Month: July 2005

U.N. Has a Hearing Problem

Hearing_1Catholic World News carries a story (in a follow-up to an earlier piece) concerning a troubling new way of doing business at the United Nations. In preparation for the upcoming Millenium Development Circus Summit, a series of "informal " hearings is being held to give non-governmental groups (NGOs) an opportunity to address the General Assembly and perhaps influence the proceedings.

Thing is, though, all those conflicting points of view can be confusing (especially if you have already made up your mind) so in order to streamline things a bit, the organizers of the hearings (a special task force appointed by GA president Jean Ping of Gabon) decided to invite only those NGOs that will tell them what they want to hear: that abortion is a basic human right. The task force chose a number of radical pro-abortion groups to address the GA, but not one pro-life/pro-family group was allowed to speak. There was, therefore, simply no rebuttal at all to the pro-abortion groups repeated calls for universal abortion-on-demand.

Anne Patterson, the acting U.S. Amabassador to the U.N., has now made a formal complaint (thank God) on behalf of the conservative NGOs that were excluded from the hearings. Will it make much difference? I’m afraid that the fact of their exclusion in the first place says all we need to know about the agenda of the U.N..
The U.S. should withhold payment of our dues to the U.N. (we are by far their biggest contributor) until such time as the pro-life and pro-family NGOs are allowed to address the General Assembly, the GA president is replaced, and a new task force appointed for future hearings.

GET THE STORY.

Caped Bible Crusader

Bibleman2_2

No, it’s not a bird, or a plane, or even Superman. It’s the Evangelical world’s superhero, Bibleman! When he is not busy battling superscum Rapscallion P. Sinister, he can be found evangelizing with Billy Graham and introducing children to the superpower that can be found in knowing their Bibles:

He fights bad guys for a living! He’s got a light saber! He wears a silver spandex suit and a shiny yellow helmet! No wonder kids were enthralled by the masked superhero Saturday morning, even though he also sings ballads, quotes Bible verses and has no real superpowers — just the ‘armor of God.’

"Bibleman, the Christian superhero, swooped into Queens’ Flushing Meadows Park to help that other Crusader — evangelist Billy Graham — spread the message of God. Graham’s three-day crusade will be his last in the United States, and he has drawn record crowds.

"Thousands braved the sweltering heat to see Bibleman, including children decked out in purple and yellow Bibleman outfits, and a few curious adults.

"’I’m finding myself enjoying it,’ said Greg Packer, 41, of Huntington, N.Y. ‘It’s like a religious version of Star Wars.’"

GET THE STORY.

(Nod to Holy Weblog! for the link.)

I found myself wistfully thinking that Bibleman should team up with Tradition Man and Magisterial Man to fight off the evil Sola-Scriptura Man. But then I remembered! The Curt Jester was on the case and showcased the results!

"Big News" On Evolution?

Cardinal Christoph Schonborn has written an editorial for the New York Times in which he . . . (get ready . . . brace yourself . . . drumroll) . . . explains Catholic teaching.

The New York Times publishing a piece accurately explaining Catholic doctrine is widely regarded by many bible prophecy experts as one of the seven signs of the apocalypse, but the end may not come just yet.

In the piece Shonborn explains Catholic teaching regarding evolution and notes that one cannot as a Catholic say that evolution means a random, unguided process apart from God’s providential control.

READ THE PIECE.

Now, a bit of commentary:

