If someone is especially arrogant, it’s not uncommon for people to say: “He really thinks he’s God’s gift to….women, soccer, the sales team, whatever.” It’s not meant as a compliment. It’s a put-down.
We don’t wish to be seen by others in this way. At the same time, Jesus does want us to see ourselves as God’s gift. “Father,” he prayed in today’s gospel, “they (meaning us!) are your gift to me.”
We are God’s gift to Jesus. And we aren’t a gift he wants to return or exchange. We’re a gift he wants. Because he prays for us, we might even say we’re a gift he asks for; he included our names in his wish list.
But as today’s gospel reminds us, Jesus does far more than pray for us. He also dwells with us and in us, shares his glory with us, reveals his name to us, guides us to perfection, unites us with our Christian brothers and sisters, and showers us with the same abundant, unconditional love he’s shared with the Father from all eternity.
Jesus tells us this, not to make us arrogant or smug, but to fill us with gratitude and hope. So hopefully no one will put us down by saying we think we’re God’s gift to something. But we can thank Jesus, that he embraces us, as God’s gift to him.
We considered recently the progress that the Pro-life movement is making in changing hearts (HERE). We pondered that over 61% of Americans want abortion to be illegal in most circumstances. In today’s paper is more hopeful news as three Southern States consider legislation that would outlaw abortion in most circumstances, and go so far as to declare that life begins with conception. Children in the womb thus have the same rights as child of any age.
If this legislation goes forward, there will surely be appeals that will likely wind up in the Supreme Court of the United States, and bring the debate on life and personhood back into focus.
That such bills would be moving forward, along with a steady growth of legal restrictions on abortion in a total of up to 39 States, would have been almost unthinkable 10 years ago. But increasingly, the absurdity of abortion becomes more and more obvious as medical science makes it clear that a unique human being comes into existence at conception. Attempting to fix the moment when life begins at any later time is pure fantasy, and more and more Americans know this. We have reached the point where it may be politically possible in three states to legally recognize this sure fact.
Not only can we thank medical science for this information, but profound credit it due to the prophetic voice of the pro-life movement in this country.
I want to share an article from Reuters News Agency and add comments. As usual, the original text is in bold, black, italics, and my comments are in plain red text. This is an excerpt, the full article is here: Louisiana House May Conisder Bill to Ban Abortion
By Kathy Finn
NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) – The Louisiana state House of Representatives on Tuesday evening was set to consider a bill that would ban abortions and launch a battle to overturn the historic Roe v. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The bill by Republican state Rep. John LaBruzzo defines human life as beginning at the moment of conception and makes it a crime to terminate a pregnancy except when the birth would endanger the mother’s life. The measure would repeal previous state exceptions that allowed abortion when a pregnancy results from rape or incest.This final point flows from personhood, doesn’t it. If the unborn child is a human person, then that person has a right to life, even when third parties have done terrible things related to him or her. A person does not lose their right to live based on the crimes of third parties.
“Our first intent is to save unborn babies’ lives,” LaBruzzo told Reuters. “Our second intent is to have an opportunity to mount a challenge that makes it to the Supreme Court.” Yes it is wonderful to see these mounting challenges. 150 years ago the absurdity of slavery began to occur to a nation founded on liberty and justice. We could no longer square our practice with our national vision, and so, support for slavery waned. Either all men were created equal and endowed by their creator with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or not. Slavery simply could not be justified in the light of that sweeping national premise.
Little by little, we are winning the battle in a similar way. Abortion is appearing increasingly absurd. That absurdity is increasingly clear in the light of what we know about when a distinct life begins, and what it therefore means to be a person, deserving of rights and respect. Assigning the beginning of human life to anything but the moment of conception is not only medically absurd, but appears to an increasing number of Americans to be purely arbitrary. “Arbitrary” is just another way of saying “unjust” in this case. The legal cases being brought forward about personhood are a wonderful focal instance of this insight. The only rational, legal basis for personhood is conception. The determination of any other time is an exercise of purely arbitrary and raw power where the State or the judiciary takes up the role of God. I am convinced that more and more Americans see it this way.
