The blog header depicts an important and yet mis-understood New Testament scene, Jesus flogging the money-changers out of the temple. I selected it because the faith that gives us consolation can also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.
Samuel Gibbs writes: “Elon Musk has spoken out against artificial intelligence (AI), the second time in a month, declaring it the most serious threat to the survival of the human race.”
I am of the opinion that there will always be a serious chasm between human and mechanical intelligence, one of metaphysical dimensions. However, even a soulless intelligence could be both sophisticated and dangerous. Look at the complexity of ant and bee communities. It would also raise questions for humanity in regards to our mutable, vulnerable and finite existence in this world. A machine mind, like a sophisticated clock, might be maintained for centuries. By contrast, we are here today and gone tomorrow. Unbelievers will most probably suffer the worse existential angst of all. Instead of Pinocchio wanting to be a real boy, real boys might want to be Pinocchio… or at least his Terminator counterpart.
a) What place does the idea of the natural law have in the cultural areas of society: in institutions, education, academic circles and among the people at large? What anthropological ideas underlie the discussion on the natural basis of the family?
It has been replaced by juridical fiction. Man has made himself the “almighty” master of his relationships and God is allowed no say. Same-sex unions immediately imply that the male-female scenario is no longer viewed as absolute. Natural law implies intelligent design and order. Such runs smack into the face of modern subjectivism and relativism. We still hear parodies of the natural law as when Christians find humour in saying that God made “Adam and Eve” not “Adam and Steve.” But there is not much depth to arguments. Certain academics will appeal to natural law; indeed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas once wrote a brilliant paper showing how natural law invalidated claims on behalf of slavery. However, the accolades he won were lost when he showed how the same principles could be applied to the personhood of the unborn against abortion. Anthropologists are now quick to point to past aberrations of homosexuality to show a degree or normalcy that does not really exist. They will also argue that one worldview should not be given preference over another and despise the work of Christian missionaries in changing the values and practices of indigenous societies. This would even include attempts to stamp out polygamy.
b) Is the idea of the natural law in the union between a man and a woman commonly accepted as such by the baptized in general?
Heterosexuals still see the immediacy of natural law with their unions and offspring. However, even here they are compromised by the rampant use of artificial contraception. The marital act is separated from its natural ends. The argument is that women are no longer restricted or in bondage to their biology.
c) How is the theory and practice of natural law in the union between man and woman challenged in light of the formation of a family? How is it proposed and developed in civil and Church institutions?
We can talk about such matters in the context of past history but the current trajectory of these questions is something else entirely. The family unit was a building block to a stable society and crucial for civilization. Some experts speak from a type of pragmatism, saying that large families were only desirable when there were high mortality rates or when children become free employment in family businesses. Such reasoning would contend that small families are now the ideal, for population control or environmental issues. Church and society at large safeguarded the traditional family. Today the notion of family is so elastic that it is hard to define. Indeed, it is still evolving. Obviously the nuclear family is not the same as the extended families of Jesus’ day. But now households increasingly have one parent (usually the mother) or two men playing father or two women playing mother. While polygamy is currently against the law, as is pederasty, both are being challenged in the courts. In practice, without benefit of a contract, multiple men and women are already living together in partnerships that cross all gender lines without limits. I suspect we shall see unions of three or more people in civil marriages within the near future. Islam already permits such unions, at least for a man with several wives.
d) In cases where non-practicing Catholics or declared non-believers request the celebration of marriage, describe how this pastoral challenge is dealt with?
Non-Catholics cannot be married before a priest or deacon. There must be at least one practicing Catholic for a marriage, or at least a Catholic who is willing to reform. It would make no sense to witness the marriages of Catholics who have committed apostasy and would otherwise want no part of the Church. While such a scenario might be judged unlikely, it does come up. The pressure from parents and the beauty of a church building are enticements for such a request. When the priest says no, the upset is incalculable. But sometimes you have to say no. Nine times out of ten they will also refuse to take part in the marriage preparation. They will then ask if they can rent the church and bring in the local priestess from the Church of the Real Absence down the street. Again, the answer is no. They can repent and reform their lives or they can continue on their way.
I am increasingly amazed and impressed by Msgr. Charles Pope’s expertise and the range of his wisdom on the ADW Blog. As someone who has long been intrigued by the complementarity of truth between science, philosophy and theology, I read with great interest his response to Dr. Stephen Hawking’s atheistic and mechanistic view of creation and reality. Dr. Hawking is very much in the news because he has pontificated that there need be no God and no afterlife. He suggests that religious believers are just poor people who are afraid of death. It should be noted that there is no evidence that he has studied religion with any depth and neither is he a philosopher. Dr. Hawking is a scientist. His world is that of numbers and that which can be viewed in a telescope. Msgr. Pope rightly suggests that he is no more qualified to speak on religious questions than the good priest would be to lecture on string theory. Dr. Hawking has jumped to a conclusion without sufficient study and reflection. Coincidentally, the great expert on black holes has suffered professional setbacks lately for espousing scientific opinions (within his field and about evaporating black holes and alternative dimensions) with little or no hard science to back up his claims. He looks impressive in his chair and linked to a computer and voice synthesizer, but the researcher may be slipping more and more into science fiction and fantasy. What I am trying to say is what Msgr. Pope says so much clearer than I could; Dr. Hawking is not infallible and has a personal opinion about religious faith that should not muster great weight or concern. The media treats him much in the way they reported on the late Dr. Albert Einstein– with exaggeration and almost cultic worship.
