Category: Theology

The Limits of Scripture Interpretation

Biblical-Interpretation-imageAt Catholic Answers, we get questions all the time like, “What is the Catholic position on this Scripture passage?” Many people seem to have the idea that the Catholic Church has an official interpretation of every passage of Scripture. It isn’t true.

The Church has no official commentary on Scripture. The pope could write one if he wanted, but he hasn’t. And with good reason: Scripture study is an ongoing, developing field. To create an official commentary on Scripture would impede the development of this field.

It’s one thing to create an official textbook for a field that has been fairly well worked out. That’s the case with catechetics, which is why the Church can produce a text like The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Catechetics can be viewed as the applied science of giving instruction in the faith, and the faith is something we’ve known well for a long time. Not only was it “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) back in the first century, we have had twenty centuries of practice to show us which ways of explicating the faith tend to lead to misunderstandings. All that gives us a good handle on what would need to go into an official catechetical text commenting on all the major points of the faith.

But the field of Scripture study does not allow for anything like that. One reason is that the Bible is so much larger in scope. One could provide an adequate summary of the basics of the faith in a few hundred well-crafted propositions. But Scripture contains tens of thousands of individual propositions, and to comment on the authentic meaning of each of them would swell the needed number of propositions into the hundreds of thousands or millions. And that is before one takes into account two complicating factors:

First, Scripture has more than one level of meaning. The two basic levels are the literal and the spiritual senses, the latter of which may contain up to three different kinds of meanings, depending on whether it foreshadows something in the New Testament, something at the end of time, or what moral lesson it may teach. Since the literal sense and the subdivisions of the spiritual sense can each be ambiguous (that is, they can carry more than one meaning by the author’s design), the multiplicity of meanings would guarantee that a commentary on the meaning of Scripture would run into the millions of propositions.

Second, while the Holy Spirit has always maintained in the Church a consensus on the individual points of the faith, he did not choose to do so for the individual propositions of Scripture. As a result, there is widespread debate over the correct interpretations of particular texts. In preparing an official commentary on Scripture, the Church would either have to catalogue each permissible interpretation—further multiplying the size of the work—or settle hundreds of thousands of individual debates.

All of this serves to show why the Church has never undertaken the composition of an official Bible commentary. The project would involve a massive expenditure of the Church’s resources when there is simply no pressing need to do so.

It is much simpler to adopt the approach that the Church has in fact pursued—that is, to allow Scripture scholars liberty to interpret any Bible passage in whatever way they feel the evidence best supports provided certain minimal boundaries are not crossed.

What are those boundaries? They have changed somewhat over time.

For example, earlier this century the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) was a body capable of issuing authoritative rulings on what could and could not be taught regarding Scripture. As biblical higher criticism gained ground, the PBC initially issued rulings that held the ideas of the new study in significant disdain, and in some cases forbade the teaching of certain ideas that had been derived using this methodology.

Eventually the nature and mandate of the PBC changed, and its rulings ceased to have force. We may view that either as a bad thing or a good thing, but it’s a fact.

Though today the PBC’s disciplinary rulings are no longer in force, the boundaries that mark off impermissible interpretations of Scripture are still known. The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes that Vatican II enumerated three criteria (CCC 111; cf. Dei Verbum 12), each of which has a long history in biblical interpretation.

The first of these was that “serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out” (DV 12). This means that no properly understood assertion of Scripture will ever contradict another. If it does so, it must be a false interpretation.

The second criteria was that “the living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account” when interpreting Scripture (ibid.).

Among other things, the judgment of the Church’s magisterium must not be violated. As when evaluating ecclesiastical statements in general, the strength with which the Church’s judgment has been proposed must be taken into account. The highest form of Church approbation regarding the interpretation of a verse would be for the magisterium to infallibly define the sense of the verse—or a part of its sense. This has been done in a small number of cases.

Only a few passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. For example, according to the Council of Trent:

(1) The reference being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 does include the idea of baptism.

(2–3) In telling the apostles “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.

(4–5) In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus did confer a power on the apostles to forgive sins, and not everyone shares this power.

(6) Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.

(7) The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained and not simply elder members of the Christian community.

Finally, the third limiting criterion named by Vatican II was that the exegete must also take into account “the harmony which exists between elements of the faith” (DV 12), which the Catechism expresses by stating that the exegete must “be attentive to the analogy of faith. . . . [i.e.,] the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of revelation” (CCC 114). This means that Scripture cannot be interpreted in a way that contradicts what is theologically certain.

In addition to these definite boundaries to permissible biblical interpretations, there are also influences that should apply to the process of interpreting Scripture. If other books of Scripture probably—though not certainly—teach something, then that should influence the way a given book is read. If the magisterium leans toward but has not infallibly proposed a particular interpretation, that should have a corresponding influence.

The liberty of the Scripture interpreter remains extensive. Taking due consideration of the factors that influence proper exegesis, the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty

Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World – Ghosts

MYS001

Every week, Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli explore the weird, the strange, and the unusual from the perspectives of faith and reason. In this first episode, Jimmy and Dom talk about ghosts, what they could be, how they fit in a Catholic understanding of the world, and what a rational mind says about them.

Direct Link to Episode.

Subscribe on iTunes. | Other Ways to Subscribe.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Understanding the Catechism’s Death Penalty Revision

death penaltyOn August 1, Cardinal Luis Ladaria issued a letter to the bishops of the world announcing that Pope Francis had approved a change to the section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church dealing with the death penalty.

Here are some key facts for understanding this revision . . .

 

What does the Catechism now say?

The relevant passage now reads:

2267 Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” (Francis, Discourse, Oct. 11, 2017), and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

For a history of what the Catechism formerly said, see here.

 

Is this revision a surprise?

Not really. The last several popes—St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis—have taken a negative tone toward the death penalty, and the Catechism had already been revised once to reflect this. In addition, Cardinal Ladaria explains:

The Holy Father Pope Francis, in his Discourse on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of the apostolic constitution Fidei Depositum, by which John Paul II promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church, asked that the teaching on the death penalty be reformulated so as to better reflect the development of the doctrine on this point that has taken place in recent times (1).

We thus already knew that a revision was under consideration.

 

Is this new revision an exercise of papal infallibility?

No. Although many individual teachings in the Catechism have previously been taught infallibly, the Catechism itself is not an infallible document. This is one reason it is capable of being revised.

To understand the level of authority of an individual teaching, one must look at the circumstances of an individual act of teaching to determine what level of authority it has.

