Deacon Dan Wright

The Vatican and Darwin

As an educator I enjoyed finding the article I'm including on today's post, though I know that this is the sort of thing that's bound to bring out negative feelings--especially where Catholic-Evangelical relations are concerned.

I recently heard of an educator who had regretfully decided not to return to her job next year because the state was going to "make her teach evolution" (Texas recently changed it's ruling on evolution--at least for the time being).

Interestingly, it was only a couple weeks ago that I had a conversation with an evangelical friend who works in the public schools.  We were talking about dinosaur extinctions and I mentioned that the age of the dinosaurs, the Mesozoic era, ran from 250 million to 65 million years ago.  She told me that was interesting theory but couldn't be true since the planet is only 6 to 10 thousand years old.

Needless to say, literal interpreters of the Bible are going to have problems with the Vatican's conference on Darwin.

The Vatican is hosting a conference to mark the sesquicentennial of Darwin's book, On the Origin of the Species, and taking a fresh look at Darwin's evolution theory. The Vatican is implying that Darwin's ideas are compatible with Christianity. The Vatican's upcoming conference will discuss intelligent design as a "cultural," not scientific issue.

A century and a half after Charles Darwin published his revolutionary study of nature, On the Origin of the Species, one of his most ardent foes is taking a fresh look at his theories.

Although the Roman Catholic Church never formally condemned Darwin or his theories (thus demonstrating some significant progress from Galileo's time), there is no question that for decades, it was openly hostile to Darwin's theory because of its apparent conflict with the teachings of the church.

Next month, however, the Vatican will host a conference to mark the sesquicentennial of Darwin's book. The gathering will be held March 3-6 at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Italy.

Not only have church officials declared that the naturalist's views are "compatible with Christian faith," they have even argued that Darwin's ideas can be traced to great theologians like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Both observed, for instance, that various forms of life on Earth have changed over time.

According to Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, the teachings of the Church and Darwin can be reconciled: "In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God," the archbishop said recently.

The upcoming conference is the culmination of more than a half century of slowly easing tensions between the Catholic Church and the chief proponent of evolution. In 1950, Pope Pius XII declared that evolution was "a valid scientific approach." Just a decade ago, Pope John Paul II went further and said that evolution was "more than a hypothesis."

....the organizers did not invite supporters of creationism or intelligent design because it was "not feasible" to include ideas "that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology."

Source

Synchronous Musing

Job spoke, saying:
Is not man's life on earth a drudgery?
Are not his days those of hirelings?
He is a slave who longs for the shade,
a hireling who waits for his wages.
So I have been assigned months of misery,
and troubled nights have been allotted to me.
If in bed I say, "When shall I arise?"
then the night drags on;
I am filled with restlessness until the dawn.
My days are swifter than a weaver's shuttle;
they come to an end without hope.
Remember that my life is like the wind;
I shall not see happiness again.   Job 7:1-4, 6-7

Many years ago I was classmates while studying philosophy in graduate school with a now prominent Catholic apologist.  One of many ideas he imparted to me in a subtle manner was that of synchronicity.  At the time I didn't necessarily see it in the Jungian context of the alignment of universal forces.  For me this was too speculative and didn't have the immediacy in world-as-experienced that I sought.  Still I sought out my classmate for his take on what I still consider to be a more than curious phenomenon.

The idea of synchronicity has come up several times in my life.  First, as an undergraduate while delving deeply into Epictetus' Discourses, I came face to face with all the reasons I thought at the time would lead me to having a stoic outlook on life--the loss of a meaningful relationship, a crippling case of sciatica, unemployment and near starvation.  It all seemed to coincide with my opening the pages of the life of a crippled suffering slave who knew Logos--though not in the Johannine sense, but as the philosophical-rational expression of Being.  I must admit that at the time I learned to identify more with the suffering of Epictetus than with the principle of universal reason as he expressed it. 

However, at the time I accounted my feelings toward my own personal pain and loss to be more a case of youthful melancholy and general discontent- with life as it was-I thought perhaps I brought whatever I was experiencing on myself. 

