A Catholic View of Evolution and Darwinism; Part I - The Philosophical Background

I'm a theologian, not an historian.  In my last two entries i've tried to delve a bit into history in order to lay a foundation for this discussion; the apparent dichotomy between science and religion.  I've attempted to show how this idea grew out of the enlightenment and i've striven to demonstrate how the supposed examples of this conflict are mythical.  Today i would like to begin an examination of it in light of the modern debate on evolution.
      I'm not really interested in discussing evolution as a scientific theory.  That would be outside my pay grade.   Rather, i think this is an excellent time to discuss science in general: What is science?  How ought we to pursue science?  Why should we pursue science at all?  In part II i'll consider the four terms; evolution, Darwinism, creationism and intelligent design.  Specifically, their relation to Catholicism and the philosophical concepts which i'll discuss here.
      To begin we need to cover some philosophy.  Although not directly related to evolution, understanding these classifications will allow us to understand the difference between pre-enlightenment and post-enlightenment thought.  Ancient Greek thinkers discussed four causes, or preconditions for existence.  These correspond to the three major questions we have discussed in previous posts; what, how and why.
      The first cause is the efficient cause.  This is how the thing came to be, how it was created.  For example, i am the efficient cause of my computer.  I purchased the components, i drove all over St. Louis trying to find thermal paste at 11pm, i assembled the components, i tried to turn it on, i spent two hours trying to figure out what i had done wrong, i fixed it, turned it on and installed the software.  (Max helped)  What is the efficient cause of my computer?  How did it come into being?  I did it.
      The second cause is the material cause.  This is what the thing is made out of, what it is materially speaking.  Again, turning to my computer, at the most foundational level it is made of metal and plastic.  We could come up a few levels and say it is made of a case, and a motherboard, and a hard drive, and a processor, and a video card, and a power source and so on.  Or we could go to a middle level and talk about circuits and cables and screws.  Like the efficient cause, the material cause can be discussed in gradients of precision without any loss of truth.
      The third cause is the formal cause.  This is what the thing is by way of definition, what it is in its essence.  What makes my computer a computer?  What distinguishes it from a bench or a house?  Some people say this is purely subjective, that a thing is defined but what we choose to call it.  However, this is to confuse essence with name.  It doesn't matter if you call it a computer or una computadora or diàn nǎo, it remains the same thing.  It remains distinct from a bed or una cama or chuáng pù.  The human capacity to distinguish between different concepts and assign them names proves the existence of essence.
      The fourth and final cause is the final cause.  This is why the thing came to be, why it exists at all.  My computer exists to to do my bidding.  To access those web pages i would have it access, for me to write thrilling and insightful blog posts and schools papers in a legible format, to compute and store what i would have it compute and store.  The formal and final causes cannot be discussed in gradients of precision.  They can be elaborated on or more carefully explained, but they are what they are.  If you leave something off, at best, you have only a partial truth and if you add something unnecessary you have a falsehood.
      When we pursue the first two causes we engage in the natural or physical sciences.  We learn about them through experimentation and the scientific method.  They can be explored in greater or lesser detail depending on the needs of the situation.  The second two causes are the realm of theology and philosophy.  They are not subject to experimentation so they must be grasped through reason or revelation.  However, they are all science.  Although we often use the term "science" in reference to solely natural or physical science, the word simply means knowledge and applies to any method by which we pursue knowledge.  Thus, we have a distinction between the hard sciences and the soft sciences.  In the hard sciences, natural or physical science, we seek knowledge of a thing's matter and how to control it.  In the soft sciences, philosophy and theology, we seek knowledge of a thing's essence and purpose, that is, how it ought to be used. 
     Prior to the enlightenment the soft sciences ruled supreme.  The hard sciences were not ignored or forgotten, but they were generally only pursued to the extent they could illuminate the more important questions of purpose.  Some of the perpetrators of the enlightenment saw the soft sciences as unreliable and rejected them as not being true science.  They denounced essence and purpose as being imaginary and non-existent.  This lead to a new focus on the efficient and material causes as the only ones which can be known.  This mindset is known as metaphysical naturalism.  Although the denial of purpose inherent to metaphysical naturalism led to a degradation of the human person, most of the major modern genocides and the general suicide of western spiritual well being, i do have to acknowledge that naturalism in of itself does have a positive effect.  The knew recognition of the value of asking how also led to the discovery of anti-biotics, the computer, blogs, cars, airplanes, spaceships and universal indoor pluming.  I like these things very, very much.
      So here we can make a distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism.  Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophical worldview that denies essence and meaning and has been used to justify every atrocity you can name.  Although it claims to be "scientific" it actually impedes scientific progress because it rejects any thought which does not fall in line with its foundational assumptions.  It is bad, a scourge upon mankind, an evil to be feared and resisted to your dieing breadth.  Methodological naturalism is simply an assumption of consistency in experimentation.  It leads to all the scientific breakthroughs we know and love and i thoroughly endorse its usage.
      So, what does all this have to do with evolution?!?!
Well, come back next week and i'll tell you.

