Philosophy

Truth exists. It is reality—what actually was and what actually is in our universe. Unfortunately it is also beyond our grasp. Our tools are observation and reason, and an uncaused effect lies beyond our reason. Absent the supernatural, our universe is an uncaused effect. Given the supernatural, we have the cause, but the supernatural also lies beyond our reason.

Hence, we may seek to approach the truth, which science does, but without some revelation we will never reach it in any provable way. We define such revelation as faith, and this is what every philosophy and religion has used to bridge the chasm.

So what is faith—our beliefs. Is it divine revelation or wishful thinking? I doubt we can answer that with any certainty but using the tools we have perhaps we may refine our faith to narrow the gap between certainty and speculation. Many religious people of many different faiths have no doubts about revelation. They claim to have experienced it themselves, and who can argue. If they all received the same message it might be a slam dunk, but they didn’t. For all we know that could be the Divine intent. If life’s a test, but the answer is crystal clear, then where’s the test?

I am a Roman Catholic, what the late pope John Paul II might call a “cafeteria” Catholic, since I disagree on numerous points. (Actually, I think that makes me a modern Catholic.) Consequently, much of what follows is directed toward Catholic belief. On the other hand, much applies equally to all Christianity as well as Judaism and Islam “the people of the book” as Mohammed put it, and to the rest of humanity.

I am a Catholic not because, as some converts, I was intellectually convinced of its truth. I’m a Catholic because my parents, specifically my mother, raised me in that belief and sent me to Catholic schools which reinforced it. Had she been a Muslim, I’d no doubt have embraced Islam although I do think I would have dropped it. I suspect its disciplines and sharp divisions between men and women would have turned me off, but who knows? I remain a Catholic because I have not found another religion, or an absence of one, to be better. I do think my own religion can be improved.

From its beginnings, some six or seven thousand years ago, right up until medieval times, the basics of Judeo-Christian faith were fairly easy to comprehend. There was the Earth and there were the heavens—the sun, the moon and the stars. Somewhere beyond the stars—the seven spheres—was heaven, and somewhere, perhaps beneath the earth, was hell. Certainly the Earth was the center of the universe. God showed up periodically to protect or instruct his prime, but contentious creation, humanity. He eventually concluded we were so corrupt that He had to send a messiah (His own son according to Christianity) to redeem us.

This whole simple structure was rocked back on its heels with the advent of Copernicus and Galileo. The Earth was not the center of the universe! Poor old Galileo was ordered by the pope to recant. Being a practical Italian, and cognizant of the draconian penalties popular at the time, he publicly did so. But the genie was out of the bottle. As the Renaissance progressed, more and more scientific evidence emerged and men began to see a universe far older and more diverse than had ever been imagined. The bedrock of the Bible, Genesis, was in serious trouble. Then came the coup de grace, Charles Darwin. Evolution.

This was the toughest one to swallow (and many still refuse). The problem evolution posed for the traditional faith was that it’s a gradual process. Where is that fine line that separates man from animal? When did we get a soul? What makes us different? Who knows, perhaps we’re not. And if Genesis is reduced to a fable, what of the rest of our holy scriptures?

Well, what of them? Unlike the Koran, which Muhammad said was revealed to him directly from God (Allah) via the Angel—Gabriel I think—the Koran is taken literally by Muslims. No such claim is made for the books of the Bible. The books of the Bible have many authors, all human. While Christians and Jews may believe they were inspired, inspiration is not dictation. The author of Genesis and the rest of the Torah wrote down his history of the world based on the oral traditions of the Jewish people using imagery that he and his contemporaries could comprehend. Things they could not understand or imagine at the time included archeology, anthropology, geology, evolution, celestial mechanics, and a host of other disciplines, all developed much later.

Many fundamentalists still insist, in spite of the body of scientific knowledge, that the earth was created more or less in accord with the account in Genesis, and that it is a mere six or seven thousand years old. Is such a thing possible? Of course it is. If we believe in an almighty God, we have to believe he could construct his universe however he pleased. For those who hold these beliefs, it is their prerogative. I contend, however, that we should rely, not on what is possible but on what is probable. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.

When faith and science seem to collide, one must remember that science is an ever-evolving discipline, constantly tested and retested against our observations of reality as revealed by our reason and senses. Perhaps the tenets of a faith should also be reevaluated to bring the two into harmony. The scriptures, and this reevaluation are discussed in section 23.0.

Before going into specifics, however, there is one nagging item which is the crux of everything. Is there even a “God” as religious people understand Him? Some eternal and uncaused force must have given rise to the universe, but when we speak of God we envision a being who knows and loves us. That is the basis of every religion, and every religion has its answer, and the answers are often quite different. None are based on any physical evidence. The only evidence we have of a personal God relies on scripture, revelations, and miracles. These rely on faith, not logic. It is from the scriptures that we have developed our theology.

