Ratzinger's 1990 remarks on Galileo
Print Friendly VersionNote: Recently a group of professors and students from Rome's La Sapienza University, including the entire physics faculty, wrote a letter protesting Pope Benedict XVI's scheduled Jan. 17 lecture to open the academic year. They cited comments from then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 1990 on the Galileo case. Those comments are presented here.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
“The Crisis of Faith in Scienceâ€
March 15, 1990, Parma
Extracts taken from A Turning Point for Europe? The Church and Modernity in the Europe of Upheavals, Paoline Editions, 1992, pp. 76-79. English translation by NCR.
* * *
In the last decade, creation’s resistance to allowing itself to be manipulated by humanity has emerged as a new element in the overall cultural situation. The question of the limits of science, and the criteria which it must observe, has become unavoidable.
Particularly emblematic of this change of intellectual climate, it seems to me, is the different way in which the Galileo case is seen.
This episode, which was little considered in the 18th century, was elevated to a myth of the Enlightenment in the century that followed. Galileo appeared as a victim of that medieval obscurantism that endures in the Church. Good and evil were sharply distinguished. On the one hand, we find the Inquisition: a power that incarnates superstition, the adversary of freedom and conscience. On the other, there’s natural science represented by Galileo: the force of progress and liberation of humanity from the chains of ignorance that kept it impotent in the face of nature. The star of modernity shines in the dark night of medieval obscurity.
Today, things have changed.
According to [Ernst] Bloch, the heliocentric system – just like the geocentric – is based upon presuppositions that can’t be empirically demonstrated. Among these, an important role is played by the affirmation of the existence of an absolute space; that’s an opinion that, in any event, has been cancelled by the Theory of Relativity. Bloch writes, in his own words: ‘From the moment that, with the abolition of the presupposition of an empty and immobile space, movement is no longer produced towards something, but there’s only a relative movement of bodies among themselves, and therefore the measurement of that [movement] depends to a great extent on the choice of a body to serve as a point of reference, in this case is it not merely the complexity of calculations that renders the [geocentric] hypothesis impractical? Then as now, one can suppose the earth to be fixed and the sun as mobile.â€
Curiously, it was precisely Bloch, with his Romantic Marxism, who was among the first to openly oppose the [Galileo] myth, offering a new interpretation of what happened: The advantage of the heliocentric system over the geocentric, he suggested, does not consist in a greater correspondence to objective truth, but solely in the fact that it offers us greater ease of calculation. To this point, Bloch follows solely a modern conception of natural science. What is surprising, however, is the conclusion he draws: “Once the relativity of movement is taken for granted, an ancient human and Christian system of reference has no right to interference in astronomic calculations and their heliocentric simplification; however, it has the right to remain faithful to its method of preserving the earth in relation to human dignity, and to order the world with regard to what will happen and what has happened in the world.â€
If both the spheres of conscience are once again clearly distinguished among themselves under their respective methodological profiles, recognizing both their limits and their respective rights, then the synthetic judgment of the agnostic-skeptic philosopher P. Feyerabend appears much more drastic. He writes: “The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Gaileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism.â€
From the point of view of the concrete consequences of the turning point Galileo represents, however, C.F. Von Weizsacker takes another step forward, when he identifies a “very direct path†that leads from Galileo to the atomic bomb.
To my great surprise, in a recent interview on the Galileo case, I was not asked a question like, ‘Why did the Church try to get in the way of the development of modern science?’, but rather exactly the opposite, that is: ‘Why didn’t the church take a more clear position against the disasters that would inevitably follow, once Galileo had opened Pandora’s box?’
It would be absurd, on the basis of these affirmations, to construct a hurried apologetics. The faith does not grow from resentment and the rejection of rationality, but from its fundamental affirmation and from being inscribed in a still greater form of reason …
Here, I wished to recall a symptomatic case that illustrates the extent to which modernity’s doubts about itself have grown today in science and technology.
Truth is learned by having
Truth is learned by having faith in our teachers (trusting their competence), from the patterns in nature, and so forth, as you well pointed out. film izle
Mec~ Jesus is the only
Mec~ Jesus is the only teacher who merits 'faith'; all others -respect, yes, faith no.
that Benedict confuses me.
that Benedict confuses me. His encyclicals seem to have an upbeat and positive feel for humanity, but then he turns around and seems to lose that positive feel when he gets confrontational over what are essentially highly specific issues. Civil unions threaten world peace? How in the world does he make that connection?
