Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

I recently read the English translation of the book covering B16’s 2006 Schülerkreis (a yearly meeting he has with his former students) published by Ignatius Press under the title, Creation and Evolution. That is probably why Carl Olson’s post on the book interested me. What caught my eye in particular was Carl’s reference to a Reuter’s article/post on the topic. The Reuter’s author, Tom Heneghan, recently did a Reuter’s blog post on the English translation in which he makes reference to an earlier article of his based upon the release of the German edition of the book.

Heneghan says that anyone who wants to know where the Catholic Church stands on the issue of creation and evolution, should read this book. His claim is that B16 proclaims in the book, the classic Catholic teaching on the topic called, Theistic evolution. He doesn’t explain this term but does link to a wikipedia entry on the topic which I guess we must assume is his definition. Wikipedia indicates that this term refers to those who believe there is no necessary conflict between Christian faith in creation and the theory of evolution. However, the term itself, and Heneghan’s use of it, seem to imply that the biological theory of evolution is accepted by B16 on some level.

I would not agree with Heneghan’s assertion that this book will explain the Catholic position on evolution and creation. There is no magisterial, or even private, attempt to explicate the Catholic position. One should not even read the book with the expectation of a great insight into B16’s thought on the subject (though the Foreword does contain copious relevant quotes from his pre-Papal writings). The bulk of the book is comprised of the presentations and discussion that occurred the day prior to B16’s joining the group. On the day that Benedict was there, he did not comment at any considerable length. In fact, of the 210 pages in this translation, there are perhaps only about five pages in which B16 gives his view. One hears much more from Cardinal Schönborn than from the Holy Father.

Heneghen only comments upon Benedict’s interventions so it is not clear whether he read the whole book or made himself aware of the context of the discussion upon which the Pope was entering. Rather, it seems his primary concern is to show that Benedict rejects what Heneghen terms “Intelligent Design.” Heneghen does not make any precisions about ID and so he does not correlate the views that B16 does present to the various ID theories. It is, therefore, hard to know if Heneghen has the background to make such a claim.

I suppose that B16’s response to the one evolution proponent in the book’s recorded discussions could be an indicator that he does not find compelling the ID theory that irreducibly complex organic structures necessitate a designer of some type. Peter Schuster, professor the theoretical chemistry and one who follows Darwinian mechanisms for common descent argued that there was not to be found, God’s activity in the process of biological evolution. This he said, put one in danger of falling into the God of the gaps conundrum. B16 said that he did not wish to cram God into the gaps but he went on to say that evolutionary theory implies questions which the natural sciences do not have the competence to address and so, must be assigned to philosophy (see pp. 161-62; all page numbers in this post refer to Creation and Evolution from Ignatius Press).

However, one cannot read the discussions carefully without understanding that Benedict seems to favor Cardinal Schönborn’s ideas. In other words, neither seem to be a fan of the biological theory, or at least its Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation (and its subsequent modulations) and natural selection. Referring to John Paul the Great’s oft cited statement that evolution is more than an hypothesis, B16 says that JPII had his reasons for saying this, strongly suggesting that he did not share the thought (see p. 152).

He says several times that evolution is something that science can never prove by empirical methods (which modern science limits itself to) because one can observe 10,000 generations in a lab (see p. 162). He refers to Cardinal Schönborn’s interest in the fact that punctuated equilibrium has replaced Darwin’s gradualism and suggests that evolution “by leaps” has many questions to answer before he would find it compelling (see p. 162). This much is further suggested by his subsequent reference to the fact that positive mutations are very rare (see p. 163). Benedict does not make his views explicit but one can legitimately say that he appears to be suspicious of Darwinian mechanisms; what he thinks of common descent is not as obvious.

This is all to say that one cannot assume that Benedict would reject the design detection algorithm proposed by William Dembski, though the ability to mathematically detect a designer is certainly not necessary, or one might add a strong advantage, for Benedict’s view of creation. He says that he is aware that there is a certain “rationality” in matter, it can be read (primarily through mathematics). Further, there is a rationality to the process of evolution as proposed by modern science. All of this rationality corresponds to the human intellect’s capacity to know and to understand.

He asks where this rationality originates? This question is not one that modern empirical science can answer, in fact he says, it must not try (see pp. 163-64). This, presumably, is because of its reductionist methodology. He answers the question about rationality’s Source later on. This Source can only be found in the creative and redemptive Logos of faith. It is here one can turn to find not only the Source of rationality but the source of irrationality (the Fall) that has the capacity to be surmounted, nay, redeemed, in the loving act (the Incarnation, death and Resurrection) of the Logos.

Cardinal Schönborn does the reader a great service by including quite lengthly quotes from Benedict’s pre-Papal writing in the Foreword. In his book Truth and Tolerance, Ratzinger more profoundly indicates his thinking on this matter. He asks the question whether it is more “reasonable” to believe that the rational has been begotten by the irrational. In the Logos, Christians choose the rational over the irrational. This is very profound when considered carefully. Those who reject God based on claims of reason are in fact placing the priority on the irrational and thereby undermining the basis for their confidence in their reason. Ratzinger asks: “. . . can reason really renounce its claim that the Logos is at the ultimate origin of things, without abolishing itself” (quoted in Creation and Evolution, p. 20).

