Tribute to King

Tribute to King

" Protest should not be merely the politics of complaint, .... It should instead show the way for both personal and social transformation. That’s what excites people and invites them to give their lives for something larger than themselves. The power of protest is not in its anger but in its invitation. The test of protest is whether it points and opens the way to change or merely denounces what is. When protest is both instructive and constructive in a society, it becomes something that has to be dealt with and not merely contained."(1)

Martin Luther King Junior comes immediately to my mind when I read this. He was a man who helped change America not with hatred and violent rhetoric, but non violent protest done with love and a vision of a better way for all people. He was largely responsible for finishing the job started by the founding fathers in being a catalyst for granting civil rights for all Americans. It can be argued, in my opinion, that if they ever wanted to add a bust on Mt. Rushmore, they can do worse that Martin Luther King!

Changing the Wind

What King did was to "change the wind" of American society. The problem with politicians who want to make change is that they feel they have to stick a wet finger in the wind, as it were, to gauge whether the social winds would warrant change. But as Jim Wallis, in his fine book , God’s Politics, explains;
‘ The great practitioners of real social change, like Martin Luther King Jr. And Mahatma Ghandi, understood something very important. They knew that you don’t change a society by merely replacing one wet-fingered politician with another. You change a society by changing the wind.
Change the wind, transform the debate, recast the discussion, alter the context in which political decisions are being made, and you will change the outcomes. Move the conversation around a crucial issue to a whole new place, and you will open up possibilities for change never dreamed of before. And you will be surprised at how fast the politicians adjust to the change in the wind."(2)

Politicians bend to wind

Wallis goes on to relate how King organized the voting rights march in Selma, Alabama after President Johnson told him that it would take 5-10 years to pass such as act. People all over the U.S. people watched the brutal response of the police and two weeks later hundreds of clergy from all over the country and every religion came to march from Selma to Montgomery. All of America watched and American attitudes were changed. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed in five months!

Christian vision

As Christians we would do well to remember this. We are to try to restore the moral vision that is eroding from our ailing society society by changing the wind as King did. We are to attempt to transform culture by presenting a better vision, one soul at a time if need be. We must present a picture of a God of mercy and love, not just judgement. We can not merely point out that certain practices are contrary to moral law of church precepts, though that is a part of it. We must explain with love why what the Church teaches is important. We must present a way of life that shows why what the Church says makes our lives more livable, more in line with reality. We must show in what we say and how we live that what the Church teaches is more than just dry convention but vital and fulfilling way of life.
This of course means that we ourselves must live this out in our lives and not conform to the present secular culture. That is why we in the Church must be true to its teachings.After all if we want to change the direction of the wind, we have to know the direction we want it to go.

1. Wallis , Jim, God's Politics, Harper Collins, San Francisco, CA. 2005, p. 46

2. Ibid, p. 22

Pope Benedict and the tyranny of Science


Thus the church was not only on the right track when measuring reality by human concerns but it was considerably more rational than some modern scientists and philosophers who draw a sharp distinction between facts and values and then take it for granted that the only way of arriving at facts and values and , therefore reality is to accept the values of science."(1)



A couple of days ago Pope Benedict XVI canceled a speech at Sapienza in Rome Italy in response to protests by students and professors. They protested because in a speech he gave in 1990 in which then Cardinal Ratzinger quoted from philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend when he said concerning the trial of Galileo for his support of the Copernican theory of the solar system, which proposed that the planets orbited the sun; "The Church at the time was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. It’s verdict against Galileo was rational and just."(2)

Not favoring any oppression

Now I am not saying that putting a man on trial for speaking his mind in the civic sphere is right. I personally don’t agree that Galileo should have been threatened with death or imprisonment if he did not recant. We who live in Western civilization enjoy the right to express ourselves without the possibility of death or imprisonment even if we are wrong. We should not desire for a time when people can be threatened with those things for expressing their ideas. But that doesn't mean that the Church also does not have the right to be concerned about how a certain teaching may affect its own community and or impact its own teachings. Freedom of expression is a two way street.
That being said, critics of the Church use the Galileo incident as more than just an example of oppression. They use it to try to show that the Church was backward and opposed to scientific knowledge, out of touch with reality, only concerned with preserving its power, losing credibility when it turned out Galileo was correct. In that the critics are wrong, as are the Sapienza protestors. The Church had legitimate concerns and motivations in taking the action it did.