There have been many logical attempts to prove the existence of God (apologetics), but these boil down to the need for a cause (begging the question of what caused God) and the need for an intelligent designer. Further, neither argument addresses our desire for a personal God interested in us. I doubt that the proof lies in logic, or in any concrete evidence we may someday discover. If anywhere, it lies in another supersensory realm—one which we may already know but cannot describe—that realm which deals with the human spirit. That, perhaps someday, we may understand.

One might ask “Is there truly a need for an omnipotent creator?” Suppose we agree that, from all eternity, what existed could not have been nothing. Nothing could only beget nothing, and we are proof that there is more. But suppose, instead of nothing, that from all eternity there existed an infinite expanse of energy—a sea in which, here and there and randomly, pockets of energy transform to matter, giving rise to universes ranging from minute and transient to ones like our own and greater.

I am not very interested in theology. Acceptance of the New Testament does, of course, give believers a reason to accept the Trinity. Beyond that, all is speculation, and I do not believe we have the capacity to even begin to guess at the nature of God. I have always considered that one cause for the rift between the Roman and Orthodox churches—the question of whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, or from the Father and the Son, as one of the most ridiculous disagreements in the history of the human race. How could we possibly know, and what earthly difference could it make? I yield to agnostics on the nature of God. The proper study of man is man.

It would seem that a corollary to a belief in the divinity of Christ is an acceptance of the reality of Satan. Since the major source for this belief is the New Testament, and since Christ is reported to have spoken quite explicitly about Satan and hell, it’s a tough one for a Christian to get around. Indeed, a belief in Satan does lend some rationale to the eternal conundrum of religion: Why is religion, the supposed font of love, mercy and good, also a prime cause of intolerance and war. Perhaps it is infiltrated with forces of evil. I can imagine some of our evangelical brethren shaking their heads and muttering, “you dimwit, are you just now beginning to comprehend this?”

I postulate that God created a statistical universe, as quantum mechanics suggests. What I mean is that the universe evolved from the “Big Bang,” or whatever its beginning was, according to designed laws of physics that were statistical in nature. Its designer could clearly see the evolution of galaxies, stars, planets and, eventually, life. On the other hand, he would not know the exact timeline, shape, or minute details of his creation. These would evolve, randomly, within the framework of his statistical laws. He would, of course, have the power to adjust, modify, or delete any or all of his creation.

This undoubtedly will perturb those who consider that an all-knowing God must know the past, present, and future, but this is a belief that we should seriously challenge. Why would the creator wish to know every tiny detail of what his masterpiece (not us, necessarily, but his universe.) would be? This takes nothing away from the omnipotence of God. He is the only one who could create this magnificent process or, for that matter, any process.

Consider the beauty and advantages of this postulate. First, we have long wrestled with the concept of “free will.” If God foreknows everything, then claiming that I have a free will is a tortuous exercise. There is nothing free about following a script. And, secondly, miracles. We pray for divine intervention, but if everything is foreknown or preordained, then what is the point? This postulate resolves both of those issues. We were not preordained. Once enlightened—our attainment of that critical mass—we would (I suppose) develop a conscience. From that point on, the ball’s in our court. As the poet put it, "I am the master of my fate—I am the captain of my soul."

Praying for miracles, then, becomes a judgment call for the supreme and all-knowing judge who can determine if the begged exception is worthwhile to the supplicant without being harmful to others or to the grand plan of His universe. (Pretty much rules out praying for a lottery number since this would certainly screw the other players!)

Evolution, of course, implies that out of inanimate objects—quarks, atoms, molecules—organic life evolves. If so, one would assume that it evolves wherever conditions permit. In a universe of trillions or quadrillions of stars, this surely must have happened millions of times. I believe there are, or were, or will be millions of worlds like our own with inhabitants who may resemble us only in their ability to reason. The mere fact that we haven’t heard from them or met them yet (if, in fact, we haven’t) is hardly surprising. Considering the times and distances involved, millennia upon millennia, not years, may well be required.

We should, however, begin to consider the implications of that first contact—that new Copernicus. As Catholics we believe that Christ came down to redeem the world, and that Mary, His Mother, is Queen of the universe. What happens when new worlds come into play? Is Christ the constant sojourner, going to all the worlds that have become corrupt, and is Mary one of many? I personally see no conflict here, but I’m sure many will.

Until now, while I’m sure I’ve stepped on a lot of toes and the Christian fundamentalists may be adamantly opposed, I don’t believe I’ve proposed anything totally out of bounds to Catholic dogma. Of course I may be surprised when I present this much to a priest. I’ll start with Jesuits.

