RSS

Tag Archives: Atheism

ARE YOU BECOMING A HYPOCRITE, MY BROTHER?

A Christian woman, praying one evening in tears before her crucifix, was surprised by her daughter, who, throwing her arms around her neck, said to her tenderly: “You are suffering, mother. But tell me what troubles you.” – “My daughter,” sadly replied the mother, “pray for your brother.” – “Does he no longer love you?” – “I am sure that he still loves me, but he no longer loves God; and you know, my child, that when the love of God is driven from the heart, the love of family and of duty quickly departs also.”

A useful piece of information

The young girl, when alone in her own room, prayed for a long time before retiring to rest.

The next day God caused to come into her hands one of those books, modest missionaries, which, borne upon the wings of angels, go forth to sow good seeds.

She found several pages in it which were like a revelation to her, and, taking her pen, she wrote, somewhat in the style of what she had been reading, the following lines:

A FEW QUESTIONS TO WHICH I BEG MY BROTHER TO REPLY THIS EVENING

How is it that my brother, so grateful for the smallest attention from his sister, so thoughtful in giving her pleasure, so ingenious in framing gracious words and affectionate thanks, forgets God so easily. He, to whom he is indebted for a loving mother, a competence which places him beyond the reach of want, health which permits him to enjoy life? How is it that he never says to Him, “I thank thee;” nor even a short prayer at the beginning or the end of the day?

Is my brother becoming ungrateful?

How is it that my brother, so exact in fulfilling all his obligations, so industrious when at his work, so submissive to those who can advance his interests, violates with so much indifference the solemn laws of God and the Church, allowing his mother and sister to go alone to Mass on Sunday, and alone to the Table of the Lord? He knows, nevertheless, that there is an express command for the performance of these religious duties, and he has not forgotten that several times he publicly renewed the solemn promises made for him at baptism.

Is my brother about to break his own word?

Will my brother prove faithless to his word? How is it that my brother, who has received a Christian education, who has not lost his faith; who knows well all that he owes to God and the Church; who could prove, if necessary, the perfect lawfulness of her authority; yet dares not to make any open profession of his religion, not even a simple sign of the cross; permits in his presence, without remonstrance, lying and blasphemous attacks upon God, the Church, and the priesthood?

Will my brother become a coward?

How is it that my brother – so discreet before his sister, so proud of her candour and purity, promptly silencing in her presence the least objectionable word – reads in secret, removed from the eyes of his mother, things he would not permit his sister to read, frequents society forbidden to his sister, and which he tries to hide from his mother?

Will my brother become a hypocrite?

How is it, finally, that my brother, so loving to his mother, so tender to his sister, so happy heretofore in living with them, seems at times to fly from their caresses, to cast down his eyes before them, amuses himself far from the family fireside, and exhibits impatience and weariness when circumstances force him to remain with them.

Will my brother become forgetful of love?

Oh! my brother! answer thy sister.

And the young girl, kneeling for a moment before the statue of the Blessed Virgin in her room, presented the little leaf to her, as if asking her to bless it. She then placed it on her brother’s desk.

Before the evening meal, which reunited the mother, brother, and sister, the young apostle waited anxiously at the door of the drawing room…

The brother enters, and, hastening to his sister, his eyes filled with tears, takes both her hands in his, and embracing her most affectionately, says: “Sister, I come to give you an answer: Before separating we will all say our evening prayers together.”

Sorrowful mothers and sisters, know you not some heart which vice has not yet quite corrupted, and to whom these lines would be of service?

– From: Golden Grains, Eighth Edition, H.M. Gill and Son, Dublin, 1889

Advertisements
 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

HOW GOD’S EXISTENCE CAN BE PROVEN FROM THE GOVERNANCE OF THE WORLD

“We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result.

Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly.

Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”

– St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica; in The Path from Science to God, Fr Roger Nesbitt, faith pamphlets

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 16, 2015 in Words of Wisdom

 

Tags: , , ,

HOW GOD’S EXISTENCE CAN BE PROVEN FROM POSSIBILITY AND NECESSITY

“We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is impossible for them to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not. Therefore, if anything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence.

If anything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence

Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence – which is absurd.

Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something in the existence of which is necessary.

But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.”

