On Filial Submission to the Roman Pontiff

Contra: The Charge of Ultramontansim

Why is it that papal critics rashly jump to the accusation of ultramontanism if you defend the pope against their criticism?

How many times have I been told, "you know, the Pope is not infallible in _everything_ he says?" I'm like, "duh. Yes, I know that. Say hello to my little friend, Mr. Straw Man. You two seem to know each other already."

Saying that we should receive papal teaching, whether infallible or not, from a standpoint of filial submission is not, I believe, ultramontane. Saying that we should presume the most generous interpretation that is in accord with Tradition is not, I think, ultramontane.

Can you believe Pope Francis wrote this?? "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: 'He who heareth you, heareth me' ... if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians [or random laity on the internet]."

Oh wait, he didn't. That was Pope Piux XII in Humani Generis, 20.

Baltimore Catechism
148. Did Christ intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire Church should be exercised by Saint Peter alone?

Christ did not intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire Church should be exercised by Saint Peter alone, but intended that this power should be passed down to his successor, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the visible head of the Church.

Code of Canon Law
Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it. (my emphasis)


One could go on. Our Tradition is firmly in the camp of preferring filial submission to the Pope. The fact that the Pope, when not speaking ex cathedra, _can_ be wrong does not change this basic posture or give one license to unrestrainedly level public criticisms and suggestions or outright claims of promoting heresy.

Our response, when the Pope teaches something that challenges our own understanding of faith and morals, should be to question our own understanding rather than the Holy Father's. It should be to generously try to interpret what the Holy Father is teaching within the context of Tradition.

It should not be to rattle off an anxious and accusatory article or blog post, start blabbing about our concerns and criticisms all over the internet, start demanding "clarification," creating "open letters" and collecting signatories, and so on. Posting "public theses" on the "door" of the internet is a distinctly Protestant act, not Catholic.

And so I think those who are inclined to do such need to be much more reticent: more reticent in their criticisms of the hierarchy--especially the pope; more reticent in how they choose to criticize (i.e., using proper ecclesiastical channels if there is real concern, rather than the internet), and more reticent in their completely unjustifiable accusations of ultramontanism when they are challenged for such behavior.

The Myth of Science vs. Faith

"Right here we have the major lie at the heart of modern anti-religious scientific propaganda: the war between faith and science." (see and also this for more on the historical facts about Bruno)

Yup. That about sums it up. It's a real shame, too, because I love science, and especially as it pertains to cosmology, and I really wanted to enjoy the obviously well-produced Cosmos. Plus, I like many others it seems have an odd fondness for Neil deGrasse Tyson, so it pains me to see him promote rubbish. :-/

It's high time we are done with the myth that religion is antithetical and antagonistic to science. It's time the Galileo type mythology be laid to rest and the actual history be rooted in its historical context, where it belongs. Even if you refuse to accept the historical facts and to take the time to understand the historical context around the cases like Galileo, you can't refute that these things happened 3-400 years ago. Talk about beating a long-dead horse..

The reality is that "religion" (a broad term indeed, and hard to generalize about) is not inherently antithetical to science, and specifically, Catholics and the Catholic Church are pro science. And it is because of our religious beliefs that we are pro science, not in spite of them. God is the very foundation of truth, of reality, and science is a way for us to discover and understand more about this reality, which again, is ultimately rooted in God.

Science and faith are two, complementary paths to discover truths about this reality we find ourselves living in. They work together and can only ever be complementary when understood with clarity and honesty--because they both illumine the truth.

One of my own patrons, St. Albert the Great, was a well known natural scientist in his time (the 1200s), and the historical facts are that many, many scientists (among them some of the most notable) were Catholic (and are today), including many priests and vowed religious. Ask yourself how it could be that there are and have been so many faithful scientists if faith and science were so incompatible as some would have you believe.

It is a historical fact that the very idea of the university came out of Christendom, at the very height of medieval, Christian, Catholic culture. That's right, those supposed "dark ages" brought about the birth of the university, of hospitals, and of most of the notions that imbue our current conceptions of the "common good." Even the so-called "Enlightenment" came out of this "dark" Christian past, and it wasn't in spite of it but because of it. The notion of "progress" itself, of a dogged pursuit of self-improvement towards an ideal of perfection--that, too, is a fundamentally Christian notion.