I put this first because it seems to be the most widespread concern, or perhaps the most widely ignored, teaching among Catholics. In the early part of his reign, Pope Paul VI convened an advisory group to explore this issue. The consensus: the group advised relaxing church edicts on this matter. Our good and holy, but “Hamlet,” pope came down against it. He set forth his reasons in his encyclical “Humanae Vitae.” It was not “ex cathedra” (see section 11) and can be changed. I believed then, and still do, that it was a mistake. I was hardly alone.

The church’s reasoning is basically threefold. First, that the purpose of sex is procreation (obviously nature’s intent) and that the pleasure is a reward for accepting this responsibility. In St. Augustine’s view (having already sowed his “wild oats” in his youth) it was the only permissible purpose. Secondly, that it interferes with God’s plan (as if any mere mortal could actually interfere with God’s plan). And thirdly, that the use of contraceptives makes sex too available, cheapens it, and leads to any number of moral declines.

Consider the first reason. Of course procreation was nature’s primary, and perhaps only, objective. In the course of evolution nature may have tried several approaches. For some primordial species, sex may have been as onerous as hard work. Those species did not survive. For the ones that did, sex offered a lure. In fact a powerful lure was required, since procreation often involved high risks and, for some, continued involvement.

I’m not going to speculate on plants, but for the animal species this worked. The sex drive kept the species growing. Nature provided the controls—if there were too many deer, wolves prospered, and if there weren’t enough wolves, starvation stepped in to provide the control. Nature achieved a balance.

Fast forward, now, to the advent of rational man. Developed societies began to recognize that enough was enough and were unwilling to accept nature’s harsh controls. This left them with two alternatives—limit sex or control the outcome. Since the sex drive was firmly established, this made the choice a “no brainer.”

What is the downside? Well. In fact there is a downside. We can see it today in Europe. The native European population is decreasing. Apparently, the expense and aggravation of raising children is beginning to trump the maternal instinct. Human survival depends on finding a solution, and religion has both the right and the duty to weigh in. One might argue that, in fact, world population is still increasing, so what’s the concern. The concern is that this increase is taking place in the underdeveloped world, which is being pushed toward starvation as the control. The solution should discourage conception where there are insufficient resources and encourage it where they are sufficient. Here the secular state has an obvious stake. The key is that these must be incentives, not mandates.

As to interfering with God’s plan, contraception is no more of an interference than the practice of rhythm, which the church condones. Since I believe in a statistical universe, I do not believe that God had any plan for the union of any specific sperm and egg. I would assume that most current church scholars would agree with me here, but I’m not sure. The church’s rationale is that rhythm involves some self-restraint, and this is certainly good. Doesn’t answer the objection, though. If one is concerned about interference, it’s still interference.

Finally, there is the question of decline in morality. Possibly, just as gluttony—one of the capital sins—represents a decline in morality from the misuse of our obvious necessity to eat in order to survive. We have to eat, but we can feast, eat sensibly or diet, depending on whether we’re seeking pleasure, sustenance, or control.

As a hypothetical question, I wonder what the church’s position is on the use of contraceptives during adultery or fornication. Is it a mitigating or aggravating adjunct to the sin? I would certainly argue that it's mitigating.

Celibacy, the renunciation of marriage, and, in the Catholic Church a promise of chastity since the church regards sex outside marriage as a sin, has been a requirement of the catholic priesthood since the Middle Ages. The rationale here is that the two callings are incompatible. There were also problems of clerics siphoning off church wealth into their private families. Having no family does go a long way toward solving these two problems. It also contributes to the shortage of priests, although there are doubtless other factors in play.

The incompatibility of the twin callings of priesthood and fatherhood may be more imagined than real since the Anglicans, Protestants, and the Orthodox and Eastern rites of Catholicism seem to cope. It would seem that for secular priests—those not a member of orders—some relaxation, at least in the lower ranks, might be considered.

On the other hand, there is a certain majesty, or at least a mark of distinction to celibacy, which sets the church apart.

I do not believe, as some seem to, that it is a major cause of the pedophilia or abuse problems that have plagued the church in recent years. There are many married pedophiles. Of course there is the possibility that pedophiles are attracted to the priesthood because it gives them access. This is a totally different problem, having nothing to do with celibacy and everything to do with screening. If celibacy contributes to a shortage, screening suffers because there will be more incentive to overlook signs pointing to possible pedophilia, for example

As in many other areas, one problem here (which should also be addressed) is the absolute power of the Catholic hierarchy. While many Catholics oppose a married priesthood, I am aware of no study looking for a consensus. There should be one, not only here but on many of these topics. I believe that sooner or later the church must modify its centuries long belief that a few men in Rome are wiser than their billion followers.

