On Sunday

This past Sunday, I had a very nice conversation with a friend on the role of Sunday in the Christian life. It started with a good and important reference.

Sunday is traditionally consecrated by Christian piety to good works and humble service of the sick, the infirm, and the elderly. Christians will also sanctify Sunday by devoting time and care to their families and relatives, often difficult to do on other days of the week. Sunday is a time for reflection, silence, cultivation of the mind, and meditation which furthers the growth of the Christian interior life. (CCC 2186)

This is what the Church says about Sunday. It is a day to be consecrated to the LORD. We are to avoid those labors which "hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord's Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body." (CCC 2185).

This teaching is plain and straightforward. To what level are actions contrary to it sinful, and what "obligations" are the faithful put under is not the concern of this reflection. The Christian who wants to become a Saint seeks perfection, not minimal obligation. The world, however, is fallen, so our ability to actually attain perfection in this life is severely hampered. This is not an excuse to not try.

Students live a particular and unique sort of life. At school, they have classes all week, and homework to work on. They usually have no family around, but instead have a network of close friendships. So, the question at hand is this: how is a student who desires to become a saint to deal with the rigors of a course-load which seems to legitimately require one to do work on a Sunday, and, secondly, how can a student try to sanctify Sunday when her friends would prefer to socialize on Saturday and work on Sunday?

These are real concerns. The student desiring to become a saint should want to do what is pleasing in the sight of God and avoid what He dislikes. The Almighty, through the teaching office of His Church, has deemed that Sunday is to be set aside so that the faithful can better give Him the glory due his Name. It follows, then, that those desiring a more perfect union with Him should not be content if there are things which impede their ability to honor Him in the ways laid out in CCC 2184-2188.

Which brings us to homework. What if, upon consideration, the student determines that it is quite unlikely that her work can be done well without spending some time on Sunday to work on it? Should the desire to better serve God by sanctifying Sunday outweigh the desire to better serve God by seeing that our work and studies are done well? Surely not, for if God looks with favor on work done well, then we might expect him to look unkindly on work done poorly, especially intentionally so. If a student were to discern that her studies would suffer and the work would legitimately require time to be put in on Sunday, then in this case, the work should be done well, and the necessary time taken. In a sense this is a burden or a cross to bear for the student's state in life. However, if this becomes regular or habitual, I think it is necessary to discern how necessary this Sunday labor really is, and see if effort cannot be put forward to lessen that burden by rearranging schedules, or the like.

It is not good for Man to be alone. We were created social creatures, and we work out our salvation in fear and trembling as a Church: with friends, with family, and with a parish. It would be a very difficult challenge to live sanctified lives of heroic virtue (as anyone who desires the be a Saint ought) alone. Very few are called to the eremitic lifestyle, and it is not to them I address these comments. Students live together, and develop friendships which will last them a lifetime. Friends will eat meals together, play sports together, go to Mass together, and pray together. Good or bad, their influence will play a role in the student's formation as a person.

Many students today do not see the Sunday rest in the light presented in the Catechism quotes above. Many persons will plan to recreate on Saturday, leaving Sunday unfortunately busy with homework. This is a vicious cycle, which easily develops and continues. After a long week of school work, rest is rightly desired, and thus, many students will want to plan things to do with their friends. This can often lead anyone who desires to practice a more traditional Sunday rest out of the loop. While their friends are recreating on Saturday, they are working, and while they are ready, therefore, to engage in worthy Sunday activities, their friends are too busy with schoolwork.

This is the situation faced by someone who wants to step forward and make a commitment to sanctifying Sunday, and in fact, the observation is not limited to students. The Venerable Servant of God, Pope John Paul II, stated in his Apostolic Letter Dies Domini, that

This rather traditional way of keeping Sunday holy has perhaps become more difficult for many people; but the Church shows her faith in the strength of the Risen Lord and the power of the Holy Spirit by making it known that, today more than ever, she is unwilling to settle for minimalism and mediocrity at the level of faith. She wants to help Christians to do what is most correct and pleasing to the Lord. (DD 52)

It is indeed difficult! The direction given us by the Church seems so clear, and yet, to borrow from the Rule of St. Benedict, students "of our times cannot be persuaded of this." (RSB 40) This, in essence, points us in a direction of a solution.

We take as our basis these points: it is not good for Man to be alone, and it is pleasing to God for us to arrange our work, whenever possible, to avoid working on Sunday so that we can honor him more greatly. Now, we observe that students of our age cannot be persuaded of this. Following Benedict, then, we can say that we agree to work sparingly, if that is necessary to additionally foster good and Holy friendships. That said, care must be taken that this is not the comfortable position, for we must truly want "to do what is most correct and pleasing to the Lord."

