The Need For Truth

" If I ask 'what is truth?' I either expect an answer or I do not. Pilate did not. Yet his belief that the question did not require an answer was itself his answer. He thought the question could not be answered. In other words, he thought it was true to say that the question 'what is truth?' had no satisfactory answer. If , in thinking that, he thought there was no truth, he clearly disproved his own proposition by his very thought of it. So, even in his denial, Pilate confessed his need for truth. No man can avoid doing the same in one way or another, because our need for truth is inescapable." (1)


It could seem that the attitude of Pilate is manifest in our culture in that many have given up in despair any hope of coming to truth while at the same time living as there is. But that is what we are as human beings.
It is the duty of every person to seek and find truth and live it. It is in the very nature of humanity and we stop that search to the detriment of our souls. It states in the Vatican II document Dignitas Humanae, :

It is in accordance with their dignity that all human beings, because they are person's, that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore bearing personal responsibility, are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and to direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth."(2)


We are constructed as entities that can not exist unless there were some truth that must be embraced and made the foundation of our existence. Without this intuition of a transcendent foundation for all that human existence above the ethos of nature red in tooth and claw , human existence is an absurdity that is not in line with the rest of the universe as perceived by secular science. While many thinkers have indeed said this on paper, by and large people don't accept this, even , ESPECIALLY , in their despair.

This is why dogma, a dirty word in today's zeitgeist, is so important. If people are to come to truth there must be a truth for them to come to. Truth by definition is something which the human conscience perceives when seeking, not something defined or decided by the conscience to satisfy one's whims.

1. Merton, Thomas, A Thomas Merton Reader, Image Books, Doubleday, New York, 1974, p. 120

2. Vatican II Council, Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations, Costello Publishing Company, Northport New York, 1996, p. 553

Note

This will be my last post for a while. This may seem like a joke considering that My posts are few and far between to begin with but that's just it, I have trouble posting consistently. I started this blog when I wasn't quite ready. I have not much time right now to give this much attention. I have many questions and conflicts I have to sort out and I defintily have to get my spiritual life back in gear.
I have alot on my plate right now. When the Pope visits the U.S. and I don't write about it it is certain that I have to straithten some things out.
I will definitly resume. It may be days, months, weeks, years, I don't know. but when I am ready I will be posting again.

Yours in Christ

Frank J. Capone

Question of Fairness

I came across an editorial the other day written by Jeff Jacoby concerning the short film, Fitna, a film about Islamic Jihadist violence made by Geert Wilders, a Dutch Parliamentarian. The film portrays the war being waged by Muslim extremists in the name of Islam, inspired by their interpretation of the certain verses in the Koran. The film shows atrocities committed by Jihadist and other heinous acts such as honor killings and be headings. Footage is shown of Islamist teachers inciting their followers to kill the "infidels" .

The film has become controversial , not because of the violence it depicts , but because it is seen as "anti Islamic"(by UN Secretary General Ban Ki- Moon) and offensive, causing hatred, by the European Union Presidency. Now, I have not seen the film so I don’t know the exact Wilder’s approach. If indeed Wilders did not qualify his assertions by making it plain that he was exposing just one interpretation of Islam and that most Muslims condemn the violence portrayed the film then it does deserve criticism. Of course it would also help if the majority of Muslims who are not fanatics were heard from more often.

However, the film should have been criticized only, not condemned out of hand. Jihadist violence is something that has to be dealt with, especially by the Muslim community. But Jacoby brings out one thing in this article that is true. In speaking of the West’s reaction he states that " They would never have reacted that way to a film that criticized Christianity or the United States or European traditions- and the Islamists Know it."(Boston Globe Wednesday April 3 2008. P. A11)

Indifference to Catholicism

How true that is! Why is it that intellectuals in the West defend other religions or ethnic groups from every real or imagined slander but say next to nothing when Christianity is portrayed negatively? While The Golden Compass had to tone down its anti Catholicism because it was too direct even for secularists tastes, in general there is no backlash against films that portrays Catholicism in a negative light. This is likely because films usually do it in a more subtle way, such as using
past history which, on its surface, can’t be argued against.

