Defending Benedict

We all love Pope Francis, me included. But the way the media is fawning on him I can't help but think of the events of holy week. The crowds fawned over Jesus on Palm Sunday as He entered Jerusalem. Luke 19:36-38:

As he rode along, the people were spreading their cloaks on the road; and now as he was approaching the slope of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of his disciples began to praise God aloud with joy for all the mighty deeds they had seen. They proclaimed:

“Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord.
Peace in heaven and glory in the highest.”

I'm not attempting to deify our new Pope, rather I'm thinking of the fickleness of the crowds. Those who were praising Jesus as the Messiah on Palm Sunday quickly discovered that He wasn't going to do the things they wanted or expected Him to do. And when He turned out not to be the "change" they "hoped" for, the crowds turned on Him. Luke 23:16-23:

Therefore I shall have him flogged and then release him.”
But all together they shouted out, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us.”(Now Barabbas had been imprisoned for a rebellion that had taken place in the city and for murder.)
Again Pilate addressed them, still wishing to release Jesus, but they continued their shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”
Pilate addressed them a third time, “What evil has this man done? I found him guilty of no capital crime. Therefore I shall have him flogged and then release him.”
With loud shouts, however, they persisted in calling for his crucifixion, and their voices prevailed.

It doesn't take a prophet to predict that it won't be long before the media discovers that Pope Francis is not the Pope they want him to be (aka anti-Catholic) and they will call for his "crucifixion".

So we all love Pope Francis, me included. But nobody will every replace Pope Benedict XVI's place in my heart. Why do I have such an affinity for Benedict? I don't know. Perhaps it's because he was the first Pope elected after I started caring about those things. Perhaps it's because of my German background. Perhaps it's because, like him, I am a somewhat shy, bookish man who loves learning.

And so it hurts all the more when I hear people using Pope Francis to bash Pope Benedict XVI. And much of it is coming from Catholics. I keep hearing how we finally have a Pope who cares for the poor instead of the "trappings of office". Let's see what Benedict XVI said on the subject.

From Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) section 20:

Love of neighbour, grounded in the love of God, is first and foremost a responsibility for each individual member of the faithful, but it is also a responsibility for the entire ecclesial community at every level: from the local community to the particular Church and to the Church universal in its entirety.

And of course he wrote another encyclical, Caritas in Veritate entirely on creating economic policies that favor the poor. Then there is the observation that Pope Benedict XVI loved the "trappings of office" so much that he renounced them entirely.

But what exactly do people mean by the "trappings of office"? As far as I can tell from what gets mentioned, it is mostly clothing. The red shoes and the mozetta are mentioned. What is the purpose of dressing in those things? I remember a long stretch in my faith journey where I believed that wearing a suit and tie to mass was just pageantry and hypocrisy. Jesus doesn't want us to be show offs. Look at the widow in Luke 21. Jesus always criticizes the Pharisees for wearing fine clothes.

But Jesus doesn't praise the widow for having nothing, but for giving everything. The Pharisees he doesn't criticize for wearing fine clothing but for calling attention to their piousness while not being truly pious. We are supposed to use our finest in worship. From John 12:

Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil. Then Judas the Iscariot, one [of] his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said, “Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages and given to the poor?”

So when someone wears a suit and tie to mass (or a mozetta and red shoes) we have to ask, "is this person doing it because they want us to believe they are pious when they are not, or are they doing this out of respect for God?" If we call them hypocrites, is it not we who are acting high and mighty? Aren't we the ones who are being "holier than thou" because we say that we dress "rightly" and they don't?

If we presume to know what is in their hearts, than indeed we are the ones who are hypocrites. Is there something about Pope Benedict XVI that would indicate that he was doing these things out of pride, rather than out of respect for his responsibilities and love of God? No? Then judge not, lest ye be judged.

Read More

Who wants to be a Pope?

I was having a discussion with a friend the other day and naturally the subject turned to what happens when the Pope is elected. I explained that the new Pope is asked if he accepts, and then asked what name he will take, and then goes to the "Room of Tears." Mt friend asked me why it is called the "Room of Tears" - why would anybody cry over winning? I explained that the newly elected Pope is usually someone who doesn't want the job (as was the case with Pope Benedict XVI).

According to Rome Reports

It's called the Room of Tears because the newly elected Pope, overwhelmed by the joy and burden of his new office, is known to shed tears here, just moments after being elected Pope and before introducing himself to the world before St. Peter's balcony.

Personally, I imagine the burden of the office is more the cause of tears than the joy. But my friend couldn't understand why someone wouldn't want the "job" of Pope. All that power, wealth, prestige!

So I wanted to set a few things straight. The "job" of the Pope is not to boss people around, but to be the "Servant of the Servants of God". He doesn't own all those fancy clothes, he just gets to use them. He doesn't have the run of a palace, he has a small apartment within it. He cannot go where he wants or do what he wants; he is subject to the needs of his people.

It seems everybody is calling for the new Pope to "change the Church's rules" on women priests, contraceptives, gay "marriage" etc. Get a clue people. The Pope has no power to "change the rules". The job consists of trying to effectively communicate the message of the Gospel to the world.

In the Old Testament, God proclaims that priests must be males of the tribe of Levi. This was not in keeping with "the culture" since virtually every religion at the time has priestesses. In the New Testament, Jesus extends salvation from the Jews to the whole world, and extends the priesthood to males of any ancestry. We seen numerous examples of ordination of priests and bishops in the New testament, but they are all male. To claim that Jesus "meant to" ordain priests, but forgot is absurd. Likewise claims that Jesus was "restricted" by the surrounding culture. If these things were true than surely Jesus would not be God, and the whole notion of the priesthood wouldn't exist.

The Church, lacking any examples of Christ or the Apostles ordaining women, cannot claim to have the authority to do so. The Church has only the authority of the Apostles, as declared by Christ Himself. So forget about a Pope changing the rule that only men can be priests.