To Part II - >>

The Galileo Myth

Galileo, Galileo.  Everybody knows this story, right?  Scientist puts forth a revolutionary new concept that challenges the presuppositions of the religious elites and so they and silence him.  People love telling this story because it perfectly illustrates the close-minded, anti-scientific nature of the Catholic Church, or maybe even Christianity in general.  The fact that it isn't true is... inconsequential.
      I should clarify; Galileo did believe the earth revolves around the sun (heliocentrism) and he was tried by the inquisition for heresy, twice, and the second time found to be gravely suspect of it.  However, his heliocentric views were not really the reason for his trial.  There are plenty of people who have already explained what happened.  If you want in in-depth look at the history or theories in dispute, try Google or click here.  As I really don't like rehashing the same ground as everyone else, i'm going to try and take a slightly different approach.  I'm more interested in the theology and philosophy that got us into this mess in the first place, so i will try and discuss these.
      The Catholic Church has a strong dislike for schism and scandal.  At the time of Galileo this had grown into a blatant paranoia, largely due to the resent emergence of Protestantism.  This is understandable considering the 30 years of war and millions of casualties, on both side, which followed.  (However, in truth, this was more political than religious (i'll address it in a future post))  Although, as Christians we should be a little paranoid about these two things.  Schism is a break in the unity of the Church.  Christ's final request to the Father before His passion was that we would be one, that we would posses a true unity.  As the Church of Christ, we strive vigilantly to manifest that unity He prayed for.  To cause schism is to go in the completely wrong direction.
      To cause scandal is to cause another to stumble in their faith, to lead another away from Christ.  That is, away from the eternal joy of union with the Trinity and towards an eternal oblivion of despair.  Jesus says it is better that a man have a millstone tied around his neck and he be cast into the sea, than that he would cause scandal.  This is very serious.  Additionally, as a schism is a breaking with the Church, the ordinary means of coming to Christ, schism is a form of scandal.  When we discuss these, we are not discussing merely earthly affairs.  Schism and scandal can have eternal ramifications.  Under the Church's understanding of these things, they place people's immortal souls in jeopardy.
      This is my first premise; schism and scandal are very serious issues, the Church is completely justified in treating them as such.  At the time of Galileo the debate between geocentrists and heliocentrists was very heated.  There were scientists and theologians on both sides of the issue.  In fact, heliocentrism was the minority opinion among scientists.  Geocentric scientists and theologians felt very strongly about their position.  Heliocentric scientists and theologians felt very strongly about their position.  Within this debate Galileo emerged as a dominant and divisive figure.  (He was not nice to his opposition.)
      Galileo had a talent for angering his opponents and disenfranchising his friends.  The issue was not what he was saying so much as how he was saying it.  He was a brilliant scientist but politically, he was a moron.  He wanted to push his theory in political and theological circles as well as scientific ones.  Where ever the question could be raised, he was there raising it.  Eventually the Church told him to shut up.  They felt his tactics could cause scandal.  They were worried the debate had potential to give rise to schism.  In order to prevent this, they chose to embrace the majority scientific and theological position and suppress the dominate voice of the minority.  Again, this was done, not to refute a scientific position or define a theological concept, but solely to prevent those two great evils of scandal and schism.
      Imagine if you were in the military.  Your commanding officer gives you an order.  You would have to follow it, right?  Now, imagine if you disagreed with that order and you disobeyed.  What would happen?  It would not matter if you were right or wrong, you would be in trouble.  The Catholic Church is like the military.  As a Catholic i am under the authority of my superiors; primarily my priest and bishop.  If they tell me to do something i need to do it.  It was the same with Galileo.  The Church told him he was allowed to conjecture on heliocentrism but that he couldn't actively defend it.  (This is kinda like telling a five year old that he can play with a ball so long as he doesn't throw it.  There is nothing wrong with the ball, but if he throws it he might break something.)  So what happened?  Galileo decided to ignore them and threw the ball.. ah.. actively defend heliocentrism.  Consequence?  He got slapped down.  (There is nothing wrong with throwing balls, but i told you not to.  So now you are in time-out.) 
      It was felt that Galileo was causing schism and scandal.  His higher ups limited the means by which he could defend his position in order to stop this.  He didn't obey them and so he got in trouble.  If you study the history of the Church and contemplate the life of Galileo you will probably come to a few conclusions:  If he had avoided the political lime light rather than pursuing it, he probably would have been fine.  If he had limited himself to science, rather than defending his position in theological forums as well, he probably would have been fine.  If he had been willing to consider heliocentrism a theory, rather than definitively true, he probably would have been fine.  If he hadn't insulted and alienated all his politically powerful friends (like the Pope), that would have helped.  It seems as if Galileo was trying his absolute best to get himself excommunicated.  We should not be shocked that he almost succeeded.

