A couple of days ago, I wrote a somewhat rambling piece about Voice of the "Faithful" (VOT"F") Chicagoland's open letter to the Holy Father*. I focused on one passage in particular, namely the one in which VOT"F"C attempts to rebut the "metaphor argument" (e.g. the "sexual symbolism" argument) against ordaining women to the Catholic priesthood**. However, I had time only to consider the first half of that passage, which concerns their mistaken view as to the role of a priest. Today, I'd like to spend some time considering the second part of that passage, in which they make an even more grievous (and an even less well founded) error concerning Christ himself. Let's have another look at the passage in question, this time with the emphasis on its second part:

"The metaphor argument, that the priest should be male because he represents Jesus, the male priest, is simply fallacious. The priest does not represent Christ, but serves as leader of the community of men and women worshiping God in communion with Christ. Further, since the Risen Christ is neither male nor female, any gender based symbolism ascribed to the presider is meaningless" (emphasis mine).

In discussing the possibly of the Church's ordaining of women to the priesthood, I generally like to note that the Church's teaching is infallible, and that it cannot be changed. For me as a Catholic, this means that the teaching is decisive, authoritative, binding (both to my intellect and my will), and final. One tactic which I have noticed increasingly is the insistence that the teaching is not infallible--this even by some Catholics who presumably do accept that the Church can teaching infallibly on matters of doctrine and morality. Their argument hinges largely on an interpretation from Canon Law (itself fallible) which states that in order for a teaching to be infallible, there can be no speculation as to whether or not the doctrine has been taught infallibly.

Such speculation exists in the case of the teaching regarding priestly ordination. Therefore, it is concluded by some that the teaching against ordaining women to the priesthood is not infallible. This speculation is apparently not dispelled by Pope John Paull II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which stated rather conclusively that

Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone. This tradition has also been faithfully maintained by the Oriental Churches....Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you. But with modesty and fear, having a good conscience: that whereas they speak evil of you, they may be ashamed who falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. (1 Peter 3:15-16).

Yesterday on my Equus nam Veritas blog, I wrote about epistemology, belief, and faith, and how these things are related to each other. In writing that piece, I wrote that many people who are unbelievers simply choose not to believe--that their lack of faith is an act of the will as much as of the intellect--but noted (in the footnotes) that the opposite charge may be fairly leveled at believers:

A common lament which I have heard from the scientific community is that, in the words of Dr Lawrence Krauss--as cited by Professor Scott Carson--"U. S. adults are less willing to accept evolution and the big bang as factual than adults in other industrial countries." Such a lament--so common amongst the "scientific community" (which roughly includes scientists, philosophers of science, and a crowd of what can only be called scientistic groupies) in the States--generally centers on these two particular theories and the opposition they receive from "religion," by which is largely meant Christians in general and the fundamentalist or evangelical types of Christians in particular. The lament is squarely pointed, first at the "young earth theorists" (anybody who believes that the universe is less than billions of years old), and secondly (more broadly) at the "Intelligent Design" proponents (anybody who suggests that no theory of non-theistic evolution can explain all of the intricate details of life in its varied forms today). Although I am neither a young-earth creationist nor an intelligent Design proponent, I can at the same time find some fault with the worldview which Dr Krauss pines for.

Disclaimer: This is a bit speculative on my own part. As a disclaimer, I am a physicist, but I study lasers and plasma physics, not astronomy and astrophysics. Thus, I have some knowledge about General Relativity, the Big Bang, black holes, etc, but this is not the subject matter of my particular expertise. Nevertheless, I got to musing about this stuff, and thought it was kind of interesting.

In the Beginning...

A question has been posed concerning the universe's existence and the specific requirement that it has a beginning. It is sometimes asked, "what happens before the Big Bang?" Alternatively, it may be made as a statement:
There is no point in time when the "stuff" that comprises the universe did not exist. Why must it have a cause? Or, why must a finite being be caused by something else in order to exist?

The background of the statement is the assumption that time is inextricably interwoven with space, so that both space and time came into existence with the beginning of the universe. Thus, time itself cannot be older than the universe: no universe, no time. The Big Bang is the first event, before which nothing occurred; indeed, "before" is a meaningless concept (since it implies a progress of time) until after the Big Bang.

As a simple example of how this can make sense, image that the universe has a sort of "time line" along which it travels. There are, indeed, several "arrows" which give the "direction" of time: as time increases, the universe expands; as time increases, entropy increases; etc. The assumption being that time t=0 is the Big Bang, as as t approaches a value of 0, the universe by necessity approaches the instant of the Big Bang and its initial extent (which is not necessarily zero), and entropy by necessity approaches its minimum value (perhaps somewhat larger than zero).

