Well, we aim to please Ash- although it seems a pretty dismal way to get an ego boost.

Some anonymous poster asked, in response to my jest about why I was reading this blog when I don't really care what the ratzinger's pet myths are, just why I am actually reading this blog.

I read "on faith" and other religious blogs for a number of reasons, but mainly it's because I think that when religious people aren't blowing themselves up, smashing planes into buildings, or trying to subvert our democracy, they're very cute with their arguments over ancient stories and godlings.

During his visit to Sydney, Pope Benedict XVI, met with leaders from all Christian denominations with a view to actively encourage Christian unity. He met separately also with religious leaders from other faiths and humbly admitted that the Catholic Church had much to learn from other religions. He actively encouraged interfaith dialogue.

For me personally, this came as wonderful news, having known Dom Bede Griffiths OSB, who did all he could in this regard, in his own way, during his lifetime.

Contd...

The Catholic World Youth Day in Sydney this July, with participants from 169 countries is the greatest event Australia has ever hosted! Although it is called World Youth Day (WYD), it should rightly be called Catholic World Youth Week since the celebration lasted a whole week.

In preparation for WYD08 the journey of the cross around Australia started one year in advance. The theme of WYD08 was Pentecost, outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The Pope urged the young, filled with the Holy Spirit at the end of the celebrations, to go out, back to their countries, communities and parishes, and be witnesses to Jesus Christ, just as the followers of Jesus did after that first Pentecost. He reminded them that there would be a price to pay in living for Jesus, and the cross was a reminder of the suffering and the way to overcome it with and through Jesus. It was in the context of guiding the young in every aspect of their lives, to fire them with idealism born of faith in Jesus and His command to go out and be witnesses for Him, that the Pope touched upon all the areas of human life. It was a call to the young to be fully alive and active in a way that brings glory to God, our Heavenly Father. It is also because the Pope lays much importance to culture and beauty as part of the Christian faith as Catholics understand it, that music and cultural events is very much a part of World Youth Day. It is wonderful when the young find religion to be cool, filled with as much excitement as any cultural event and with as much challenge as any idealistic goal they love to fight for. The Pope's active support for World Youth Day is integral to its success.

It somehow diminishes the holistic and evangelical purpose of the Pope's message to the youth gathered in Sydney from around the world, to present his ideas in a fragmented way as it appears to me Prof S-Arroyo has done. By introducing de Chardin's worldview in reference to the Pope's message, the essay was turned into a complex discussion in a theology class. That is not what the Pope's message to the youth was about.

Mary Cunningham:

Quite right, Soja, it was not a great title. The Pope cannot save the world, only the Lord did that.

August 1, 2008 5:47 AM

=========================================

Mary

I was somewhat confused by Professor Stevens-Arroyo's take on the Pope's message to the Catholic youth from 169 countries gathered in Sydney for World Youth Day.

Introducing Teilhard de Chardin's worldview seemed like red herring. Not only because the Pope did not mention him but also because it took the discussion completely off tangent and had bloggers discussing the merits of de Chardin's worldview instead of trying to understand what the Pope's message to the Catholic youth really was about.

When Professor Stevens-Arroyo writes:

"When in his Sydney address, Pope Benedict called humankind the "apex of God's creation," he repeated the Teilhardian view. I suspect that the intellectual correspondence between the Jesuit and the pontiff is much closer than has been recognized until now. In any case, I believe it sets a new concern of Catholic theology.

To understand the difference between this Catholic view of ecology and the more pedestrian "steward of nature" used in many Protestant circles, consider this analogy. The steward stands beside a tomato plant and waters it to maturity. If something happens to the tomato bush, the steward simply plants another one. In each operation, he/she stands outside of nature and its product.

For Chardin and the pope, however, the comparison is with a person who lives in a house he/she has built, high in the upper branches of a huge and growing tree. If the tree is destroyed, the person and where he/she lives also comes crashing down. While both models are laudable, the urgency of caring for nature is much higher in the example of the tree-house than in the one about the tomato plant. Such is the distance between this vision of Pope Benedict and a stewardship model. "

Since the Pope referred specifically to the Genesis creation story, and made no reference whatever to de Chardin, I do not find much basis for what Professor Stevens-Arroyo said, "To understand the difference between this Catholic view of ecology and the more pedestrian "steward of nature" used in many Protestant circles, consider this analogy." which seems to imply that the Pope was somehow alluding to a special Catholic theology as put forward by de Chardin compared to which the "steward of nature" model taken out of Genesis was somehow Protestant and was "pedestrian" in comparison...

Contd...

Who is the holy father the pope?

But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

“to the image of Baal”

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

“harmless as doves”
“I send you forth as sheep”
“wise as serpents”

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.

“An instructor of the foolish”

But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

“jealousy by them that are no people”
“by a foolish nation I will anger you”

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

“be wise, they became fools”
“into an image made like to corruptible man”
“to birds”
“fourfooted beasts”
“creeping things”
“worshipped and served the creature”

But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:
Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.

“ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee”
“the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee”
“speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee”
“the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee”

The Pope certainly does not agree with the writer's last phrase that Catholics should, "...defend both with equal vigor." Benedict has straightforwardly stated that human life takes precedence over lower life-forms.

Realist,

Now who's using ad hominems and avoiding the point? I assumed you were a man because of your writing style. I hadn't meant any offense by it.

Tony, Tony, Tony,

You "text" like a tree hugger with your comments about oil wells (that stoke the world's economy) and growing corn, (said crop representing approximately 40% of the world's food.)

So lets start "walking the talk" with some observations about tree huggers you need to peruse and take to practicing:

We assume all the "tree huggers" stopped using toilet paper and toilets years ago. And they ride bicyles or walk to work or play in their bare feet in the nude. A good tree hugger would never wear any fabrics since they contain preservatives and stay-press chemicals. And they never watch unrecyclable TV sets or use unrecyclable I-Pods, I-Phones, Blackberries, cell phones or video game systems.

