Poll: The Supernatural

In light of recent discussions with friends & colleagues on this matter, please satisfy my curiosity by taking the poll on the right side bar.

For you pious souls out there, I don't mean going to Mass (the ultimate supernatural experience, to be sure!). I mean ghost-sightings & the like, but I didn't want to limit the question just to that.
If you want, you can elaborate in the comment box. Grazie a mille.

The Technological Man

We live in an unprecedented & utterly astounding period of human history: the Age of Technology. Yet, the amazing opportunities for man to discover, learn, & understand the mind-blowing workings of natural world reveals something about himself & his own limitations, as each new shuttle launch results in a collective yawn from public & each new image from the Hubble space telescope elicits a response of, “Is that all you got?”

For some, the passion of research in the natural sciences burns strong. Whether etymologically correct or not, I’ve always liked the German word for researcher, forscher, which sounds like forging one’s way into the unknown. The Latin word for research is investigatio, but could also be inquiro or inquisitio, which have at their root the versatile interrogative qui, meaning “what, how, why, …” We get our English word question from the Latin words quaero &/or quaero, meaning “to seek or search, to find out," even "to beg.” In Latin, these roots also yield quaestio as being a scientific inquiry into some matter. But, being ever-so-practical, the Romans took these quaes- words & appropriated them for many practical uses, i.e., quaestor, “a financial official,” & quaestus, “business profits.” Meaning, I suppose, that they (& us) believed that research exists to yield things useful & profitable.

What should we think today of value of questioning for its own sake & of learning new things just to learn them? It seems to barely tolerated & frequently dismissed as a wasteful & almost childish pursuit when the practical & profitable end isn’t clearly in sight. When the politics of paying for scientific research is involved, I’m sure most people would prefer to have the money in their pocket than to have it spent on little wheeled robots analyzing soil samples on Mars, or crashing a probe into a comet just to see what happens, or to launch new space telescopes to learn more about the nature of (suspected) dark matter. Yet, there have always arisen those individuals who, despite any apparent practical considerations, are committed to seeking out the truths of our universe, rejoicing simply in the knowledge that they have taken a step closer to the truth.

So, despite a compelling need of mankind to question & inquire, there also seems to be a compelling need to dismiss these flights of fancy & just get down to business. How are these to be reconciled? Could it be that while both individuals & whole societies can have a mindset of pure pragmatism, it is only really possible for individuals to posses the inquiring mind, thus setting up this conflict or paradox? Perhaps it’s a false conflict, because it took the great space exploration project of the 60’s & 70’s to make satellite communications so ubiquitous as to make a cell phone in every pocket as common as lint. We often gladly take the ever-more wondrous fruit, even while resisting the minds & the mindset that plants the seeds in the first place.

Perhaps we should also question for what good we use all this amazing technology? Is it uplifting man toward some higher realm of prosperity, longevity, dignity, & truth? It seems that it has largely anesthetized modern man, giving his loads of mindless & even destructive distractions that have kept him from being able to see what is true, good, & beautiful, & to marshal himself toward it. Rather than raising up all mankind, it also seems to only profit those who have the means to pay for them, often at the expense of others who have the least of hope of benefiting from it.

I’m sure Chesterton would be amused at today’s Technological Man, who sees himself as the pinnacle of knowledge & power, but when asked how his electronic device de jour unit works, says, “Well, I just turn it on & it works (assuming that the batteries aren’t dead & that you have reception)” It’s magic! I don’t think G.K. would see a whole lot of difference between this approach & that of the natives who toss the virgin into the volcano to ensure that the crops will sprout up this year. In this regard, the scientist or researcher has really become a kind of popular witch doctor & medicine man who communes with & channels the unseen forces that drive our modern lives. We might conclude that man, fundamentally remaining the same, cannot really cope with the technological & electronic landscape which he has created for himself & in which he now inextricably inhabits. We seem to become slaves, rather, to those things which we created to serve us. So, where technology has often been heralded as man’s savior, it seems rather to present him with more problems & ethical & moral dilemmas faster than he can consider & address them. In this scheme, only that which is new is good, leaving man increasingly disassociated with the good that came before, leaving him in a rootless Now, which is really just a fleeting expression of the perpetually tentative What Is To Come. Unfortunately, man cannot live in the future, but one can live fully in the Now when it is grounded in & flows from What Has Been.

