On October 13, 2017, the federal government issued an interim rule which exempts religious entities from paying for objectionable services as part of their insurance plans. These include:
(FDA)-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures ... [including] certain drugs and devices that may not only prevent conception (fertilization), but may also prevent implantation of an embryo ... that many persons and organizations believe are abortifacient.
See here for several prior TCV blog posts about this issue.
WHAT IS MEDICINE?
Responding to this interim rule, Hillary Clinton tweeted: "Rolling back no-copay birth control shows a blatant disregard for medicine, science, & every woman's right to make her own health decisions."
Planned Parenthood, which is pacing at about 300,000 abortion victims per year, also responded. Their president, Cecile Richards, issued a statement saying exemptions for "birth control coverage" are an "attack on basic health care."
Many other celebrities and non-celebrities upset by the rule echoed similar sentiments.
But medicine is designed to fix an affliction of the body. Medicine's end goal is a body that functions properly. For example, medical remedies can come in the form of pills that directly fix a bodily problem such as antibiotics that attack or prevent bacterial infections. Medical remedies can come in the form of a surgery to repair a broken limb or remove a cancerous mass—any necessary part of that surgery could be considered medical care.
Birth control is not medicine. In fact, birth control's end goal is to cause a properly functioning body to malfunction.
One might try to argue something like anesthesia is not medicine, since, for example, it temporarily causes the patient the inability to feel—a malfunction of the body. However, this is only done as part of a larger goal of correcting the body. Body malfunction is not the end goal of using anesthesia. Something like an incision is similar. The ultimate goal isn't to scar a patient, but it can be necessary to ultimately treat the affliction. Contrary to these, the end goal of birth control is body malfunction.
In the case of oral contraceptives, an otherwise properly functioning ovulation cycle is stifled. Other oral contraceptives thicken an otherwise fertile uterine wall, preventing implantation of a zygote, thus killing it. Generally speaking, these are all forms of sterilization—which is a field of disease in itself. This is the product we are told must be covered by medical insurance. Forget for a moment any religious beliefs behind objections to the original mandate. Requiring insurance coverage of birth control can be opposed on medical grounds alone—specifically that birth control is not medicine.
In the earliest stages of this birth control/insurance matter, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo wrote on behalf of the U.S. bishops: "[P]regnancy is not a disease."
In response to this latest rule, Lila Rose, president of Live Action, defended this concept in a tweet:
Abortifacient drugs are the antithesis of "healthcare." Medicine is meant to heal, not kill.
Abortifacient drugs are the antithesis of "healthcare." Medicine is meant to heal, not kill. https://t.co/Xx2XKP3TYp
And she is exactly right. Medicine is meant to heal.
WHAT ABOUT OTHER USES FOR CONTRACEPTIVES?
As in 2012, objectors immediately pointed out that some contraceptives can be used to regulate cycles or alleviate pains. However, in such cases, the product would not properly be called "birth control" because the drug is not used to prevent birth. Recall in 2012, Bishop Lori, speaking before congress, explained how the same medications typically used for birth control could possibly have other uses:
Blake Farenthold - The Catholic Church does not have a problem with contraceptives for medical purposes. So I would assume from that it wouldn't be morally objectionable to the Church to pay for those for medical purposes. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, I'm just trying to make sure I understand where the Church stands.
Bishop Lori - That would be my understanding also.
And:
Bishop Lori - I think Catholic moral theology is very nuanced. It recognizes that the same drug can operate in different ways and accomplish different things. If it is used to prevent birth, it is against our teaching.
[U]nder the university’s plan, you cannot receive reimbursement for oral contraceptives, contraceptive devices or contraceptive implants, except when specifically requested by a physician based on medical necessity and for purposes other than contraception.
Insurance companies have made similar distinctions with other drugs. For example, Finasteride can be used to treat enlarged prostates but also to treat hair loss. The latter is considered cosmetic and insurance companies are not required to cover the drug in such cases.
Nevertheless, the original HHS Mandate made no distinction regarding coverage of contraceptive products. Contraceptives were required for medicinal as well as anti-medicinal purposes. The Church and other entities object to the anti-medicinal use of contraceptives, i.e. birth control.
WHAT ABOUT VIAGRA?
You may have seen in reaction to this latest rule cries that requiring coverage for Viagra is hypocritical or misogynistic. For instance, NARAL, a vocal pro-abortion group, tweeted: "In case you were wondering, bosses can’t “opt out” of paying for Viagra."
But what is the obvious failure of intellect in that statement? Viagra, which treats erectile dysfunction, is designed to correct a body malfunction. And, again, birth control, is designed to cause body malfunction. If NARAL and their peers were serious about finding a valid parallel, they would argue that something like OTC skin ointment should be covered since it is designed to fix a bodily affliction or mouthwash which is designed to prevent poor hygiene.
I should note, for the purposes of this blog post, I'm not arguing whether or not any drug/treatment should be "required" in medical insurance policies. Certainly there are reasonable discussions that could be had regarding coverage of only major medical expenses or to give market forces a greater voice in shaping insurance policies. The purpose of this post is focused on birth control and the nature of medicine.
OUR LADY'S INVOLVEMENT?
You might have noticed at the beginning that this interim rule was issued on October 13, 2017, the 100th anniversary of the apparition of Our Lady at Fatima and the Miracle of the Sun. One of the central figures in this contraceptive case was the Little Sisters of the Poor who would have incurred severe fines under the original mandate had they not paid for birth control for someone else. Other religious entities faced similar burdens. Many prayers on this matter have occurred over the past 5 years. Participation in birth control, sterilizations, and chemical abortions are clearly a moral offense in the eyes of the faithful. This is why the matter of conscious rights took a prevalent position in this discussion. We saw in a previous TCV article the amazing rescue of Chilean miners on October 13, 2010. Might Our Lady have interceded for the faithful and little ones, to protect their consciences, lives, and souls?
Although this post is not directly theological, it is an exercise in logic and lateral thinking. Such cognition can be useful in life when answers are not obvious. It can also help in theological studies such as when interpreting Scripture in instances where figurative lessons await discovery beneath the literal meaning of a text. So let's look at the classic Monty Hall problem.
[Y]ou are on a game show with three doors, behind one of which is a car and behind the other two are goats. You pick door #1. Monty, who knows what’s behind all three doors, reveals that behind door #2 is a goat. Before showing you what you won, Monty asks if you want to switch doors. ... [Y]ou should always switch. ... Here’s why: At the beginning of the game you have a 1/3rd chance of picking the car and a 2/3rds chance of picking a goat. Switching doors is bad only if you initially chose the car, which happens only 1/3rd of the time. Switching doors is good if you initially chose a goat, which happens 2/3rds of the time. Thus, the probability of winning by switching is 2/3rds, or double the odds of not switching. ... [T]ry the various computer simulations yourself and you will see that you double your actual wins by switching doors.
