Methuselah and the Flood

The extraordinarily long lives of the ante-diluvian patriarchs have always elicited debate among scholars of Sacred Scripture, especially that of Methuselah, who was just shy of a millennium when he died. We read in the fifth chapter of Genesis of Methuselah, the oldest human being who ever lived; according to the Scriptures, he lived to be 969 years old (Gen. 5:27). Methuselah was the son of Enoch, the first human to be assumed into Paradise, and was also the grandfather of Noah. Here is the genealogy of Methuselah as presented in Genesis 5:25-32:

When Methuselah was one hundred and eighty-seven years old, he became the father of Lamech.Methuselah lived seven hundred and eighty-two years after the birth of Lamech, and he had other sons and daughters.The whole lifetime of Methuselah was nine hundred and sixty-nine years; then he died.When Lamech was one hundred and eighty-two years old, he begot a son and named him Noah, saying, "Out of the very ground that the LORD has put under a curse, this one shall bring us relief from our work and the toil of our hands." The whole lifetime of Lamech was seven hundred and seventy-seven years; then he died. When Noah was five hundred years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years after the birth of Noah, and he had other sons and daughters.

Aside from the question of whether these long lifespans are literal or not (and I see no reason why they can't be), there is a very interesting correlation here between the life of Methuselah and the coming of the great Flood. We know that Methuselah lives to be 969 years old. We also know that the Flood comes in Noah's 600th year, according to Genesis 7:11. If we work backwards from the Flood to the birth of Noah, we have 600 years. Now, from the birth of Noah back to the birth of Noah's father Lamech, Genesis tells us was 182 years. From the birth of Lamech back to the birth of his father, Methuselah, we are told that 187 years elapsed.

So, from the birth of Methuselah to the great Flood we have three periods, 187 years, 182 years and 600 years. If we add these three periods together, we come up with 969 years, the exact same span of time that Methuselah was on the earth.

What does this mean? It indicates that the Flood happened in the same year Methuselah died, which can be interpreted in two ways: (1) God (depending on how one interprets Gen. 6:3), seems to warn that man has only one hundred and twenty years left until they are judged. Since the Flood happened in the same year Methuselah died, we could not unreasonably conjecture that God was postponing the Flood until the death of Methuselah, not wanting to destroy the righteous along with the wicked. (2) Or, perhaps, as one of the students in my Sacred Scripture class flippantly suggested, Methuselah was one of the wicked who was washed away in the Flood. Since Methuselah was the son of righteous Enoch, who was assumed into Paradise, I am disinclined to think this is likely.

God was, therefore, probably waiting for Methuselah to die before He sent the Flood.  This is corroborated by ancient Jewish tradition; according to the Targums, Aramaic commentaries on the Old Testament, the Flood began after the seven days of mourning for the death of Methuselah were ended (source). By the way, if you do the math, Lamech, father of Noah, predeceased Methuselah by five years. 

I don't know why or if this is very important, but it is interesting to point out and reminds us that these lifespans given to the antediluvian patriarchs are not arbitrary.

Anselm also did an interesting post on the issue of chronology sometime ago, if you are interested (here).

Pius XII, Teilhard and Ratzinger

Teilhard de Chardin's theory of the evolution of the cosmos towards the Omega Point. To what degree does this cosmology, which the Holy Office said 'offends Catholic doctrine',  influence our current pontiff's thought on the question of evolution?

In the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, "On Human Origins," Pope Pius XII allows us, by way of concession, to believe in the possibility that the human body could have evolved from preexisting biological material, so long as we adhere to the immediate creation of the soul by God in our first parents.

I have never ben entirely comfortable with this concession and have always opted for a more traditional, creationist view of things (though that doesn't mean I am necessarily a "Young Earther"). As I was explaining Pius' concession to a Sacred Scripture class I teach for high schooler's this week, I noted, too, that many of them were uncomfortable with it because they felt it introduced too much duality into man's nature. 

I recalled that Cardinal Ratzinger had once expressed a similar reserve in a book he wrote back in 1973 entitled Dogma und Verkundigung. If you are wondering how I came across this essay, it is because Ignatius Press somewhat disingenuously reproduced it, along with a series of other essays, in a book called Credo for Today: What Christians Believe. I say it is disingenuous because the book, which is a collection of Ratzinger's essays dating from the 70's and 80's, is marketed as if it were the writings of Pope Benedict. The cover shows a picture of Benedict as pope (not as a professor at Regensburg) and says "Pope Benedict XVI" on the cover. Those who didn't know better would think the book's contents were the pope's current thought and writings; one has to go all the way to the appendix before you find out that these are actually essays written over twenty years ago, for the most part. Furthermore, despite the subtitle of the book saying "What Christians Believe," the book contains some of Ratzinger's most speculative theology, stuff that can hardly be said to be what most Christians believe.

Anyhow, back to evolution. I cite this book because both Ratzinger and I have difficulties with Pius XII's concession in Humani Generis, but whereas I go one way to get around the difficulty, Ratzinger goes another.

Ratzinger begins his essay on creation with the very important point that theologians cannot simply ignore the question of the origins of life and issues surrounding evolution - they have to be dealt with. As an example of how modern theology can ignore the question of the origin of man, he cites those who say that how man was created is superfluous anyway; those who, when confronted with alleged contradictions between Genesis and Darwin, will shrug and paraphrase Augustine: "The Bible is meant to tell us who made the heavens, not how the heavens were made." It is certainly true that the Scriptures are meant to lead us to salvation, but that does not in any way mean that everything else it says is superfluous, or that things like the creation narrative are not also ordered to our salvation in various ways.

Ratzinger says this position of "it doesn't really matter how we take Genesis 1" is especially disingenuous since only a little more than a century ago there were a good many theologians, and even regional synods, insisting that the fixity of species and a literal reading of Genesis 1 were de fide. Ratzinger condemns those who "make a dishonest compromise and for tactical reasons declare the terrain that has become untenable as superfluous anyway, after having so short a time before insisted loudly on situating it as an indispensable part of the faith" (pg. 34). Therefore, the issue of creation and evolution must be dealt with somehow.

Where I diverge from Ratzinger is in his automatic assumption that the traditional view is "untenable." I wish he would not have brushed it aside so easily. But in any case, he goes on to the compromise permitted by Pius XII in Humani Generis, that the body could be the product of evolution but the soul could not. I personally have always been uncomfortable with Pius's compromise; I know the pope allows Catholics to maintain this position, but it is only by way of concession, as if saying that accommodating evolution to creation is an exception, not the norm. I also thought that this idea introduced too much duality into the human person - to say that the physical part of man was the process of evolution but the soul infused by God at a later time, whenever the human anatomy had reached a sufficient stage of evolutionary growth. In this view, God basically took one of the advanced primates already in existence and ennobled it by the infusion of a soul, not unlike what God did when He granted Balaam's ass the powers of speech and reason momentarily.

Ratzinger, too, finds a problem with the Humani Generis compromise. He says;

"Now some have tried to get around the problem by saying that the human body may be a product of evolution, but the soul is not by any means: God himself created it, since spirit cannot emerge from matter. This answer seems to have in its favor the fact that spirit cannot be examined by the same scientific method with which one studies the history of organisms, but only at first glance is this a satisfactory answer. We have to continue the line of questioning: Can we divide man up in this way between theologians and scientists--the soul for the former, the body for the latter? Is that not intolerable for both? The natural scientist believes that he can see man as a whole gradually taking shape; he also finds an area of psychological transition in which human behavior slowly arises out of animal activity, without being able to draw a clear boundary...Conversely, the theologian is convinced that the soul gives form to the body as well, characterizing it through and through as a human body, so that a human being is spirit only as body and is body only as and in the spirit, then this division of man loses all meaning for him, too" (p. 38).

The compromise that Pius XII allowed by way of concession holds little value for Ratzinger, even though many eminent modern theologians hold precisely this opinion. But Ratzinger is an honest theologian and will not admit of a concept so dualistic and problematic as the theory of the evolutionary creation of the body from preexisting matter. At this point, however, instead of reverting to a more (in my opinion) traditional understanding of the immediate and special creation of man, Ratzinger instead opts to go in a direction even further in the line of evolutionary thought than the concession allowed in Humani Generis.