And are willing to give their homes/land back to the American Indians who ethically own the land that the house sits on to include Nantucket beach property.

And never, never would they use air conditioners or fans or chlorinated/fluorinated water, or take baths with surfactants and soaps that pollute our sanitation systems. And they cut their grass with non-powered push mowers and would never have an outside barbeque using valuable, polluting propane or polluting charcoal briquettes or ever play on "chem-lawned" grass or golf courses.

And one wonders what tree-huggers eat and drink considering all those preservatives and energy used to raise, harvest, clean, process and transport the food we eat.

And heaven-forbid if they take a polluting cruise ship, plane, train or car anywhere!!!

Then there is all that energy making and transporting beer, wine and booze that they never imbibe in.

Not to mention all the raw material and energy-sucking drugs, legal and illegal that "tree huggers" never use.

Bottom line: it appears Tony SA, Tim Shriver, popes and the other rich enviromnentlal ilk have only one place to go, back to the caves and their excrement holes with hopefully leaf wipes.

John,

?

B16 has been indefatigable in writing and teaching Christ's truth. JP2 brought the cross personally to over 117 nations. The teaching facility of the Church has always been paramount, in obediance to the Lord's command. You might not agree with what it teaches, or its interpretation, but the Church has always tried to be faithful to Christ's command to evangelise and bring the "good news" to as many as it could.

The ancient Church in the West converted Ireland, England, France, and, later, Prussia, Poland & Scandinavia. It lost Spain to Islam, along with the African Church.

After surpressing his work and putting in exile all these years...

Quite right, Soja, it was not a great title. The Pope cannot save the world, only the Lord did that.

Re: ranking of sources, census outranks all

What Realist believes is immaterial. She can believe 2+2=5 but it doesn't effect the outcome, 2+2=4 no matter what *realist* believes. Regarding religion in India: the Indian census is always preferable to an online encyclopedia. (In any case, the census is usually the *origin* of all the other sources.) Wiki can get you into a lot of trouble, I would add.

I choose not to post further with Realist whose arrogance seems only exceded by her ignorance except to say the "O-H", was Santa Claus-like comment.

Pope Saves the World

» Anthony Stevens-Arroyo | Benedict links saving life in the womb to preservation of the environment.

===========================

The title reads like a sensational headline in a tabloid. I didn't get the impression Pope Benedict XVI made any such hyperbolic statements in his message.

Fr Teilhard de Chardin SJ seems in his own way to be a scientific mystic.

Reposting

Pope Benedict XVI said:

"My dear friends, God’s creation is one and it is good. The concerns for non-violence, sustainable development, justice and peace, and care for our environment are of vital importance for humanity. They cannot, however, be understood apart from a profound reflection upon the innate dignity of every human life from conception to natural death: a dignity conferred by God himself and thus inviolable. Our world has grown weary of greed, exploitation and division, of the tedium of false idols and piecemeal responses, and the pain of false promises. Our hearts and minds are yearning for a vision of life where love endures, where gifts are shared, where unity is built, where freedom finds meaning in truth, and where identity is found in respectful communion. This is the work of the Holy Spirit! This is the hope held out by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is to bear witness to this reality that you were created anew at Baptism and strengthened through the gifts of the Spirit at Confirmation. Let this be the message that you bring from Sydney to the world!"

======================================================

The way I understand Pope Benedict's message is that he wants concern for human rights from womb to tomb to be taken as seriously as all other concerns that one tends to focus on at political levels, namely, non-violence, justice and peace, sustainable development, concern for environment etc. So perhaps it is two sides of the same coin but it is not the same side.

In this I agree with Professor Arroyo as a Christian first and a Catholic next:

"The pope has outlined the connection between these issues and abortion: now it is time for Catholics (mine - not just) in America to listen and defend both with equal vigor."

Reposting

Pope Benedict XVI said:

"And we discover that not only the natural but also the social environment – the habitat we fashion for ourselves – has its scars; wounds indicating that something is amiss. Here too, in our personal lives and in our communities, we can encounter a hostility, something dangerous; a poison which threatens to corrode what is good, reshape who we are, and distort the purpose for which we have been created. Examples abound, as you yourselves know. Among the more prevalent are alcohol and drug abuse, and the exaltation of violence and sexual degradation, often presented through television and the internet as entertainment. I ask myself, could anyone standing face to face with people who actually do suffer violence and sexual exploitation “explain” that these tragedies, portrayed in virtual form, are considered merely “entertainment”? ...

"Dear friends, LIFE IS NOT GOVERNED BY CHANCE; IT IS NOT RANDOM. YOUR VERY EXISTENCE HAS BEEN WILLED BY GOD, BLESSED AND GIVEN A PURPOSE(cf. Gen 1:28)!

Life is not just a succession of events or experiences, helpful though many of them are. It is a search for the true, the good and the beautiful. It is to this end that we make our choices; it is for this that we exercise our freedom; it is in this – in truth, in goodness, and in beauty – that we find happiness and joy. Do not be fooled by those who see you as just another consumer in a market of undifferentiated possibilities, where choice itself becomes the good, novelty usurps beauty, and subjective experience displaces truth.

"Christ offers more! Indeed he offers everything! Only he who is the Truth can be the Way and hence also the Life. Thus the “way” which the Apostles brought to the ends of the earth is life in Christ. This is the life of the Church. And the entrance to this life, to the Christian way, is Baptism...

But what of our social environment? Are we equally alert to the signs of turning our back on the moral structure with which God has endowed humanity (cf. 2007 World Day of Peace Message, 8)? Do we recognize that the innate dignity of every individual rests on his or her deepest identity - as image of the Creator - and therefore that human rights are universal, based on the natural law, and not something dependent upon negotiation or patronage, let alone compromise? And so we are led to reflect on what place the poor and the elderly, immigrants and the voiceless, have in our societies. How can it be that domestic violence torments so many mothers and children?