The article also posits these three assumptions:
(1) Monty never opens the door you chose initially; (2) Monty always opens a door concealing a goat; (3) When the first two rules leave Monty with a choice of doors to open (which happens in those cases where your initial choice was correct) he makes his choice at random.
Let's take a look at this visually in 2 Figures:
The classic Monty Hall solution recommends each contestant switch to the other's door to improve his odds of winning. But, as you can see from Figures A and B, there is a statistical conundrum.
In the above scenarios, each of the three classic Monty Hall assumptions were accounted for in each contestant's game. And, remember, the hidden prize location is the same for both contestants. The classic Monty Hall solution tells contestant #1 that door #3 has a 2/3 chance of winning. And the classic Monty Hall solution tells contestant #2 that door #1 has a 2/3 chance of winning. But how can 2 doors have a 2/3 chance of winning? The two doors cannot combine for a 4/3 chance of winning. It is at least statistically paradoxical.
In conclusion, I don't profess to be a statistics expert. And even if someone offers a sound mathematical explanation to account for what I've discussed above, I think the thought exercise will at least be fruitful in producing that answer — one which I have not previously seen to date.
This blog post is a critique of a modern "TED talk" titled: "Science can answer moral questions." (Click these links to watch the video or read the transcript.)
TED is a well-known international nonprofit dedicated to providing a platform for "powerful talks" and promotion of the "power of ideas to change attitudes, lives and, ultimately, the world. ...from the world's most inspired thinkers."
The speaker of this particular TED talk in 2010 was Sam Harris, a doctor in neuroscience, also known for challenging traditional proofs for the existence of God.
MAKE NO ASSUMPTIONS
In order to identify the inherent flaw that lines his entire speech, I invite the reader to lay down all presuppositions on what he/she already believe about the morality of any issue. That is a distraction from the matter at hand. This blog post is solely intended to confront the assertion of the TED talk as to whether science can answer moral questions. Therefore, in this post, I will only examine Harris' assertions on morality based on that premise.
THE ARGUMENT
For Harris, whether or not something is beneficial to human well-being/flourishing is intertwined with whether or not something is moral. His closing remarks include the statement:
[W]e can no more respect and tolerate vast differences in notions of human well-being than we can respect or tolerate vast differences in the notions about how disease spreads, or in the safety standards of buildings and airplanes.
According to Harris, something like physical health, which can be measured by science in the form of facts, reveal that which is moral or not. Granted, he admits science cannot answer every moral dilemma, but this is nonetheless the gist of his speech. Feel free to click the links at top to hear his speech in context. Using his own terminology, his argument in visible form looks like this:
Harris' basic argument for how science reveals morality
Do scientific facts reveal X to lead to
human "well-being/flourishing" (e.g. physical health)?
–?–
The matter is moral.
Do scientific facts reveal X to lead to
human "non-well-being/non-flourishing" (e.g. sickness, injury)?
–?–
The matter is immoral
As a general principle for morality, the conclusions in this table aren't necessarily wrong. But remember our question. Is science what is providing the moral answers? I ask the reader to follow carefully. Remember what I requested earlier. Lay down all presuppositions of what you consider moral. Let science do what Harris says it will do. Approach science with a blank slate in order to permit it to reveal to you what is moral. Can science tell us whether or not something is moral.
In Harris' argument, he actually makes an illogical leap that goes like this, for example: Science reveals that X causes death. Therefore, X is morally evil. But what's missing from his logic? I'll ask it in the form of a question: What makes death a moral evil? Science says nothing about the moral quality of any molecular reaction. Science only reveals what happens when these molecules interact with these molecules.
Think of it this way. Science reveals that an injection of 5g of sodium thiopental is effective in causing death in humans. Some states use this barbiturate to administer lethal injections to criminals. Therefore, if a man acquired this barbiturate, and injected it into a stranger on the street, the stranger would die. What does science reveal about the morality of this act? Absolutely nothing. All science "answered" was that X would result in Y. All science "answered" was that these molecules have this reaction with these other molecules. But it takes an interpretation of the facts to discern which reactions have what moral quality.
SECRETLY APPEALING TO HUMAN DIGNITY
When Harris says he is appealing to science to answer a moral question, what he is actually doing is appealing to the inherent dignity of a human being versus, say, an inanimate object. In the above table, I marked where Harris is missing an intermediate logical step in the second column. It is in this step where one would establish a human being merits good health because of their inherent dignity. Harris skips this point in his analysis. It is a blind spot of sorts in his entire discourse. He presupposes human dignity. He acts as though science has revealed this dignity when it cannot.
At one point, Harris admits that his belief in moral answers aligns him with religious "demagogues," yet claims his answers come from "intelligent analysis" and theirs come from "a whirlwind." He says:
Now the irony, from my perspective, is that the only people who seem to generally agree with me and who think that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions are religious demagogues of one form or another. And of course they think they have right answers to moral questions because they got these answers from a voice in a whirlwind, not because they made an intelligent analysis of the causes and condition of human and animal well-being.
At least Harris admits here that his moral determinations come from "analysis" of the science and not from the science itself. In that sense, he has already debunked the title of his talk. But as I also mentioned, his analysis contains the presupposition of the dignity of the human person. Ironically, it is Harris who appeals to a "whirlwind." He avoids analysis of why humans have dignity at all or are even capable of moral actions.
CONCLUSIONS
The Catholic would agree that it is immoral to harm another's physical well-being because "The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God" (CCC#1700) Smashing a rock does not have the same moral quality even though the act can likewise be measured scientifically. The "natural moral law" is reasoned based on the principle of what "properly belongs to human nature" (CCC#1955). (See related post on Natural Law here.) This dignity is of such value, God Himself assumed the human nature in the Incarnation. But I won't go on a long apologetic for the dignity of the human person from a Catholic perspective because the purpose of this post is to show science cannot answer moral questions.
Consideration of the dignity of the human person is indispensable in answering moral questions. And the dignity of the human person is not revealed by science. Dignity cannot be empirically observed in a laboratory. Thus, because human dignity is an essential component of moral inquiry, science cannot "answer" moral questions. It can only show what effects certain things will have in the empirical world, but not the moral quality of any effect.
This posts continues the theme of the first "historic photos post" here at The Catholic Voyager. Following are seven more historic photos with Catholic back stories.
In November 1963, the Catholic Committee on Scouting of North Bergen, Boy Scouts of America visited St. Joseph's Village, a home to nearly 200 dependent children in Rockleigh, New Jersey. The complex operated from 1958-1972 and was run by the Sisters of St. Joseph to give care to children without a viable home situation.
