« Enemy of the State | Main | In Chicago »
December 29, 2005
Back to HuffPo
As noted below,there's an insane post at the Huffington Post that twists the words of Benedict's Urbi et Orbi message to give the impression that he's condemning intellectual achievement, an interpretation that's gleefully seized on by commentors there, confirming their communal wisdom about the evils of the medieval, backwards, oppressive church. It's bizarre, frankly, and in a way, a minority view, but...not totally. There is, indeed, a kind of anti-Catholicism among the left that sees the institution as essentially obscurantist, because you know, there was Galileo, and there's AIDS, or so sez Bill Maher, Al Franken and HuffPo.
One has to wonder, though.
At all of of those Catholic universities around the world...what are they teaching (shut up, smart aleck from the Cardinal Newman Society...yeah, you. Stick with me on this one)...are there no departments of science or mathematics in those institutions? Do the students sit around with an abacus and a spyglass, vainly tilted at the heavens?
At all of those Catholic hospitals around the world...what's going on? Are all of those surgeries just facades, behind which priests shake holy water and nuns finger beads? Well, if so, perhaps we'd better rethink this whole "medicine" thing after all!
And what about this thing - this Pontifical Academy of Science, "Pontifical" having to do with, you know, the POPE. Look at the papers it's published: "Accordian-like vibrations of long chain molecules" "New developments in neurobiological research." "Infrared and Raman spectra of 1,2-dichloroethane and its deuterium compound in the gaseous, liquid and solid states."
Anti-scientific clerical oppressors!
What about these conferences, sponsored by the Vatican over the past decade or so:
On biotechnology and crops, and one on depression as mental illness
On end-of-life issues and palliative care
On "Science and the future of humanity"
On "Pastoral Care for the Liberation of Street Women"
On "The Family and the Integration of the Disabled"
And on, and on and on...we haven't even touched on the conferences and working groups on philosophy, history, the arts and yes, theology.
(insert obligatory Vatican Observatory reference here)
Show me a global institution more dedicated to learning, to integrating intellectual work and real world problems. Show me. I dare you.
Beyond the ignorance of reality, the mindset so doggedly opposed to religion and ethical considerations is mind-boggling. But, you know, you get what you pay for. You want science unfettered by the inconvenient questions and challenges of an ethically-grounded world view?
Okay. There you go! Good luck with that!
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8345b0cca69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Back to HuffPo:
» The last round-up for 2005 from The Anchoress
Sad, aint it, pardners? One last round-up of the lil doggies and then we movesie on, as they say in the Western part of Brooklyn.
Laura Bush and Disco pants? Victoria takes a look at the phenomenon of First Lady makeovers.
Looking ... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 29, 2005 4:04:30 PM
» HuffPo Energy Still Going Strong from COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX
Amy is still pumped today, about the HuffPo thread from yesterday and started up a new one, same issue, today. Today’s specific focus was the uniformed presumption that the buffoons on the HuffPo thread were making that the Church was anti-science (... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 29, 2005 6:41:14 PM
Comments
Amy,
I'll take your dare.
As impressed as you are with the physical papers you mentioned, they are not exactly ground breaking things. From the titles, they seem to be about 50 years old... And nobody of significance is attending the Vatican conferences.
When I really think of it, there is no groundbreaking scientific research going on at any Catholic schools I can think of, save Catholic U, Georgetown, Notre Dame, and a couple of other universities regularly trashed in the blogosphere every Valentine's Day when the Vagina Monologues plays on their campuses. Try the words "Catholic", "biomedical" and "research" in google and see what you get: the first page dosn't even get a ".edu" No student seriously interested in the sciences would go to a Catholic school other than those mentioned. And no, Stanford isn't a Catholic school...
Now let's add in the unfortunate article by Cardinal Schoenborn in the new First Things and the popularity of "ID" among many traditional Catholics. [shudder]
The problem here is that Catholic institutions in this country are pretty weak in science, and the rest of the world is pretty weak compared to the U.S. (with some noteworthy exceptions granted in Europe and Asia). And as people like Cardinal Schoenborn try to put Philosophy on an equal footing with Science, the more ridiculous they make the Church look.
If the Church wants to be serious about science it should invest in funding scientific researchers. The Vatican can start with me! :)
But in the meantime, the NSF, DOD, DOE, NIH, NRL, DHS, etc. are the real driving force behind science. The U.S. Congress - welfare provider to the American Academy - is far more dedicated to learning, to integrating intellectual work and real world problems. The Church didn't eradicate polio, the Church didn't send astronauts to the moon and explore the Universe with probes and orbiting satellites, the Church didn't investigate and decode the human (or any other) genome... I could go on...