How can it be that the most wondrous and sacred human space – the womb – has become a place of unutterable violence?"

==============================================

Nowhere in the above do I see any evidence of Pope Benedict XVI referring to environmental protection and "unutterable violence" in the womb (his definition of abortion)as being two sides of the same coin, as Professor Stevens-Arroyo seems to imply in his essay.

Reposting

Pope Benedict XVI said:

"Ever since the first World Youth Day in 1986, it has been evident that vast numbers of young people appreciate the opportunity to come together to deepen their faith in Christ and to share with one another a joyful experience of communion in his Church. They long to hear the word of God, and to learn more about their Christian faith. They are eager to take part in an event which brings into focus the high ideals that inspire them, and they return home filled with hope and renewed in their resolve to contribute to the building of a better world. For me it is a joy to be with them, to pray with them and to celebrate the Eucharist with them. World Youth Day fills me with confidence for the future of the Church and the future of our world...

"With many thousands of young people visiting Australia at this time, it is appropriate to reflect upon the kind of world we are handing on to future generations. In the words of your national anthem, this land “abounds in nature’s gifts, of beauty rich and rare”.

THE WONDER OF GOD'S CREATION REMINDS US OF THE NEED TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND TO EXERCISE RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF THE GOODS OF THE EARTH.

In this connection I note that Australia is making a serious commitment to address its responsibility to care for the natural environment..."

Reposting

Pope Benedict XVI said:

"...It is as though ONE CATCHES GLIMPSES OF THE GENESIS CREATION STORY - light and darkness, the sun and the moon, the waters, the earth, and living creatures; all of which are “good” in God’s eyes (cf. Gen 1:1 - 2:4). Immersed in such beauty, who could not echo the words of the Psalmist in praise of the Creator: “how majestic is your name in all the earth?” (Ps 8:1).

And there is more – something hardly perceivable from the sky – MEN AND WOMEN, MADE IN NOTHING LESS THAN GOD'S OWN IMAGE AND LIKENESS(cf. Gen 1:26) AT THE HEART OF CREATION ARE YOU AND I, THE HUMAN FAMILY "CROWNED WITH GLORY AND HONOUR" (Ps 8:5). How astounding! With the Psalmist we whisper: “what is man that you are mindful of him?” (Ps 8:4). And drawn into silence, into a spirit of thanksgiving, into the power of holiness, we ponder.

What do we discover? Perhaps reluctantly we come to acknowledge that there are also scars which mark the surface of our earth: erosion, deforestation, the squandering of the world’s mineral and ocean resources in order to fuel an insatiable consumption. Some of you come from island nations whose very existence is threatened by rising water levels; others from nations suffering the effects of devastating drought.

GOD'S WONDROUS CREATION IS SOMETIMES EXPERIENCED AS ALMOST HOSTILE TO ITS STEWARDS, EVEN SOMETHING DANGEROUS.

How can what is “good” appear so threatening?

And there is more.

WHAT OF MAN, THE APEX OF GOD'S CREATION?
Every day we encounter the genius of human achievement. From advances in medical sciences and the wise application of technology, to the creativity reflected in the arts, the quality and enjoyment of people’s lives in many ways are steadily rising..."

...THE WONDER OF GOD'S CREATION REMINDS US OF THE NEED TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND TO EXERCISE RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF THE GOODS OF THE EARTH.

"Teilhard’s Christian dimension where he makes Christ as the meeting point of science and revelation, of the natural and supernatural of the human and divine in one and the same person, is something to be reckoned with. Though Christians in general are comfortable with this view – Christ as the Omega Point, to many Christians and Church authorities, he sounds a heretic from the point of view of Christian teaching and philosophy. A concrete example for this could be his view: “The Earth was probably born by chance”."

http://www.goethals.org/teilhard.htm

====================================================

Although Professor Stevens-Arroyo seems to have given extremely complex interpretation of Pope Benedict XVI message to young Catholics from around the world gathered in Sydney for World Youth Day, introducing Teilhard de Chardin into the picture, although the Pope did not mention him, I did not get the impression Pope Benedict XVI spoke of anything other than the Judeo-Christian understanding of creation as written in the first two chapters of Genesis (in allegoric terms of course and not in a literal sense of creation in 6 days consisting of twenty four hours as we know them as per a man made clock). Everything the Pope expressed came across, at least to me, as simple and straightforward, tailored to his audience, who were young Catholics from around the world attending what is primarily a week long religion based youth festival.

If Teilhard de Chardin's view included, "The earth was probably born by chance," how could it possibly be what the Pope talked about? The Pope did specifically mention the word "stewardship" in his message, so on what basis does Professor Stevens-Arroyo draw the conclusion the Pope holds a view that does not include the concept of stewardship?

Contd...

Thank goodness.
I remember the great meeting at Notre Dame in the 1960s on Theology, post Vatican II.
Most of the theologians who presented papers at that remarkable conference have since been chastized by the Church, blocked from teaching theology and many who were priests were laicized.
The repression of theologians following that ground-breaking conference was breath-taking.
Most of the repressive actions taken by the Church were engineered at the hands of the current Pope.
De Chardin was pilloried in many circles, but never condemned.
I have been one of De Chardin's ardent fans and have continued to review and renew my interest in his remarkable description of the role of Creation in the universe.
De Chardin died a simple priest, never knowing his writings would intrigue and revitalize those of us who love the magnificent descriptions of the world as he saw it.
If you have not read his works, get to a bookstore. They're all in paperback.
Read and marvel at this wonderful man's intuitive reflection of the universe as he sees it through his scientific expertise and his prayer-life as largesse from the Mind of God.
De Chardin's works are wonderful.

Paul C. wrote "Peter came into contact with others preaching the Gospel and told them to stop but Jesus told him that whoever was not against him was for him. Why can you not see it that way? This is the basis of the ecumenical movement."