Marjorie Esman, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, said the bills are “a nationwide movement to erode women’s access to health care.” Abortion is not healthcare.
Louisiana joins two other Southern states — Mississippi and Alabama — in attempting the most stringent abortion restrictions seen in the nearly four decades since the landmark Supreme Court ruling making abortion legal. Notice the word “stringent.” Why not the word “protective” instead? Further I would replace the word “landmark” with something like “horrifying” or “infamous” or “flawed.” Sure, these words would make the report “biased,” but no less biased than words like “stringent” and “landmark” bias it.
Since the High Court in 1973 upheld a woman’s right to seek an abortion in Roe v. Wade, states have passed a wide range of abortion laws aimed at regulating when and under what circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion. No state has so far succeeded in banning abortion altogether, though many have tightened restrictions on the procedure in recent years.
According to the Guttmacher Institute in Washington, D.C., which conducts research and policy analysis related to reproductive health, 39 states prohibit abortions after a specified point in pregnancy. Many states also impose requirements ranging from minimum waiting periods to state-mandated counseling.That’s very impressive: 39 states have moved to limit abortion in some way. Pray God this is the slow but steady progress we need and that it will continue.
Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, says about 14 states have this year made some attempt at limiting abortion. “We have seen the most abortion restrictions adopted in one year that we have ever seen,” she said.Praise God!
Two of the most aggressive efforts are under way in Alabama and Mississippi. The measures define life as beginning at conception and would ban abortion. The Alabama Senate approved its bill, which is now pending in the House, and Mississippi residents will vote on the issue in November.And if they pass, there is likely a sure trip to the Supreme Court for a kind of show-down on Roe. Even if these laws are upheld, it is conceivable Roe could also continue to stand in some form. But I am getting a sense that Roe’s days may be fast eroding. I hope too that, in the meantime, the bishops and local pastors in these states will work hard for passage, and ask for prayer and fasting. If things move to a nationwide level I hope too that prayer and fasting will be central weapons. Maybe American Catholics could pledge 50 million rosaries for the over 50 million abortions performed, as the cases move to the national level. Pray, Pray Pray!!
“What the bill says is that life begins at conception, and a baby who is pre-born should enjoy all the rights that a 1-day-old baby does.”Amen!
I recently saw a very well done video on Mary and Jesus in the Qur’an. If you get a moment to watch this video below, it is a real eye-opener, not only because of its depiction of the story of Mary and Jesus in the Qur’an, but also because it depicts Muslim interest and devotion to Mary. It is a non minute video. But please consider watching it, it is most informative and encouraging.
We have witnessed in recent days the personal meltdown of a national politician. His private sins have come to public light, and his personal life is probably in ruins.
Disclaimer 1 – I want to say I had never heard of Congressman Anthony D. Weiner before last week. I still know nothing of his voting record, only that he is a Democrat from New York, serving in the House of Representatives here in DC. Whatever his political leanings, they are not significant for this post, because I want to talk about us, about this nation and how we behave when very personal things like this come to light. Some commentators may wish to tell me about his political views, or indicate that Democrats do this to Republicans, (they do), and that there is a double standard in the media (there probably is). But none of these is the point of my blog. The point I wish to explore is the soul of this nation, and what we do to the wounded among us.
Disclaimer 2 – Anthony Weiner has sinned. Indeed, from an objective point of view, he has sinned gravely. He has strayed from marriage vows, engaged in lewd conduct, indulged lust, likely made unwanted sexual advances, and drawn others into lust. He also lied, as do most who get caught in shameful situations. Like any sinner, like any of us sinners, he ought to repent and seek the forgiveness of God, his wife, family, and all others he hurt or offended. As to whether he should resign, I have no strong opinion. As a citizen I see no real need to demand it, unless significant civil laws were broken. But in the end, I want to be clear that I do not make light of the sins he has committed, and I preach and teach against such things regularly.
But, I want to ask about us, about our national soul in matters like this. I have grave doubts about our rush to utterly bring to ruin those who struggle with personal sins of this sort, and also matters like substance abuse.