The questions remain, then: What is the relationship of man to his world in the context of scientific inquiry? Is it possible for man to deal with scientific advances in such a manner that they build him up & work toward his good instead of destroying him?

All of this comes about as a lead-in for an upcoming book review - The Heavens Proclaim; Astronomy & the Vatican.

Photos from http://www.nasa.gov/.

The Bible II: Inspiring & Inspired

As we continue considering the Bible as the collection of writings accepted by the Church as inspired by God, we now focus on “inspiration.” We may speak of a movie or a song as being inspiring, but when we say “inspired” in the context of Scripture, we mean a text through which God communicates to man. The Catechism tells us the Holy Spirit assisted the human authors to write faithfully & without error the truths that God wished to impart to us for our salvation (105-107).

When we think about the inspiration of the Old Testament, the epic events might come to mind, like the parting of the Red Sea or Elijah & the prophets of Baal. But how about the seemingly endless lists of strange names in the book of Numbers? So, perhaps “inspiring” may not be the best way to determine what is inspired.

Ancient texts like Genesis are surely inspired, right? Yet, the definitive version was only completed after the Israelites returned home from the exile in Babylon in 438 B.C. What about books written in Greek in the Hellenistic era? Could the Spirit of God not also speak through Greek-speaking Jews scattered throughout the Mediterranean world after the Exile?

The Church had to listen to the Spirit to discern which writings were inspired - basically the same list as the Greek version of the Old Testament. It was only 1,500 years later when Protestants began to question the inspiration of some of the books of the Old Testament that the Church at the Council of Trent formally defined the list of inspired books. So, we can see that inspiration is not self-evident, but requires some authority to separate what is truly inspired from God versus what is simply useful & edifying.

Thoughts on Universal Salvation

...on the Feast of the Exultation of the Holy Cross. Photo: Whitefriar's Church, Dublin, Ireland

Occasionally I get e-mail questions from folks asking my opinion about how to respond to someone’s objection on some Catholic teaching or other matter of faith. I usually intend to answer with a few sentences, but often end up writing a small book. Recently I received a question about what I thought about “universal salvation.” Here is my response…

Regarding the other question - yes, I think Catholics have every opportunity to be saved! ;) Seriously, though, one needs to define "universal". In most discussions using these terms, it means, "Does God save people other than Christians?" or, in regards to either Christians or non-Christians, "Does God save people regardless of their state of their soul?"

I know some folks think that everyone goes to heaven (very convenient, doesn't require all that nasty "conversion" stuff), some folks think only Christians go to heaven (which would lead one to conclude that God is cruel by damning people simply for being born at the wrong time or in the wrong place), some think that only folks of their particular brand of Christianity go to heaven (but how do they know they've got it right? How small do they think their heaven will be!?!).

Some believe in hell, but that ultimately, everyone one in it will be forgiven & redeemed (really, even Satan & the fallen angels?). It becomes kind of giant Purgatory, waiting for the Final Judgment, except the judgment is always Yes. [Ed. - I regret this comment. Such a view of the emptying of Hell is mockery & parody of the beautiful doctrine of the necessity of purgation before entering into the beatific vision & of human freedom to choose either good or evil. Salvation assumes that people love (or desire to love) God & want to be with him forever. However, those in hell have chosen to be separated; & since God has created us as free persons, he cannot coerce those who have rejected him. We must conclude that the conditions of hell are such that a person in eternal torment & loneliness no longer have the conditions or the ability to repent, but rather grow increasingly furious at God & self-justified in their actions. God forbid that any of us will choose this fate! It seems that those in hell are still sustained in existence as persons, because of God's love even for the damned. As I've mentioned before, what amazing & terrifying power we have over God!]