Msgr. Pope notes that the famous scientist views his brain much as a computer and that when it stops functioning, that will be the end of him. This is not so much a scientific view (as it cannot be proven) but a philosophical one. Here too Dr. Hawking is outside his area of expertise. I would also suggest that something of his fatalism is due to his personal condition. He has remarked that he feels like a brain trapped in a useless and dying body. Separatists identify the person with the mind and view it (much like a computer) in opposition to the rest of the “robotic” body. This is not a true Christian or Catholic perspective. We regard the human person as a whole and the mind is not merely “thinking meat.” The Church speaks of human beings as spiritual-corporeal-composites. The body breaks down but the soul has no parts and is immortal. God has promised us restoration of the body and soul. While it is true that some fear death, Christians also believe that love is stronger than death and place their confidence in a personal and corporate relationship with Christ. The Church proclaims that Christ is risen and that he desires to share his life with us. God has even planted a desire in us for happiness, reunion and life. This yearning is neither accidental nor capricious.
Dr. Hawking has given a heroic witness of living and working through terrible adversity. But his answer that people should live their full potential and forget about an afterlife is no real answer. It is unfortunate that a man who has pursued truth would dismiss the genuine journey of others to find ultimate meaning. If the good doctor had lived at an earlier time in history there would not have been the technology to keep him alive and to allow him to work or communicate. Others in our own time have disabilities of both the mind and body. If human life is only valued in terms of utility and there is no higher value then the recourse of people with his mindset would be a massive campaign of euthanasia and suicide. Those suffering severe retardation and in coma could not actively engage in any effort for the good life or for any potential, earthly rational or otherwise. Indeed, dissenters have argued to strip the title “human” from any entity that does not have a clearly rational potential. Does the media really understand what kind of nightmare world that Dr. Hawking’s views would create? Msgr. Pope sees these very same danger signs. Such ideas were tested before by the likes of Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler; ironically they would result in a eugenics that would have cost Dr. Stephen Hawking his mortal existence.
I suppose most Thomists would say that animals do not go to heaven, given that they do not possess immortal souls. This somewhat harsh response is often softened with the assertion that they are not entirely gone in that other animals (like dogs) share their substantial form. Others would say that an animal, like your favorite dog, continues to exist as an idea in the mind of God.
C.S. Lewis remarked that canine loyalty and affection oftentimes put human fidelity and friendship to shame. Because of this he thought that maybe dogs would be allowed to join their masters in heaven. Critics contend that this is just another instance of over-blown English sentimentality.
Why would a priest waste his time talking to people about the fate of dead animals? Well, to be honest, it immediately leads to their views about life after death in general. That is more properly my concern. Animals are often the first reminders to us, usually as children when we have lost a pet, that everything that lives in this world will eventually die. We are mortal. We share our physicality with the other earthly creatures around us. Some, like dogs (and maybe cats), give us great comfort and companionship. They matter to us and so the question arises, is this all there is? Will we see them again? Can we find solace in knowing that all we cherish as good in creation will be reflected back to us in the beatific vision of the Creator?
This post is in response to inquiries about people’s pet dogs and the question as to whether they would be given entry into heaven. I would move the gravity to stress human immortality and our hope for heaven. Animal substantial forms would continue to exist as paradigms in the divine mind. Anything more would be up to God’s mysterious providence and I would not presume to give an answer where the Church has not. Others are free to speculate, but we will not know anything more for sure until or if we find ourselves among the saints.
It is possible that my view would make some angry with me but I am not mean-spirited. Others come down on the side of continued existence of animals because these creatures are a part of our affection and shared existence in this world and thus, the argument goes, they would add to our happiness in the next.
Certain animal apologists cite Scripture and argue for a literal new earth. Some ridicule the whole notion of an afterlife, for anyone or anything. Others agree with me that the stress has to be upon the beatific vision and how we (people) are made for God.
I would not worry much about the fate of animals after they die. If we love animals we should do what we can now to protect them from abuse and suffering. We live in a world where many species are rapidly becoming extinct.
Further, some may err by the sin of presumption about their own salvation. Are you sure that you are going to heaven? Speaking for myself, I have faith in Christ and try to be a faithful disciple in the Church. I worship God and seek to serve him through my charity and sacrifices for others. However, if people forget God, discount obedience to the commandments, and hate their fellow man… well, they may be in for a terrible surprise!
In any case, there is a growing concensus that the outer circle of hell is patroled by cats. (Yes, that is a joke!)
About three years ago I wrote a post on another blog entitled, “XTC Dear God, Is It Blasphemous?” It spurred an interesting discussion and a number of non-believers took part. Given that the topic of atheism and faith is still very much in the news, and probably will continue as such for the foreseeable future, I thought I would repost the information here. The initial post was quite short and included a third-party video which employed the song in question:
XTC DEAR GOD, IS IT BLASPHEMOUS?
Dear God by the Musical Group XTC
Is this song blasphemous?
I have heard that it is the atheist’s song.