(side note: Galileo believed the sun was at the center of the universe, so technically, he was wrong.)

      A few points in Summary:
-The Church never condemned heliocentrism as wrong, only as problematic.
-Galileo was not a pure scientist, he debated theology as well.
-Galileo did not get in trouble for being wrong, but rather for being disobedient.



(Edit: The sentence against Galileo was not an excommunication.  He was found gravely suspect of heresy, and sentenced to house arrest.)

The Enlightenment is a Lie

Basically, the enlightenment is a lie.  This is not to say it didn't happen, it did, but it was not very enlightening.  It's the idea of the enlightenment, casting off the shackles of faith and embracing reason; that's what never happened.  The enlightenment, like all heresy, is based off a false dichotomy.  In this case, faith verses reason.  It claims you can only have one, and then rejects faith as mere superstition.  It claims to champion truth but in actuality it brings only doubt.
      A dichotomy is a choice involving only two options.  It is an either/or statement with no alternatives.  There are real dichotomies; life and death, truth and falsehood, women...  But most of the time they are false. 
      A false dichotomy tries to present an either/or when in actuality there may be a third option or some middle ground.  I would say Protestantism presents a false dichotomy in contrasting faith and works, Catholicism responds with the correction; faith and works are really the same thing and they are both gifts of grace.  Marketing campaigns love to present a false dichotomy of spend less here or more somewhere else; how about I keep the car I have and not spend anything?  The enlightenment presents the false dichotomy of faith and reason.  It fails to recognize that these are not in opposition to each other.  How can truth conflict with truth?

       The entire idea of the enlightenment presupposes a conflict between faith and reason.  It claims that now man can be free of religion by embracing science, that before the enlightenment man hid from reason, behind a curtain of faith, but in the enlightenment that curtain is torn away and the light of truth is shown upon the earth. 
      In reality the enlightenment obscures.  It shifts the focus from the why onto the how.  As i discussed last week, there is nothing wrong with asking how, but it shouldn't distract from asking why.  The question of how can't give meaning or purpose.  In denying faith the enlightenment mindset goes to an unbelievable extreme, it denies the ultimate question of why altogether.  It says this is all there is and there ain't no more. 
      In the name of this falsehood man's eyes are blinded from all but the material, only the purely natural can be acknowledged.  Faith is not hostile to reason but the proponents of reason seem to be very hostile to faith.  Perhaps it is because faith claims to answer questions pure reason cannot and the principles of the enlightenment cannot acknowledge that possibility.
      If you challenge a proponent of the enlightenment and ask for examples of faith conflicting with reason, they have nothing.  They may bring up the myth of Galileo, that he was excommunicated for believing the earth revolves around the sun. (Although he was excommunicated, and he did support heliocentrism, it was not the direct cause of his excommunication.)
      Perhaps they will bring up evolution, a theory the Church has never condemned, which I happen to support, but which has many holes in it nevertheless.
      Perhaps we could respond with Nicolaus Copernicus, a devoted Catholic and Canon Lawyer who developed the heliocentric theory.  (He was not the first to propose it, but he expand it into a true scientific theory.)
      We could point to the modern university system, developed within the Catholic Church.
      To Brother Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian friar, who first developed the entire field of genetics!  His work was ignored for 72 years by the enlightened Darwinists because it ran contrary to their materialistic philosophy.
      To Father Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest, who developed the hypothesis of the primeval atom, which would later became known as the Big Bang theory.  Somewhat humorously, his theory was largely dismissed by the scientific elite as well, partially because of his religious background and partially because the enlightened materialist worldview runs at odds with the universe having a beginning.  (Perhaps because it implies a beginner.)