Too long a traditional
Too long a traditional professor - distance from the source of learning, pontificating to those who listened in awe and who seldom questioned.
I am dismayed by the
I am dismayed by the portrayal that we have of Galileo. The Catholic Church that I know is about love and understanding and forgiveness. I fear the outcome of the anger that comes out his message. If Galileo was wrong and sinned or erred where is the "forgiveness". We are quick to condemn "again" someone who is not hear to speak for himself. Shall the soul of Galileo go without being heard in confession. There appears to be no forgiveness. Who shall hear his confession. I find the choice of people: marxist Bloc, agnostic Feyerabend, C.F. Von Weizsacker the atomic bomb to be sad. If it is to bring about understanding of what occurred 350 years ago, it does not. If it is to evoke anger, it does. When God sent his son Jesus to die on the cross, it was to forgive "man's sins". He chose Peter on who to build his church. Have we forgotten so quickly. I have but sympathy for the writer. My prayers are with this writer in hopes that God will help him understand his role in life. It is not with anger but love. Some of you who are Jesuits will understand the following, "A conversation is an exchange. It leaves neither participant unchanged�. It is how you walk away and the values you take from the conversation. I cannot ask you how to lead your life. I can only show you by my example, and I am not the person to follow. But I will walk with you. I am the author of my own destiny. The God that I love shines a light on my path so that I can serve Him. I do not work for my salvation and my eternity, I work to help, assist others to their final salvation. That is my joy. That is my CHURCH. I seek nothing for myself. Rest Galileo, rest in peace.
Fr. Juan Romero Palm
Fr. Juan Romero
Palm Springs
I sincerely appreciate the "translation" that GRAPHICUS in "For what it's worth" section makes of the Holy Father's remarks. I like to think of myself as one who is able and willing to "wade trough" pontifical documents, but I am so happy that Grapicus transformed the drudgery of reading through papal-ese to a floliicking read to enjoy. Thanks.
JR
Surely the issue is not
Surely the issue is not whether the church was right or wrong about this topic in astronomy, but whether she should or should not be bringing astronomers to trial and, if they are found guilty, effectively silencing them so that their works cannot easily be read and discussed objectively by catholics including those teaching and studying astronomy in catholic universities.
Perhaps you missed an issue
Perhaps you missed an issue therewith involved.
The church was concerned with keeping man the crown of creation and the central figure in "our" universe (geocentral). As I remember, Galileo did not get into trouble until he used his findings to move against Genesis and the importance of man. Of course, a secularist will have an opposite view.
Actually, it was not until
Actually, it was not until he ridiculed the pope in writing. He thought he could pull it off because the pope was actually a friend of his. He was wrong, and pope got him back...
I'm sorry. Did I miss
I'm sorry. Did I miss something? I thought he was clearly saying the Church's episode with Galileo was good and Galileo was not. I see him saying that Galileo said things the Church didn't like as it made man one IN the universe instead of man OVER the universe. The whole idea coming from one of the Genesis stories is of man being over all animals and nature instead of (as in another Genesis story) just being a caretaker, the one responsible for keeping God's creation in good shape along with himself. I see the pope as going for the first story and so science should say only what will support that rather than anything to support the idea we aren't the center of the universe (and that center mind you, is man, not woman). Going in another direction causes horrible things to happen in this world so be quiet and let the Church take care of everything. That's what I heard in these remarks. I guess my eyes took in something different than most of what I read here. Am I that off base?
My take. Benedict was
My take. Benedict was defending the Church's concern, and at THAT time. We would not have the same problem today. Indeed the MAN seems to be conquering the universe in an even more remarkable way: traveling through the universe, taking its picture; discovering how it probably came to be; and demonstrating the immensity of God's creation.
And Benedict was pointing out the tendency of the Enlightenment to beat the Church over the head with Galileo,saying the Church today is against science, knowledge, individual freedom, reason, etc., etc. But truth wins out.
For what it's worth, here is
For what it's worth, here is a paraphrase of Cardinal Ratzinger's (now Pope Benedict XVI) address in more plain English.
"I have noticed that the modern world is not as confident as it once was about the ability of science to explain every mystery and to control the whole of Nature. Recent events have taught us to be more humble about the limits and proper place of science in the progress of humanity. A key symptom of this change is the way in which the Galileo case is now being re-evaluated even by secular thinkers.