As Cardinal Ladaria explains in his letter, Pope Francis approved the new revision that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) proposed, but he did not issue it in a document of his own. This is significant for two reasons:

  1. Popes cannot delegate their infallibility to departments of the Roman Curia, such as the CDF. Consequently, the approval that popes regularly give to CDF documents does not make them infallible.
  2. To issue an infallible teaching, popes use a special form of language, typically invoking their authority as the successor of Peter and using the phrase I/we define as a way of indicating that the teaching is definitive. (See, for example, the language Pius XII used in defining the Assumption of Mary in Munificentissimus Deus 44.) Pope Francis did not use this kind of language in granting the approval of the new revision.

 

What level of authority does the new revision have?

According to Cardinal Ladaria:

The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine (7).

As a doctrinal development, it would qualify as authoritative teaching (as opposed to mere theological opinion), and it would qualify as non-definitive (i.e., non-infallible) Church teaching.

According to Vatican II, such teachings call for “religious submission of mind and will” on the part of the faithful.

 

What if I have trouble accepting this teaching?

The Church recognizes that individuals can have difficulties accepting non-definitive Church teaching and that, in some cases, they may find themselves unable to accept them.

This situation is addressed—with specific application to theologians—in a 1990 instruction from the CDF known as Donum Veritatis, which states:

Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.

In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him (28-29).

Donum Veritatis further states:

It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium’s teaching without hesitation, the theologian’s difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question (31).

Of course, having a private disagreement does not entail a right to publicly oppose Church teaching. Fortunately, those experiencing such difficulties can have the consolation that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church “into all the truth” (John 16:13).

For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail (31).

 

Does the new revision indicate that the death penalty is intrinsically evil?

One might think so, since it says the death penalty is “inadmissible” because “it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.” However, a careful reading of the revision, and Cardinal Ladaria’s letter, suggests this is not the way the phrase should be understood. (Msgr. Charles Pope reaches the same conclusion.)

First, the revision notes that “a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.”

This refers to the fact that in the past the state’s penal sanctions were understood principally as administering justice (including divine justice) to wrongdoers, but today the Church understands them principally as seeking to protect society and (hopefully) rehabilitate the offender (see Ladaria 7 and the changes made to paragraph 2266 in the Catechism).

Second, in light of this new understanding of the function of the state’s penal sanctions, the death penalty could still be justified as a means of protecting society.

However, according to the revision, “more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.”

From these considerations, one could understand the death penalty as something that involves “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” but an attack that could be tolerated or even required in situations where there is no other way to effectively protect society.

This understanding appears to be confirmed by Cardinal Ladaria, who seems prepared to acknowledge that “the political and social situation of the past made the death penalty an acceptable means for the protection of the common good” (2).

He further seems prepared to acknowledge that, as in the previous edition of the Catechism, “it can be justified if it is ‘the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor’” (3).

He states that “given that modern society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people,” though, “certainly, it remains the duty of public authorities to defend the life of citizens” (7). He thus concludes:

All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium. These teachings, in fact, can be explained in the light of the primary responsibility of the public authority to protect the common good in a social context in which the penal sanctions were understood differently, and had developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat his crime (8).

The new revision would be “in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium” if it held that the death penalty was intrinsically evil and thus had always been wrong in the past. Instead, Cardinal Ladaria indicates that the revision is warranted by the changed understanding of the state’s penal sanctions and the development of more effective detention systems.

 

If the death penalty is not being judged intrinsically evil, what has changed?

It appears that Pope Francis has made a prudential judgment that, given present circumstances in society, there are no longer situations in which the death penalty is warranted.

Consequently, this judgment has been added to the social doctrine of the Church, which applies the underlying principles of its moral doctrine to concrete situations in society.

The underlying moral principles have not changed, but, in Pope Francis’s judgment, society has changed in a way that requires a different application of them.

This judgment is now reflected in the Church’s social doctrine, without contradicting prior teaching on the underlying moral principles. Thus Cardinal Ladaria says that the new formulation “expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.” It is the Church’s social doctrine that has developed, and its prior moral teachings have not been contradicted.

Changes to the Catechism on the Death Penalty

Although many teachings that the Catechism of the Catholic Church contains are infallible, the Catechism is not infallible as a whole.

Consequently, it has been revised on a number of points. None of these have been more substantial than the way it handles the subject of capital punishment.

In another post I look at the most recent change, but here are the three ways it has addressed the subject.

 

The 1992 Original

The original edition of the Catechism, release in 1992, had this to say:

2266 Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.

2267 If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

 

The 1997 Revision

Following the release of John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae, the Catechism was amended in 1997 to read:

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent” (John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56).

 

The 2018 Revision

In 2018, paragraph 2267 was further revised to read:

2267 Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” (Francis, Address, Oct. 11, 2017), and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

The reasons for the most recent revision are explained in a letter by Cardinal Luis Ladaria, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The Challenge of Transhumanism

android-arm-human-arm-michelangelo-640x353Transhumanism is a movement that wants to reshape the human race.

It believes that we will soon have the power, through scientific and technical means, to transcend our limitations and be transformed as a species. I.e., transhumanists want there to be a new race of “posthumans.”

Transhumanism hopes to manage the transition from today’s humans to tomorrow’s posthumans. The transition will be more dramatic—vastly more dramatic—than the transition from Neanderthals to Homo sapiens.

On first encountering the aspirations of transhumanists, it’s easy to dismiss them—to laugh them off as jokes or sci-fi delusions—but transhumanists are serious.

They are so serious that many have compared the movement to a religion—one with messianic aspirations and a gospel of technological salvation and eternal life.

 

Background to Transhumanism

Around 380 B.C., Plato described his ideal society in The Republic. Among the groups of people he described in his ideal society was a class of guardians to protect and to rule the population.

For such important functionaries, one would want people of high quality, so in Book V of The Republic, Plato proposed that the guardian class be specially bred—like dogs or horses. Those thought likely to produce desirable offspring would be paired up for breeding; and those expected to produce less desirable offspring would not be given the opportunity.

The dream of selectively breeding humans did not die with Plato. It has appeared in various forms in history. In the early 20th century, the eugenics movement proposed to improve the human race by encouraging people with positive traits to breed and discouraging or preventing those with negative traits from doing so.

At times, eugenicists urged the forcible sterilization of those with undesired characteristics—such as being poor, feeble-minded, alcoholic, mentally ill, etc.

In 1930, Pius XI condemned such measures, stating: “Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason” (Castii Connubii 70).

This exhortation did not prevent the Nazi government from enacting extensive eugenic policies, leading up to an including the “final solution of the Jewish question,” which used death camps to commit genocide on a massive scale in the interests of improving racial “health.”

The Nazis gave eugenics such a bad name that support for the philosophy waned, and even those who supported it avoided using the name.

Now, however, transhumanism wants to alter the human race in ways that the eugenicists could not have dreamt.

The term transhumanism was coined in 1957 by the British biologist Julian Huxley—a eugenicist and brother of Aldous Huxley, author of the dystopian novel Brave New World (1932), which dealt with the scientific manipulation of human nature.