There were two times the scouts had a clam bake there, as I remember. And I was at it one of the times. That day, they had different activities that the scouts were doing, like rope climbing and things like that. And the nuns were participating in them.
Pictured above are two of the sisters enjoying a ride on the Village's playground swing set, near the Barbara Givernaud Cottage, a residence home for the children.
Today, the Village is now a facility for a variety of human services, as summarized at the St. Joseph's Village website:
After the Village closed it doors for good in 1972, the Sisters of St. Joseph of Newark sold the property to the Bergen County Special Services on the condition that it be used to help people. After making considerable modifications, the county opened several human services programs — a 110 bed nursing home, a substance abuse rehabilitation program, a high school for autistic children, and other programs for youth with emotional and behavioral needs.
2. The Copiapó Mining Rescue, 2010
(Photo credit: CNS/Reuters/Hugo Infante-Government of Chile)
Mining companies throughout the globe offered their assistance. The owner of one company, Drillers Supply International, was Greg Hall, a Catholic deacon at Christ the Redeemer church in, Cypress, Texas.
The miners were somewhere between 400 and 800 meters down. The mining equipment only goes to 400 meters. We were called in to help them get to 800. ... After day 10 I was convinced it was a recovery effort, not a rescue. There was a place in the mine called the “refuge” where trapped workers could go during an emergency, but there were only provisions there for three days.
Yet, on day 17, a drill penetrated the "refuge" chamber, and the rescue crew could hear tapping on the end of the drill. When they raised the drill, on the end was a note in Spanish reading: "We are OK in the refuge, the 33."
Now with an opening to the miners, supplies were sent for their continued survival. Yet the Chilean government's plan for rescue at this point was scheduled to last 5-6 months. Hall met with officials and convinced them to attempt what became known as Plan B.
With help from a team of specialists and high-tech equipment from around the world, the rescue team sought to widen a hole which was originally 5 inches in diameter to a hole 26 inches in diameter. Throughout the ordeal, Hall prayed and prayed. While praying the Liturgy of the Hours one morning, he recalls praying: "I’m going to do everything I can, Lord, but this is not my work, this is your work."
One hundred feet from finishing the widened tunnel, the drill stopped. "We were stuck, totally, 100 percent stuck," Hall recalls. The equipment had already defied computer modeling for that depth and that pressure to that point. The situation felt bleak. Hall prayed again, "I’ve done everything I can, Lord, this is your work. You are going to have to send your angels." And the drill finally came to life again, finishing the 26-inch wide tunnel through which the miners would be rescued one by one via a narrow capsule. "God drilled the hole," Hall says.
Pictured above is Mario Gomez, the ninth miner rescued, pausing to pray after reaching the surface. The narrow transport capsule is in the background. The 33rd and final miner was rescued on October 13, 2010, over two months after the cave-in, and also the feast of the last apparition of Our Lady of Fatima.
The incident is now a major motion picture called The 33.
3. The Boxer Rebellion, 1900
In 1900, Chinese Christians sustained some of the worst persecution in Chinese history during "The Boxer Rebellion."
According to History.com, a number of Chinese rebelled against Christian residents and missionaries, and other Western immigrants, blaming "their poor standard of living on foreigners who were colonizing their country." Whether immigration attributed to their poverty was a matter of debate. For instance, a large percentage of Boxers came "from Shandong province, which had been struck by natural disasters such as famine and flooding."
The Boxer rebellion officially ended in 1901 following the help of allied forces which included Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
For our next photo, we go subaqua to the waters of Key Largo, Florida. Pictured above is a 2009 photo of one of the premier attractions of Key Largo––the Christ of the Abyss statue. It was installed in the underwater John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park in 1965.
The statue is the third underwater sculpture of its kind, cast from the same mold as the original, which dates back to 1954 near Genoa, Italy. The second, installed in 1961, is off the coast of Grenada.
The Key Largo statue celebrated its 50th year this year. The man responsible for transporting the replica of the original Italian statue is Gabe Spataro. Earlier this year, at age 83, he celebrated the statue's anniversary by diving, while legally blind, no less, in Key Largo to lay wreaths on the statue.
Discovery News recently produced a short video on the Key Largo Christ of the Abyss. The video features the photographer credited above, Stephen Weir. Although Weir himself is not a Christian, he said of the statue, "For me, when I first saw Jesus, it was inspirational." Watch the Discovery News video here.
5. The Penitent Thief, 1961
If you think this photo looks like characters from Dragnet taking detectives' notes with Catholic statues, you're not far off. This photo appeared on the front page of the June 9, 1961 issue of the Denver Post with the headline: Religious Statues Prod Thief's Conscience. The brief story reads:
Denver detectives Walter Starr (left) and Arthur Moser make a list of the religious statues left, apparently by a thief, in vestibule of the parish house of Loyola Catholic Church, 2301 York St. The statues were in three suitcases, and the Rev. Ed P. Murphy left them undisturbed several days, thinking they belonged to a visiting priest. Finally he opened them, and in looking over the statues found the name of their owner, Hans Dorff, a San Francisco importer. Fr. Murphy wrote to Dorff, and Dorff notified Denver police. Seems the statues and other belongings were stolen from his car parked on a Denver street the night of May 29.
6. Smoke Signals, 1963
This gentleman is cooking up none other than smoke signals from inside the Vatican during the 1963 papal conclave at which Pope Paul VI was eventually elected. This was the first time special chemicals were added to the signal smoke. To outside onlookers, white smoke signifies a new pope has been chosen. Black smoke signifies no result. During the prior conclave in 1958, what was intended to be black smoke escaped white, confusing the audience into thinking a pope had been named, when in fact he had not.1 The confusion later led to the chemical additives of 1963. In 2005, ringing of bells were also added as part of the signal for an affirmative papal election. 1Burke-Young, Francis A. Passing the Keys. Madison Books. Maryland, Oxford. 2001. p.110
7. Comet Hunters, 1946
Either the two priests above were holding a pair of binoculars when they shrunk, or they are Jesuits at the Vatican Observatory. On February 2, 1946, the announcement was made of the "Timmers Comet," named for Brother Matthew Timmers above, with his associate Father Walter Miller.
The comet, visible with telescopic assistance, passed over the Americas. Subscribers of a Harvard "announcement" list received a mailing that included "Tables of position" for the comet's spring travels. Author J. Hugh Pruett for the Spokane Daily Chronicle recounted his observation:
Two of us first looked for Comet Timmers in a wonderfully clear and moonless sky on the evening of February 25. There...was in the position predicted, a fuzzy little object with a bright central nucleus and a faint indication of a nebulous tail pointing away from the sun––as do all orthodox cometary appendages. Surrounding it in the circular field of view were many little stars of various brilliancies. We were reaching into the great spaces for an interplanetary traveler far beyond the ken of unaided vision.