Goya's Ghost

The most recent example of this that I have seen is Goya’s Ghost. In this film, a work of fiction set in Spain during the 1790s, we have the Inquisition restarting its crackdown. A young girl is questioned by the inquisition when she is spotted not eating pork. She is suspected of being a closet Judaizer, tortured, made to confess, then imprisoned for 13 years. This film is apparently meant to be an observation of the effects of oppression on people. The girl who was tortured went insane, the priest who did it was himself tortured by her father to prove that confessions made under torture mean nothing. He then tried to free the girl, after raping her, then had to flee to France when he himself was under suspicion. He came back to Spain 13 years later as an agent of Napoleon Bonaparte and became an oppressor under the auspices of the French Revolution.
Anyway the point is that this is a slander on the Church, being portrayed intrinsically as an agent of oppression. Never mind that the inquisition would not have tortured anyone on just the word of one informant saying she refused pork without the corroboration of witnesses. Nor would they have kept her in prison after she confessed.

The Golden Age

Then there is the movie Elizabeth, the Golden Age. This is set during the late 16th century during the reign of Elizabeth I of England. Here we have King Phillip of Spain portrayed as a fanatical Catholic despot waging "holy war" to bring Europe back to the Catholic Church, while plotting to kill Elizabeth. There is truth to this though it is likely that the real history was more complicated, considering that Catholic France was antagonistic towards Spain and that Phillip was at odds with the Pope in many areas thus making the image of a united Catholic world bent on destroying heretics portrayed here a fiction.
In this film neither Catholics nor Protestants smell good as they are both portrayed as oppressors. But Elizabeth was portrayed as a paragon of humanism. In one scene she says that the invasion of Spain by England would mean the inquisition and the end of free thought.(as if that were the essence of Catholicism) Never mind that she herself cracked down on the Puritans. Then there is the scene of the battle of the Spanish Armada. Besides being historically inaccurate it is a bit of humanists propaganda. In one scene we see Phillip praying before a candle for victory while we see Elizabeth decked out in armor in another. When the tide of battle turned in England’s favor we see Phillips candle being blown out while we the sun breaking out on Elizabeth’s face, apparently symbolizing the triumph of the light of humanism over the snuffed out light of "superstition" and dogmatic religion.

King Arthur

Then there is one of the worst examples of anti-Catholicism of all. A few years ago a film called King Arthur. This flick purported to be a de-mythologizing of the Arthurian legend. It is set during the late 5th century, when the Roman Empire was just about to withdraw from Britain. It is about a Roman military leader, a disciple of Pelegius who eventually drives out the Saxons and becomes King of Britain.
In this movie the Church is portrayed as being corrupt and worldly. In the 5th century!? I can understand if it were set during the renaissance. Not necessarily agree, but I would understand. But the 5th century? The Church was still trying to survive at this time and was still in a controversy with the Arians, who had considerable power. There was no corruption at this time in church history. Then the film asserts that Pelagius was murdered because of his beliefs when in fact we don’t know how or when he died! This was meant to cast a bad light on the Church
Then there is the most offensive scene of all. In this scene Arthur and his band of Pagan soldiers come upon the estate of this Roman nobleman they were trying to rescue from the invading Saxons. Here they discover a prison into which pagans were thrown and left to starve. This was done by Christian holy men who explained that this was done so that there souls would be saved, apparently to get rid of there paganism through suffering and death. They said this was the will of God, to which the pagan Lancelot replied "not my God." This is clearly a direct slam against the Church in favor of paganism.
This is a slander against the Church!! That never happened at any time during Church history. If something like this was portrayed in the history of any other religion there would be hell to pay and rightly so. I listened to the directors commentary to see if the director mentioned where he got the idea for this slander. All he talked about in this scene was costume design!

Where's the Outrage

These are just some examples of the shots being taken at the Church in particular and Christianity in general. So why aren’t Western leaders expressing outrage at this? Shouldn’t they be consistent in there political correctness? The rationale for political correctness is that any kind of identification of a people, whether it be religious or ethnic, as a danger or potential danger, creates a potential for strife, often leading to genocide. This has proved to be true throughout history as seen in Nazi Germany, Turkey with the Armenians, Rwanda, Soviet Union, etc. It is in this context that political correctness has to be understood, even its excesses.

Why not Catholics

So why doesn’t this apply to Catholics? Is it because we won’t take to the streets and threaten death to the infidels? If that’s the case I take it as a compliment and evidence that they know that we aren’t fanatics but can take criticism. But that is no excuse for slander and misrepresentation.