The church still opposes divorce, but half a century ago the grounds for annulment were extremely limited. Once a marriage was consummated (the partners having had sexual relations) it was all but impossible to end it. That is certainly no longer the case, and annulments are routinely granted for a wide variety of causes.

Divorce is an obviously drastic step, particularly with children involved, and few would deny that it’s far too widespread in our modern society. On the other hand, the painfully contrived arguments often used to absolve marriages such as Frank Sinatra’s, boil down to the fact that the marriage became a failure. The church needs to clarify its position to avoid the perception of hypocrisy.

Clearly, some marriages are better off ended. The Church has no problem with civil divorce. The problem involves the possibility of a second chance. Where grounds can be found for an annulment, then there is a second chance. Fairly or unfairly, in the minds of many, those grounds are for sale. This leads to the same sort of scandal that Martin Luther perceived with indulgences (see Purgatory, section 17) 400 years ago. We’ve been there!

I do not advocate opening the flood gates. Marriage is a commitment, and commitments should be honored. The church should be more rigorous than the secular society, but it should develop clearly defined rules without financial considerations.

The church insists that sex is permissible only between a validly married husband and wife. Some clerics are even quite restrictive on how it may be performed. And all sex outside this union, everything from fantasizing and masturbation to fornication and adultery, is considered seriously sinful. A rather harsh rule, which probably makes this the most violated commandment (if one ignores “little white lies”).

Why such a stern edict, considering that few if any other living species practice it? The Catholic church cites the sixth (Protestant seventh) commandment, but that only proscribes adultery. The rest was the opinion of the early church fathers. Certainly the Old Testament isn’t much help, seemingly condoning concubines, and the New Testament is generally silent.

A widespread procreation of children outside the nurturing environment of a family is obviously detrimental, both to society and to the individuals involved. Masturbation, of course, involves no such threat.

I have read, but not verified, that Thomas Aquinas considered masturbation, as well as oral and anal sex, to be worse than rape. I assume his rationale must have been that rape allows for the natural consequence—procreation—while the others don’t. Let’s consider them all. But even considering them all, I have to disagree with the angelic doctor. I cannot believe that a sin which does not harm another person can be worse than one which does.

10.1 Masturbation

“You’ll go blind,” some mothers used to warn their sons—mine didn’t, since we rarely discussed sex. According to the Kinsey report back in the 1950’s, we should be living in the land of the blind, and of course we’re not. The priests’ warnings were a bit more blunt—“You’ll go to hell.” Unfortunately, we have no statistics on that. But the real question is why.

To the puritan mind, the “why” is clear—it brings pleasure without a purpose. But many things bring pleasure without purpose—overeating, drugs, excess alcohol, smoking, and the list goes on. In general these vices are not considered “mortal” sins (those that will send one to hell). So why is masturbation, which basically hurts no one, singled out as such a horrible crime? In fact, why is it a sin at all? There are numerous things which bring pleasure without a purpose which are in no way considered even mildly sinful by most, such as spending a lazy afternoon at the shore.

I believe the church should reevaluate its position here and either develop a sound rationale and guidelines or admit to an inherent bias against sex.

10.2 Extramarital sex

Actually two topics here—sex between unmarried people and adultery. Certainly a case can be made against adultery. Even without a commandment against it, it’s pretty obvious that this will cause a problem.

!!!!!

TO HERE !!!!!

!!!!

10.3 Oral sex

Forgetting for a moment the problem confronting gays or lesbians, for many heterosexuals, oral sex is an instinctive part of foreplay.

!!!!

10.4 Anal sex

Again forgetting the problem confronting gays, this is a practice occasionally indulged in by normal heterosexuals. With the advent of AIDS I would imagine its popularity has declined, and even without AIDS there is the possibility of infection and physical damage. What makes it sinful, however, is the church’s view that sex which circumvents the primary purpose—procreation—is sinful.

There are seven sacraments in the Roman Catholic rite. Two, Baptism and the Eucharist, are widely practiced in Protestant sects. Martin Luther scrapped the rest. So what are sacraments? According to Catholicism they are outward signs conferring grace for some aspect of our lives. I have no major problems with any of them, but some could, perhaps, use a little tweaking. There’s already been some.

12.1 Baptism

The formal administration of Baptism, the pouring of water on the head accompanied by the words “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (now Spirit),” were considered absolutely essential to attaining heaven right up to the early twentieth century. Neither devout Catholic parents or the handy presence of a priest were necessary—presumably anyone could do it, but someone had to. The church has relaxed this a bit by coming up with a “baptism of desire.”

The current teaching is that when an unbaptized person (anyone from a fetus to an old pagan) dies, they’re given the choice and enough understanding to make the choice.

12.2 Confirmation

This sacrament recalls the coming of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles (Acts, chapter ??), wherein the apostles gained the fortitude required to go forth and establish Christ’s church, and brings that same conferring of grace upon the recipient.