By the 1980s, people referring to themselves as transhumanists began to organize.

 

 

What transhumanism is

The most popular transhumanist organization is Humanity+ (pronounced “humanity plus”), and their web site offers two definitions of transhumanism:

(1) The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.

(2) The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies (“Transhumanist FAQ,” HumanityPlus.org).

These don’t convey the full drama of what transhumanists have in mind. Everybody wants to improve the human condition, and studying the potential ramifications, promises, and potential dangers sounds like a good thing to do. But there are flashes of drama when the definitions refer to eliminating aging and overcoming “fundamental human limitations.”

It’s when you start hearing specific examples that the gobsmacking nature of the change they’re after becomes clear.

 

What transhumanists want

The first definition says that transhumanists want to use technology to “eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.”

Of these, the key ones are the elimination of aging and greater intelligence.

Eliminating aging sounds like a very ambitious goal, but transhumanists are deadly serious. In fact, they want to do more than eliminate aging: They want to reverse it.

In the transhumanist future, people would be capable of physical immortality, lived at any biological age they wished. Not only would they not die, they would be able to stop or reverse the effects of aging so that we could have perpetual youth and health (as well as beauty).

Of course, a person might still be killed by accidents, violence, natural disasters, etc., but apart from these he would be able to go on living indefinitely—hundreds or thousands of years or more.

Accompanying the elimination of aging would be a major boost in intelligence. Transhumanists commonly speak of the development of “superintelligences” that would be as superior to ours as ours are to apes.’

With unlimited lifespan and superior intelligence, posthumans would have the time and ability to make whatever other changes they desired, leading to the enhanced physical and psychological capabilities mentioned above.

These could include greater strength, ability to survive in adverse environments (e.g., on other planets), the elimination of mental illness, and the ability to control moods, stimulate creativity, and enjoy profound and lasting joy.

In other words, transhumanists are out to create a posthuman techno-utopia.

 

How transhumanists expect to do this

Transhumanists expect to achieve these goals through a blend of science and technology.

One of the great revolutions of our times is in the biological sciences. Just a few years ago the human genome was sequenced, and now the genomes of many other species are being decoded.

Transhumanists expect that soon we will have a vastly improved understanding of how genes work, and as that understanding grows, it will become increasingly possible to manipulate our genes.

One application of this will be to cure genetic diseases, but another will be to make fundamental improvements in our genetic stock—and not just in future generations but among people who are already alive.

They propose to do what the eugenicists of the twentieth century wanted to do—and more—but without using reproduction to accomplish it. Once a certain level of scientific and technological development is reached, transhumanists foresee people making changes in their own genetic codes.

This is one way they think the goals of immortality and superior intelligence may be accomplished, but they recognize there are limits to what can be done biologically.

That’s why they don’t plan on limiting themselves to medicine. They also expect to use mechanical means. For example, they envision building computers capable of Artificial Intelligence (AI) that is superior to ours.

In fact, many transhumanists see better-than-human AI as a key tool. If we can build a machine smarter than us then that machine can work of problems too hard for us and design solutions that we either couldn’t arrive at or that would take us too long. In principle, a better-than-human AI could to improve upon itself and design an even more advanced AI.

Transhumanists also see many other technologies becoming available, including the widespread use of nanotechnology, in which machines the size of a few atoms would be able to restructure matter on the atomic level.

Robust nanotechnology would be amazing, as illustrated by proposed applications like utility fog. This would be a cloud of tiny robots that could arrange themselves into any shape needed. If you wanted a house to live in, you could program utility fog to become a house. If you wanted a car, you could program it to become a car. Or you could just have the fog carry you wherever you wanted to go.

Transhumanists foresee the merger of man and machine. Many people already have artificial replacements for body parts—knee and hip replacements, artificial hearts, etc.

Sometimes the replacement parts are better than the original. I, myself, had to have cataract surgery, which left my eyes with artificial lenses that contain built-in protection from ultraviolet light.

Transhumanists expect this trend to continue, with artificial replacements and improvements for every organ in the body.

For example, the brain might be supplemented with a neural implant allowing it to connect to computers. One of the simpler applications of this would be connecting to the Internet and communicating over it—or communicating directly with people who have similar implants, producing the electronic equivalent of telepathy.

A brain-machine interface could also allow us to supplement our memories, better analyze our experiences, and improve our intelligence. At least, that’s what transhumanists are hoping for.

They even foresee the possibility of people transcending the human form an “uploading” their minds into computer systems, where they would have digital immortality and as vastly increased mental abilities.

 

When transhumanists hope to accomplish this

Transhumanists hope to accomplish these things “in our lifetimes,” but given that they’re planning on immortality, that means an open-ended timetable.

They don’t expect these things to be achieved all at once but incrementally. For example, they don’t expect to wake up one day and hear the news that someone has invented an immortality pill. Instead, they see medicine continuing to improve slightly each year and extend the human life a little bit more.

They predict that at some point in the next few decades, the average human lifespan will be growing by more than one year per calendar year.

For example, in 2030 the average human lifespan might be 90, in 2031 it might be 91.5, and in 2032 it might be 93. As long as the rate the average lifespan is increasing is greater than one year per year, the “average” person can live indefinitely.

Transhumanists would then have all the time they need to work on their goals.

And, they argue, many may come sooner rather than later. They foresee better-than-human AI coming within a few decades, which could make all of their other goals appear much more quickly.

Some have proposed that there will be a technological “Singularity” in which technological change begins happening at a fantastically accelerated rate, making it impossible to predict what comes next.

Computer scientist Vernor Vinge has suggested that such a Singularity will occur before the 2030s (“The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era,” www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/), while entrepreneur and futurist Ray Kurzweil has predicted it before 2045 (The Singularity Is Near).

 

An influential minority

The number of people who identify as transhumanists is small. Humanity+ represents approximately six thousand people, though there are many transhumanists who do not belong to it.

Despite their numbers, transhumanists are disproportionately influential, making them a “creative minority.”

An illustration of their influence is that in 2012 Google hired Ray Kurzweil as its Director of Engineering, where he works to transform the company’s search feature by incorporating artificial intelligence and the ability to understand natural language requests for information rather than just search terms.

And aspects of the transhumanist agenda are being pursued by people who don’t identify as transhumanists. Medicine, science, and industry are all working on projects that fit in to the transhumanist agenda.

But how much of that agenda will be achieved?

 

An uncertain future

Transhumanists acknowledge that the future is uncertain—and that the technologies they propose could be dangerous.

The atomic age made us familiar with the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, but the transhumanist vision features multiple technologies with similar threat potential—including AIs that can out-think and out-compete humans, genetically engineered plagues, and runaway nanotechnology turning everything into “grey goo.”