Lets be clear, we live in a profoundly hypersexualized culture. Sex is everywhere, sexual misbehavior and promiscuity in our culture is beyond epidemic, it is beyond pandemic, it has become endemic. We casually display and treat adultery, fornication and now homosexual activity in our movies and TV sitcoms. We have normalized sex outside of marriage, and living together before marriage. We even sexualize children in our culture, as we have discussed on this blog before. Add to all this misbehavior the toll of AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion, teen pregnancy, divorces, broken families, and hurt and confused children being raised in non-ideal settings in ever larger numbers.
And Internet pornography is a huge, utterly huge problem in our culture. Ever larger numbers of Americans not only look at it regularly, but many are also powerfully addicted to it. And the addiction is addiction in the worse sense, for they not only compulsively view it, but need more and more of the stuff, to satisfy the longing. And what is viewed must become edgier and edgier to “turn them on.” It’s big business. The pornography industry has larger revenues than Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple and Netflix combined. According to compiled numbers from respected news and research organizations, every second, $3,075.64 is being spent on pornography. More on the truly staggering Internet porn numbers here: Internet Pornography Statistics.
As a culture we have become very ill, sexually speaking.
All of this makes the piling on when a public figure “falls from grace” quite astonishing. It is very true that Congressman Weiner has a problem and has done something that is very wrong. But the fact is also true that WE have a problem as a culture. Our leaders are drawn from our ranks and reflect us. In a culture sexually confused, debased and out of control, we will see our leaders reflect our collective ills. Every now and then, it would seem that we don’t like what we see in the mirror, and we go into attack and destroy mode.
It is a common trait that individuals will often be most annoyed by people who subconsciously remind them of themselves. If this is true at the individual level, it may well also be true at the collective level. And this may explain our strange need to pile on when someone has done something sexually shameful. Deep down inside, most people know, despite all the rationalizations and defenses our culture presents for its sexual “liberation,” that what we are doing, overlooking , or celebrating, is wrong. Yes, we know, deep down, underneath all the “stinking thinking” that fornication, adultery, pornography, immodesty, lewd conduct, and homosexual activity is wrong; we know. But we try to suppress the voice of our conscience. We smother it with hired experts, presumption, talk of liberation, and other versions of the previously mentioned stinking thinking.
Another way we try to assuage our guilt is to try and find some “poor slob” who is worse off than we are and say, “Look at that terrible person.” And for a moment we feel better.
Yet another way is to find a scape goat. In the Old Testament, on the Feast of Yom Kippur, two goats were designated to carry the guilt of Israel. One was slaughtered and offered in sacrifice. The other, the “scape goat,” was driven into the desert in order to carry away the guilt of the people. The scape goat bore the sin of the people. And this bespeaks not only a religious ceremony, but also a recognition by God that we often need something to focus our sin on, and ceremoniously drive it away. Other forms of this are writing one’s sins on a paper then burning it, or an addict smashing a liquor bottle in renunciation of sin.
But people are not meant to be scape goats. No where are we directed to destroy others for our sins, or drive them into the desert.
So, Congressman Weiner has done a bad thing. But, collectively we are also behaving very badly. Matters such as these are very private and ought to handled in a private manner. He has done something very shameful that has briefly come to light. As Christians we should use moment like this to reflect.
But I pray God, we who bear the name Christian are not part of the piling on, the ridicule, scorn and derision, that the wider culture is currently engaged in, and the media has rushed to cover like sharks in bloody water. There is probably not one of us, who does not have things we have done, we would prefer not come to light. We ought to be very careful before we engage in finger-pointing, and the glee that bespeaks a kind of Schadenfreude. Even if one were to conclude the Congressman does not have “our kind of politics” (and a lot of this is about politics), he is a human being who has ship-wrecked his life, and needs our prayers. So does his family, and the victims of his antics.
On a personal note, I am a priest, and I often deal with people who have done some pretty sinful and painful things, people who have made a ship-wreck of their life. And while the Church must clearly and prophetically speak against sin and injustice, she must also remain a hospital where sinners find relief, treatment and mercy. It is not unlike doctors, who night and day cry out against smoking, but must still treat patients who come to them with pulmonary problems and cancers related to smoking, now or in the past. Sinners (all of us) need the truth, but they also need compassion, love, and mercy, along with treatment. This is the Christian way, and as a priest I have grown to understand it more and more deeply.