Furthermore, our contemporary notion of natural science as a pursuit in itself also has its Christian roots. It is a fact that the scientific method was formalized and popularized in the West by a Catholic bishop (Grosseteste) and a Franciscan friar (Bacon). None of this is to imply (obviously I hope) that the practice of science is inherently dependent upon Christianity; the point here is to simply recognize that historically science grew from Christian roots (remembering that this is contra the myth that the two are somehow antagonistic).

It is also a historical fact that the proposer of the Big Bang theory that laid the groundwork for a lot of modern cosmology was a Catholic priest (Lemaître). It is a historical fact that the father of modern genetics was a Catholic monk (Mendel). The list goes on and on.

It is a historical fact that many popes have made pro-science pronouncements and sponsored, supported, and established many scientific institutions. It is a historical fact that our official, most authoritative doctrinal documents are pro-science (e.g., the Catechism).

Despite the overwhelming weight of historical and doctrinal evidence, many atheists and even some theists continue to foster the delusion that faith and science are incompatible. This is either inexcusable ignorance or dishonest malice. There is no good, honest reason to perpetuate this myth. If you up to this point believe this myth, please educate yourself.

Surely we do have enough real disagreements to sort out without manufacturing and perpetuating patently false ones.. let me suggest something--the core issues that drive our real disagreements and is the true driver behind a lot of this myth and its popularity. It is twofold: 1) the relative value and trustworthiness of knowledge that comes from faith versus the knowledge that comes from science/reason and 2) the propriety of constraining scientific inquiry.

It is my hope to cover these two topics in upcoming posts. Stay tuned. ;)

Speak the Truth--In "Love" -> Barf

The next time I hear a Christian tell me, "we need to speak the Truth--in Love," I may just barf up all over them. Puh-lease. I mean, Really?!? 

You see, it's not that the concept of speaking the truth is abhorrent, nor that loving others is. (Duh.) It's not even that sometimes, yes, you do have to tell someone something unpleasant for their own good.

The problem is that all too often this "love" is just a pretense. It is just a sham, a get out of jail free card. It is an excuse to make said Christian feel justified in taking others to task for their wrongdoing. Not only that, it is a habit that is easy to learn, and there are support groups for it that also pretend to be doing some great good (i.e., orgs that make it their mission to be perpetually outraged watchdogs). It is pervasive and pernicious.

Let's see.. what would Jesus say?

Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.

If your idea of "evangelizing" is to point out what people in society are doing wrong, to denounce and decry loudly from the street corners that they are doomed, you're doing it wrong.

We should be very, very reluctant to take others to task for what they are doing wrong because it almost surely means we are not looking at what we are doing wrong. And what makes it worse is that in overlooking our own faults, we fall into the even greater fault of spiritual pride and, quite possibly, begin to despise them. Heck, I am probably screwing up by just writing this post; I almost deleted it. See? It's a dangerous business..

If we truly want to love others, we need to first and foremost encourage them and celebrate the good that they do and then to have sorrow and compassion with them in their failings and difficulties, reassuring them that we're all in the same boat, that all of us need the grace of God, and that this grace is a freely given gift.

Read that last bit again. It's the pie slicer for our humble pie. Internalize it. This prayer by St. Thomas Aquinas is pretty good way to do it--pray it daily (excerpt):

My most holy Lady,

          I also beseech you to obtain for me

               true obedience and true humility of heart

So that I may recognize myself truly

          as a sinner--wretched and weak--

     and powerless,

               without the grace and help of my Creator

               and without your holy prayers,

          to do any kind of good work

          or even to resist

               the unrelenting assaults of evil.

...

Obtain for me as well,

     O most sweet Lady,

          true charity with which

               from the depths of my heart

          I may love

               your most holy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,

               and, after Him,

          love you above all other things,

          and love my neighbor

               in God and because of God.

Thereby may I 

          rejoice in his goodness,

          sorrow over his evils,

          despise no one,

          never judge rashly,

          and never in my heart exalt myself over anyone.

Pray. Try. Remember. When you fail, try again.

The Price of a Free Society

When some people complained about the costs to the public that the Occupy Wall Street protesters incurred, their defenders were very quick to say that such is the price of a free society. As much as I thought the OWS folks were a bunch of deadbeats and were wasting our money, I had to agree with that.