Actually, all religions that is part of the ecumenical movement are false religions. My focus is on catholicism because it is the biggest snake among the group. When Christ said to beware of the LEAVENED BREAD, he was talking about FALSE religions.

Satan is a wise creature and much wiser than humans. Therefore it is not a surprise when many will gravitate to a false religion. Catholcism conceal its evil deeds very wisely. Preaching loudly against contraception (which is not a sin), but NOT FORNICATION. The Bible said that if one cannot contain it, IT IS BETTER TO MARRY THAN TO BURN. For this reason, many priests will BURN simply because they don't know that their master is the DEVIL. They are not allowed to marry despite the obvious fact that they cannot contain.

For centuries, they tried to keep the Bible AWAY from their flock. Read Jose Rizal's letter to see what this religion has been doing thru-out the centuries. This religion is SO GREEDY WITH POWER just like the owner of it which is the DEVIL.

http://emanila.com/philippines/2008/04/18/to-the-young-women-of-malolos/

***

And by the way, Catholicsim believes in Evolution. They think they came from monkeys.

RDT at 8:54 said it best -- thank you. As for the question on original sin and evolution. The answer lies in another question -- when in the process did we become "human" for it is then that we also acquired the capacity to sin. No other living thing is capable of sin but we are inherently imperfect beings, and our imperfections lead us to sin. They also lead us to question, to search for answers to that which we find imperfect or incomprehensible in the world and in so doing to search for God. That is what the Catholic priests taught me and I thank them for that.

Where does all this hatred and sophistry spring from? As to the hatred, there are those who need demons and it is clear that for many in this blog, Catholics fill that need. You may say it is the teachings of the Church that raises your ire, which brings us to sophistry. The most vitriolic postings here show deep and willful ignorance of Catholic teaching & Catholic practices. At the core of Catholic teaching is respect for life -- that includes unborn children, innocent children entrusted to our care, and those on death row, as well as all living creatures in this great evolutionary (yes, we do believe in evolution) drama. Has the Church in word and deed failed to live up to that teaching? Absolutely. But the teaching remains the same. And yes, many of us are at odds with the Church on many issues --including contraception (as distinct from abortion). But that doesn't make us less Catholic any more than the abuses we all grieve over undermine the fundamental point of Christianity, including Catholicism: God's love, forgiveness, deep respect for each other. Reciting the errors the Church has made that are at odds with the Church's own teachings is sophistry -- No one is condoning what happened but it is not the single issue that defines a church with a 2000 year history. That we have more errors to throw in our faces is in large part attributable to that long history of human beings trying to follow in Christ's footsteps. We falter -- sometimes in huge ways. But we always return to our core beliefs. So please try to educate yourself and eschew the cheap shots that so often are off point.

OOOOOH, Yeah.

Any Catholic 'thing' is the best.

Sad

Neal: You wrote: "To any Catholic posters who care to respond:Can anyone explain the RC Church's doctrine of original sin in terms of the Theory of Evolution?..."

Teilhard hypothezised that original sin happened when time as we understand did not exist, that is, it happened outside of time. He left it like this for theologians to consider.

You can read more about it in Teilhad de Chardin's "Christianity and Evolution".

The "Phenomenon of Man" and "The Divine Milieu" are another 2 of his greatest books.

Neal: You wrote: "To any Catholic posters who care to respond:Can anyone explain the RC Church's doctrine of original sin in terms of the Theory of Evolution?..."

Teilhard hypothezised that original sin happened when time as we understand did not exist, that is, it happened outside of time. He left it like this for theologians to consider.

You can read more about it in Teilhad de Chardin's "Christianity and Evolution".

The "Phenomenon of Man" and "The Divine Milieu" are 2 of his greatest books.

The answer is sung every Easter Vigil, in the exultet, and has been for the last millenia and a half: "Oh! Happy Fault!, OH necessary sin of Adam."

It isn't what if, but only that it happened.

Then again, forensic genetics seems to validate two related "myths". Eve and her descendants, and so presumably Adam, seem to have left what may have been something of an Eden near the east coast of Africa, and spread through a much less friendly world, where they suffered, it is true, but also prospered.

Maybe there really was an Adam and an Eve, who were driven out of paradise.

That should read, 'The Perennial Philosophy' by Aldous Huxley......highly recommended. Aldous dropped acid on his deathbed - courageous or crazy? He firmly believed in alternate realities.

He apparently liked what he saw when he experimented with mind-altering substances during his writing of 'The Doors of Perception'.

"Gary E. Masters: I find any analysis that fails to mention "ice age" patterns is of no consequence and faluty. If this is the best they can do, it is time to try again. They did try to ignore Bruno and Galileo. Now they ignore the possibility of ice."

The Church did NOT ignore Galileo. In fact, he did all his BEST work, trying to quantify the acceleration due to gravity, while in his final confinement under Papal control.

One might say that what the Church did was make him get it really right.

Oh, and Galileo rejected Kepler. Not Aristotelian enough for Galileo. (Also really really weird in his methodology.)

It is likely that Teilhard de Chardin underwent genuine mystical experiences - and that, coupled with his deep grounding in science, prevented him from recapitulating a belief in and/or supporting certain conventional Church doctrines.

This is quite unlike modern author Thomas Merton, the Trappist monk from Gethsemane monastery outside of Louisville, that wrote extensively on his own conversion experiences and eastern mysticism (see 'Mysticism and Zen Masters') - and in the end, he maintained that Zen was a 'natural' mysticism whereas the salvation of Christ was to be preferred - which makes one doubt whether he ever in fact underwent a genuine mystical experience....even once. I say, go ahead and be a believer, but admit to what you don't know for sure.

I believe de Chardin realized that Church doctrine was fixed in perpetuity like a dandy in aspic, when in fact Reality is ever moving and ever changing - in a word, evolving. He just couldn't say it out loud. Galileo had created quite enough Church trauma earlier in the same millenium. As another poster mentioned, the contemporary Catholic monk Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for supporting similar Copernican beliefs when he wouldn't recant.