In terms of sexuality, it may be that too many pulpits have often been silent about the serious nature of these sorts of sins. But I’ll say, not mine. Yet when some one comes to my door (or confessional) after a shameful fall, I am called to show them mercy and give encouragement, so they can start again, and rebuild their lives, often shattered.
Jesus said to the adulterous woman: I do not condemn you, Go now and leave your life of sin (John 8:11). But to this sinful and adulterous generation (cf Mk 8:38) the Lord is more pointed: If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her (Jn 8:7).
I pray that none of us who bear the name Christian have stones in our hands just now. A brother among us has sinned. Will we pile on, or pray on? Someone needs our prayers. I think I know what the Lord wants. I surely know what he did and said.
Photo Credit: Scapegoat by William Holman Hunt in the Liverpool Museum
When I’m behind the wheel, I try to make driving time into prayer time. I pray for my family, my ministry, and my parishioners; I ask to be a better husband, father, and priest; I lift up the sick and the deceased, and the special needs of people God has placed in my path. I also thank God for my blessings, and even some of the crosses I bear.
I don’t always offer all these prayers on any given day. Sometimes I have a short commute, and sometimes I get lazy and daydream or listen to the radio instead. Whenever I find myself losing the motivation to pray, however, I find it helpful to remember that wherever I am and whatever I’m doing, Jesus is constantly interceding for all of us.
This is precisely what Jesus does in today’s gospel through his “High Priestly Prayer.” The “hour” of his passion and crucifixion had arrived. Yet even then, Jesus prays for his friends. He does so still, as he reigns in heaven.
Our Lord’s example challenges us to take prayers of intercession seriously. Through intercession, we can change lives and even the course of history; we acknowledge our complete dependence upon God; and we can continue the priestly work of Jesus, in our world, today.
Some years ago I read a humorous but poignant story about public prayer at a school graduation. It took place during the time when tide had just begun to turn against religious displays etc. in the public square, somewhere in the late 1980s. Up until that time prayer by a local minister, priest or rabbi was part of graduation, almost without exception. We certainly had it at my public high school graduation in 1979.
–
But by the early 1980s the ACLU and other organizations began to insist that prayer of any sort at a public gathering was wrong and violated the (so-called) “separation of Church and State,” (a phrase that does NOT occur in the US Constitution). And here is where the story picks up:
–
The class valedictorian of a local Virginia high school (I forget which) was a committed Christian, and also something of a class clown. He was told that, under no circumstances was he to invite his classmates to pray or to mention God in a prayerful way and that, if he did, the microphone would be turned down. Annoyed but not without plans, he “conspired” with five of his classmates to edge prayer into the talk in a creative way. He went to the podium, looked at the crowd, looked at his notes, and looked up again. The atmosphere was tense for others had heard of the forbidding of prayer, and the community was quite divided. Would he do it? Suddenly, he sniffed, as if to sneeze. “Ah……Ah…..Ah Chooo!” came the loud and rather staged sneeze. At once, five of his classmates rose to their feet and said loudly together: “God Bless you!” And the valedictorian said, “Amen!” Yes, there was prayer at graduation that year, and most of the crowd rose to their feet in tribute to the brief but powerful prayer that had been forbidden.
–
Last week the priests of our Archdiocese gathered to study the slow, but steady erosion of religious liberty in our American culture. We were presented with a broad range of incidents, court decisions, and examples from the medical world which painted the picture for us. Cardinal Wuerl well summarized the day in saying, We take for granted our religious freedom, but today it is under substantive while subtle challenge….We are in the midst of a sea change. We are being told that religion has no place in the marketplace, in the public forum.
–
It is one thing to request that the State, in its official capacity, refrain from sponsoring sectarian prayer. But it is another to tell believers that they are not allowed to make religious expression, refer to God, or pray in any sort of public way. Further, religious exemptions, traditionally granted in matters where moral matters and State policy collide, are gradually being removed, never included, or interpreted so strictly that they can never apply. Catholic institutions are gradually being pressured to provide contraceptives in medical plans, cooperate in adoptions to gay couples, or single parents, provide spousal benefits to gay couples, and indirectly cooperate in providing abortion coverage by not being able to opt out of plans that provide such coverage.