But those same people, on that side of the ideological spectrum, regularly act to limit the freedom of those with whom they disagree with. A few examples:

• Injuries caused to cyclists, it is said, incur some costs to the public, so they create legislation to force people to wear helmets.  
• Sugary drinks, they believe, are evil and a cause of the so-called obesity epidemic, so they have no qualms forcing people through regulation to drink less. Or they try to control what parents send with their kids to eat at lunch.
• They believe that violence is caused by video games, so they want to ban those.
• Guns are used in some violent crimes, and despite the fact that Americans have a specifically Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear them, they rave and rant irrationally about banning them and create ridiculous categories based on the way the gun looks to ban them.

This list could go on and on and on.

So where is the reciprocal understanding that there is a cost to a free society? 

Oh I get it, when they agree with the exercise of freedom, it's okay, and it's "the price of a free society," but if they think they know better or just plain disagree with exercise of a particular freedom, then screw that, they'll force people to do what you want.

Ah.. if only everyone were so "liberal."

UPDATE (14 March 2013): Interesting, related piece on the new theocracy in America.

Sugar: The New Dietary Bogeyman

When I was growing up, the big thing was low fat. Fat is bad. Fat is evil. Blah blah blah. Low fat products proliferated; the gummit food pyramid told us to eat the least of these. Until they figured out that, guess what, fat isn't so bad after all. It's really not. Really. In fact, it's really quite good for you.

Along with that was the cholesterol myth. Low cholesterol foods that were "heart healthy" were branded. Pharmaceuticals manufactured drugs to suppress it and got super rich from it. Now we know it is a myth based on bad science. And yet people are still being prescribed this garbage.

In both cases, the gummit took the bad science and ran with it, thanks in large part to the "guy from CSPI!"

Now the new bogeyman is sugar. Carbs in general, but especially sugar. So the dictator of New York, Herr Bloomberg, has arbitrarily banned certain measures of sugary drinks. It makes no sense, even assuming the science is right this time.

The problem is the gummit dumbs down science (good or bad) and either uses fear tactics or worse--regulation. Sugar is in many foods and drinks. Our bodies need sugar. As far as I can tell, the science behind limiting carb intake seems solid, but it's just not that simple. We should care about things like glycemic index, not just run in fear from a bag of sugar.

How about this. Instead of vilifying fruit drinks and cola and sugar in general (or cholesterol or fat), how about we help folks learn about a healthy, balanced diet? Then they can make informed decisions like mature adults on their own. If they want to have a Coke or a white chocolate mocha, or glass of OJ, that's fine.

And for all that is good in the world, keep the gummit out of it.

P.S. No one thinks that drinking a ton of cola is healthy. No one. Pretending that all this hullaballoo is somehow educating some imagined ignorant unwashed masses is just ignorant, misguided, wrong, and a complete waste of time, effort, and money.

The Church is Doing It Wrong

One of the things you learn in learning to design professionally is that often how you frame the problem is as important as trying to solve the problem. Case in point. And lest anyone think this is a strictly Catholic problem.

What am I saying? I'm saying that framing the problem as "how can we grow the Church?" is doing it wrong, that framing it as "what can we do to keep people from leaving" is doing it wrong, and that examining polls about what people think about the Church and using that to inform what we do is doing it wrong.

What do you get when you frame it this way? You get anxious wringing of hands. You get "programs" and "initiatives." You get more fish fries, carnivals, spaghetti dinners, and pancake breakfasts. You get a watering down of doctrine on both faith and morals, homilies that are nothing more than banal, earthy moralisms. You get artificial attempts at being hip and relevant that those who are hip find repulsive and irrelevant. In short, you get everything but the Gospel.

So how should we frame the problem? The answer is in the name of the popular term "new evangelization." No, it's not the "new" part ("renewed" would be more apropos in this context); it's the "evangelization" part. The way to frame the problem is "how can we best share the Good News?"

And the answer is the same today as it was for the Apostles. First, we must ourselves repent and believe. Second, avail ourselves of the sacraments. Third, go out into all the world. In other words, authentically follow Christ and show others how to do the same.

Parishes should be focusing on how they can best celebrate the sacraments. Parish priests should ask themselves, "How can I celebrate the Eucharist fully faithfully, authentically, in the richest way possible?" The answer is not to get creative or worry about incorporating pop music or other profane activities (I'm looking at you, Austria). On the contrary, work to restore a sense of the sacred, transcendent, otherness; treat it as if we were truly encountering God because, ya know, we are. Foster Eucharistic Adoration.

