2 Development of the subject the freedom, according to Ockham, it belongs to the constitution of the man. According to De Boni, fullness of the power and freedom are contradictory concepts, that if exclude mutually: the fullness of the power is something that destroys the Christian in such a way how much the citizen, because it steals it to them freedom (cf. OF BONI, 2003, p.305). From there the proper Ockham to say that Christ did not come to deprive the world of its rights and good. Therefore, nor the Pope possesss the power to deprive other people of its good and its rights. Therefore, the papal principality is not extended in regular way on the goods, the rights and the freedoms of other people (cf. OCKHAM, 1999, P.

180). Also it does not fit to the Pope to impose virtuous actions against the will of the fidiciary offices. Thus, for example, in diverse topics of the writing the virginity and the celibacy are praised; however, they do not belong to the mediania of the fidiciary offices, but they take in itself something that goes beyond the common obligations to all. Therefore, they are not taxes to nobody, but only advised to that they inhale to a bigger perfection. In way fellow creature, after years of convivncia, husband and woman can, of common agreement, to decide itself for the separation, in order to follow, both, as religious and religious, the celibatria life.

But the Pope cannot impose the spouses, against the will of them, that they become religious (cf. OCKHAM, 1999, P. 177-178). The English master is against the fullness of the power of the Pope because it is a human being. As human being the Pope he can leave itself to lead for external influences, such as, interests politicians, economic, etc, and to incur into error. The premise that is here en vogue is of that the Christian religion does not deprive nobody of its right.

Tags: philosophy

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.