Contemplating the fact that all of creation is rational (qualifications aside) and in the visible world, that the human mind alone has the innate capacity to understand it should be enough for most. The atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel, in his book, The Last Word, contemplates this paradox. He is committed to reason and he is fascinated at the fact that reason always seems to work. He admits that he greatly dislikes the implications of this because it points to a world view he is uncomfortable with, that there is a Creator. However, he admits that an honest thinker has to recognize that the mind seems to be made for the world.

I think, in general, Heneghen does not have a sufficient understanding of the nuances of Benedict’s philosophy or of his knowledge of the sciences to allow him to recognize that he (Heneghen) is jumping the gun in trying to classify B16’s position. Heneghen provides a snarky response to a critique of his first article which suggests the same thing. However, in truth, I think that he does not show he is aware of the distinctions necessary for his claims.

A similar problem seems to be at play in the discussions with the evolutionist, Peter Schuster, in this Schülerkreis. Schuster, several times, makes the claim that God cannot be found in biological evolution because there are no points at which he must “intervene.” He does not think philosophy/theology has much to say about biological evolution with respect to creation. He believes there is more potential for fruit in cosomology, presumably because of anthropic principle.

These statements seems to completely miss B16’s thought. Benedict is not the only one of the participants to try to show Schuster that he is presupposing organization of matter (even more, cosmic order) and then using its existence for arriving at philosophical assumptions (e.g. God does not need to intervene). One participant points out that modern science assumes that if it finds a mechanism (the efficient cause), it has exhausted not only questions of an empirical nature, but it has also obviated philosophical questions to boot. In other words, this is the reduction of all causality to material and efficient causality. This is not as a matter of method mind you, but as a matter of ontology.

A Johannes Lehmann-Dronke (identity unknown to me), in a very insightful intervention that goes on almost as long as all of B16’s combined interventions–but is much worth reading, points out that the intelligibility of matter can only be presumed by empirical methods, but it cannot be understood or explained per se (see pp. 166-70; though much of this material seems to have been added during the book’s editorial process). Schuster’s paper shows that he completely misses this point.

Schuster’s paper points to evolution through computer programs as evidence that it is more than a theory and so God does not need to “intervene.” He never steps back to realize that the logos for that program came from a human intellect. He also attempts to demonstrate that complexity can come from simple structures by pointing to mathematical structures called “cellular automotons” [sic]. He does not appear to stop to ask the question: “why that should be?” Simply knowing the mechanism by which it takes place is sufficient for the modern scientist, even when he plays philosopher.

Schuster, who appears to be a believer, is not alone. I recall a lengthly interchange that Hierothee and I had with some otherwise solid Catholics back in 2005 after the Schönborn article came out in the NY Times. They also had a difficult time stepping back and asking these meta-questions. I had intended to call this post, “Confessions of a Recovering Reductionist” because I too continue to uncover reductionist presuppositions still latent in my thinking; put there by my upbringing. I was going to describe my challenges with extracting myself from this perennial problem of so many coming from the science and engineering fields, but I the post ran too long.

The problem is what I call “ontologizing of the method.” Modern science reduces reality to its component parts as a method of study but then makes the unwarranted (and unarticulated) philosophical leap that this is the way of reality. That all entities are simply the sum of their parts. Some fields of science and engineering are beginning to come to terms with this philosophical error (e.g. the quality movement in engineering and systems biology in science). However, it takes much work, patience, and critical thinking to exorcise this demon. Hopefully this Schülerkreis can be Dr. Schuster’s path on his road to recovery.

The adulations are pouring in. A man of “genius” has passed away. A real countercultural hero has died, a man who “pushed the boundaries.” George Carlin is dead at the tender age of 71. What can one say about it who contributes to a Catholic weblog that is largely based on the theology of the body? I am tempted to mock and scorn the man, just as he did religious people and “conservatives” for an entire lifetime. After all, he was just an overgrown juvenile, with a 15 year old boy’s sense of humor, who never grew in his social and political views, and who had an equally juvenile understanding of science and technology. He blamed most of the evils in the world on religion. This is a remarkably stupid outlook for one to have who has grown up in a century where tens-of-millions of people have been slaughtered by their own atheistic governments worldwide.

His main claim to fame is that he helped make obscenity publicly acceptable. How does this help the world? He himself claimed that rules and norms regarding obscenity stem from a religious hatred of the body. He did not understand, as all of the greatest philosophers in history have, that public virtue is for the good of the body. Perhaps he’s a symbol of the final reaction of our culture against its Calvinist past. Perhaps he’s important on that level.