It may be that our own failure to reflect the divine presence has brought this angst upon us.
The song calls upon God and yet the singer says he cannot believe in him. It is as if he is so angry that he wants to hurt God.
What do you all think?
My reckoning is that it is a musical way of asking an old question, “How can a good God allow evil?”
There is so much sickness and suffering in the world. We endure natural calamities and the terror of men.
The Christian answer is that disharmony was brought into the world by human sin.
We contend that while Christ is victorious over sin and death and the war is won; nevertheless, these dark realities are not yet undone.
While we still experience pain and death, we know solidarity with God’s Son, and appreciate that this world of sorrow is passing away.
NOTE: Notice who is portrayed as Satan by the slide presentation…funny, but definitely not nice.
After many comments, here is an interchange between an atheist and myself:
GIL: Much of the motivation for all this writing, stems from the believers’ (mostly Christian) propensity to transform logic as secularists understand it, into an imaginative litany of excuses and alibis for the inconsistencies, errors and omissions of religion, the Bible, and other Christian dogma, in the light of scientific information acquired over the last half-a-millenium. The scientific evidence has gradually eroded the underpinnings of the Christian view of the cosmos, and as a result, they have responded with increasingly convoluted apologias for these shortcomings, necessitating more explanations from scientists and other secularists in an ever escalating spiral of explanation and rebuttal.
FATHER JOE: The motivation of this post is to speak about the Christian kerygma against the backdrop of modern atheism. It may be true that fundamentalists often posit the argument for blind faith over reason; but such is not the Catholic perspective. Indeed, it sometimes seems that secularists are themselves void of the very logic that they fault Christians for contorting. The language of faith is different from that of science. There are many roads that one may take to the truth. Elements of the truth might be better viewed through the respective prism of religion, philosophy or science. The truths of faith are often discerned through parable and allegory; however, this should not be construed as “an imaginative litany of excuses” or “alibis for the inconsistencies.” An old cliché comes to mind, “The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”
GIL: However, the millions of words generated by the capable defenders of Atheism, Agnosticism, and other non-religious viewpoints, fascinating as they may be, in a way, may all be only superfluous dressing on the delicious pastry of skepticism. In my opinion, the best (and really only necessary) argument for the nonexistence of God was arrived at two milleniums ago by the great stoic philosopher Epicurus, who disposed of the idea of God in a mere forty-five words, although these are probably not the actual words that he had used. Since, as with many ancient writers, we have to depend on later admirers and students for knowledge about their ideas, and the few extant examples of Epicurus’ own letters are fragmentary, the “riddle” is stated in a phraseology that was probably authored by someone else.
FATHER JOE: I am not sure what “scientific evidence” has undermined the Christian view of creation. I would not expect that we would find God through the eye-piece of a telescope. However, when I have studied the order and majesty of the universe, I have been filled with awe and my faith has been refueled. My late deacon friend was a top-notch scientist, and he saw no contradiction between his secular and spiritual professions. I will allow the contention that sometimes authorities are not entirely honest; however, such a lack of integrity afflicts both believers and the secular scoffers.
It is peculiar, at least to my mind, that anyone would regard the defenders of nothing or atheism or skepticism as a “delicious pastry.” It would seem to me that there is nothing on their plate, either to please the taste buds or to fill the stomach. Indeed, what they generate are polemics for despair.
GIL:
But regardless of the authenticity of its grammatical structure, as it is most often presented, (although it has never been found among Epicurus’ writings in that particular form) it asks and says:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
FATHER JOE:
While I run the danger of being rude, I suspect what we merely see in the last comment is an overly erudite but simplistic assertion that the riddle of Epicurus resolves the argument at hand in favor of atheism.
In Catholic circles, this is not known so much as the first postulate of atheism as it is an early rendition of the problem of evil. We should note that while there was little of true divinity about them, Epicurus believed in the existence of gods. Epicurus distanced himself from the concept of an all-powerful God and judged the gods as unconcerned about men and creation. The riddle itself emerges in the writings of a Christian apologist, Lactantius. He essentially echoed the Neo-Platonist argument in favor of theism over atomist materialism.
GIL:
In James A. Haught’s book 2000 Years of Disbelief, Haught rewrites or “requotes” Epicurus as saying more prosaically, “Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?”
Some experts claim that this argument is “a reductio ad absurdum of the premises” and not a riddle or paradox at all, but when I tried to research and understand the meaning of a reductio ad absurdum of the premises, my head began to ache and I thought I’d try my own metaphor instead.
As I see it, solutions to the riddle of Epicurus are similar to someone telling me that they own a simple three-dimensional solid object that simultaneously possesses all the qualities of a sphere, a cube and a regular pyramid. One does not need a doctorate in mathematics, or even to have had a course in solid geometry to understand that an object cannot possess mutually exclusive attributes. Like oxymorons, they define themselves out of existence.