Unfair portrayals

Is it because we aren’t considered a vulnerable minority? Maybe. But a strong majority today can be a vulnerable minority tomorrow. Furthermore, it can become so precisely because of slander and misrepresentation built up over the years. At any rate it shouldn’t matter. Unfair portrayal of any group are wrong in and of itself regardless of the status of the group being offended.
Make no mistake, these portrayals I have brought out are unfair! They are not honest portrayals of a dark and complicated part of the history of Christian civilization but propaganda meant to show the alleged danger of dogmatic Christianity per se, showing the superiority of secular humanism. It is the common belief of some atheists that the Christian religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular was the greatest purveyor of evil in human history! These films and many others in theater and tv do nothing to alleviate that notion. In a few generations such ideas could lead to anti-Catholic pogroms instigated by future political regimes that look upon Christians as a threat that would undermine the foundations of their political apparatus.

Past History Dealt with

They don’t seem to realize that Vatican II has dealt with much of past history and has given the Church a different outlook. It has affirmed the concept of religious liberty and the sacredness of all human life. It has affirmed that oppression and demonization are not intrinsic to Catholicism and never really were. Pope John Paul II has apologized for the wrongs committed by Christians in the name of the Church. They no longer need to fear oppression from Catholics.

Demand for Consistency

So if Western intellectuals want to be consistent and fair they will denounce unfair portrayals of Christianity just as they condemn such concerning other faiths and ethnic groups. Yes there are practices in Christian civilization that have to be dealt with honestly. But it has to be understood that they are not intrinsic to the Christian faith. They were done in spite of the teachings of Christ. To treat these things as intrinsic to the Christian message is dishonest and unfair and presents the danger of inspiring hatred of Christians.

As Christians and Catholics we have the same right to compete for the mind and heart of society as any other world view without slander and misrepresentation. We may be dogmatic but then, every outlook is dogmatic in its fashion. For example, just try to teach intelligent design in public schools. To believe in tolerance and equality means that those concepts apply to Catholics too. I hate to think that there is a hatred for Christianity in secular society, but what is one to think when Christians aren’t given the same courtesy in the media that most other religions and ethnic groups are getting.

Whatever Happened to Easter?

In musing on this past Holy week I am struck by the apparent lack of enthusiasm for the Easter season in our culture. Christmas is a big deal with all the hype and commercialism and the prevalent protests speaking out against said commercialism. Despite the indifferentism towards religion in society there is plenty of reference to the birth of Christ and loving one’s neighbor during the Advent season and that is all to the good. But Easter? All we have is a glut of chocolate bunnies and eating pizza on Good Friday and the NCAA basketball tournament! Holy Week does not even seem significant enough to overly commercialize it and nobody cares enough to complain about the commercialism that does exist. My daughter thinks it is because there is no exchange of gifts on Easter. I fear there is more than a little truth to this.

The Joy of Easter

But shouldn’t Easter be "the most wonderful time of the year"?
After all, Easter is supposed to be the celebration of the resurrection of Christ! Before this event the outlook of humanity was " life stinks then you die". Death defined human existence and gave it no significance beyond the grave and thus gave little meaning to our existence, particularly those on the margins of existence (that is to say, most people).

Our Lord’s resurrection changed that. In rising from the dead He demonstrated that death is not the final arbiter of Human meaning. Pope John Paul II wrote;

"The Lamb that was slain is alive, bearing the marks of his passion in the splendor of the resurrection. He alone is master of all events of history: he opens its ‘seals’ (cf rev 5:1-10) and proclaims, in time and beyond, the power of life over death. In the ‘new Jerusalem’, that new world towards which human history is traveling, death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.’(Rev 21:4)" Evangelium Vitae, Pauline Books and Media, Boston MA. 1995, p. 165-166

With His ressurection He blasted the pagan despair into nothingness. There is meaning to human life beyond what happens to us in our 4 score years on Earth. There is a reason for our transcendant longings that death can no longer make a mockery of. Considering this the resurrection should be celebrated with great intensity. The veil of the temple is rent, revealing the nature of the God who brought forth our salvation. This was revolutionary in ancient times. Nothing like this had been proclaimed before.

Western Amnesia

But in its amnesia Western civilization seems to be forgetting that more and more. It is increasingly going back to the despair it had during the pagan Roman empire. Death was so taken for granted in those days that death was used for entertainment during the gladiatorial games. We don’t have that now, not real death anyway. We do it digitally now what with increasingly graphic video games. Then of course there is the film industry and its slasher films.

Our Lord Forgotten

It seems the crowd no longer wants to crucify our Lord anymore, but just ignore Him and pass Him by.