They argue that the potential benefits outweigh the risks and urge that serious consideration be given to how to mitigate the dangers of these technologies.

 

How much will happen?

It’s virtually certain that science and medicine will continue to progress. We may expect new cures, somewhat longer lifespans, and technologies with the power to improve—and threaten—human life.

However, transhumanism assumes that key trends will continue indefinitely into the future, and this is not clear.

Even if medical science progresses to the point that it’s able to add more than a year to the average human lifespan per calendar year, there’s no guarantee that this trend will continue long term and turn into practical immortality.

Technologists are concerned that Moore’s Law—a well-established trend suggesting that computers double in power every two years—may already be breaking down. Computers will still improve in the future, but perhaps not in the exponential way they have in recent decades.

Some of the advances transhumanists want may not happen for a long time—or at all. Some experts think that better-than-human AI is unachievable.

And some transhumanists goals seem flat out impossible. The idea of “uploading” your consciousness into a computer is metaphysical nonsense. Even if there was a way to make a digital representation of all your memories and thought processes, it would still just be a digital representation—not the real you.

However, the fact some transhumanist dreams are silly does not mean the movement shouldn’t be viewed with concern.

 

The Holy See on genetic engineering

The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has already expressed concern about the misuse of genetic engineering. In 2008, it warned against some of transhumanism’s aspirations:

Some have imagined the possibility of using techniques of genetic engineering to introduce alterations with the presumed aim of improving and strengthening the gene pool. Some of these proposals exhibit a certain dissatisfaction or even rejection of the value of the human being as a finite creature and person. Apart from technical difficulties and the real and potential risks involved, such manipulation would promote a eugenic mentality and would lead to indirect social stigma with regard to people who lack certain qualities, while privileging qualities that happen to be appreciated by a certain culture or society (Dignitas Personae 27).

In other words, non-therapeutic genetic engineering could lead to the creation of a genetic elite that would lord it over the unmodified.

Transhumanists argue that, in their preferred future, such modifications would be voluntary, and those who chose not to have them wouldn’t be forced to do so—thus some number of “normal” humans would still exist.

However, this does not mean that normal humans and their choices would be just as valued. Thus the CDF argues that tampering with our genetic codes this way “would end sooner or later by harming the common good, by favoring the will of some over the freedom of others” (ibid.).

This prospect is also discussed by C.S. Lewis in his book The Abolition of Man, in which he explores the consequences of manipulating human nature the way transhumanists want.

 

Playing God

Perhaps the most fundamental problem with transhumanism is that, by wanting to produce a new, posthuman species, its advocates want to play God. Discussing radical genetic engineering, the CDF writes:

[I]t must also be noted that in the attempt to create a new type of human being one can recognize an ideological element in which man tries to take the place of his Creator (ibid.).

This is exactly correct. It is one thing to improve the human condition by fighting disease and inventing new technologies, but it is another to have the creation of a new, superior species of posthumans as your explicit goal.

That goal means you want to play God, and that’s dangerous territory.

The account of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 features a similar effort by men to ascend to heaven through their own power, and that ended with disaster.

Even if God chose not to intervene directly to thwart transhumanist plans, the attempt to play God could by itself bring on terrifying disasters, some of which we have already mentioned.

People are already describing transhumanism as a kind of secular religion, and in recent history we’ve seen a eugenically-inspired secular messianism and what it did to millions it deemed genetically inferior back in the 1940s.

Transhumanists could argue that this is an unfair comparison since their emphasis on individual rights and choices would prevent that kind of thing from happening again.

However, it is reasonable to ask whether, if they began to achieve even some of their goals, transhumanists would begin to look down on unmodified humans who refused to “get with the program.” Unmodified humans might then be viewed as second class citizens, as people to be out-competed, dominated, and replaced—the way our ancestors replaced the Neanderthals.

After all, that would be only human.

 

The Transhumanist Declaration

This declaration was developed in 1998 and adopted by the Humanity+ board in 2009.

  1. Humanity stands to be profoundly affected by science and technology in the future. We envision the possibility of broadening human potential by overcoming aging, cognitive shortcomings, involuntary suffering, and our confinement to planet Earth.
  2. We believe that humanity’s potential is still mostly unrealized. There are possible scenarios that lead to wonderful and exceedingly worthwhile enhanced human conditions.
  3. We recognize that humanity faces serious risks, especially from the misuse of new technologies. There are possible realistic scenarios that lead to the loss of most, or even all, of what we hold valuable. Some of these scenarios are drastic, others are subtle. Although all progress is change, not all change is progress.
  4. Research effort needs to be invested into understanding these prospects. We need to carefully deliberate how best to reduce risks and expedite beneficial applications. We also need forums where people can constructively discuss what should be done, and a social order where responsible decisions can be implemented.
  5. Reduction of existential risks, and development of means for the preservation of life and health, the alleviation of grave suffering, and the improvement of human foresight and wisdom should be pursued as urgent priorities, and heavily funded.
  6. Policy making ought to be guided by responsible and inclusive moral vision, taking seriously both opportunities and risks, respecting autonomy and individual rights, and showing solidarity with and concern for the interests and dignity of all people around the globe. We must also consider our moral responsibilities towards generations that will exist in the future.
  7. We advocate the well-being of all sentience, including humans, non-human animals, and any future artificial intellects, modified life forms, or other intelligences to which technological and scientific advance may give rise.
  8. We favor allowing individuals wide personal choice over how they enable their lives. This includes use of techniques that may be developed to assist memory, concentration, and mental energy; life extension therapies; reproductive choice technologies; cryonics procedures; and many other possible human modification and enhancement technologies.

Deportation Argument Reveals Principles for Reading Church Documents

st peter's basilicaImmigration is controversial in many parts of the world, including Europe and the Americas.

The Church’s teaching on the topic is summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens (2241).

This seeks to balance the needs of the citizens of the receiving countries with the needs of the immigrants, and it recognizes obligations on both. Citizens of more prosperous countries are not given the option of a “no immigrants allowed” policy, and immigrants are not guaranteed automatic access.

The latter is reflected in the Catechism’s acknowledgement that nations are obliged to accept immigrants “to the extent they are able” and that they “may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical considerations.”

What happens when political authorities determine “for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible” that they cannot accept more immigrants or when immigrants do not abide by the juridical considerations the state requires?

One solution—which many regard as preferable to imprisonment—is to return immigrants to their country of origin or to another country willing to receive them. In other words, deportation.

 

A Counter-Argument

However, some have recently argued that deportation is intrinsically evil, citing John Paul II’s 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor, which stated:

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (VS 80).

The encyclical then quotes Vatican II’s document Gaudium et Spes to provide examples:

Whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children . . . all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honor due to the Creator (GS 27).