FATHER JOE:
The critic fails to appreciate that much of what we know about an infinite and all-powerful God is through analogies that fall short. God cannot be reduced to mathematics or geometry. Such a god that is ridiculed in arguments of this sort is not really God at all. Christians speak of a Trinity: three divine persons but one divine nature. This is doctrine but no one really understands it. Augustine and Thomas would use the analogy of the mind or soul to speak about it. The Father knows himself and generates from all eternity the Son. There is infinite goodwill (Love) between the Father and Son, generating from all eternity the Holy Spirit. Taken too far, the analogy falls apart. But it still speaks truth. God is complete in himself. He is a perfect Spirit. He is the divine “esse” or existence itself and the source for all created beings. He is the Unmoved Mover. He has no parts and is changeless. He creates out of nothing and stands outside of time. And yet, the Second Person of the Trinity becomes a man, dies on the Cross and rises from the dead. Philosophical proofs might bring one to an awareness of God’s existence, but divine positive revelation and religion bring us into a personal and corporate relationship with him. One teaches, albeit poorly, “what” God is and the other “who” he is. True religion gives substance to that which we discover by natural reason.
The argument of Epicurus is laid out plainly enough in 2000 Years of Disbelief by James Haught:
“Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to.”
“If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.”
“If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.”
“If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?”
There seems at first glance to be a serious conundrum. If we were to accept these statements in an unqualified manner, then a logical contradiction appears. By definition, God must be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Given the fact of evil, this reasoning would back the theist into a corner. A deity (as understood by Christianity) that is either impotent or wicked is impossible. The problem is compounded when we add the element of divine omniscience.
Obviously an all-good God is opposed to evil. Would not such a God desire to abolish evil? The answer is yes, and in the course of time, his providence in this regard will be accomplished. Given that we are finite and only see a small temporal and spatial portion of reality, we are handicapped in any appraisal of the perimeters of this question. The problem of evil requires that we envision all of history and the final consummation. Indeed, given the angelic hosts, this question has a cosmic dimension that goes beyond material creation (where there may be duration but not time as such). Such a solution might be logically adequate but the problem of evil and suffering remains a mystery because we are intensely self-preoccupied. There is no evil that hurts as terribly as that which faces us right now in the present moment. A couple who loses a child cannot be consoled. The patient suffering pain in a hospital bed cries out for morphine, wanting the pain to stop, even if the treatment will kill him. The mother watching her children starve and sicken cannot be cheered with platitudes. Realities like these do not undermine the truth of Christian argument, but they do dampen or nullify our emotional and personal ability to be satisfied by them.
God is able to prevent evil.
However, the presence of evil is not an immediate sign that God is malevolent.
GIL:
Whether or not you understand what a reductio ad absurdum of the premises is, it is self-evident that there are no square circles . . . nor are there any gods as defined by the god-fearing. Either way, Epicurus came to the inexorable conclusion that the existence of god, as most Abrahamic religions describe him, is impossible.
But believers, most notably Christians, are not impressed with what appears to Atheists to be unassailable logic, and employing a mysterious logic of their own, have devoted countless hours, energy, and mental and semantic manipulation in attempting to refute, obfuscate and deny the undeniable conclusion of the “Epicurean paradox,” as it is sometimes called. In so doing, they have created the branch of theology called “theodicy” which despite its partial aural resemblance to “idiocy” is not necessarily etymologically related to that noble enterprise.
In an interesting statement (quoted form the Catholic Encyclopedia)* Catholics display an amazing degree of chutzpa mingled with self-contradiction, in calling theodicy “a science” while describing theology as the “knowledge of God as drawn from the sources of supernatural revelation” (Thereby admitting to the failure of theology.)
FATHER JOE:
There is nothing about the definition of theodicy or theology which admits to failure. The critic makes silly assertions but offers no sensible or logical argument.
Epicurus, himself, lived at a time prior to the incarnation and had not been exposed to the God who would reveal himself in human history. God created man in his own image and likeness. Of all creation, men and women could respond to God, not with blind animal instinct but with deep awareness and love. There was a terrible cost with such freedom and power for self-determination. God’s will would permit evil but would not remain frozen regarding it. This is why God is not a monster and why this argument against his existence fails. He intervenes in human history. What he would not prevent, he comes to heal and to forgive. He comes to make right the wrongs we committed. While sin, suffering and death have not been undone, they have been conquered. The Greatest Good, which nothing greater can be conceived and which by necessity must exist, will prevail over evil.
The “reduction to absurdity” argument is dependent upon the accuracy of the premises. If any of the assertions lack consistency or wholeness of meaning, the conclusion would be invalid. It seeks to prove a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial. I am reminded of the omnipotence paradox. “Given that God can do anything and is omnipotent, could God create a rock too heavy for anyone to lift?” If God could then he would not seem to be omnipotent at all. If he could not, the same conclusion would be applied. In truth, there is an inner contradiction to the reasoning. God can doing anything except violate his own nature, identity and will. God is an objective reality possessing the perfections of attributes in which we participate in a lesser manner. Similarly, Epicurus’ understanding of omnipotence, evil and goodness might need a re-evaluation. What God directly wills is not evil, no matter what name we might give it. This does not mean that evil is an illusion, only that there is some value we might not immediately perceive in permitting it, like free will and a contingent good. God is man’s judge, not the other way around. We can abstract from finite things the concept of the infinite. We know imperfection and thus attribute to God the perfection we do not experience. However, the finite can never exhaust or fully comprehend the infinite. There will always be mystery.