One of the most common mistakes I've heard made by my fellow Christians is the idea that the highest aspiration of a "Christian society" is that it be a just society, that is, one which proclaims "justice for all." We therefore have such things as the "social justice" movement which mistakenly believes that it is there to promote justice, and nothing more, or pro-life groups which would be more properly classified as anti-abortion groups, or Christian groups whose interest is in protecting this or that set of rights. In point of fact, even the pre-Christian pagans recognized justice as a virtue: along with prudence, temperance, and fortitude it became one of the cardinal virtues. Therefore, the "just" society is a society which even pagans ought to--and sometimes did--strive to achieve. Thus, by all means we as Christians are called to work for a more just society--one in which to each is given his due, and all rights are recognized--and this may be the best society on the level of government and social institutions.

Note, this is written in response to a post on the Christian.com blogs by Dr Robbert Veen. Dr Veen's post may also be found on his blog.

Though Karl Barth must certainly be counted among the theological giants of history--quite possible the greatest Protestant theologian ever to live--I have only passing and indirect familiarity with his works. Certainly, he has had the respect of a number of Catholic theologians, notably Popes Pius XII and Benedict XVI. With that said, I have a few comments concerning the thought of Mr Barth, as conveyed by Rev Dr Robbert Veen. That is to say, I have somewhat of a critique of Dr Veen's latest post.

First, I should note that I agree with a good deal of what he says. His section "Heresy as a Contradiction" is quite good, and I find myself in agreement with much of it.

I was reading a reflection by Monsignor Charles Pope concerning beliefs, philosophies, and God. He opens by stating that

There is a tendency in the modern age, at least in the Western world, to trivialize the human person. One of the ways we do this is to say, in so many words, that it does not really matter what a person thinks or believes.

This is by no means a new sentiment (in the sense of being unique to today), but rather has permeated the "modern" era. For example, writing about 100 years ago, G.K. Chesterton said that this was often the attitude of the day. He continued by writing that

“It is foolish, generally speaking, for a philosopher to set fire to another philosopher in Smithfield Market because they do not agree in their theory of the universe. That was done very frequently in the last decadence of the Middle Ages….But there is one thing that is infinitely more absurd and unpractical than burning a man for his philosophy. This is the habit of saying that his philosophy does not matter, and this is done universally in the twentieth century, in the decadence of the great revolutionary period.” (Heretics)

The recent news that Mr Christopher Hitchens is suffering from cancer, and the response of good Catholics to this news, has set me thinking about Christ's admonishment to love even our enemies. This teaching by Christ is recorded by both Saints Matthew and Luke. The Gospel according to Saint Matthew has this passage (Mt 5:43-48):

You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.

On Monday, I posted on my blog a distinction which ought to be made between anti-Catholicism and counter-Catholicism. I ended on a kind note towards the counter-Catholics--many of whom are my friends--but before that had this to say about the anti-Catholic crowd:

Compare this to the anti-Catholic bigot and his line of argument. It relies as much on insult and mocking as anything. He'll blaspheme the Eucharist, hurl verses out of context trying to "prove" that the Church is the "Whore of Babylon," scoff at the clergy and any number of doctrines and practices. Often he will not wait for an answer. For him, any stick is fine so long as it can be used to beat the Church. His arguments are generally dilatory or sophistical in nature, with little interest in getting to the truth of the matter or seeing the Church as anything other than the tool of the anti-Christ.

He relies on Mr Jack Chick and Mr Lorraine Boettner to (mis)inform them about what the Church really teaches. He lives inside an impenetrable wall through which neither reason nor logic and facts concerning the Church can reach. Aside from Chick and Boettner, there are a few very good examples; Mr James White of alpha-omega ministries; really, any program which targets specifically active Catholics for "conversion to Christianity" is likely run by anti-Catholics; this website is another great example (which started the conversation). Charity may be extended to all of these folks--some believe (albeit falsely) that they are acting in charity--and God knows they need it, but they have made themselves outright enemies of the Church. The only other things which may be offered is prayer and witness in action.

I should address a few loose ends from these remarks. There is hope even for the anti-Catholic crowd, if only a glimmer. However, even the distinction between counter-Catholics and anti-Catholics doesn't go quite far enough, because there are two broad groups of folks who fit into the anti-Catholic crowd. I will call these two categories "hard anti-Catholicism" and "soft anti-Catholicism." There are myriad small distinctions between them, but I will be writing more broadly today.