Mystical experience typcially results in transpersonal/noetic feelings of union with the Sacred or the Divine which can only be described in monistic and/or pantheistic terms and where One Spirit either pervades all, or is all - it eliminates dualism altogether. The Church has always had an uneasy relationship with mysticism for this very reason. They have often seen the need to closely screen the utterances of various mystics throughout the ages.

In the aftermath of mystical union, many saints have made every effort to describe their experiences in a manner acceptable to Church authority - under pain of heresy and generally followed by a short trip to the stake.

The 14th century monk and mystic Meister Eckhart came periously close to being declared a heretic for his descriptive breaches of accepted Church doctrine. His reported experiences confounded dualistic concepts of God. 'The eye with which I see God, is the eye with which God sees me'. Yes, there is good precedent for the philosopher Henri Bergson coming off as a pantheist. Also highly recommended for review is modern mystic Henri Corbin - his work makes for some interesting reading, although his faith took a curious turn toward Islam.

Jacob Boehme, the 17th century Protestant mystic described his experiences in pantheistic terms, but using God and Christ symbolism throughout. This can be reviewed in his little book 'The Way to Christ'. Emmanual Swedenborg was a close contemporary, fellow mystic, and all around Renaissance man in the arts and sciences that made voluminous reports of his many mystical experiences.

All of this and more can be seen in 'The Perennial Experience' by A. Huxley, and 'Varieties of Religious Experience' by W. James. These studies in mysticism show the similarities that abound in all mystical experience, regardless of religious faith.

Teilhard de Chardin was not excommunicated because he kept his mouth shut when he was told to, and did not rock any doctrinal boats - so here we have Benedict now embracing him as the next thing to a future saint - well, stranger things have happened. There's a new saint in the making every time we turn around.......

I find any analysis that fails to mention "ice age" patterns is of no consequence and faluty. If this is the best they can do, it is time to try again. They did try to ignore Bruno and Galileo. Now they ignore the possibility of ice.

Make that "immortal"...

To any Catholic posters who care to respond:

Can anyone explain the RC Church's doctrine of original sin in terms of the Theory of Evolution? Specifically, when hasn't pain, suffering, death and the capacity to do bad things not been part of our evolutionary line? If the first humans hadn't transgressed, would we be immoral?

Thanks in advance.

To quote from Salman Rushdie's latest :

"The cassock of holiness cloaks the codpiece of evil, every f@cking time."

Pope RATzinger has nothing important to say regarding Gaia, a pagan earth goddess that the Church did everything in its power to destroy. Pope RATzinger is a witch burner in priestly vestments.

BTW, Ryan, that's "Ms. Realist" to you. Interesting that you assumed it was "Sir." Why is that?

Ryan Haber wrote: I don't think that Mary Cunningham was calling you a "ho" in her post of 2:55 p.m. (?) I think "Oh Ho!" was an interjection like "Whoa!" or "Hold on!"

Perhaps. Will be happy to accept her apology, or clarification, but that's between me and her.

RH wrote: Also, she doesn't seem to have been referring to you, specifically, in mentioning "libs" or atheists, while perhaps you do fit into those categories. I cannot say.

Again, not your concern.

RH wrote: Actually, our enemies criticize us for both [who we are and what we do]....I am neither hurt by angry ranters, nor scared of them or some catastrophic future for my Church, Realist.

Enemies...angry ranters...internet tough guy stance. Oh, boy.

Look, most posters here use what are obviously handles. Those handles that could be real names are impossible to verify as such. As I stated earlier (repeatedly), the point of the debate is the argument itself, not who says it.

No, I'm not going to contact you directly, or visit you, or encourage anyone else to do so. You'll have to look elsewhere in your quest for martyrdom, or whatever.

However, I'm sure the alpha male, chest-thumping, defender of the faith act will ensure that you'll score big time with the catholic girls at the next CYA meeting. Don't forget the condoms.

"Can you honestly say there are too many children in the world?"

There are now too many children in the world. Who could possibly fail to grasp this simple fact?

Ratzinger should be arrested immediately. In a speech in Sydney he said that those responsible for child abuse should be "brought to justice". Why then is Cardinal Bernard Law still living in Vatican city under his protection? This is the tip of the iceberg : Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor also directly enabled child rapists and facilitated their movement to new parishes to continue their abuse. This is all documented.
Then there is the immoral act of sending priests to lie about the efficacy of condoms in Africa. This policy has directly lead to deaths via the spread of aids.
All the while, with his Armani clad bodyguards, and his robes and finery, he sits on the vatican coffers.
We are talking about a morally bankrupt, corrupt, global criminal network and as it's head, he should be in handcuffs. This is not directed at catholics in general, but you must see that the gang you ally yourselves with is horribly diseased. The shame of it.

Realist,

I don't think that Mary Cunningham was calling you a "ho" in her post of 2:55 p.m. (?) I think "Oh Ho!" was an interjection like "Whoa!" or "Hold on!"

Also, she doesn't seem to have been referring to you, specifically, in mentioning "libs" or atheists, while perhaps you do fit into those categories. I cannot say.

Unbelievable,

I've gotta say, I think you've been sold a bill of goods. When there's a law in place requiring nature to be permitted to run her course in a woman's womb, then a man, by law, cannot dominate that truly sacred place where life begins.

When there is a law saying that the life there can be expelled and destroyed at convenience, the sanctity of the womb is desecrated, and the woman herself is left exposed to all the dominating pressures the men in her life can bring to bear. Most women who have abortions cite pressure or at least lack of support from father/parents and/or "lover".

Previously, a man might not pressure a woman if he thought of the consequences of a pregnancy. Now, there needn't be any - or at least, they needn't be very expensive. He can get out of them for $400, which sure beats the earlier possibilities of (a) keeping his hands to himself, or (b) lifelong child support. And if the woman doesn't want the $400? Well, a little pressure or coercion can be brought to bear and the situation can be, um, how did you put it... dominated?