  1. Some secularists (like the NYTNoids themselves) seem to be acting as if this is "big news." It ain’t. Anybody who understands the nature of God would realize instantly that the existence of any process in the universe that exists apart from God’s providence would be an impossibility. Any interpretation of evolution that would advocate such a notion is not compatible with the Catholic faith.
  2. This is not to say that God’s design will always be distinguishable from randomness. His design may be so complex that we cannot perceive the order necessary to distinguish it from randomness. As a result, the affirmation that the process of evolution is non-random may or may not be empirically verifiable. In other words, it may remain a matter of faith.
  3. That, at least, applies as far as observing the process of micro-evolution as it takes place. When it comes to the macro-evolution that is presumed to have resulted in the life forms we see around us, there are signs of order to which one may appeal in arguing that the processes that produced them were non-random. Naturalists would argue against this interpretation, of course.
  4. One should not too quickly dismiss the idea of true randomness being part of creation. If God has given man true free will then he has created a form of rational freedom in the universe. But if he has created rational freedom, he might be able to create non-rational freedom as well. Non-rational freedom would seem to be what we think of as randomness. If he has created such randomness then it does not, and cannot, exist apart from his providence. Nothing can possibly exist apart from the providence of an omnipotent being, but an omnipotent being can create freedom that exists under the umbrella of his providence.
  5. Consequently–and I am not arguing in favor of this, simply suggesting that one would have to argue to eliminate the possibility–one should not too quickly dismiss the possibility that God created randomness in the universe and that he allows it to play a role in natural phenomena, subject to his providence. The situation would be analogous to the way in which he allows human freedom to exist while also setting bounds to what man can do and what shape human history will have. In the same way, he might create randomness in the universe and allow it to play a role in evolution, while also setting bound to what evolution can do and what shape natural history will have.

I’d also like to note something that Cardinal Schonborn mentions towards the very end of his article. Of late many cosmologists have been talking up the idea of a multiverse as a way of avoiding the clear evidence of design in this universe. The idea is that since things look so orderly in this universe, there must be other universes out there in which things are more random. That way the apparent order in this universe can be dismissed as simply the product of randomness.

I have no problem with the idea that there might be a multiverse. If God created this universe, he can create others as well. But I have never been impressed with the use of the concept of a multiverse as a way of getting around the order we see in this one. Since we can’t detect any other universes to see what randomness or order they may contain, postulating a bunch of random universes to explain away the order in this one amounts to postulating the existence of evidence that one does not have in order to explain away the evidence one does have. That’s bad reasoning.

What we have is evidence of order on the cosmological level, and one can’t simply wish up evidence one doesn’t have of an ocean of disorder just over the horizon. You have to go with the evidence you’ve got until you get evidence otherwise.

Cardinal Schonborn doesn’t spell this out in the detail I just did, but I was tickled pink to see one of the princes of the Church enough on top of contemporary cosmological speculation to be able to comment on the situation.

Go, Schonborn!

Oh, BTW, Andrew Sullivan tries to link the Cardinal’s piece to . . . (get ready . . . brace yourself . . . drumroll) . . . Sullivan’s own sex life.

It’s always about sex with Andrew.

(CHT: Southern Appeal.)

“Big News” On Evolution?

Cardinal Christoph Schonborn has written an editorial for the New York Times in which he . . . (get ready . . . brace yourself . . . drumroll) . . . explains Catholic teaching.

The New York Times publishing a piece accurately explaining Catholic doctrine is widely regarded by many bible prophecy experts as one of the seven signs of the apocalypse, but the end may not come just yet.

In the piece Shonborn explains Catholic teaching regarding evolution and notes that one cannot as a Catholic say that evolution means a random, unguided process apart from God’s providential control.

READ THE PIECE.

Now, a bit of commentary:

  1. Some secularists (like the NYTNoids themselves) seem to be acting as if this is "big news." It ain’t. Anybody who understands the nature of God would realize instantly that the existence of any process in the universe that exists apart from God’s providence would be an impossibility. Any interpretation of evolution that would advocate such a notion is not compatible with the Catholic faith.
  2. This is not to say that God’s design will always be distinguishable from randomness. His design may be so complex that we cannot perceive the order necessary to distinguish it from randomness. As a result, the affirmation that the process of evolution is non-random may or may not be empirically verifiable. In other words, it may remain a matter of faith.
  3. That, at least, applies as far as observing the process of micro-evolution as it takes place. When it comes to the macro-evolution that is presumed to have resulted in the life forms we see around us, there are signs of order to which one may appeal in arguing that the processes that produced them were non-random. Naturalists would argue against this interpretation, of course.
  4. One should not too quickly dismiss the idea of true randomness being part of creation. If God has given man true free will then he has created a form of rational freedom in the universe. But if he has created rational freedom, he might be able to create non-rational freedom as well. Non-rational freedom would seem to be what we think of as randomness. If he has created such randomness then it does not, and cannot, exist apart from his providence. Nothing can possibly exist apart from the providence of an omnipotent being, but an omnipotent being can create freedom that exists under the umbrella of his providence.
  5. Consequently–and I am not arguing in favor of this, simply suggesting that one would have to argue to eliminate the possibility–one should not too quickly dismiss the possibility that God created randomness in the universe and that he allows it to play a role in natural phenomena, subject to his providence. The situation would be analogous to the way in which he allows human freedom to exist while also setting bounds to what man can do and what shape human history will have. In the same way, he might create randomness in the universe and allow it to play a role in evolution, while also setting bound to what evolution can do and what shape natural history will have.