Of course, he denied the immortality of the soul. This is a common outlook among pseudo-intellectuals and libertines generally. That would be the easiest point of derision to level at the newly deceased George Carlin. Now he knows that heaven is not a “titty bar down by the airport” (as his character once said on a television skit). Now he knows the sting of absence from God, even moreso than he did in his own lifetime. But I won’t press the point. I shall simply send up a prayer for him: Father of Mercies, who desires not the death of sinners, look upon all us all, we wretched sinners, and heal us from all that keeps us from knowing and loving you. We ask this for ourselves, for those who have died in spiritual dispositions known to you alone, and for those who will die today.

I had been hoping to do a lengthy review of Msgr. Robert Sokolowski’s newly released book The Phenomenology of the Human Person. It is a masterpiece and the most important philosophy title, so far, of the 21st century. In it Fr. Sokolowki achieves no less of a task than the rescue of both philosophy and the human person. We have here, in the past few days, given a couple of posts that question the modern attempt to reduce the person or human life to the active brain. Well, Fr. Sokolowski shows, through a clear and profound phenomenological analysis of human communication and consciousness, that the person is much more than a brain, or psychlogical system, or a lump of matter. The person is, he shows conclusively, an agent of truth. Through a study of the nature of language and influenced by both Husserl and the Thomist tradition, Fr. Sokolowski demonstrates that the world is made present to human experience, that it is understood by man, and that this understanding is publically available to human reason and inevitably communicated. These may seem like rather basic conclusions to reach and hardly worth one’s time. But they are conclusions that run counter to most modern and postmodern philosophy. Sokolowski unveils the beauty of the truth that human beings are rational agents.

As I said, I was going to do a larger post reviewing this book. But Fr. Schall, a Professor at Georgetown and a contributor at Ignatius Insight, has given a thorough review to which I shall refer you.

Fr. Schall suggests that everyone who is currently studying philosophy should drop what they’re doing and turn to this book. I concur wholeheartedly. Enjoy!

Tom Wolfe, in his 2004 novel I Am Charlotte Simmons, explores the connection between the mind-brain reductionism of contemporary neuroscience and sociobiology and the moral depravity rampant on contemporary college and university campuses. Philosophical materialists who reviewed the book were, by and large, unimpressed by the idea that mind-brain reductionism should lead to the libertinism endemic to contemporary campus life.

But Wolfe, who is generally more prescient regarding the culture than those purely literary types who review his books, was simply expressing a sense of a connection that honest philosophers since the time of Socrates have recognized as their vocation to articulate. Namely, it is impossible that there should be such a thing as objective moral goodness if reality is nothing more than matter in motion.

Philosophical materialism is the underlying metaphysical presupposition of the contemporary academy. It is a metaphysical position that is thought, by many, to have been put on an unshakable foundation by the findings of modern neuroscience. All experiences and thoughts are capable of being measured in the brain, so it is said by materialists, and we have proven this by our successes in mapping experiences and thoughts to their neural correlates. Certain neural regions, when stimulated, give rise to experiences and thoughts. Many take this to mean that the brain must be wholly causal of psychological phenomena, and this is taken to mean, at least implicitly, that the human person is reducible to his brain. We truly are (on this view), to borrow an image from Descartes, brains in a vat, though the vat in question is simply the rest of the human body. Much of the effort in neuroscience is directed to finding the neural correlates of psychic experience.

Perhaps the best book written on the subject of the relationship of the mind and the brain remains Stanley Jaki’s Brain, Mind and Computers. The book was originally published in 1969, with a second and expanded edition in 1989. Jaki, as many may know, is a Catholic priest, theologian, and perhaps the most important historian and philosopher of science in the past 40 years. In this book, he defends the existence of the soul, whose existence alone, he argues, makes human understanding possible. He makes this defense, in a masterful blend of historical scholarship and philosophical argumentation, against the reigning philosophies that underlie modern neuroscience and especially against those who think that mental processes are reducible to computer models. Jaki considers the relationship of the brain to experience and thought, and he levels a devastating critique of those who champion the existence of “artificial intelligence,” those, that is, who equate understanding with the physical manipulation by pre-established rules of purely formal systems. Especially valuable is chapter V of the book, which Jaki added to the second edition and which gives a very suggestive phenomenology of language.

The book is worth considering in detail, but there is one point that Jaki makes near the end of it that I wish to bring out here, and that gets me to the point of this post. Jaki gives several suggestions, toward the end of chapter 5, for defenders of the existence of the soul to consider in regard to the contemporary debate on the mind and the brain, inasmuch as there is such a debate. One of his suggestions is that defenders of the soul should have the courage to call a spade a spade. By this he means that philosophers who recognize fully the dignity of the human person must be brave enough to stand athwart efforts by neuroscientists, sociobiologists, proponents of artificial intelligence, and the like, to reshape human society according to their valueless science. Jaki explains:

… [society] merrily marches down the road to anarchy. The march is to the brass bands composed of academics who have been busy trumpeting that exclusive attention to quanitatively specificable patterns is the only posture with intellectual respectability. Such a pattern is on hand whenever a behavior, no matter how queer, is acted upon in a statistically significant number. From there it is but a short step to claims to legal recognition and protection, as on the basis of mere patterns, so many pure formalizations, everything becomes a mere machinery, with no allowance for distinctions between the morally good and the morally evil. Hence the steady erosion of sensitivity for hallowed principles, as if they were so many words, and the growing readiness to grant social respectability to any behavior, provided it establishes itself as a pattern. (Brain, Mind and Computers p. 295)

Jaki wrote these words in 1989, and there is little doubt that he did not have the concept of “gay marriage” on his mind at that time. But the basic principle that he brings out here is at play in the ever-greater social acceptance of “gay marriage.”