Posted by: Ian at Dec 29, 2005 2:32:51 AM
Wait...the American government is a global institution? I thought the American government was...you know...American.
Oh, and since this is a government we are talking about, I think the money here is not so much for the interest of science for the sake of learning (like the Vatican), but for other interests entirely. Hehe, the Department of Defense as a lover of science...maybe just the one that makes shiny objects that go boom.
The Vatican holds conferences like these for the sake of knowledge, one of the pillars of doctrine. The US Congress funded the space race, genome-mapping, et al, to serve other purposes entirerly, such as to stick it to the Russians, or find a way to harvest people for money by peddling the scientific equivalent of snake oil.
As for the attempt to put Philosophy on equal footing with Science, I will disagree. I think the Scientific Establishment lacks the sophistication to do what Cardinal Schonborn is doing. Ridiculous? Only in the eyes of the myopic Zeitgeist. Schonborn is doing that establishment a favor, especially since the best it can come up with with regards to scientific "wisdom" (different from intelligence, which the establishment has enough of) are idiots like Dawkins.
As for the lack of "hard science" research in Catholic schools, I wouldn't be so sure. America leads the world in scientific research today, but most good American Catholic universities (those that will not bother with Ensler's crappy play), contrary to the prevailing spirit, tend to focus on things beyond the hard sciences, like aforementioned philosophy. One can call it a free market thing. Or an identity thing. In time, when a Catholic university's identity is so solid that it no longer needs to bow to the Zeitgiest in order to become the next Georgetown, we will see the Catholic universities lead the pack, just as they have centuries before. Back when America was but a mere thought in the dreams of its Founding Fathers, The Church hosted some of the best in hard science research. Galileo (despite the trial), Copernicus, Kepler, et al. The Jesuits and astronomy, physics (while Galileo discovered that two objects will always fall at the same acceleration, it was a priest that measured the actual number) and seismology. Later on, we have that monk Mendel and genetics, plus the Big Bang theory. The lack of massive hard science research in American Catholic universities will be a temporary phenomenon, because scientific research is not worth the price of losing one's soul, like Georgetown did.
Posted by: JonathanR. at Dec 29, 2005 5:36:01 AM
Jesuit priest & mathematician Girolamo Saccheri in 1733 made groundbreaking progress on Euclid's Fifth Postulate, which paved the way for the hyperbolic geometry of modern physics.
Eminent physicist Roger Penrose is fond of pointing this out.
It is galling for leftists to bash Catholic Universities for being science-lightweights when it is liberalism itself that has caused these once-great institutions to lose sight of their mission.
Posted by: Jeff at Dec 29, 2005 6:39:38 AM
One could argue that were it not for the great scholars of the Middle Ages in Catholic universities there would be little science today - but ah, who wants to go there?
In the meantime, NPR continues on its anti-Christian crusade - yesterday's All Things Considered gave us in the space of thirty minutes a deconstructed fundamentalist now married to a "secular Jew" who has written a book gently mocking the fundamentalist school she was raised in, but claiming that the school encouraged the questioning which led her to see it as just another pathetic church related institution and Christianity as an even more pathetic idea system. Later Sylvia Pugeoli (?) breathlessly gave us the story that the Catholic Church is speaking freely in Italy, but that horror of horrors, it's trying to use free speech to influence people. (Liberals are all for free speech as long as those who speak freely - excepting liberals of course - don't try to influence people.) I love NPR - it has become its own best charicature.
As for liberal "intellectuals" (isn't that an oxymoron)despising the intellectual life of the Church and deliberately distorting what people say, that's par for the course. Long ago, when I was a "liberal", I learned they were as dishonest as their ideological conservative counterparts.
I did have a Catholic education through my undergraduate years, and one of the blessed consequences was that I was taught to think "critically" - courses in logic and debating, argumentation, seeking evidence, challenging assumptions, etc. It keeps one from becoming a "true believer" in any human system - it also enables one to detect the (fill in the blank) as it flies. Many years ago, the late, lamented Catholic magazine, The Critic, used to feature a wonderful universal symbol for No BS - we need more of that today.
Posted by: Dan Crawford at Dec 29, 2005 8:06:43 AM
"The Church didn't eradicate polio, the Church didn't send astronauts to the moon and explore the Universe with probes and orbiting satellites, the Church didn't investigate and decode the human (or any other) genome..."
And it is certainly not their job - qua Church - to do so (although I know indivivdual Catholic scientists working on cutting edge science, including genetics).