      Sometimes defenders of the enlightenment will try and paint Christianity or religion in general as violent and barbaric.  Some modern historians claim that Christianity has been responsible for 3 million deaths in the last two millennia.  I personally would contest this number as far too high, and every few years a new study comes out to prove me right and it drops.  However, lets go with this number, take them at their word.
      Now consider the French Revolution, which flowed directly from enlightenment principles and constitutes the first modern genocide.  Over a quarter-million faithful Catholics were massacred for being just that, faithful Catholics.  They refused to disavow their religion; namely, their allegiance to the Pope.
      These deaths, however, constitute less than one fifth of one percent of the total victims of the enlightenment.  When we reject a reason for our being, deny any value to life, and focus solely on how to reach our goals, morality drops away.  Any faith would find these number abhorrent, but in the name of reason...
   -  From Nazi's enlightened eugenics program - 26 million
   -  Under Mao's new enlightened China - 38 million
   -  Under Russia's enlightened communism - 62 million
   -  From other communist nations (Cambodia, North Korea, Vietnam, etc.) - 11 million
Not counting war, preventable famine or abortion, that's 137 million people.
(The worst killer of all, abortion - 1.5 billion deaths since World War II (But we can leave the Enlightenment out of that and just attribute it to man's inhumanity.))
      Even when we compare the high estimate for Christianity to the middle estimates for enlightenment philosophy, we get a number 45 times higher, in only one tenth the time. 

      It is truly ironic that this idea should be named Enlightenment.  Rather than ushering in an age of light it brought darkness, such that the true dark ages are not the time that came before, but rather every day since. 
      Perhaps one day the world will realize that reason alone is insufficient.  Reason, unfettered by faith, won't take us anywhere we want to go.

The Meaning and Purpose of Life

Why yes, in fact, i do know the meaning and purpose of life.  If you would like to know the meaning and purpose of life, all you need to do is send $100 to 1304...

Ok, never mind.

      You don't need to send me money.  I'll just tell you.  I usually fall far short of it, i'm trying, but it's hard.  You see, meaning is tied to purpose.  Everything has a purpose and the meaning of existence is to fulfill that purpose.  This may seem subtle, but i'll ellaborate.

      As humans, there are three big questions we tend to ask.  Most everything else is just a version of these.  Every answer we seek is the counterpart to one of them; What, How and Why.
      What is the most basic question of all?  What is the most basic question of all.  That's the answer, what.  The most basic question of all is, what.  What is this thing?  What is it called?  What is it made of?  What defines it?  You are a person, a human being.  You're made of carbon and water and a few grams of various other minerals, and something else.  It is this union of the something else to the material that defines you.  There are billions of people, but only one of you.  Each person is a union of body and soul, and this distinguishes us from everything else.  Angels have souls but no bodies.  Animals have bodies but no souls.  (They have temporal spirits, but that is very different.)
      Only human beings are made in the image and likeness of God.  This image is stamped on our souls, our souls are joined to our bodies and we are made the manifestation of God's power on earth.  (See post from last week.)  As human beings we are defined by the image we bare and this joining of conflicting elements.  As individuals, we are distinguished by our souls and the individual vocations to which each of us is called.  Your body could be duplicated and your memories downloaded into its brain; but you would still be distinct, you would still be different.  Your soul and your vocation, your calling, are unique to you.
      How!  This is the second question.  Science loves asking this question.  Although, it really only got popular with the enlightenment, when people lost sight of their priorities.  Understanding how something came to be and how it works can tell us how to control it.  Answering the question of how grants power, and science loves power.  This isn't true understanding, it falls short of answering the final question.  In Genesis we find an answer to the question of how.  It's an extremely simplified answer, but it is all we really need.  God did it.  We can push further and ask how God did it, and there is nothing wrong with this, but it is not particularly important.  In order to move on to the final question, all we need to know is that God did it.  Pushing further into the how must not distract us from the why.
      Why did God do it?  Why am i here?  The why informs purpose.  Darwinism, materialism, modern enlightenment thinking says there is no real reason.  It was just random chance, happenstance.  Just the natural result of causality, like the rain or the sunshine.  The only purpose is to exist, and then you die.  Yea...
      Jesus gives a better answer.  In fact, He shows us.  As He suffers and as He dies, He proclaims the very purpose of our lives.  Two-thousand years ago, upon a cross, God gave Himself for us and He now gives Himself to us every day in the Eucharist.  Through Scripture and Tradition , He tells us to do likewise.