Knee jerk reaction

I find it amazing that these professors and students think they are honoring Galileo by protesting the appearance of the Pope because he agrees with Feyerabend. In protesting they are exhibiting the same attitude that the Church allegedly displayed towards Galileo. These protesters should actually take the time to read Feyerabend’s essay Galileo and the Tyranny of Truth, found in his book, Farewell to Reason. It will open their eyes to reality.

Feyerabend's Essay

It just so happens that I have the privilege of owning this book and have read the essay. It is one of the most provocative essays I have ever read. Anyone who wants to delve into matters of science and faith as they relate to life should read it. This essay contains many points that can be the starting point for many essays. One quote is appropo here;

" But a democracy cannot simply bow to the assertions of scientists and philosophers, it must examine these assertions, especially when they touch on fundamental matters; for example, it must examine this claim of ‘objectivity’. In other words it must enter upon a philosophical analysis of scientific claims just as it must enter on a financial analysis of local and national budgets."(3)

Church's motivation

This is what the Church was actually doing with L,affair Galileo. As always, historical context must be taken into consideration. Religious wars were raging during Galileo’s time concerning just how the Bible was to be interpreted. The Reformation was in full swing. At the same time millions still looked to the Church for guidance in those tumultuous times. Along comes this layman exceeding his paygrade by telling how the Bible should be interpreted, making radical claims.. Feyerabend writes; "Galileo did not simply ask for the freedom to publish his results but wanted to impose them on others. In this respect he was as pushy and totalitarian as many modern prophets of science- and as uninformed."(4)

The Church had the right, nay, the duty to examine this situation.

Were his theories proved accurate? From our perspective it would seem they were since heliocentrism was proved with the discovery of stellar parallax in the 1800s!but Feyerabend points out in his essay that Galileo’s case wasn’t all that strong. "And almost all philosophers of science today would have agreed with Bellarmino that Copernicus’s case was very weak indeed."(5)
The aforementioned Cardinal Bellarmino was master of controversial questions at Collegio Romano who wrote to a Carmelite monk concerning the Copernican system. Feyerabend quotes extensively from it. This quote in particular is noteworthy;

"If there were any real proof that the Sun is in the center of the universe and that the earth is in the third heaven, and the Sun does not go around the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we would have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved true."(6)

Contrary to scientistic myth , the Church was open to the possibility that Copernicus was right. But Bellarmino goes on to say;"as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown me. ....In case of doubt we ought not to abandon the interpretation of the sacred text as given by the Holy Fathers."(7)

Church wanted proof

Thus the Church did not want to make any radical judgements till proof was offered. In this sense it acted no different than modern scientists today, who don’t accept any scientific discoveries until they are subjected to rigorous peer review and are supported by proof.(except, of course for the theory of evolution and the exclusion of a cosmic designer ) Galileo did not have proof and thus the Galileo affair should not be viewed as the Church trying to suppress a scientific principle regardless of its truth simply because it threatened the Church’s world view.

Threatened myth

Ahh, but we can’t let the truth get in the way of a workable mythology can we? Make no mistake, this more balanced view by Feyerabend, supported by the Pope, threatens this scientistic quasi mythology. This mythology posits that Galileo was a quasi martyr of a power hungry Church that was discredited in defending a geocentric world view simply because that is what the bible taught. Thus there is a conflict between the scientific outlook and that of religion.

Part of this myth is the notion that Copernicus caused a trauma when he yanked man from the center of the universe and thus shook the foundations of religion. Thus rationalists and atheists try to score points against faith with this myth, trying to make religion look primitive and, well, unintelligent.