The West has largely forgotten our Lord. It has forgotten the good news that the resurrection brought forth. The joy of life that the resurrection made possible is receding from our memory. In its zeal to form a society that won’t tyrannise people for their beliefs it departing from the very basis for believing in the worth of all people and the brotherhood of humanity. When the West forgets the Christian world view completely, what then will it base its moral structure if not Christ the King?

Matter of Inconsistency

The Vatican recently confirmed that Fr. Vasyl Kovpak of the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church has been excommunicated for schism. He was a Lefebvrist ,a movement of those who don’t accept some of the teachings of the Vatican II Council. This movement was named for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who consecrated four bishops years ago without permission of the Vatican with the idea of preserving what he believed was purity of Catholic doctrine. What gives one pause is that while this man is excommunicated for insubordination while not rejecting a single point of doctrine The Pope has dinner with Hans Kung , a man who rejects Catholic teachings, and is still allowed to full communion in the Church.

Not a Mere Traditionalist Rant

Now, I am not a traditionalist, at least not yet. As of now I have not found in the documents of Vatican II any break with traditional Catholic doctrine . To be honest, some of the things traditionalists say concern me. Having said this they do raise some issues that need addressing. This issue quite frankly puzzles me.

Main Question


My question is, why was this priest excommunicated when he did not deny any doctrine but was charged only with a disciplinary infraction while an out and out pagan like Hans Kung is still allowed to function as a priest in the Church? This seems to me to be grossly inconsistent. What message is this sending to the faithful? Is it okay to trample on Church teachings ? Is it a worse sin to be insubordinate to the hierarchy than to subvert Catholic Truth? I personally do not think for one minute that Pope Benedict embraces syncretism or some universal Church that Catholicism and other religions will assimulate into. I have read too much of his writings to believe that. So what gives?

No Presumption Intended

Now , it is beyond my pay grade to demand excommunication. I am only a simple layman. Far be it from me to be overly critical of a man that has forgotten more about theology than I will ever know. But is it asking too much to have clarification of this issue? Is it wrong to wish that a stronger stand were taken against Kung so that much of the speculation will cease and that the faithful can see clearly which way direction the Church is going one way or the other?

Fear of Ridicule?


I would have understood if it were simply a case that the Church is reluctant to excommunicate anybody for fear of negative public opinion. I wouldn’t agree, but I would have understood. But this recent excommunication of Fr. Kovpak would indicate that this is not the case. Could it simply be a case of keeping your friends close but your enemies closer? Perhaps. If that is the case it is too risky in my opinion and looks too much like an endorsement of Kung’s teachings.


Question of Publicity

I am inclined to think that it is simply a case of avoiding what could be a stressful controversy if Kung were to be excommunicated. I believe that if he were to be excommunicated he would be an overnight sensation. Critics of the Church will be all over it. James Carroll would practically cannonize him, Another Galileo as it were. His book sales would sky rocket. There could be TV appearances and radio talk show interviews. Thus his teaching would spread like wildfire both in the Church and outside it. Kung himself probably can't wait to be excommmunicated for these reasons, which may explain why he hasn't just up and left the Church!

Out of Limelight

As it stands now many people still don’t know Hans Kung from King Kong. Perhaps the Pope wants to keep it that way. Maybe his holiness figures that tucked away in relative obscurity Kung can’t do much damage. But then, maybe he shouldn’t have had dinner with Kung in the first place and raised his public if he wasn’t ready to pull the trigger on excommunication. Pope John Paul II didn’t give Kung the time of day thus keeping him out of the limelight.

Maybe its Time

Personally I think its time for controversy. If Kung were to be excommunicated there will be a lot of negative publicity and Kung will get much attention. But then so will the Church. After all, the publicity surrounding The Passion of the Christ worked to the Church’s advantage, as did the controversy concerning the book The Da Vinci Code. The Church was able to use the attention to promote her own teachings. The Church can do the same with the extra if and when it comes down on Kung. It can explain why it excommunicated him and why his teachings are incompatible with Catholic teachings.

Clear Stand by Church


Once it is certain where the Church stands and the confusion is alleviated it can be a more effective witness for truth. To be that effective witness what is needed is clarity as to what the Church is It may be that this potential shake up is just what the Church needs if for no other reason than to achieve said clarity. If many leave the Church because of this that is their choice. The Church is not supposed to be an institution that assimulates into secular culture but one that is in opposition and an alternative to it. There is supposed to be something different about Catholicism and in order for that difference to be preserved its doctrinal integrity must stay intact. It can’t straddle the fence by letting men like Kung stay around and spread a quasi paganism with impunity.