– St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, in The Path from Science to God, Faith Pamphlets

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 1, 2015 in Words of Wisdom

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

HOW GOD’S EXISTENCE CAN BE PROVEN BY THE NATURE OF EFFICIENT CAUSE

“In the world of sensible things we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.

Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.

Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.”

– St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, from: The Path from Science to God, a pamphlet by Roger Nesbitt (faith pamphlets)

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 19, 2015 in Words of Wisdom

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

HOW GOD’S EXISTENCE CAN BE PROVEN BY MOTION

“It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves in as much as it is in act.

For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality.

Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.

Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects.

For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold.

It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must need be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only in as much as they are moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”

– St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1, 2, 3, in The Path from Science to God, by Roger Nesbitt (Faith Pamphlets)

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“THOU ART PETER, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH” – THE POPE, THE VICAR OF CHRIST

“‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also on heaven’ (Matthew 16:18-19).

JESUS MADE SIMON PETER THE FOUNDATION STONE OF HIS KINGDOM

Jesus made Simon Peter the rock or foundation stone of His kingdom. In the mind of Jesus all power in His kingdom, the power to teach the divine message, the power to rule men unto salvation, the power to sanctify men for salvation, all these powers were to be centralised in Simon Peter and his successors to the leadership of the apostolic college.

THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM

That the early Christian community recognised this is a historical fact. It was at Peter’s suggestion that the other Apostles elected Matthias to take the place left vacant in the apostolic college by the defection of Judas. It was Peter who first preached the establishment of the kingdom on Pentecost Sunday. It was Peter who worked the first miracle to testify to the power of Jesus Christ. It was Peter who punished Ananias and Sapphira for attempting to deceive the first Christian community at Jerusalem. It was Peter who admitted the first Gentiles into the new kingdom. At the Council of Jerusalem it was Peter who decided to what extent Gentile converts to the kingdom were bound by the old Mosaic Law. It was to Peter that St Paul went seeking confirmation of his own call to preach the Gospel. So great was his authority among the earliest members of the kingdom that even St Paul boasts of having induced Peter to accept his own position on a matter of discipline.

THE SUCCESSION

Peter died as Bishop of Rome, and the Bishops of Rome succeeded to his leadership of the whole Church. Thus it is that we see the Popes, the Bishops of Rome, exercising in the Kingdom of God through the centuries the authority which Jesus had entrusted to Peter.

ST CLEMENT’S LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS

So it was that Clement of Rome, at the end of the first century, sent a letter to the Christians at Corinth asking them to restore to office the priests whom they had illegitimately deposed. His wishes were fulfilled by the Corinthians. In fact, they held his letter in such esteem that it was read during liturgical celebrations just as the letters of the original Apostles. This recognition of the authority of the Bishop of Rome is all the more remarkable since St John, one of the original Apostles, was still alive at Ephesus, much nearer to Corinth than Rome.

‘MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH RECEIVE THE FULL TEACHING OF JESUS FROM THE BISHOPS OF ROME’

At the end of the second century Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate the Asian bishops who refused to celebrate Easter on the date used by the rest of the Church. On the urging of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Victor did not carry out the threat. But the very fact that Victor threatened to do so, and the fact that Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna, and therefore a man acquainted with the traditions of the Church both in the East and in the West, felt it necessary in the interests of concord to urge him not to do so, testify to the recognition of his power to rule the whole Church. It should be mentioned also that Irenaeus gives testimony to the fact that members of the Church receive the full teaching of Jesus from the Bishop of Rome.

‘IT IS ST PETER WHO SPEAKS THROUGH THE POPE’

In the third century two bishops of Spain who had been accused of loss of faith appealed to Pope Stephen I. Similarly Pope Dionysius asked Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria, who was suspected of adhering to the Sabellian heresy, to make a profession of true faith.

THE COUNCIL OF NICEA

Even though the Council of Nicea – in 325 the first general or ecumenical council of the Church – was summoned at the order of the Emperor Constantine, it was the two legates of the Bishop of Rome who presided. Toward the end of the same fourth century Pope Siricius reminded the bishops of Spain that it is St Peter who speaks through the Pope.

THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

In the fifth century the General Council of Chalcedon accepted the famous dogmatic letter of Leo as a statement of the true faith against the Monophysite heresy and proclaimed, ‘Peter has spoken through Leo.’ And, as we have previously seen, it was Pope Gelasius who during this century pointed out to the emperors that the Church held its power to rule from God and, thus, independently of the civil authority.