Each individual must discern for himself how this must be approached. Some will feel the call to bear the cross, and set an example to their friends, and enjoy what additional time with friends they can spare. Others will, at least for a time, discern that in order to keep their personal and spiritual life on trace they must occasionally or regularly transfer some work to Sunday, in order to spend sufficient time with friends. This is understandable, but it must be recognized as less than the ideal.

For our benefit, Holy Mother Church directs us on the Lord's day to refrain "from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord's Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body." (CCC 2185) This can be difficult for students for many reasons, but if we want to become Saints, we must aspire to the greatest good. Therefore we must do our best to direct our lives toward sanctifying Sunday while maintaining a good balance of life. After all, if not a Saint, then what are we?

Truly thinking?

What's the deal with people saying "thinking of you" in times of crisis or despair?

Bad things happen, and often at inopportune times. People seem naturally sympathetic to suffering, especially of friends and relatives; they are usually quick to offer their condolences. Our modern day society has begun to abandon the traditional (Christian) expressions of sympathy in favor of more secularized statements.

I noticed recently that, whereas the laudable expression "I am praying for you" was called for, most people have begun to say "I am thinking of you" instead. This unscientific observation of comments on the Facebook really disturbs me.

What does someone really mean when they say they are "thinking of you"? The average materialist does not believe in such things as prayer, or universal life force energy or the other things that could be considered intercessory. So, then, what might a non-believer be doing or indicating if he or she is thinking of someone else? Except for empty sympathy, the only thing I can think of is the offer of "misery loves company". You hurt, so I will share in your hurt so we can commiserate. If, however, at least the person being "thought of" is a believer, then he will understand that the person's thoughts, even if not made in faith, can still be heard by the Almighty, and carried to His throne by, say, one of their guardian angels, or the like. On the other hand if that person is not a believer I can't imagine why they would want anyone to "think of them" in non-practical ways (such as thinking of bringing them soup, for instance), except for the "misery loves company" theory, though I wouldn't think a truly compassionate person would want to burden someone else with their sufferings like that.

And so, I hope that anyone reading this will think twice about telling someone they are "thinking of them", and instead make it clear that you are "praying for them". And then do it! My personal favorite prayer for any intention at any time is the Memorare:

Remember, O most gracious virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thy intercession was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto thee, O virgin of virgins, my mother. To thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy answer me. Amen

St. Bruno

Today is the optional memorial of St. Bruno. It is fitting, I think, that he be honored with an optional memorial, for his humility would prevent being desirous of being obligatorily honored by the universal Church. In fact, though his cult was approved by the Church in 1623, he was never canonized in the formal ceremonies common of the time. The Carthusian order wouldn't permit such pomp and ceremony to surround their humble founder.

Today would be a good day to watch Into Great Silence and drink some Chartreusse in his honor.

Mysticism

Zenit had a great article yesterday, an interview with Fr. Luigi Borriello, a Carmelite priest and professor of Theology. I recommend you go read it, but I will post a couple snippets.

ZENIT: In fact, many seek in the East what Christian mysticism already contains.

Father Borriello: Indeed. It's a paradox.

Many Christians don't know the wealth of their own mystical tradition and they turn to the East, seeking what is in the interior of that tradition.
[...]
ZENIT: Would it be appropriate to desire a mystical experience?

Father Borriello: It is not a question of asking for it but of receiving it when it comes, if it comes.

Experience is a category that is used in all the disciplines. I prefer to speak of mystical experience; it is something that God gives to man who receives it passively, and, in fact, makes an effort on receiving it.

True Christian mysticism is a bit of a lost art these days, though there are many, Christians included, who are attracted to the new-age mysticism drawn from Eastern traditions. I think there are a couple reasons for this. First of all, Eastern mysticism is about self, clearing ones own mind, and, after all, we are a very selfish people. I'm no expert, but I'm not sure what, if any, pre-requisites there are to approaching Eastern mysticism, either.

On the other hand, Christian mysticism is all about God, and a closer union with the divine. Requisite on the Christian seeking a mystical union with the Lord is a personal sanctity and holiness of life. Only then, as all the great mystical writers have told us, can the soul be open to the gift of a mystical experience. Further, Christian mysticism isn't all happy fun time either, in fact it is quite the opposite. Sure, as the soul begins to accept mystical union there can be many great consolations, but as the soul further approaches God, the tendency is that God will retreat, leaving the soul in a profound darkness. At its face, it seems a harder row to hoe than offered by the East.