Contraceptives are also banned as sinful in the Old Testament, and in fact the first commandment issued by God (to Adam and Eve) is "be fruitful and multiply." Jesus affirms this teaching in the Gospel. Again, the Church and the Pope have no authority to reverse the teachings of Christ.

Homosexual acts are perhaps most strongly condemned in the Old Testament. For instance, we have the destruction of Sodom because of its eponymous acts. In the New Testament homosexual acts are also strongly condemned. As for marriage, Jesus confirms that "from the beginning" it was to be a lifelong union of one man and one woman. The Church and the Pope cannot redefine it.

Read More

Cum Clāve

Dictionary.com says:

con·clave [kon-kleyv] noun
1.  a private or secret meeting.
2.  an assembly or gathering, especially one that has special authority, power, or influence: a conclave of political leaders.
3.  the assembly or meeting of the cardinals for the election of a pope.
4.  the body of cardinals; the College of Cardinals.
5.  the place in which the cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church meet in private for the election of a pope.

Origin: 1350–1400; Middle English  < Medieval Latin, Latin conclāve  room, enclosed space, representing ( camera ) cum clāve  (room) with key.

I've been contemplating the meaning of this word.Specifically, does the "with key" signify that the room is locked? By the 1350s certainly the Cardinals were locked in a room with a key to elect a new Pope. But perhaps at least part of the name derives from the fact that the Conclave passes on the Keys that Christ gave to the first Pope, St. Peter, as his mark of office.

Read More

Upside down

Today I read about a NYT poll on Catholics' Views on Pope Benedict XVI and the Church. There is an accompanying article U.S. Catholics in Poll See a Church Out of Touch. Some bloggers see this as something bad (because Catholics are against Church teaching) others see it as "good" (that the Church isn't bending to conform to society). I see encouraging signs in this poll that I haven't seen anyone mention, however. Here they are. Note that this article takes the position that the glass is half full, so your mileage may vary.

If you look at the answers on what people thought of Pope Benedict XVI they are overall positive. Only 9% of people reported an unfavorable opinion of him (vs. 40% favorable and about half neutral). That's despite eight years of media (including and especially the NY Times) making false claims about his knowledge of and role in the sex abuse scandals. It speaks very well of Pope Benedict's ability to unite the flock and reach people even if they disagreed with him on a number of issues.

Only 12% thought the Pope had a negative influence on the Church (vs. 26% positive and about half neutral). That's despite his efforts to bring the ever popular "Vatican II" crowd back to sanity (i.e. his hermeneutic of continuity). Again this speaks to the ability of truth, spoken in love to reach people. While the Pope did not shy away from controversial issues, he never let the issue define his position but brought everything back to the love of Christ.

People think their priests and nuns are more like them than their bishops or the Pope. This is as it should be for several reasons. First off, you can't pick your Pope or bishop, but you can shop around for a parish priest who agrees with you. Secondly, you actually hear what your priest says, versus the bishops and Pope, who's words are either ignored or filtered through a hostile main stream media (when's the last time most people actually read an encyclical, or even visited their diocesan or Vatican web site to see the words are leaders are speaking?). So the results should not be discouraging.

58% of Catholics are following the Pope's resignation story closely. This is a tremendous opportunity for the Church to reach out and try to educate the world on what the real issue is about - the salvation of souls - as Dr. Gregory Popcak relates in “And the Gates of the NY Times Shall Not Prevail Against It.” (well worth reading).

Asked if they cared about the new Pope, 29% said "a great deal" (vs 7% "not at all" and the majority cared to some degree). Most respondents said they didn't care what part of the world the Pope came from - good for them! 37% thought the next Pope should be at least as conservative as Pope Benedict (18% wanted more a more conservative Pope) vs. 54% who wanted a more liberal Pope. I really though this would go more liberal than that. A 2:3 split isn't bad for someone whose teachings are 100% faithful to Christ's.

And then the whole thing went off the rails when they got into issues of dogma. But the point I bring away from this is that even for those who are against Church teaching, the issue is one of catechesis, not one of disengagement. There was a time when I thought the Church was just behind the times, and things like contraception were morally OK, and would someday be recognized as such when they Church caught up with technology.

I now realize what a fool I was because I learned. I learned that the Church exists not to follow us, but to follow Christ. I learned that the Pope doesn't make the rules, Christ does, and short of Him coming down and saying "ordain women", the Pope has no authority to change that teaching. The Pope's role is to teach with Christ's authority on Earth. If everybody on Earth decided that Christ's teachings were wrong, it would make everybody on Earth wrong - the teaching would not change.

The world, in its arrogance, expects that if they put economic pressure on the Church, or political pressure on the Church, she can be persuaded to change her stance to conform to it. History paints a different story. From the apostles onward Catholics have always been willing to die rather than change their views. That is what it means to be truly Catholic. The question is, will the world relent, or are we facing another wave of martyrdom? Signs point to the latter. If so, I pray I will have the strength to go cheerfully.

I can't help but consider the life of St. Maximilian Kolbe, who spent his life trying to educate, and in the end, gladly gave it up for the sake of the Gospel. It is said that while he and his fellow prisoners at Auschwitz were being executed by starvation for three weeks, he lead them in hymns of praise to God, until his voice was the only one left, and he was murdered by lethal injection. It is a gruesome tale, but one worth reading, because it ends in heaven. St. Kolbe ora pro nobis.

[I usually try to pick "clever" titles for this post, and don't explain them, but I thought some of the things I intended were obscure enough I would write about it. "Upside down" refers to my seeing an upside in an article that was intended to be a "downer" for the Church. It also refers to the way the respondents to the poll see the Church (as having policy driven from the mass of Catholics in the world rather than having policy defined by God). It refers to the way we try to take what is most high and bring it down to our level. Lastly, it refers to the martyrdom of St. peter, the first Pope, who when the world demanded that he change accepted death on a cross upside down.]