To Ratzinger it seems that it must be one or the other - spirit must evolve along with matter, or spirit and matter both must be created apart from evolution. Since Ratzinger has already found the non-evolutionary arguments to be "untenable," he now turns to none other than the condemned Jesuit modernist Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, he whose works the Holy Office declared "abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine" (source). From Teilhard Ratzinger takes the idea that the universe represents the "self-actuation" of the Logos in time and space - that "the world as a whole, as the Bible says, comes from the Logos, that is, from the creative mind and represents the temporal form of its self-actuation...the world of becoming as the self-actuation of creative thought" (p. 44). From this Teilhardian idea, Ratzinger will build up his conclusion that spirit can, in a sense, involve from matter, since the developments we witness in the unfolding of the cosmos should not be seen as unguided evolution but as the self-actuation in time of a timeless Logos.

Don't think I'm connecting dots between Ratzinger and Teilhard that aren't there; Ratzinger cites Teilhard by name a little further on in this passage, saying that Teilhard's idea of spirit as the "goal" of an evolutionary "process" is "ingenious" and "quite accurate" (pp. 44-45). He is very clearly, unapologetically and enthusiastically in debt to Teilhard for some of these ideas. I know that just because Teilhard's writings have been condemned does not mean he may not have some valuable things to say; we still quote Origen and Tertullian despite some of their issues. But, really, could not the man who would become the Prefect of the CDF find a  more weighty authority to cite other than Teilhard de Chardin? Ratzinger borrows more from Teilhard later in the book, adopting Teilhard's terminology of the end of history as an "omega point" in his essay on the Second Coming (p. 113)

Anyhow, back to matter and spirit. So, if the world is in a process of "self-actualization" in relation to the Logos, then the emergence of spirit into the world of matter can be seen as an inevitable part of this development. This leads Ratzinger to posit "matter as the prehistory of the spirit" and he formulates his idea of spirit emerging out of matter in Hegelian terms of matter as a "moment" in the development of spirit:

"It is clear that spirit is not a random product of material developments, but rather that matter signifies a moment in the history of spirit. This, however, is just another way of saying that spirit is created and is not the mere product of development, even though it comes to light by way of development" (p. 45).

So the spirit is not simply infused into the ready biological material, as Pius XII allowed for, but neither is the human body created uniquely and infused with a soul. Rather, as the whole cosmos is tending towards a universal development towards spirit, the emergence of spirit into matter is something that is latent within the cosmos from the beginning, even if initially we see no traces of spirit. Spirit does not evolve out of matter, but is truly, in a sense, in potency with relation to matter, so that when matter has reached the proper developmental stage in its self-actuation, spirit is enabled to "emerge." Just as an acorn does not evolve into a tree, but rather, the tree is latent within the acorn; the emergence of the tree is the self-actualization of the acorn, not its evolution. He says:

"The appearance of spirit, according to the previous discussion, means rather that an advancing movement arrives at the goal that has been set for it" (p. 46).

It is this advancement that Ratzinger calls the "rise of the spirit." Thus, through this Teilhardian logic, we are able to at once affirm that spirit is not the product of evolution while maintaining that spirit can indeed emerge out of matter "by way of development" , as Ratzinger says. This is, says Ratzinger, how "the special creation of man can coexist with an evolutionary world view, or what form it must assume within an evolutionary world view" (p. 45).

So, how does this emergence of the spirit occur with reference to the human person, who would undoubtedly be the locus for the spirit's emergence? Having already discarded out of hand the traditional idea that God formed man immediately from dirt and infused him with life, as well as casting doubt on Pius XII's concession that God allowed man's body to evolve from preexisting matter, Ratzinger goes on to explain the emergence of spirit within man in the following terms:

"The clay became man at that moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought "God." The first "thou" that -- however stammeringly -- was said by human lips to god marks the moment in which spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed" (p. 46-47).

So, man becomes man as soon as man is capable of formulating the idea of God, "however stammeringly." Here we have Ratzinger's theory of the emergence of spirit out of matter and how non-human life forms crossed the ontological Rubicon from non-human into human existence.

On the one hand, Ratzinger is a much more intelligent person than I am, and so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt, keeping in mind as well that this essay was written in 1973 and obviously carries no papal authority nor even any magisterial authority. But on the other hand, I know when something smells fishy, espcially when Teilhard is invoked.

My first problem with Ratzinger's thesis is that, if we deny that spirit can develop from matter but admit that it arises out of matter by way of development, the fact is that it still evolves from matter. It is irrelevant whether the cause for the emergence of the spirit is extrinsic (somekind of random modification in biological matter that allows for the emergence of spirit), or intrinsic (an inherent principle of "elasticity" within matter that allows it to give way to spirit at a certain point, just as an acorn becomes a tree), the fact is we still have matter evolving into spirit. It doesn't matter (pun intended) whether the we say spirit evolved from matter or whether we say matter is a "moment" in the history of spirit. However you slice it, you still have spirit "emerging' out of matter, whether or not you say the change is blind evolution or a movement towards a goal. To me, this is still quite troubling.

Second, and more problematic, is the contrast between Ratzinger's conception of the first concept of God and Catholic theology on the state of our first parents before the Fall. Ratzinger states that spirit first enters the world at the moment that the first being, "however dimly" and "however stammeringly" uttered the word "God." This would coincide with the moment in the Genesis account when God breathes the breath of life into the nostrils of Adam and makes him a "living being."

However, is there not a problem here? According to the doctrine of Original Sin, man originally existed in a state of perfect justice and preternatural glory. Humani Generis reminds us that we must believe in the existence of two literal first parents who were created in grace but fell into sin. Thus, our first parents would have been brought forth in a state of natural perfection with their minds enlightened by grace and an infused knowledge of God; not simply of His existence, but of His perfections and of the fact that man is created to be in relation with Him. In short, our first parents had a very clear and unmistakable notion of God (otherwise how could have been guilty of sinning against Him?) - created fresh from His hands, enlightened in their intellect by grace and unmarred from sin, their understanding of Him in their perfected natural state was greater and clearer than most of us will ever experience. Can this vision of God which our first parents enjoyed prior to Original Sin be reconciled with Ratzinger's comments that the first conception of God emerged in the human species "dimly" and "stammeringly"? It seems to me that the first conception mankind ever had of God was a glorious vision, full of clarity and infused knowledge, that is unrivaled except by some of the holiest saints.

Well, Ratzinger wrote this stuff back in 73' and I haven't heard much on this by way of him since; for all I know, he may repudiate all this Teilhardian stuff. So don't accuse me of bashing "the Pope" or being a dissenter or anything; I can certainly voice my apprehensions about an essay written by Ratzinger twenty-five years before he ascended to the Chair of Peter. It bothers me that, when faced with dilemmas about reconciling evolution and creation, the tendency seems to be to grant more and more ground to evolutionary biology and relegate the creation story more and more to the realm of allegory, until it is, as Tolkien said, "tucked into a lumber-room of their mind as not very fashionable furniture, a bit ashamed to have it about the house, don't you know, when the bright clever young people called" (see here). If we are finding out, as Ratzinger did, that the concessions allowed by Pius XII in Humani Generis are too dualistic for Catholics to be comfortable with, then why not just go back to something more traditional instead of going further ahead into modernist evolutionary-theological hypotheses about "emergent spirit" "omega points" and the "Rubicon of anthropogenesis"? I don't know...I'm sure some will just say that I'm not a theologian and that I shouldn't try to apply my mind to these things. I don't deny that I am not a theologian. But like I said, I know when something stinks, and if I want to have a conversation about Creation and someone starts talking Teilhard, I definitely start to smell something.

Extraordinary Form at my parish!

Deo gratias! Three years now in the making, after numerous discussions, endless battles with various elements within the parish about things traditional, countless hours of training and much other sacrifice and labor, our parish priest was finally able to offer Mass in the Extraordinary Form this past Tuesday night. I was not able to attend this Mass, unfortunately (mainly because I didn't know about it), but the turnout was great (50 people) and I am certain that there will be more such Masses offered in the future; I understand that our pastor wants to make it a weekly thing, which would be great.