–
But as the Cardinal points out, much of the erosion of religious liberty is subtle, carried out in incremental ways, hidden in the deep details of legislation, and strict interpretations of various judges. It requires the Church and other religious organizations to fight on multiple fronts in a wearying number of, often arcane but significant, legal minutia. At some level, the erosion of religious liberty is happening simply due to the repeated quality of the multiple legal maneuvers. The Church and other religious entities may win an individual battle in one case, only to have to face multiple appeals and similar battles in other jurisdictions. Keeping the faithful organized and alert, and having the legal resources in place to meet every challenge is difficult and this is part of the erosive technique.
–
Consider the following story from the Washington Examiner Op-Ed page reported and commented on by Ken Klukowski:
Like most high schools, Medina Valley Independent School District allows the class valedictorian to deliver a graduation address. This year’s valedictorian, Angela Hildenbrand, is a Bible-believing Christian. Many knew that Angela would give thanks to God for blessing her work as a student, and that she might offer a prayer. Alleging that hearing a prayer would cause serious and irreparable harm, one of Barry Lynn’s lawyers at Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AUSCS) filed suit for the agnostic family. A federal judge….issued an order that no prayers could be offered, and also that Angela could not utter certain words in her speech, including the phrase “bow your heads” or the specific words “prayer” or “amen.”
In other words, suppose Angela said, “As long as students have to take final exams, there will be prayer in schools. Can I hear an ‘amen’?” She would have violated the judge’s order twice, and could be thrown in jail.
The reality is, the judge’s order, not a prayer Angela might offer in her speech, violated the First Amendment. In 1992, the Supreme Court (wrongly) held 5-4 that high school graduation prayers violated the First Amendment Establishment Clause. Even then, though, the court’s holding was merely that a school could not organize the prayer or invite a clergyman to lead the prayer. In that moment, the clergyman is speaking for the government.
In this case, a student is given the stage not specifically to pray, but to speak about her values and priorities and to thank whomever she wishes for helping her succeed in school. Because she’s a private citizen (not a government agent), her speech is protected by the First Amendment Free Speech Clause. For government (including a judge) to censor her private speech is unconstitutional.
On June 4, the Fifth Circuit federal appeals court granted an emergency motion to reverse the district judge. So Angela’s speech proceeded as planned, including the now-controversial word “amen.” But don’t get your hopes up that sanity is making a comeback. [Story from the Washington Examiner]
So here, in the end, religious liberty won the day. So did free speech. But these sorts of suits and legal motions are increasingly widespread and the legal landscape is often shifting. And it is this steady, drip, drip, drip that is helping to erode religious liberty, and free speech related to religion.
The article rightly points out, the public school district is not officially mandating or even arranging for prayer to take place. What AUSCS argues is that the mere public mention of God by a private citizen of faith should be forbidden, that a religious person, asked to speak to a public gathering, cannot indicate that God was part of her success, or give public thanks and acknowledgment to God. It is indeed sad that any judge would agree with this, but increasingly this is the case. This case was won on appeal, but not every similar case has won or will be won in the future.
It is essential that we remain vigilant in matters such as these. It is the wish of some to exclude Christians, indeed all believers, from the public marketplace of ideas. There are increasing numbers of strident secularists who insist that the only legal place for religious expression, be inside a church building, or on church-owned property. This is not right or Constitutional:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion or the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution).
Christians and other religious individuals have no less a right to free speech, to assemble peaceably, or petition the government than any other group, or individual. Yet it is increasingly argued by many that, simply the fact that a religious perspective is involved, should exclude religious people altogether from having a place in the public setting. And thus we have the strange reality that in public schools, our children can be exposed to almost any philosophy, some of them aberrant and little supported by the general populace. Yet, even to refer to the Bible as an historical factor in this nation’s history is considered forbidden and may trigger a lawsuit. Condoms are freely distributed in most schools but the mere presence of a Bible is often greeted with hostility from school administrators.