What I look to the Church to do is provide meaningful moral insight and analysis of science as it is used in the world, and this they do far, far, far better than anyone else on the planet.
And again, as I stated above, I also look to individual Catholics, not just the Church. On a related topic, the 1928 (I believe) Supreme Court voted 8-1 based on the science of the day that people could be sterilized without their knowledge or approval. The lone holdout? A Catholic.
Posted by: Mary at Dec 29, 2005 8:10:18 AM
Ian -
Please note that I did not say anything about Catholicism being a locus of groundbreaking scientific research. Duh. As a commentor pointed out, that is not the role of the Church. The accusation I'm addresing is that the Church is opposed to science, to the intellectual life, that it sees that as the enemy. My post was a Dummies guide for those confronted with that accusation who are not sure what to say in response. I said, show me a global organization more dedicated to integrating intellectual work and real world problems.
Posted by: amy at Dec 29, 2005 8:39:22 AM
Theology was known as the Queen of the sciences in the early universities. The concept of university is considered by many to have been the fruit of the flowering Catholic culture of the Middle (dark?) Ages. The modern Academy, heavily dependent on government funding, may briefly be well served by overtly embracing the religion of Scientism, as Ian's note seems to imply.
Ian's note, in my opinion, is a nice presentation ("nobody of significance is attending the Vatican conferences" indeed!) of the modern Zeitgeist. It seemed to tickle my ears. However, Catholicism properly understood is not unscientific. Believers know how the story will eventually turn out, because ultimately we are to be concerned with spiritual matters.
Thank you Amy, for your hard work. May God continue blessing you and your family. I loved your essay on Christmas in National Review Online. Merry Christmas!
Posted by: Joseph R. Wilson at Dec 29, 2005 9:00:56 AM
I think you are presupposing more intellectual depth in these complainers than actually exists. My experience is that these people are so cynical, and so bound to a narrow world view, they would not be able to appreciate anything the Vatican did on things like Cosmology or the other difficult topics you mention. Shallow is the best word to describe them. They merely parrot lines and platitudes that will score them points with their fellow cynics. (The same thing happens on other parts of the political spectrum)
It all comes down to these people hating anybody who tells them that something they might do is not good. For you see, all of what man does is good in their eyes...there is no fall for these people - but they are all clearly Bent.
Posted by: tk at Dec 29, 2005 9:05:08 AM
tk is right. I respect Ian for trying to dispute Amy's post in a coherent, well-thought-out way, but the Huffington Post crowd aren't on that level. Facts mean nothing to them.
Posted by: James Kabala at Dec 29, 2005 9:25:09 AM
Amy,
Why not transplant your post over to the HuffPo thread? With a few modifications, it would shake things up over in that echo chamber just enough to make it interesting. I think they would really appreciate a little diversity of thought in their thread.
Posted by: Other Marc at Dec 29, 2005 9:27:59 AM
Then there is Limbo.
Posted by: Realist at Dec 29, 2005 9:34:56 AM
Limbo?
Posted by: Fr Martin Fox (Septimus) at Dec 29, 2005 9:40:06 AM
Ian wrote:
... And nobody of significance is attending the Vatican conferences.
Ian, you should really avoid saying such patently absurd and easily refuted things. You only make yourself look silly.
One of the key presenters at the Vatican conference on end-of-life issues and palliative care mentioned by Amy above was Dr. Alan Shewmon, the head of the Neurology dept. at UCLA, a leading researcher in epilepsy, EEG, brain mapping with PET, etc. He has been one of the leaders in the current movement in medicine questioning the use of Brain Death as the criterion for clinical death.
Who is "significant" will, of course, depend on the field. Unless you pretend to expertise in every field, statements like "nobody of significance is attending the Vatican conferences" smacks more of ignorance and bigotry than anything else.
Posted by: Fr. Rob Johansen at Dec 29, 2005 9:40:23 AM
Not being a great or even remotely good scientific mind or particularly brilliant in scientific history, I think there is a place for the Church in science in the present and the future. I truly think science and scientists have gone a little too far in playing God in certain instances. It is the Church's responsibility and the responsibility of individuals and others in making sure scientists have ethics and some sort of moral compass for their research and projects. Science has done great great things to make our lives better but they have also made it possible for us to commit mass suicide. The scientific community needs to question itself in both negative and positive ways in the research it's doing. I used to be extremely liberal, but am now more middle of the road, with a bent toward liberalism especially in terms of social programs and policy, but whenever I ventured off the politically correct platform with like-minded friends by admitting I could see the conservative argument side of things, I turned into Eva Braun. Science itself cannot teach morals or ethics, that falls into the realm of religion and philosophy.