Ask, "How can I make confession more convenient for my parishioners?" Show them how important it is by making it a crucial, daily part of parish life, not a Saturday afterthought. If you're in the confessional and nobody comes--that's okay. Take that time to pray. It's a win either way, but people will come.

Ask, "How can I teach the faith more authentically in my homilies?" Preaching should challenge people to grow in the faith, not be complacent in it. It should equip parishioners to direct their own lives towards God and also to be able to explain it to others. It's okay if they don't get it all right away.

Ask, "How can I ensure parishioners are prepared for the other sacraments?" Marriage--be strict; be faithful. Don't smooth over the harder teachings; you're not doing anybody any favors by doing that. Baptism--teach what baptism really is all about; reinforce how important it is to do it ASAP, not when Aunt Bertha can make it in six months later. Ditch the feel-good 80s infomovies. First communion and confirmation: for the love of all that is holy, make religious education free. And on that subject, make sure your teachers are orthodox. Challenge the kids, too. Again, it's okay if they don't get it all right away--mystery is a good thing. Treat these things seriously, like they are real means of grace and not social events.

People--complacent, lukewarm people--are going to be bothered by this. "But Father..." will be heard a lot. People may even threaten to leave. And then do it. That's OK. They did that to Jesus as well. The Gospel is not a popularity contest. It is not a way to reassure everyone that they're okay and good being however they want to be. It is demanding. It is the narrow way.

So all these suggestions are related to steps one and two--getting the house in order. Out of this will grow, quite naturally and authentically, evangelism, that is, the apostolate of the laity. Educate the laity in their responsibility for evangelization; think about how to better equip them (e.g., apologetics courses, Bible studies, and evangelism practice) and support them in it.

I'm not saying that priests don't think about these things. I'm not pretending any of this is novel (quite the contrary). But there does seem to be a kind of forgetting, or maybe a thinking as if this is somehow not enough. And so the focus shifts off the essentials and onto all these other attempts at "keeping" people and "growing" the church, instead of keeping a firm hold on Christ and growing the faith.

I think most priests know they need to do this, but they're held back. Maybe they're afraid of offending their parishioners. Maybe they recognize what a sea change in parish culture this would be. Maybe they're just intimidated by the effort it implies. That's why those of us parishioners who understand this is the way things need to be should encourage and support our pastors in these efforts. But it needs doing regardless.

Not so Turbo Taxes

You know.. you pay a service that says they take care of everything for you.  And then you get a letter from the IRS saying, no, bucko, we need this form that your service claimed you don't need. So you fill it out, not sure 90% of the time if you're doing it right, then you find, yep, you didn't need it. But you still have to send it in.  Now, if the service (cough, TurboTax) just would have sent it in just to be on the safe side, you wouldn't have had this trouble.  Grrr..

More or Less Gun Control

Predictably, after the latest school shooting tragedy, the gun control advocates, and the gun freedom advocates, are all up in arms, no pun intended. It's kind of pathetic watching it, actually. Each side thinks that more or less gun control is the solution to preventing these kinds of random acts of violence. What each conveniently ignores is that the source of such egregious acts of violence is not guns.

Then you have the mental health and anti-bullying advocates jumping into the fray. Clearly the perpetrators of these crimes are mentally disturbed, so the solution is for everyone to be more sensitive to and aware of such mental illness, to create better psychological safety nets. If only the person were more accepted by society, he wouldn't have done it. Or so it goes.

And then you have people like me who, predictably, point out the obvious. That if these folks had a correct and hearty respect for human life, they wouldn't do this, even if they did feel picked on/rejected by society, even if they had the whole of the U.S. military's weapons at their disposal.

Framing the problem around the proliferation of guns is so naively simplistic that it's amazing that otherwise intelligent people engage in it. I don't care what philosophical or ideological background you're coming from, or what terms you want to use. The undeniable fact is that having a firm moral foundation that must include respect for the first, fundamental, and most inviolable of rights--the right to and dignity of all human life--necessarily precludes such malevolent violations of that right.

The conversation we need to be having is how can we, as a society, better instill that foundation in our society. Period.

If you don't believe in God, fine. If you do, fine. We can debate that separately, but we need to agree on this fundamental right, and we need to make it a priority to instill, foster, and proliferate a healthy respect for it.  If there ever was an inconvenient truth, it's that we are miserably failing to foster such a moral foundation in our society.