There are legitimate debates to be had about the limits of interaction between the religious institutions and the State, about when and how citizens acting in a state sponsored role can speak of, or reference, religious matters. But no private citizen, such as Angela Hildenbrand, reference above should have their right to speech abridged by the government in the manner attempted by the judge. Christians have every right that other citizens do to speak to their values publicly, and seek to influence the public discussion.
We need to be alert in these matters and stay thirsty for justice.
An online message board asked: “Describe a time that contributed to your faith in God’s loving presence.” In response, one person wrote of caring for a dying friend; another spoke of struggling to raise two children after a painful divorce; and a third recalled nursing an elderly mother through a series of debilitating strokes.Each storyteller had learned to depend on the Lord for strength. Through faith, Jesus had replaced their fear with courage, and their anxiety with peace.
This was Jesus’ hope for his disciples in today’s gospel. Although they had just professed their belief in him, Jesus warned that they would soon abandon him at his crucifixion. Jesus knows how easy it is, when hardship strikes, for faith to be replaced by fear.
That’s why it’s important to cultivate our faith while things are going well. We can fill our days with prayer, count our blessings and give thanks to God; and be soaked in Scripture and sanctified by sacrament, so that when we face life’s inevitable difficulties, our faith will hold firm, instead of falling apart. We’ll know that when we can’t handle things on our own, we won’t have to, because Jesus is with us. This world will surely give us “trouble,” as Jesus said. But we can take courage, because he has “conquered the world.”
We have had numerous discussions here on the blog on the interrelationship of faith and the physical sciences. We live in a time of reductionist thinking wherein many reduce reality to the physically measurable. Theology and other disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, even history according to some, cannot be a part of what we know. Some go even further to deny absolutely the existence of anything beyond matter. Here are things emblematic of our times: reductionist, materialist, and a kind of idolatry of the merely physical sciences.
Indeed the very word “science” has come to mean for many, merely the physical sciences. But, traditionally, theology and philosophy were (and still are, according to many) considered to be sciences. They are sciences for they follow a method, or methods, they include peer review and are subjected to the laboratory of human experience and tested by time. Of their nature they do not usually include physical measurements, for they engage what is largely beyond the physically measurable. But until recently they were included among the sciences and had a pride of place in university settings.
And while many derisively dismiss philosophy and theology as sciences, the fact is they they do deal with what we all experience on a daily basis. For there are many non material things that humans beings actually and really experience that require study and explanation, synthesis, and discernment.
I was recently given a link to an article by my brother, John, which describes our modern tendencies and problems with reductionism, materialism and scientism. It is by Dr. Jeff Mirus over at Catholicculture.org. I want to present excerpts of a much longer article he wrote and make some comments of my own. Dr. Mirus’ original text is in black, bold, italic. My comments are in red, plain text. The full article is here: The Hammer and the Nail
[O]ne of the great problems we face in understanding human dignity is that by the materialistic, empirical or purely scientific account, both our self-understanding and our freedom are illusions. These terms require some explanation, and the explanation will reveal a tremendous blind spot in our culture’s view of knowledge.
The term materialistic is plain enough. If we insist that there is nothing in the wide world but matter, then we have to admit something that will risk our sanity, namely that it is only an illusion that we can somehow stand outside ourselves and reflect on our being (intellect) or that we can direct our lives according to freely made choices (will). These things [according to materialism] must be illusions because they are abilities which transcend what matter can produce. But to accept this is to deny our own perception of ourselves.
In other words, it is our experience, that we have a spiritual aspect about ourselves. We can consider things which are non-material and concepts such as justice, love, mercy, sincerity, beauty, moral rectitude, and so forth. Further we have a sense of “I,” that “I” exist, a capacity of introspection and a well defined understanding that I am distinct from things and others around me. Yet again, there are longings for things beyond the physical world such as unity, acceptance, transcendence, fulfillment, and that ultimate sense of meaning beyond who we simply are, here and now. Clearly, as a theologian I attribute these human longings as pointing to the ultimate longing for God. But, even to the unbeliever, the spiritual insights and thoughts of the human person are empirically evident. These insights are “empirical” in the sense that they rooted in real and actual experience, what we truly experience within our very self. They are also things we are able to verify as existing in other human beings.