Posted by: thomps at Dec 29, 2005 9:46:09 AM
Amy,
Can you explain why you made this statement -
"(shut up, smart aleck from the Cardinal Newman Society...yeah, you. Stick with me on this one)..."
What does the Cardinal Newman society have to do with anything that you're saying?
Posted by: Frank Gibbons at Dec 29, 2005 10:06:51 AM
The most important thing the Church can do to support "science" is to foster thinking. That is no easy matter. But it happens to be one of the Church's great contributions, insofar as the Church has fostered, over the centuries, not only institutions of learning (who originated the university? who preserved the texts? who fostered extended reflection on the same?), but even in the moral life: Catholic moral reasoning -- well, even the name is telling -- always involves a good deal of thinking...
Which is hard work; and admittedly, many have always preferred to let others do it for them. "Just tell me if it's right or wrong," is often a response; and certainly the Church can do that.
But you can go all the way back to Augustine (and perhaps farther), to see this tradition of moral reasoning; and it continues, through to Peter Lombard, Albert the Great, and of course, Thomas Aquinas, and down to the present day.
It can be funny-but-sad, really; because many times, the "we're-so-smart-but-the-Church-is-so-stupid" crowd will mock the Church precisely because of this tradition of moral reasoning: "splitting hairs," "quibbling," etc.
No, it's called thinking and it's hard work!
The classic examples involve either the "Principle of Double Effect," or the rules about cooperation with evil.
The classic example of the former would be a pregnant woman with a cancerous uterus: may she receive treatment for that cancer -- even if the consequence would be the loss of her unborn child?
The answer is yes. But it comes down to the intention. She may not intend the harm to the child; but saving her own life is a legitimate intention, and if the harm caused is unavoidable, and the consequence of an action that is itself morally good or neutral, then she may proceed.
The latter set of principles I referenced, having to do with cooperation with evil, are very handy to use in all sorts of situations that otherwise can be problematic -- resulting either in paralysis, or in indifference.
Formal cooperation with evil is to share the intention; material cooperation is to be involved with it, in some fashion, without sharing the intention.
Cooperation can be immediate, proximate, or remote: If you load the gun right before I use it to commit murder, that's pretty immediate, and the question of intention matters less. If you buy from a company that invests some of its profits in a morally problematic way, your cooperation is proximate, or more likely remote (assuming you have little real influence), and your intention matters more.
A case where these two principles come together: the nurse caring for a woman whose had an abortion. Is that wrong? No, both because there's no formal cooperation, the cooperation is certainly remote, and the intention is to do good, and any bad result is unintended and unavoidable (i.e., affirmation of the abortion decision).
Now, this sort of reasoning can be manipulated, of course -- which is why intention matters! God reads the heart, and while we may fool everyone else, even ourselves, we can't fool him.
Also, sometimes this sort of reasoning cannot resolve a matter with utmost certainty; one can reach differing conclusions.
But the point remains that we do use reasoning to arrive at moral judgments -- a point I try to illuminate in the confessional.
(The point of confession is badly missed if we simply come in, and denigrate ourselves as sinners. We aim to make right moral judgments; the way we judge ourselves in matters of sin and virtue helps shape our image of God; and if we err constantly on harshness toward ourselves, does that lead to an accurate image of God--not to mention an accurate picture of the reality of our own lives? I think not. Just as I have to nudge folks to have a less rosy view of themselves, likewise, I have to nudge people to be less condemning of themselves.)
I cite this as but one way the Church has fostered the essential foundation of science: the art of reasoning.
Posted by: Fr Martin Fox (Septimus) at Dec 29, 2005 10:25:00 AM
Fr. Fox,
Awesome! Thank you.
We need this kind of cold analysis on so many issues today in our diocesan and local newspapers on so many issues-abortion, stem cell research, abortion related vaccines, etc. The Pope and his pontifical gatherings do great things, but by the time the AP picks it up, the real intellectual power is lost and diluted into the conservative vs progressive paradigm. We need to start doing more of this on the local levels.
Posted by: Other Marc at Dec 29, 2005 10:32:27 AM
Good day, everyone,
I have an issue that I face that I'd like your opinion on:
I am a fairly new Christian (3 years this last December 20th!) of the Protestant variety. I have some disagreements with Catholic teachings, but on the whole I think they are much more solid than what many Protestant churches teach. My in-laws are almost all anti-Catholic, and very vocal about it. From their experience with people they know, Catholic churches don't teach the Gospel (and knowing some of their examples, I have to agree that those people do not have a firm hold on what Christianity is all about). From my experience with bloggers like Amy and others, Catholics are very admirable and often "better" Christians than Protestants. At the very least I cannot exclude someone from being a Christian because they are Catholic (as my in-laws do). How should I respond when they come up with anti-Catholic rhetoric? For example, my future sister-in-law is thrilled because her parents are going back to the Church and attending confirmation classes. This makes my mother-in-law doubt where my sister-in-law is coming from, since if she's thrilled that her parents are going back to the Church, she's thrilled that they're not going to be any closer to becoming Christian.