On the Theology of Science

My education has been almost purely technical since I began as an undergrad in Physics. Studying a Science, Engineering, or the like is quite intensive, and thus leaves little (if any) room for studying non-technical subjects. Even a tech school has general education requirements; I had 21 credits of humanities and social sciences, but there were not too many choices, and thus I took courses like "The Philosophy of Physics" and "Sociology of the Sciences". These brief introductory statements are meant to be an apology to all of the non-technical types who have a much better education in the field than I.

I read a book last year called "The new physics and a new theology" by Fr. Michael Heller, a priest and physicist who works at the Vatican Observatory. In it, he lays out a brief history of science and scientific thought, especially from the view of natural philosophy, and the history of relations between theologians and scientists up to today. In it he makes many good and interesting points, of which I will not discuss here. He ultimately proposes that a new branch of Theology be developed, which he terms the Theology of Science, to complement scientific inquiry and the philosophy of science.

I have had some time to reflect on such things recently, and, as such, will attempt to expound on this idea. Science asks the question: what is the universe like, and what rational laws with predictive power can we develop to help explain and understand what we observe in the universe? The philosophy of science, however, addresses a different area of thought, asking what methods are valid for scientific inquiry, how can we evaluate scientific claims, and what sort of Truths can we derive from these claims, that is scientific epistemology.

Theology asks further questions, and the theology of science would ask questions like: why does the universe seem to obey rational, mathematically elegant laws? What makes the form of Creation we have observed "good"? What does Creation, and the (scientific) knowledge we gain from observing it, tell us about the Creator? Save the last question I mentioned, the others are still a bit specific rather than general, and fail to capture or define the full scope of the field, but they at least form a starting point to attempt to interact with it.

Attempts to do this have, for the most part, fallen short of actually establishing a field, and I think I agree with Fr. Heller that attempting to stick these ideas into existing theological structures could be doomed to fail, or at the very least will likely prove inadequate in the long run. The problem, he says, is partly language: scientists and theologians surely do not speak the same language. This is made somewhat clear when considering attempts at discussing a theology of creation have been made. As a scientist reading Cardinal Schonborn's book Chance or Purpose? and other things he has written, he misunderstands some scientific statements, and perhaps more fundamentally, he seems to mis-represent (unintentionally, of course) the way that scientists actually think about science. This, says Fr. Heller, is attributable to the middle ages and the age of Aquinas. At the time, Aristotle was all the rage, especially among a certain class of the elites: enough so that some bishops evened banned the reading and teaching of Aristotle. Although the nascent "scientists" of the day were indeed attracted to this philosophy, it did not take too long for them to realize that to make real scientific inquiry would require Platonic (or indeed Archimedean) thought. In the mean time, however Thomas Aquinas "baptized" Aristotle and Theologians have been hooked since, thinking they were now on the same page as the scientists. In fact, Fr. Heller even postulates that your average Thomist today would still think his theological approach was "scientific" and similar to a scientist's approach to his craft.

Now, I don't pretend here to have actually defined the field of Theology of Science, but merely start to reflect on what it might contain, and of what use it might be. I, for one, am most interested in the last of the questions I have posed, namely, what we can learn about the creator by studying His creation. This will be left for another day.

The Fruit of a Poisoned Tree

There is a legal doctrine, referred to as "fruit of the poisonous tree", indicating that any evidence obtained in an illegal manner, no matter how damning, is inadmissible in a court of law. The point of this is both to protect to rights of those persons involved, and also to deter those law enforcement agents from ever violating those rights in the first place. After all, if the protection against illegal search and seizure didn't actually prevent the reaping of the benefits of illegal police actions, there would be no real deterrents against blatant rights violations.

I think this principle needs to be considered with respect to the hundreds of thousands of human embryos we currently have "on ice" from the growth of the in-vitro fertilization. There are at least half a million human embryos sitting in cold storage in the United States alone, waiting.

Waiting for what, though? Most of them, I would guess, aren't intended, any more, to be bore in their mothers' wombs. Many extra embryos are produced in each IVF "treatment" cycle, "just in case," they say. Then what? The parents have a kid or two, maybe more with twins being quite common, and then, they decide they've "had enough," and are left with additional children on ice.

There has been a lot of discussion about what to do about these persons, and many good and prominent Catholics disagree about the best course of action. Some people suggest the "adoption" of these embryos by families who would be willing to bear and raise someone else's biological progeny. Others suggest that we must see to keep them cold until such a time as we can be confident that they have died. Secular thinkers even think we should be using them for embryonic stem cell research. The Catholic thinkers will at least admit that this is a very unfortunate situation and doesn't admit an immediately clear morally good answer.