POPE GREGORY THE GREAT

In the sixth century Pope Gregory the Great reorganised the Church in Italy and sought to promote the reform of the Church in Gaul. It was Gregory who sent Augustine of Canterbury to convert England to the true faith.

THE THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

In the seventh century the third council of Constantinople accepted the teaching of Pope Agatho against the Momothelite heresy. In the eighth century Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne Emperor of the West. Nicholas I excommunicated the bishops of Trier and Cologne for sanctioning the second marriage of King Lothair. He also intervened in the Photian schism at Constantinople and restored Ignatius to the bishopric of Constantinople.

THE PAPACY WAS INVOLVED IN A LONG STRUGGLE WITH SECULAR RULERS FOR THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE CHURCH FROM CIVIL AUTHORITY

From the ninth century on, the Papacy was involved in a long and serious struggle with secular rulers for the independence of the Church from civil authority. This struggle reached a climax in the reforming efforts of Pope Gregory VII, who succeeded in freeing the Church from the ’emperor’ King Henry IV of Germany.

THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BEGINNING NATIONALISM IN THE SECULAR SPHERE

From this time on, the power of the Popes was supreme in matters of religion and Western Christendom generally recognised the supremacy of the Church over the State. But the situation changed after the conflict between Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) and Philip the Fair of France. Philip, in an effort to strengthen the French monarchy, sought a great measure of control over the Church in France. Boniface resisted his efforts, but without success. In the fourteenth century the Popes made the mistake of taking up residence at Avignon, within the borders of France. This gave the Papacy the appearance of being too favourable with the French. When finally the Popes returned to residence at Rome after the death of Pope Urban V, the French King Charles V disputed the election of Pope Urban VI and induced some French cardinals to elect Robert of Geneva as Pope Clement VII. This was the start of the Great Western Schism. Until the election of Martin V in 1417 Christendom was troubled and confused at the sight of rival claimants to the See of Peter. In 1417 there were three claimants to the Papacy. This unfortunate situation gave rise to the ‘Conciliar theory,’ the idea that a general council is superior to the Pope. Though Jesus Himself had made Peter and his successors (the Bishops of Rome) the supreme heads of His Church, the schism, coupled with the beginning of nationalism and the consequent desire of some nations (at least on the part of their sovereigns) to achieve independence of the divinely constituted authority of the Popes, gave impetus to the theory that a general council was superior even to the Pope. As a consequence the Popes had to fight against this attempt to destroy the foundations of authority in the Kingdom of God on earth. Pope Eugene IV found it necessary to dissolve the Council of Basel, which pretended to have authority over the Pope himself.

SECULAR RULERS WITH THEIR NATIONALISTIC AMBITIONS SUCCEEDED IN CONTROLLING CHURCH AFFAIRS IN SOME AREAS VIA LUTHER AND ZWINGLI

In the sixteenth century the Popes faced the most dangerous threat to their authority up to that time. In 1517 Martin Luther, a German monk, revolted against the authority of Rome. This sparked a movement which has become known as the Protestant Reformation. Luther, and other reformers such as Zwingli, were aided by kings and princes who sought control of church affairs. Pope Leo X did not act with sufficient force. As a consequence roughly half the Christians of Europe – chiefly those in northern Europe – left the true Church and joined heretical sects. The Council of Trent, which was summoned toward the middle of the century by Pope Paul III, by its reforming measures in the area of Church discipline and by its authoritative statement of Catholic teaching helped to stem the tide. But too much damage had already been done. And so from then until now the world is faced with the spectacle of millions of men, claiming to be followers of Jesus Christ, who will not submit in matters of discipline, doctrine or worship to the vicar of Christ, the Pope of Rome.

THE POPE, HOWEVER, DID NOT SWAP CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OR MORAL PRINCIPLE FOR POLITICAL INFLUENCE

One of the results of the so-called Reformation, with the establishment of powerful Protestant states, was that by the seventeenth century the Papacy had been reduced to a state of political unimportance. But it is to the credit of the Papacy that even though the Popes were anxious to restore Christian unity to the world they did not compromise Christian doctrine or moral principle in the effort to do so.