This is a true story of victory - six years ago, before our pastor came, we had a drum-set in the choir loft, the CCW offered incense to the four winds, the priest said Mass in tye-dye, there was liturgical dancing with streamers and our parish was hundreds of thousands of dollars in the red. In six short years we have an orthodox, reverent pastor, a music director who gives us a regular does of chant, communion rails are back up, Mass is ad orientem at a neo-Gothic high altar, the Extraordinary Form is back and parishioners are very happy with the state of things - in fact, our parish is out of debt and growing monthly, so much so that some Masses are standing room only.

Click here to read a little write-up on our TLM from the Detroit Latin Mass Community. Kudos to the Most Reverend Earl Boyea, our Bishop, who not only is friendly to the Extraordinary Form, but has offered it himself many times and actually requested that our pastor do so, a request that was directly responsible for what happened at our parish last Tuesday.

Te Deum!

More Quran burning stupidity

I had originally decided to keep my mouth shut on the Quran burning controversy until I came across an articel by Msgr. Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington entitled "Burning the Quran is a Bad Idea and a Sin", which you can read here.

I can certainly understand arguments to the effect that burning Qurans publicly might be a bad idea in the sense that it could lead to violent backlashes against Americans abroad. I don't necessarily agree with this argument, but I can at least understand it. My thinking is that if a huge group of people is going to be riled up to commit murder and terrorism because their holy book was burned, then this only demonstrates the degree to which they have a problem. It is the same stupid argument from Regensburg: the Pope says Islam is violent and Muslims react violently against the accusation - and it is the Pope who has a problem with intolerance!

But to say that burning the Quran is a sin? A sin, really? On what grounds does Msgr. Pope suggest that burning the Quran may be "sinful'? On the grounds that, to quote his article, "Intentionally giving offense is wrong – I do not deny that there are problems in the Islamic world. But I also know that it is wrong to intentionally and grievously give offense to the religious traditions of others." So it is wrong to intentionally give offense to the religious traditions of others, according to Msgr. Pope.

This is troublesome to me because it seems that the entire religious tradition of Christianity is one that offends and gives scandal to those of other faiths; St. Peter calls Christ a "rock of offense" and a "stone of stumbling" (1 Pet. 2:8). How can we avoid giving offense to other religious traditions if we preach the Gospel message that Christ is the only way to salvation, that "there is no under name under heaven given whereby men might be saved? (Acts 4:12). How can Muslims, Buddhists and all the other pagans not be offended if we really believe and teach the words of Christ, Who said, "Amen, amen, I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber" (John 1:10); yes, this means that Christians believe that you Muslims and Hindus, if you are trying to attain salvation in any other manner other than through Christ and His Church, you are a "thief and a robber" and your holy men are nothing other than false prophets. 

In short, Christianity, by its exclusivity and its demand of universal allegiance, puts itself into a state of permanent antagonism with the world and with the false religions of the world, notwithstanding whatever John XXIII might have personally thought on the matter. We have it from the words of Sacred Scripture and of our Divine Saviour: 

Wonder not, brethren, if the world hates you. (1 John 3:13)

If the world hate you, know ye that it hath hated me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. (John 15:18-19)

Know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world becometh an enemy of God. (James 4:4)

The Church is in a state of emnity with the world, and the world with it. Therefore, it is inescapable that the Truth will be offensive to the world. Now, I know that saying that the message of the Gospel will give offense if different from the offense giving from a Quran burning. Granted. But the question we are looking at it whether or not it is a sin to give offense, regardless of what the offense is over. Clearly, since Christianity's very existence presumes that offense will be given to the religions of non-believers, we cannot maintain that it is always a sin to offend people. We also must acknowledge that the default relation between the Church and the world is one of antagonism and enmity; in fact, it is a life or death struggle. It is not one of harmonious relation and mutual enrichment; when the world creeps in, the Church weakens and vice versa. 

So it is not wrong to give offense, especially if the offense has to do with the Truth of the Gospel. But what about Msgr. Pope's assertiont hat giving offense to the religious traditions of others in particular is wrong? I guess someone better tell that to Gideon when he smashed the altar of Baal, to the offense and consternation of his neighbors (see here); somebody had better chastize King Jehu for slaying the worshipers of Baal and turning their temple into a latrine; I guess Elijah the prophet was wrong to intentionally mock and tease the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel, insulting their false god for being unable to answer their prayers. What of St. Boniface's intolerant destruction of the sacred tree of the Germans? What of St. Benedict, who destroyed a pagan temple to Apollo that was still being frequented by worshipers of the heathen god? Shall we say the founder of western monasticism was committing a sin to so offend the followers of Apollo by destroying their shrine? Or shall we accuse Pope St. Gregory the Great of intolerance and sin when he commands Augustine to destroy the idols of the pagan Angli, though allowing him to retain the structure (here)? What of the greatest of all the missionary saints, holy Patrick of Ireland, who smashed the great idol of Crom Dubh with a hammer and destroyed the shrine of the demon, to the anger of the Irish pagans? Surely Patrick would not have acted so hastily if he would have had the benefit of reading some of our post-Conciliar literature! Well, you get the point; throughout Church history there are so many examples of saints and holy persons destroying the temples and idols of the heathens, even to their great offense, that we could say that the consensus of tradition outweighs the words of Msgr. Pope, unless the Monsignor will assert that Gideon, Elijah, Jehu, Boniface, Gregory, Patrick Benedict and all the saints acted sinfully and errantly in "intentionally giving offense to the religious traditions" of the pagans by destroying their shrines and idols.

Even book burning specifically has been given at least implicit sanction by the Scriptures and explicit sanction by the papacy. If we look to the book of Acts, we read the following:

And many of them that believed came, confessing and declaring their deeds. And many of them who had followed curious arts brought together their books and burnt them before all. And, counting the price of them, they found the money to be fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of God and was confirmed. (Acts 19:18-20).

The message here is that some "religious texts" are worthy only to be burned. Somebody might object that here, it was not Christians burning the books of another religious group but rather converts burning their own books. I don't see this makes much of a difference; would the Islamic world be any less upset if Pastor Jones had been a Christian convert from Islam?

Furthermore, if burning the books of other religious groups were always bad, how could Pope St. Pius X command that Protestant Bibles be burned? In the Catechism of St. Pius X, we see the following articles:

32 Q. What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?

A. A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest.

33 Q. Why does the Church forbid Protestant Bibles?

A. The Church forbids Protestant Bibles because, either they have been altered and contain errors, or not having her approbation and footnotes explaining the obscure meanings, they may be harmful to the Faith. It is for that same reason that the Church even forbids translations of the Holy Scriptures already approved by her which have been reprinted without the footnotes approved by her.

Note that the reason St. Pius X approves the burning of Protestant Bibles is because they contain things that may be 'harmful tot he Faith." If this applies to a Protestant edition of the Sacred Scriptures, how much more would it apply to the Quran?

Msgr. Pope goes on to say that burning the Quran is a scandal because it will lead others to sin, meaning the Muslims, who will be so aroused to anger by the Quran burning that they will commit the sin of anger. Notice, however, that like the liberal media, Msgr. Pope places all the blame for the potential Muslim backlash not on Muslims, but on Pastor Jones. He says:

"Knowing that there are violent tendencies in sectors of Islam, it is wrong to inflame those tendencies and draw others to anger and violence. In effect Pastor Jones is tempting others to sin. He may have a right to do this but it is not necessary for him to do this. This compounds the sinfulness of the planned book burning. It is also wrong to endanger the lives of others by reckless behavior. It is a strong likelihood that hundreds, possibly thousands may die if rioting occurs. It is easy for us to say, “Well they shouldn’t get so worked up about it….see the problem is theirs.”  That is a debate for another time. But this action is sure to inflame passions."

How absurd! He admits freely that "thousands may die" in Islamic rioting, but if we question whether this may perhaps be a problem not with Pastor Jones but with Islam, Msgr. Pope brushes us aside by saying "That is a debate for another time." That's right! If Muslims threaten to riot and slay thousands, it is our problem, not theirs. We need to be more sensitive.