This is where I think we need to consider the principle of the fruit of poison trees. The wholesale production of humans for the purpose of using a few in place of natural reproduction is morally reprehensible. No solution will change that. And, thus, any solution we come up with must not encourage the act. This is why the adoption solution is imperfect. What if it were to "catch on", if couples who were truly infertile found this a solution to their infertility? This could encourage more, not less embryo production.

The "tree" of IVF is truly a poisonous scourge on society, and the only way out will ultimately be to pull it out by its roots. We must stop this practice completely. Short of that, we will not be free of the associated problems.

The Prague Cathedral

I have posted a number of times before on the state of the Prague Cathedral. A brief history: the first Church there was built in the 900s, the present day Cathedral in the 1200s, the Commies seized it (with much of the Church's property) when they took over Czechoslovakia, then, when the Czech Republic formed, they decided not to give the Church its property back, including the Cathedral. And so, there have been fights in Czech and European courts. But, now the word is that an agreement has been reached.

“The state and the Catholic Church will work together to administer and maintain the cathedral as they have done for centuries,” President Klaus explained, according to Radio Prague. “The Church will continue to use the cathedral as a metropolitan church and the state will secure the necessary funds for its maintenance.”

The agreement will create a board of administrators made up of the Czech Republic’s leading representatives. They will meet once or twice each year to discuss issues related to the cathedral’s maintenance and use.

The Catholic Church will be allowed to use two adjoining buildings, part of the Prague Castle compound, free of charge.

Not too bad a deal if you ask me, the State opts to pay to keep up the place, though I generally don't like the idea of getting in bed with the state like this. After all, what if the Secular authorities decide they want to hold some non-sacral events within the Cathedral, or worse. My guess is, this Cathedral is consecrated in perpetuity, and thus can't be rendered to the secular. The new Cardinal Archbishop, replacing Cardinal Vlk, decided that the probably almost 20 year old court battle has been drawn out too much.

Radio Prague reports that the new archbishop said the court fight, almost two decades old, was pointless.

“It is clear that this particular property cannot be judged on purely legal grounds,” he commented. “This cathedral is a historical, spiritual, national and cultural symbol dear to the heart of all Czechs – regardless of their faith.”

In the same way, the Pieta or the ceiling of the Sistine chapel are "historical, spiritual, national and cultural" icons, but I wouldn't want to turn their control or ownership in whole or part to secular authorities. This case, however, is different, as the state has the ownership at this moment. This is probably a good compromise, as the European Courts might just tell the Church "tough luck", and in this case, there could be a chance that a benevolent government in the future might decide that administrating Church properties nearly a Millennium old isn't worth it.

Quicumque

Though it is not an act specifically granted an indulgence under the Enchiridion, it would still be a good thing to recall and recite the Quicumque, or the Athanasian Creed today.

WHOEVER wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith.
For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever.
This is what the catholic faith teaches: we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity.
Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance.
For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit.
But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty.
What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is.
The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
The Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and the Holy Spirit is boundless.
The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal.
Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being.
So there are not three uncreated beings, nor three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless being.
Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, the Holy Spirit is omnipotent.
Yet there are not three omnipotent beings, but one omnipotent being.
Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
However, there are not three gods, but one God.
The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord.
However, there are not three lords, but one Lord.
For as we are obliged by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person singly to be God and Lord, so too are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords.
The Father was not made, nor created, nor generated by anyone.
The Son is not made, nor created, but begotten by the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit is not made, nor created, nor generated, but proceeds from the Father and the Son.
There is, then, one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
In this Trinity, there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less. The entire three Persons are coeternal and coequal with one another.
So that in all things, as is has been said above, the Unity is to be worshiped in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity.
He, therefore, who wishes to be saved, must believe thus about the Trinity.
It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believes steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Thus the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man.
As God, He was begotten of the substance of the Father before time; as man, He was born in time of the substance of His Mother.
He is perfect God; and He is perfect man, with a rational soul and human flesh.
He is equal to the Father in His divinity, but inferior to the Father in His humanity.
Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ.
And He is one, not because His divinity was changed into flesh, but because His humanity was assumed unto God.
He is one, not by a mingling of substances, but by unity of person.
As a rational soul and flesh are one man: so God and man are one Christ.
He died for our salvation, descended into hell, and rose from the dead on the third day.
He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
At His coming, all men are to arise with their own bodies; and they are to give an account of their own deeds.
Those who have done good deeds will go into eternal life; those who have done evil will go into the everlasting fire.
This is the Catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved. Amen.

One of the symbols of the faith. Chock full of goodness, and especially nice for the feast of the Most Holy Trinity.