But the decline of papal political influence was less unfortunate than the decline of spiritual and moral influence of the Papacy which accompanied it. Basically the political power of the Papacy was only a reflection of its enormous spiritual influence. Ultimately kings and princes, such as Pepin and Charlemagne, gave grants of land and political power to the Popes because the Popes wielded great spiritual influence over the Christian people of Europe and were a stabilising factor in a war-torn world. But in time this political influence, though only in appearance, came to overshadow the spiritual force which it reflected and bolstered.

But the ‘Reformation’ struck directly at the spiritual authority of the Papacy. Up to the ‘Reformation’ the Church itself, the Church centralised in the authority of the Popes, was the first and the ultimate source of all doctrinal and disciplinary decision. But the ‘reformers’ asserted that the faith and the religious practice of every Christian was based on the right of every Christian to interpret the Bible for himself. For the divinely instituted authority of Peter the ‘reformers’ substituted the authority of the individual mind of the individual man. Naturally those who embraced this individualistic rule of faith no longer looked to Peter, in the person of the Pope, for the teaching of the message of Jesus and its application to the ever-changing conditions of history.

IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT SPIRITUAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POWER DON’T MIX

The weakness, even the falsity, of this new principle became evident very quickly in the multiplication of Protestant sects, each differing from the others in one or more points of faith or religious discipline. Moreover many of these sects, in their efforts to survive, accepted the principle that the local prince or king was the head of the Church.

CONCESSIONS TO NATIONALISM BY PROTESTANTS

This was a concession to the growing principle of nationalism. But it was also a rejection of the real supranational character of the Christian kingdom, and it represented a betrayal of the principle enunciated by Jesus Himself: ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.’ It was in this spirit that the Lutherans in Germany recognised the right of the German princes to determine the religious views of their subjects and that Henry the Eighth made himself the supreme head of the Anglican Church. And so, at least for some time, what began as an emancipation of men from the authority of the Pope in the name of individual liberty became in fact an enslavement of religion to civil authority.

‘AN ENSLAVEMENT OF FAITH TO CIVIL AUTHORITY’

The loss of millions of members of the kingdom to the new heretical sects was in itself a great blow to the Church. But it had an even more insidious result. The princes of Catholic Europe were not slow to see the political advantages gained by the control which the Protestant sovereigns exercised over the Protestant churches in their domains. Anxious to make their own kingdoms as strong as possible in the face of growing nationalistic rivalries, Catholic princes also sought to control the Catholic Church within their own territories. Thus it was that in 1682 thirty-six French prelates, under the urging of Cardinal Richelieu, adopted the famous ‘Gallican Articles’ and sent them to the bishops in France. The ‘Articles’ held that the Pope is subject to a general council, the king is not subject to the Pope and that the Pope is not infallible. It is true that Pope Innocent XII succeeded in persuading Louis XIV of France to annul the ‘Articles.’ But the fact that they were disseminated at all shows that the spirit of anti-papism was to be found in Catholic France. The same tendency to reduce papal influence and enlarge the civil control of religion was shown also in the Febronianism and Josephinism which arose in Catholic Germany. All in all, these movements in Catholic countries coupled with state control of religion in Protestant countries were a concrete manifestation of the growing political theory of the absolute state, the state supreme in all the affairs of human life, even in the affairs of religion.

THE LOGICAL ‘NEXT STEP’ FOLLOWING THE PROTESTANT ‘REFORMATION’

To these religious and political counter-currents seeking to undermine the Church there was added in the eighteenth century the far more formidable adversary of rationalism in religion. The Kingdom of God is always a kingdom founded on faith, in fact on faith in mysteries which cannot be fully understood by the limited powers of the human mind. This faith is sustained in the world by the teaching authority of the Church, an authority sustained by and centralised in the Papacy. When Protestantism divorced the minds of men from this authority it was not long before these same minds were divorced from the divine revelation itself. Under the influence of Locke, Hume and Kant the message of Jesus was reduced to a purely natural religion, founded no longer on a divine revelation to man but now on the limited resources of the human mind. Since the philosophy of the time reduced the powers of the mind to the simple consideration and ordering, not of reality of real things but only of the ‘appearances’ of things, it became fashionable to hold that men could not prove the existence of God or the immortality of the human soul. In such an intellectual atmosphere men tended to become either atheists and irreligious or to found religious values purely on man’s emotions and the pragmatic necessity of supplying ease and satisfaction to these irrational emotions.