Read More

Good News

Well, as usual life's so busy I have been neglecting my blog. And what a momentous time in history we're living in! From superstorms to Papal renunciations, there's been a lot to think about, but little time to record it. It's important in these times of unrest to remember to trust in God. There's always a lot of good going on even if the news seems bleak. And so I thought I'd share some good stories.

The first comes from Kansas, which looks like it is recovering from the governance of Kathleen Sebelius and her scandalous destruction of evidence in the Tiller case. LifeNews reports "Kansas Senate Bans 'Wrongful Birth' Lawsuits, OKs Stem Cell Center":

Pro-life legislation is broader than just abortion limitations, as the pro-life Kansas Senate demonstrated by passing two measures this past week: SB 199, establishing an adult stem cell clearinghouse and therapy center, and SB 142, enhancing civil litigation rights for the unborn.

In other action Thursday, the Senate passed SB 142, “Civil Rights for the Unborn” by a vote of 34-5-1. SB 142 will ban any so-called “wrongful birth and wrongful life” lawsuits claiming that the child, in essence, is a ‘damage’. Nine other states statutorily bar wrongful birth suits and ten statutorily bar wrongful life suits.

In other news, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that Relics Stolen from Ste. Genevieve MO Church were returned:

The person who took nine relics from a church in Ste. Genevieve returned them Monday. Included with the plastic zip-locked baggie containing the material remains of Catholic saints was a note of apology, and a request for forgiveness.

[Rev. Dennis] Schmidt said he was curious “to know what made them decide to take off with [the relics] in the first place. Was it a devotional thing or did they just want to sell them?” he asked. “I guess that’s a mystery.”

Either way, Schmidt said, the thief — as requested — has been forgiven.

Finally, a very cool story about our beloved Bishop Emeritus of Rome, "The Pope who was Actually a Bear":

Unnoticed by most people, on the coat of arms that he created for his service as bishop Fr. Ratzinger included a puzzling symbol: a bear with a pack on its back.

Just four years later, Pope John Paul II summoned Bishop Ratzinger to Rome. There, for a quarter of a century more—and now as Cardinal Ratzinger—he bore extraordinarily heavy burdens as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the second most important office in the Church.
 In the final three paragraphs of the fascinating memoir he wrote while still Prefect of the Congregation, Cardinal Ratzinger explained the significance of the bear:

You'll have to click the link for the good parts, I didn't want to give spoilers. Let's just say it's an interesting look into the humility of a humble holy man.

Read More

Be careful what you wish for

As expected, the usual characters are calling for a Pope who will "make some changes" and by that they mean change Church doctrine, generally in matters of sexuality. I can't help but wonder if they have any idea what they are asking. The thing is, the Church is not just another political system, like a government. Without understanding that, and treating it as if it were, we can make grave errors with far reaching consequences.

Read More

Tweeting

Read More

What's a spiritual bouquet?

This is something very beautiful and relatively new to me. You all know what a bouquet of flowers is - a pretty arrangement of a bunch of flowers. Well, imagine the same thing, but instead of flowers, it's made up of masses, prayers, and other spiritual devotions. What a great gift! You can join in creating a spiritual bouquet for Pope Benedict XVI to be given to him on the feast of St. Joseph (March 19^th) by going over to Fr. Z's blog and "voting" for the thing you are doing. There's also a link for this over on the right hand side bar.

As Fr. Z points out, this is not only a wonderful way to support our Holy Father, but it can get you an indulgence. I suppose I should write a post on what an indulgence is, but I think the link I just gave explains it better than I could.

Read More

If you haven't seen this

I know the Pope's Christmas message is "old news" by now, but if you haven't seen this video by Fr. Barron, you should.

Read More

Is the Pope a Leftie?

There were two stories about Pope Benedict XVI in the "news" this week that had my more liberal friends crowing over. Hey, the Pope finally got "with it" and admitted that we are right about condoms to fight AIDS and socialize medicine!

The bigger story, of course, was Pope approves of condom use. As usual, all the mainstream media attempts to spin this don't consider the context or the actual words spoken. Jeff Miller has a better examination of what really was said. My $0.02 analogy of his position is if an arsonist decides to only torch unoccupied buildings, he is behaving more responsibly than one who torches anything. The pope is not condoning torching of buildings, occupied or not, he is merely confirming that even in performing immoral acts there are degrees of immorality. He is not condoning the use of condoms, but saying that for people who are already in an immoral situation, every aspect that increases potential harm to others compounds the situation.

The other story is Pope says health care is a right. Some people are taking this as a papal endorsement of Obamacare, and a change the Church's teaching on the subject.

There are three things wrong with these arguments. First off, assuming that every word out of the Pope's mouth is related to an American point of view. There are 68 million Catholics in America, which makes us a minority here. Compare that to the 1.2 billion Catholics our Holy Father shepherds and it is silly to think that everything is about American politics.

Secondly, nothing in the letter was out of line with established Church teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says

2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.

Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.

Finally, if you read the actual text of the letter in question, the actual thrust of the letter is an appeal to put moral considerations first in providing health care, which is pretty much the antithesis of Obamacare. [translation by google, so excuse the occasional odd wording]

Justice must be among the health agenda of governments and international institutions. Unfortunately, alongside positive and encouraging results, there are opinions and ways of thinking that the wound: I am referring to issues such as those related to the so-called "health reproductive, with the use of artificial breeding techniques involving embryo destruction, or euthanasia legalized. The love of justice, the protection of life from conception to natural death, respect for the dignity of every human being should be sustained and witnessed, even against the tide: the core ethical values are the common heritage of universal morality and the basis of democratic society.

So calm down people. If there's anything to be learned from these stories, it's that you should not trust secular news sources to get such stories right.