What he means in this passage is that there are those who hold that behavior is entirely determined by biology. The biological dimension of beings is, in turn, thought to be capable of being mathematically measured. Indeed, the establishment of a mathematical measure to things is the ultimate goal of science. The ultimate reality of things is, on the view of many, that which is quantifiable. Given the advances of twentieth century physics, mathematical science has tended to rest in statistical analysis, especially so in regard to “biological systems.” The statistical is therefore thought to be the real. Statistical significance is the only significance. There is no good or bad, in the traditional moral sense. There are only, for these reductionists, statistically significant occurrences of behavior.

Jaki confines his attention to unmasking the pretensions of proponents of artificial intelligence. They think only in terms of statistical significance. They have no other basis then statistical analysis to uphold or deny moral norms. But, going beyond Jaki’s analysis, it must be recognized that the philosophical position of these reductionists goes hand-in-glove with utilitarianism, which reduces the rational assessment of human action to a calculus of pleasure.

The upshot of this type of moral reasoning is that there can be no standard of moral goodness that transcends comfort and demographic consensus. If a person’s behavior is thought to contribute to his comfort and pleasure then his behavior is acceptable, on the condition that the statistically-verified, consensus opinion of his society is amenable to his behavior.

Of course, this type of reasoning goes against the virtue ethic of the Catholic tradition, for which actions or behaviors are good or bad by their very nature. In regard to the discussion of “gay marriage,” the gap between the Church’s virtue ethic and the materialistic ethos of the wider culture makes it very difficult at present for genuinely Catholic opinion to penetrate public opinion. On the analysis of the Church, it is in the nature of things that male and female are sexually oriented to one another, as is evidenced by their bodily complementarity. It is for the ultimate good of a society that it should encourage a stable ordering of this orientation of one to the other in the socially privileged institution of monogamous marriage.

Scriptural revelation unveils the profoundest depths of the ordering of male and female to one another. Marriage is revealed in scripture in its sacramental profundity. The union of man and woman in the Church, as Saint Paul realized, gives to marriage its full significance as both sign and instantiation of the entire Church’s nuptial relationship to Christ the Bridegroom. Naturally, the Church cannot force civil society to accept the sacramental meaning of marriage. But the revealed meaning of marriage is a perfection of its natural meaning, and it is the Church’s duty to defend this natural meaning even in the civil order.

Ultimately, mind-brain reductionism devalues the body as much as it denies the existence of the mind. The form of the body is of little consequence to an analysis of human action for reductionists. For the virtue ethic of the Church, the sexual act is good inasmuch as it is ordered to the union of husband and wife and the openness to procreation that seals their love most fully. The form of the body and the experience of married love reveal to natural experience the soundness of this teaching. But reductionists cannot see in the form of the body anything that is of its essence, just as they cannot see in concrete experience anything that connects to reality. Male, female, or some combination of the two: it makes no difference. Matter and its statistically analyzed motion is the only reality for reductionists, not the “shape” of the body, not its concrete existence as we experience it. Reality, for reductionists, is ultimately a homogeneous mass of matter/energy in space-time. The things we experience in our everyday life, the basis for the Church’s virtue ethic, are denied reality.

So, the upshot of the cultural dominance of mind-brain reductionism, as Tom Wolfe realized, is the situation of poor Charlotte Simmons, an innocent college co-ed at a prestigious university, who is left to figure out her life in an environment where anything goes. What difference does it make, as long as almost everyone is comfortable and having a good time? In the end, you are only your brain. When it dies, there is nothing left. Why, then, should we not have a culture formed by the ethos of “Girls Gone Wild,” or “Boys Gone Wild,” or “The Jerry Springer Show?”

How do we, as faithful and hopeful Catholics, transform this cultural situation? It can only come through the Church. As the Holy Father himself realizes, it starts with the reform of the Church’s liturgy, where bodily form and symbol have to be valued once again after several decades of anti-religious leveling of the symbols in the Church. And Catholic institutions of higher education have to have the boldness, as Fr. Jaki says, to call a spade a spade. Moral reasoning is impotent if it is based upon the idea that the mind is reducible to the brain. The Church’s intellectual class needs to state it plainly: there can be no such a thing as objective goodness or of “values” that transcend cultural norms if the mind is reducible to the brain. Luckily, we are seeing more and more bishops who are stating the matter plainly, and we must all support them.