More gun control does nothing towards that. Nada. Zilch. Zero. It's like someone with a runny nose stuffing more and more and more tissue up his nose. He'll still feel miserable, still be sick, and the snot will just run down his throat instead. And more counseling is like taking an antihistamine; it helps better, but it still isn't a cure (and it may lead to drowsiness). Less gun control is like saying you don't need anything to treat it at all; that it's natural and healthy for you to be snotting all over the place.

We do have gun control today, despite frenetic claims to the contrary, quite a lot of it, in fact. As a society we have an amazing, historically speaking, sensitivity to and awareness of psychological illness (some might say too much, that we're almost psychological hypochondriacs). These measures, I would say, do help some. But they only go so far, and there is a point at which they become counterproductive and even harmful. Sore throats are arguably worse than a runny nose, as is overdosing on antihistamines.

If we allow ourselves, in response to this latest tragedy, to indulge yet again in arguing about gun control or mental health, we'll miss yet another opportunity for serious, important moral introspection as a society. Facilely saying "if he didn't have a gun, it wouldn't have happened" or "if only all the teachers were packing, it wouldn't have happened (or been as bad)," are two sides to the same coin. They are both, in theory, true. And they both, in reality, miss the point.

Give It a Rest

In comments on my musing on conservatism and ignorance, one anonymous poster (one of my atheist fans, I think :) ) goes to town on me. I might have ignored it, but I gotta do my post for the day. ;-)

First, simply incorrect assertions:

• That I said Krauss is a journalist. -  This is minor, but I didn't. I can read, and I saw he is an academic. However, he was writing an opinion in a periodical, and I did lump him in with journalists because they are comparable in the ways I was speaking of, and he gets fairly lumped in by writing his oped in a periodical just like the journalists.
• That I'm doing insufficient fact checking. - I am not sure what is expected on this point. I simply responded to the evidence offered by Krauss and took him to task on it. I called Krauss on the evidence he offered. If Krauss was relying on other evidence for his assertions, he should have shared it. He did not. I can't possibly keep up with every quote that, for example, Rick Santorum has given the media; neither can Krauss. But he offered links to supposed evidence for his outlandish claims, and his evidence did not support his claims. That is what I was criticizing.
• That I am arrogantly calling others arrogant. - I don't see it, and no evidence was offered for this critique of me. The commenter used the word arrogant more than I did. Here's where a form of the word appeared in what I said: "The problem is that too many educated people end up forgetting those skills and instead just assume that prevailing liberal ideology is de facto more reasoned and less ignorant, which leaves them in the same ignorance and arrogance that they deplore in conservatives, blindly following the opinions of their peers."
  
  How is this arrogantly calling others arrogant? I'm talking about some segment of "educated people" who 1) assume that their ideology is de facto more reasoned and 2) blindly follow the opinions of their peers, all the while 3) deploring the supposed arrogance and ignorance of their ideological opponents.  Wouldn't you agree that doing 1-3 would imply arrogance and, indeed, ignorance? You can insert name of ideology, and it is equally arrogant. How is it arrogant to say this? I don't get it.  

Next, the commenter takes me to task for defending Santorum's remarks on evolution. Let's look at the facts at hand. 

Krauss accuses Santorum of saying that "evolution... has no firm basis in fact." I called him on it because in the evidence Krauss himself provided, Santorum says no such thing. Strangely, the commenter offers the same quote Krauss offered, in which Rick says that he doesn't agree that evolution is an incontrovertible fact. Go read it for yourself. Even most followers of Scientism admit readily that even so-called scientific laws are not incontrovertible--they're just our best understanding/models based on the best science that we have right now. So what's the big deal when Rick says the same thing? Oh, right, because he follows up by pointing out, correctly, that the way that evolution has been presented, including in the classroom, is that it implies that God does not exist. 

Look, I know there is a long history of bad blood between those who believe in some form of creation and those who adhere to evolution. The atheist evolutionists are as much to blame as the creationists in perpetuating this unnecessary feud. If materialist atheists didn't champion evolution as, essentially, the God-killer, more or less saying that if you accept the science of evolution that you cannot believe in God, I strongly suspect we wouldn't have had all the trouble we've had. On the other hand, you have literal creationists and others of fundamentalist tendencies who are too quick to dismiss the actual science underlying the attached atheistic philosophy.