Read More

In case you missed this

From New Advent:

Pope Benedict XVI, a study by Michael Noakes

... and from Rome Reports Chile's trapped miners send a flag to the Pope

Read More

invading the president's "spiritual privacy"

A recent survey shows nearly 1 in 5 Americans think president Obama is Muslim. No surprise there. The White House issued the following statement:

President Obama is a committed Christian, and his faith is an important part of his daily life," the statement read. "He prays every day, he seeks a small circle of Christian pastors to give him spiritual advice and counseling, he even receives a daily devotional that he uses each morning. The president's Christian faith is a part of who he is, but not a part of what the public or the media is focused on everyday.

But the president's faith is what the public and media are focused on, as the poll demonstrates. It simply isn't what the president would like the public or the media to focus on. I wonder why we have to rely on a press release to know anything about what the president believes, anyway? Other presidents have shown, or at least talked about, their beliefs.

Even better is this statement, by Dr. Clyde Wilcox of GWU:

It's a troubling thing," Wilcox said. "I think it would be good for all of us to stop invading the president's spiritual privacy. We don't know what anyone's true faith is. It doesn't tell us about what their true core values are.

Say WHAT!? Religion has nothing to do with their values? That statement is as laughable as "what a person eats has nothing to do with their diet."

A non-sequitur, but this talk about religion and the president got me to thinking... President Obama has been criticized for bowing to foreign heads of state. Rather than keeping the tradition of US president never to show subservience to a foreign power, he has taken the tack of bowing to other heads of state. So did he kiss the Pope's ring, or at least bow to the Pope? Given the pictures and lack or notice from the press it would appear no, yet the Pope is a head of state, and one which has diplomatic relations with the US.

Read More

The flesh is willing but the logic is weak

A little more than a year ago, Pope Benedict XVI made headlines when he claimed that condoms were not the answer for stopping AIDS in Africa. The volume of knee-jerk hatred issued against the church was more than I ever thought possible.

While I was not directly involved in the issue, I did experience it in microcosm. I have a friend who for months kept up a simmering battle on the position of the Catholic Church on condom distribution in Africa. Every time I would point out that his statement was supported by facts and studies, the response was "yes but I know that they are effective, so the Pope is wrong."

Not that the studies were wrong or the science behind them was wrong, but the Pope was wrong even though the scientists were right. Huh? I'd all but forgotten about the issue when I came across this article today. The author brings up a side of it I hadn't thought of, and it goes something like this.

State that the Church says condoms are morally wrong, and the response is always "regardless of what they think is morally wrong, the Church should think of people's health first." The author takes this to its logical conclusion. Regardless of how effective condoms are at stopping AIDS, they are not 100% effective. So the safest course of action for a wife whose husband had AIDS would not be to use a condom, but to find a neighbor who didn't have AIDS and have sex exclusively with that person. "But that's..." morally wrong? Why is your "morally wrong" an acceptable excuse, but mine isn't?

Read More

What you can do about the abuse scandal

The most positive, helpful thing you can do is pray for the Pope, who is under daily attack for the sins of others. Please join me in supporting the Knights of Columbus in this effort. It only takes a minute or so, for nine days.

"All Knights of Columbus are encouraged to join in a special novena for Pope Benedict XVI, beginning Divine Mercy Sunday, April 11, and concluding Monday, April 19, the fifth anniversary of the Holy Father’s election in 2005.

We pray for the pope and for his pastoral mission, asking God to protect, strengthen and uplift our beloved Holy Father at this time of considerable challenge."

Read More

Losing Faith

I've been away from the "news" for a few days, spending time with my family. So I "missed" the big New York Times pope bashing article, and am catching up on the repercussions, and the continuing "pope hunt". What I see is a disturbing lack of faith.

Our "justice" system, and indeed, most of the western world's, is supposedly based on impartiality (which is why lady justice is depicted blindfolded). We should be able to believe that when the accused is acquitted that he is actually innocent of the crime of which he was accused. Likewise, when someone is found guilty we should have some confidence that he is, in fact, guilty.

Likewise our electoral system. We should be able to believe when an election is held that it was done fairly; that the candidate who is declared the winner actually got the most votes. Likewise our representatives. When they vote for or against legislation we should be able to believe that they represented their constituents, even if it is not to our liking.

Yet today we see our government, our media, our nation, sitting idly by or intentionally destroying that faith. We have a health care bill passed despite some 60% of the population in opposition, containing provisions that over 70% of the population finds anathema. Our own president says that it is not the job of the representatives to represent the population, but that a vote into office is a mandate to legislate at will.

Several recent elections have been very close (consider the 2000 presidential election, for instance). The response to this has been widespread introduction of electronic voting systems that eliminate the possibility of a recount and remove transparency and traceability from the system.

There is widespread corruption in our judicial system at almost every level. Our president appointed a supreme court judge who states openly that policy should be legislated form the bench and that decisions should be based on judges' feelings rather than the Constitution. We see hundreds of prisoners being released, some after decades, because DNA evidence indicates that they were not guilty of the crimes for which they served time. Hundreds of others wait or fight legal battles, trying to have their cases reopened.

Do people then want to turn thing around, make government accountable, make decisions transparently and with fairness? No. Instead we make our own decision about what "justice" is, usually without any evidence other than a sensationalized media report by a reporter (who also made his own decision without facts) and attempt to influence the corrupt system towards that idea. The problem is that our very influence on the system is what's wrong with the system.

This is not the first time this has happened, I can think of a famous case:

Pilate then summoned the chief priests, the rulers, and the people and said to them, "You brought this man to me and accused him of inciting the people to revolt. I have conducted my investigation in your presence and have not found this man guilty of the charges you have brought against him, nor did Herod, for he sent him back to us. So no capital crime has been committed by him.  Therefore I shall have him flogged and then release him."

But all together they shouted out, "Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us." (Now Barabbas had been imprisoned for a rebellion that had taken place in the city and for murder.)