A careful reading of Catholic philosophers and theologians in the Thomist tradition, such as Stanly Jaki, has much to teach us as well, and Catholic universities should get back to this tradition of thought. A first pedagogical step would be to teach a sound epistemology to students: one that recognizes that each and every act of understanding transcends the material domain. The brain cannot understand. Computers cannot understand. These cannot understand because material systems cannot, as Thomists have always understood, abstract universals from concrete particulars. And it is only by abstracting the universal meaning of things that any particular thing – whether it be a word, or a symbol, or an animal, or a tree, or a molecule – is understood. Brains and computers are only concrete particulars, or collects of concrete particulars, and only act within the concrete moment. They cannot transcend the concrete moment of space-time because they exist entirely within it. It takes spirit, which is not confined to space-time, in order to abstract the universal from the concrete. It takes spirit in order to understand, for instance, what it means to be a person, or to be this particular person, or to understand any particular thing or general concept that persons communicate. Of course, I mean by spirit, at least for humans as opposed to angels and God, that which is, in the soul, truly united to the body (as the soul was not for Descartes), even though the soul is not reducible to the body. This sound epistemology, which is also the only basis for a sound ontology, is the starting point for a genuinely Catholic and Christian educational perspective. It should be expanded and brought out on many different levels. It is the basis of true philosophy and theology. It is only in recognizing the existence of the soul and the body (both of which are done away with by mind-body reductionism), and their unity, that a truly humanistic form of moral reasoning can be articulated.

Yesterday, Hierothee expressed the concern of many of us. Namely, that Gerald Augustinus has recently revealed the ironic, sad truth about himself: that his “Cafeteria is Closed” blog is actually run by a Cafeteria Catholic. So Hierothee asks, now the Gerald has failed in his attempt to replace Amy’s “Open Book” as a place for faithful Catholics to discuss the Catholic headlines of the day, where shall they go. We have received some suggestions, so I thought I would get a sense from the “parishioners” as to which blog should be the replacement?

Please vote:

As most regular readers of the “Cafeteria is Closed” weblog realize, Gerald Augustinus has been, for quite some time, openly expressive of his defiance of the Church’s teachings regarding sexuality. This comes as little surprise, as Gerald is quite vapidly libertarian in his political outlook. Gerald started his blog just before Amy Welborn shut down her “Open Book” weblog. This left Gerald’s blog as perhaps the only weblog out there that kept a regular, daily discussion going on the headlines of the day, pertinent to all things Catholic.

Gerald picked up many of Amy’s readers. Of course, Gerald never really had anything of interest to say in substantive issues. It was just a good place for Catholics to congregate and discuss the headlines in a Catholic-friendly web environment. Lately, however, the atmosphere at the Cafeteria has become rather toxic. There is nothing of interest to see at his weblog. His opinions, which never were particularly well thought out, are now so emotivistically liberal in substance that the discussion there has become amenable to the presence of some rather unsavory characters. The weird, pseudo-intellectual, Spirit of Vatican II (Dennis O’Leary), has even found a home in some of the Cafeteria’s comment threads. So, it is clearly time to leave the Cafeteria behind. But where shall one find a weblog where the daily issues pertinent to the Church can be discussed?

We need an enterprising individual, with the time and the Catholic identity necessary, to create such a blog. But it isn’t easy. It takes a rather demanding daily effort. I don’t know how Amy did it for so long. We are unable to provide such a service at C-L-S, as we are all professionals. Our posts are necessarily sporadic, at best. Gerald is able to blog daily as he is, for all intents and purposes, a househusband. Still, it would be a wonderful service if someone, who is not a cafeteria type, were to provide such a forum. Or, is there already such a weblog, whose existence I am unaware of? Or, perhaps Amy could restart “Open Book?”

LifeSiteNews is running an article about the near harvesting of the organs from a 45 year old man in Paris who later recovered from what was thought to be a fatal heart attack. After the “standard” protocol, he was apparently declared “brain dead” by the attending physicians. It seems to me that this is just one more case which calls into question the position of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences acceptance of “brain death” as a legitimate determination of death.

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences met both in 2005 and 2006 to reassess their acceptance of brain death. As with their initial acceptance, there was also much controversy about these meetings. The earlier meeting’s papers were not published by the Academy while the 2006 papers were. A 2007 CNS news story summarizes the controversy when members of the 2005 meeting decided to publish the earlier meetings papers on their own. In a nutshell, those who were involved in the publishing of the 2005 papers, in a document entitled Finis Vitae, were critical of the Academy’s position. This group includes physicians, theologians, philosophers, and two bishops.

As a result of the 2006 meeting, the Academy reaffirmed its 1985 and 1989 positions that brain death is a valid determination of death (N.B. the CNS article ascribes the Academy’s position to the “Vatican;” this is not only misleading, it is wrong and they should know better. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences does not have magisterial or even executive authority).