Edit 11/9/2015 to add:
Listen to my interview about this blog post on The Don Johnson Radio Show from 11/6/2015 at MP3 archive here. My segment begins at 35:30, but I encourage anyone to listen to the whole episode or any other archive of Don's show.
The centuries have seen manifold ways by which converts, reverts, and lifelong Catholics experience a spark of faith ignited into a fiery love story. This post is intended as a thought exercise with regard to some reasons that may compel the ponderer to consider Catholicism. These are by no means all the reasons someone might be moved to consider Catholicism. Theses are by no means even necessarily the best. Also, these are in no particular order. These are merely reasons perhaps pertinent to 21st century themes and attitudes.
1. The Church is pro-science
The current talk of water on Mars reminds us how much scientific discussions are prevalent today. Despite what stereotype
you may have heard, the Church has been overwhelmingly an advocate of
science throughout the centuries. Hundreds Catholic scientists are listed here, and those are just the clergy. Many don't know even the Big Bang theory was spearheaded by a Catholic priest (here he is hanging with Einstein). I've profiled a few others on this blog.
The
Galileo affair seems to be a totem of sorts, used by those who seek to
paint the Church as anti-science. But not only would that, if true, be
among the exceptions of the Church's pro-scientific history, but it's
not quite true. The Church didn't reject Galileo's view simply because
it was scientific. Many articles have been written to clarify the
subject (e.g. Catholic.com or even by atheist writer Tim O'Neil who details where Galileo's proofs fell short).
Nevertheless,
our focus here is on modern times. Are you a believer in, say,
biological evolution, but afraid you might have to forfeit that view if
you joined the Church? Worry not. Pope Benedict XVI said,
"there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as
a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life
and being as such."Pope Francis, who has a degree in chemistry, has likewise acknowledged no opposition between faith and science. Prior Popes have made similar sentiments.
As discussed in prior posts, the Church avails herself to science when scrutinizing claims of miracles. Priests with scientific backgrounds even operate the Vatican Observatory. Recourse to science is not an exception for the Church, but the norm.
2. No "hashtag" theology
Have
you ever found yourself yearning to understand someone's view, but the
best you can get is some hashtag or bumper sticker slogan in response?
Maybe the extent of your colleague's view is nothing deeper than
changing their social media photo to some symbol. You want to know how
your colleague's view accounts for a fair question or two. But if you
challenge that view, you get either the slogan repeated, or perhaps you
are called a bad name. And you wonder to yourself, if my colleague's
view can't account for any scrutiny, how baseless must it be?
Yet, often, the Church is accused
of offering a faith without evidence. Not so. If you've ever taken the
time to pick up an encyclical or document of a Church council, you can
expect depth of reason. Even in the Catechism, which is more of a
summary of doctrines, the paragraphs build upon one another. A great
doctrinal thesis like St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, written in the 13th century, is fraught with opponents' arguments against any doctrine. It's very structure confronts multiple "objections" at every turn.
The Council of Trent
in the 16th century was largely a response to clarify and fortify
doctrines in the face of Protestant objections. So, for instance, when
the Church was accused of worshipping saints or icons, the Council
assured objectors: "not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be
in [the saints], on account of which they are to be worshipped..." Or
when the Church was accused of abusive sale of indulgences, the Council
confronted the scrutiny and conceded:
And
being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by
occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by
heretics, be amended and corrected, [the Council] ordains generally by
this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof, whence a
most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been
derived, be wholly abolished.
Reason and consideration of objections is nothing uncommon in the Church. Even at the first Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-35),
Peter and James elaborated on circumcision, the relationship with
Gentiles, and salvation with much reason and recourse to Scripture.
Perhaps
one considering the Church's position on this or that doctrine still
disagrees. But one could not accuse the Church of offering an
explanation with the mere depth of a hashtag. Nor could one accuse the
Church of turning a blind eye to objections. Wouldn't it be
characteristic of a Church that brokers in truth to have no fear of
objections, nor fear of delving deeply into those truths?
3. No "yes-man" mentality
It's election season. And if you're old enough to remember any election, you can probably think of a politician's promise that somehow never made it to the table. Maybe you can think of a lot. Or perhaps you've been with a date who just affirmed everything you did or said, having no perceptions of his/her own. Or if you're a boss and you have one of those "yes-men" underlings, who are only interested in making you feel good about yourself, even if the truth would otherwise help you.
It's no secret the Church is willing to say things many people don't want to hear. Don't think it's just about hot-button issues like "gay marriage," toward which the Church is perceived to take an "unpopular" view. There are plenty of other people who don't like hearing the Church's stance on fornication, masturbation, confessing sins to a priest, or even the existence of hell. Perhaps you don't like those views yourself. You're still invited to study, scrutinize, and give an honest examination
of the Church's views on any moral or faith-based doctrine. If the Church was into mere membership numbers, all of these teachings might go out the window. But the point here in reason #3 is that you can expect answers from the Church not founded on coddling or patronizing you. Does that kind of directness sound refreshing?
4. Consistency
Tying into reason #3, you will get consistency from the Church on matters of faith and morals. There has never been a single defined teaching on such a matter that was ever reversed. The Church has studied the Scriptures and the Apostolic deposit of faith for centuries, deriving truths from that single "wellspring." So, for instance, the Church never has said God is not Trinity after defining God as Trinity at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. We're celebrating the 1690th anniversary of that dogma this year. Divinity of Christ? Articulated at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. Happy 1584th anniversary to that dogma. Many other teachings have been taught consistently throughout the centuries or through other councils and documents.
In the early days of the "gay marriage" debate, Slate, which is not by any stretch a champion of all things Church, published a harsh critique of those who do not support "gay marriage." Of those critiqued, the author conceded, "Only the Catholic Church has maintained logical consistency" with regard to sexual teaching. The author refers to the Church's view that the proper context of a sexual act is within marriage and open to life. Thus, for centuries, the Church has taught as disordered not only something like a "gay marriage," but fornication, masturbation, adultery, contraception, etc. Not every supporter of "traditional" marriage bears this consistency.
So the Church doesn't change faith or moral dogmas. Perhaps a flippant skeptic would simply accuse the Church of stubbornness. On the other hand, if the Church claims to posit sacred truths, one of the characteristics we should observe is consistency. Water is not H2O on Monday and something else on Tuesday while still called water. The purpose of this particular post is not to give a thorough defense of this or that dogma, but to invite souls to consider what the Church is proposing. Isn't consistency something you seek in a truth?