My reading of Epictetus and discussions at the local midnight philosophy club attracted the interest of a street preacher who called himself Brother Timothy.  Timothy made himself at home among college students and didn't seem to mind the chain smoking and drinking of an all-night college beer hall.  Timothy greeted me with at least a listening ear and after several conversations lasting until daybreak he managed to convince me that the answer to Epictetus's sufferings, and those I perceived, were to be found in Jesus Christ.  I believe I wholeheartedly accepted what Timothy offered, though he simply planted the idea and then disappeared not to be seen again after a few months.

It was years later after I had become Catholic and was doing graduate work that the idea of synchronicity came up with the soon-to-be-apologist classmate.  At the time I still had my copy of Epictetus' Discourses, but I refused to open it due to my not so far off memory of a very real pain.  Fortunately the pain stayed away, as did an new events of cosmic synchronicity.  Honestly, and on the contrary, what I experienced in the years that followed was an unfolding of redemption and joy.  Although suffering has come my way more than once, it has had no universal hold on me.

I come back to my thoughts on Epictetus because the reading this weekend from Job reminded me of them, and it reminded me of a time in my life when I had a great need.  Also, in a sense, one might say there is a kind of synchronicity in Job, but in the sense that he points us to the answer rather than coinciding with loss.

When a real struggle comes my way now I no longer consider that I should simply face it as a cosmic requirement to be stoic, rather I sense that I should look to Job as an archetype of suffering.  Not so to say that everything is pointless or meaningless, or that the adversary is getting his way in prosecuting my soul in a cosmic court, but that redemption is sure to come--that justice awaits, and that in the end good will triumph.

Nothing happens in the entire universe that escapes the glance of God.  I've been taught to believe, and I still do believe, that our actions reverberate in the world of our lives and they indeed return to us.  Good returns to the good and evil returns to the evil--even more in an eternal sense. Thus the good that Job did returned to him in that God gave us Jesus, in whom we have hope. 

We may struggle time and again with what appears to be meaningless suffering.  There are sure to be injustices, pain, suffering, loss--it happens to everyone, but for those who have faith there is an answer.  It is the answer that Job required, and that which the Father gave us on a Friday afternoon.

White House Faith Office?

Okay, for strict proponents for the separation of church and state this won't set well.  It goes along with my post from this morning. 

I'm watching this story and the earlier one closely for what comes out of them.  It's not surprising for me to see developments such as this.  I had a strong intuition that Barack Obama would be strongly involved in things of the faith...a real departure from what many might have expected of a Democrat administration. 

Indeed it will be interesting to see where Obama's faith-based initiatives go.

President Obama signed an executive order Thursday to create a revamped White House office for religion-based and neighborhood programs, expanding an initiative started by the Bush administration that provides government support — and financing — to religious and charitable organizations that deliver social services.

“No matter how much money we invest or how sensibly we design our policies, the change that Americans are looking for will not come from government alone,” Mr. Obama said. “There is a force for good greater than government.”

In announcing the expansion of the religion office, Mr. Obama did not settle the biggest question: Can religious groups that receive federal money for social service programs hire only those who share their faith?

The Bush administration said yes. But many religious groups and others that are concerned about employment discrimination and protecting the separation of church and state had pushed hard for Mr. Obama to repeal the Bush policies.

Meanwhile, other religious groups were lobbying to preserve their right to use religion as a criterion in hiring. Some religious social service providers warned they might stop working with the government if they were forced to change policies.

Instead of deciding the issue, the president called Thursday for a legal review of the policy case by case before determining whether religious groups can receive government money and selectively hire employees based on their religious beliefs.

Mr. Obama told an audience in Ohio last summer, “You can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them.”

Joshua DuBois, a 26-year-old Pentecostal minister who led religious outreach for Mr. Obama during the presidential race, will direct the new White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Mr. DuBois said in an interview, “The president is still very much committed to clear constitutionality and legality in this program. He’s committed to nondiscrimination.”