The position of those who reject the Academy’s position can be found here. Here is the summary of their conclusions:

1. On the one hand the Church recognizes, consistent with her tradition, that the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural end must absolutely be respected and upheld. On the other hand, a secular society tends to place greater emphasis on the quality of living.

2. The Catholic Church has always opposed the destruction of human life before being born through abortion and she equally condemns the premature ending of the life of an innocent donor in order to extend the life of another through unpaired vital organ transplantation. “It is morally inadmissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.” “It is never licit to kill one human being in order to save another.”

3. “Nor can we remain silent in the face of other more furtive, but no less serious and real forms of euthanasia. These could occur for example when, in order to increase the availability of organs for transplants, organs are removed without respecting objective and adequate criteria which verify the death of the donor.”

4. “The death of the person is a single event, consisting in the total disintegration of that unitary and integrated whole that is the personal self. It results from the separation of the life-principle (or soul) from the corporal reality of the person.” Pope Pius XII declared this same truth when he stated that human life continues when its vital functions manifest themselves even with the help of artificial processes.

5. “Acknowledgement of the unique dignity of the human person has a further underlying consequence: vital organs which occur singly in the body can be removed only after death–that is, from the body of someone who is certainly dead. This requirement is self-evident, since to act otherwise would mean intentionally to cause the death of the donor in disposing of his organs.” Natural moral law precludes removal for transplantation of unpaired vital organs from a person who is not certainly dead. The declaration of “brain death” is not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the patient is certainly dead. It is not even sufficient to arrive at moral certitude.

6. Many in the medical and scientific community maintain that brain-related criteria for death are sufficient to generate moral certitude of death itself. Ongoing medical and scientific evidence contradicts this assumption. Neurological criteria alone are not sufficient to generate moral certitude of death itself, and are absolutely incapable of generating physical certainty that death has occurred.

7. It is now patently evident that there is no single so-called neurological criterion commonly held by the international scientific community to determine certain death. Rather, many different sets of neurological criteria are used without global consensus.

8. Neurological criteria are not sufficient for declaration of death when an intact cardio-respiratory system is functioning. These neurological criteria test for the absence of some specific brain reflexes. Functions of the brain not considered are temperature control, blood pressure, cardiac rate and salt and water balance. When a patient on a ventilation machine is declared “brain dead,” these functions not only are present but also are frequently active.

9. The apnea test–the removal of respiratory support–is mandated as a part of the neurological diagnosis and it is paradoxically applied to ensure irreversibility. This significantly impairs outcome, or even causes death, in patients with severe brain injury.

10. There is overwhelming medical and scientific evidence that the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity (in the cerebrum, cerebellum and brain stem) is not proof of death. The complete cessation of brain activity cannot be adequately assessed. Irreversibility is a prognosis, not a medically observable fact. We now successfully treat many patients who in the recent past were considered hopeless.

11. A diagnosis of death by neurological criteria alone is theory, not scientific fact. It is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of life.

12. No law whatsoever ought to attempt to make licit an act that is intrinsically evil. “I repeat once more that a law which violates an innocent person’s natural right to life is unjust and, as such, is not valid as a law. For this reason I urgently appeal once more to all political leaders not to pass laws which, by disregarding the dignity of the person, undermine the very fabric of society.”

13. The termination of one innocent life in pursuit of saving another, as in the case of the transplantation of unpaired vital organs, does not mitigate the evil of taking an innocent human life. Evil may not be done that good might come of it.

I seems to me that the Academy falls into a reductionist presupposition. What I mean is that while there are certainly empirical manifestations of life, life, and so death, are ultimately philosophical issues. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences seems though, to equate brain activity (and here it is certain brain activity) with the presence of the soul. However, human life is more than brain activity; it is dogmatically defined to exist when the body is informed by the soul. As well, death occurs when the soul leaves the body. The soul is immaterial and as such, it is not directly empirically accessible and so empirical science can only indirectly assist in the determination of death. While the Academy would most likely agree with this, they seem either to overestimate the insights of modern science and/or reduce the soul to its manifestation in brain activity, a reductionist presupposition.

The failure to understand the limits of science in this matter is a major problem in the struggle to protect life today. Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz makes the observation that there seems to be a dichotomy between the Academy’s position that the lack of brain function can be used as a determination of death and the Church’s position that the destruction of human embryos, who do not yet have a developed brain, is a moral evil. Perhaps there is also a logical fallacy at play in the Academy’s rationale?

It is true that the presence of cognitive functions in the brain necessitate the presence of the soul but it is a logical fallacy to assume that the lack of that activity necessitates the departure of the soul. Now this Parisian case would seem to verify that brain activity alone is insufficient to determine death.

This is not a minor issue. Modern medicine, as the minority report points out, is not so concerned with the value of life itself as it is with the quality of life. In its triage/utilitarian mentality, it is too often motivated to harvest organs from those whose chances for an “adequate quality of life” are much less than those who could benefit from the organs. In other words, they are not so concerned with knowing if the person is actually alive, just what they believe the patient’s chances are of recovering in order to lead what they would find to be a sufficiently happy life.