This principle is most obvious in the case of child sexual abuse. In earlier days, a pregnant twelve-year old raised eyebrows, to be sure, but questions also. "Honey, who touched you down there?" would be followed by calls to the police. But now, the little girl can be brought to an abortionist so that nobody knows what's going on, and she can remain Daddy's "Little Plaything."

How's that for men dominating women, Unbelievable?

Realist, perhaps I will more adequately address the contents of your 10:55 a.m. post.

"are people criticizing you for your beliefs (in the sacraments and the dogma of your faith), or are they criticizing your actions (serving as an apologist for an organization that enables sexual abuse of children)?"

Actually, our enemies criticize us for both. We are called idiotic for believing in the Virgin Birth, and immoral for putting money in the collection basket for (in part) the upkeep of our priests.

"And I think you are hurt and scared that people are willing to stand up and tell people like you that they're enabling child sexual abuse."

I am neither hurt by angry ranters, nor scared of them or some catastrophic future for my Church, Realist. I have every confidence in our Lord's promises to the Church's perpetuity, if that is what you meant; if that is what you meant, then you are simply mistaken. If you meant that I - or any other - am scared of you or any other of our enemies, who won't even use your real names, then you are free to visit me at my home at Five Thousand Two Orleans Court, Kensington, Maryland, where we can personally discuss my physical courage; or at some other place of your choosing. If you prefer to make a personal appointment you can email me at withouthavingseen at gmail dot com, so that we won't miss each other. That, sir, is a point of honor.

I for one do not pine for old days because I wasn't alive to remember them and haven't an interest in trying to recreate something I never experienced. I do not have any reason to believe that I have enabled child sexual abuse. You haven't any reason so to believe, either, except for fairly gross generalizations which are, in fact, the basis and very quality of bigotry. Those same generalizations apply, coincidentally, to anyone who pays taxes, or who votes for an government that has not disavowed the involuntary collection of taxes, because those taxes are used to fund, among other things, a public school system that is RANK with child sexual abuse. Even the WaPo ran an article, last October, to that extent.

You, sir, aren't a truthteller or a realist. It is not realism to judge 100 men by the conduct of two or three of them. It is not truthtelling to malign ninety seven or ninety eight of men on the basis of the conduct of two or three others. It is not yearning for an equitable application of the law to see penalties applied to one organization that have never before, and certainly never will again, be applied in perfectly plentiful and parallel cases.

In fact, sir, I think that you are hurt. For that, I am deeply sorry. I've experienced little tastes of hell here and there, but like as not, nothing compared with what you are experiencing. Your tone and approach, as well as the twisted hatred that undermines your apparent natural intelligence, make your pain manifest. It is my hope that you will come to some modicum of peace.

Prof. Stevens-Arroyo,

Again you have shown the deficit of your theological awareness, which would normally be OK because you are a professor of sociology, or perhaps the sociology of religion (different and fairly unrelated fields), except for the fact that you have referred to yourself as a theologian, and herein attempted to address some fairly subtle theological points.

First of all, it is pretty unlikely that the Holy Father owes his thought to the late Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, most of whose works were indexed by the Holy Office. None of the censures placed on his various works have ever been lifted.

Fr. Teilhard de Chardin was not a heretic, nor excommunicated, and he died in the graces of the Church. He was not a heretic because he submitted to the authority of the Holy See when it contradicted his writings; he went so far as to sign recantations of them and give up his university post (in Paris, I believe) at the Vatican's request. He was obedient and faithful to his last, and in many ways a very admirable man.

His works were censured, though, because the philosophy underlying them was monist, which necessarily gives rise to either a materialist or spiritualist pantheism. To reconcile this philosophy and resulting theology with the basic dogmas of the faith, he systematically redefined those teachings until they were, in his writings, unrecognizable as related to the faith we have handed down from our venerable forebears. He denied the doctrine of original sin, and minimized free will, and gutted the concepts of heaven and hell, and of the need for redemption, even.

While still prefect of the CDF, Ratzinger wrote a handy little book called "In the Beginning..." that is a theological (primarily, but somewhat historical) exegesis of Gen 1-3, originating in a series of homilies he gave in 1981 at Munich's cathedral. The book deals especially with humanity in relationship to the rest of creation, the relationship of God's design with evolution, and the cause and consequence of sin. On each of these issues, Ratzinger roundly opposes the views put forward by Teilhard, as well as some other recent errors that have gained popularity in certain circles.

In that text, Ratzinger deals with stewardship over creation - the point at issue in your somewhat insightful tomato analogy. In that text, he points out that "adam," the Hebrew word for "man," is related to "adamah," meaning "soil," and is also the word for "gardener." The Holy Father is intent on showing our interrelation with the rest of created nature, but in no way intends to diminish man's special place within and transcendence of, the rest of creation. You get at this by citing the Holy Father's reference to man as the "apex of creation." But because Teilhard de Chardin has a similar observation, does not mean that one developed it from the other. In fact, it is a standard interpretation of the first creation account, dating back to ancient Jewish interpretation of the same.

Intriguingly, Trust-God-Not-Man made a few interesting points that are missing from your post. He wrote,

"Neither [the Pope] nor any other man will decide the fate of this earth. It is God and God alone who sustains us and will decide when this earth shall pass away and a new heaven and new earth ushered in."

I am sure that the Holy Father is in complete agreement. Trust in Divine Providence is a recurrent theme in his pontificate, and is one of the most practical ways of living out charity (the topic of his first encyclical), hope (the topic of his most recent), and faith (perhaps the topic of his next?). Trust in Divine Providence means that we do not worry about the Tree-house (a good analogy) being destroyed from underneath us; it means we do not worry about anything, really. We do our best to do our best, and we leave it in God's hands before, during, and after our efforts are contributed.

"And when that time comes and Popes and other Catholic leaders down through history must stand before God, they will be held accountable..."