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another as I have loved you.

(John 13:34) 

      We were not placed here to pursue just any-old-good for ourselves, we were placed here to pursue the good of others.  When we imitate Christ, and give ourselves for the good of the world we discover our true purpose, the very meaning of our lives.  This is the greatest good we could ever hope to procure.
      We were placed here to love as Christ loved.  To love the old man across the street.  To love the single mother we pass in the store.  To love the unborn child, waiting to be born.
      We love others when we place their needs before our own.  When we desire what is best for them and pursue it without concern for ourselves.  When we accept, from God, a "new heart" which "will make it possible to appreciate and acheive the deepest and most authentic meaning of life: namely, that of being a gift which is fully realized in the giving of self." (Blessed Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 49 [emphasis in original])


      I fail in this on a daily basis.  But occasionally i succeed, and every time i do i rediscover its truth.  I cannot prove my claim philosophically, but it is easy to demonstrate.  Find an opportunity to love someone who has no chance to reciprocate.  Take a leap of faith, you won't regret it.
      True happiness is this, to love abundantly, with no concern for your own happiness.

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

 (John 6:52-58)

In the Image of God

Why is there is so much pain and suffering in the world?  If God really loves us why is it that 16,000 children die every day from starvation?  Why do there have to be rapists and murders and politicians?  If God is all loving and all powerful why did he let it get this bad?
      Do you want to know the answer?  You might not like it.  Its pretty simple really; the world is screwed up because you suck at life.  Basically, you suck at being a person.
      I'm sorry for being so blunt.  I would have preferred a more refined way of expressing this concept, but i lack the literary eloquence necessary to achieve that particular feat.  At mass we say, "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault"; mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa.  Every child who goes hungry tonight, every family with no roof over their heads, every school that can't afford text books.  If you want to know where to lay the blame, look no further than the nearest mirror.  Every time you come upon an evil and fail to act, due to laziness or selfishness or being "only human", that's you failing at life. 

      A lot of ink has been spilled considering that line in Genesis.   That we were made in the image and likeness of God.  What does it mean?  Does it means what some ancient heretics claim, that God has a body and we look like Him?  (roll eyes here please)  Maybe it has to do with our intellect?  Our ability to choose?
      As my old youth pastor used to say, context is king.  So let's look at the context.  Specifically the cultural context.  We believe the book of Genesis was written by Moses, some time in the 40 years Israel spent wandering in the desert.  Immediately preceding this development they had spent 215 years living in Egypt; learning about Egyptian culture and custom.  The author himself grew up in the court of Pharaoh, he would have been trained extensively in Egyptian theology. (How about that?) 
      Did Egyptians have any beliefs that seem to mirror this passage?  They had statues, images of their gods, made in the likeness of their gods.  (Connection?)  Those statues didn't simply represent their gods, but rather they believed a god's power was manifested through their statues.  Does this sound familiar?  Its sacramental theology!  We have it in the Catholic Church.  A lot of Protestants follow a form of it.  (Not so much Zwinglians, but they're blatant heretics, we can just ignore them.)
      For people recently concluding a two century long stay in Egypt and especially for Moses, the meaning of this passage would seem obvious.  To be made in something's image and likeness is to bare its sacramental presence, to manifest its power in the world.  We are made in the image of God so that we might be the means of God working in the world, that God might work through us.
      Does the passage support this?   The verse says we are made in God's image "so that [we] may rule".  That seems to fit doesn't it?  That we are given power so that we can rule?  Seems to me power would help with ruling.
      How about other places in scripture?  Do we see this elsewhere in the Bible?  Maybe Moses?  Moses didn't bring the Israelites out of captivity, Moses didn't part the Red Sea.  God did those things through Moses.  This is how sacramental imaging works.  God could do things without human interference, but He chooses to work through a man.
      We see this in the natural world as well.  Consider a man and a woman, they join together in that ultimate act of union, and nine months later a new person emerges into the world!  How incredible is that!  Did they make that person, give it its humanity, its soul, its very existence?  Creation, new life; that is the domain of God, and yet He works through this couple to manifest that most awesome power.
      If you'll permit me to be Catholic for a moment.  In the mass, when the priest elevates the host, the bread and wine, he speaks the words of consecration and the voice of Christ echos in the world once more.  This is my body, this is my blood.  No longer bread and wine, but rather true body and true blood.  This is not the power of a mere human priest.  This is the power of God being manifest through the priest.  (Please note: Not by the priest but rather through the priest. This is an important distinction.)