"No one was much interested in the Galileo episode in the hundred years after it happened, but 19th century atheists turned it into a myth, with Galileo representing all that is free, enlightened and progressive, and the Catholic Church standing for everything dark, superstitious and oppressive.
"Today things have changed.
"For example, Ernst Bloch (a 20th German Marxist inspired philosopher) said that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has shown that it is just as true to say that the earth goes round the sun as it is to say that the sun goes round the earth. Galileo’s argument can no longer claim to be the ‘real’ truth simply because there is no absolute centre to space.
"Bloch argues that since all movements in space are relative anyway, it just depends what you chose as your fixed point. You could as easily think of the earth as the fixed point, in which case the sun does indeed goes round it. The only issue is that it’s a bit more complex for us to work out the math when we think of it that way round, but that doesn’t make it untrue.
"I find it interesting that it was a neo-Marxist who was the first to challenge the received version the Galileo case? He did this precisely because he (Bloch) was a truly modern materialist who suggested that neither view of the solar system is objectively better, just that one (Galileo’s) is more mentally convenient.
"So far Bloch is simply being consistent with the modern way of doing science. But his ultimate conclusion is a real surprise. He says that once you accept Relativity, then you can rightly say that the Christian world view should be kept out of issues like measuring the movement of the heavenly bodies in relation to one another. This is best left to science with its somewhat over-simplified, but convenient working presumption that the earth goes round the sun. But, by the same token, he says that Christianity is right to carry on seeing the earth as the moral centre of the cosmos, because it sees human dignity as the central value in creation. Religion is concerned with human activity, with shaping human history and human behaviour, and it is perfectly rational that it should be faithful to that perspective.
"Once you understand how scientists and theologians have different areas of competence, that they should stay within their rightful boundaries and follow their proper ways of working, each recognizing their own limits and rights, then an even more dramatic conclusion about this whole matter does begin to make some sense. This is the conclusion of Paul Feyerabend - an agnostic and sceptical Austrian/American writer (1924 – 1994) about the Galileo episode. He said that the Church had a reasonable and valid point to make in the Galieo affair, because the wider implications of Galileo’s position went far beyond astronomy. According to Feyerabend it was really about the social and ethical effects of ceasing to regard human beings as the central value in the world. Feyerabend said that those who have rewritten history to ignore this point have done so for their own political motives rather than from any truly objective view.
Then we have Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker - who was part of the German Nuclear Energy Project during World War II that tried to develop the first nuclear bomb – who was even more speciifc in his judgment. He said that the Atomic Bomb was an inevitable eventual consequence of rejecting the absolute value of human diginty implied by uncritically accepting Galileo’s inverted world view.
In fact, when I (Cardinal Ratzinger) was interviewed about this subject recently (1990), far from being quizzed about the Church’s supposed opposition to science, I was asked the exact opposite: why did the Church not foresee and do more to prevent all the miseries that have followed from the post-Galileo view of human beings as expendable and secondary to the march of material progress?!
Now, we have to be careful not to lose our balance here. We must not over react and start producing hasty and ill thought out positions on this issue. Faith is not served by irrational and emotional responses. In fact faith confirms reason, but it also allows us to see things from the perspective of a higher Mindset…
"All I am doing here is highlighting one example that shows how science and technology themselves are causing the modern world to doubt its own secular outlook and agenda."
What is Benedict saying
What is Benedict saying here, that for us simple laity, scientific ignorance is bliss?
Not at all. If God went to
Not at all. If God went to all the trouble to put together this universe for us to begin our existence in, the least we can do is take the time to appreciate his handiwork. I think the main thrust of his arguement comes at the end when he says, 'The faith does not grow from resentment and the rejection of rationality, but from its fundamental affirmation and from being inscribed in a still greater form of reason.'
It's human nature to categorize and search for patterns and its this propensity which gives birth to faith and allows it to grow. I have a son and I love him very much- if I accept that God sees me as his child, it's reasonable to assume that he loves me at least as much as I love my son. Based on this, I believe that God loves me based on a pattern I've seen- my faith is born from patterns I can see and grows beyond what I can prove or disprove. If we reject and resent the patterns encompassed by rational ideas, we have no groundwork from which faith can be built, so we cannot have faith.
More simply, if faith comes from finding patterns and extrapolating past what we can see- how can rejecting and resenting the patterns we find possibly lead us to faith?
