazon.com/Euthyphro-Apology-Crito-Phaedo-Philosophy/dp/0879754966/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222105582&sr=1-4

Online Edition

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html


-Professor Thomas Larson

Plato- The Republic

http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Plato/dp/0872207366/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222104060&sr=1-1

Online edition

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html


-Professor Max Latona

Josef Pieper-The Philosophical Act

http://www.amazon.com/Josef-Pieper-Anthology/dp/0898702267/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222282616&sr=8-2


Professor James Mahoney
C.S. Pierce, “The Fixation of Belief”

http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html

Michael Novak, Belief and Unbelief

http://www.amazon.com/Belief-Unbelief-Self-Knowledge-Michael-Novak/dp/1560007419


-Professor Joseph Spoerl

Plato- The Gorgias

http://www.amazon.com/Gorgias-Penguin-Classics-Plato/dp/0140449043/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222106429&sr=8-1

Online edition

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/gorgias.html

Plato- The Republic

http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Plato/dp/0872207366/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222104060&sr=1-1

Online edition

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html

Plato- The Apology

http://www.amazon.com/Euthyphro-Apology-Crito-Phaedo-Philosophy/dp/0879754966/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222105582&sr=1-4

Online Edition

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html


-Professor Kevin Staley

Plato- The Euthyphro

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

The Meet the Philosopher Series are interviews with the members of the Saint Anselm College Philosophy Department. They aim at introducing you to the members of the department along with their interests and ideas. Fr. John Fortin OSB is the sixth profile in the series.

In this interview, Fr. John talks about the continuing relevance of Medieval Philosophy today, the Anselm Institute, and how the college has changed since he enrolled here in 1967.

Saint Anselm Philosophy Podcasts can be found here.

The RSS Feed is:

http://www.anselmphilosophy.com/rss/file.php/10/2/forum/13/rss.xml

You can find information on RSS feeds here:

http://www.anselmphilosophy.com/index.php?pid=60