Just as he might contend that believers are bias in their reasoning, the atheist critic is also prejudiced in that he assumes he has proven what he set out to prove. I suppose he thinks that this brings under his ridicule the “Abrahamic religions” of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. While I cannot speak to the other two monotheistic faiths, the essential message of Christianity is a resolution of the problem of sin and evil. Christ redeems a people and heals the breach caused by human iniquity. The lamentation of Job is given its final resolution and response in the God who made our pain his own. He who was higher over us than we are over ants has made himself an ant for us. Such is not a sign of malice but a sacrificial love that is unmerited and unfathomable. Now the Father finally receives the love and fidelity he deserves. We join ourselves with Jesus so that there might be one eternal Lamb which surrenders himself to the Father. The riddle of Epicurus speaks against the god of the deists who like a watch-maker abandons his creation. False gods do not exist. But the God of Christian faith keeps us in existence from every moment and makes possible our re-creation in Jesus Christ.
GIL:
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz is alleged to have coined the term in a philosophical treatise ”The Theodicee,” published in 1710, while he was engaged in the practice of “apologetics, . . . a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity.” By doing this he made inroads into the nefarious practice of combining theology and philosophy, thereby contributing to the corruption of both, although it is difficult to conceive of the corruption of theology. I say this because in my opinion, theology (like Seinfeld’s TV show) has as the object of its study . . . “nothing.” Imagine; thousands of people, many with doctorates, scouring the earth, its libraries, and all of the vast repositories of human knowledge, and every one of them is engaged in what they believe and proclaim to be a scientific study; to which I add . . . of nothing.
For thousands of years, believers and apologists, have attempted to convince Atheists and other freethinkers, beginning with Epicurus, that there really is no problem with the existence of a benevolent god in a world full of plagues, tsunamis, (and in modern times) Holocausts, and educated professionals, who fly fuel-laden commercial jetliners into hundred-story skyscrapers.
FATHER JOE:
The critic here really has no argument of his own. All he can do is offer empty ridicule. He calls theodicy “idiocy” because he gives no value to theological reflection. He displays ignorance at many stages of his response, proving I suppose that schools give fools doctorates these days if they can parrot their teachers and pay tuition bills. The word “science” is used in regard to theology and he mocks such a label, evidently unaware that it traditionally signified any field or branch of knowledge. He speaks about Leibniz as a progenitor in the combination of theology and philosophy and yet Augustine much earlier used Neo-Platonism and Aquinas employed Aristotelianism. This represented no corruption but truth building upon truth. He impugns such work as the vast studying of “nothing.” Again, he is very presumptuous, borrowing information he does not understand and criticizing that which by his own admission he deems as unworthy of study. Such attitudes make for very dull-witted minds although they will sometimes masquerade as informed, plagiarizing those with bigger heads and thumbing excitedly through thesauruses.
While he contends that atheists and believers have been at loggerheads for thousands of years; the history of the matter is that most arguments have been among theists. Atheism as we know it today is a fairly modern animal. Epicurus would not be counted among them although the mythic deities of his age and culture were all too fallible and often more reprehensible in character than many men.
GIL:
For me, the problem came to light, again, in an after-dinner conversation recently with a Christian schoolteacher who described the wonderful experience of having had a student discover that some good might have resulted from the Holocaust. The student had come to the conclusion that the reason the concentration-camp inmates did not rebel against their captors, was that the energy they would have needed for such a daunting undertaking was consumed by their desperate daily obsession with food, water and survival. They did not have the luxury of exploring solutions to problems like rebellion. The teacher described this student’s enlightenment as an “epiphany” and said that it demonstrated that “some good had come out of the death of six million Jews, in the fact that a high-school kid in South Florida realized how lucky he was to not have to spend his entire waking life in the pursuit of safety, food and water!”
I protested that this was another example of apologetics, whereby the apologetic stretch for the identification of “good” in the face of unimaginable horror, is analogous to claiming that some good was derived from the San Francisco earthquake in April of 1906 because in a few places near the sea it formed cliffs for affluent twentieth-century Californians to build homes with an ocean view.
FATHER JOE: The aside about a Christian school teacher and a partial apologia or rationalization of the Holocaust is aberrant to this discussion and ridiculous. However, can good come from terrible evil? The legacy of the early Christian martyrs is a point in favor. Their blood watered the plant that was the early Church. We are moved and inspired by those who witness for the Gospel as signs of contradiction in the world. As for the Jewish Holocaust, we should never forget this terrible evil and the hatred and apathy of men that made it possible. There is nothing we can do to change what happened. However, we can work for a better world where there is understanding and toleration. The reason why there is a museum to this mass murder in Washington, DC, is so that these deaths will not be in vain. God did not intervene and stop it but the believer trusts that after our short sojourn in this world, there is an eternity that awaits us. This world with our frightful freedom prepares us for what is to come. Christians trust that even in the present, because of the passion of Jesus, God is in solidarity with the suffering, the oppressed and the poor. God will reward faithfulness and punish disobedience, particularly the failure to love.
GIL:
Of course, it is always possible to redefine terms, restructure ideas and waffle on descriptive categories, as was done by one of the most eminent of biologists and free-thinkers, who unfortunately was also an apologist of sorts. Self-described “Jewish agnostic” Stephen Jay Gould, in arguing for the peaceful co-existence of science and religion, created his concept of non-overlapping magisteria, NOMA, in which each magisterium was a “domain of teaching authority,” and by so doing, in 1999, he arbitrarily established the existence of two universes, despite the fact that as a scientist he was obligated to live and study in only one.