This is not to say that nothing should be questioned- how can we learn without constantly reevaluating ideas in the light of new discoveries? As is usually the case, it's the motivation that's important. There's a huge difference between questionning something to find truth and questionning something to destroy it. One will lead you to faith and the other will not.
A question about "faith" in
A question about "faith" in your piece:
When Benedict says "THE faith" he is being more specific that what seems to be your equating, in some way, faith with truth or learning?
The Faith, on our part is a disposition to be informed by God; this Faith is learned from Faith-filled teachers and by direct infusion from God, as will happen in contemplative prayer.
Truth is learned by having faith in our teachers (trusting their competence), from the patterns in nature, and so forth, as you well pointed out.
One, whose learning I trust, reports that in the prologue of Johns Gospel, "in the beginning was the Word..." "Word" here could just as well be rendered in English by the words: truth, wisdom. Thus the prologue would read: In the beginning was The Truth, and the Truth was with God, and The Truth was God.
The human mind is inquisitive, and blessed is the mind which searches for truth (Truth) both in science and in Faith and theology.
The theologian who refuses to answer the questions: Why? or "How do you know that?" is no better teacher than the scientist who refuses to answer the same questions.
When scientists and theologians do not agree with each other, either one or the other is wrong, or both are wrong.
It is humbling to be committed to learning truth; it forces learners to change ideas and lives.
Dear drakemaw~ Marvelous.
Dear drakemaw~ Marvelous. Jesus becoming fully human is the ultimate validation of your post. Rather than "save" us by some divine fiat, he worked it through a fully human process as well as divine. This says to me that he calls us to join Him, respond to Him through the fully human process of becoming the best we can be. He has endowed it with divine efficacy. That, I think is the essence of His being not only the truth but the way.
Good question colkoch. What
Good question colkoch. What is Benedict saying here?
I think Benedict explains in the last sentence: "to recall a symptomatic case that illustrates the extent to which modernity’s doubts about itself have grown today in science and technology.
First, Benedict quotes various scientists and defines what they have said as symptoms.
I think he is saying the identity of modernity is in doubt about itself.
From what I understand, there is no "unified theory" (mathematical) yet, as far as I know, and scientist, depending on what field they are in, rely upon different methodologies to theorize and reason. One theory would allow us to venture to the moon, another one would not. So scientists have stuck to whatever seems to work for them: Calculus for some, quantum mechanics for others (I really don’t know the specifics and I am speaking very generally). I believe the doubt arises because if you use one mathematical theory to try to define something, another theory will cancel it out and disprove it.
Other than that, I can’t say for certain what he is talking about or where he would want to go with it, except to say that he has identified a weakness.
I for one cannot agree with a presumption that says that one who has found truth (Galileo) must also be the father of the atomic bomb. The metaphor, Pandora's Box, could be applied to finding the truth as much as it could to finding a lie, so it is of no value when taking into consideration the freedom that is gained with the truth. The problem with truth to some is that it can be used for good or evil. Surely there is some good use for Galileo’s understanding of the universe. To negate him, simply because it might hinder if used for evil would be the same as negating whoever ‘discovered’ fire – because they might burn a village, or negate the use of the wheel, because then the whole entire world as we know it will change. That to me is not reasoning, but is unreasonableness and selfishness and overlooks the good, for fear of the bad that ‘could’ happen.
Benedict, I believe, is creating a dialogue with the scientific community. I am not sure he is a scientist himself, but it does not take a scientist to wonder about God's creation and to look into the scientific discoveries, writings, theories, etc.
I do wish that Benedict were more down to earth and could relate to us, not on a scientific or theoretical point of view, or symptomatically, or even with so intellectual a point of view. But, I do not define or judge any person on what attracts them to certain disciplines of thought. I, for example, am drawn to people such as St. Teresa of Avila and Thomas Merton, Karl Jung. Benedict seems more interested, at least in this writing of his, in the science of the objective world, than on the interior world. Perhaps we need a 'unified theory' here as well in order to understand one another and not cancel each other's perspective out.
Despite the fact that the world is "scientific" does not mean that the rest of us are thinking so scientifically. We use science more than most of us can define it or explain it. Science does not define one's identity or soul. If it does try to do that, or believes that it can, then science has entered into religion in a way. Perhaps this is the area that Benedict finds himself in and he feels a need to present his thoughts on it.