5. Don't worry about hypocrite Christians
We've heard it before. Someone tells you they reject Catholicism on account of this or that scandal by this or that priest, friend, or whomever. They don't want to be part of the Church of which that person is a part. Christian hypocrites misbehaving on Saturday but back in church on Sunday were actually used by Anton Lavey as a reason for founding of his brand of Satanism. The Hindu leader Ghandi is known for stating some version of the quote: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Even the well-known Catholic convert and theologian, Dr. Peter Kreeft, when asked what is orthodox Christianity's greatest obstacle, replied, "Our own sins."
First, I'd like to note there are many holy persons in the Church, practicing the faith heroically in charity and persistence. The skeptic should grant these souls due consideration as well. In fact, these souls are those about whom Dr. Kreeft says, "Only saints can save the world." If you think you can be one, please consider the Church! We can use more saints!
But let's return to the notion of sinful Christians. The bad news is, there are Christian hypocrites. The good news is, our faith is not founded on the sins of the Church's members. Our faith is founded on Jesus Christ. There is no other. As Scripture states, "For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:11)
As well, there is no institution free of sinners. To reject the Church on account of sinful members is to embrace some other sinful body, including the self-governed irreligious individual. Thus, rejecting the Church on account of sinful members cannot be a deal breaker.
It's also worth clarifying what "hypocrisy" actually is. A person who sins and is Christian is not automatically a hypocrite. I think some critics make this mistake. Consider this analogy. A father addicted to cigarettes is not a hypocrite if he tells his son not to smoke while confessing the harm of his own smoking. Rather, he would be a hypocrite if he tells his son not to smoke while justifying his own smoking.
But wait, says the skeptic, the Bible also says, "you will know them by their fruits." (Matt. 7:20). So that's proof the Church is bad! But is the sinner practicing Catholic teaching? No. But wait again, says the skeptic. You're just saying Christians who sin aren't acting Christian. That's the "No true Scotsman fallacy!" Not so. Catholicism has identifiable moral doctrines. One can read summaries of these in the Catechism. (See the Catechism index here for an alphabetical topic list.) It is Catholic teaching that stealing is sinful. If a Catholic steals, he's not practicing Catholicism, even if he is a baptized Catholic. The Scotsman fallacy refers to making up false or arbitrary criteria after the fact in order to protect the original claim.
Let's consider another example. This is fitting, because the Church often refers to herself as a "hospital for sinners" (a moniker which admits to the sins of members, by the way). Let's say there is a certain fever going around in a village. A doctor visits and prescribes a medicine. After a month, 90% of the villagers still have the fever. So the medicine is faulty, right? Not so fast! We need more information. As it turns out, 90% of the villagers stopped taking the medicine. The 10% who took the medicine no longer have the fever. In this example, one can't judge the medicine based on the actions of those not taking the medicine. Similarly, one can't judge Catholicism based on occasions when Catholicism is not practiced.
6. Never be a pawn of your time
Have you ever heard someone say, "The Catholic Church needs to get with the times?" or something like, "Too much Church teaching is out of step with 21st century thinking..." And you wondered, if the 21st century has the "right thinking," what happens when a flippant 22nd century blogger says "get with the times"? And what happens to, say, the idea that it is wrong to steal because the 18th century B.C. decried it in Hammurabi's Code?
And then, perhaps you asked yourself what relevance does a calendar date have on the soundness of a moral teaching?
If you ask these kinds of questions, then perhaps you prefer to live in accord with sound morals regardless of whether some other century taught them.
The early 20th century Catholic philosopher and convert G.K. Chesterton, in his essay "Why I Am a Catholic," said one of the reasons he became Catholic was: "[The Church] is the only thing that frees a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age."
This is not to say that a good development of moral thought cannot occur in the present day. But this is to say the date a moral teaching is asserted does not make it right or wrong. A person who attempts to align his teachings merely on the cultural zeitgeist of his day is indeed a "degraded slave," as Chesterton says. He is merely a pawn whose morals are on as firm a ground as the calendar date about to change.
That the Church is accused of not conforming to "the times" is indicative that "the times" are not a basis for the Church's teaching. Since, as we have posited here, moral truth is not subject to "time," it would be expected that one who asserts that truth would not use a clock to test its validity.
7. No coersion
In the 21st century, like many others focused on freedom, whether or not someone wishes to join the Church or depart is up to that person's free will. This is a long-standing Catholic teaching, as has been cited on this blog previously. e.g.:
[A Christian evangelizing a brother] does not drag him and force him, but leaves him his own master. (St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Romans, ca 390 A.D.)
And the considerer of the Church may depart whenever he/she wishes. It's a type of "money back guarantee," if you will, without ever having to put up any money.
I invite anyone considering the Church or seeking to engage truth to make a list of what traits would be characteristic of truth. Test that criteria. Scrutinize it. If it fails logical fallacies, discard it. This is a good way to purify ones views and develop a sense of examining doctrines as true/false or right/wrong, and never merely something like "modern," "popular," or "comforting."
To quote Chesterton once more:
The difficulty of explaining 'why I am a Catholic' is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true.
Victor J. Stenger asserts: 'Faith is always foolish...Science is belief in the presence of supportive evidence...faith is belief in the absence of supportive evidence and even in light of contrary evidence.' Christopher Hitchens portrays all religion as 'a surrender of reason in favour of faith.' A.C. Grayling states: 'Faith is a stance or an attitude of belief independent of, and characteristically in the countervailing face of, evidence. It is non-rational at best, and is probably irrational given that it involves deliberate ignoring of evidence, or commitment despite lack of evidence.'
The examples continue, but you get the gist according to these opinions: Faith is a belief absent of evidence, often in the face of contrary evidence. So some say.
While it is true these authors' propensity for high-flown bombast may betray the assertion of rationality proposed by these same authors, perhaps a less-dramatic skeptic or other layperson may still wonder whether or not faith is something necessarily lacking "evidence."
As always, this blog focuses on explanations of Catholicism. It is worthwhile to demonstrate whether or not the Church, when referring to faith, is asking souls to believe in the absence of evidence or in the face of contrary evidence.
So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit." Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability "are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all"; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind". (CCC#156b)
You see here that the Church does not ask for belief in the "absence of supportive evidence" as one of the above-mentioned critics asserts. And the Church proceeds to cite examples of evidence such as miracles, prophecies, holiness, and fruitfulness.
Let's take a look at a few examples of just a few characteristics: miracles, holiness, and prophecies.
MIRACLES
Certainly, the idea of Christ's resurrection from the dead is a foundation of Christianity. St. Paul went so far as to say, "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile..." (1 Cor. 15:17) Miracles in Scripture are manifold. And the account of believers described therein were often compelled by such evidences among others. But let's also take a look at a few modern examples, which occurred in an age where scientific advancements allow for empirical scrutiny.