Well, maybe not quite the same, since most of the conferees are grade school children, most of whom will not go forth as resolute missionaries ready to accept martyrdom.

Sort of like a Catholic Bar Mitzvah. Nothing wrong with it, but do we really need it?

12.3 Holy Eucharist

The Holy Eucharist is the center piece of Catholicism. The Gospel of Mathew, chapter 26, describes the ritual of the bread and wine at the last supper, invoking Christ’s words “Do this in memory of me” as the conferring of the power of performing this ritual—changing the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ—on his apostles, and, by extension, to his future priests.

Most Protestant sects consider this symbolic rather than “real.” Church doctrine refers to it as transubstantiation in which, by miraculous intervention, the wine and host, while retaining the chemical characteristics of unleavened bread and wine, are actually the real body and blood.

As a Catholic, I accept the sacred nature of the Eucharist, but what, exactly, does the priest bring about? Certainly not physical nurture, or at least no more than we’d get from the unconsecrated items. It is spiritual nurture.

Certainly, a lot more Catholics—those who attend mass regularly—receive communion than I did when I was young. I’m sure that is due to the relaxation of the rules. In addition to not having committed any “mortal” sins (and there were a raft of them), one had to abstain from any food or drink (including water) since the previous midnight. In Cincinnati, where I grew up, we decided to interpret “midnight” as “Sun Time,” which gave us an extra hour to drink on Saturday night.

(Discuss the Holy Grail)

12.4 Penance

The practice of confession to a priest is the outgrowth of Christ’s words to Peter, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (Cite reference)

It was never absolutely necessary—one could always appeal directly to God. I remember the old saying “twixt the stirrup and the ground, mercy sought and mercy found,” but one was required to follow up at the confessional as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

The rational was that the priest could offer some advice and impose a penance as a deterrent to future infractions.

12.5 Extreme Unction

I believe now it’s the sacrament of the sick. Basically it was an occasion for the priest to offer some prayers and hear a last confession if the recipient were conscious. It comes with the ceremonial adjuncts, such as holy oil, which the church loves to use.

12.6 Holy Orders

This is the sacrament wherein the powers of the priesthood (to celebrate mass, forgive sins, etc.) are conferred by a bishop onto the candidate for the priesthood. While many modern Catholics chafe at the power of the clergy and lack of power of the laity, this is still one of the strong points of Catholicism. Certainly a stronger and more influential laity is something the church should strive for, and toward which the hierarchy is being inexorably dragged.

On the other hand, a trained and disciplined leadership—the priesthood—provides the church with an anchor and a focus which most religions do not have.

12.7 Matrimony

Marriage in the Catholic church is elevated to a sacrament, which is the basis for its stern rules on divorce.

We were taught that this was a sacrament not conferred by the priest but by the bride and groom on each other. Of course if they tried to pull this off before a Justice of the Peace or, far worse, someone like a Protestant Minister, it was not only invalid but mortally sinful, so I never quite understood that.

The scriptures are replete with references to angels, even giving them names, so the true believer accepts angels. They make sense, however, even from a purely rational point of view.

I believe the most logical atheistic scenario for the existence of our universe is that an infinite, but somewhat turbulent, field of energy has always existed. Thirteen billion years ago one segment transformed partially into matter (the “Big Bang) creating our universe. It evolved, among other things, into us. If energy can evolve into rational, material beings, I suspect it might even be easier to evolve into non-material, rational beings. We call them angels.

Presumably the angels, if created by God, had a free will, resulting in Satan and his demons who decided it was better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. Are some of those who serve “guardian angels”?

One thing that always bothered me was St. Michael, the Archangel—arguably the most famous of the angels. But “Archangel?” In the nine ranks of the angels—Seraphim, etc., he comes in at about a sergeant! Why isn’t he St. Michael, the Seraphim? No one knows for sure where these ranks came from, and maybe they weren’t used back in the Old Testament or early church.

Much as we might like to ignore it, the scriptures also mention Hell. It is mentioned so specifically that one can hardly deny it without also scrapping the rest of Christianity and, for that matter, Islam. Even the afterlife of the pagans of Greece and Rome was pretty much of a hell.

The problem with hell, at least for me, is in coming up with the “why?”. Why would the Almighty, intent on building His heaven, wish to maintain such a gruesome prison when He could simply obliterate the damned after some suitable agony and sinking realization that they’d really screwed up a golden opportunity?

Of course, if the universe is eternal, a possibility I suggested above, and if Satan and his demons exist as a source of testing for us, then I suppose Satan needs a home and if he didn’t have any victims, he’d have no incentive.