Since deportations are listed among the acts “offensive to human dignity,” the argument goes, they are intrinsically evil, and the state could never legitimately deport anyone.

Evaluating this argument reveals several principles that are important for reading Church documents.

 

Principle 1: Checking the Original

A starting point for interpreting any document is figuring out what its authors have in mind.

This is done principally by examining the words they use, and we must employ some caution here. Words can have meanings that are not obvious, especially when translations of technical documents—like those of the Magisterium—are involved.

It can be important to check the original language and see what meaning a word has in theological discourse.

The Latin word used by Gaudium et Spes is deportatio, and a check of competent dictionaries reveals it has the same basic meaning it does in English. Leo F. Stelten’s Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin reveals that it means “deportation, banishment,” and the Oxford Latin Dictionary reveals that it means “conveyance to a place of exile, deportation.”

Based on this, Gaudium et Spes might have in mind any and all deportations, but our work is not done, because brief dictionary definitions don’t tell us everything we need to know.

 

Principle 2: Checking the Historical Context

Documents are written at particular moments in history, and this affects the issues they address. They generally address issues being discussed in their own day, not ones from the past or the future.

This means we need to ask what kind of deportations Vatican II had in mind. When Gaudium et Spes was released in 1965, what kind of deportations would have been on the Council’s mind?

Immigration was not a major, controversial issue then, but there was a kind of deportation that was very much on the European mind: the deportations that occurred during World War II.

In fact, in October of 1943—as part of the Nazi Holocaust—the Jewish population of Rome was deported, with many sent to Auschwitz. The memory of this event still lives, and in 2013 Pope Francis sent a message to the chief rabbi of Rome deploring it.

This was one of many deportations during World War II, and it raises the possibility that Gaudium et Spes doesn’t have any and all deportations in mind but those in which Jews or others are forcibly relocated from lands in which they have long dwelled as part of the process of “ethnic cleansing” (a term coined in 1941).

 

Principle 3: Checking for Counterexamples

Whenever considering a possible interpretation of a document, it is important to cross-examine it by looking for potential counterexamples, so can we think of any situations where the Holy See would accept the compulsory removal of people from a place?

Catholic moral theology would hold it is legitimate to remove people from individual dwellings in some situations. If a person has broken into your home, it’s legitimate to remove him. Similarly, landlords can evict tenants who don’t pay their rent or when their lease expires.

The Holy See even has an agreement with the state of Italy providing for the extradition of those accused of crimes. Article 22 of the 1929 Lateran Pact provides:

The Holy See shall hand over to the Italian state all persons who may have taken refuge within the Vatican City, when accused of acts committed within Italian territory which are considered to be criminal by the law of both states.

The Holy see thus acknowledge the existence of situations in which it is legitimate to remove a person or group of people from a particular place, even unwillingly, even across national lines (as in the case of extradition from Vatican City).

This suggests the deportation of immigrants also could be legitimate in some cases.

 

Principle 4: Reading in Harmony

A final principle that needs to be applied when reading Church documents is the presumption that they should be read in harmony with each other. Pope Benedict XVI referred to this as the “hermeneutic of continuity.”

Applying it in this case, we should assume that the Catechism’s teaching regarding limits on immigration does not contradict the teachings found in Veritatis Splendor and Gaudium et Spes regarding deportations.

Given the other things we are aware of—including the historical deportations Vatican II likely had in mind and the potential legitimacy of removing people from places, as in the Lateran Pact—it is most natural to understand the Holy See as condemning mass “ethnic cleansing” deportations of people who have long lived in a country, but not every individual case of deportation.

This does not tell us how best to resolve thorny questions of our own day, but it does illustrate the principles we need to use when reading Church documents. For further discussion of these principles, see my forthcoming book Teaching with Authority.

Does God Pick the Pope?

DoesGodPickthePope

When Pope Benedict was elected in 2005, I was overjoyed.

As much as I loved John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger spoke to me in a special way, and I was thrilled when he became pope.

I was puzzled, though, by the way people began announcing him as “God’s choice” and speaking as if—in every conclave—the Holy Spirit himself selects the pope.

It’s customary for people to speak that way in the jubilation that occurs whenever a new people is elected.

I knew that, but this was the first conclave I witnessed as an adult, and as a Catholic, and I hadn’t experienced it first hand.

That kind of language is understandable as a way of building confidence for the new pontificate, but is it literally true?

Does the Holy Spirit really select the best possible man for the job, or is it a form of pious hyperbole?

 

Common Sense

Common sense would suggest the latter. The cardinals in a conclave certainly invoke the Holy Spirit and seek his guidance, but he does not override their free will.

We’ve had some really bad popes in the history of the Church, and not just ones like Peter who made mistakes and then repented.

We’ve had some genuinely bad actors in the papacy (for example, Benedict IX, who reigned three different times between 1032 and 1048).

So in what sense can the election of a pope be said to be God’s will?

 

Divine Providence

Everything that happens in history takes place under God’s providential care.

By his omnipotence, God could stop any event from occurring, and so if something happens, it’s because God allows it.

The election of a pope thus can be said to be God’s will in the sense that any historical event can.

In this broad sense, however, the fact that something is God’s will does not guarantee that he approves of it.

It may be God’s will to allow a man to commit adultery, but that doesn’t mean he approves of the adultery.

Is the election of a pope in accord with God’s will only in this minimal sense or does it involve something greater?

 

Divine Guidance

While God does not override human free will, he does offer guidance. Jesus gave the Church certain promises in this regard, stating:

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth (John 16:13).

And:

Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age (Matt. 28:20).

God has thus promised to give the Church his guidance. He has also promised it to individuals:

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives to all men generously and without reproaching, and it will be given him (James 1:5).

If an individual man seeks God’s guidance, he can count on it being given. This does not mean it will be easy to hear or understand, or that the man will act on it, but it does mean that God will offer his assistance in some way.

Similarly, when the college of cardinals seeks God’s guidance in a conclave, they can be confident he will give it. Indeed, given the weightiness of the decision facing the cardinals and the implications it will have for the entire Church, they can expect he will provide even greater guidance.

This does not guarantee that the guidance will be easy to hear or understand, or that the cardinals will act on it, but it does mean that God’s assistance will be provided.

By presuming the discernment and good will of the cardinals, we may presume the man they elect was chosen in accord with God’s guidance and thus that his election was God’s will in a greater way than if God merely allowed it.

 

A Marriage Analogy

We should be careful about assuming that there is only one correct choice for pope, for the process of selecting a pope is similar to the process of selecting a spouse.

Pop culture sometimes promotes the idea that everyone has a soul mate—a single, best individual that they should marry—but the reality is more complex.

Each marriage prospect has different strengths and weaknesses, and depending on who you choose, your marriage will unfold in different ways. But that doesn’t mean there is a single, best candidate you must find.