The Church has wrestled with the question "Who can be saved?" since the beginning, & continues to ponder it & find ways express it. Its thought has evolved from a persecuted minority in the Roman Empire, to being the Roman Empire, to being European Christendom, to being one world religion among many competing faiths. The Church still holds for extra ecclesiam nulla salus ("Outside the Church there is no salvation"), but exactly what the Church is, who is in it, & what it means to be outside or inside are the sticky points. It has become very fashionable in the last half of the 20th century, even among theologians in the Church, to come up with schemes that do provide ways for everyone to get to heaven, but many of these musings have been formally condemned by the Holy See.

The Church, based on the revelation the "God wills not the death of any sinner," re-presents this core teaching as: everyone is given sufficient light & grace for salvation. St. Augustine put it as: Christ has many who are not in the Church, & the Church has many who are not in Christ. This isn't a free pass to heaven for everyone, but more of a statement about the justice of God on the basis of to whom & by what means revelation of himself has reached. If one hasn't been told about salvation through Christ, then it does not seem reasonable or just that God would punish them for that.

However, the Church also teaches that people who have been authentically presented with the Truth of the Gospel are obligated to respond to it (Mark 16:15-16), & that the Church is the sole custodian of that Truth. But it's really easy to get lost in all this (what if you were told about salvation through Christ, but in an incomplete, inappropriate, or coercive way?), so the place to start is the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium & the Catechism (esp. Art. 9: "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church", & esp. para. 836-848). I'd look in the glossary under "Salvation" & check the various references.

An interesting question, to be sure. Maybe we can discuss it more when we have time. Gotta get ready for Mass now...

What I left unsaid is that, ultimately, Christian or not, the fate of any particular person’s soul is a matter between them & God. The Church provides every possible means of grace to die well & be received into the joy of the Master’s house, but we do not always choose what is good for us. Catholic funeral Masses are intended to be the Church’s prayer of intercession to God to have mercy on the soul of the deceased; not to celebrate the life of the deceased.

Ultimately, every one of us will need to rely on the mercy of God. So, while we cannot be assured of our entry into beatitude (the sin of presumption), we are a people of hope. At my own funeral, I hope the black-vested priest will lead the faithful in reverent & fearful prayer for my soul, as witnesses testifying before the Tribunal on my behalf, pleading that when the terrifying light of the Almighty’s Justice is brought to bear on my life & soul, his Mercy exceeds his Justice, and that even a sinner like me can enter into joy.

The Bible I: The Sacred Collection

Following is the first in a series of articles I wrote for the Knights of Columbus newsletter on some considerations of the Bible from a Catholic perspective. They are not really very in-depth or scholarly; but, hopefully, will encourage a few folks who haven't really been too interested in personal reading of the Scriptures to pick them up or to learn more.

If you’ve looked for a Bible lately, you’ve probably noticed that there is a dizzying variety of Bibles available. Why so many? What are the differences between them? This series aims to help you understand better what the Bible is, where it came from, how to choose one, & perhaps even how to better encounter Christ Jesus, the Word of God, in the scriptures. So when we say “Bible,” what exactly are we saying? Well, here’s a simple definition: the Bible is the collection of writings that the Catholic Church accepts to be inspired by God. This article will consider the word “collection.”

The collection of texts we call the Bible were written over a large span of time by numerous authors & editors in several languages in many different literary styles during a multitude of historical circumstances. Though the Bible may seem to be many books of many words, it is also God’s Word, so it must also be of a unity saying exactly what he wishes to reveal to us. Thus it is also one book of one Word. These individual texts were collected & grouped together – the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels, etc. Some texts were accepted & others rejected, as we will see next time. By the Holy Spirit, the Church has discerned that the canon of the Bible - the definitive collection of inspired texts - is the 46 books of the Old Testament & the 27 books of the New Testament (CCC #120).

No time to blog

... but always time to wish you a good morning!