Marquette III

I don't have much time to discuss the ongoing discussions surrounding Marquette, but I wanted to post this. This professor is asking the right question:

"The question that should be asked is not why Marquette President Father Robert A. Wild backed off the hiring," Wolfe writes, "but how in heaven did the hiring ever occur in the first place?"

You can read his analysis yourself.

Moderation

I'm getting tired of seeing non-real comments from robots on my weblog, so I have instituted "comment moderation." so as to prevent spam from filling up the comments section.

This may mean a slight delay in comments being seen, but I insist I will approve any non-spam comments.

Sorry I had to do this.

The Management.

Marquette - UPDATE

As I mentioned earlier, the President of Marquette University decided to rescind an offer of a dean's position to an openly lesbian professor who had a history of writing things contrary to Catholic doctrine. Lifesite News has a nice summary of the uproar that has followed.

They actually go through some of her writings and find some disturbing things. In addition, some more information has come out with regards to this decision.

One professor, speaking to Milwaukee Magazine on condition of anonymity, said that Fr. Wild told the faculty that Archbishop Listecki had expressed an opinion on the matter that had a bearing on his decision. Upon being pressed for an account of how the decision was made, Fr. Wild reportedly declined to give any details.

When Archdiocesan Judicial Vicar Father Paul Hartmann wrote to the committee chair searching for a new dean, according to the Journal Sentinel, he wrote that some possible candidates were pursuing subjects of study "that seems destined to actually create dichotomies and cause tensions (if not contradictions) with Marquette's Catholic mission and identity."

"My greatest fear, as a priest, alum, and as president of a high school which sends dozens of new students to (Marquette) each fall, is that the important decision to be made in this moment will instead dichotomize university from Church and reason from faith," Hartmann wrote.

Interesting if true. Can you believe, a University listening to its Ordinary? It's good to hear about such things.

Jesus of Nazareth II: Electric Boogaloo

Just in on the wires. Jesus of Nazareth part II is completed, or at least the German version is done. Work on translations, thus is about to get underway. Months, they say. I remember being promised this to be done in the spring. In fact the words were "should be ready" and "expected in the spring of 2010". Indeed, it is still spring, but I was led to believe that the translations were being prepared starting last September, not still the original.

That said, the Pope's a busy guy, and I suppose I can give him a break, but I can't wait for part II to come out! I do hope they don't rush the translation; I want it to be good, like part I was.

Cardinal Schönborn off the Rails

I've admired some of the works of Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, especially his book Change or Purpose on cosmic and biological evolution. He doesn't always get the science right, but he has at least tried to look at the science from a theological perspective, which is a direction in modern theology which I think need to be explored more, especially by those few who are familiar with both science and theology.

So, I have been a bit dismayed with some of the things I have seen in more recent times from Cardinal Schönborn and the Archdiocese of Vienna. Most recently, I saw this.

The Church should "give more consideration" to "the quality" of homosexual relationships, the cardinal archbishop of Vienna said this weekend. Christoph Schönborn told the far-left British Catholic magazine the Tablet that the Church should also consider allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion since “many people don’t even marry at all any longer.”

“We should give more consideration to the quality of homosexual relationships. A stable relationship is certainly better than if someone chooses to be promiscuous,” Schönborn said.

What?

He's a Cardinal Archbishop. Where is this coming from?

Bishop fined for the Truth

Of course, we all knew the day was coming when the secular authorities started fining those in the Church for speaking out for the Truth. An article came out today about a Bishop in Costa Rica who was fined by the government for advocating in a homily voting according to Catholic principles.

He didn't even say anything that outrageous.

During the Mass last September, Bishop Ulloa told the faithful, “We are facing a political campaign in which we must carefully choose who is going to govern us. We are now finding out which candidates deny God and defend principles that go against life, marriage, and the family. Therefore, we must be coherent with our faith and cannot give them our vote in good conscience.”

"We can't vote for those who will oppose the Truth." A sound and simple principle.

Mark my words, the day is coming when the same will be be true in Europe (in fact, it might be here already) and even in this country. Maybe speaking out won't be a crime here, but I'm sure the calls for the Church to lose her tax-exempt status will come with greater fervor in years to come, especially since many of our bishops have started to find their voices in recent times.

Marquette and the Catholic Identity

A good friend of mine has directed me to this article.

Marquette University defended its decision to withdraw an offer to an openly lesbian faculty member to become a college dean after it became evident that the teacher's published writings opposed Church teachings on human sexuality.

The Jesuit university underscored the importance of finding a dean who is not only academically competent but represents “our Catholic identity.”

I took the liberty of checking out her CV, and it indicated she had written articles which had titles likely supporting the claim that her published writings opposed Church teachings.