If I just say (as I have in the past) that Catholics are most definitely Christians, they'll come up with all their examples of Catholics who don't seem to be Christians. A corresponding list of Protestants who also don't seem to be Christians doesn't hold much weight with them, and they dismiss it. Should I remain silent? What can I say? Should I say?
Thanks for any ideas you have,
Misty
Posted by: Misty at Dec 29, 2005 10:32:39 AM
I like Amy's accurate description of the post in question as "insane." I'm accordingly a little pessimistic about the efficacy of replying with rational argument, but I applaud your effort, Amy.
Posted by: Maclin Horton at Dec 29, 2005 10:32:55 AM
Hmmm. Wasn't Father Gregor Mendel Catholic?
Posted by: Doug Barber at Dec 29, 2005 10:35:14 AM
The intellectuals of modern society are very prone to "learned ignorance" - I think that phrase is from St. Augustine.
Just a few citations how the Church or its memebers have pushed intellectual development :
1. Pope Gregory the Great dispatches missionaries to England. RESULT : Roman alphabet in daily use in English for 1400 years.
2. Reform of calendar by Pope Gregory XIII in the late 16th century. RESULT : Calendar in daily use around the world. Will remain accurate for several thousand years.
( ASIDE : Strangely enough, "advanced" Protestant nations resisted the introduction of the Gregorian calendar; England finally adopted it in the 1750's, after 150+ years of resisting popish innovations ).
3. In the 19th century, French mathematician Cauchy provides a mathematically rigorous definition of "limits", thus putting calculus on a firmly scientific foundation. His career was more or less sidelined by secularists who found Cauchy's strident Catholicism objectionable.
4. "Mersenne numbers" are highly important in various areas of computer work. They are named after a 17th century French cleric, who belonged to the order of Minims.
5. Bolzano, a Czech (?) priest, made important contributions to mathematics in the 19th century.
Posted by: Ed at Dec 29, 2005 10:38:18 AM
Frank,
The Cardinal Newman Society seeks to encourage Catholic colleges and universities to be fully Catholic, including being true to the Magisterium in its theology courses, in its policies, and in the causes it promotes or opposes.
As a part of this mission, it frequently points out how in its opinion some Catholic colleges and universities are not fully Catholic.
The parenthetical that you wondered about was Amy's way of putting off to the side the objections that the Cardinal Newman Society might raise about how Catholic some of the institutions to which, in general, she was referring.
Posted by: Sean Gallagher at Dec 29, 2005 10:41:51 AM
Dear Misty,
You wrote, "Thanks for any ideas you have."
It sounds to me as if you have already done a good job defending what you know to be true, and your in-laws can't admit to themselves the truth of what you have to say. Their only way of defending themselves is to talk over you and yo pretend your words mean nothing to them.
Perhaps, one day, they will be able to allow themselves to listen, if you keep praying for them, and continue to live a joyful Christian life.
St. Francis of Assisi said, "Preach always! When necessary, use words." Lives of gentleness, patience, reverence, purity, and kindness may win over stubbornly closed minds and hearts better than eloquent arguements ever could.
Perhaps this is what you being are called to do, Misty, to be an example to your in-laws.
Thank you so much. May Our Lord and Savior bless you in your efforts.
Posted by: Marion (Mael Muire) at Dec 29, 2005 11:15:50 AM
Dr. Jerome LeJune, a pro-life Catholic unlocked the chromosome pattern of Down Syndrome. And the current U.S.head of Communion and Liberation, theological/philosophical heavyweight, Fr. Lorenzo Albacete, has a degrees in space science and one in applied physics.
And thank you so much Fr. Fox. Yours is a post to cut and paste and keep for future reference.
Posted by: Judy at Dec 29, 2005 11:18:07 AM
Hi, Misty - and thank you for your kind thoughts!
In what way do your in-laws believe Catholics are not Christians? Do you mean that they actually think Catholics do not believe in Jesus? Or do you mean that they just think a lot of Catholics don't live their faith? It sounds like the latter, but I wasn't sure.
My answer to your question will depend on your answers to these! :-)
Posted by: Robin at Dec 29, 2005 11:19:48 AM