What Rick seems to, and I definitely, object to is that because evolution has been challenged, the evolutionists have dug in, pushed evolution as even more certain than it is, ignored and downplayed evidence that causes problems for the model, unnecessarily attached philosophical underpinnings to the science, and knee-jerk react to any questioning of the theory.  In short, they've created a religious dogma out of something that should be science.

After evolution, the commenter moved on to global warming. Again, I made what shouldn't be a controversial statement--that with complex systems like the climate, the best science can offer is thoughtful guesses, i.e., theories. They may be theories based on science and evidence, but they are theories nonetheless. As I linked to, there are plenty of scientists who dissent from the current mainline global warming theory, in multiple ways. But here's what happens in scientific communities--the same thing that happens in most human communities: if you don't follow the popular notions, you get ostracized. It's quite a recurring pattern in the arts and sciences--people who don't align with the popular notions are shouted down and ostracized by the narrow minded. 

If manmade global warming is indeed caused by the factors that are currently held in the majority opinion (consider me an agnostic on this point), I'd suggest that it makes that issue the "evolution" of our day. You have people who take the science, and then they create a philosophy around it--environmentalism. The philosophy becomes confused with the science, and people who reject the attached philosophy are more inclined to be skeptical of the science. At the same time, the adherents become ever more vitriolic and dig in, refusing to hear out or consider the problems with the theory, downplaying the contradicting evidence, and perpetuating an epic conflict that should have no place in science. Add on to this that governments are being employed in the service of this theory to blow tons of money during the one of the biggest global economic crises in history, and you have a recipe for all kinds of stupid, on both sides of the debate.

What's sad is you'd think science, which should train minds with objectivity, rigor, and indeed a certain amount of skepticism, would produce less of this kind of tribalism, but history shows this isn't true. Sadly and ironically, a generation or two down the line, when people have come around to the dissenter views, they arrogantly look back at their predecessors thinking, "how could they have been so blind to the science that was right in front of them? The gall!"

And that brings me to the next point--Galileo.  This commenter actually seems to think that Krauss should have brought up Galileo and goes on to do so. He laughs off the reasonable observation that the Church hierarchy of the day was working with the knowledge available to them at the time, anachronistically saying that the best knowledge of the time was right in front of them. I have a few observations on this.

1. It is rather simpleminded to not understand the very basic historical truism that you judge the people of an age by the standards of the age. A more common expression of this is that hindsight is is twenty-twenty. A scientific mind would have no problem grappling with this truism and applying it, and I think given a lack of serious prejudice bordering on bigotry against the Church, this particular commenter would take it as a given that this is true.
2. In point of fact, the case of Galileo was based more on personal animosity than anything related to religion. In this case, there were other advocates for heliocentrism at the time who were both priests and lay educated folks who were not persecuted. The pope at the time happened to not be convinced and wrote a personal treatise on the subject; it was when Galileo publicly humiliated the pope that action was taken. I'm not defending it--it was wrong, and it was right of the Church to apologize for its treatment of the G-man. Using the power of the Church for a personal vendetta is wrong. We all know it.
3. The fact that this is still being harped on after so many centuries is actually telling. If the enemies of the Church can't find any better evidence of our supposed vendetta against science than this one, centuries old incident, I guess that pretty much disproves the supposed vendetta.

The fact is, the Church is not nor has ever been an enemy of science. The Church is bigger than this or that priest, bishop, or pope. It is bigger than any individual or group of individuals who happen to be in power in the Church at this or that particular point in time. Members of the Church established the concept of university. They participated and fostered the development of the sciences, and they actively participate in them today. Many of them are leaders in their fields. My own Order tends to prefer individuals with advanced degrees in the sciences as postulants to become friars. The Jesuits are also another well-known academically inclined order. The list goes on..

What enemies of the Church don't like is that we hold science to our ethical standard, and sometimes that means presumed progress gets slowed down. We have very high ethical standards, in fact, and having been around for two thousand years, we know that we shouldn't rush in and do things just because we can, but that we need to seriously consider the consequences of our actions, not just on individuals today but on human society and history as a whole, a global whole. And the Church is the only organization positioned to do this, given its care for over a billion souls globally. We take a historical perspective on things. We don't forget or conveniently ignore the recent history where science was abused in the service of fascist and communist regimes, in the service of eugenics, and more recently in the service of the slaughter of millions of innocent human lives and the terrible damaging of women and families. The life of the mother does not inherently trump the life of the child, so excuse us for standing by that principle. 