But let's go back to this issue of scandal. St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us that scandal consists not simply in leading one to sin, but in "something less rightly done or said, that occasions another's spiritual downfall" (STh II-II, Q. 43 Art. 1). Burning the Quran is a way of declaring that the book is full of falsehoods and is not worthy of the prestige Muslims assign to it, which is the truth. This is what Muslims need to hear; remember, these false religions are leading souls to hell daily and we have a duty to tell them the truth, even if that truth gives offense regarding their false religion. If anything, it would be scandalous to allow Muslims to go ahead believing that their book is full of valuable spiritual insights when in reality it is a Satanic deception. I would say that to not destroy the Quran when one has the means is scandalous.

We should also remember that scandal means one if led to spiritual ruin by the sin of another. So, to say that scandal occurs when our behavior leads another to sin is only a half-truth. Properly speaking, the sin of scandal occurs only when our sin leads another to sin. St. Thomas tells us that scandal can be of two kinds: active or passive. Active scandal occurs when one's sin leads another to sin. But passive scandal occurs when one is scandalized and led into sin by something other than sin. St. Thomas says that this can even occur with regards to a good deed:

Scandal is of two kinds, passive scandal in the person scandalized, and active scandal in the person who gives scandal, and so occasions a spiritual downfall. Accordingly passive scandal is always a sin in the person scandalized; for he is not scandalized except in so far as he succumbs to a spiritual downfall, and that is a sin. Yet there can be passive scandal, without sin on the part of the person whose action has occasioned the scandal, as for instance, when a person is scandalized at another's good deed. In like manner active scandal is always a sin in the person who gives scandal, since either what he does is a sin, or if it only have the appearance of sin, it should always be left undone out of that love for our neighbor which binds each one to be solicitous for his neighbor's spiritual welfare; so that if he persist in doing it he acts against charity (STh, II-II. Q. 43. Art. 2).

St. Thomas recognizes here that though sin may certainly scandalize (active scandal), it is possible for another to be scandalized and led into sin by something that is not sinful; Thomas gives the example of a good deed. In such a case (passive scandal), Thomas says that the one who causes the scandal is not guilty of the sin of scandal since the scandalizing action was not immoral. So, when the men of Gideon's village were outraged at him for destroying the idol of Baal, so angry that they wanted to kill him, it was not Gideon who was guilty of giving scandal but the Baal worshipers who were guilty of being scandalized by the truth.

If it is not objectively wrong to destroy Qurans (and based on what we have reviewed above from the Scriptures, the lives of the saints and the words of Pius X, there is no way it could be), then we must conclude that the ire aroused by the destruction of these books cannot be imputed to those Christians who burn them, but only to those Muslims who react hostilely to the burning of their false scriptures. I would go so far as to say that burning Qurans is a prudent thing to do (since the book is full of lies and blasphemies and leads souls to damnation) and that those Muslims who are angered at the burning of their book are actually guilty of sin.

We have to lose this softness of paganism and false religions: these religious systems hold people in spiritual (and sometimes political) bondage. They lead souls to hell. Mohammed is a false prophet, and to the degree that Mohammed was inspired he was inspired by a demon to mock and ape the true Faith. Am I saying we all need to go out and burn Qurans? That's up to you; if some fell into my hands I would probably destroy them, just like I do when I get a hold of a Book of Mormon or a New Kingdom version of the Bible (the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible). But let's not get all outraged with the liberal media about a Pastor who rightfully wants to make a stand against Islam, saying stupid things like Quran burning is a "sin." The Quran is an evil book and doesn't deserve respect. Period.

Please click here for Athanasius' post on the same subject.

Movie Review: Inception (2010)

I normally don't go out and see new movies that everybody is talking about; usually the fact that everybody is talking about a movie is a guarantee that the said movie is stupid, banal, etc. However, after hearing both Youth Group kids and many parents (whose opinions I respect), as well as some Catholic reviewers tell me how excellent Inception is, I decided to go out and see it.

This is advertised as a film that "makes you think" by playing with reality via dream sequences; i.e., creating a tension in which the viewer is never sure whether or not the main character is dreaming. This initially made me skeptical; the first film I can recall in my day that did this was the early 90's Schwarzeneggar flick Total Recall, which was alright but was kind of a dud. A decade later M. Night Shyamalan tried this again with The Sixth Sense, which everybody raves about to this day but which I found boring and unconvincing. Thus, when I heard that Inception had to do with dream sequences and alternate realities, I immediately thought of Sixth Sense and prepared myself for a stinker.

Boy, was I mistaken! Inception proved to be a true delight. Somewhat of an action movie, somewhat of a philosophical statement about our perceptions of reality and somewhat a love story about coping with loss, Incepetion is hard to categorize, but it is best understood as a modern take on the myth of Theseus. I'm not going to say too much more about this, but you'll understand if you see the movie.

I don't really want to give too much away about the film, save to say that it deals with the concept of individuals called "extractors" being able to get into other people's minds via their dreams in order to obtain access to hidden thoughts or (in some cases) to plant thoughts. The main plot has to do with the attempt of protagonist Tom Cobb (DiCaprio) and a team of expert "extractors" to get inside the head of the young heir to a corporate empire in order to plant a thought in his subconscious, a procedure called "inception." Why they want to do this is too complicated for me to go into here; the back story isn't too important. to get into, because all the viewer really cares about is the fascinating interplay between dream and reality as the extractors go deeper and deeper into the subconscious of the dreamer: a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream, each successive dream or "layer" getting more surreal than the last.

Despite all the talk about dreams, the film manages to deal with many interesting issues surrounding the topic without even once straying into the realms of the New Age or the paranormal, which would have been very easy to do.  Thankfully it doesn't go there; it's approach is more scientific and philosophical, not pseudo-spiritual.

It is also quite clean - there is absolutely no sexuality or sensuality at all. The name of God is blasphemed about three times. Blasphemy is always regrettable, but it is not gratuitous. What do I mean by this? Well, in some movies there is a lot of blasphemy simply because the characters are made to be blasphemers; so a character is made to blaspheme constantly in the course of normal conversation. This sort of blasphemy is especially reprehensible. But then there is a more "realistic" sort of blasphemy; for example, in this film, the main character takes the Lord's name in vain after witnessing his wife commit suicide (sorry for the spoiler). This, though still regrettable, is less offensive to me because I can readily imagine that a real person who witnessed their wife kill herself before his eyes might say God's name in this manner. It is way more realistic; I'm not condoning it at all, but I am saying that it is not gratuitous. I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

The film has one of those endings that leaves you on the edge and makes you walk away wondering. Beyond that I am not going to say much more.

This was one of the only films all year that is worth going to see in the theater. The plot was excellent, the movie was engaging, it had the right balance of action, thoughtfulness and tension; Leonardo DiCaprio did an excellent job and the film even managed to work in themes from Greek mythology. There is a very strong theme of warning about what can go wrong when one tries to pursue fleeting fantasies instead of the truth, and the protagonist Cobb, despite delving into the depths of the subconscious, remains committed to the existence of a ground of reality "up there." 

Except for the very few occasions of blasphemy, it was a great film. I give it three out of three papal tiaras (by the way, please note that tiaras are just my version of thumbs up or stars; the fact that I give a film two or three papal tiaras doesn't necessarily mean it's a Catholic film - it just means it was a good movie).

On Lengthy Confessions

Why does confession take so long? I don't mean why are the lines so long, because often times they are not long at all; rather, I mean why does it seem to always take each person so long to make their confession? How come when seven people are in line it takes fifty-five minutes to get in? Today I sat in line for twenty-five minutes behind only two people, making an average of about twelve and a half minutes per confession. What's going on here? Do you readers of this blog find this normative in your experience? I have found that no matter what parish I go to and in whatever diocese, it seems that people take forever to go to confession.

Perhaps it is because Catholics today are so well catechized about the meaning of confession and how to make a good confession that they are pouring out their sins in such excellent confessions that the length of time it takes people to get through the sacrament is actually a blessing. I somehow don't think this is the case, however. I have spoken with a few priests about this phenomenon and they were in agreement that there is a general lack of catechesis on how to go to confession, even among otherwise orthodox Catholics.