      It seems to me, if our power is derived from being made in the likeness of God, then we aught to wield that power in accord with the image.  That is, our authority is not just any authority, it is an authority we are called to use in bringing about God's will.  Christ says we should love one another as He loved us.  That's a tall order, but that is what we were made for.  We were made to manifest God's power in pursuit of love.
      The world is our domain!  God gave it to us.  He could act in it without our permission, but generally that is not how He works.  Getting mad at God because the world isn't perfect is like getting mad at your parents when your room is messy.  We are the ordinary means of God working in the world.  We are His hands in this place.  When it comes down to it, we caused the problems, God expects us to fix them. 

Moms, Children and Covenant

At some point i'll need to write a special post just for dads, but this one is dedicated to moms.  To understand the idea of motherhood you have to understand something about kids.  Now, to understand kids you need to understand some sacramental theology and the concept of a covenant. For those of you already versed in these notions, i'll try to be brief.
      Sacramental theology states that the sign or image of a thing makes that thing sacramentally present.  A non-circular definition would be; the power of a thing being manifested through its image.  For example, a picture of a loved one.  Why do we keep these images around?  When we look at a picture of a loved one it inspires the same feelings the person's actual presence would. (Although, generally to a lesser degree.)  Another example; looking a picture of a turkey dinner can make you hungry for a turkey dinner.  These are naturalistic examples, but they express the point.  Viewing the image of a thing impacts us and renders us more receptive to it.
      We can now apply this idea to something spiritual.  Through the cleansing waters of baptism, through that image, the cleansing power of God is sacramentally manifested and the one being baptized is truly cleansed of their sins.  As the initiate passes through the waters of baptism, so to does God's grace.  SACRAMENTALLY!  It's not us wielding power over God, it's God using the sacraments to work in us.  His grace is already present, the sacrament enables us to receive it.
      Now we need to examine covenant.  A covenant is easy, it's a sacred family bond.  A lot of people think of it as a synonym for contract, but that is very wrong.  I have a contract with my business associates.  If we decide to end it, we can get out.  If one of us fails in their side of the deal, the other is freed of their own obligations.  A covenant is what i have with my mom and dad and sister, and someday with my wife and children.  There is no getting out of a covenant.  No matter how badly i may fail in my own covenantal obligations to my parents, they remain obligated to love me as their son.  Even if my children should disown me and spit upon my grave, i would remain their father and obligated to love them.
     Marriage is not a contract.  There is no such thing as the "marriage contract".  Its the marriage covenant.  The man and woman pledge to love and honor one another until death; and because this is a covenant they have to, irregardless of how they feel about it.  True love is a choice to place the other person's needs before your own.  In the matrimonial covenant i am called to do this for my wife even when she fails utterly to do it for me.  Prostitution involves a contract, marriage is a covenant.
      Now, for the Kids!  Remember, we talked about words and act in a previous post?  In the wedding ceremony the couple give words to this new covenant they are forming.  Some time latter, usually that very night, they give act to those words.  They enter into the act which completes the words, and this dualism of words and act give the full sign of their marital union.
      Now, there is a possibility that through this act a new sign of their covenant is called into being.  Their covenant is incarnated in the form of a child and for nine months that child dwells within its mother.  So that mother bares within her the sign of her matrimonial covenant.  Do you know what we call something that caries the sign of a covenant within it?  Its call an arc!  This mom is the arc of the covenant she holds with her husband!  She is a tabernacle, a sanctuary from which new life flows forth.
      Do you recall how the Israelites felt about the arc of their covenant?  God would strike you dead for touching the thing.  Today, for Jews, the holiest spot in the world is the western wall, because it is the closest they can get to the spot where The Arc of The Covenant was placed, The Holy of Holies, where God dwelt.
       The Catholic mass is divided into two parts.  First is the liturgy of the word, where scripture is read, the gospel is proclaimed, the New Covenant is given words.  In the second half we celebrate the Eucharist.  The liturgy of the act, in which the true body and blood of Christ is brought forth, under the image of bread and wine.  The sign of the New Covenant.  After communion, the remaining host is placed in a small box, called the tabernacle, often adorned in Gold and surrounded in polished marble, carved with images of angles and saints.  A veil is placed over the door.
      In traditional Catholic circles women often wear veils in church. This is not merely cultural, it shows the connection between the women and the tabernacle.  That every woman, mother or not, has within her the potential to be a tabernacle.  The veil does not hide her beauty, so much as adorn her.  It declares that she is sacred, an image of the ultimate tabernacle in heaven, and a terrestrial tabernacle herself.