Again, the Holy Father most certainly agrees. Every human ever to have lived will stand before God on the day of judgment, with all his secret thoughts and intentions, previously hidden even from himself, revealed before all of creation. The true nature of every act will be made manifest, and all of us will either delight in God's plan, or wish we could die to escape it. This moment is that toward which all creation is moving, and it is for this purpose - the delight of God - that the Christian does all that he can. We do not reduce abortions or pollution because to do so pleases or safeguards us. With such a motivation, we are still only self-centered, as if we had had an abortion or despoiled the earth in order to please or protect ourselves. We do what we do for the worship of God, or we might as well not bother.

The modern environmentalism movement is essentially atheist because it precludes trust in divine providence, makes humanity responsible for the salvation of the world, and neglects the worship of God. "Liberal" Christians have generally incorporated this ideology into their thinking, and much to their loss. In doing so they have gutted Christianity and made it merely a reason to save the planet, when that is not what Christianity's purpose is at all. Teilhard de Chardin's thinking, with its monist underpinnings runs neatly in this groove.

More "conservative" Christians have tended to gravitate, and it's high time, toward the earlier conservationism movement, with which modern slogans like "reduce, reuse, recycle" seems to be perfectly consonant. This movement - with its very healthy, secular focus on preserving natural areas, requiring improved environmental standards, and encouraging or requiring each person to do his day-to-day part, if it can be more seriously motivated and socially instituted, has every potential to maximize human efforts to correct our own vices, while not at all diminishing trust in Divine Providence, remembering that God is our help and salvation, and can bring even our environmental efforts into the panoply of worship that is the Christian life. All this, without imagining some silly pantheism or being made to act as though we think the trees are our cousins, or that we are responsible to them, rather than to each other and to God. This approach seems to me more along the lines of what the Holy Father has recommended, judging by the actual contents of his writings and addresses, rather than by his imagined correspondences.

LISABE and Mary Cunningham,

Neither of you seems to understand my 10:55 AM post which draws a clear distinction between criticism of who one is (Catholic) versus criticism what one does (enabler of the Vatican's ridiculous position on birth control, particularly condoms).

"Anti-catholic," and "hater," are real easy to type. Nice attempt at distraction from the core discussion, but it's still not working.

Ya know, men dominate the vast majority of ALL processes on the planet, save one: care and management of the female womb.

Isn't 99.9% of everything enough for you guys?

Mary Cunningham,

OK, I got my 42% statistic from the Wikipedia article "Religion in India" which uses the 42% figure, but with some important qualifications ("Tribals," Indian law) which don't relate to my discussion with you. So I wasn't making stuff up, although my choice of reference is certainly questionable. As is yours.

More importantly, I never called you "stupid," or engaged in name-calling behavior. You, on the other hand, called me a "Ho" in your 1:00 PM post, then "lib/athie" at 1:49 PM. Totally inaccurate on all counts, but it's the name calling, not the accuracy that's at issue. BTW, WTF is a "bright?"

The greater point is that you brought up population and birthrates in countries with exceedingly small (

I am impressed by the speed with which any conversation is sidetracked when the a-bomb is dropped. In my next post, I intend to get back to the point of Prof. Stevens-Arroyo's.

Lisabe, the thing is the anti-Catholics think they are extremely bright, but in fact are really extremely angry. And make some awful mistakes, like our friend Realist below.

Now Realist was angry about condoms and AIDS, the last a figleaf to cover his naked prejudice. But even here some statistics show that--at least in Botswana--the free distribution of condoms has done nothing to retard the spread of AIDS. The key factor seems to be that Botswana heteros, married couples, have multiple sexual partners simultaneously rather than the sequential Western pattern. So the Catholic bishop who urged married couples to practice fidelity wasn't far wrong.

Anyway, this is all from me.

Realist,

I really don't why I am bothering with this, but here goes. Let's clarify: my earlier post was in direct response to another poster, who expressed dismay at the nastiness of the other posters here on this board. My main reason for responding was to express my disappointment with the Washington Post, not to enter the fray of this discussion, which I really had no desire to do. I was speaking, in essence, one Catholic to another.

Now to your response: I am not posing false innocence, playing a victim card, scared, or hurt (certainly not by anything I find here). To attach attributes to me personally based on one very brief post is kind of ludicrous, don't you think? You don't know me at all, thankfully.

I do believe that we do owe each other respect, at the very least, and that is what is wholly lacking in this forum. I will refrain from calling you names, analyzing your personality, attacking your beliefs, etc. etc. But I also have freedom of speech, and the right to exercise it, just like everyone else here.

Had a prof. that used to say "fight prejudice with statistics".

Well, I'll give it a go: fertility rates Latina versus American woman (remember replacement is 2.01)

Mexico:
pop: 109 million
fertility rate 2.37

Brazil
pop: 191 million
fertility rate:1.86

US
pop: 303 million
fertility rate: 2.1

So you can see that Brazil's birthrate is *lower* than the American and the Mexican not too far above. So something other than population pressure is causing Latin migration, differing wage rates is the key factor.

I do *love* it when libs/athies flash their "bright" credentials, kinda like they're Uebermensch (have Nietzsche on the brain today)

Anyway Realist, this is from the CIA factbook:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html

India:

Religions:
Hindu 80.5%, Muslim 13.4%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%, other 1.8%, unspecified 0.1% (2001 census)

Now I realize it was 7 years ago, but going from 80.5% to 42% in a country of 1,147,995,898 (July 2008 est) is a pretty large swing, wouldn't you say?

Now just who is saying falsifiable things?? Does it start with an 'R'?

Where ever did you get 42%? I know! Making up as you go along, and then charging anyone who challenges you with stupidity. Well, sometimes it works.

Robert B - driving to work this morning I could have sworn the road was crowded....but 300 million in the USA is nothing, right? Amazingly, we have nearly as many vehicles as we have people - and only 175 million are driving. The fact is, immigration in the USA has more than made up for zero growth among certain segments of the population, while other segments are still having too many children....generally the part that can't afford them.

