Read very, very carefully chapters 1-9 (pp. 59-78) of Aquinas's Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1. In Chapter 3 St. Thomas draws the following distinction among the propositions which, according to the Catholic faith, have been taught or revealed to us by God through Sacred Scripture and Tradition (i.e., the teachings of the Church):

(i) Some of these revealed propositions can at least in principle be made evident to us through natural reason via philosophical inquiry. These are called the preambles of the faith and are truths having to do with the existence of God and certain of God's attributes--just the sort of truths that St. Thomas attempts to demonstrate in the rest of Book 1 (check the table of contents).

(ii) Others among these propositions taught to us by God cannot even in principle be known by us through natural reason. These are called the mysteries of the faith and include doctrines such as the Trinity, Original Sin, the Incarnation, the Redemption, the Resurrection, the Church, Grace, and the Sacraments, which are peculiarly Christian and which emerge from the "history of salvation." These mysteries cannot be made intellectually evident to us via philosophical inquiry, but must be accepted on faith--where, in general, to accept something on faith is just to accept it as true on the word of someone we consider trustworthy, even though we cannot clearly "see" it to be true.
 

In Chapters 5 and 6  St. Thomas deals with two questions that are naturally prompted by this distinction between the preambles and the mysteries:

       1.  Isn't it unfair of God to expect us to believe the mysteries of the faith, which cannot be proven by means of our natural reasoning abilities and which thus cannot be made evident to us?  (Chapter 5)

       2.  Isn't it in any case foolish for us to accept the mysteries of the faith, given that they cannot be made evident to us?  (We're philosophers, after all, and so we don't believe something just because someone tells us it's so, do we?)  (Chapter 6)

Your job is (a) to give a clear, succint, and accurate account of St. Thomas's replies to these two questions, and (b) to include in your discussions of the two questions a brief reflection on each of the following:

With respect to question 1:  Is it ever fair in other, more ordinary, contexts to expect someone to accept on faith what he or she cannot see clearly?

With respect to question 2:  Does St. Thomas contradict himself by first claiming that the mysteries of the faith cannot be proved and by then giving reasons why it is not foolish to accept them?
 

 NOTE: ONCE AGAIN, YOUR NAME SHOULD APPEAR ONLY ON
THE BACK OF THE LAST PAGE, WRITTEN IN PENCIL