Again Pilate addressed them, still wishing to release Jesus, but they continued their shouting, "Crucify him! Crucify him!"

Pilate addressed them a third time, "What evil has this man done? I found him guilty of no capital crime. Therefore I shall have him flogged and then release him."With loud shouts, however, they persisted in calling for his crucifixion, and their voices prevailed.

The verdict of Pilate was that their demand should be granted.

Read More

More Good News

Since today is Ash Wednesday I fasted from bear meat, but still enjoyed the continuing good news. How long it will last I don't know, but I'm not one to examine the dentition of free equines. So without further adieu:

Forward in Faith Australia, is setting up a working party guided by a Catholic bishop to work out how its followers can "swim the Tiber". It is believed to be the first group within the Anglican church to accept Pope Benedict XVI’s unprecedented offer for disaffected members of the Communion to convert en masse while retaining parts of their spiritual heritage. I can't tell you how exciting it is to be able to see some reunification with out Anglican brothers and sisters

The Kansas state House has approved an amendment that would prohibit insurance companies from automatically covering abortions under their plans except in very rare instances. The language moves in the other direction from the Congressional health care bill that funds abortions. Under the amendment, state residents who don't want their insurance premiums to pay for abortions would be protected and people who want to get abortions would pay for them with their own money by purchasing a rider for such coverage.

In Mississippi yesterday, pro-life advocates submitted more than 130,000 signatures to get a personhood amendment on the state ballot. The amendment would define an unborn child as a human being starting at fertilization, but some legal observers say it will be overturned. Yes, that's 2 in 2 days! The amendment states: "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof."

A woman who faces assault charges after she pulled a knife on two pro-life advocates who encouraged her not to have an abortion has decided against having the planned abortion.

Mike Huckabee, in a post on the blog of his national political action committee, the potential 2012 presidential candidate says he agrees with the scientific fact that human life begins at conception. "There is no doubt in my mind that life does begin at the point of conception. It does not begin when a Judge, or an attorney, or a left wing activist group decides that it does," Huckabee writes. "Science determines that life begins 'when the male sperm and female egg join – a new and unique life form is created.' Scientists don't say life begins at birth or viability. It begins at conception."

Kirstin Holum placed sixth in the 3,000 meter race in the 1998 Winter Olympic. Holum, 29, is now a Catholic nun known as Sister Catherine Mary. Holum says that her conversion was sparked by an experience with the pro-life group Crossroads that she says changed her life. In a letter that Crossroads received in 2005, the former speed skating champ wrote: "Crossroads completely changed my life! I came onto Crossroads as a mediocre confused Christian and finished as a zealous Roman Catholic."

...and if you haven't been following "Creative Minority Report" check out the story of baby Gianna. Warning: you will get a good cry out of it.

Read More

It Aint So Bad...

With Christmas and other holidays approaching, and the days becoming shorter, some people feel depressed. This week it seems there is a lot to be depressed about, especially if you are a person who values human rights and life. The news is full of stories.

Despite the fact that no useful therapies have been developed, or are close or even likely to be developed by embryonic stem cells, the Obama administration announced the approval of human embryonic stem cell lines for use in federally funded experiments. Our tax dollars are supporting this waste of money and lives.

Our senate has voted down the Nelson amendment. That amendment to the health care bill would have preserved the status quo by preventing our tax dollars to directly pay for elective abortions. In this, the senate disregarded precedent, the will of the people and our consciences.

In more local news we have stories like gay marriage being approved by the NJ senate judiciary committee. Then there's the Vermont court that violated the rights of a biological mother and further rejected the rights of families by awarding custody of a woman's only child to her former lesbian lover. We have the story of a New York woman how tried to force another woman to have an abortion, and when the baby was born alive in spite of her, tried to murder it.

Nor are things better internationally, where Ireland's laws that protect the life of unborn children are under attack by the European Union. In Africa we have the sad case of a law that provides the death penalty for gays. In Copenhagen we have more bad science used to justify discarding human rights with the climate conference.

Our country, and indeed the world are suffering from economic crises and moral decay. Yep, there's a lot to be depressed about. And yet, there's also a lot to be hopeful about. This is advent, a season of hope. Yesterday Pope Benedict XVI said in an address for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

Every day, through newspapers, television and radio, evil is recounted, repeated, amplified, making us accustomed to the most terrible things, making us insensitive and, in some way, intoxicating us, because the negative is never fully purged and accumulates day after day. The heart becomes harder and thoughts become darker. For this reason, the city needs Mary who ... brings us hope even in the most difficult situations.

The media, he said, tends "to make us feel like spectators, as if evil regards only others and certain things could never happen to us." Instead, "we are all actors, and for better or worse, our behaviour has an influence on others."

And of course he is right. If we listen to the news of the day, we can get so bogged down with the evil in the world we forget the Truth; that Christ has already conquered sin and death - that Christ died for us, personally. We have been assured "the gates of hades shall not prevail against the Church".

So don't give in. Be hopeful and have a blessed Advent.

Read More

Grace and Taxes

I've been wanting to write this for a long time, but the words would not come. Recently, I read several pieces, by Matt Warner and others, that said what I wanted to say with enough eloquence to make me want to copy their work and add my own meager words to it.
I don't support the health care plan passed by the house recently. As you know, I've been attacked for being selfish and “un-Christian”, since how can you deny the right of the poor to have healthcare? Well, the easy response to give was the most obvious flaw in the healthcare plan; that it would support and fund abortion. In theory it does not, although I truly believe that the concessions made by the Stupak amendment will be watered down or removed entirely before the senate is done.

So I could continue to argue about abortion coverage, or euthanasia, or other life issues, but that is all probabilistic argument right now. Instead, there are the harder-to-explain (at least for me) reasons. For many of my friends the reason is money. They are already overtaxed, and with faltering economy, high unemployment, and depleted savings, the last thing they want is congress to spend another $1,000,000,000,000.00 (remember when the U.S. Deficit hit that number a few years back? Now we're talking about spending that much money in one bill in addition to the rest of the budget).