IN THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD…

Thus, in modern times the Papacy, seeking to preserve in the world the true Kingdom of God, has had to attempt to undo the ravages of the ‘Reformation,’ to preserve the independence of the Church [from secular power, also under the guise of Protestantism] and to assert the divine authority of the Christian revelation in the face of the attacks of rationalism. Through the General Council of Trent the Popes replied to the ‘Reformation.’ Through missionary efforts, especially under the central control of the Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith (established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV), the Papacy has carried on its divinely commissioned task to bring the Gospel to all the world. And so, in the providence of God, the losses occasioned by the ‘Reformation’ have been partly offset by the tightening of discipline within the Church and by the recruitment of members of the Kingdom in Africa, the Far East and the Americas.

THE CONTINUED INDEPENDENCE OF THE PAPACY OF ALL CIVIL STATES

In the face of attempts on the part of states to control the Church the Papacy has fought a long battle which is not yet, perhaps, over. The political power and prestige of the Papacy itself declined until in 1870 with the annexation of the Papal States by the newly founded kingdom of Italy it was eclipsed. Under Pius XI, in 1929, the ‘Roman Question’ was settled by the Lateran Treaty with the government of Mussolini. The tiny Vatican State was established and its rights recognised by Italy. In this way the independence of the Papacy of all civil states was formally recognised.

THE RIGHT OF THE CHURCH TO SPEAK IN THE WORLD FOR GOD IS STILL AN UNEASY ONE TO EXERCISE

But the right of the Church to speak in the world for God is still an uneasy one to exercise. This is shown by the fact that the Popes of the last few centuries have found it necessary to make concordats or agreements with modern states guaranteeing to the Church the right to function under certain limitations.

THE POPES CONDEMNED MANY INTELLECTUAL ERRORS OF MODERN TIMES

In the struggle with rationalism the Popes have found it necessary to condemn many of the intellectual errors of modern times. In this regard the Vatican Council convened by Pius IX stands out. The council affirmed clearly the ability of the human mind to discover the existence of God, and to recognise God’s message to men by the divine signs (especially miracles and prophecies) which accompany it in its journey through time. In addition it announced firmly to the world the supreme power of the Pope, the successor of St Peter, to teach, rule and sanctify men. In the face of scepticism it affirmed also the power of the Pope to teach infallible matters of faith and Christian morality.

THE HISTORY OF THE PAPACY SHOWS THAT THE WORDS OF JESUS ARE BEING FULFILLED

The history of the Papacy, then, shows that the words of Jesus are being fulfilled. The Papacy is the rock on which the kingdom is founded, founded so firmly that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Down through the centuries the Papacy has been the indefatigable defender of the independence of the Kingdom of God. Down through the centuries the Papacy has been the faithful guardian of Christian truth, protecting the kingdom against the loss of even the least element of the divine message entrusted to it by Jesus.

THE GATES OF HELL WILL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT (Mt 16:18b)

At the present moment the position of the Papacy as the Vicar of Christ is clear. In the face of political totalitarianism it stands out as the champion of the independence of the spiritual Kingdom of God. In the face of religious indifferentism, of intellectual scepticism and nihilism, the Papacy is the divinely appointed voice of supernatural religion, the champion of both reason and faith. Confronted with irreligious and misguided rationalism, the Church speaks to the world under the guidance of the Popes, the words of God, the divine revelation whose divine dimensions cannot be reduced to the narrow confines of unaided human reason, but whose mysterious depths of truth lie open to the humble eyes of faith.

NO ‘PRISONER’ HAS EVER, IN THE WORLD OF SPIRIT, BEEN MORE INFLUENTIAL IN THE WORLD AT LARGE

It is a remarkable fact that in our contemporary era, at a time when the political power of the Papacy is practically extinguished, the character of the Papacy as the rock on which Christ founded His Church can be seen with outstanding clarity. From Pius IX to Pius XI the Pope was popularly known as the ‘prisoner of the Vatican.’ Yet no ‘prisoner’ has ever, in the world of the spirit, been more influential in the world at large.