There is a rationale for believing in these evil spirits, as I’ve alluded to. It tends to explain senseless evil. The motivation behind some evil is obvious. If one is about to inherit an estate, and gets wind of the fact that the benefactor is about to change his will, one may be sorely tempted to do him in. There are countless other hypotheticals, but how does one explain the internet hacker, for example. How can we explain the actions of a person who destroys, harming victims he doesn’t even know, for no gain to himself? There are countless other examples here, too, and we see them every day.

Not that the devil, if he exists, is some totally random evildoer. One might also consider the favorite targets. Christianity looms large.

Limbo has already gone by the boards. It was described back in my grade school days as a place of natural happiness (but without seeing God) for those who managed to die “good,” but were never baptized. It never applied to me, of course, but I remember thinking that it sounded preferable to an eternity of perpetual adoration.

EDITOR’S NOTE: I'm perplexed by what Dad meant by the last line. Is he saying he once thought it was preferable to live in Limbo than to adore some omniscient being? Or is he alluding to some dissatisfaction with the doting he received? Or something else?

Original sin goes back to Adam and Eve and the serpent in Genesis. Eve ate the forbidden fruit and talked Adam into joining her. The first consequence was getting booted out of the Garden of Eden. The more serious consequence was that they, and all their descendants, were henceforth denied heaven unless and until they were redeemed. Christians believe that redemption was provided by Jesus Christ and, in Catholic and many Protestant beliefs, the sacrament of Baptism. We discussed Baptism in 12.1 so I won’t belabor it here.

I also will not belabor the justice of holding children responsible for the sins of their parents. If that is divine justice, who am I to question it? On the other hand we should consider the question of parents. For those of us who accept, or at least acknowledge the possibility of evolution as our origin, there were no single set of parents for the human race. The Catholic church accepts evolution. We were not doomed because Eve ate an apple.

One could argue that as we evolved into homo sapiens in a way deemed unacceptable to our creator. Given a statistical universe, that’s a possibility and a possible justification for the belief in Original sin. Moses might have looked around and decided mankind had some really bad traits. Where did they come from? One answer is the Devil, but there’s another, simpler one.

Evolution is, as Darwin surmised, survival of the fittest. Unfortunately, there is some truth to the old adage that “nice guys finish last.” In the human species, and all the others for that matter, it was not the kind and loving members who moved forward, it was the strong, greedy, ruthless predators. With the onset of reason at the dawn of humanity one would expect a tendency toward good, but lurking beneath it was this genetic blueprint for evil. We were, and still are, “bipolar,” and reason may require a bit of a boost to gain the upper hand. Hence, redemption.

Many, of course, may be unwilling to abandon a belief in Adam and Eve, evolution or no evolution. It is certainly conceivable that evolution did produce one set of “humans” only. There would have been a few “half-breeds” around for a while (some of them could have provided mates for Adam and Eve’s children, solving another problem) but Adam and Eve would start everyone’s family tree. In that case maybe it was the apple after all.

Of course it can. The church has remained the church for 2000 years, during which, while remaining faithful to its core beliefs, it has reversed or greatly modified its teachings on the following points. Almost all of these changes, in my view, were positive changes resulting in a better and more enlightened church.

a) The geocentric universe.

The early Christians accepted the bible in a totally literal sense. That is understandable. It certainly never occurred to anyone that those myriad stars they saw were in fact suns.

b) Evolution

!!! Need some research here. What was the church’s opinion when the “Origin of the Species” first appeared?

!!!!!!!!!

c) The death penalty

Probably the worst of the sins or mistakes of the Catholic church occurred during the shameful period of the inquisitions. Heresy was punishable by death, and not a pleasant one. Generally burning at the stake. This was often imposed even after the “heretic” recanted. Presumably it burned away the sin, making salvation possible. (Perhaps the church had temporarily forgotten about the sacrament of penance which was supposed to accomplish that.)

Mercifully, the inquisitions (no doubt prompted more by greed and power than by religion) finally ended, but the church continued to condone, if not support, the death penalty right up to the reign of John Paul II.

Its opposition is currently a moral, but not doctrinal opposition. Catholics may, and I do, believe it is justifiable if not imperative in some extreme circumstances. The present teaching is that it is justifiable when necessary to protect society, but once other methods such as imprisonment are perfected it is no longer justifiable since it precludes the possibility of atonement and repentance.

d) Warfare

See topic 21.

e) Limbo

See topic 18.

f) Mass in the vernacular.

The standard answer, when I was an altar boy, was that the mass must remain in Latin to avoid any errors in translation or meaning, since other languages are living languages and thus subject to change. (Think of the meaning of “gay”!) One might have thought that the ceremony was dictated by Christ himself. Certainly the language was lofty, beautiful, and unchanging, but no one understood it.

