Professor Ratzinger on Modern Physics

WARNING: I about fell out of my chair when I read this. Please be seated with seat belts fastened before reading.

This is the final post in a series paying tribute to Pope B16 seven years on. Below sums-up several pages of Introduction to Christianity, Part I, Chapter V, Belief in the Triune God.

Faith consists of a series of contradictions held together by grace. This expresses, in the realm of theology, a discovery that relates to the law of complementarities in physics. Here we meet the play between faith and modern thought.

The physicist is becoming increasingly aware that we cannot embrace given realities – like the structure of light or matter – in one form. From different sides we glimpse different aspects which cannot be traced back to each other. Only by circling round, by looking from different, apparently contrary angles can we allude to the truth, which is never visible to us in its totality.

E.Schrodinger promoted the structure of matter as "wave alone", thereby hitting on the idea of being that has no substance, but is purely actual, whose apparent “substantiality” is only from the pattern of movement from superimposed waves. This is an exciting allegory for God subsisting in a multitude of relations, which are not substances, but “waves” which form a perfect unity and fullness of being. This is already formulated for all intents and purposes in St. Augustine, when he develops the idea of the pure act–existence (particle–wave).

We know today that in a physical experiment, the observer enters into the experiment. Only by doing so can he arrive at a physical experience. This means that there is no pure objectivity in physics, and that even here, the result of the experiment (natures answer) depends on the question put to it.

He who tries to be a mere observer experiences nothing. Even the reality of God can only impinge on the vision of him who enters the faith experiment with God. Only by entering does one experience; only by cooperating in the experiment does one ask at all; …..and only he who asks shall receive.

“The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Robert Jastrow- Former leading NASA scientist.

It's a little slow, but science

finally seems to be catching-up to Catholicism.

Professor Ratzinger on "Hell"

WARNING: This post is “dark”, but darkness can be a kind of light if it helps you to see.

Below deals with the article of faith “He descended into hell” (Good Friday/Holy Saturday), being without God and the pain in the verse “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” It’s probably the best description of hell I’ve ever heard, not that I’ve heard many speak of it in detail.

Summarizing several pages from Joseph Ratzinger’s book Introduction to Christianity, in Part II, The Development of Faith in Christ in the Christological Articles of the Creed:

Loneliness is a region of fear, which is rooted in the exposure of a being that must exist, but is pushed out into a situation with which it is impossible for him to deal. In the experience of utter loneliness, a fear arises peculiar to man which is not fear of anything particular, but simply fear in itself. Man cannot overcome this kind of fear by way of reason.

Ø  Example 1:

A child walking alone in the dark woods is frightened even if convincingly shown that there is nothing to be afraid of. The child will lose this fear the moment there is a loving hand to take him and he experiences the fellowship of “Another”.

Ø  Example 2:

Someone keeping watch over a corpse will feel somehow “eerie” even when he knows perfectly well the dead body can do him no harm. In fact, there would be more possibility of danger if the person was alive, but logic is of no help. This fear will also recede like the child’s if he experiences the loving nearness of a “You”.

Man cannot stand alone; he needs closeness; he needs unity.  If man (and this is the true nature of sin) refuses to recognize his own limits and tries to “be like God”, standing alone on his own two feet, then precisely by adopting this attitude he delivers himself up to death. Scripture about the connection between sin and death is to be understood from this angle. Small wonder the devil wants us prideful. Pride naturally leads to isolation from God (and others), which will lead to a torment of anxiety. It’s the exact opposite of the life of the Trinity.

If a state of isolation were to arise that was so deep that no “You” could reach into it anymore, then we should have a total and terrifying loneliness; this is what theology calls “Hell”….. a loneliness which is as inescapable as it is dreadful!

Is it hot in here, or is it just me?