Even if there is, identifying that person with confidence cannot be humanly accomplished, given the number of factors and the number of unknowns in play.

Similarly, candidates for the papacy have different strengths and weaknesses. Depending on who the cardinals choose, the next papacy will unfold in different ways. But there may not be a single, best choice—or one that is humanly knowable.

 

After the Choice is Made

Once a selection has been made, however, a new mode of divine will comes into play.

In the case of a marriage, once you exchange vows, it is God’s will that you treat that person as your spouse.

The realm of possibilities that existed before has now reduced to a single person, and that person is your divinely ordained spouse. He ordained that you be spouses in the moment the vows were exchanged, and “what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matt. 19:6).

It’s now your job to make the marriage work, not to worry about what-ifs and might-have-beens.

Similarly, when a man accepts his election as pope, he becomes the divinely ordained pope, and it’s now everyone’s job in the Church to support him in the various ways that are appropriate to their station and to make the papacy work.

Spouses are not perfect, and neither are popes. Just as every marriage has challenges and requires work, so does every papacy.

 

Cardinal Ratzinger’s Views

When he was still a cardinal, Benedict XVI acknowledged the fact that cardinals can elect sub-optimal popes in an interview with German television back in 1997.

When asked whether the Holy Spirit is responsible for the election of a pope, he said:

I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the pope. . . . I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined (John Allen, The Rise of Benedict XVI, 6).

He continued:

There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!

Similarly, in his final address to the college of cardinals, Pope Benedict stated:

Before I say goodbye to each one of you personally, I would like to tell you that I shall continue to be close to you with my prayers, especially in these coming days, that you may be completely docile to the action of the Holy Spirit in the election of the new pope. May the Lord show you the one whom he wants.

Benedict’s prayer that they will be docile to the Holy Spirit indicates the possibility that they will not be docile.

 

Implications for the Future

Nobody knows when the next conclave will be, but we can draw several implications from all this.

First, we can be confident from the fact that the cardinals seek God’s guidance that he will give it to them, as he has promised.

Second, even if they make a sub-optimal choice, we can be confident that God will ultimately bring good out of it, for “in everything God works for good with those who love him” (Rom. 8:28; cf. CCC 311).

Third, we need to pray. We need to pray now that good cardinals will be chosen, and when they meet in conclave, we need to pray that they will earnestly seek and heed God’s guidance.

Praying for the Past: Another View

AdobeStock_115388656Can we pray for God to help someone in the past?

The Church has no teaching on this subject—one way or another—and intelligent, orthodox Catholics can have different opinions.

My good friend and colleague Tim Staples recently wrote a piece arguing that praying for those in the past doesn’t make sense.

I have a different opinion, as I’ve discussed on my personal blog (see part 1 and part 2).

Here I’d like to do a quick recap and then interact with Tim’s objections.

 

The Basic Idea

Praying for past events can involve three principles:

  • God is eternal, existing outside of time in an eternal now
  • God is omniscient, knowing what is happening in every moment in time
  • God is omnipotent, being able to affect every moment in time

The last two principles are the most important. We’ll see later that the first isn’t essential.

But using all three: If I pray for someone now, in 2018, then God knows about my prayer in the eternal now, and, from there, he can affect any moment in history—whether past, present, or future.

 

An Example

Fifty years ago, in 1968, one of my grandmothers died of breast cancer. I only have dim memories of her, and I don’t know much about her spiritual life.

I could pray, if she is in purgatory, for God to aid her purification, but I don’t know if she was close to God in life and thus likely to die in his friendship.

I do know God loved her and, even in her dying moments, could give her the grace to make a choice for him.

I also know that God is aware of my prayers. Therefore, today—in 2018—if I ask God to help my grandmother as she lay dying, God will hear my prayer in the eternal now, and from there he is capable of giving her his grace in 1968.

It thus makes sense to me to pray for her dying moments, though they are in the past from my perspective.

I’m not the only one who’s thought this makes sense. Figures such as Padre Pio and C.S. Lewis have said the same thing, and there is traction for the idea in the private revelations of St. Faustina.

Now let’s look at Tim’s arguments.

 

Argument #1: Changing the Past

Much of Tim’s post warns against the idea of changing the past. Some might think that, by praying for God to do something in the past, we are asking him to change what happened.

Tim is right to object to this line of thought.

But by praying for my grandmother, I’m not asking God to change what happened in 1968. It’s not like there was an original timeline in which my grandmother died outside of his friendship and I asked for him to erase that timeline and replace it with one where she didn’t.

In 1968, my grandmother either died in God’s friendship or she didn’t. I’m not asking him to change what happened. But since I don’t know which happened, I’m asking him to give his graces to her when she died.

In other words, I’m asking him to affect that moment, not change that moment.

I thus agree with Tim (and Aquinas, whom he quotes) that once a timeline exists from God’s perspective, it cannot change. That’s not what I’m asking.

 

Argument #2: The Church’s Liturgy

Tim argues that the Church’s liturgy does not include prayers for past events, and that’s true as far as I know, though I haven’t done a check of its present and past liturgical texts to see.

This doesn’t mean praying about the past is nonsensical or prohibited. In addition to liturgical prayer, the Church has a rich tradition of private devotions and private prayer.

Further, the Church’s tradition is living, and if someone realizes a new form of prayer is possible, it will be allowed under Christian liberty unless it can be shown to be impermissible.

Also, the Church’s liturgy incorporates prayer that isn’t explored in the official texts. That’s what “the prayers of the faithful” are for at Mass.

There are countless topics not mentioned in the Roman Missal (e.g., frozen embryos in fertility clinics, people dying in airplane crashes, astronauts on the International Space Station), and it’s permissible to intercede concerning these during the prayers of the faithful.

In fact, if a priest invites the faithful to offer their own petitions, I would be perfectly free to say, “For my grandmother in her dying moments, we pray to the Lord”—unless someone shows why I can’t.

Until that’s shown, it seems such prayers can find a place in the liturgy at these times.

 

Argument #3: The Practice of the Church

Tim argues that “the practice of the Church would seem to exclude prayer for the past as a valid option for Catholics. The Church never prays for people in the past other than what we find, for example, in the Catechism in the section on purgatory.”

However, the Catechism isn’t a treatise on everything permitted for Catholics. It is, as its name indicates, a catechetical text—one that provides basic instruction on what the Church teaches. By its nature, it doesn’t go into speculative topics or matters of permitted theological opinion.

The Catechism isn’t meant to be used with an “if not mentioned, then not permitted” hermeneutic. That would shut down the entire enterprise of theology, which by its nature goes beyond basic catechesis.

And when we look at the practice of the Church, we do find individual Catholics—e.g., Saint Padre Pio—praying for people in the past without censure from Church authority.