Pope John XXIII decided this was foolish and the council of Vatican II changed it. Not without angst, of course. Many Catholics were aghast, some going so far as to form their own rebel sect of “old Catholics.” It was a change, but the change has been absorbed. In fact a recent edict by the Vatican, requiring that the English translation conform more closely to the literal Latin, is being met by some opposition from Catholics used to the current language.

g) Change in the necessity of sacramental baptism.

This was a problem in the early church. While they may have dismissed the heathens, what about the soon-to-be Christian baby who unfortunately died before the prescribed ritual could be performed? The result of this angst was Limbo (see section 18).

While still a requirement as a member of the Catholic church (and the church is certainly entitled to its requirements), there is now an alternative called baptism of desire, which offers salvation not only to unbaptized infants but to virtually everyone (assuming a good life).

h) Major relaxation in rules for marriage annulment.

I remember, in religion classes in Catholic high school, that the grounds for annulment were pretty much limited to having never consummated the marriage (i.e. no sex). Since such diverse people as Frank Sinatra and Ted Kennedy, after raising families, have managed to obtain one, that’s obviously no longer the case.

j) Attitude toward Judaism and other religions.

When I was a boy in Catholic grade school, the consensus of the nuns was that non-Christians were probably doomed. Protestants, since they were generally baptized (it doesn’t require a priest), had a shot. Not much of a shot, though, since most of them would probably commit a mortal sin (and lots of things were mortal sins even if you didn’t have to go to mass on Sunday). Without the sacrament of Penance they were probably toast, too. The Jews, of course, were responsible for killing Christ, and how much worse can it get? Attending a non-Catholic service was pretty much verboten. (I think we might have been able to go to a funeral.)

All that has changed. The Church has apologized to the Jewish people for its brutal and intolerant past. It has reached out to protestants, seeking common ground. Attendance at protestant services—even for a marriage—is no longer forbidden. The church has even reached out to non-Christian religions, most notably Islam.

k) Celibacy in the Priesthood (Imposed)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

24.0 AGNOSTICISM

The agnostic contends that there is no real way to be certain. He or she has a point which we’ve already made. But agnosticism is a huge tent, encompassing members from pious to amoral. I often have to ask myself why I don’t believe that I’m an agnostic, given my various doubts. I suppose the real answer is that my prayers seem to get answered. It could be luck, but I’m not generally that lucky. And what do I have to gain by risking it?

I do agree with the agnostic contention that there is no way to be certain. What this means to me is that religious fanatics, willing to battle over some item or items of their creed, are not the long-term solution—they are the problem. There is a Latin proverb, and I forget the Latin, which translates to “Often wrong but always certain.” This is the mindset of the fanatic which so exasperates the agnostic.

Considering the few clues (other than conscience) which our presumed creator has given us, I can’t believe He would come down too hard on the decent agnostic.

EDITOR’S NOTE:

I have a couple of comments here. First and foremost, I’m surprised that Dad would write, “I’m not generally that lucky.” In the overall scheme of things, given his childhood and family, station in life, attributes, longevity, etc., he would have to be considered more fortunate than the vast majority of people. Perhaps he’s instead talking about the roll of the die and other statistical occurrences, but even so, I find the assertion unfounded. In fact, the only reason I can imagine he’d say such a thing is to buttress his belief in prayer, which in turn allows him to maintain his non-agnostic credentials.

Secondly, although I like the phrase “Often wrong but always certain,” I could find nothing on the internet to suggest that it had an ancient Roman origin. The only attribution found was that it was first said by John F. Kennedy’s speech writer Theodore Sorenson (see here). Whatever its origin, per this site, the Latin translation is crebro errat dubitat numquam.

I remember, a few years back, when Dolly the sheep was cloned. The then Archbishop of Philadelphia, Cardinal Bevelaqua, started his pastoral letter with “There will never be another ewe—well, not any more!” He was not pleased. Many are not pleased. And in his most recent state of the union message, George Bush called on Congress to pass legislation banning all human cloning. Alas, the genie is out of the bottle. Apparently, it can be done, therefore it will be done.

I am sure that in the near future we will be confronted with a human clone. Rather than simply railing against it, we should consider how to treat and hopefully control it.

First off, what is a clone? The technician takes a cell from you or me, or more likely from some far richer or more glamorous or egocentric person, removes the nucleus (the genetic code) and implants it in the egg of a female donor after her genetic nucleus has been removed. That modified egg then goes into her, or some other female’s uterus, and develops into a human embryo. What results, after all the kinks are worked out, is the genetic twin of the cell donor.

Is this another “you”? Of course not. It is another human being who may look a lot like you and have the same proclivities to, or immunities from, various diseases. But it will not be as close a match as a twin, and twins can turn out quite differently.