Sacraments Map II

The feast of Corpus Christi had me thinking about sacraments again. Months ago I did a post called Sacraments Map that showed how the sacramental life parallels our earthly life. I was a little “off” about Confirmation, which is rather sad since I teach a confirmation class, so I decide to correct it and re-post the whole thing after stumbling across something on The Pulpit. Msgr. Charles Pope helped me on his blog to understand the sacrament of Confirmation better in terms of “growth” as opposed to “adulthood”.

Catholics believe that the physical world is good, although flawed, and God becoming man somehow elevates it to a new level; for not only had God created it, He also dwelled in it.

Stop and think about Catholicism and the use of physical things from incense for smell, art for the eyes, music for the ears, motion for the body (kneeling, genuflecting, crossing ourselves, etc.). Sacraments take this even further with the required use of corporal things like bread, wine, water, oil, touch, garments, physical speech. Catholics understand how the physical relates to the spiritual and vise-versa, and how reality encompasses both. This is mirrored in the sacraments and can even be expressed as a kind of map that parallels our earthly life. God is Emmanuel, truly “with us”, all the year and all our life through the sanctifying grace of the sacraments.

Baptism:

Just as we are born into physical life we are born again into the spiritual life of Christ in baptism. By the way, if you are a baptized Catholic and someone were to ask you “Are you born again?” The answer is unequivocally “Yes”. Although we can sin afterwards, Catholics are “born again” at baptism. This is the reality.

Confirmation:

We experience growth in our physical life. In the United States we are given more “power” and responsibility as we grow, like the right to vote at age 18. This happens regardless of how we feel about it or how mature we may think we are. Confirmation begins a process of maturation and strengthening and is considered a completion of baptism. We experience growth to go forth and preach the good news and we have the responsibility to do so, whether we like it or not; whether we think we are mature enough or not.

Sacraments of Vocation (Marriage, Holy Orders):

As we grow and mature we discern some duty within society; some type of job/career or perhaps raising a family. In the spiritual life there are vocations and certain sacraments to help us advance the Kingdom of God.

Eucharist:

As we live, we continuously need physical sustenance (food/water) for our physical journey. Jesus gave himself as our spiritual food; our daily bread (body/blood) for our spiritual journey.

Reconciliation:

As we go through life we experience sickness and injury which require healing. Many never experience serious injury or disease, but no one gets through life without the slightest sniffle, cough, bruise or cut. With no healing it gets worse and worse to the point of death. What these things do to the body, sin does to the soul, thus the need for spiritual healing.

After all, we can injure our own flesh whenever we want, but to heal it we look for a doctor who has skill, training & medical authority. In the same way we are perfectly able to sin and injure our soul, but to heal it we seek the help of “another”, a spiritual doctor.

Anointing of the sick:

Our physical life eventually comes to an end, and so there is a sacrament for this as well. Although the anointing of the sick is not always administered just before death, it should be received at some point before we die.

This sketchy outline of the sacraments is very simple (almost pathetic). But like so much in this blog, what is here is only a beginning; we have the rest of our lives to draw out Truth from an inexhaustible well.

Click on the mini-map below for a larger PDF version of The Sacraments Map

Same-Sex Marriage – What's it to you anyway?

Questions that come up in the same-sex marriage (SSM) debate are, “What’s it to you anyway? Why not let them marry? How does it affect opposite-sex marriage (OSM)?” I think the questions themselves show a misunderstanding of the concern. Some troubleshooting logic we use at work may help us to understand better.

When taking some action on an issue, we must try to ascertain if we are taking action on the cause of a problem or an effect of a problem.

Ø Action on the cause is called corrective action; it intends to eliminate the cause
Ø Action on the effect is called interim or adaptive action; it intends to limit the effect.

 

Example 1:

Ø Problem: I have a cold

Ø Cause: a virus

Ø Effect: runny nose (among other things)

v Corrective Acton: kill virus

v Interim or Adaptive Action: blow your nose

We have a problem of sexual sin in our world. The cause of this problem is sexual confusion; by “confusion” I mean not understanding, not knowing, or ignoring the true purpose of sex. A sexual relationship is meant to be something unitive, procreative, mutually exclusive and permanent and none of these aspects can be intentionally separated. It only makes sense in the context of OSM. The Effects of sexual sin are:

Ø  Unwanted pregnancies

Ø  Abortion

Ø  Divorce

Ø  Increased poverty

Ø  Sex addiction

Ø  Child molestation

Ø  Disease (STD’s)

Ø  An unknowable amount of emotional pain

Ø  Probably others I’m forgetting.

