A reader asks:
1) What is the simplest way to define existentialism?
I don’t know that I can tell you the simplest way, but I can give you a one sentence definition:
Existentialism is a philosophical school of thought that asserts that the existence of the individual is primary rather than the essence of the individual, meaning that individuals have a form of radical freedom to define themselves.
I’d add that existentialism started in the 19th century and was common in 20th century Continental philosophy (meaning: on the continent of Europe, not in England or America, where analytic philosophy has been dominant). Though there were Christian existentialists (e.g., Kierkegaard), existentialism tends to be associated with atheism and a gloomy world view.
2) Regarding the Fatima apparitions, it was reported that the seers received Holy Communion from the angel. Aren’t priests the only individuals who have the gift to confect the Sacrament?
Anyone with the power to confect the Eucharist is by definition a priest since the confection of the Eucharist is a sacrifice. We know that God has ordained that there be human priests, and Revelation may well signal that there are angel priests as well since angels are there depicted offering incense and performing other liturgical functions in heaven. What do we not know is, if there are angelic priests, are they an order capable of confecting the Eucharist. That is knowledge that, for now, we don’t have access to.
That being said the Fatima children did not report that the angel celebrated Mass in front of them. They said that he brought Communion to them. Where he got the consecrated elements (a church? heaven?) we don’t know.
It also is not certain what the status of this incident was in terms of outward reality. It may have been a visionary experience rather than one with Communion being offered in the normal, outward manner as in a Church. In other words, it may have been a visionary spiritual Communion.
3) Is it morally licit for someone to consult a psychic for the purpose of solving a murder?
Presumptively, no, and for several reasons:
- Psychics are notoriously unreliable, and injecting a case with information from a notoriously unreliable source is very bad idea. It clouds one’s vision and may lead one to misweigh evidence or go down rabbit trails that are not productive.
- To the extent psychics come up with accurate info, it may be from an evil, occult source that we should have no dealings with.
- There is the potential for scandal in the proper sense: That is, folks may be tempted to give credence to psychics and occult ideas if they think psychics are sufficiently credible for the police to use them.
That being said, speaking hypothetically, I can’t rule out all possibility that science might one day prove that humans (or some humans) have a purely natural (i.e., not supernatural) sensing ability that would have sufficient reliability to make it useful and that could be deployed in a way not giving rise to moral scandal. Until such time as that would happen, though, the above considerations apply.
Whenever I hear any news about investigators getting help from psychics, they always say the body is in a river or buried in a riverbed or something. So rather than waste time, the investigates should forget the pyschics and just go look in the river in the first place.
Wonder if we can cut a deal with God for angelic EMHC’s rather than female ones.
Re Fatima. Interesting. We should not introduce a distinction where the seers did not introduce one, ie, they reported receving communion, thus we should avoid (without precluding) a spiritual communion hypothesis. Also, there is no reason whatever to posit angelic priests (priesthood being a sacrament, the which were instituted for man). There is no evidence against turtle priests in heaven; but I would hesitate to speculate that there might be heavenly turtle priests albeit in some way which has not been revealed to us. As you can tell, I’m uncomfortable letting people suggest that the absence of evidence against a hypothetical could be construed as evidence (however slight) in favor of it. Which is not what Jimmy did. But my antennae go up anyway.
I’m vaguely remembering a story to the effect that the Sacrament was noticed to be missing in a local parish church, but my memory’s not what it used to be and the book in question is packed away at the moment. Does this story ring a bell for anyone else?
Thanks, Jimmy!