To put this in perspective, the average confession time for St. Padre Pio, even when he wasn't reading minds, was two minutes. This means that St. Padre Pio could get through twenty penitents in forty minutes. At most parishes I know of, if there were twenty penitents in line it would take about two hours. Forty minutes would be about enough time for seven penitents. As I said, today I sat for twenty-five minutes behind two people, one of whom I am positive goes every single week. One time I saw a line where one person took twenty-seven minutes.

Perhaps these people had a lot to get off their chest; I certainly don't want to judge. But somehow I doubt that this is always the explanation since this phenomenon is so universal, especially when you see the same person going every single week and taking twenty minutes every time.

Based on what the priests I have spoken with said about this, here are the best five reasons I have heard:

1) People just don't know how to make confessions. Rather than list their sins, they go in there and tell the priest about their problems. The confessions turns into more of a counseling session. I suspect this happens in good deal of cases.

2) The problem is largely a female problem. Due to the breakdown in marriages and the loss of the art of conversation, especially in marriage, women take certain pleasure in confession because in the priest they have a man who will actually listen to them (presumably unlike their husbands).

3) Perhaps priests of questionable training are uncomfortable with the idea of hearing confessions and hide this fact by being extra conversational and overly "chatty" - sometimes I have asked friends who took a long time in the confessional what was taking so long and they said the priest was going on and on.

4) Elderly people, who are largely isolated and marginalized in our society, use confession as a means of meaningful communication. They take an extra long time because they are just happy to be talking to somebody. I have noticed that some of the longest confessions are from elderly persons.

5) Priests are by and large too busy to offer intense spiritual direction and many devout souls are hungry for it. Therefore, people abuse the confessional by trying to use it to get spiritual direction from the priest, subtly morphing the confession into a session of spiritual direction. My pastor has told me that this happens frequently to him.

Again, I'm not judging any one individual, but I do think that this is so universal that there must be something going on here. No matter which of the five hypotheses accounts for the problem, I think the solution is a more solid catechesis on what confession is and how to do it - back to basic Baltimore Catechism "number and kind"; some Catholics have never even heard the formula "number and kind."

Does anybody have any insight on this? I am particularly interested in hearing from those of you who attend Extraordinary Form parishes. Do your confessions take forever as well?

The Charismatic Experience

I just discovered that an old article of mine on the so-called "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" is now available online at the website of the journal Antiphon, published by the Society for Catholic Liturgy. Although I hope that the quality of my academic writing has improved somewhat over the course of the intervening years, I still remain convinced of the conclusions which I reached five years ago. Some of you may have read this before, but in case not, here it is, this time available for general consumption and public debate:

The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal: Theological Interpretation of the Experience

Antiphon 9.2 (2005): 141-165.

Youth Apostolate: Beyond Service Projects

Our diocese publishes a monthly magazine called FAITH; every Catholic household in the diocese receives this magazine in the mail every month for free, whether it is requested or not. FAITH has been hailed as some kind of paragon of Catholic publishing and has won numerous awards; I have personally always found it to be rather shallow, but apparently many people like it. Well, de gustibus non est disputandum and all that; click here and judge for yourself.

This month was the annual "Teen Issue." As a former Youth Director, I groaned as soon as I saw the title, since one thing I have come to believe with great passion is that our teens suffer when we try to pander by them by creating watered down, teen-oriented versions of things, and this applies to literature as well as liturgies. 

Well, the purpose of this post is not to rag on FAITH; at least the diocese is trying to reach its people by sending out literature every month. The purpose of this post is to rag on a certain ubiquitous approach to the Catholic youth apostolate that I found (not surprisingly) put forward in the pages of FAITH, namely, the excessive focus on service projects.

What is wrong with service projects? Well, nothing, in an of themselves. My youth group participated in several service projects over the past three and a half years. Getting young people to serve in their parish and community is a very important part of character formation, in my opinion. But notice that I said that it was not service projects that I opposed per se; rather, I oppose an excessive focus on service projects.

The Catholic Church has a crisis of identity. However serious the crisis is in parish life, it is even more severe in Catholic youth groups. A good parish might be one in ten, but a good youth group is one in a hundred. IN working with my kids and looking at how other parishes approached service projects over the years, I have come to notice a very interesting correlation:

The youth groups that do the most service projects usually consist of kids that are very poorly catechized and come from parishes of questionable orthodoxy.

This is a rule of thumb that will not be true in every case, but as a generalization, I think it stands. It can mean one of two things: either orthodox youth groups do not do enough service projects, or perhaps wishy-washy youth groups do too many. I think the latter is undoubtedly the case, for the simple reason that solid, orthodox youth groups that have healthy spirituality and great catechesis will also do service projects from time to time; but wishy-washy youth groups that do a ton of service projects have neither healthy spirituality nor great (or any) catechesis. The orthodox youth groups strike a balance that is lacking in the service-project focused youth group.

Thus, we come to my second maxim about Catholic youth groups-

An excessive focus on service projects bespeaks an imbalance in the youth group; the kids are put to work on service projects because they don't have anything else worthwhile to do.

This was the case in the days of the Apostles, when we find our first pope clumsily suggesting that the apostolic college take up a service project when worship and adoration was called for. Let's look at the account of the Transfiguration from the Gospel of Mark (Douay-Rheims):

And his garments became shining and exceeding white as snow, so as no fuller upon earth can make white. And there appeared to them Elias with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus. And Peter answering, said to Jesus: Rabbi, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles, one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. For he knew not what he said: for they were struck with fear. And there was a cloud overshadowing them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying: This is my most beloved son; hear ye him. And immediately looking about, they saw no man any more, but Jesus only with them (Mark 9:2-8).

St. Peter, when confronted with the glory of the Transfigured Lord and the presence of Moses and Elijah, suggests building some tabernacles. But notice why he suggests it: because "he knew not what he said," or as some modern translations put it, "he knew not what he was saying." Peter suggested building tabernacles because he didn't know what else he should be doing. It was motivated by a lack of direction, a feeling that he should be doing something but not knowing what. Fortunately, the Lord tells him what he should be doing: "This is my beloved son; hear ye him!"

I know this is not the primary (or even secondary) meaning of this text, but it does give us something to ponder - it is easy to revert to doing service projects when we don't have direction. At least service projects, which are necessarily active, give one the sense of having accomplished something. It is easier to boast of having accomplished something by painting a room or building a house than by spending an hour in adoration, where the fruits are often spiritual and hidden more deeply in the soul.

This is why I believe many youth groups focus too much on service projects: they don't know what else they ought to be doing. Usually, service project oriented youth groups do one other thing besides service projects: socializing. A ton of socializing. In many instances, socializing becomes the explicit end for which the youth group is constituted; I have actually read this in some diocesan youth manuals. 

The big danger here is twofold: one, that the youth come to associate Catholicism solely with service projects, thereby fostering an unhealthy disposition towards activism; second, and related to the first, that by fostering an activist approach to youth work, our kids are deprived of the spiritual and intellectual treasures of the faith that can only be found through periods of silent contemplation, private and communal prayer, and zealous instruction in the truths of the faith. Without these treasures, our Catholic youth have no firmly established Catholic identity; anybody can do a service project. Any good-willed Protestant atheist, Mormon or Muslim can paint houses for the poor or dish out soup at a poorhouse. These works are good and need to be done, but when they are made the centerpiece of a youth's experience of the faith, the faith becomes entirely identifiable with service projects. In fact, a good majority of our Catholic teens are already become non-denomination Protestants in practice. In my opinion, Catholic youth groups share a lot of the blame for this.

Remember, I am not knocking service projects per se. Willingness to serve is a fundamental pillar of our faith and a sign of humility. St. James reminds us that "Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation" (Jas 1:27). True faith cannot separated from pious works. But St. Luke builds on this in Acts by telling us that the Apostles, despite the importance of service,  placed catechesis and spiritual formation in a decidedly higher category:

"And in those days, the number of the disciples increasing, there arose a murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, for that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not fitting that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch"  (Acts 6:1-5).