But although I don't want any more taxes, and I think spending money you don't have is ridiculous and criminally irresponsible I have reasons that bother me as much or even more. At the risk of sounding cryptic, I sum up my reason as “there is no grace in paying taxes”. Let me expound on that a bit.

Jesus explains in Matthew 25:34-40 (quoted from the New American Bible http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew25.htm)

Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'

From this passage and others we get the seven “corporal works of mercy” which are:

• Feed the hungry
• Give drink to the thirsty
• Clothe the naked
• Shelter the homeless
• Visit the sick
• Visit those in prison
• To bury the dead

One can clearly extend the “visit the sick” to mean “care for the sick” and conclude “we must pass healthcare legislation!” But just because legislation says it will care for the sick, does that make it an appropriate remedy?

What I mean by “no grace in paying taxes” is this. When I perform corporal works of mercy I m doing God's work. When I pay my taxes, am I doing God's work? I have no choice in the matter, so I am not choosing to do these things. On the contrary, anyone who does not pay taxes is fined and in the case of healthcare thrown in prison as well.

Likewise, since money is fungible I can't even claim that my money went to help the uninsured. In Luke 20:22-25 Jesus is posed a question about taxes

Is it lawful for us to pay tribute to Caesar or not?"
Recognizing their craftiness he said to them,
"Show me a denarius; whose image and name does it bear?" They replied, "Caesar's."
So he said to them, "Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."

I've heard that used to defend paying taxes for healthcare legislation. But I'll note two interesting things. First off, Jesus does not say it is good to pay taxes or even right to pay taxes. He says it is lawful to pay taxes. In other words, you are not sinning when you pay taxes. But the cool thing is that there is always another level (usually many) in every Gospel story.

Jesus tells the scribes and chief priests that they should pay Caesar the coin, which belongs to Caesar because it has Caesar's image on it. He also tells them to repay to God what belongs to God. What do you suppose we have that is made in the image of God? Ourselves. That giving of ourselves is not part of paying the tax, but in addition to it. We can't sit back, pay taxes once a year and say “I have fulfilled a moral obligation.” we personally need to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, visit the sick and imprisoned and bury the dead. Forcing others (and being forced ourselves) to do it is not in keeping with the Gospel.

Matthew Warner has expressed it succinctly and far more beautifully than I can in his post at Fallible Blogma “A Tired Democracy”:

There will always be people in need. We must help them – not empower some ultimately corrupt government to do so on our behalf. Jesus commanded us to love/feed/help/clothe others. Nowhere does he teach that we are to force others to do so on our behalf. And I would challenge every Christian out there who continues to attack “rich” people they’ve never met, and those of you who demand and empower our government to take from one to give to another, to search your heart as to whether Jesus would ever do that? Or to find one place where Jesus calls us to do that?

Lastly, there is subsidiarity. I had internalized the definition of this word many years ago, without having the word to describe it. I only came across it in the Catechism of the Catholic Church recently, and it has been used often by the bishops in discussions of the current healthcare legislation. The CCC has this to say (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a1.htm#I):

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."

1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.
So we have to examine the question, “is healthcare reform necessary on a national level?” I would argue that some forms of healthcare reform are appropriate on a national level. Things like interstate competition between insurance companies, and availability of generic treatments from foreign sources should be addressed at a national level. Sadly, none of these issues is addressed by the current health care bill.

Bishop James Van Johnson had this to say in “Skinning the Health Care Cat"  (which I also quoted in “Why I Can't Support the Health Care Bill Part II” and which I will repeat part of here - color added to text by me):

“One might legitimately ask if giving a large, inefficient, but powerful bureaucracy like the federal government control of health care is a wise move. For one, this runs counter to the well-known principle of subsidiarity, so prominent in Catholic social teaching: “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."

How much of a role the government should have is a matter of prudential judgment. However, there are ethical dimensions to this question. Certainly, it has a role to play, but that does not necessarily mean that it should be the sole provider of health care. The government can act to remove abuses, and to regulate the health care industry so that the markets efficiently serve all the people.

Archbishop Joseph Naumann and Bishop Robert Finn have this to say in “Principles of Catholic Social Teaching and Health Care Reform” (text colored by me - I didn't have the audacity to color any of the popes' text - it is all relevant):

The writings of recent Popes have warned that the neglect of subsidiarity can lead to an excessive centralization of human services, which in turn leads to excessive costs, and loss of personal responsibility and quality of care.

Pope John Paul II wrote:

“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” (Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus #48)

And Pope Benedict writes:

“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3)—a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est #28)

While subsidiarity is vital to the structure of justice, we can see from what the Popes say that it rests on a more fundamental principal, the unchanging dignity of the person. The belief in the innate value of human life and the transcendent dignity of the human person must be the primordial driving force of reform efforts...

It is very clear that, respectful of this principle, we must find some way to provide a safety net for people in need without diminishing personal responsibility or creating an inordinately bureaucratic structure which will be vulnerable to financial abuse, be crippling to our national economy, and remove the sense of humanity from the work of healing and helping the sick.

The Church clearly advocates authentic reform which addresses this obligation, while respecting the fundamental dignity of persons and not undermining the stability of future generations.

Both of us in our family histories have had experiences that make us keenly aware of the necessity for society to provide a safety net to families who suffer catastrophic losses. Yet, these safety nets are not intended to create permanent dependency for individuals or families upon the State, but rather to provide them with the opportunity to regain control of their own lives and their own destiny...

For example, legislation that excludes legal immigrants from receiving health care benefits violates the principle of solidarity, is unjust and is not prudent. In evaluating health care reform proposals perhaps we ought to ask ourselves whether the poor would have access to the kind and quality of health care that you and I would deem necessary for our families. Is there a way by which the poor, too, can assume more responsibility for their own health care decisions in such manner as reflects their innate human dignity and is protective of their physical and spiritual well being?