I’d also like to note something that Cardinal Schonborn mentions towards the very end of his article. Of late many cosmologists have been talking up the idea of a multiverse as a way of avoiding the clear evidence of design in this universe. The idea is that since things look so orderly in this universe, there must be other universes out there in which things are more random. That way the apparent order in this universe can be dismissed as simply the product of randomness.

I have no problem with the idea that there might be a multiverse. If God created this universe, he can create others as well. But I have never been impressed with the use of the concept of a multiverse as a way of getting around the order we see in this one. Since we can’t detect any other universes to see what randomness or order they may contain, postulating a bunch of random universes to explain away the order in this one amounts to postulating the existence of evidence that one does not have in order to explain away the evidence one does have. That’s bad reasoning.

What we have is evidence of order on the cosmological level, and one can’t simply wish up evidence one doesn’t have of an ocean of disorder just over the horizon. You have to go with the evidence you’ve got until you get evidence otherwise.

Cardinal Schonborn doesn’t spell this out in the detail I just did, but I was tickled pink to see one of the princes of the Church enough on top of contemporary cosmological speculation to be able to comment on the situation.

Go, Schonborn!

Oh, BTW, Andrew Sullivan tries to link the Cardinal’s piece to . . . (get ready . . . brace yourself . . . drumroll) . . . Sullivan’s own sex life.

It’s always about sex with Andrew.

(CHT: Southern Appeal.)

Cliff Divers

In a scene eerily reminiscent of the demon-possessed swine who stampeded over a cliff to their deaths (cf. Matt. 8:28-33), a herd of sheep startled their Turkish shepherds by hurling themselves over a cliff:

"First one sheep jumped to its death. Then stunned Turkish shepherds, who had left the herd to graze while they had breakfast, watched as nearly 1,500 others followed, each leaping off the same cliff, Turkish media reported.

"In the end, 450 dead animals lay on top of one another in a billowy white pile, the Aksam newspaper said. Those who jumped later were saved as the pile got higher and the fall more cushioned, Aksam reported.

"’There’s nothing we can do. They’re all wasted,’ Nevzat Bayhan, a member of one of 26 families whose sheep were grazing together in the herd, was quoted as saying by Aksam."

GET THE STORY.

Tempting as it is to be amused by this story, the loss of the sheep will be a difficult hardship for the local shepherds who lost over $100,000 in livestock.

New Dealing With Abortion & Communion?

The working document for the synod of bishops scheduled for this Fall has a section in it dealing with the reception of Communion by those who support abortion. The following story touches upon the matter (though it fails to make clear the nature of the document, which is devoted to the theme of the Eucharist rather than to abortion).

EXCERPTS:

The Catholic Church has produced a new document for bishops across the world to examine that says Catholics who support legalized abortion should refrain from taking communion because they are out of step with church teachings.

The Vatican said pro-abortion Catholics are not taking their faith seriously and those who take communion and support abortion are behaving in a scandalous manner.

"Some receive communion while denying the teachings of the Church or publicly supporting immoral choices in life, such as abortion, without thinking that they are committing an act of grave personal dishonesty and causing scandal," the document says.

"Some Catholics do not understand why it might be a sin to support a political candidate who is openly in favor of abortion or other serious acts against life, justice and peace," the document reads.