This list affects all of us. We do not live in a vacuum. As JP2 has said, there are no private sins.

Example 2:

Ø  Problem: sexual sin

Ø  Cause: sexual confusion

Ø  Effect: STD’s (among other things)

v  Corrective Acton: educate/evangelize

v  Interim or Adaptive Action: medicine/vaccination

I suggest that legalizing SSM is just another effect of the problem, not a cause. Political action defending true marriage is good, but we should be aware that this is addressing more an effect than the cause.

So back to the questions of, “What’s it to you? Why not let them marry? How does it affect OSM?” The government is a kind of teacher with great influence. Public institutions shape our ideas and ideas have consequences. In legalizing SSM, governments are “teaching” society that marriage and procreation are not inexorably linked. This further extends the cause of the problem and thus accentuates its effects. Removing the rational basis for a norm will erode adherence to that norm.

Additionally, if SSM becomes the law-of-the-land, those that defend true marriage (like the Catholic Church) would be seen more and more as a “bigots” that make groundless distinctions. This would logically bring more persecution.

No fault divorce, artificial contraception and legalizing abortion were supposed to make things better for society, make people happier, build stronger marriages, and reduce poverty & STD’s. The data shows the exact opposite. As we s-l-o-w-l-y accept the changes, we are like frogs in water being s-l-o-w-l-y boiled to death, just a few degrees at a time. Legalizing SSM is the next temperature increment we face.

Hey Frog, what's it to ya?

Professor Ratzinger's Law of Disguise

Continuing a tribute to B16 seven years on, here is another insight inspired by Professor Ratzinger in his book Introduction to Christianity, Part II, Excursus: Christian Structures.

The law of disguise relates to the idea of Christian paradox expressed in an interesting way. The Alpha of the universe appears as the Omega; the last letter in the alphabet of creation.

Ø  First there is the Earth, a mere nothing in the cosmos, which was to be the point of divine activity.

The Earth

Ø  Then comes Israel, a cipher among the powers of the world which was to be the point of His appearance in the world.

Ancient Israel

Ø  Then Nazareth, again a cipher within Israel, which was to be the point of His definitive arrival.

Nazareth

Ø  Then the Cross on which a man was to hang whose life had been a failure. A sure sign someone was NOT the messiah was if his enemies were to hang him on a tree; it only makes sense in light of the resurrection. God has come so near to us that we can kill Him and thereby, so it seems, ceases to be God for us.

The Cross

Ø  Finally there is the Church with its questionable history and the claim to be the abiding site of His revelation. Precisely when the Church believed, in all the glory of the Renaissance princedom, that she could cast off this hiddenness and be directly the “gate of heaven”, the “house of God”, she became God’s disguise, with God scarcely to be found behind it.

The Church

Like a clever warrior, God slips behind enemy lines in disguise; a divine camouflage so good that the secular eye sees nothing special. The spiritual eye can see only if it is awake and unhindered.

God seems to keep disappearing more and more and, precisely in this way, becomes more and more manifest as Himself.

The Law of Disguise

The Unintelligibility of Same-Sex Marriage

God is the author of marriage, but this does not convince same-sex marriage activists. The “Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve” argument doesn’t go very far. The reflex rebuttals are, “You have no right to impose your religion on others” and the familiar “Separation of Church and State.”

At this point the dialog shuts down, but I find that secular arguments tend to re-boot the discussion. I occasionally debate proponents on other forums. To be honest, they have quite a bit of difficulty breaking down the logic in the following post:

Few things represent a lack-of-thinking more than the idea of same-sex marriage. We need to turn down the noise on this issue and look at the facts.