      A little Mary talk before i close.  For all Christians, Jesus is the sign of the New Covenant.  It is through the New Covenant that we are forgiven our sins, that we are given access to heaven, that the Kingdom of God is made known.  It was through the womb of Mary that He came into the world.  She bore the ultimate sign, God incarnate.  You want to know why Catholics hold Mary in such high esteem?  She is the Arc of the New Covenant.
      Every child conceived within wedlock is a sign of that marital covenant.  They point to the love two people shared for one another.  They are the manifestation of that love, and manifest its power wherever they go.  The mothers of these children are the arcs of that covenant, the tabernacles of their families. 
      Just as Mary is the heavenly tabernacle of the universal Church, so is mom to her family.

 Behold your Mother.

John 19:27

Why I'm Still Vegetarian

I decided to be vegetarian a long time ago.  I was maybe 10 years old and heard of the health benefits being a vegetarian offered.  Although this got my attention, it was really the vegetarian ideals of freedom and equality that pulled me in.  I appreciated their opposition to animal cruelty, their work in the public sphere to raise awareness, their work in animal shelters and clinics around the country, seeking to lessen the hardships faced by our furry companions.  My mom and i discussed all of this and eventually decided to commit, to become vegetarians ourselves.
      After being vegetarian for about a month i realized we didn't completely agree with all of their ideas.  I can stand with them when they oppose eating dogs or cats or guinea pigs (after all, they're cute a furry).  I am totally in line with not hunting purely for sport.  But they wanted me to stop eating beef and chicken and pork.  How idiotic is that?  They wanted me to stop eating cheeseburgers and bacon and cheeseburgers with bacon?!?!  Who did these stuck-up numbskulls think they were?  Telling me to give up all animal products!
      Some of my so-called-friends looked down on me, said i wasn't really a vegetarian, just cause i didn't want to be a herbivore like them.  I felt angry, i felt betrayed.  They were taking my beloved vegetarianism and turning it into a political weapon.  This was not the vegetarianism of my youth.  It seemed they had rejected those principles of freedom, equality and acceptance of others, which had first drawn me in.  They had turned vegetarianism into simply opposing meat.  They had forgotten our roots in social justice and made it political.
      At times, i've wondered if i really want to be a vegetarian, given the backwards views of so many of my piers; their small-minded refusal to recognize omnivore and carnivore rights, their radical opposition to meat consumption even in instances of steak.  Can i really be part of a group that is so stuck in its old fashioned ideas, so unwilling to move into the twenty first century?
      Despite this, i remain a vegetarian.  I love my vegetarianism, and it is my vegetarian ideals of freedom and equality that lead me to support the freedom of every person to eat what they desire and the equality of all people regardless of dietary preferences.  It took me a little while, but eventually i realized, we’re not going to agree about everything, and that’s OK.  If eating meat annoys some of the vegetarian elites, fine.  Their hateful intolerance of my carnivorous ways will not deter me.  I am every bit as vegetarian as they are.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Interpretation;
       You don't have to be Catholic if you don't want to be, but you should be honest with yourself.  Just as a meat eating vegetarian has some strange ideas concerning vegetarianism, so too do some Catholics about Catholicism.  This is a work of satire.  It is not directed as vegetarians, who have no reason to be offended.  There are however many so-called-Catholics who do have cause to be offended.  Namely, "Catholics" who deny the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.  To be a Catholic is to uphold all those things the Church proclaims.
      As this blog continues i will do my best to explain just what those things are and why our Holy Mother Church believes in them.  To deny them does not make you a bad person, but it does kinda disqualify you from the title of Catholic.