We should be mindful that Benedict is from Germany and he grew up in the evil swirl of Nazi Germany with its Nazi doctors and scientist. I have hope that he has the best of intentions with regards to ‘reading’ the scientific community and how they relate to humanity.
Believe me, Colcoch, I wish I lived in a simpler world. It does seem to get more complicated than I can keep up with. I am not sure if I have helped or not. I hope that this was at least a little helpful to you.
My problem with Benedict's
My problem with Benedict's writing is that he writes like a German. For example, if a German is describing a quilt he will start somewhere in the middle and describe every significant little piece (and to him they are all significant), and by the time he gets finished I have no idea what a quilt even looks like. It's really work for me. -- But I love Benedict's thinking, and so, I wade on.
It has been helpful to me.
It has been helpful to me. So was john Allen's more extensive coverage which I hadn't read when I posted the above somewhat flippant observation.
I think the thing which irritated me about this, and I know it's from 1990, is that in quoting Bloch, Benedict is using quantum physics to somewhat justify an attack on Newtonian physics. As far as I understand quantum physics, it essentially says that what happens on the very micro or the very macro level transcends the mathematics of Newtonian physics. In other words we can use Newtonian mathematics to accurately project a course to travel in 'normal' time space, but on the very large and very small measurements of time space, it no longer holds. At these points, it's the observer who determines what is observed.
I admit to some subjective prejudice here, but the implications of the observer effect in quantum physics has huge implications for our definition of ourselves and our relationship to God. We already know how badly we've misused applications of Newtonian physics. Blaming Galileo for opening Pandora's box might be an interesting exercise in apolgetics, but it serves no practical purpose in the discourse between science and modernity.
It seems to me that quantum physics demands the Church take it's postulates much more seriously than using it to justify the Galileo decision. I'm with sevenup in that I too think Benedict needs to put the best scientific minds he can to work on the implications of where our current science is taking us. Maybe he is, and that's why he's not giving his talk in person to a group of physcists.
In many respects the New Age movement is light years--pun intended--ahead of the Church. We have too few theologians taking this challenge seriously, which is why I really appreciate Sylvester Steffen even if half the time don't totally comprehend what he's writing.
By the way, I'd have to say De Chardin has been the theologian with the most impact on my thinking, (although I too like Merton) but he wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms either.
As to Benedict being the somewhat the product of his childhood in Nazi Germany, we all need to understand we are the products of our childhood, and sometimes we're the unconciously motivated products of our unexamined childhood. So sayeth Karl Yung.
This is how I read Benedict
This is how I read Benedict on Galileo:
When Earth was understood to be center of the universe (geocentric), man was understood to be crown of creation. What helped and ennobled man was good; forces working against man were bad (the atom bomb).
When Earth was understood to be a grain of sand in the universe, man became increasingly less significant.
I understood Bloch thusly: From a humanizing stand point, seeing Earth as center is preferable. From scientific standpoint, it is much easier to measure, calculate, and analyze in a heliocentric universe.
But the heliocentric
But the heliocentric universe is all about Newtonian physics. The 11 or more universes postulated by quantum mathematics is a horse of a different color, and that's where our science is leading us too---the multiverse.
Even as our understanding of
Even as our understanding of the universe changes as we think more about it and devise experiments to test if our ideas are realistic, the universe itself does not change.
If it turns out to be a multiverse, then it always was a multiverse, even when God spoke to Abraham and while Jesus walked on this planet.
So, whatever God conveyed to humanity about his relationship with us (and angels and Satan) is not changed by any new knowledge and perspective.
In fact, it is appropriate to ask how our newfound understanding fits together with those things God has conveyed to us, rather than to ask whether this invalidates what we thought we knew about God and ourselves.
Marie, I don't think I've
Marie, I don't think I've written that our new knowledge invalidates what we thought we knew about God and ourselves or our relationships with God or each other. Ideally, this new knowledge should expand and evolve our understandings of those relationships.
For instance, Jesus told us to see Him in each other, that He and we are all connected. This observation of Jesus's isn't just a clever conceptualization designed to instill a sense of solidarity, it appears to be a quantum fact, with real consequences for each of us.
The most obvious example of how this connectedness effects us is mob behavior. If we can effect each other to the point we can find ourselves acting in a mindless negative way, imagine what we could do in a positive thoughtful way. Group mind can and does exist. Tehard De Chardin's concept of the noosphere isn't just theological speculation.