St. Edith Stein
In 1987, two-year old Benedicta McCarthy "accidentally ingested 19 times the lethal dose of acetaminophen," or Tylenol. As Benedicta lay "near death from total kidney failure and a deteriorating liver," the family asked others to pray to a deceased nun and the child's namesake, Sister Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, who was born Edith Stein.
Recounting what happened as an adult, Benedicta explained her healing: "Like there was no gradual recovery. When they looked back at the doctors' notes, one of the doctors that had seen me that morning had wrote in the notes, this child has made a remarkable recovery."
The Church held tribunals to investigate the validity of this phenomenon as a potential miracle. Dr. Ronald Kleinman, the doctor who had tended to young Benedicta, explained, "I expected she would die..." and spoke of the human body's "hidden capacity to survive and when it comes it's for reasons we don't understand."
Additionally, Kleinman, said, "I don't believe in miracles in the Catholic sense. I don't believe in saints or intercession. I was blunt in saying that to the tribunals. But I said that I'm enough of a humanist and a scientist to feel that miraculous things happen beyond my understanding."
St. Marie-Marguerite d'Youville
Another modern case involves the intercession of Marie-Marguerite d'Youville, who would later be canonized a saint. A young woman was dying of acute myeloblastic leukemia. Her aunt had encouraged the girl to pray for the intercession of Marie-Marguerite. The girl was healed. This occurred in the 1970s.
In 1986, as part of the investigation as to whether or not this healing was miraculous, one of the scientists consulted was Dr. Jacalyn Duffin, a hematologist and atheist. Without being told details of the patient's record, Duffin was given laboratory slides from the 1970s and asked to report on what she saw.
Duffin explained, "I reasonably imagined that this woman was dead," and said that this type of cancer was "the most aggressive leukemia known." When she continued to review more slides of this patient over time, she was dumbfounded that the patient had gone into remission, relapsed, and gone into remission a second time, something Duffin perceived as most unexpected.
Dr. Jeanne Drouin, who had been treating the patient, told Dr. Duffin that the patient was still alive those many years later. Duffin recalled, "I was like thunderstruck that the woman was alive. But I was not going to say this was a miracle." Although skeptical of supernatural intervention, Duffin testified to a panel of investigating bishops and priests. Duffin described the inquiry:
"They never asked me to say this was a miracle. They wanted to know if I had a scientific explanation for why this patient was still alive. I realized they weren't asking me to endorse their beliefs. They didn't care if I was a believer or not, they cared about the science."
Of her life experiences in the face of what she had seen, Dr. Duffin said, "I'm an atheist, but one who believes in miracles."
Eucharist in Buenos Aires
Another inexplicable event in recent history occurred in Buenos Aires. On August 18, 1996 a consecrated Eucharistic host was found dirty on the floor after the liturgy. The priest placed it in water in the tabernacle and waited for it to dissolve to later water a plant with it. Instead, after several days, red stains formed on the host. Over time, it appears to have transformed into human tissue and blood.
At a 2008 faith and science conference, Dr. Ricardo Castañón Gómez explained his examination of this host, which remains without decomposition to this day. Gómez testifies that he had the tissue sample sent to a laboratory in California, asking them to examine it. He "did not tell them this came from a host." They told him that the tissue was "muscle from the heart; muscle from the myocardium of the left ventricle." He later took the sample to Dr. Frederick Zugibe, a forensic pathologist and medical examiner whose expertise includes determining cause of death based on forensics of the heart. Zugibe told him that the tissue indicates the person whose heart tissue this was had suffered many wounds. Catholics, of course, believe the Eucharist is truly the sacramentally veiled but true body of Christ, who underwent many wounds in his Passion. Gómez notes that Zugibe "didn't know this was a host" when he examined the tissue. Zugibe also asked Gómez how the latter was able to provide a tissue sample that was "alive." Click here to watch Spanish with English subtitles)
Dr. Gómez describes the amazement of the moment, "Imagine me telling a person that a piece of wheat has turned into blood, coagulated, and become heart muscle!" In the above video, he describes other inexplicable characteristics surrounding the Buenos Aires Eucharist.
Miracle investigations
A recent article at ScienceNordic examined the Church's propensity of applying scientific scrutiny to miraculous claims:
When a potential miracle is reported to the Vatican, the report includes testimonies from astounded doctors who cannot find a natural explanation for the phenomenon in question. The cardinals then pass these testimonies on to the miracle commission, which then sends a delegation to the location where the unexplainable event took place. If the delegates fail to find a satisfactory scientific explanation for the strange phenomenon, they can call in external experts.
These inexplicable stories by no means come close to exhausting the hundreds of inexplicable testimonies throughout the centuries that have been understood as miracles, including those which have mystified science, even according to skeptical scientists. In light of the original critics' claim that "faith is belief in the absence of evidence," a number of questions arise in the face of these unexplained phenomena. Why, if faith is belief in the absence of evidence, does the Church bother to consult evidence? Why would the Church call on the scrutiny of skeptics? Why should these stories and testimonies not count as 'evidence'?
For the purposes of these examples, it is not critical to demonstrate that these inexplicable results were caused in some sense by a particular heavenly saint. Suffice it to say, it does not seem reasonable to dismiss such case studies as "non-evidence" with regard to the supernatural. The skeptic dismissing the evidence merely as something that has a natural explanation which has not yet been discovered must himself resort to a view that is itself speculative and absent of evidence.
HOLINESS/FRUITFULNESS St. Maximilian Kolbe
During World War II, the Franciscan Friar Maximilian Kolbe arranged for the shelter of some 3,000 war refugees, including 2,000 Jews, lamenting that they had been deprived of "even the most basic necessities." In early 1941, he was arrested by Nazi forces and was imprisoned at Pawiak prison in Warsaw. After enduring beatings for his faith, he was transferred to Auschwitz.
During his imprisonment at Auschwitz, three other prisoners escaped. To deter further escape attempts, 10 prisoners were chosen to starve to death. At hearing his name selected, one prisoner, Franciszek Gajowniczek, cried out for the wife and children he would never see again. Kolbe, who had not originally been selected for death, stepped forward and offered to take the man's place.
The guards accepted the exchange. Kolbe and the others spent their final days in a starvation bunker, known as the "death block." The priest led prayers and songs, emboldening the other prisoners. It signaled that his act of heroism was not merely a humanistic gesture, but rooted in the faith he lived. Kolbe was the last surviving selected prisoner. An interpreter and assistant janitor in the bunker, Bruno Borgowiec, described how Kolbe was given "an injection of carbolic acid in the vein of his left arm. Fr. Kolbe, with a prayer on his lips, himself gave his arm to the executioner."