What the delegitimization of “brain death” might mean for organ donation could be significant. I suspect that it is this concern that causes the Academy to err on the side of the status quo. However, I think that it is an issue that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences needs to readdress in light of this event. Even more so, I think that it is an issue that requires Magisterial comment, at least of caution, lest the faithful consider the Academy’s problematic position as authoritative.

Pro-abortion advocate Dr. Waldo L. Fielding, takes us back to his early medical days during the pre-Roe “bad old days”. In his New York Times essay he endorsed himself as a reliable source in Repairing the Damage, Before Roe , “when a woman’s desperate need to abort was the driving force behind the selection of using any method available.”

The patient also did not explain why she had attempted the abortion, and we did not ask. This was a decision she made for herself, and the reasons were hers alone. Yet this much was clear: The woman had put herself at total risk, and literally did not know whether she would live or die.

The familiar symbol of illegal abortion is the infamous “coat hanger” — which may be the symbol, but is in no way a myth….. Almost any implement you can imagine had been and was used to start an abortion — darning needles, crochet hooks, cut-glass salt shakers, soda bottles, sometimes intact, sometimes with the top broken off..

Whether it be embellishment or outright lies which have given way to the iconic status of the pro-choicers coat hanger, there is a certain ironic veracity to the scandalous attachment to the coat hanger as THE object of the radical feminist’s combustible rage. The abortion industry’s propaganda strikes at the heart and soul of the radicals who scream for the rights for abortions on demand. In the case of the American abortion movement, the creation of the perfect storm was crafted from the symbiotic relationship between predator and prey - manipulators of the abortion industry exploiting abused girls and young women with psychological/personality disorders. More specifically - text book examples of cluster B personality disorders - Borderline Personality Disorder and Histrionic Personality Disorder.

Despite their being no rational medical reason to stick a metal hanger up a birth canal other than to self mutilate, there is minimal evidence (at best) to link the use of coat hangers ever being typically used as devices for “back alley” or do-it-yourself self abortions. There is, however, no shortage of evidence linking those with specific “cluster B” Personality Disorders with genital mutilation , some of which have been associated with the behaviors of sticking sharp objects such as coat hangers, pencils, and other sharp objects up into their genitalia. (Also, see Caenis syndrome).

Those who develop a Borderline Personality Disorder are predominately angry women (with histories of sexual abuse) who are consciously or subconsciously driven to deliver a hurtful revenge onto others. They typically have poor self images and are consequently highly sensitive to rejection and constantly haunted by the fear of being abandoned. As a result, they are willing to take drastic measures to avoid loneliness and solitude, which can often include self mutilation, suicide threats and attempts.

As a way to inflict pain unto those who have or may abandon them, self-mutilation somehow releases the rage by witnessing and showing her pain to those whom she feels, has disavowed the value of her own life. Among the more mentally healthy population - the coat hanger symbol as an abortion device never quite makes sense as there can be no point of reference; where as, those who may have a more maladaptive emotional/mental disposition, would have significantly less problems “relating“; therefore, more likely to accept this as unadulterated truth. As well, can be said for the patriarchy conspiracy theory of being the driving force behind the pro-life movement. This is not meant as a derogatory jab to the intelligence of pro-choicers, but as a simple explanation behind the absurdity of the abortion industry strategies.

As in most cases, we ultimately like to shape our own realities (the value and dignity of each human life as being equal) based upon the history of our past and the current direction of our personal desires. Although tragic, the manifestation of a maladaptive personality disorder imposing it’s anger and will upon our culture and consequently sustaining the abortion industries hypocritical lies (one class of human life is superior to another) must be unconditionally defeated. We are all susceptible to the desires of our weak human nature, and the mental illness which can be intrinsically linked to the abortion industry is no where more evident than within the radical feminist’s iconic regard for the wired coat hanger.

CNA’s published an article about the repentance and the reconciliation with the Church of one of the excommunicated St. Louis parish board members.  Edward Florek recently returned to the Church after having been excommunicated for having voted to rebel against the authority of the Archbishop of St. Louis over the issue of the legal transfer of St. Stanislaus’ parish to the Archdiocese.

There are many things that could be said about Florek’s return.  However, one that is worth pursing is how this illustrates one of the main purposes of excommunication.  Our culture’s immature legalism immediately runs to a caricature of the medicine of excommunication, reducing it to a punishment as a means to coerce people amidst some power struggle.  Now while it may have been abused in some circumstances in the past, this is not generally a problem today.

Moreover, its remedial benefits are often overlooked.  Its purpose has always been to allow the sinner to experience in his daily life the separation he has already caused spiritually by his actions and thereby open his eyes to the reality of his sin.  St. Paul provides the template for this effect in his first letter to the Corinthians (see 1 Cor 5:5ff).  However, Its purpose has also been to show others the gravity of these sinful acts and thus avoid the chance of scandalizing the faithful.  This scandal is most often caused when others see no ramifications for prohibited actions and this all too often leads some/many to question the gravity or even the  truth of the prohibition against said actions.