Why is the government in the marriage business?
Does the government care who you “love”?
Would marriage exist if humans reproduced asexually?

The nature of male/female marriage leads directly to the building blocks of a nation just like the cells of a body. Strong families and a productive future citizenry result from a permanent and loving union between one male and one female. If we don’t see this clear connection to our society, we’re just not looking. The very idea that The State should NOT give incentive & recognize a procreative union as unique from other types of human unions boggles the mind.

You will ask; what about infertile couples or couples who do not want children? This question brings a new debate. The debate becomes, should marriage be defined as any man and any woman or only a man and woman willing & able to have children. The question in no way logically justifies same-sex marriage.

You will ask; what about equal rights for all? Many relationships, other than marriages, have tremendous personal significance to those involved. The fact that we do not call them marriages is not evidence of bigotry, but recognition of reality.

Proponents of same-sex marriage insist that marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with reproduction; why children? I like to counter with a question of my own; why sex? Suppose two sisters share a household and love each other very much. Why should they not be married if they want?  Why discriminate against people because they are not sexually attracted to each other? It’s not fair.

Another question; why the number “two”? Why can’t marriage be any 3 people or any 30 people? I’ve been told this is a slippery slope argument and slippery slope arguments are automatically invalid. So if my kids are playing with matches, and I project that there will be a fire and someone will get hurt, this would be another automatically invalid slippery slope argument.

Then there is the discussion about “What’s it to you?” Let them marry. It does not affect heterosexual marriage in any way. This would be a separate post I think. For the purposes of this post, I’ll say that I prefer my government do things that are intelligible as oppose to unintelligible. What say you?

Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined.

Professor Ratzinger on “Meaning”

Behold, I am scary-smart.

Continuing a tribute to B16 seven years on, here is another insight inspired by Professor Ratzinger.

Science tells us a lot about how something works, what it does or what physical attributes it has. The scientific method is frustrated, however, by questions related to “meaning”. Galileo hinted at this when he said, "Religion tells us how to go to heaven; science tells us how the heavens go." As a result, a secular answer to the question, “What is the meaning of life?” might be, “We make our own meaning.”

If you think about it, we really don’t understand what something is unless we know its purpose. Imagine you were to stumble upon a razor, but didn’t know what it was for. You will notice that it is very sharp. Let’s say YOU decide the purpose of the razor is to cut wood; what will happen? You will not cut wood very well and you will destroy the razor. Why? Because you did not know what the razor was really for. You did not know the intended purpose of its existence.

Professor Ratzinger addresses the question of “meaning” in the first chapter of his book, Introduction to Christianity. Here are some highlights paraphrased a bit:

Ø  Meaning is the bread on which man subsists. Everyone knows the situation of “not being able to go on” in the midst of outward abundance. How many have plenty in terms of health, food, clothing and shelter, but live quiet (or not so quiet) lives of desperation. It’s a problem related to “meaning”.

Ø  He goes on about two kinds of thought. Calculating thought is concerned with “make-ability”; reflective thought is concerned with “meaning”. We need both. In an age in which calculating thought is celebrating amazing triumphs, we are all threatened by thoughtlessness, a flight from reflective thought.

Ø  Meaning is not manufactured from knowledge. We can study the physical attributes of a razor for an eternity and never grasp its true meaning. Meaning, that is, the ground on which our existence as a totality can stand and live, cannot be made, but only received. Meaning that is self-made is in the last analysis no meaning.

Ø  The good professor also gives a clever analogy to self-made meaning; imagine a man trying to pull himself out of a bog by his own hair. This is the absurdity of the statement, “We make our own meaning.”

Why am I not being uplifted?!?!



A very simple, but very good answer to life’s meaning can still be found in the Baltimore Catechism. Why did God make us? God made us to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven. Theologian Frank J. Sheed said it in a simple way too; why did God make us?.......because we should like it.

“Eye has not seen nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, what things God has prepared for those who love him.” (I Corinthians 2:9)