I'll give you one other example of this and that's the systematic application of this group dynamic used by Goebel's in Nazi Germany. The Nuremburg rallies and other mega events impacted the German psyche in a way that reduced a civilized nation to pure barbarity. It stopped an otherwise intelligent and cultured people from questioning their leadership or examining their own complicity in Nazi atrocities. Did it effect all germans, no, but it effected enough.
Jesus knew all about this. He taught, lived, breathed, love as the way.
We now know from experiments on chrystalized water that positive thoughts change the structures of the crystals to more organized, comlex and beautiful patterns. Negative thoughts produce unorganized and chaotic crystals. These experiments amply demonstrate the observer effect.
In my mind quantum physics isn't invalidating anything, it's VALIDATING that the universe works precisely as Jesus demonstrated and taught.
Colleen, I wish I could give
Colleen, I wish I could give you 11 4’s. ;-)
This is an excellent response evidencing the synthesis between God and Science. Your example of the water crystals and indication of our affect on energies and functions within God's creation as measured and indicated by Quantum Physics is an excellent example of how science will some day become recognized as a tool of the discovery of the Creation of God. :-)
Thank you Col. May God's Peace be always with you. :-)
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
You're right Marie. For God
You're right Marie. For God Nothing changes BUT for us everything changes. We don't have the advantage of God's perspective. So It's important that we keep up with deepening our understanding of God and the relationship between God and ourselves as these new discoveries are made. Because things we held as truth before from our meager perspective changes as we make new discoveries that affect our perception. We should embrace with joy the continued deepening understanding of God with each new discovery of His Creation.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
I have a son and I love him
I have a son and I love him very much- if I accept that God sees me as his child, it's reasonable to assume that he loves me at least as much as I love my son. Based on this, I believe that God loves me based on a pattern I've seen- my faith is born from patterns I can see and grows beyond what I can prove or disprove. If we reject and resent the patterns encompassed by rational deas, we have no groundwork from which faith can be built, so we cannot have faith.
When we know the truth
When we know the truth Michaella of How MUCH God Loves us. We can't reject him. No matter what anyone says. He is the soul and Spirit of our heart. And without Him we could not exist. How could one who knows this saving truth, lose that knowledge and understanding of How much God Loves us?
1 John 5:2 (Compare) "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments."
Acts 17:28-29 (Compare) "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device."
Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
Ephesians 1:5 (Compare) "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."
Galatians 1:4 (Compare) "Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father."
Galatians 3:26 (Compare) "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
Galatians 4:5-7 (Compare) "To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ."
Bless You and your son, Machaella. May God be you companion forever! Amen.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
colkoch and joer, As we
colkoch and joer,
As we discuss this, it might be that we are losing sight of why this is the topic. I tend to think that Pope Benedict XVI's comments on science and religion have an intended audience of people who are not in the choir, so to speak. I think he sees, correctly, that a lot of the choices people make in the developed world are the result of having a weak faith or no faith and that this is the result of their tendency to look to science for affirmation or negation of religious beliefs. One response to this "godlessness" was the intelligent design hyposthesis, but this was rejected by the Vatican because of its reliance on supposedly scientific evidence to affirm the existence of an intelligent designer.
I think you are right Marie,
I think you are right Marie, but I think this is where you and I are different. You wrote that you think Benedict sees that people are using science to affirm or negate religious beliefs. You're right, and I'm sure Benedict is terrified of that, because some of those religious beliefs people are using science to negate are the infallibility of the papacy, the literalness of the Bible, the sexual morality codes, and our fundamental understanding of natural law.
Where we differ is that I see these as particular issues of RELIGION and not Faith. Faith in God is alive and well in the West. Organized religion is not. The existence of God is not really under attack by science, in many cases scientists have been led back to a belief in God, by their own work. What is under attack are aspects of religions and their assumptions which presume to define God and man's relationship to God and to each other.
I can understand perfectly well why Benedict is trying to reassert the dominance of "religious thinking" over science. He has a very vested interest to do so.
But for me personally, the validation of quantum physics has totally deepened my understanding of Jesus and what he was about. I can't look at the photographs in Masaru Emoto's book The Hidden Messages in Water without thinking about Jesus and His insistence of the power of love.