He wrote, “. . . I have great respect for religion, and . . . I believe, with all my heart, in a respectful, even loving, concordat between our magisteria—the NOMA concept.”
FATHER JOE: Stephen Jay Gould writes about a collaboration of believers and secularists. The critic contends that such falsely creates multiple universes where there is only one. (I guess he is not familiar with string theory and possible overlapping universes, but this takes us to another subject.) He fails to fathom that there may be many roads to approach some of the same truths and values. The Church focuses upon natural law as a means by which believers and non-believers might hold similar views about human dignity, behavior and life. He sees religion and God as a joke, not even as something which enriches human society and culture. His way is no way at all. It leads to persecution of believers and the marginalization of faith and values.
GIL: So it is possible not only for theologians and philosophers to play the game of “apologetics,” apparently even prominent scientists are not above this attempt to circumvent logic and common sense in an effort to placate the gods. But over two thousand years ago, Epicurus, in a mere few sentences, refuted for all time, the pious, misguided meanderings of theologians, philosophers, scientists and ordinary people, . . . including my erstwhile dinner companion. . . . Yet none of them have the slightest clue that they are attempting to define “truth” as ideas that are in accord with their own distorted reality.
*The Catholic Encyclopedia also referred to today as the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, is an English-language encyclopedia published by The Encyclopedia Press. It was designed to give “authoritative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine.”
FATHER JOE:
The distortion of reality belongs to the critic here. It is no wonder that such a closed-minded person cannot begin to appreciate the complexity of the question about God’s existence and the problem of pain. It amazes me that while we cannot even make a basic seed from scratch, that we would presume in two or three short sentences to refute the existence of the very Creator who ordered the universe and gave us the seeds we plant. There is one word that summarizes the feigned mastery and pathetic argument of the critic here: HUBRIS.
God could have created a world void of evil. The Church contends that God allows evil as a result of the fall and as the price for human free will. He could have made us like ants or robots. Christians also believe that divine providence will ultimately prevail. This challenges us to acknowledge that we only see a small part of the whole situation. God does not view creation in a sequential fashion, but all at one time. As all powerful, he is above it all. The very fact that God can make right what we see as so many wrongs is a demonstration of his authority.
Christians are realists in regard to the presence of evil in the world. God’s passive or permissive will tolerates and even uses quantitatively limited evils for long-term eventual goods. There is no denying the possibility and the subsequent occurrence of evil; however, God does not directly will evil in itself. Christianity gives great weight to divine providence but it would not be catalogued as a form of determinism or fate. It is precisely because God desires for us to know the greatest good of love that he has given us free will. Divine omnipotence is not compromised by the insertion of such freedom into the human equation even though it includes potency for evil or sin. There is also the potential for faithfulness. Indeed, the divine response to iniquity is the passion and death of Christ. The absurdity of the Greeks (Epicurus) becomes the wisdom of God. The God that they cannot fathom to exist, by the implementation of his almighty power, traverses the infinite distance between the Creator and the creature in becoming man and subjects himself to the punishment of suffering and death which we incurred by sin. In the course of salvation history, God in Jesus Christ conquers evil and the devil. Goodness itself shines all the brighter against the backdrop of evil. We see this in the courageous witness of martyrs and saints. Indeed, suffering or sharing in Christ’s Cross brings us into a closer relationship or affinity with God. The Christian resolution to the mystery of evil and suffering is our Lord’s solidarity with us in the dark things of life. He gives them a transformative meaning and does not abandon us as orphans. We are promised a share in his risen and glorified life.
Catholic thought about evil or sin and suffering in the world is heavily informed by an Augustinian theodicy. Reading Genesis, it is apparent that what God created was good but sin came into the world because of the primordial rebellion of our first parents. Suffering from a fallen nature, moral evil is perpetuated by human beings who have distanced themselves from God and have disobeyed him. This fall also brought about a disharmony in the world or natural evil. Evil is either a deviation from the path given us by God or a privation of goodness. Evil does not exist in itself. While God is all-good, there is no such thing as an all-evil entity. The devil is a fallen creature but not the parallel opposite extreme of God. Thomas Aquinas would echo Augustine and speak of metaphysical, moral and physical evil. There are some things we regard as natural evils only because human beings are involved, like living next door to an active volcano or caught in a raging fire storm or flood. Evil is thus seen as a relational concept. Thomas would write that the created universe would be less perfect as a whole if it contained no evil. The example is given of the wood which gives warmth as it is consumed by the fire. Similarly, we eat other creatures to survive. However, the evil of sin is permitted but finds its source in men and not in God. It is the result of the abuse of free will.
Christian anthropology will sometimes speculate about what might have been had man not fallen. Perhaps the final consummation would have taken place at the beginning of human history instead of at the end? Maybe death would have been like our casual walking through a doorway from one room to another, not true death at all? But men sought to return to the bestial, denying their high calling. Sin and death entered the world. God brings good from our evil. He does not abandon us. The priest or deacon sings in the Exultet on Holy Saturday, “O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!”
Am I missing something fundamental? How does Chris Smith justify interfering in Google’s business?