Fr. Robert Wild, president of Marquette, commented on the situation during a faculty award dinner on Thursday, underscoring that the decision to withdraw the offer to O'Brien was not a discriminatory act.
“I want to say it strongly, clearly and directly,” the reason for rescinding the position was “not about sexual identity,” Fr. Wild said.

Right, the issue is Catholic identity. A Catholic university needs to seek out administrators and faculty who can build up and support that identity. Ex Corde Ecclesiae would agree, saying that those who are not part of the faith must nonetheless be aware of the University's Catholic identity and mission, and work toward that end.

Fr. Wild had to intercede on behalf of the Faith, which is is job. This episode indicates that there are probably some bigger issues that need to be dealt with on this campus. Any chance, though, to re-assert the Catholic identity on campus must be commended.

Fr. Hesburgh and Health Care

I've been so busy recently, I've barely had the chance to even read articles that could make their way to this weblog. Today, though, I saw a headline that was too provocative to pass up: Pelosi Invoked Fr. Hesburgh to Turn 'No' Health Bill Vote to 'Yes'.

This saddens, but doesn't surprise me. Though it is worse than I thought. The headline made me think she said something like "what would Fr. Hesburgh do?" but, it turns out, he actually was asked to make a phone call

Hesburgh was called in to persuade U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) to vote for the health care bill despite the vast expansion of abortion funding embedded in it. Donnelly had been a member of the group of Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who opposed the bill without Hyde-amendment restrictions on abortion funding.
...

Elizabeth Shappell, Donnelly's press secretary, claims Hesburgh did not tell Donnelly how to vote but only advised him to "vote your conscience."

A well formed conscience should have been able to see clearly what the issues at hand were. In fact, it really would be the role of the episcopate and presbyteriate to help form the consciences of those considering this bill. There was no pressing need to pass this bill now, on that day, as it stood. After all, people weren't dying in the streets; the current system works, though perhaps imperfectly, and we thus should have done such a massive reform correctly, even if it took a little more time.

If only Fr. Hesburgh had forgotten all about the Land O' Lakes statement, and just told Congressman Donnelly to listen to the Bishops.

Works in progress

The faithful reader(s) of this weblog have surely noticed that in recent months, the frequency with which I have been making posts has greatly diminished. Fear not, for I am thinking no less than before; the world of graduate school work presently demands more time of me.

Rather than leave this simply apologetic in nature, I will enlighten you to the areas which have been drawing my interest recently. These interests, very often, manifest themselves as and/or culminate in essays, which could become weblog posts, or the like. This is a recent snapshot of what I have been working on and thinking about.

Working titles:
The theology of grading
On the gnostic nature of Linux
The internet these days (a look at how the internet has so changed everything)
The Scout Oath and Law as a rule for life
Adversus Matrimonii Mixiti (a critique of the practice of mixed-faith relationships)

In addition, I have started to work some more on my Way of the Cross reflections. I have also been tossing around the idea of writing a Rule.

I suppose if any of these interested anyone, I could "fast track" them, as it were. Otherwise, you may see these, or something else that strikes my fancy, right here on some day in the future.

Archabbeys

Friends, I present to you the culmination of a bit of research on my part stemming from a conversation I had recently about archabbeys. I once learned that there were 5 archabbeys in the world, with St. Meinrad and St. Vincent being the two in the US. This was incorrect, as there are 11 in the world. I will recount the results, the sources, and a bit of the quest for this information.

To my knowledge, there does not exist a nice list anywhere, in English or otherwise, of the archabbeys in the world. Try searching google or wikipedia for archabbeys or the like and you won't find a nice list. I did however, come to find that there are indeed 11 in the world. St. Meinrad's website has a citation, claiming "There are only 11 archabbeys in the world, one other in the United States." This is repeated on the wikipedia entry on Indiana. This seemed to me to confirm that I had 11 to find.

I knew of a few, and decided the best way to get to this was to search for a parital list, to see if I could find a full list. I searched google for "pannonhalma beuron ottilien meinrad vincent", which were 5 I was able to find via looking through wikipedia. The only useful entry I found was a web forum in Italian. In case, at some point that link fails to work, I will post here the pertinent entry:

Citazione:

Originariamente scritto da Fidei Depositum 1) Sì. In tutto le arciabbazie sono 11 (secondo il sito dell'abbazia di san Meinrado): di queste conosco Montecassino, Pannonhalma (UNG), Beuron (GER), Emming(GER), San Meinrado (USA), San Vincenzo (USA), San Pietro a Salisburgo (AUT). Se qualcuno mi sa dire quali manchino, ben venga.