But I also can't help but think about the damage being done by the Vatican with all the gay bashing, and the simultaneously orchestrated large video events designed to reassert Vatican religious authority. The effect of our intent on water crystals is a two way street. We CAN create chaotic toxic environments with our intent, that do have REAL consequences for real people.
Holy Pope Benedict is trying
Holy Pope Benedict is trying to show the Truth about Science, that it exists in relationship to God. In other words, God has created the conditions in which physical matter exists. The Universe is HIS Design. We are HIS Design. Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could.(Julie Andrews, the Sound of Music). Holy Pope Benedict has a vested interest because he happens to be in the BUISNESS OF SAVING SOULS.
I agree with you completely
I agree with you completely Anne, Benedict is in the BUSINESS of saving souls. Jesus was in the SERVICE of His Father and to his fellow men, and was not impressed with those of His time in the BUSINESS of saving souls.
Really Colkoch? Just so you
Really Colkoch?
Just so you know, from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary-
business-1:purposeful activity
2 a : role, function b : MISSION
Your statement is not consistent.
AnneD-I think you've taken
AnneD-I think you've taken Colcoch out of context. It's not about being consistent but a distinction made between "service" to God and His people vs. the "business" of religion in law like that of Jesus' day.
OK I'll make it more
OK I'll make it more consistent. The Roman Catholic church has accrued trillions of dollars in the purposeful activity of saving souls. Our bishops are driven around in limousines and live in mansions. Our pope sits on a golden throne in designer vestments.
Jesus engaged in the purposeful activity of saving souls and died penniless and naked.
I think it's perfectly consistent to define the Church as in the BUSINESS of saving souls, and Jesus in the SERVICE of saving souls.
I think it's perfectly
I think it's perfectly consistent to define the Church as in the BUSINESS of saving souls, and Jesus in the SERVICE of saving souls.
filim, I agree that your
filim,
I agree that your definition is consistent, yet imperfect! The Church is "in The BUSINESS," however not to "save souls," My soul is mine to save or lose! It matters not what the church would do to me! The Church is in the business of "collecting" souls! As voting blocks, consumer demographics, loyal contributers, tithers, and vocal supporters of "De Bidniz," and as controllable groups of warm bodies, souls are quite valuable! Once that soul has voted, consumed, contributed, Thithed, and supported, and is no longer controllable, it's all over!
The belief that Father Hoovengoober can and will save your soul is simply the Church's "stock in trade." Only you will save your soul and only God will decide that you have or have not done so! God, as and through His Son, Jesus, gave us that when we crucified and killed Him! "What God hath joined together on earth, let no man put asunder!" I know that and I believe that! Consequently I am of no further value to the Scowling Howlies!
God loves us all! And I'm trying!
James Edward
P.S. if $105 billion a year, doesn't constitute a "business," then Herr Ratzinger is not Catholic!
Teilhard De Chardin is on my
Teilhard De Chardin is on my list to read soon. Merton makes mention of him a lot. I don't understand why Merton has not been "welcomed with open arms" as you say, except that politics or prejudice, a lack of humility, often distorts one's sense of understanding of 'others' who are different than the mainstream. To read and appreciate Merton one has to enter into the silence that he is in. He is very forthright in saying that no one should take him on his every word or think just like him. He would say that you'd be cheating yourself if you did. In that regard, he has taught me freedom, the freedom to ask questions and converse with God, and others, with that interior freedom. What I appreciate best about him is his total honesty and in sharing his perspective.
I too agree that Benedict should bring together people in the scientific community, to especially try to resolve our dependence on fossil fuels. What's the hold-up? Rather than a meeting to discuss what is wrong, which could take forever, perhaps have a meeting to discuss what is right and in everyone's best interest at this time in history and going forward.
What do you suppose Benedict means by humanity reaching its fulfillment? In relationship to God one would have a different answer than someone who was not in right relationship with God? For example, the Fundamentalist's would say that humanity will reach its fulfillment by bringing on Armageddon. I know that is false, however, many a 'Christian' believes that to be true and they are working very hard to bring it on. They believe that Jesus Christ will come again after that Armageddon.
The theme that keeps returning here, at least for me, in science, politics, religion, is the sense that man may believe he has reached his fulfillment already. I know we have not, but what does Benedict have to say more about that fulfillment of humanity to the scientific community that will help us in politics and religion?
I am wondering about these things because I recognize the danger that we are in unless there are some serious changes to alleviate suffering in the world.