I am opposed to human cloning because of the immense societal dangers. Will couples, dedicated to football, gamble on having a robust and aggressive son or would they rather opt for a cell from Bart Starr, if they could get him to donate? The temptations could spread out to every field of human ambitions.

What if our forebears, the cavemen, had such a technology available? We might all be ambling brutes, dragging our mates home by the hair. Humanity has not “arrived,” it is an evolutionary process. Cloning would not promote evolution.

As I have indicated, this is not a work about answers. Unlike some of our current evangelists, I have no pipeline to God. This is a work about questions.

I have always been fascinated by the number of people who actually believe that their lives are somehow determined by the stars.

Astrology’s claim is that it can explain the vagaries of life through the horoscope (map of the heavens at one’s birth). The astrologer does this using the twelve signs (astronomical divisions of the heavens), twelve “houses” (another division of the map based on the instant and location of birth), ten planets (including the sun and the moon) scattered through the signs and houses, and five major aspects (angular relations between the planets). Every combination has its own meaning, so the astrologer has at his disposal about fifteen thousand ways to explain the chart.

Small wonder that the skilled practitioner can convincingly explain why Adolf Hitler was such a monster. If Hitler had turned out to be more like Mother Teresa, he or she would be able to explain that too. Astrology is a charming parlor game, but it has everything to do with the astrologer and, in my view, nothing to do with the stars.

Where did it come from? It came from antiquity, and back then there may even have been some rationale for at least the rudiments. A child born in the spring, in a rude shelter, and spending its early months in pleasant weather, might turn out a bit differently than one born in the fall who had to develop in a harsh winter. That, coupled with man’s insatiable desire to seek meaning, and the ancients’ fascination with the stars, is probably what got the ball rolling.

What keeps it rolling? Probably the same thing that keeps conspiracy theories rolling. We hate uncertainty, and we hate to accept disastrous results from some trivial cause. When a lone nutcase kills the most powerful man in the world, we look for some more sinister cause. When a beloved princess dies in a routine accident, we look for foul play. When a few inexperienced “pilots” plunge our nation into chaos, we look for some grander plot. Why? Because the randomness of existence is frightening, and how could our God permit it? But His statistical universe does permit it, and our task is to evolve to the point that we no longer need these props.

(Thoughts) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Snippets (to be incorporated where applicable)

A) Why the conflict?

Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same one God, an all-powerful God of mercy and justice. We share a similar, if not identical, code of ethics and morality. An outside observer might reasonably assume that three such great religions would exist in harmony with lively but civil debate over differences.

Our history, of course, has demonstrated the exact opposite. To be fair, one might point to the Christians as being the first and worst offenders. Once elevated to the state religion of the Roman Empire, Christianity began to lash out against the Jews. Thankfully, after centuries of unspeakable atrocities, that conflict, at least among the tolerant majority, seems to be coming to an end.

Islam arrived a bit later. It converted a mainly pagan populace to a monotheistic belief and served as the reservoir of ancient wisdom for centuries, while the remnants of the Roman Empire descended into the Dark Ages. Unfortunately, in the process, it overran and occupied the “Holy Land.” This led to the infamous Crusades, a horrendous bloodbath motivated, I suspect, more by politics and greed than by any religious zeal. It certainly poisoned the waters. The stark animosity between Islam and the Jews is unquestionably the result of the creation of the Jewish state of Israel.

Ending the conflict between Christians and Jews was primarily a matter of growing up and getting past ancient prejudices. Ending the conflict between the current coalition of Christians and Jews against Islam (and, yes, such a conflict does exist) is more complex. With the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the acceleration of the colonial age, Islam became the religion of the “have-nots” and the oppressed. It is that today. In such an environment, and recalling their glorious history, the Islamic world is plagued by two totally human afflictions: bitterness at their lot and vulnerability to those despots who exonerate them by shifting the blame while plundering the subjects they claim they are defending.

The one solution stares us in the face, but it is hardly a quick or an easy one.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

B) Euthanasia and Suicide

While euthanasia seems to be making some progress, though certainly not in Catholicism or the fundamental sects, suicide remains a primal taboo in most Judeo-Christian and Islamic communities. (The Islamic suicide bombers have managed to convince themselves that it’s martyrdom.) Let‘s consider euthanasia first.

Euthanasia, or “mercy killing,” is putting a hopeless and suffering victim out of his, her, or its misery. We certainly have no problem with it when it involves animals. We routinely put them to death, even when they’re not suffering. But then, they’re animals. How about humans—specifically consenting humans—who for pain or whatever reason have no desire to continue living? Can it be permissible to end their suffering, and if not, why not?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And now, for the biggest taboo—suicide. The nuns taught us that this is a sure path to hell since there’s no opportunity for repentance and forgiveness. Of course that’s not necessarily true. Maybe for a bullet to the head, but for most methods there’s time for reflection.