So, even with the Stupak amendment I oppose the current health care legislation. Aside from the fact that I believe it will bankrupt our economy and do more harm to citizens and good, I have these objections. It still contains at least the capacity (and arguably the reality) of life issue abuses. It is unjust. It violates principles of subsidiarity. And it supplants good works with corrupt buearocracy.

Read More

Sell the Vatican!

The other day I was speaking with an "ex-Catholic" friend about faith. There were a number of things we discussed, which I will blog about as time goes by, but one thing was his statement that he can't believe in Catholicism because the Pope doesn't. According to him (and others), if the Pope really believed in Catholicism he would sell all the billions of dollars of art work, all the buildings and land, etc. and give all the money to the poor and ed world hunger once and for all.

There are two aspects of this logic that are mistaken. First off, the notion that "I would believe in 'X' if you did 'Y'" when you know darn well the person isn't going to do "y" is simply making an excuse. If you believe you believe. If you don't you don't. If someone else's actions affect your entire world view, you have a seriously fragile world view, and it will just as easily change next week when someone else does something else. Either an argument is logical or it isn't. The actions of the person who tells you about it doesn't make it any more or less compelling. So right away there is a barrier of insincerity in the question.

Secondly, there are number of reasons for the Pope not selling all the art work and giving the money away and ending world hunger. Before going over them, let's make an analogy. If he cares about poor people, why doesn't the president of the United Stated sell all the monuments and art work and stuff in the Smithsonian, and all the buildings in Washington and give the money to the poor and end hunger and provide health care, etc. for all Americans. Same issues, pretty much.

First off, those things are not the president's (Pope's) to do with as he pleases. They belong to the country (world) and many of them serve good uses, like the stuff the in the Smithsonian (name your favorite place here) that is used for teaching.

Secondly, how effectively could the US (Vatican) conduct its business with no buildings, no staff, no way to communicate or educate? A certain amount of money, and yes, even grandeur is needed to be a "player" in this world.

Lastly, and sadly, all the money in the world would not end world hunger. Throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away (and often exacerbates it). Let's say you did sell everything off and wanted to use the money to feed the hungry. You'd be getting that money from the very rich, and then turning around and giving it back to buy food. the glut of art work on the market place would make it worthless, and the demand for food would drive food prices up so that you'd wind up doing nothing except lining the pockets of speculators. In a day, or a month, or a year, the food would be gone, the rich would still be rich, and the hungry would be hungry again.

Ultimately the problem of the poor and hungry is caused by the attitudes and actions of billions of people, and cannot be solved by a single act by a single individual, or even a single country. The solution is an economy based not on greed or personal gain, but on justice and charity.

Which brings us to Benedict XVI's recent encyclical, "Caritas in Veritae", or "Charity in Truth." Of course I've only read the first couple of pages (it is quite long), but I have read the blogs and heard others analysis who have read it. No, I'm not being hypocritical, I have started reading it and have preordered the book. I just haven't had time yet to spend reading it online, the only form in which I have access to it right now (and I hate reading things online - as you know I prefer books).

In Caritas in Veritae Pope Benedict XVI discusses how in order to have an economy that is just and vital it must be grounded in respect for human beings. It doesn't describe economic practice, more economic philosophy.

For years I've heard people complaining that the Pope can't tell them anything about sex because he is a virgin. The same people complain that the Pope is one of the richest men in the world. So now that he's talking about money, do you think they'll listen?

Read More

Still Crazy After All These Years

In January of 1610 Galileo discovered his eponymous moons of Jupiter and confirmed empirically that Ptolemy was wrong. Nearly 400 years later I read an article by Dr. Stephen Hawking that caused me to complain so vociferously my friends urged me to start a blog (presumably so they could just ignore my RSS feed instead of me personally). I'd like to comment on the article, then the incident.

The Article

Dr. Hawking, for those of you who have been living in a black hole, is one of the worlds' most famous cosmologists. He is a theoretical physicist who holds the position of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University (but that's another blog post). His work on black holes (hence the earlier pun) is the work on black holes. In other words, smart guy.

However, smart does not (alas) make one right, and theoretical physics does not give one expertise in areas of history. Hawking misremembers, misinterprets, and misinforms. I can't repeat the entire article here, but the gist of it has been promulgated by him in various forms for years, as in this story from 2006.

The implication is that science and the Catholic Church are irreconcilably at odds today, and presumably the reader is supposed to come away thinking "well, I have to give up one or the other, and since science clearly works..." Since we're scientists, let's look at the "facts" Hawking uses to support his hypothesis.

Hawking claims that Pope John Paul II told scientists they should not study the beginning of the universe because it was the work of God. Just reading this red flags go up for me.

1. But...all creation is the work of God, so why would the pope single out that one event as "unstudiable"?
2. The Church (with a few exceptions) has always supported scientific inquiry, from Copernicus, who's theory it was that Galileo published to Monsignor George Lemaitre, who first proposed the Big Bang theory in 1927 (but that's another blog post).
3. Why would the Vatican host a conference on cosmology for scientists if it didn't want scientists to study cosmology?

Apparently Dr. Hawking's memory is faulty, nor did he nor any of the publications in which this quote has been printed over the last 3 years think to use google. I did, and in minutes was reading the complete text of Pope John Paul II's address to the conference at which Hawking claims the statement was made. It can be found here. For those as lazy as I here is an excerpt:

Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.