This was what was so distressing about the article in FAITH magazine - when it came to highlighting the dynamic works going on among the youth throughout the diocese, all the magazine had to focus on was service projects. I am not judging anybody mentioned in the article nor any parish's youth program, but I am issuing a warning to all Catholic youth groups and their leaders: what we need is the foster solid, Catholic identity. This is done throught he teaching of Catholic doctrine, formation in traditional Catholic spirituality and (in the third place) authentic works of service that proceed from the first two. If we do service projects, they need to be done in the spirit of St. James, who tells us that these deeds are manifestations of our faith that ensure that it is not dead. They ought not to be done in the spirit of Peter on Mt. Tabor, who wanted to build tabernacles just because he didn't know what else he should be doing. Thankfully, St. Peter, through the outpuring of the Holy Spirit, eventually learned his lesson. If we will learn the same lesson, the growth that could be unleashed in our Church will be no less phenomenal than that experienced by the early Church.

If you agree, please forward this to anybody you know who is involved in a Catholic youth apostolate.

How to Worship

Hey everybody! Sorry for the prolonged absence - I am beginning at a new school this week and haven't had a lot of spare time. This was sent to me recently and I found it very amusing...I can't figure out whether it's making fun of Pentecostal worship or if it is by Pentecostals who are trying to have fun with their own eccentricities. Anyhow, it's pretty amusing either way.

Congratulations, Anselm!

Anselm is rapidly catching up to me in the amount of children he has sired. Case in point, this post here, where you can see see the latest addition to the Anselm family, little Edmund George (named for St. Edmund Campion and St. George the Dragonslayer). If you're not too busy, pop on over there and congratulate him!

In the meantime, my wife and I are expecting our fourth around Thanksgiving, which will tilt the scale of who has more children back in my favor. Sorry Anselm, but since you were married four years after me, I don't think you will ever be able to catch up!

Congratulations, friend!

Head coverings "because of the angels"

For me, one of the most cryptic and difficult passages of the Bible is found in 1 Corinthians 11:7-10. Here, St. Paul discusses the issue of women's head coverings when praying. He says:

"For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels" (1 Cor. 11:7-10, RSV).

What is the meaning of this phrase "because of the angels"? What angels, and why do they care whether or not a woman has her head covered? The Ignatius RSV footnotes give no help;, although I'm told there is a little footnote on the passage in the Ignatius Study Bible. However, I had to do some digging in some older Bibles before I could get anywhere with this, which was where I uncovered my first clue in the mistranslation of the word "veil." The RSV use of the word "veil" is a sloppy translation, as is any edition of the Scriptures that uses the word "veil," for the Greek word in verse 10 is exousian, which is best rendered as power or authority. Some older editions use this translation, such as the Jerusalem Bible and the Douay-Rheims; hence, it should say "That is why a woman ought to have power on her head." Look at the Latin translation from the Vulgate and notice the use of the word "potestatem" (power):

Vir quidem non debet velare caput quoniam imago et gloria est Dei mulier autem gloria viri est non enim vir ex muliere est sed mulier ex viro etenim non est creatus vir propter mulierem sed mulier propter virum ideo debet mulier potestatem habere supra caput propter angelos.

So, the first thing we can establish is that the veil Paul is referring to is best understood as a sign of authority or power, adding a new twist to the idea that veils are signs of submission. But more interesting is the fact that the women bear this sign of authority "because of the angels." Paul does not go on to explain anything else about this cryptic statement, which suggests that he thought the Corinthian congregation sufficiently familiar with what he meant that he did not need to say anything more.

One interpretation given by some of the Fathers, especially Tertullian, is that this phrase refers to the fallen angels described in the apocryphal Book of Enoch - these angels, called the "Watchers," were not among the angels that rebelled with Lucifer but were nevertheless led astray by lusting after the daughters of men. Acting out of lust, these angels took on human forms and mated with human women, giving birth to the "giants." God punished these angels by casting them down into the netherdarkness to be reserved for punishment at the end of the world. This is described in the Book of Enoch VI and VII and merits quoting at length:

And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. These are their chiefs of tens.

And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

This story is obviously an explication of Genesis 6 and was very well known in the time of St. Paul. It is mentioned in the Book of Jude 1:6 ("The angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day") as well as some other apocryphal works like the Book of Jubilees and the Testament of Adam.

Relating this story to St. Paul's admonition that women wear veils in Church "because of the angels," Tertullian says: "What angels? In other words, whose angels? If he means the fallen angels of the Creator, there is great propriety in his meaning. It is right that that face which was a snare to them should wear some mark of a humble guise and obscured beauty" (Contra Marcion 5:8).The meaning is plain - because the angels once were led astray by the beauty of human women, it is fitting that women cover the heads so as to not arouse the lust of these fallen angels who may be lingering about.

This is not the only time Tertullian mentions this. He says, in his essay On Veiling of Virgins, that the countenance of a woman can be a "stumbling stone" even as far as heaven:  

"For if (it is) on account of the angels— those, to wit, whom we read of as having fallen from God and heaven on account of concupiscence after females— who can presume that it was bodies already defiled, and relics of human lust, which such angels yearned after, so as not rather to have been inflamed for virgins, whose bloom pleads an excuse for human lust likewise? ...So perilous a face, then, ought to be shaded, which has cast stumbling-stones even so far as heaven: that, when standing in the presence of God, at whose bar it stands accused of the driving of the angels from their (native) confines, it may blush before the other angels as well; and may repress that former evil liberty of its head—(a liberty) now to be exhibited not even before human eyes. But even if they were females already contaminated whom those angels had desired, so much the more on account of the angels would it have been the duty of virgins to be veiled, as it would have been the more possible for virgins to have been the cause of the angels' sinning" (Veiling of Virgins, 7). He mentions a similar argument in Apparel of Women 2:10, where he states that because it was through the agency of the evil angels that women first were taught to wear costly items (gold, silk) and use eye-powder and make-up.

While tempting for its exotic nature, this argument is problematic for a few reasons: first, according to the Book of Jude, Enoch and the other apocryphal works that mention this episode, the angels that lusted after human women are being kept in "chains" by God and are "reserved" for punishment; we do not get the idea that they are freely roving about, least of all hovering around over the Church's liturgies looking for unveiled women to lust after. Second, we can't ignore the huge problem of how an immaterial, spiritual being like an angel is capable of carnal lust, something that pertains to the flesh. Thus, the problem of angels looking down from heaven and lusting after the daughters of men is highly questionable.

It is also questionable that St. Paul, who so frequently warned his flocks not to go astray after Jewish fables and mythologies (1 Tim. 1:4 and 2 Pet. 1:16,  for example) would go ignore his own words and base an ecclesiastical discipline upon such fables.

Nevertheless, we don't want to rule it out entirely - St. Augustine says in The City of God (Book X), that the demons are attracted by certain sensible things, not as animals to food but as spirits to signs. Therefore, it is not impossible for demons to be attracted by sensible realities, though not in the way that a person would be attracted to something by sense perception. This is how Augustine explains the demon's attraction to the rites and sacrifices to the pagan gods. It is also a common interpretation, from Augustine on down to Aquinas, to insist that it is indeed possible for angels to have intercourse with human beings, although there are differences of opinion on how this is possible (remember Aquinas' writings the issue of demons begetting children?) - Even Pope Benedict XIV, in his famous De servorum Dei beatificatione, says of Gensis 6:4, "This passage has reference to devils known as incubi and succubi"; he went on to say, "Some writers deny that there can be offspring…Others, however, asserting that coitus is possible, maintain that children may result." Opinion on the matter is obviously divided, and I do not want to make any certain determinations one way or another.

St. Thomas Aquinas also deals with this verse in his Commentary on First Corinthians. He begins his treatment of this passage by saying that the veil is a sign of woman's submission to man, but that through this orderly submission, she actually submits to God's design and thus to God, and this is her glory:

Then when he says, "That is why", he draws the intended conclusion, saying: "That is why", namely, because man is the image and glory of God, but woman the glory of man, a woman ought to have a veil on her head, when she places herself before God by praying or prophesying. In this way it is shown that she is not immediately under God, but is also subjected to man under God. For the veil put on the head signifies this. Hence another translation has it that the woman ought to have power over her head, but the sense is the same. For a veil is a sign of power.