THE POPES HAVE STOOD HEAD AND SHOULDERS ABOVE THE REST OF MEN IN THEIR STRUGGLE TO FOSTER WHAT IS BEST IN MAN

From Leo XIII to Pius XII the Popes have stood head and shoulders above the rest of men in their struggle to foster what is best in man, to safeguard and raise the spirit of man. In the midst of the political turmoil of the nineteenth century it was Leo XIII who freed the Church from allegiance to any particular form of government. It was Leo who, in the face of the Industrial Revolution and its creation of a landless, poverty-stricken proletariat, proclaimed the rights of the working man and the obligations of capital to provide decent working conditions and an adequate wage for workers. It was he also who revived the sane philosophy and theology of St Thomas Aquinas as an antidote to the intellectual errors of scepticism, naturalism and materialism.

THE PAPACY AFFIRMS THE LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN THE FACE OF THE ALL-POWERFUL STATE

Under his successor, Pius X, we see the Church strengthening itself within itself. He inaugurated a liturgical revival, urging the faithful to a greater personal understanding of and participation in the Church’s worship of God through the Mass and the Sacraments. The internal discipline of the Church was strengthened by the clarification and codification of Canon Law, the law which regulates Church discipline.

Pius XI, confronted with the attack on individual freedom by totalitarian philosophies of fascism, nazism and communism, affirmed the liberty of the individual in the face of the all-powerful state. Against the racial bias of these political philosophies, against the theories of racial superiority by blood, he affirmed the equality of all men in the sight of God. Conscious of the need of the Church to bring the message of the Gospel to all men, he encouraged the works of Catholic Action. He urged the Catholic laity to assist the bishops in the work of the apostolate, in the task of leavening an unbelieving world with the elevating yeast of Catholic doctrine and practice. Outside the Church the growth of the practices of divorce and birth control were destroying the moral fibre of society. Pius XI denounced the immorality of [artificial] birth control and asserted the sanctity and the indissolubility of marriage.

THE CHAMPIONS AGAINST THE PREVAILING MATERIALISM OF OUR AGE

During this period two great world wars showed how far the bonds of social and political action between the nations of the world had deteriorated. Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII spoke clearly for peace and the cultivation of virtues which maintain peace. Though the nations did not listen, the Popes carried on a worldwide work of bringing succour to those made homeless by the destruction of war.

But the one thing that has become increasingly evident in modern times is that the Church, under the leadership of the Papacy, is the great champion of the spiritual element in human life against the prevailing materialism of the age. This is evident both in the Papal defence of what we might call specific human spiritual values and in the Papal insistence on the validity of the divine mysteries which have been revealed to the Church and which constitute the only true basis of human hope for salvation.

‘MEN AREN’T SIMPLY THE TOOLS OF A MATERIALISTIC STATE’

Thus, under Pius IX, the Vatican Council insisted on man’s ability, as a creature composed of body and spiritual soul, to discover the great fundamental truths of the existence of God and of his divinely founded Church. Leo XIII defended the dignity of all men in an age which was seeking to make men simply the tools of a materialistic state. Pius XI and Pius XII defended man’s freedom as a spiritual being in the face of the encroachment of totalitarian materialism on the sphere of man’s free spirit.

IN A WORLD HAS RETURNED TO THE OLD ERROR OF ADAM, THE ERROR OF SEEKING SALVATION BY ITS OWN UNAIDED EFFORTS…

But, best of all, in a world which has returned to the old error of Adam, the error of seeking salvation by its own unaided efforts, the Popes have, with ever increasing vigour and courage, insisted on the great revealed mysteries which the Church possesses. The worldly prophets of the time preach a universal brotherhood of men founded on the tyranny of an absolute state. Pius XII held out to the world the only possibility of achieving a true human brotherhood of men, the super-union of all men in the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. In the Mystical Body of Christ men may achieve that fraternal union with one another which grace and charity make possible. In a secularist world where false prophets seek to institute a world government totally divorced from religious principles Pius XI insisted that all nations must recognise the kingship of Christ. World unity is possible only if men and nations are motivated by truly religious principles. In a world deep in despair because it has been taught that man is only matter doomed to eternal extinction by death, Pius XII fearlessly proclaimed the dignity, the spirituality and the immortality of all men in the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, the Mother of God, body and soul into heaven. To the world’s despair he proclaimed the hope of salvation, the hope of resurrection and immortality.