 

Argument #4: The Disservice Argument

Tim argues that if it’s possible to pray for the past, then the Church has done a disservice to past souls by not praying for them in the liturgy.

There are several responses.

First, theology develops over time, and we can’t expect earlier ages to use practices only thought of later.

The first Christians didn’t think of reserving the Eucharist in tabernacles for the faithful’s adoration, but we can’t say the Church did a disservice to prior Christians by not having thought of this earlier.

If the idea of praying for the past is only now gaining popularity, the Church hasn’t done a disservice up to now.

Second, the Church does pray for every soul. The Catechism explains:

The Church prays that no one should be lost: “Lord, let me never be parted from you.” If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God “desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4), and that for him “all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26) (1058).

This doesn’t explore how God may apply his grace to souls. It leaves that up to God. But the Church does pray for every soul.

Third, the Church has always prayed for people in the current day. In 1968, the Church was praying (implicitly or explicitly) for my grandmother as she lay dying.

Thus, there are no souls left out of the Church’s intercession.

Fundamentally, the Church favors praying for the salvation of souls, and unless a compelling reason is shown why I shouldn’t, the Church favors me praying for my grandmother’s salvation.

 

Argument #5: God’s Eternity

Tim’s final argument deals with the nature of God’s eternity. It’s too complex to describe here, and I don’t share all of Tim’s premises.

We both agree God is eternal (outside of time), but we differ on the nature of time. He holds that only the present exists, while I hold the past and future also exist (see here).

However, for the sake of argument, I can grant everything he proposes about time and eternity.

So let me eject from my argument the fact God is eternal and focus just on his omniscience and omnipotence. Even if (per impossible) God were not outside of time, the following would be true:

  • In 1968, as my grandmother lay dying, God would know (by his omniscience) that in 2018 I would be praying for her happy death.
  • In 1968, God would be capable (by his omnipotence) of giving her his grace.
  • Therefore, in 1968, God would know about my 2018 prayer (by his omniscience) and be capable of granting it (by his omnipotence).

Eternity doesn’t need to be brought into the discussion. Neither does the reality of the future year 2018. God could still, in 1968, grant the prayer I would one day make, so my prayer makes sense.

 

A Marian Postscript

Tim also discusses an objection some might make concerning Mary’s Immaculate Conception: Didn’t God give her this grace early based on what her Son would later do?

Tim says that he did and that this did not involve changing the past.

He is entirely correct. God did—around 17 B.C.—give graces to Mary in anticipation of what her Son would accomplish in A.D. 33.

In the same way, God could—in 1968—give graces to my grandmother in anticipation of what I would ask in 2018.

There’s more Tim and I could say, but I hope this has been an illuminating discussion of a topic on which Catholics may hold different views.

New Vatican Document on Salvation: Top Ten Things to Know

salvation_intro_at_the_crossThe Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has released a new document on the subject of salvation.

The CDF is the department at the Vatican charged with looking out for doctrinal errors, and it does not release documents very often.

 

1) Why was the document released?

On March 1, the prefect and secretary of the CDF—Archbishops Luis Ladaria and Giacomo Morandi—held a press conference in which they announced the new document.

The document can be read online here.

Archbishop Ladaria explained that the document arose after some theologians asked the Congregation to further examine themes discussed in its earlier document on salvation, Dominus Iesus (2000).

This document proved controversial because it explained the Church’s faith in Jesus Christ as the unique Savior of mankind, which some took as a slight to non-Christian religions.

The new document—Placuit Deo (Latin, “It has pleased God”)—reaffirms Christian teaching on Jesus as “the only Savior of the whole human person and of all humanity” (n. 2), but it does not dwell on the issue.

Instead, it focuses on two problematic tendencies in modern society that Pope Francis has called attention to, comparing them to the ancient heresies of Pelagianism and Gnosticism.

 

2) What is Pelagianism?

Pelagianism was a heresy which minimized or denied the need for God’s grace in avoiding sin and achieving salvation.

It is named after Pelagius, a monk from the British isles who lived in the 300s and 400s.

Pelagianism was fought by St. Augustine and others, and it was condemned at a variety of councils.

The new document, Placuit Deo, explains:

According to the Pelagian heresy, developed during the fifth century around Pelagius, the man, in order to fulfil the commandments of God and to be saved, needs grace only as an external help to his freedom (like light, for example, [or] power), not like a radical healing and regeneration of the freedom, without prior merit, until he can do good and reach the eternal life (fn. 9).

 

3) What is Gnosticism?

Gnosticism was a heresy that arose in the second and third century. It took many different forms.

Gnostics claimed to have special knowledge about the nature of the world and an alleged hierarchy of divine, celestial beings.

They commonly saw the material world as evil, being produced by an inferior divine power who was identified with the God of the Old Testament.

Salvation consisted in liberation from the flesh by embracing the gnostic message.

 

4) Is Gnosticism the belief that we are “saved through knowledge”?

No. This common claim is a mistake based on where the word “gnostic” comes from (gnosis, one of the Greek words for knowledge) and that ignores what gnostics actually believed.

Religions generally see a connection between salvation and knowledge. They hold people need to know what to do to be saved:

  • In Christianity, people need to know and act on the gospel of Jesus Christ.
  • In Buddhism, people need to recognize the Four Noble Truths and follow the Eightfold Path.
  • In Islam, people need to know and submit to the will of God.

Each of these religions could be called “gnostic” if all you mean by that is that they think people need knowledge to be saved.

What makes Gnosticism distinct is not its belief that knowledge is important for salvation. It’s the specific content of the knowledge they thought would let one achieve salvation. The CDF explains:

In general, the gnostics believed that the salvation is obtained through an esoteric knowledge or gnosis. Such gnosis reveals to the gnostic his true essence, i.e., a spark of the divine spirit that lives inside him, which has to be liberated from the body, external to his true humanity. Only in this manner, the gnostic returns to his original being in God from whom he has turned away due to a primordial fall (fn. 9).

 

5) What are the tendencies in modern society that the CDF warns against in the new letter?

The first tendency is a kind of self-sufficient individualism that doesn’t properly appreciate the role of Jesus in salvation:

On one hand, individualism centered on the autonomous subject tends to see the human person as a being whose sole fulfilment depends only on his or her own strength.

In this vision, the figure of Christ appears as a model that inspires generous actions with his words and his gestures, rather than as he who transforms the human condition by incorporating us into a new existence, reconciling us with the Father and dwelling among us in the Spirit (n. 2).

The second tendency is a kind of isolationism that conceives of salvation as an exclusively personal thing that involves only the individual and God. This is sometimes called a “just me and Jesus” attitude, and it does not appreciate our obligations toward others and the world:

On the other hand, a merely interior vision of salvation is becoming common, a vision which, marked by a strong personal conviction or feeling of being united to God, does not take into account the need to accept, heal, and renew our relationships with others and with the created world (ibid.).