Then, regarding the verse "because of the angels," Aquinas speculates that the word "angel" refers either to the good angels, who are present when the Church comes together corporately to worship, or perhaps is another word for priest. According to Aquinas:

[W]hen he says, "because of the angels", he gives a third reason, which is taken on the part of the angels, saying: "A woman ought to have a veil on her head because of the angels." This can be understood in two ways: in one way about the heavenly angels who are believed to visit congregations of the faithful, especially when the sacred mysteries are celebrated. And therefore at that time women as well as men ought to present themselves honorably and ordinately as reverence to them according to Ps 138 (v. 1): “Before the angels I sing thy praise.”

In another way it can be understood in the sense that priests are called angels, inasmuch as proclaim divine things to the people according to Mal (2:7): “For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the angel of the Lord of hosts.”

Therefore, the woman should always have a covering over her head because of the angels, i.e., the priests, for two reasons: first, as reverence toward them, to which it pertains that women should behave honorably before them. Hence it says in Sir (7:30): “With all your might love your maker and do not forsake his priests.” Secondly, for their safety, lest the sight of a woman not veiled excite their concupiscence. Hence it says in Sirach (9:5): “Do not look intently at a virgin, lest you stumble and incur penalties for her.” [Note that this is the same as Tertullian's argument, save that physical priests have replaced angels - the issue is still about a woman protecting herself from lust]

Augustine explains the above in another way. For he shows that both man and woman are made to the image of God...considered according to the spirit there is no difference between male and female; consequently, the woman is the image of God, just as the male. For it is expressly stated in Gen (1:27) that “God created man to his own image, male and female he created them.” Therefore, Augustine says that this must be understood in a spiritual union, which is in our soul, in which the sensibility or even the lower reason has itself after the manner of the woman, but the superior reason after the manner of the man, in whom the image of God is considered to be. And according to this the woman is from the man and for the sake of the man, because the administration of temporal or sensible things, in which the lower reason or even the sensibility is adept, ought to be deduced from the contemplation of eternal things, which pertain to the higher reason and is ordained to it.

Therefore, the woman is said to have a veil or power over her own head, in order to signify that in regard to dispensing temporal things man should apply a certain restraint, lest he transgress the limits in loving them. This restraint should not be applied to the love of God, since it is commanded in Dt (6:5): “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart.” For no limit is placed in regard to loving the end, although one is placed in regard to the means to the end. For a doctor produces as much health as he can, but he does not give as much medicine as he can, but in a definite amount. Thus a man should not have a covering on his head. And this on account of the angels, because, as is said in a Gloss: “Sacred and pious signification is pleasing to the holy angels.” 

This last statement about pious significations being pleasing to the holy angels comes closer to what was written by St. John Chrysostom on the subject.Chrysostom, in his Sermon for the Ascension (c. 407), writes:

"The angels are present here. Open the eyes of faith and look upon this sight. For if the very air is filled with angels, how much more so the Church! ...Hear the Apostle teaching this, when he bids the women to cover their heads with a veil because of the presence of the angels." 

Chrysostom's words draw upon the perennial teaching that, in the Sacrifice of the Mass, not only the Church Militant but the Church Triumphant is engaged as well - the angels and the saints are present along with those members of the Body still on earth as the entire Church joins together in adoring Christ. Thus, the veiling of the head during Mass becomes a sign of the acknowledgement of the presence of the holy angels. This is pleasing to the holy angels, who always rejoice when men act righteously, because in veiling their heads women in effect assent to God's plan. Chrysostom mentions this again in Homily XXVI:5  in his series of homilies on 1 Corinthians, where he says that veiling the head is a way that women "reverence the angels."

Chrysostom is not alone here; Origen seconds this view:

"There are angels in the midst of our assembly we have here a twofold Church, one of men, the other of angels. And since there are angels present women, when they pray, are ordered to have a covering upon their heads because of those angels. They assist the saints and rejoice in the Church."

The angels take joy in seeing men and women obedient to God; likewise, in a mysterious manner they are "grieved" when God is dishonored. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, St. Cyril of Alexandria said "The angels find it extremely hard to bear if this law [that women cover their heads] is disregarded."

Which is the correct view? Each position has its own merit, but the last one mentioned - that of Chrysostom - seems to have become the mainline view of theologians on this point by the early Middle Ages (Aquinas mentioned this view first in his elucidations).

The wearing of the veil is something that has by and large fallen away in the modern Church; even in orthodox parishes, veils are seldom seen outside of independent Traditionalist chapels and parishes that offer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass exclusively. I am blessed in that we attend a parish where a good number of women wear veils, my wife included. How rich a custom it is to know that that veil is a sign of power and authority and is meant to call to mind the presence of the holy angels at the sacred liturgy! May the Holy Spirit move more women to take up the veil, the sign of their dignity and power in God's providential ordering of creation.

Queries on Henry VIII's Divorce

A few brave souls have taken the time and trouble to read through my 2009 history thesis on the canon law of Henry VIII's divorce; for this I thank you! Now, two questions have been posed regarding some of my conclusions/research, which I intend to answer here to the best of my ability. Those who are unfamiliar with this issue may be a little lost - please review here and here for more background on the canonical issues surrounding the divorce and the problems posed by various interpretations of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

First, regarding impeding vs. diriment impediments and the impediment of public honesty, one person writes:

I just read your thesis on the validity of the marriage of Henry VIII and Catharine of Aragon and I must say that it is very good.

However I do have one question concerning it. You brought up at the end the question of public honesty and whether Henry could have used it to show that his marriage was invalid. Your conclusion is that it is unlikely that Clement would have agreed that because the marriage was never consummated that a dispensation for the sake of public honesty would be required and thus render the marriage invalid.

My question is; is public honesty a 'impeding (or prohibitory) impediment' 'which renders a marriage illegal but not absolutely void. The impediment is said to "impede" the marriage so long as it exists, but once it is taken away, a valid marriage remains insofar as the obstacle has been removed.' Or is it a 'diriment impediment' which 'renders a marriage null and void from the beginning, unlike an impeding impediment which merely makes it illegal.'

What resolution would there be to the problem if the marriage was only 'impeding'?

Good question - public honesty was seen as a diriment impediment that would have rendered the marriage absolutely invalid. However, it was not a diriment impediment according to natural law; if it were, the pope would have had no power to dispense from it. The fact that popes did dispense from it, usually alongside a dispensation for affinity, suggests that the Church never thought of public honesty as something pertaining to natural law, but more to positive ecclesiastical law (especially since much of this issue was bound up with custom, which could vary from region to region, as in the case of Innocent III, who dispensed recently converted Latvians to marry their brother's wives irrespective of issues of public honesty).

What if the problem with Henry's marriage had been merely an impeding impediment and not a diriment one? This I do not know - I am uncertain what steps the Church would have taken back then for a marriage that was deemed illegal but not invalid. Obviously (re)marriage would not have been permissible since they would have been already validly married. My guess is that sacramental confession and a proscribed public penance would have been in order, probably followed up by an papal bull declaring the marriage honest and legal once it had been confessed and Henry had made appropriate satisfaction.

Another person writes regarding the proper reconciliation of Deuteronomy with Leviticus regarding marrying a brother's wife:

From the moment I first read Leviticus 20:21 my first instinct was that it referred to adultery, almost in the exact same wording as does Lev 18 which continually admonishes us not to "uncover the nakedness" of close relatives nor those married to close relatives even if they are not "blood" relations. However, in the case that a blood relative should die, like a brother, since his wife has become one with the family, then it is proper duty for his brother to, in a sense, "take the place" of his brother to build up progeny for him.

I understand your argument of "redundancy" against the adultery argument, but isn't that what scripture is all about? To hammer the point in until us thick-brained dummies get it? God and his prophets repeatedly admonish us to following His commandments throughout all the scriptures to remind us of their great importance.

To me THIS reconciles the contradiction. Henry the VIII got it wrong; or he just REALLY wanted an excuse for a divorce. 