THE ROCK OF PETER STANDS UNMOVED AS A BEACON OF LIGHT, SET IN ITS PLACE BY THE REAL WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE

In this present age the Papacy stands out once again as the Rock of Peter, the Rock on which God founded His kingdom among men. The furious tides of political opinion and international disputes have stripped the Rock of political power. But this stripping has only served to reveal its essential character. In the midst of the rushing waters of materialism and barbarism, staunch against the breaking waves of war and despair, the Rock of Peter stands unmoved as the first and last champion of man and of God.”
– Martin J. Healy S.T.D., 1959 (headings in capital letters added afterwards)

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“BACKWARD” RELIGION? IT WAS A CATHOLIC PRIEST, FR LEMAITRE, WHO FIRST PROPOSED THE “BIG BANG THEORY” IN 1927, BUT SCIENTISTS LIKE EINSTEIN AND EDDINGTON REFUSED TO BELIEVE HIM

“RELIGION, SCIENCE AND THE [POPULAR] MISCONCEPTIONS

‘For the scientist… the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been there for centuries.’ Robert Jarrow (Astrophysicist)

‘NEVER ALLOW YOURSELVES TO BECOME NARROW’

During his state visit to Britain in September 2010 Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI spoke to a group of religious leaders of different faiths, not only about the need for science but also about the limitations within the scientific world. He said, ‘They cannot satisfy the deepest longings of the human heart, they cannot fully explain to us our origin and our destiny, why and for what purpose we exist, nor indeed can they provide us with an exhaustive answer to the question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI also warned against rejecting religion in favour of purely scientific outlook by further saying, ‘Never allow yourselves to become narrow. The world needs good scientists, but a scientific outlook becomes dangerous and narrow if it ignores the riches or ethical dimensions of life just as religion becomes narrow if it rejects the legitimate contribution of science to our understanding of the world.’

FR LEMAITRE’S THEORY

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI may well have been referring to Stephen Hawking, who writes in his latest book that no divine force is needed to explain why the universe was formed and who also argued in his book The Grand Design that physics, and not a creator, was responsible for the Big Bang.

It was indeed in 1927 that a Belgian Catholic priest Fr George Lemaitre, a Jesuit and a student of astronomy and mathematics both in Cambridge (England) and Harvard, who proposed his theory of an expanding Universe to explain the movement of the galaxies.

FR LEMAITRE ARRANGED A MEETING WITH ALBERT EINSTEIN

His studies at this point were inconclusive and he arranged a meeting with Einstein who, although interested, generally dismissed his theory; he was also suspicious of the religious implications of Fr Lemaitre’s ideas.

AFTER EINSTEIN HAD DISMISSED HIS NEW THEORY, FR LEMAITRE STILL WENT AHEAD TO PRESENT HIS FINDINGS TO THE BRITISH SCIENCE ASSOCIATION

However, in 1931 Lemaitre was invited to London by the British Science Association to discuss cosmology and spirituality. There he described his new solution… the Universe had begun from a tiny and incredibly dense singularity containing all its existing matter.

‘THE PRIMEVAL ATOM’

This he called ‘the primeval atom’ or a ‘Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation’. It wouldn’t be known as the Big Bang theory until the British physicist, Fred Hoyle, did a radio series in 1949 in which he attempted to debunk it. He failed to change many people’s minds by then, but he did give it a better name. Neither Eddington nor Einstein were persuaded by this idea – as Stephen Hawking, perhaps the world’s most famous living astrophysicist, has said, ‘few people [meaning scientists] took the idea of the beginning of the Universe seriously’.

FR LEMAITRE DIDN’T GIVE UP PROMOTING THE BIG BANG THEORY

But Fr Lemaitre was a passionate and persuasive man, and he was gaining a wider audience as he began to travel the US. He decided to surprise Hubble and Einstein by turning up to meet them both unexpectedly in 1931 and push his idea again. This time he won them over, demonstrating how their work led to his conclusion.

THE BASIS OF MODERN COSMOLOGY WAS ESTABLISHED BY FR LEMAITRE FINALLY CONVINCING EINSTEIN AND HUBBLE OF HIS THEORY

It was a dramatic event – Hawking has said that, ‘The basis of modern cosmology was established at this meeting. Looking back I can recognise this as the foundations for my own work.’