The decision by Chris Smith, a Republican congressman from New Jersey who chairs a House subcommittee on Human Rights, to call for a February 16 hearing to examine the operating procedures of US internet companies in China, represents the first signs of what could become a serious backlash against Google and other internet companies in Washington that are perceived as capitulating to the Chinese government.
What are the hearings supposed to accomplish? Why not let Google incur the righteous wrath of the global market? Why should the government get involved?
Chris is a man of conviction who believes in justice and the right to life. He has even been critical of fellow Republicans who made too many compromises. I have heard him speak many times and have had several personal conversations with him, even on the steps of the Capitol (two women I know work in his office). He reminds me of Jimmy Stewart’s MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON.
If he ran for President, I would probably vote for him.
Chris Smith is a wonderful pro-life politician who is very concerned about the issue of human rights. He wants to send a sign to the Internet business community that it should not collaborate with governments that seek to silence and to oppress their people.
Back in 2002, China blocked access to Google from Chinese computers and attempted to create its own search engine, with limited results. In return for access, Google has created software to exclude content not approved by the Chinese government.
Although not mentioned here, Chris Smith no doubt also wants to send a message to Microsoft (MSN) that they are not exempt from such an investigation either. They also censor their search engine for the Chinese and have even taken down Chinese BLOGs deemed political by the government. I read of one case recently where the information provided about the identity of the Blogger was used by the Chinese government to prosecute the man responsible. That means that collaboration with the Communists by Internet companies in the U.S. could lead to the imprisonment or even the torture and execution of men and women in China.
I would say that was pretty important and given that Chinese slave labor provides many of our goods today; it is doubtful that the business community left to itself would do anything about it.
Of course, it was our government that has permitted trade with China, despite human rights concerns … and Chris Smith is only one man.
NOTES:
CHINESE TRADE
Smith, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, continued, “Through the efforts of the Clinton Administration, we have abandoned the American ideals of freedom and democracy for the sake of marginally cheaper consumer goods from China. We have squandered our patrimony of liberty for the profit of corporations who want access to China’s inexpensive labor market. It is time to do an about face, to condition expanded trade relations upon respect for internationally recognized, fundamental human rights. If we can promote sanctions for video games and rock-and-roll, why can’t we do it to preserve human rights?”
CHINA & GOOGLE
“It is astounding that Google, whose corporate philosophy is ‘don’t be evil,’ would enable evil by cooperating with China’s censorship policies just to make a buck,” said Smith, who has been a leading human rights advocate since being elected to Congress. “China’s policy of cutting off the free flow of information is prohibitive for the growth of democracy and the rule of law. Many Chinese have suffered imprisonment and torture in the service of truth – and now Google is collaborating with their persecutors.”
GW’s old man, the first George Bush, would agree with arguments that it is better to allow unrestricted business cooperation with China. Although, it seems that we have become as dependent upon their goods as they are with our money. Many of the social changes about which we hoped have failed to materialize. As for myself, I would also argue for political and economic relations with them; but always with strings attached. Our treatment of Taiwan after the Nixon/Ford Administrations has always bothered me. As for Hong Kong, the British made a treaty with a China that no longer existed; they should have been given sovereignty. But those are my pet notions. While our country is no paragon of virtue, nations and the world community do have an obligation to insure that businesses and organizations do not trample upon basic human rights. Collaboration with evil makes one an accomplice, for which God will judge each and every one of us. Utilitarian arguments are out rightly rejected by the Catholic Church.
I recall the arguments about opening Western businesses to China when the first President Bush gave most favored status to China; and certainly no one wants to isolate China from the rest of the world. However, economics is the only wedge short of military intervention that we have with the Communists. Do we sacrifice human rights at the altar of consumerism and materialism, either of the Socialist or Capitalist variety?
This growing middle-class in China is still less than one percent of the population. Most of the wealth generated goes to a few hundred families among the upper Communist hierarchy. Middle-class in China translates to making between $3,000 to $12,000 a year, what would rate as the poverty level in the U.S. Many of these will themselves have a servant or maid that is paid $50 a month. 70% of the 1.3 billion population are peasants who earn about $100 a year!
Guess what? Finding computers in schools and coffee-houses, the majority of the bloggers and those questioning Chinese politics are from the poor! Religious persecution is still a predominate cause for Internet censorship and prosecution. This includes the Chinese who reject the Patriotic Catholic Church and accept the authority of the Pope. The Internet is giving people in China a voice to speak out about oppression. Big business left to itself does not care about this; even many in government do not. People who embrace the basic human values in government and business must work together, not only against oppression in lands like China, but also against the passivity and blindness of so many in the West.
I generally believe that government should not interfere with business; however, I qualify this with the exception of human rights. When Prell Shampoo a few years ago was purportedly adding human fetal material to shampoo as “animal protein”– individuals, organizations and government got involved and asked questions. We have fair labor laws that try to preserve safety and dignity to workers. Products produced by companies must face safety requirements. Again and again, when it comes to human rights, governments and other organizations must get involved.
China might be on the other side of the globe. But they are people too with basic human rights and dignity. We should not enable, either through inactivity or secondary collaboration, those who would silence the voice of the poor, those yearning to be free.