Ringraziando Henry O'Shea e il sito www.osb-international.info, cui ho chiesto informazioni, posso fornirvi l'elenco completo delle 11 arciabbazie al mondo (ho completato aggiungendo ad ognuna il link al sito ufficiale):

1) Montecassino;
2) Monte Oliveto Maggiore;
3) Vallombrosa;
4) Arpino (monache)(non hanno sito web);
5) Beuron (DEU);
6) Sankt Ottilien (DEU);
7) Brevnov (CZE);
8) Pannonhalma (HUN);
9) Saint Vincent (USA);
10) Saint Meinrad (USA);
11) Sao Sebastiao em Salvador (BRA)(non hanno sito web).

So, I had a list. I knew some of these, but not all. I also was pointed to the Benedictine's central site, which has a nice search feature (called atlas). This however was not the end of my quest.

I decided that I must confirm that indeed each of these are Archabbeys, as I had my doubts (for instance about Montecassino). A confirmation, I decided, was some mention, on the internet, especially in something official (like their website) that it is an archabbey.

I will cut to the chase a little bit. I did not confirm this list completely, I was able to confirm 10 of the 11, and found another one, which makes 11. I will present them all below, with sources and such.

First, Montecassino in Italy. This one threw me for a loop, because none of the official websites refer to it as anything but the Abbey of Montecassino. A little bit of poking around, and I found a Vatican itinerary on the Holy See's website stating "Celebration of Vespers with the Benedictine Abbots and the Community of Benedictine Monks and Nuns gathered in the Archabbey of Montecassino." I call that confirmed.

Next, Monte Oliveto Maggiore, also in Italy, was another tough one. Their website, and that of the Benedictines didn't refer to it as an archabbey. But, I did find a letter of Pope John Paul II to the Olivetian Benedictines, which says: "...so united to the Archabbey of Monte Oliveto Maggiore that they form a single family by a juridical bond..." If it's good enough for the Pope, then it is good enough for me.

I was unable to confirm #3 on the list, Vallombrosa, but I did confirm #4 Arpino. This was the hardest of all, because searching for Arpino in the website of the Benedictines didn't yield a result. In a sense, the confirmation was easy, searching Google for "Arpino archabbey" yielded the 2006 charitable giving of the Knights of Columbus: "Benedictine Archabbey of Arpino, Romania — New monastery". By having the Benedictine website list all the territorial abbeys, one can find the listing for Arpino. That gives you at least a little bit about it, and thanks to the crack record keeping of the Knights, we know it to be an archabbey of nuns.

Beuron archabbey in Germany is one of the few archabbeys with the word "archabbey" in the wikipedia page. Likewise, their website lists them as an archabbey (erzabtei in German).

Saint Ottilien, also in Germany, is also listed as an "Erzabtei" on the OSB website.

Brevnov, located in the Czech Republic, is listed as a "Benediktinske arciopatstvi" which would seem to be Czech for Benedictine archabbey. A quick glance at their website's German version also confirms that it is an erzabtei, or archabbey.

I add in, now, St. Peter's in Salzburg, Austria, another confirmed case of "Erzabtei" thanks to the OSB website.

Pannonhalma, Hungary, is one of the oldest abbeys in the world. Hungarian is a much different beast of a language, but luckily, they have an English version of their homepage, with a note signed "Archabbot Asztrik Várszegi".

St. Vincent in Latrobe and St. Meinrad in Indiana, both proudly call themselves archabbeys.

Which leaves us with the last of our list, being called "Sao Sebastiao em Salvado" in Brazil by the list we had. Though I know no Portuguese, I can gather that this is St. Sebastian in Salvador (Bahia) Brazil. The wikipedia entry for the archdiocese mentions "Basílica Arquiabacial de São Sebastião (first benedictine monastery in the New World)" as a notable Church. Google translate luckily tells me that "arqui abacial" would translate "arch abbey". Additionally, their entry in the OSB atlas gives an email address for the abbey as "arquiabadeemanuel@hotmail.com", and again, google translate tells me that this would be archabbot Emanuel. Looking at their website, they would seem to best be called the Monestary of St. Benedict at the Archabbey of St. Sebastion. Their site further seems to indicate that they were raised to the status of archabbey in 1982.