‘THE BIGGEST BLUNDER OF MY LIFE’

Einstein regarded his initial rejection of an expanding Universe as the ‘biggest blunder of my life’. The existence of God, of course, is not settled by the truth of the Big Bang theory, nor should religion rest its case on any scientific theory.

THE UNIVERSE HAD A DISTINCT BEGINNING

But what can be said is that the Big Bang fits surprisingly well with the religious idea that the Universe had a distinct beginning, willed by the Creator. Unsurprisingly, the arguments put forward by the new atheists are never truly investigated [for instance Darwin’s ‘evolution theory’ lacks any credible scientific basis whatsoever]; rather than studying the precepts of Christianity they tend to be hostile to religion in all forms, viewing it as merely a kind of superstition; they are likewise hostile to traditional claims about the nature and source of morality.

TODAY’S PICTURE – BIOETHICS

EMBRYO RESEARCHER: FACED WITH THE CHOICE BETWEEN GOD AND SCIENCE, I DITCHED GOD

In 2004 Dr John Haas, the president of the National Catholic Bioethics Centre in America met with a scientist who had cloned a human embryo. In the course of that meeting, the scientist said he had been raised an evangelical Protestant, but that at a certain point, he had to make a choice between religion and science. Dr Haas’ response was, ‘But you didn’t have to choose,’ and, like the good evangelist that he is, he began to explain. A meeting that was supposed to last for 30 minutes went on for hours.

‘NATURAL SCIENCE ON ITS OWN SIMPLY CANNOT GENERATE THE WISDOM IT NEEDS IN ORDER TO PROGRESS WITHOUT DOING HARM’

Dr Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard University Law Professor who has served on the Pontifical Council for the Laity spoke of urgent need to renew the intellectual apostolate. Dr Glendon said ‘the importance of that task has been brought home to me very concretely in the course of serving over the past year on the National Bioethics Council. Over the past several months in discussions of cloning, stem-cell research and genetic engineering, I’ve seen not only how necessary it is for theologians and philosophers to keep up with advances in natural science, but also how much the natural sciences need the human sciences – for natural science on its own simply cannot generate the wisdom it needs in order to progress without doing harm’.

THE HEDONISM OF THOSE ATTEMPTING TO PLAY GOD, OR: THE ‘MOVE OVER GOD YOU ARE IN MY SEAT’ ATTITUDE

The truth regarding embryonic stem cell scientific technology seemingly has been lost on those who swear by its profound benefits with regards to its ‘curative potential’ for certain conditions; to date most of the general public will be aware, if not entirely au fait with the fact that this scientific breakthrough has broken down due to a complete lack of positive results; in short, this technology has wasted more government funds than ever due to the hedonism of those who attempt to ‘play God’ and those who believe them capable; for as long as we allow scientists and politicians to adopt the ‘move over God you are in my seat’ attitude we are spiralling deeper into the moral chaos so pervasive today.

EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IS BASED PURELY ON FISCAL GAIN

Any orthodox bioethicist will tell us that stem cells taken from embryos are immature and only capable of producing tumours rather than cures.

PRODUCING TUMOURS RATHER THAN CURES

On the contrary, adult stem cells which are mature and present in all humans from the fully developed foetal stage, the umbilical cord and the placenta, have proven successful in various conditions, particularly in cardiac and ophthalmic medicine. Using adult stem cells from a patient whose trachea was removed due to disease, a medical scientist was able to reproduce a trachea, which was then successfully transplanted into the patient.

The difference between the research into embryonic and adult stem cell research is based purely on fiscal gain and not on ethical scientific procedures or results. Whilst millions of pounds of government funds have been and still are used for embryonic stem cell research, adult stem cell research costs a great deal less because the cells are self-donated by the patient.

God has provided all the answers; the world has provided all the errors! Religion provides the means to seek the truth whilst science provides the means to put it into practice using ethical means.

‘Religion and science are not in opposition but both on a path of truth.'(Pope Benedict).”
– This article was published in “The Crusader” (The Magazine of the Crusade of Mary Immaculate) issue March 2014 [Capital sub-headings added afterwards]. For subscriptions or for membership please visit http://www.thefriary.businesscatalyst.com (external link).

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,