For the materialist, these sorts of experiences, these empirical data, must be treated either as an illusion (as our author suggests) or as emanations of brain chemistry not yet fully understood. There is the modern reductionist tendency to explain everything based on physical causation. I remember years ago an a secular and materialist attempt to explain the rather peculiar human experience of consciousness. The author titled his work: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind [1] A reductionist and materialist theory, to be sure!
But the point is that we all experience these sorts of non physical things in our psyche and, as our author goes on to develop, there is a rather twisted and contorted attempt to either dismiss such experiences as of any account or to redefine “empirical” are referring only to physical matter.
In our culture, empiricism is closely tied to what is physically measurable. But spiritual things are, by definition, immeasurable. Therefore, a [modern] empirical account of reality omits the spiritual, and a culture which comes to believe that the only possible solid knowledge is empirical knowledge necessarily either ignores the spiritual or denies it altogether.
Again, it is the MODERN notion that empirical equals physically measurable. For it is clear that very real things are not always physically measurable. For example, we cannot physically measure the degree to which we love someone, long for something, experience sorrow over some situation etc. Yet, these are real, and in a very real way, they are empirical, for they are observable, or shall we say, something we all clearly experience.
Some may argue for brain mapping etc. but here too is a reductionist attempt to reduce non-physical things to the purely physical. For even if there is an aspect of the brain, or central nervous system that is engaged by these human experiences, the answer as to why these non-material aspects are experienced by us, remains something that science is ill-equipped to explain. Justice is not a material thing, it does not go out for a walk or sit down to breakfast. Neither do longing, acceptance, serenity or humor go out to beach together for vacation. These things are real, but they are not material.
This brings us to the idea of a purely scientific account of man, in the modern sense of science, meaning not simply a branch of knowledge, but knowledge acquired by an experimental or empirical method. The scientific approach to knowledge is not wrong in itself, but it is only one approach, and it is necessarily partial. [Exactly, we are not anti-science, to be so would be foolish. But we do accept that science has limits].
Sadly, the modern world suffers from a dearth of other approaches. In particular, it suffers from the absence of a different sort of science, a different approach to knowledge, the approach of theology. Because of the materialistic and empirical biases of our culture, theology is no longer taken seriously as a branch of human knowledge. What was once considered the queen of the sciences, has been gradually eliminated from higher education. This gives rise to a very curious phenomenon: Whenever one branch of study is consistently absent, other branches of study will encroach upon its territory. [Pay attention, what follows is very important].
In his brilliant work The Idea of a University, Cardinal Blessed John Henry Newman argues that, as a university is by definition devoted to the full range of disciplines or branches of knowledge, it is a mistake and a distortion to exclude theology. Every branch of knowledge, Newman rightly notes, is tempered and improved by all the other branches, [YES!] as each branch has its own tools and methods, and each learns a certain care and modesty in its conclusions, [YES!] more accurately discerning their application and scope, in relation to what is discovered by other tools and instruments in other regions of investigation. Thus, when one branch of knowledge is left out or, worse, barred from the university or from “sophisticated” discourse generally, others encroach upon its domain, reaching conclusions which are unwarranted and, indeed, unattainable by their own proper methods.
And herein lie a lot of modern problems and distortions. We have become well aware of how science encroaches on faith in recent years. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God per se, that is not its field. And yet, in our times scientists make claims that God does not exist. But their statements are not scientific statements when they speak like this. They are making theological and philosophical claims, for physical science, by definition cannot measure the non-physical or render scientifically based conclusion on the existence or non-existence of the spiritual. Most scientists are not trained in the disciplines of theology and philosophy and are are no more qualified to opine on such matters than “some dude” at the local bar. Yet, as our author goes on to observe:
Thus, on every side, we find well-known scientists, lionized by our cultural elites, writing briefs for atheism, pronouncing that evolutionary biology proves the non-existence of God. [Exactly. But of course biology cannot prove the non-existence of a spiritual being].