Any scientific hypothesis on the origin of the world, such as the hypothesis of a primitive atom from which derived the whole of the physical universe, leaves open the problem concerning the universe's beginning. Science cannot of itself solve this question: there is needed that human knowledge that rises above physics and astrophysics and which is called metaphysics; there is needed above all the knowledge that comes from God's revelation. Thirty years ago, on 22 November 1951, my predecessor Pope Pius XII, speaking about the problem of the origin of the universe at the Study Week on the subject of microseisms organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, expressed himself as follows: "In vain would one expect a reply from the sciences of nature, which on the contrary frankly declare that they find themselves faced by an insoluble enigma. It is equally certain that the human mind versed in philosophical meditation penetrates the problem more deeply. One cannot deny that a mind which is enlightened and enriched by modern scientific knowledge and which calmly considers this problem is led to break the circle of matter which is totally independent and autonomous - as being either uncreated or having created itself - and to rise to a creating Mind. With the same clear and critical gaze with which it examines and judges the facts, it discerns and recognizes there the work of creative Omnipotence, whose strength raised up by the powerful fiat uttered billions of years ago by the creating Mind, has spread through the universe, calling into existence, in a gesture of generous love, matter teeming with energy".

Reading the Pope's speech in its entirety it is clear that there is no such injunction against studying the origins of the universe. The Pope clearly states that science is involved in the physics of creation, while religion concerns itself with the metaphysics of creation. There is no conflict.

Hawking goes on to say that he feared he would be the subject of an inquisition like Galileo because of the paper he was working on. According to Hawking's recount of the events, Galileo was given papal permission to publish his book, but when the Church realized Galileo's ideas becoming popular they forced him to recant and suppressed his work. So let's look at the events of Galileo's "incident" through the eyes of history, not opinion.

The Incident

Now that I've built up your expectations, let me start by saying I'm not going to rehash the whole thing here. There are a number of sources who have done a much better job than I could of presenting the situation. I do insist that you read sources who have actually studied the documents involved rather than articles by people who have heard things third and fourth hand and are spouting their own opinions. My first introduction to the issue was from the book "Brother Astronomer: Adventures of a Vatican Scientist" by Guy Consolmagno, but there are other accounts that have been well researched.

It seems to me that while Galileo was put under house arrest, it was not because of his support for Copernicus but rather his mocking of the Pope. To quote Wikipedia (not that it is a definitive source, but it is one of the better on-line sources):

The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission. Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. This fact made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book; an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defense of the Copernican theory. To add insult to injury, Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio

So, Galileo was given papal permission to print his book provided he change it to include included the words of Pope Urban VIII, who had a contrary opinion to Galileo. He changed the book, but put the words of the pope in the mouth of the simpleton.

Now, Hawking says he fears for the inquisition because of his paper. But perhaps he should be more worried about putting his words into the mouth of Pope John Paul II.

The Truth

What else has the Pope said on the roles of religion and science, and about Galileo?

From "Address of Pope John Paul II to the Participants on the Vatican Conference on Cosmology" 6 July 1985 (4 years after the one Hawking complained about):

Please know that your diligent work, especially in the field of astrophysics, together with your ecclesial dedication, bears splendid witness to the Church’s profound interest in the world of science and particularly in the men and women engaged in scientific research.

I warmly greet the observational astronomers and the theorists in gravitational physics and cosmology who have accepted the invitation to take part in this important meeting. It is a joy to welcome you today, together with the members of your families.

Through the natural sciences, and cosmology in particular, we have become much more aware of our true physical position within the universe, within physical reality - in space and in time. We are struck very forcibly by our smallness and apparent insignificance, and even more by our vulnerability in such a vast and seemingly hostile environment. Yet this universe of ours, this galaxy in which our sun is situated and this planet on which we live, is our home. And all of it in some way or other serves to support us, nourish us, fascinate us, inspire us, taking us out of ourselves and forcing us to look far beyond the limits of our unaided vision. What we discover through our study of nature and of the universe in all its immensity and rich variety serves on the one hand to emphasize our fragile condition and our littleness, and on the other hand to manifest clearly our greatness and superiority in the midst of all creation - the profoundly exalted position we enjoy in being able to search, to imagine and to discover so much. We are made in the image and likeness of God. Thus, we are capable of knowing and understanding more and more about the universe and all that it contains. We can reach out and grasp its inner workings and designs, plumbing its depths with questioning reverence and with awestruck imagination.

There is, of course, more to the address. From "The Vatican's Turn to Recant":

In 1979, a year after he became Pope, John Paul II signaled that he wanted the Galileo case set right by giving a speech at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at which he declared in typically elliptical Vatican language that "theologians, scholars, and historians, animated by a spirit of sincere collaboration, will study the Galileo case more deeply." In case anyone missed the point about the Pope's desire for a reconciliation of science and religion, John Paul II choose as the date for this speech the centenary anniversary of Einstein's birth.

In October 1992, Cardinal Paul Poupard presented the Pope with the findings of the Galileo study commission, which declared, "From the Galileo case we can draw a lesson which is applicable today in analogous cases which arise in our times and which may arise in the future. It often happens that, beyond two partial points of view which are in contrast, there exists a wider view of things which embraces both and integrates them." By Vatican standards, this rotund language was an apology. The Pope responded by saying that Galileo's realizations about the sun and earth must have been divinely inspired: "Galileo sensed in his scientific research the presence of the Creator who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions." Through its 1992 ceremony, the church finally lifted its edict of Inquisition against Galileo, who went to his grave a devout Catholic, despite the church's treatment of him.

In fact the Vatican is erecting a statue of Galileo.
So, where does that leave the Church's position on Science? In 2005 Pope Benedict XVI addressed yet another conference with the words

"There is no opposition between faith's understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences," he said, quoting from Popes Pius XII and John Paul II.
He also cited Galileo, whom, he said "saw nature as a book whose author is God in the same way that Scripture has God as its author."

Where does that leave scientists' position on the Church? In 2008 Pope Benedict XVI was "uninvited" to speak at La Sapienza at the request of its physics department, because he had quoted a document on the Galileo trial (with which he did not agree). See The Curt Jester's blog post on that subject for more details.

Who's running an Inquisition now?

Read More