The 88 page document is intended for Catholic bishops to examine in October and it contends that, because of abortion and other concerns such as rampant divorce, that Catholics have destroyed the sacrosanct nature of communion.

GET THE STORY.

We’ll have to wait and see what the bishops do based on this working document (it’s a kind of preparatory brief for the bishops to deliberate on prior to and during the synod). Unfortunately, there’s no English translation of the whole document out at the moment (at least the Vatican’s web site didn’t have an English version last night, though it had several in other languages HERE).

Will keep y’all posted.

New Dealing With Abortion & Communion?

The working document for the synod of bishops scheduled for this Fall has a section in it dealing with the reception of Communion by those who support abortion. The following story touches upon the matter (though it fails to make clear the nature of the document, which is devoted to the theme of the Eucharist rather than to abortion).

EXCERPTS:

The Catholic Church has produced a new document for bishops across the world to examine that says Catholics who support legalized abortion should refrain from taking communion because they are out of step with church teachings.

The Vatican said pro-abortion Catholics are not taking their faith seriously and those who take communion and support abortion are behaving in a scandalous manner.

"Some receive communion while denying the teachings of the Church or publicly supporting immoral choices in life, such as abortion, without thinking that they are committing an act of grave personal dishonesty and causing scandal," the document says.

"Some Catholics do not understand why it might be a sin to support a political candidate who is openly in favor of abortion or other serious acts against life, justice and peace," the document reads.

The 88 page document is intended for Catholic bishops to examine in October and it contends that, because of abortion and other concerns such as rampant divorce, that Catholics have destroyed the sacrosanct nature of communion.

GET THE STORY.

We’ll have to wait and see what the bishops do based on this working document (it’s a kind of preparatory brief for the bishops to deliberate on prior to and during the synod). Unfortunately, there’s no English translation of the whole document out at the moment (at least the Vatican’s web site didn’t have an English version last night, though it had several in other languages HERE).

Will keep y’all posted.

B16 On ETs

In his most bodacious interview book, GOD AND THE WORLD, the pontiff formerly known as Joseph Ratzinger was asked about the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence. Here’s what he said:

It seems somehow obvious to suppose that we cannot be alone in this great immeasurable ocean of stars. We  cannot absolutely exclude this hypothesis, because we have no cognizance of the whole breadth of God’s thought and his creative work. Yet it is a fact that thus far all attempts to discover anything of this kind have failed. Meanwhile, one strand of thought, scientifically well grounded, tends to regard extraterrestrial life as being extremely improbable. Jacques Monod, for instance, who was certainly not a Christian, says that in view of everything we are able to discover about the world from a biological standpoint, the possibility of the existence of extraterrestrial beings is so small as to be verging on the impossible.

What we can say is simply: We do not know. But there are no serious grounds for thinking that similar beings exist elsewhere.

On the other hand, we do know in any case that God took man, on this little speck of dust that is earth, so seriously that he came and lived here himself and has bound himself to this earth for all eternity.

That corresponds to the model fo divine action that is known to us. God always takes up exactly what seems unimportant and shows himself to man in what seems like a speck of dust, or, as in Nazareth, in a little place that is next to nowhere. Thus God always corrects our standards of judgment. It shows that what is quantitatively immeasurable belongs to a quite different order of reality from the immeasurability of the heart, as Pascal has already remarked. What is quantitative has its own indisputable status, but it is also important to see this quantitative value, for instance the infinite size of the universe, in relative terms. One single understanding and loving heart has quite another immeasurable greatness. It corresponds to a quite different order from any quantitative entity, in all its great power, but it is no less great.

Would it be shown in revelation if we had relativfes somwhere in space?

Not necessarily, because God had no intention of recounting everything to us. Revelation was not there to give us a complete knowledge of God’s ideas and of all space, with no gaps in it. One of the Wisdom books, often quoted by the Fathers, says about this in one place: God has given us the world to argue about. Scientific knowledge is, so to speak, the adventure he has left to us ourselves. In revelation, on the other hand, he tells us only as much about himself as is needed for life and death.

GET THIS MOST BODACIOUS BOOK