First let's tackle this issue of "redundancy." In my original post on this issue, I made the following observation: Some could argue that Leviticus 20:21 simply forbids intercourse with a brother's wife while the brother was still living, thus leaving freedom for a younger brother to marry the wife of a deceased brother who had died without issue. This argument was supported by Alexander of Hales as well as St. Albert the Great, but it has one major weakness, being its redundancy. To say you can't have intercourse with your brother's wife while he is still alive is to merely condemn adultery, and adultery is condemned already in many other places, rendering the specific prohibition of Leviticus superfluous.

What makes the argument "redundant"? The argument is redundant not just because adultery is condemned already in Scripture; of course, Scripture often hammers away at the same thing, in many different ways. But it is redundant because of the level of specificity of gives. For example, suppose we had a law that said, "Thou shalt not break the window of your next door neighbor's house, sneak in and steal his potted plant," but the real meaning of the law was just to condemn stealing in general. If simple stealing was what was being condemned, why the extra details about breaking the window and stealing the plant? We could say that this law is redundant - it uses an unnecessary amount of specificity to condemn something already broadly condemned elsewhere.

Similarly, if adultery is all that is condemned in Leviticus is adultery, then why the specification about it being a brother's wife(why not anybody's wife?)- also, why the phrase "they shall be childless"? Usually, when one is committing adultery, they do not want children from the adulterous union anyway. This context implies that the man is not just committing adultery with the wife, but is actually taking her to be his own wife.

I do think you are right that Henry really just wanted an excuse for a divorce, and I agree that your interpretation would still resolve the difficulty, but it would leave too many points unanswered. The solution I propose is the one adopted by some of the most eminent fathers and theologians and the one that the Pope Clement did in fact use in Henry's case. Thus Leviticus is seen to be forbidding a man to marry his brother's wife under any circumstances - whether she was a widow or not - with one important exception: if that brother had died without issue. This interpretation has the benefit of being true to the context of each Scripture, does not rob Leviticus of its binding nature but gives full room for a man to fulfill the obligation of Deuteronomy. Thus, Deuteronomy can be seen as the one exception to the general rule laid out in Leviticus.

Thanks for all the questions and the interest in this issue!

Books and discounts

This post has been deleted by the author.

Can saints be possessed?

This week I've been reading An Exorcist Tells His Story by Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of the Diocese of Rome. It's a pretty neat book, a good introduction to the theology and praxis behind exorcisms that lacks the hyper-sensationalized accounts one finds in Malachi Martin's Hostage to the Devil. Also interesting from a Traditionalist point of view is Fr. Amorth's statements that exorcism prayers said in Latin are always more effective (p. 77), that the removal of the exorcism prayers from the new baptismal rite was a "grave mistake" (p. 54) and that "allowing the ministry of exorcism to die is an unforgivable deficiency" on the part of diocesan bishops; for all these things he says that the hierarchy must say a "forceful mea culpa" (p. 55). When ancient rites are modified and divested of some time-tested prayers and rituals, their spiritual efficacy can be weakened dramatically. 

Yet there are also some things in his book that are a bit difficult to get a grasp on. My biggest sticking point is his assertion that absolutely anyone is open to satanic possession, not excluding saints living lives of unitive contemplation with God. On page 57 of his book, Fr. Amorth makes this stunning statement to the effect that  saints are not exempt from full-blown diabolical possession:

"The lives of many saints include examples of this affliction. Among modern saints, I can cite two who have been beatified by Pope John Paul II: Father Giovanni Calabria and Sister Mary of Jesus Crucified (who was the first Arab to be beatified). In both cases, and without any human fault, they were subjected to periods of true satanic possession. During those periods, the two saints did and said things totally incompatible with their holiness without the least fault, because it was the devil who acted through their bodies" (p. 57).

Fr. Amorth is an experienced exorcist, and when he uses the phrase "true satanic possession" I am assuming he is being precise with his words and does not mean either diabolical oppression or obsession (many saints, like St. John Vianney, St. Padre Pio and St. John Bosco, were oppressed by the actions of the evil one). But true satanic possession of saints? I have never heard of this - I do not deny it's possibility outright, so maybe some of you can enlighten me if there is something I am missing. But my sensus fidelium reacts against the idea at the outset for the following reasons:

If a person is described as a saint while still on the earth, this means they are living a life of eminent sanctity - meaning a detachment from all mortal sin and most voluntary venial sin and the heroic practice of the virtues, inspired by an abundance of sanctifying and actual grace conferred by the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost dwells in this person in an abundant way, directing all of their natural faculties and works towards supernatural ends: the love of God. In the saint, the Scripture is most perfectly fulfilled which says, "I will dwell in them and with them" (2 Corinthians 16).

Yet, if this is undeniably the case with saints, how can a demon also dwell within their body? As St. Paul asks rhetorically, "What fellowship hath light with darkness? What concord hath Christ with Belial?" (2 Cor. 6:14-15). It seems to me that, based on the presence of such an eminent degree of grace and holiness in the soul of the saint (through the Spirit), that this state is incompatible with true demonic possession.

It may be argued that in demonic possession, the demon takes hold only of the person's body but not of the soul, and it is the soul that is sanctified by the presence of grace. Thus, a demon could theoretically take full and complete possession of a body, leaving the Spirit-filled and sanctified soul completely unhindered. In my unlearned opinion, this seems to posit too much of a radical distinction between the soul and body, for two reasons:

1) The saint is one who, by virtue of the excellent state of their soul, is able to bring their body into perfect subjection to the soul through prayer and mortification. The fact that the soul is eminently sanctified does not mean the body is cut loose - rather it means that the soul has a more perfect degree of control over the body and its passions. Since the body is subject to the holy soul, it seems unlikely that such a soul would succumb to the entrance of a demon into the body.

2) When a person is sanctified, their whole being is sanctified, body and soul - this is why the relics of the saints have efficacy, because their bodies, in a mystical way, anticipate the general Resurrection and already possess a degree of that glorification that will come at the end of time with the ultimate vindication of the just. If, therefore, a saint's body already possesses on this earth a foretaste of that glorious exaltation, how can this same flesh be overcome and possessed by a demon?

One other argument to take into account:  True demonic possession is rare, but mortal sin is common.Yet, in the case of mortal sin, we know that grace is lost if a mortal sin is committed; or to put it another way, deadly sin and grace cannot co-exist in the same soul at the same time - they are contradictions, akin to the distinction between life and death. But one can commit a mortal sin without the presence of an actual devil in the body. But if grace and mortal sin cannot coexist in the same person, why should a demon be able to coexist with grace?

It could be objected, I suppose, that committing a mortal sin destroys the soul, while a demon only possesses the body. But I think this brings us back to the point I raised above about the manner in which sanctity effects even the bodies of the saints.

Thus, it seems to me that we should not be seeing cases of true, full-blown satanic possession in the lives of the saints, especially since (as Fr. Amorth points out) demons tend to enter people through the senses (p. 78), especially through the eyes. Since saints exhibit an extraordinary control over their bodies and passions, especially in custody of the eyes, it seems extremely unlikely that a demon would find occasion to enter the saint - furthermore, because of the saints' radical commitment to the interior life, we might ask how a demon could force entry into a saint and the saint not "notice" what was happening to them, especially since saints are so adept and detecting the presence of the evil one?

The only recourse we really have left is to suggest that perhaps God allows Satan this access for the purpose of trying His saints. Yet, if so, why is this not mentioned by spiritual writers like St. John of the Cross? We know of the dark night of the senses (or the passive purgation of the senses) and the spirit, but we hear of no "Dark Night of Demonic Possession." We could also note than even in extreme cases of demonic oppression, like that experienced by St. Anthony in the desert, we do not hear of Satan actually entering the saint and possessing them.

So, while I admit a lack of theological training on this point, I have grave reservations about Fr. Amorth's statements here. I admit that I do not know much about Father Giovanni Calabria and Sister Mary of Jesus Crucified; perhaps the possessions occurred at some point in their lives before they entered into a state of sanctity? I could be wrong on all this and would be grateful for any insight any of you could offer. In the meantime I'm going to have to answer this query in the negative.