A television news report announced that because of contracts with companies like Matel, 90% of all toys sold in the U.S. are manufactured in China. Few Chinese children will ever play with such toys. Autom Catholic Religious Goods catalogues advertise inexpensive articles, almost all from China. However, all of it is reserved to foreign export and domestic circulation would be regarded a crime. Heck, even my DVD Player has “Made in China” on the back.
Dollar Stores came into existence because of this trade. Other nations could step in, but there is no underestimating its vast scope.
Critics are right, while it would cost us, the U.S. could flex its business muscle for the sake of human rights. But each year the interdependence seems to become more pervasive. There may come a day when such an action would be too costly.
To illustrate how things have so rapidly changed, it was only in the 1980’s that the last television set wholly manufactured in the U.S. was produced (ZENITH). Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and now also China produce them for us. When it came to clothing, many of us always looked for the “Union Label” and took pride in wearing shirts, pants, and dresses manufactured in the U.S. But the cost disparity became too much for the poor and the average working man. This started happening in the 1960’s. I recall my first concession to the trend when my mother bought me a new coat for school. It was the mid-1960’s and the coat’s label read, “This coat is manufactured by the free people of the Republic of SOUTH VIETNAM.” Evidently it was an effort to support our allies economically while in conflict with the Communist North. I wore that coat with pride, even though I was only in the fourth grade, because (in my mind) it symbolized freedom and justice.
By the way, there was an expose some years ago about Walmart where reporters followed shirts and pants from China sweatshops to the U.S. They found that they were sold at Walmart carrying the designation, “Made in the U.S.A.” When challenged about this, the executives at Walmart said that there was nothing deceptive for while the clothes were of Chinese origin, the attached label was indeed, made in the Unites States.
Not deceptive? The label? And these are the people who are supposed to stand up for human rights and justice?
The dilemma about the Internet is just the newest wrinkle in this situation: how far do you collaborate with thugs to make a buck? Where arguments might be made that trade helps the poor and middle class of China; for an American or Western company to assist in the restriction of information and free speech of Chinese dissidents is something else. And to hand over information that leads to the arrest, imprisonment, and maybe torture of such people is the worst case scenario.
I am not utterly opposed to trade with China.
But I do have problems with Google installing censorship software at the behest of the Chinese government that blocks religious sites like the Vatican and Free the Fathers and Blogs where men and women yearning to be free speak out.
The Chinese tried to create their own search engine back in 2002 and made a mess of things. We should not be helping them in this. It is a criminal act, at least in the eyes of God.
DISCUSSION
FATHER JOE:
I am not an isolationist. What one critic said to me was correct; we bargain with the devil every day.
We can hope that our relationships with the Red Chinese and Moslem extremists will make a difference; but we should never let down our guard and directly cooperate in human oppression. Communism is not dead, and instances of free enterprise can disappear tomorrow if the dragon awakens. Some of our so-called allies in the war against terror are themselves corrupt and oppress minorities, women and others. Is the pacified Westernized Islam that we see here at home the true faith of Mohammed; or is its genuine face really the Hamas and the extremism that we see in the Middle East and now parts of Africa and Asia?
Trade with China will not in itself prevent a new Cold War. Indeed, their military buildup is largely financed with our own money. Oil money in the Middle East can also translate into a fearful New World. I am not sure what we can do about much of this. Such questions will not be resolved by bloggers, but at least we have the freedom to speak, which some do not have. And Western and American companies should not help to silence voices.
I only wish people in all walks of life would more effectively engage these issues and that politicians would devise a clear plan about where our policies are taking us. We tend to be so short-sighted, instead of looking to the horizon.
ERIN:
I don’t disagree with the things you’ve posted either; in fact, I agree strongly with the statement that we should stand up for human rights, individually and as a country. However, I think if Google can get a working window to the internet into China, even with severe restrictions and censorship in place, isn’t it better than nothing? It’s a start – a way for the poor people of China to start looking around and seeing the possibilities of the internet. And hey, if the porn sites can so creatively sneak around our own censorship models and find ways to get their sites seen, can’t the Underground movements of China and other oppressed areas find ways to speak out and communicate with one another and the outside world?
FATHER JOE:
I guess it all depends upon how seriously Google cooperates with the Red Chinese government. While I am all for the censorship of pornography sites, the protection of children, and the prosecution of those who criminally exploit others; the Communists would use political and religious censorship to oppress their own people. Should Google cooperate in human oppression? What if the censorship software identifies dissidents who could suffer arrest or murder? People still disappear in China. Hackers might find their way around censorship software, but most poor Chinese Blog operators and general users only have elementary computer skills. The issue is bigger than Google. If the poor Chinese can get past the national portal to the Internet, they deserve protection within the international community. The Web can be a great tool for democracy; or we can ruin it like we did so much else of the media.
This is the home of the AWALT PAPERS, the posting of various pieces of wisdom salvaged from the writings, teachings and sermons of the late Msgr. William J. Awalt.
I suppose most Thomists would say that animals do not go to heaven, given that they do not possess immortal souls. This somewhat harsh response is often softened with the assertion that they are not entirely gone in that other animals (like dogs) share their substantial form. Others would say that an animal, like your favorite dog, continues to exist as an idea in the mind of God.
Blogger Priest 