....The president also announced the formation of a 25-member advisory council that includes religious leaders and heads of nonprofit groups, among them, several evangelical Christians, the president of Catholic Charities U.S.A., a rabbi, a Muslim community organizer and the openly gay director of a nonprofit group.

....“No matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate,” Mr. Obama told an audience of Republicans and Democrats, diplomats and members of the clergy. “There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.”

Read the whole story here.

I find the final remark to be extraordinarily interesting--it should attract a lot of commentary.

Obama Upholds Bush Faith-Based Policy

Here's an interesting story that I found this morning.  I'm going to reserve longer comments on it for later since I'm basically posting as I'm running out the door for work.  I'll be back later tonight to follow up--or perhaps add something different.

Reporting from Los Angeles and Washington -- It seemed like a firm campaign promise. Barack Obama pledged to continue President Bush's faith-based office in the White House, but with a key change: Groups receiving federal money would no longer be allowed to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion.

On Thursday, however, as President Obama disclosed the details of his faith-based program, he left the controversial Bush policy in place.

The decision angered Democrats and civil libertarians who thought Obama had agreed with their view that Bush's 2002 executive order went too far.

"Based on what he said, we thought the issue had been resolved," said Rep. Robert C. Scott (D-Va.).

"You'll have to ask them why they think it's all right to discriminate," Scott said. He added that administration officials are "either offended by the idea of discrimination, or they're not."

But Thursday's announcement surprised and pleased some religious leaders, particularly religious conservatives, who had a strong ally in Bush and had been pressing the Democratic president to revoke his earlier promise.

"I'm very excited about this," said Frank Page, past president of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of more than two dozen religious leaders named Thursday to a new White House council that will advise Obama on faith-based issues. "I know he was struggling with this particular issue. But this will allow religious groups to be true to themselves."

Obama announced that White House officials might seek guidance from the Justice Department if questions arise about the legality of potential grant recipients.

In essence, the executive order, which did not specifically mention discrimination, gives the White House the option to review a specific grant for legal reasons but does not overturn Bush's broader policy.

Administration officials rejected the notion that Obama was backtracking on a campaign promise.

A White House spokeswoman, Jennifer Psaki, said the new executive order "strengthens the constitutional and legal footing" of the faith-based office. She said the order "doesn't resolve all issues at the outset, but it does provide a mechanism to address difficult legal issues."

 

Read the whole story here.

Fasting Anyone?

When I found the article I'm blogging today I thought it might be a little premature.  However, February is short and Ash Wednesday will be here before we know it.

The article caught my eye because I grew up in a tradition that emphasized fasting.  It's not that we as Catholics don't emphasize it, but that we tend to see its purpose differently.  Most Catholics I know will say that fasting is a form of penance--and indeed it is.  However there is another side of fasting--the side I knew as a youth.  I was taught that fasting was a powerful way to make contact with God in prayer.

When I was a young Christian I was told that fasting was the sure way to get prayers answered or to overcome difficult situations.  Given the world we live in today, I'm thinking that fasting is not a bad idea at all.  I especially recommend fasting with an intention--say fasting and praying for a newfound respect for all human life in our world, or fasting for those who are hungry.  Perhaps there is a personal difficulty or troublesome situation.  Don't just pray about it.  Pray and fast about it.

Although the Pope is asking us to rediscover fasting during Lent, we ought also to keep in mind that it's a good practice throughout the year.  Fridays are an especially a good time to fast, but Thursdays--or any other week day--will work too.

Here's the excerpt.  The whole story is rather lengthy.

As Catholics around the world prepare to begin the Lenten season in just over three weeks, Pope Benedict XVI has published his Lenten Message for 2009. This year the Holy Father focuses his message on the meaning and value of fasting, emphasizing that it helps believers to prepare to do the will of God.

The message, which the Pope penned on December 11, 2008, has as its title, a verse from the Gospel of St. Matthew: "He fasted for forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was hungry."

The Holy Father traces the practice of fasting all the way back to God’s command to Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Walking through salvation history, the Pope points to his Lenten message’s theme: "The true fast is thus directed to eating the 'true food', which is to do the Father's will."