But, as mentioned before, the Church had no problem with the Copernican system per se. Copernicus even received the official imprimatur. Also, man not being in the center of the universe was not much of a problem. Jacques Barzun writes;

" True, the humanists felt the dignity of the human being, because his powers were achieving wonders, but it was not because of his cosmic location. He was still under God, no matter what Ptolemy or Kopernik might say. Montaigne himself found no cause for men to be proud. The notion of medieval or early modern man saying to himself ’I am the center of the universe and what a glorious thing it is!’ is an invention of SCIENTISM centuries later."(8)



Reactions

The myth dies hard, as the Pope found out. But I suppose we really shouldn't be surprised. Many react badly when myths they live by are threatened. Any suggestion that many of the actions of the United States in her history were less than virtuous, for example, are treated by many as unpatriotic and subversive of the good the U.S is supposed to represent. The flip side of that is that any teaching that the U.S has done anything virtuous at all is treated as reactionary and supportive of an oppressive imperialism. There was even a clamor when a sports writer had the audacity to suggest that the blood on Curt Chilling's sock during the baseball post season of 2004 was paint, thus attacking the mythology that is Red Sox baseball! It is the same in this case.Many in the scientific cummunity have knee jerk reactions when the myth of their very own patron saint takes some hits.

Call for balance

Hopefully this controversy could lead to a more balanced discussion of this matter in the public sphere. Maybe the scientific community will see that it has the potential to become as oppressive as any totalitarian political system. Maybe they can discover that one can be a "free thinker" and still believe in God. But I won’t hold my breath. A physicist at La Sapienza, Marcello Cini, stated; "I thought, and continue to think, that his visit was ambiguous and an attack on the independence of culture and the university."(9)

No Marcello, what you and your students pulled, that was an attack on the independence of culture and the university. It is you and others of like mind that stifled free thinking and inquiry in service of a scientific orthodoxy. In this post modern age it is the people of faith and philosophers like Feyerabend who are the free thinkers now!


1.Feyerabend, Paul, Farewell to reason, Verso, London, 1987, p. 253
2. Boston Globe, p. A8, January 16, 2008
3. Feyerabend, Paul, Farewell to reason, p. 261
4. Feyerabend, p. 249
5. Ibid, p. 257
6. Ibid, P. 255
7. Ibid, P. 256
8. Barzun, Jacques, From Dawn to Decadence, Harper Collins, New York, NY. 2000, P. 193
9. Boston Globe, P. A8, January 16, 2008

Plunging In

"Lord God, help us who have dipped a foot into the waters of life to plunge in over our heads, dead to the old ways and fully alive to the new, for the sake of Jesus, who gave his life for those He loved. Amen."



It is amazing how sometimes a phrase or two from a simple prayer can have depth of meaning and can impact one like a sudden gust of wind in the face. Such a thing happened to me last week at the monthly meeting of the Oblate associates of Mary Immaculate. The above prayer was one of the ones used in the prayer service. I was struck by the opening line. How many times , especially recently, have I merely dipped a foot into the waters of life as opposed to plunging in head first, fully immersed in the Christian life.

Too much dipping

I have been guilty of just wading in lately, distracted by holiday activities, house cleaning, various events, undefeated football seasons, etc. There is nothing wrong with all this and most of these activities are necessary. There is no sin in these per se.
But it must be remembered that the Christian life is about our relationship with God, not merely following rules and moral precepts. It says in scripture;
" Therefore , as you have received Jesus Christ our Lord, so walk in Him; be rooted in Him and built up on him, and strengthened in the faith, as you also have learnt, rendering thanks abundantly."(Colossians, 2: 6-7)
Thomas Merton writes;
"But morality is not an end in itself. Virtue, for a Christian, is not its own reward. God is our reward. The moral life leads to something beyond itself-to the experience of union with God, and to our transformation in Him."(1)

Need for constant growth

I have learned lately that halfway measures won’t do. It may be possible to go through the motions for awhile, not committing outward sin. But if I let life distract me from feeding my soul, by contemplation, communing with God, growing in knowledge then eventually, because I haven’t built up enough of a relationship with God to dread cutting myself of His grace, I will fall. If I don’t do what is necessary to continually be transformed in Him, I will regress.

Can't neglect God

Thus, in order to grow in His likeness, we must plunge in His waters. Dipping our foot is not enough. Our earthly relationships won’t work by neglecting to spend time with our loved ones, it is the same with God. We do have to do our duties and live our vocations, but in doing so we can not forget our lives belong to Him. We can’t let anything distract us to the point where we forget to strengthen and deepen our relationship with God and plunge in the waters of His grace.

1. Thomas Merton, The Thomas Merton Reader, Image Books, Doubleday, Ny. Ny., 1974, p.375