 

6) How has Pope Francis spoken of these tendencies?

The CDF explains:

Pope Francis, in his ordinary magisterium, often has made reference to the two tendencies described above, that resemble certain aspects of two ancient heresies, Pelagianism and Gnosticism.

A new form of Pelagianism is spreading in our days, one in which the individual, understood to be radically autonomous, presumes to save oneself, without recognizing that, at the deepest level of being, he or she derives from God and from others. . . .

On the other hand, a new form of Gnosticism puts forward a model of salvation that is merely interior, closed off in its own subjectivism. . . .

It presumes to liberate the human person from the body and from the material universe, in which traces of the provident hand of the Creator are no longer found (n. 3).

 

7) In speaking of these tendencies as Pelagianism and Gnosticism, is the pope being literal?

No. The CDF explains:

Clearly, the comparison with the Pelagian and Gnostic heresies intends only to recall general common features, without entering into judgments on the exact nature of the ancient errors. . . .

However, insofar as Gnosticism and Pelagianism represent perennial dangers for misunderstanding biblical faith, it is possible to find similarities between the ancient heresies and the modern tendencies just described (n. 3).

 

8) What does the CDF see as the antidotes to these problems?

A complete discussion can be found by reading the document in full, but put concisely:

  • Contra individualism (“neo-Pelagianism”), we cannot rely simply on ourselves for salvation (e.g., by trying to be morally good person). God’s grace in Jesus Christ is essential for salvation. The sacraments are means by which God gives us his grace.
  • Contra isolationism (“neo-Gnosticism”), salvation is not a purely private and spiritual matter. We must take seriously our responsibilities toward other Christians, the Church, and all of creation.

 

9) Are there any particularly interesting points the document discusses?

One is a rejection of the common idea that our final destiny is to live as disembodied spirits with God in heaven. While we may be disembodied before the final resurrection, the document reminds us that, “total salvation of the body and of the soul is the final destiny to which God calls all of humanity” (n. 15).

Another point, which will be particularly interesting for Protestant Christians, is the document’s acknowledgement that Mary is “first among the saved” (n. 15), meaning that she also is a recipient of God’s grace (cf. CCC 508).

 

10) Did we have any idea this document was coming?

Yes. In his annual address to the CDF last January, Pope Francis mentioned it.

He also mentioned that the CDF has been doing a study of Christian principles and economics and another study on euthanasia and the care of the terminally ill.

We may soon see documents on those subject also.

Affecting the Past—Today! (with St. Faustina)

divine-mercy-old-testament-historyisreseach-cc-dipinto_originale_autentico_divina_misericordia_gesucc80_confido_santa_faustina_pittore_eugeniusz_kazimirowski_1934Recently I wrote about the possibility of praying across time.

For example, you might pray for the salvation of a person who has already died.

The theory is that, since God is outside of time, he is aware of your prayer in the eternal now and can intervene at any point in history, including when the person your are praying for was still alive.

Your prayer today—in 2018—could thus be applied to someone as he was dying a century ago, in 1918 (perhaps as a result of the Spanish Flu).

I mentioned that this view has been endorsed by figures such as C.S. Lewis in the Protestant community and, apparently, by Padre Pio in the Catholic community.

I also asked if readers were aware of other Catholic figures who had discussed it, and several wrote back with examples.

Here’s one of them . . .

 

The Divine Mercy Novena

A reader pointed out that, in the Divine Mercy Novena contained in the Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska, Jesus is reported as saying that the actions of various groups living today have an effect on his experience of the Passion, back in A.D. 33.

These remarks occur on five of the nine days of the novena. On the various days, Jesus asks that specific groups of people be brought before him in prayer.

Here’s what St. Faustina reported him saying:

Second Day

1212 Today bring to me the souls of priests and religious, and immerse them in my unfathomable mercy. It was they who gave me the strength to endure my bitter Passion.

Third Day

1214 Today bring to me all devout and faithful souls, and immerse them in the ocean of my mercy. These souls brought me consolation on the Way of the Cross. They were that drop of consolation in the midst of an ocean of bitterness.

Fourth Day

1216 Today bring to me the pagans and those who do not yet know me. I was thinking also of them during my bitter Passion, and their future zeal comforted my Heart.

Fifth Day

1218 Today bring to me the souls of heretics and schismatics, and immerse them in the ocean of my mercy. During my bitter Passion they tore at my Body and Heart; that is, my Church. As they return to unity with the Church, my wounds heal, and in this way they alleviate my Passion.

Sixth Day

1220 Today bring to me the meek and humble souls and the souls of little children, and immerse them in my mercy. These souls most closely resemble my Heart. They strengthened me during my bitter agony. I saw them as earthly angels, who would keep vigil at my altars.

 

A Matter of Perspective

These passages do not show Jesus referring to the perspective he has as God outside of time. They are consistent with him simply having foreknowledge at the time of his Passion.

This is fine for our thesis that present actions can affect the past. In fact, I made the point in my previous post that even if one doesn’t have the eternal perspective that God does, simple foreknowledge is enough to achieve this effect.

If God—or anybody else—knows what someone will ask in the future, he is capable of acting on it now. A future request can thus affect matters that (from the future perspective) are in the past.

In the novena passages, Jesus refers to people living in the future (from an A.D. 33 perspective). This is evident from the fact that St. Faustina was expected to pray (at least) for the people living in her own day.

It is also evident from the fact that in A.D. 33 there were as yet no religious (the invention of religious orders came later), that he refers to those “who do not yet know me,” and that the various heresies and schisms that have affected the Church had not yet arisen.

He also depicts the actions of these people affecting him back in A.D. 33—most notably when he refers to the heretics and schismatics both tearing at his body and heart “during my bitter Passion” and alleviating his passion “as they return to unity with the Church.”

Strikingly, the actions of these people at two different times—(1) when they are in a state of separation and (2) when they are later reconciled—are said to affect Jesus’ Passion in two different ways.

 

A Word of Caution

It should be pointed out that, although the Church as declared Sister Faustina a saint and incorporated Divine Mercy Sunday into the liturgical calendar, it has not directly ruled on the authenticity of her private revelations.

Also, the Church acknowledges that, even in the case of an authentic private revelation, we must take into account “the possibility that the subject might have added, even unconsciously, purely human elements or some error of the natural order to an authentic supernatural revelation” (CDF, Norms for Discerning Presumed Apparitions or Revelations).

We therefore need to be cautious in how far we press the details of St. Faustina’s reported revelations.

Nevertheless, this represents another instance where the idea of present actions affecting the past has received acknowledgement in the Catholic tradition.