And to be fair, some on the religious side have tried to exclude too many aspects of physical science, which has a legitimate and necessary role in human knowledge. In the last century, an often fundamentalist hostility to science has been evident among some Christians who see the Scriptures especially, as a scientific account of creation, rather than a theological account which, while having scientific aspects, also uses analogy, metaphor, poetry and speaks in a general, rather than a consistently specific manner. Further, they see Scripture as a “sole source” of revealed truth. From the Catholic point of view, God’s “Book of Scripture” does not contradict His “Book of Creation.” Both are revelation, and both speak truth to us, and the truth does not ultimately contradict itself. While there are certain scientific theories that at times come into apparent conflict with Scripture or dogmatic theology, and must be rejected or distinguished, this does not mean that science itself is wrong as a discipline. Neither does it mean that on-going discussions cannot help both disciplines (theology and physical science) to come to a deeper understanding of the one truth. The fact is, I generally find that a lot of scientific discoveries confirm my faith and encourage a sense of wonder and awe. If grace builds on nature, as we teach, then understanding nature is of benefit to us spiritually.
Physical Science too benefits from theology and philosophy by acknowledging that many of its processes of deduction and method are descended from theological and philosophical methodology. Philosophy especially is able to help science reveal possible flaws in reasoning, and also help science to stay within its own defined scope. And that scope is the material, the physical world. But physical science does well to maintain humility and to accept that that there may be things beyond its scope which it is not able to render an account of, one way or the other. If not, the physical sciences fall into the error of scientism. Scientism is the error which reduces everything to matter and insists that nothing exists outside the system which physical science can measure, a conclusion that can, in no way, be proved, scientifically.
In the end, perhaps the problem is best expressed in a very popular aphorism: When your only tool is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. The only trouble is, everything is not a nail. The human person perceives that instinctively, but in our culture we lack the tools to explicate the momentous truths which follow from such an irreducible fact.
Yes, I am convinced that this is going to have to be our way back. Basic human experience. And that experience, if we are honest, shouts to us the existence of the spiritual and the transcendent.
Even physical science rests on the mystic and metaphysical notion that reality is “intelligible.” For intelligibility bespeaks meaning and asks questions about purpose, direction and points, ultimately outside the physical (to the metaphysical) to the question, why? Intelligibility presumes also the great mystery of a questioning soul. For why do we seek to understand at all? The animals, who are physically very like us, do not seem to ask such questions or probe deeper relations. Intelligibility also presumes that there is actual meaning and purpose to be found. Still further it presumes that “I” exist at all, to discern it, and that my mind is not engaged by illusions and shadows. Why does anything exist at all and what does it mean to exist? How do we define it and by what means do we discover it?
These are deeper questions than they may seem. Reality has a mystical dimension that artists, poetics, writers, philosophers and theologians have pondered for centuries, long before there ever was a scientific method, (developed, by the way, in the largely Catholic and Christian universities of the West, and respectful of the Judeo-Christian insights of natural law and the Wisdom tradition).
We have to continue to engage the modern world in the understanding that things run deeper and more wonderfully than we can physically describe. Deep down most people know and experience this truth. Life has more meaning than just the physical. A beloved spouse is not just another body, they are a person with all the mystery that entails. A kiss is not just two lips meeting, it is two souls sharing the breath of mystical life. A house is not just a physical structure, it is a home with all the non-material meaning that includes. My longings are not just the firing of brain synapses and serotonin, but the sigh of my soul for completion and fulfillment, for something infinite, for something (some ONE) other, for God.
Dr. Mirus is right, life is more than a nail and we need more than a hammer to understand it. Deep down we know this, and this is where we must engage the modern person. We ought to remain respectful of physical science and the wonders it has offered us, yet we must also demand more: a deeper vision that respects the full human experience. There’s more to life.
Please pardon a little science humor and accept my full admission that we also have some real geeks in theology too!
If someone is especially arrogant, it’s not uncommon for people to say: “He really thinks he’s God’s gift to….women, soccer, the sales team, whatever.” It’s not meant as a compliment. It’s a put-down.