Pope Benedict also acknowledges that fasting has become fashionable for people concerned with their bodily health, but he explains that for believers the primary benefit of fasting is as "a 'therapy' to heal all that prevents them from conformity to the will of God." "Denying material food, which nourishes our body," the Pope adds, "nurtures an interior disposition to listen to Christ and be fed by His saving word."

The final dimension of fasting the Holy Father mentions is that turns one outwards and thereby keeps alive a "welcoming and attentive attitude towards our brothers and sisters." In order to encourage this he writes: "I encourage the parishes and every other community to intensify in Lent the custom of private and communal fasts, joined to the reading of the Word of God, prayer and almsgiving."

Read the whole story here.

Politics, the SSPX, and the Catholic League

While I've been closely following the story of the lifting of the excommunication of the SSPX bishops, especially in regard to Richard Williamson's comments regarding the Holocaust, I've been withholding my comments--all along it has seemed rather clear to me that Williamson's position on the holocaust had nothing to do with the action taken by the Pope.  I thought the row would die out soon.

However the story is alive and well and it's not just the press that's getting into it.  I wasn't sure what to think at first when I read that 47 Catholic Democratic members of the US Congress had written a letter to the Pope to voice their opposition. 

Certainly it was arrogant of them to do so, but keeping in mind Jewish-Catholic relations I understand how the lifting of an excommunication from a known Holocaust denier looks.  Nevertheless, it's pretty much an internal affair and can be easily explained to anyone with open ears.  I think our Catholic Democrat congress members acted in haste at least--and again, it was undoubtedly arrogant of them to assume they know better than the Pope regarding an internal Church matter.

But now comes the Catholic League with the perfect logic to discredit the letter writing Catholic Democrats.  After all, their position on abortion has everything to do with the why these folks in congress wrote to the Pope in the first place, right?

NEW YORK, N.Y. (Catholic League) - On January 29, nearly 50 Catholic Democratic congressmen sent a letter to Pope Benedict XVI stating their concerns over Bishop Richard Williamson’s comments questioning the historical record on the Holocaust. The bishop belongs to the St. Pius X Society, a group which recently had its excommunication lifted by the pope. The congressmen implored the pope to denounce the bishop’s views.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue spoke to this issue today:

“The congressmen’s letter to the pope smacks of posturing and hypocrisy, and is factually wrong. They begin by saying ‘we are writing to express our deep concerns with your decision to reinstate Bishop Richard Williamson to communion with the Catholic Church….’ The fact is that the pope did not reinstate the bishop to communion with the Church—he merely lifted the excommunication of the group to which he belongs. In order for the group to be fully reinstated, it would have to express its fidelity to the teachings of the Church, as well as the norms of Vatican II. In other words, the letter is based on a false predicate.

“Facts aside, this kind of posturing is a disgrace: for American congressmen to lecture the pope about an event in which he was personally victimized, and about which he has long condemned, is nothing short of arrogant.

“The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. They beg the pope to ‘publicly state your unequivocal position on this matter so that it is clear where the Church stands….’ How ironic that most of these very same Catholics fail to speak with clarity about what the Church teaches on abortion. Of the 47 signatories, the majority have a 100 percent NARAL score (meaning they vote with the radical pro-abortion group on every issue). The leader of this group, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, never agrees with the Catholic Church on abortion—her NARAL score is 100 percent.

Source

Sorry, besides a glaring logical fallacy, I can't help but see partisan politics at work in Donohue's statement.  Not everything is about abortion, even less what 47 arrogant members of congress have to say to the Pope about something they don't even understand.

Indeed we do know how Democrats in congress vote on abortion, and indeed we should voice our opposition in that regard, but their voting record on abortion in itself does not discredit every statement they make, regardless of how inaccurate or misinformed--or even true perchance--it may be.

I fear that an observer from the outside might come to have the opinion that the Catholic religion is one aligned with a political party, and that its chief concern has mostly to do with one issue.