Florek’s repentance shows the potential effectiveness of these biblically based remedies.  While it is obviously not going to work for everyone, it is a very necessary salve for those whose hearts are open but are being led astray by faulty thinking and affective attachments.  Nevertheless, even if it works to bring home just one lost soul, we know that there is more joy in heaven over the return of one lost sinner . . .

Benedict XVI’s General Audience reflections on St. Gregory the Great brought got me ta’ thinkin’ again. Much like Etienne Gilson’s observations about St. Thomas Aquinas, B16 finds Gregory’s greatness grounded in his profound humility. Gilson also believed that Thomas’ impressive intellect was made phenomenal because of his deep humility. Fr. Thomas Dubay, in his book, Faith and Certitude, makes the assertion that all error arises from sin. I think that this insight corresponds with B16’s thoughts on St. Gregory. Humility is nothing other than an orientation to the truth. Both arrogance and false humility are precommitments of the will to some proposition or belief. They remove openness to the truth and make one very susceptible to sin. Authentic humility is the remedy.

So what does this have to do with politics? Well, there have been two very high profile, prolife Catholics who have recently endorsed two of the most anti-life candidates ever put forth. I posted some time ago about Ambassador Raymond Flynn who runs a prolife apostolate and who endorsed Hillary Clinton. I need not review Clinton’s problematic positions. His reason: her husband gave him a job. Here we have a very distorted loyalty.

Most have also heard about Douglas Kmiec, who was among other things, Dean of the Columbus Law School. Kmiec also works for the elimination of abortion. He originally endorsed Mitt Romney and after that horse left the race, he switched to Barack Obama. His rationale: he thinks Obama’s position, that abortion poses a “serious moral issue” (whatever that may mean) but it is better addressed through personal responsibility than through “divisive” politics or through legislation. Jay Anderson does a very good job of outlining the problems associated with Kmiec’s position so I need not rehash that here (for those who may not recall Obama’s positions, here is a website that is very favorable to Obama and his positions that summarizes them).

It seems to me that both of these educated, articulate men are abusing their intellectual gifts in trying to rationalize their obvious, morally problematic positions. They both support candidates (Flynn now perhaps in the past tense) who have made it very clear that they will do everything they can to keep abortion legal and available. Roe v. Wade aside, with a President’s executive power alone, immediately upon taking office both of these candidates can and will sign directives that will greatly increase the numbers of babies killed throughout the world by making US funds available for this carnage. Supporting such a candidate is clearly material cooperation with evil . . . and I would argue could be shown to be formal cooperation. However, to make material cooperation morally licit, one needs to show that greater damage would be done by the other candidate. There is no case to be made here and so neither Clinton nor Obama can legitimately be supported.

So where does humility come in? Flynn presumably will not allow himself to be seen as “disloyal” as he sees it. He cannot continue to bear an unpaid debt when it is called in and so he is put in the precarious position, it seems to him, of compromising on some principle. He has chosen his personal honor over life itself. Kmiec is much more curious. However, his public support for any candidate brings with it questions, especially given the high degree of probability for confusion and scandal that this particular case can cause. Humility would allow him, moreover, to give up whatever precommitment he possesses in rationalizing his support for Obama.

I do not believe that either candidate provides the moral room for arguing he can be supported on prudential judgment grounds but certainly more humility would lead a good Catholic at least to be quiet about his problematic prudential judgments.

“The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:” - Cathechism of the Catholic Church 364

Denied a Catholic wedding by a Mexican dioceses, a surgically altered woman (the one with the beard) went ahead with a civil ceremony where she “married” a male “bride“ in celebration of International Day of Action Against Homophobia. A proposed “Gender Equity Initiative” in Mexico City’s legislative assembly hopes to permit transgender and transsexual persons to modify their legal identity on their birth certificate and force public hospitals to perform sex-change surgeries with taxpayer money.

Despite the misinformation spread by a couple of flawed interpretive studies which have erroneously claimed that some individuals are born with the “wrong” body, evidence supports the belief that Gender Identity disorder is brought on by an individual’s response to an emotionally painful experience which typically include rejection, lack of acceptance, hatred of their bodies, or the intense fears of being betrayed or hurt. Ironic, how individuals who are traumatized through rejection, go on to reject their own bodies; those who feel “unaccepted”, do likewise to the identify of their own bodies. It then, must also make sense for the fearful to desecrate and defile that which they believe could ultimately bring about their own betrayal and destruction.

Paul McHugh, a Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, has studied patients who underwent “transgendered” surgeries who were outwardly satisfied with their new appearances but continued to present with the same pre-surgical mental and emotional problems which manifest itself in maintaining poor relationships, having work related problems and problems with their emotions. He concluded that “to provide a surgical alteration to the body of these unfortunate people was to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it.”

Source:

LifeSite

Catholic Culture