Another prisoner, Jerzy Bielecki, testified that the aftermath of Fr. Kolbe's martyrdom was "a shock filled with hope, bringing new life and strength. ... It was like a powerful shaft of light in the darkness of the camp."
St. Thomas More
In the early 16th century, King Henry VIII sought a declaration from Pope Clement VII that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was null, i.e. that it had never been a valid marriage. Henry and Catherine had no son and, according to the custom, could not maintain succession without a male heir. A 1530 letter from Henry's delegates to the Pope makes, not a theological appeal for an annulment, but a political one. It reads in part: "[Henry] will surely guarantee stability to the kingdom if he will be able to entrust its government to a male heir."At Catherine's request, the Pope authorized an investigation into the king's demand and did not grant the decree of nullity the king desired.
During this time, Sir Thomas More served as English chancellor and held much influence. Henry tried several times to obtain More's favor that the king's marriage to Catherine was null. More consistently refused. After much effort to acquire his decree of nullity from the Church, the king usurped for himself religious authority and also secretly "married" Anne Boleyn in 1533. In 1534, he issued an Act of Succession, which described valid succession of the throne through the king's "lawful wife Queen Anne." Soon after, the king issued the Oath of Supremacy, which declared the king "supreme head of the Church of England." All nobility and even clergy were called to take this oath. More was one whom refused to take the oath, insisting on a position of silence.
Eventually, More was imprisoned for over a year for treason. At the trial of Thomas More, the prosecuting attorney, referring to More's refusal to take the oath, said, "we have your silence, which is an evident sign of the malice of your heart: because no dutiful subject, being lawfully ask'd this question, will refuse to answer."
Aware of his fate if he refused to consent to the king's usurpation of religious authority over the Pope, More replied, "As to the principal crime objected against me, that I should say upon my examination in the Tower, that this law was like a two-edged sword; for in consenting to it, I should endanger my soul, and in rejecting it should lose my life."
It is this reckoning which More considers. He can preserve his life and gain high favor with the king if he simply complies with the king's decree. Yet More bears witness to a higher prize by accepting the ultimate temporal penalty when he could have easily obtained temporal glory. More was eventually found "guilty" and beheaded soon after the trial.
PROPHECIES
Another feature of the strength of Christian truth is the fulfillment of prophecy. Skeptics may insist that prophecies are too "vague" or some such, but this form of evidence does not stand alone, as we will review later. For now, let's look at a few examples:
Bethlehem
The expected Messiah would come from Bethlehem.
But you, O Bethlehem Eph'rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. (Micah 5:2) Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king... (Matt. 2:1a)
If the Jews recognized that Jesus was from Bethlehem, as the record states, his fulfillment of the Mican prophecy would be strengthened. To this day, it is almost poetic for someone from a "little" town to rise to some degree of fame. Of course, a number of persons came from Bethlehem, but Jewish and Gentile converts didn't just follow any of them. This was merely one characteristic they expected their leader to have. It is evidence.
The Crucufixion
The expected Messiah would die by crucifixion.
Yea, dogs are round about me; a company of evildoers encircle me; they have pierced my hands and feet -- I can count all my bones -- they stare and gloat over me; they divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots. (Psalm 22:16-18)
Here we see some specifics that Christ's followers considered compelling evidence. The Gospels' account of the crucifixion reflects all this. Christ, surrounded by murderers, was crucified (Matt. 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34-35), was mocked and put on display for staring (Matt. 27:37, 40ff; John 19:37), and had his clothing divided by casting lots (27:35). John also specifically describes the nails that pierced Christ's hands (20:25, 27), and in Luke, the resurrected Christ reveals his identity by showing his hands and feet to the disciples (24:39). What is worth noting is that there were prior attempts to murder Christ, such as by stoning him (John 10:31), but Christ escaped.
John, who was at the foot of the cross, also notes additional features of the crucifixion consistent with prophecies. Pilate had ordered that the legs of the crucified Christ and the two thieves be broken. But John recalls how the legs of the two thieves were broken, but they did not proceed to break Christ's (19:33). Why? Because Jesus already appeared dead and to test that diagnosis, one of the soldiers pierced him in the side with a spear (19:34) instead of breaking his legs as was originally ordered. In these two characteristics of the event, John recognizes two other prophecies of the crucifixion:
He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken. (Psalm 34:20) And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born. (Zech. 12:10)
Incidentally, John also recognizes theological fulfillment in that Christ's bones were not broken, because he both recognized Christ as the fulfillment of the Passover lamb (John 1:29, 36) and that the Jewish custom of celebrating the Passover specifically called for a lamb with no broken bones (cf. Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12).
The Gospel writer John asserts that he saw this incident with his own eyes (John 19:35). These features of the crucifixion prophecies constitute "evidence" that the Apostles and subsequent Christians have considered when measuring the identity of Jesus Christ.
Palm Sunday
Old Testament prophecy said the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem as a king, yet humbly on the back of a donkey (Zech. 9:9) which occurred (Matt. 21:1-11). The crowd reacted accordingly, crying out "Hosanna!" (i.e. "save us"). Matthew 21 also records the crowd shouting "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" This signals such Old Testament texts as Psalm 118 sung during the Feast of Tabernacles. This feast includes a procession of palms (also recorded by Matthew), which are offered for the saving Lord (cf. Lev. 23:40; 2 Macc. 10:6-8). Matthew records them laying branches on the road for this man on the donkey. In the context of these Old Testament texts, we can better see why the crowd reacted as they did for a humble man riding into town on a beast of burden. It was hardly the image of nobility, but they recognized what many of these details signaled.
Now, while many prophecies have the character in the form of a "prediction," that is not the only form. For example, taking a panoramic view of the Old Testament, we see the account of a certain rhythm of "two brothers," in which the firstborn or elder brother has high expectations. Examples include Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, or Esau and Jacob. In each example, the historical account of these firstborn sons describes how they ended up disinherited for one reason or other. This pattern, which finds its way into divine revelation signals the two covenants: The Old with Israel (the firstborn, cf. Ex. 4:22) and the New with Gentiles also (the younger son.) Christ is thus seen as the "firstborn" (Luke 2:7) son who finally succeeds and delivers the due inheritance of the Father. Parallels like these are manifold in Scripture and lend to the Christian faith a certain coherence and also prophetic magnanimity.
I will merely give one more example for the sake of brevity. The account of Matthew 12:40 records Jesus responding to a Pharisaical interrogation. He says, "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
Not only does Christ predict his burial for three days,1 but the reference reveals the mission of Christ. For he follows the statement with "they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here." (v. 41) The story of Jonah is thus not only historically prophetic in the story of "three days," but for identifying the importance of the coming prophet as one calling for repentance. As with stories of "two brothers," this is a theological prophecy which gives a certain credence, a certain coherence and consistent trajectory even from the Old Testament, and examples of evidence to the accounted record of Christian salvation history.