We can debate the ethical principles; that's fine. We can and should debate the science and its implications. We can and will come to differing conclusions looking at the same evidence. But it's just plain ignorant or dishonest to perpetuate the myth that the Church is opposed to science. Any thoughtful, educated person should feel ashamed for doing so, not just because it is dishonest and/or willfully ignorant but also because it damages the effectiveness of an organization that indisputably does immeasurable good for humanity in health, social, and charitable services--more so than any other organization today or in all of human history.

Seriously. Give it a rest. 

Don't Be an Arrogant Fool

It's one thing for a person to search out, understand the facts and arguments for various positions, and then to adopt them. That's respectable, and if someone disagrees with me after doing that, I respect them for it.

It's an entirely different thing when a person just goes along with popular sentiment (what their friends think, what the media portray, etc.) and then ignorantly pass on what they've been spoon fed--all the while being arrogant and dismissive, even hateful, about those who disagree with them.

I suspect this has always been the case--that people largely form their opinions based on these things without doing any due diligence or even having anything resembling an open mind about issues.  But I can't help but be irritated by it, and that's why I'm calling it out here.  To all those folks:

Just because a position is currently popular in our culture does not make it right. This sounds patently obvious, but people seem to forget it a lot. And I think it's worth belaboring the point because of that.

   a) Just because Jon Stewart or Bill Maher can manage to maliciously mock others does not make them right. Just because thoughtful people who disagree with them choose to not engage in their disreputable and dishonest behavior doesn't mean that they couldn't or that there is no response to the mockery.
   b) Just because your friends share your opinions doesn't make any of you right.  Just because people around you don't contradict your snide, arrogant comments, doesn't mean they don't have a reply; it just means they're being polite, unlike you.
   c) Just because polls show that a majority of Americans share your opinion doesn't make you right, and vice versa. Polls are a scientific way to measure popular opinions, not what's right.
   d) Just because Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, Brad Pitt, Rush Limbaugh, or [insert name of famous person/celebrity/newscaster/talking head here] says something doesn't make them right.  There are famous, popular people who espouse all kinds of different and contradictory opinions, and most of them spend no more time than the average person understanding an issue before spouting their opinion on it.
   e) Just because there's a law on the books doesn't make it right. Some laws do reflect what is right; others do not. Laws are not always made based on the right things or for right reasons.
   f) Just because someone you respect thinks something doesn't make it right. If they are an expert in a subject, then it's acceptable to give weight to what they say on that subject, but that doesn't relieve you of the responsibility of looking into the subject for yourself, especially when there are other experts on the subject who disagree (and there usually are).  "Most experts agree" is almost always a rhetorical bludgeon--don't get hit with it.
   g) Just because someone is an academic doesn't make them right. They can be as subject to prejudice as anyone, and often their position, their livelihood, depends on fitting into current popular schools of thought, not to mention that academics tend to be trained into current schools of thought and have to be admitted to academia by current academics. Add to that their education makes them more inclined to presume they are right, and it is a sad irony that the people who should know better just don't.
   h) Just because a position isn't popular doesn't make it right. There are plenty of people who prefer to be contrary and countercultural just for the sake of it/out of habit. Assuming you're right just because your position is unpopular is just as wrong as doing so because it is popular.

What's my point? Well, I hope it's obvious. If you think so, then good!  But to be clear: be more reticent about expressing your opinion, especially if you haven't really explored it with an open mind. If nothing else, just bite your tongue when you feel that snide remark coming on--be polite. Don't parrot people like Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Rush Limbaugh, or Glen Beck. These guys and others like them are ideologues that make their money precisely by playing to the prejudices of their audiences.  Take everything famous people say with a grain of salt. If you don't have the time or expertise to understand a subject, just keep your opinion to yourself. No, all opinions are not created equal.

Avoid popular arrogance. Instead of ignorantly dismissing people who disagree with you, first try to see things from their perspective. Then if you still disagree, you can at least be informed about it. Even after you have thoroughly explored an issue, it's still safer to not be dismissive. There's always a good chance there's something you don't know.

As the popular ad said, "we all do stupid things sometimes." Ignorantly spouting off doesn't have to be one of them. It does take practice, effort, and vigilance, but it's the right thing to do. And if nothing else, you can avoid being an arrogant fool.