That is 11. Assuming there are indeed only 11 archabbeys in the world, this is therefore a complete list. I repeat now, the list:

1) Montecassino; Italy
2) Monte Oliveto Maggiore; Italy
3) Arpino (nuns); Italy
4) Beuron; Germany
5) St. Ottilien; Germany
6) Brevnov; Czech Republic
7) St. Peter; Austria
8) Pannonhalma; Hungary
9) Saint Vincent; USA
10) Saint Meinrad; USA
11) St. Sebastion; Brazil


[EDIT: The list of Territorial Abbeys is incomplete, and as such I have removed it. If you are interested the Wikipedia entry on territorial abbeys might be a useful starting point. I will note that though I can't exactly confirm the list, because I don't know if I can put an actual limit on the number of Archabbeys, it seems reasonable. (Actually Catholic Hierarchy and OSB international disagree on the list of territorial abbeys, that is, the OSB site doesn't list Einsiedeln, Subiaco, or Tokwon.) I might buy the Catholic Heirarchy list of male territorial abbeys, but the Wikipedia list leaves out Arpino and Isola San Giulio, which are abbeys of Nuns, so though independent of a local ordinary, they they might not have territorial control over parishes, for instance.]

There you have it, a (possibly) complete list, in English, of all the archabbeys in the world.

The Design Argument

Today, I attended a lecture sponsored by the Center for Ethics and Culture by Stephen M. Barr, entitled The Argument from Design for the Existence of God and the Laws of Physics. He also wrote the book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith and writes occasionally for the Journal First Things. I was turned on to his writing by my Pastor (who also attended the lecture) and have started reading his book.

He started his talk by contrasting his views with the intelligent design view. He had recently wrote an article on the First Things internet site critiquing the Intelligent Design position. The idea is that intelligent design and atheism both see God and science an in competition. Intelligent Design relies on arguments from biology, whereas the Bible and early Christian writers (of which he quoted maybe 6) focused on astronomy and natural order, rather than on biological arguments. The idea is that order in the universe implies a lawgiver. Also, he pointed out that monotheism really ends in an expectation of a natural order, and that Judeo-Christian views have been positive to a scientific explanation of the world.

He then went on to define the three different types of design argument for the existence of God. The three were Cosmic, Biological, and Providential. The Cosmic argument relies on the beauty, order, and structure of the universe to argue for a creator. The Biological relies on bio-complexity. The providential is a midpoint between them. It sees order in the world as moving toward the "good" of creation. It sees and argues from a purpose in the universe and relies heavily on the anthropic principle. Both the cosmic and the biological can be weakened by arguments from atheists relying on simple Darwinism.

The rest of the talk focused on the "Cosmic" argument for the existence of God. Essentially the cosmic view sees the mathematical beauty of the physical world to point toward a creator. The theist would say that seeing an arrangement implies an arranger, aka God. The Law, that is the physical law, does not explain the necessity of the Law. It just is. Consider walking into a room, and seeing a room with a neat arrangement of chairs. Would you assume the arrangement occurred spontaneously or was deigned by some intelligence? The chairs follow a "law" but that is not a necessary law (they could have followed some other law/had some other arrangement). Some laws, however, are necessary; the fundamental laws of mathematics (1+1=2) and logic (a statement cannot be both true and false) are both examples.

The postulate was put forward that order cannot emerge if order is not already extant. If a bunch of hard spheres (marbles, for instance) are put in a box, they will settle into a hexagonal close packing arrangement. This arrangement has less symmetry than an individual sphere. Thus, order at higher levels, which we observe (think, crystals) emerge from even stronger order at deeper levels. All of this comes down from the symmetries we observe in nature, which drive the development of modern fundamental physical laws.

He concluded by critiquing Richard Dawkins. The argument of Dawkins and his ilk is that order builds up from disorder, a bottom up approach. This, Prof. Barr claims, is an illusion (rather than a delusion) which comes from a superficial understanding of science. A simplistic understanding of Science, as a zoologist might have, might think that this is the way the world works. Physics claims that lower order, which we observe, stems from a higher symmetry principle, which may or may not be part of our direct experience.

I was impressed. I have enjoyed the things I have read by Prof. Barr, and this talk beat expectations. I don't need a Cosmic design argument for the existence of God; I am a believer. Even ontological arguments, like that of Anselm, I don't need, but it is at least an idea which can be used to defend the reasonableness of the Theistic position. I look forward to finishing his book.

ADDENDUM:
The above was taken mostly from my notes, but I have been reflecting on this and have a couple more thoughts to add. Professor Barr is a Physicist, this is important to remember. With this in mind, think about what a tough job he has. As a believer, he might be in the minority in his field. At the very least, the most vocal physicists in the question of Faith are the nonbelievers. Then, when he gives talks like this, as the Q&A session bore out, he will be attacked, or at least challenged/questioned on his philosophical and/or theological grounds. He's not a philosopher, nor is he a theologian, so to respond to those points will often be unfulfilling to those groups. He's not alone, but he is almost alone.

February Intentions

I'm excited about the Pope's general prayer intentions for the month of February, because he's praying for me:

That by means of sincere search for the truth scholars and intellectuals may arrive at an understanding of the one true God.

I like it!