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).

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:

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.

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.

A frequent homework or test question presented to physicists-in-training is to derive the final relationship between objects, forces, or concepts from “first principles.” The idea for the physicist is to see where such a relationship comes from, beginning with “basic physics” principles—Newton’s Laws or Maxwell’s Equations, for example. Such first principles are generally well-established and ubiquitously accepted within the physics community, and are sometimes thought of as the most basic concepts in physics, from which all the other laws of physics can be derived.

Philosophical arguments and political discourse rely on similar “first principles,” as outlined by Aristotle (among others) in his Rhetoric. This is to say nothing of theological discussions, legal cases, and even the act of teaching (or learning): all must begin with a basic set of principles (or other assumptions), which must be true if the rest of the argument is to hold merit: the first principles are the base upon which rests the conclusion, and it cannot stand of these principles are in error.

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."
--Saint Thomas Aquinas

Since today is the feast day of Saint Thomas Aquinas, a few words of wisdom from him are in order. In school, St Thomas was often teased by his peers, who though him to be dumb--they called him "the dumb ox"--yet ironically he was one of the greatest thinkers ever to live. To return bring the irony full circle, let me note that everybody thought I was a smart person in school, and now I will add my own thoughts, which will be considerably less enlightening than those of St Thomas.

I have said before that faith is like a pair of glasses--it really does alter one's perception of the world. Things which were once muddled can become clear, and things which were lost in the blur become visible. Gaining (or losing) one's faith really does change how one views the world. The change is rarely overnight--it's often gradual--but such things have happened before. Sometimes the change is not so much in what we see, but how we interpret it.

It's been up for a while now, but I only recently found the site where the ISI book reviews get published. Here, then, is the link to my review of Professor J Budziszewski's "The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction." The book itself was well-written; Budziszewski is fast becoming one of my favorite writers and speakers, and is also one of the most welcoming professors I've met. Here is an excerpt of the review:

The topic of marriage has been on my mind quite a bit as of late. My fiancée and I are in the midst of our wedding (and marriage) planning. We just sent out the cards announcing date and time (so save the date!), and I've been discussing suits with my groomsmen. She's changed her bridesmaids' outfits a couple of times (making picking the aforementioned suits a bit more difficult), and has been meeting with her tailor to make the wedding gown. Today my fiancée and I begin our marriage preparation classes, and last night was the first of three NFP classes. We've even found a little time to read up on some materials and go to a few extra talks to prepare us for marriage: Fulton Sheen, John Paul the Great, Christopher West, and even a few discussions with the local priest.

All of this has caused me to think a bit about the theology which underlies marriage, especially in light of the high divorce rates. There are many people who believe that marriage ought not to be necessarily permanent, and others who want theirs to be permanent, but excuse failed marriages by saying "Too bad, so sad," but then turn around and complain about the Church's teaching against "remarriage" after a divorce.