The Curious De-Emphais on Confession

Things can be very frustrating these days for frequent sinners such as myself. There has been a disturbing de-emphasis on confession in church parishes, at least the ones I have been to. Most parishes and churches I know have only 45 minutes a week for confessions, on Saturdays . 45 minutes a week!!?? Are they kidding me? There is the downtown shrine in my hometown that has confessions several hours a day, but that is during work hours and it would take up my whole lunch time just to find parking. I need a lot more time than this what with my busy schedule and all. Saturday is a particularly busy day for me. I do make it, but I shouldn’t have to go through hoops to get to confession, at least the church shouldn’t put the hoops there!

A puzzling question
.
Why is this? Was it Vatican II? Can’t be. The Vatican II documents do not talk about confession much but it did not really need to. Anything one needs to know about confession is in other councils and documents and was not abrogated. So what is it? A perceived change brought about by Vatican II? Perhaps. There have been changes in outlook in the Church since that council. But , so far, I have not seen any of these changes in the Vatican II documents themselves. (Of course I may be eating crow in the coming months) If indeed Vatican II did not abrogate the need for confession then this de-emphasis on the need for confession is indeed puzzling!

The Catechism?

Perhaps the Catechism? This is what it actually says;
"Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church. Indeed the regular confession of our venial sins helps us form our conscience, fight against evil tendencies, let ourselves be healed by Christ and progress in the life of the spirit."(1)
So while the catechism says it is not strictly necessary, it does encourage its frequent use. There is certainly no indication that confession time should be severely limited.


Getting the word out


It may be that the reason there is not much confession time is that not many go to begin with. Come to think of it, this makes sense. Even with the limited time for confession not many go, maybe two or three people. Why is this? Perhaps it is because the need for confession is not emphasized in the churches.
This reminds me of something I saw on EWTN a couple of years ago. On this program a priest related a story of a priest in this certain parish who noticed that not many people were going to confession. He started preaching the need to go to confession and soon the lines were out the door! It seems that if confession were to be emphasized more then people may be stimulated to pay more attention to their spiritual health.


Relationship with Christ


The Christian journey is a relationship with Christ, not merely living by a set of morals. Alfred A. Hubenig, O.M.I., had this to say about St. Eugene De Mazenod;
"And to the Galatians he says, ‘ from my mother’s womb he called me by his grace to reveal his son in me so that I might preach the good news about him to the gentiles.’ (Galatians 1:15) Note Paul says ‘God chose to reveal his son in me,’ not ‘to me’ This means that the grace received by Paul, like the grace received by Eugene, is not mere intellectual knowledge of Jesus Christ. It is a spiritual gift that reaches the very depths of the heart, bringing about an unshakable conviction and a strong attachment to the person of Jesus."(2)


No complacency


So we can’t be complacent concerning venial sin. A lackadaisical attitude towards it could lead to a weakening of our relationship with Christ. I look at venial sin like a tick on a dog. One tick may sting and suck out a little blood. If it is extracted there is no harm done. But if it is left to fester it will suck out more blood and weaken the dog more. More and more ticks will weaken the dog further and seriously compromise its health. Then, when a major illness comes along it will be too weak to fight it off. So it is with venial sin. If we ignore them and don’t deal with them they may accumulate and weaken our souls to the point that our attachment with Christ is compromised and our resistence to mortal sins will be greatly weakened. This dog knows something about this.


Conclusion



So, in my humble opinion, the churches should emphasize confession more. It doesn’t even have to be fire and brimstone, at least not yet. All they need to do is to emphasize that venial sins need to be dealt with in order to improve the spiritual lives of the faithful and to strengthen them from temptations to mortal sins. This is not so the people will obsess about venial sins, but so that they won’t obsess over them but instead form a deeper relationship with Christ.
If confession is emphasized more then it could very well be that more people will take a greater interest in caring for their souls and from there develop a greater interest in the teachings of the Church.




1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pauline Books and Media, 1994. P. 366
2. Hubenig, Alfred A., O.M.I., Living in the Spirit’s Fire, Novalis, Ottawa, Ontario Canada, 1995, P. 32.


Note
I am sorry I haven’t posted anything in almost a month. I have been a little busy and also I have been studying about things I am not sure of. I have been pursuing a study of certain things that I don’t wish to bring out at the present time. I need to be sure of things. I hope to be posting some more things in the future.
Frank.

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