One more observation I would make is that at MIT they have been experimenting with energy using Einstein's theory about matter that is cold - to zero. We have it recorded and I have not watched the whole thing yet, but they are able to take particles of energy and slow them down, slower than the speed of light, and perhaps might one day be able to make the particles 'disappear.' The implications are many and are good and bad. The scientist are using quantuum mechanics. The 'good' would be to slow energy down long enough to actually create more energy, from less energy.
Thanks for your comment. I was starting to feel 'invisible.'
Butterfly, sometimes I think
Butterfly, sometimes I think those of us who post here might be very visible in places where we might not think we'd ever be visible. That would be one of the beauties of the internet.
There's a number of interesting alternative energy possibilities out there right now. I recently saw a UTUBE video of an inventor who has been able to get salt water to burn by bombarding it with specific radio waves. He was actually working on a treatment for cancer when he discovered he could get salt water to burn. Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM
I was struck with your question concerning Benedict's views on humanity reaching it's fulfillment. I certainly don't have a sense that he gives a great deal of credence to the Armageddon scenario. Spe Salvi couldn't have been written by someone with that pessimistic an attitude.
I freely admit that Benedict confuses me. His encyclicals seem to have an upbeat and positive feel for humanity, but then he turns around and seems to lose that positive feel when he gets confrontational over what are essentially highly specific issues. Civil unions threaten world peace? How in the world does he make that connection?
Sometimes I think he's walled off certain issues from the incredible light of the rest of his intellect. I always had a feel for where JPII stood on things, and how his logic permeated the totality of his thinking. I have very little feel for Benedict. He makes me feel like a Catholic yoyo.
Maybe that's his point, because he's certainly made me take a second, third and fourth look at what he's saying, or not saying. Personally I think his intellect tells him that humanity has a potentially bright future, but his heart tells him something totally different.
It seems to me that part of Jesus's message was to get your head and your heart on the same page. That seems to be a difficult thing to do in our contemporary society.
I think he is saying that
I think he is saying that there is less conflict between religion and science than is commonly believed and that the historical tug of war between the two comes from declaring things as scientifically at odds with relgion that science has not really determined to be true. Though we all understand that physically the earth travels around the sun, as do the other planets, this does not make the earth, and thus its human inhabitants, less significant than they thought they were when it was assumed that the sun, moon, other planets, and stars travelled around the earth.
For centuries the church was
For centuries the church was the source of education and consequentially science. What Benedict needs to say in this lecture is that he wishes to bring back those days by supporting education and financially supporting especially sciences that would lift men up. He has a group of advisors in these matters and he should seek more advisors [regardless of their religious affiliation]. Appointing the Princeton climatologist and global warming expert was a good move. Science is truth and that's what we seek. The misuse of the findings of science is the cause a milliofold more problems for society than the Gallileo episode caused for the church.
AnneD,Colkoch, All, I,
AnneD,Colkoch, All,
I, quite belatedly, come seeking answers.
Why should I really care what Ratzinger says or does? If he, and his predecessors were concerned with the salvation of souls, why then have they condemned so many to hellfire? He and the minions of "the church" offer to you and me the "gift" of our mortal souls! If I "give" someone something, and that something has no value or meaning to me, if I have no further use for that something, that is not a "gift"! You're taking out my garbage!
Anne! I agree! "Nothin' ain't worth nothin'...... But it's free!" Chris Christopherson, "Bobby Magee"! "Oz never gave nothin to the Tin Man, he didn't already have!" Can't remember, Prob'ly never knew! Benedict is in the "Soul Business" of a certainty! The corporate mission being not salvation, more obviously, the collection thereof! ie; "voting blocks", consumer demographics, power to wield the corporate sword! From my point of view, however myopic, the salvation of my soul is not the province of Der Ratzinger and he damned well knows it! My soul and the salvation thereof was "GIVEN" to me, by God!
God also gave to me the salvation of that soul through Jesus Christ, contingent on my presonal/private acceptance of that "GIFT"! I believe that, I understand that! (simple minds doncha know!) What, I pray you tell me, has Der Ratzinger to do with any of that? What has the Magesterium to do with that?
I realize that I sound like a card carrying, whacko, nutcase but I am sincerely seeking answers here. And maybe in my inherent arrogance, offering a different view. I think I'm right, but I will listen and I will consider.
God loves you all! And so do I!
James Edward