AN OBJECTION
It is not uncommon to hear skeptics respond to any of the above arguments, or similar arguments from Christian apologists throughout history, by offering counter-explanations for each individual bit of "evidence" the Christian may posit.
For example, a skeptic arguing against martyrdom as evidence for the truth of a religion states:
The willingness of someone to die for a belief is not proof of its truth. For example, terrorists who blow themselves up or die in battle do not establish the truth of their beliefs. And believers of all religions have been martyred.
As it is stated, this conclusion is reasonable. However, I would submit at least the following two responses to this reaction.
First, this objection actually confirms that there is "evidence" to be assessed with regard to Christianity or even a different religion. The evidence is the reality of martyrs for a belief. But remember, our skeptics quoted at the beginning of the article insist there is "lack" of evidence or even contrary evidence. However, there is a difference between assessing the evidence in question and coming to a different conclusion than insisting there is no evidence to even examine with regard to this or that religion.
Second, the notion of trying to debunk a characteristic of Christianity or another religion by offering alternative explanations for the evidence is not compelling if one attempts to debunk each piece of evidence one at a time. In CCC#156 quoted above, the evidence for the faith includes the endurance of the Church, miracles, holiness in faithful members, signs in divine revelation, or other "external proofs," etc. The skeptic might react to this by arguing that there is also evidence of endurance in Religion A, evidence of miracles in Religion B, evidence of holiness in Religion C, and so on. Therefore, concludes the skeptic, the case for Christianity is equally convincing or unconvincing as any religion, and thus, none of them are compelling.
However, what is the problem if a skeptic rejected Christianity on the grounds that martyrdom is not unique to it? I submit the problem with this reaction can be seen in the notion of irreducible complexity. The term irreducible complexity has found its way into the vernacular with regard to evolution (see IdeaCenter.org and Discovery.org). In short, the idea says that an incremental notion of evolution, which says an organism naturally develops piece by piece over time, cannot explain the existence of an organism which ceases to function if any single piece is removed. In other words, a foot doesn't develop of its own accord, followed by a leg, and other parts later. These parts function as part of a complete system. This post is not to get into the details of that argument, but I bring up the term irreducible complexity because its principle relates to this subject of religion and evidence.
Permit me to offer an illustration of why it is specious to claim to debunk evidence for a religion by offering alternative explanations for each evidence one at a time.
Detective work
Let's say you are a detective investigating a crime. After interviewing the witnesses, you determine that the suspect is a male caucasian, six feet tall, with brown hair, and a tattoo on his left arm. Eventually, several candidates are brought in for a police lineup. Let's take a look.
As we examine our suspects here, we can see that suspect #2 has all 5 characteristics described. However, shall suspect #2 be dismissed on the grounds that #1 is six-feet tall and male? Shall suspect #2 be dismissed on the grounds that #3 is a caucasian male with brown hair. Suspect #4 is a male with brown hair with a tattoo, although on the right arm. Suspect #5 likewise has some of the characteristics of the description. She is caucasian and has a tattoo on her left arm. Shall suspect #2 be dismissed as the culprit on the grounds that all the other suspects have some characteristics that match his?
Of course, suspect #2 is the most likely culprit in this lineup because he has all the characteristics at once. The witnesses' description of the suspect is "irreducibly complex." Having only one or two of the characteristics falls short.
Now, let's return to the matter of faith. Should Christianity be rejected on the grounds that there are holy people in other religions? Should Christianity be rejected on the grounds that other religions also have martyrs? You see the parallel here. What is a compelling sign of the truth of Christianity is that it contains all the signal characteristics at once. Miracles. Prophecies. Holy followers. Martyrs. Historicity. Spiritual experience. Etc. The more characteristics a particular faith has that reasonably signal its truth and divine pedigree, the more compelling a case for that faith.
Thus, it is imprudent to reject Christianity, for instance, because other faiths have martyrs because to dismiss Christianity on these grounds is to dismiss suspect #2 in our above example on the grounds that he shares a characteristic with others.
CONCLUSION
Faith, even in the eyes of the Church, is not "blind," which is to say, something followed without seeing due cause. There are a number of evidences for the truth of Christianity. If someone were to reject the faith, or even embrace the faith, it would be prudent to do so in such a way as to confront these evidences as an irreducible total native to the Church. No doubt, the persistent quality of the Church throughout the centuries includes these compelling evidences among those who say with St. Peter, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." (John 6:68)
1It is not uncommon to hear an objection that this prophecy did not come true in accord with the language of Matthew 12:40 on the grounds that Christ rose Sunday morning, and thus, three "nights" had not transpired. However, the phrase "day and night" is a Hebrew idiom in which part of a day encompasses all other parts of a day. The term is not necessarily understood in the same sense as a modern English speaker might insist. For an analysis, see Dave Armstrong's Jesus' Three Days and Three Nights" in the Tomb: Is it a Biblical Contradiction?
The Osgood File is a mini radio show played on some radio stations throughout the nation. On August 23, 2012, the host, Charles Osgood, reported on Autism risk as it related to the father's age of the child. You can read the whole thing here if you're interested in the Autism study.
One of the parts that caught my ear was the following of Osgood's statement:
...most mutations are benign. And in fact, they're the essential engine of evolution - or, evidence of the Hand of God, if you're a creationist. It's the way that organisms change over time.
As it is stated, it appears that Osgood believes there is a void between someone who believes there is a Creator and someone who believes in the theory of evolution. Osgood's statement is made as a contrast. As we've discussed on this blog, there is a sentiment that religious belief and science are at odds, and Osgood's statement fits in with this myth.
Truth be told, not all Creationists must be anti-evolution. In fact, such believers aren't even a rare exception. And Osgood did not qualify his statement.
Although evolution is a matter of science and not theology, the idea is not incompatible with Catholic theology as long as it does not attempt to eliminate God from the ensoulment of humans. For example:
Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. (Pope John Paul II, Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, 1996)
Further expounding on Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis, Pope John Paul II continued:
Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
So essentially, evolution is not incompatible with the faith, so long as it does not claim to interfere with the theological matter of the soul––a matter outside the bounds of science.
One of the pertinent statements in Pius XII's Humani Generis reads as follows:
[T]he Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that...research and discussions...take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, #36, 1950)
It is thus not a matter of religion being opposed to science. Even in 1950, when scientists were less clear on evolution, Pius XII specifically welcomed research on evolution. He then referenced the matter of "Catholic faith" which teaches that God creates the soul.
Thus, Osgood's blanket statement contrasting those who believe in evolution versus those who believe in Creation beckons clarification.