Higher levels of educational achievement and higher socio-economic status tend to equal lower birth rates.....well, unless you're Catholic of course. But even there, the 'liberal' segment of the Catholic population is growing apace - you'd hardly be able to tell them from the secular humanists among us. This has to be a good thing. The more do-gooder liberal busy-bodies, the better, I'm thinking.

With 40 million lacking healthcare in the USA alone, how will those beloved conservative republicans of yours spread the wealth of capitalism to the more impoverished of our global neighbors? Not going to happen in this lifetime, I'm guessing.

Preaching abstinence to the poor is a fairly ineffective method of controlling unwanted pregnancies - but that's just a hunch. It's probably about as effective as preaching abstinence to high school kids, who then proceed to find out ASAP what all the fuss is about - and wow, they kind of like it!

At that point, one can only distribute free condoms at the school health clinic and hope for the best - brings to mind the old folk expression about 'closing the barn door after the horse got away .....'

I have always admired Mel Brooks ability to sum up the entire study of political science in one sentence: "Gentlemen...we're talking about our phony-baloney jobs here."

Let's see if this lapsed Protestant can do the same as regards our relationship with the Catholic countries to our south. Hmmmmm...how about this: "We make 'em, you take 'em."

Now, in the spirit of unity and understanding, let us now join as one and sing to the tune of that old polka favorite "She's Too Fat for Me":

We don't want them,
You can have them,
They're too poor for us.

Mary Cunningham wrote: "And the last time I looked India was Hindu. Railing against the Church is not going to do much in this case."

Laughing out loud. Really.

We weren't talking about India, we were talking about Catholic opposition to birth control, particularly condoms. Why are you trying to change the subject?

Also, India is not a Hindu nation. Hinduism is the single biggest religion (42%), but is not even a majority. If you want to be taken seriously, don't say falsifiable things.

Oh most magnificent Pope, I've got news for you. Neither you nor any other man will decide the fate of this earth. It is God and God alone who sustains us and will decide when this earth shall pass away and a new heaven and new earth ushered in. And when that time comes and Popes and other Catholic leaders down through history must stand before God, they will be held accountable for how they have misled millions into believing they are going to heaven simply because they bowed to the Pope and followed all the ridiculous man-made rules of the Catholic Church. Whoa unto you!

Mary Cunningham wrote: "[W]hat I mostly encounter here is tremendous hostility towards traditional religion, especially Catholicism."

"Wahhhhh..."

Please see my 10:55 AM post to Lisabe. It's not what you believe, but what you do.

Even if I, or other posters are hostile towards Catholicism, valid criticism is still valid criticism.

PS to Realist

Most dangerous to the planet is the birthrate of India, coming down but not fast enough. (China peaked long ago due to the one child policy;even after the policy was removed fertility continued to decline sharply.)

And the last time I looked India was Hindu. Railing against the Church is not going to do much in this case. Anyway, until poverty levels amongst India's poorest improve, the women will continue to have many children. Like I wrote earlier, women will tend to have the number of children they want.

Oh Ho, Realist!

Poor women will have many children, rich women few. Check out the respective birthrates of rich Italy vs. poor Philippines, both Catholic countries. And the Philippines is an exception: currently most Catholic countries have birthrates at replacement or below.

Women will have about the number of children they want, gnashing of liberal teeth to the contrary. If anything, the Church protects poor women from interfering liberal busybodies, preaching the gospel of no children to the poor. (Children are the poor's only treasure.)

Regards,
Mary C.

Robert B wrote: "Autonomous, it is astounding that you actually believe the myth that the earth is overpopulated. If anything, the Western world is underpopulated as it is suffering from low birth rates..."

You seem to be confusing low birth rates with population counts. Not the same thing at all. Suspect you're being disingenuous.

OK, so what total population level would we have to achieve before you would consider us overpopulated? Please express this as a number.

Pretend to be astounded all you want, but belief in overpopulation is a credible mainstream belief. Monsieur Renault was "shocked, shocked do you hear" in the movie "Casablanca," and nobody believed him, either. If you want to be taken seriously, don't be so obviously dishonest in your arguments.

I found Teilhard pretty, well, *hard*. And all that talk about the "Noosphere" was fuzzy. In contrast Henri Bergson was beautiful, full of the love of God's creation, life & humour, if somewhat pantheistic.

Anyway, writing about TdeC's "Noosphere" I guess it resembles this blog although the good Jesuit said the Noosphere was a tremendous force for good, and like the Catholics below, what I mostly encounter here is tremendous hostility towards traditional religion, especially Catholicism. Resembles Nietzsche in its frenzy, well, like him maybe they're all mad.

The Pope must be driving the Christian Right crazy. He opposed Bush's Iraq war from the very beginning, and now he has the audacity to claim that we should be as concerned with global warming and its effect on the earth as we should be concerned with abortion. Imagine that! He would expect the Christian right to be carrying signs in front of polluting industrial complexes just was they march in front of doctors offices who perform abortions. I suppose next he will suggest that Christians should not drive gas guzzling suv's or that we should not drill for gas in Alaska.

Hey, Anon, regarding your claim that Symptothermal contraceptions is free: How can it be "free" if it requires an accurate thermometer? Does the Catholic church provide these thermometers for free? A thermometer may be a trivial outlay for even relatively poor people in developed countries, but this is a major outlay for the poorest of the poor.

I also note that all the Catholic apologists who post here are straining over birth control methods which prevent implantation, but are conspicuously silent on condoms. Which is understandable since it's totally embarrassing to have to claim that every sperm is sacred (LOL!). And everyone knows that the Vatican is lying about their claims that condoms are ineffective at preventing HIV.

Arminius, yes, a book! Try reading one. That one happened to be #1 on the NYT list--a list not exactly of a conservative paper. I'm sorry you haven't heard of these things-books & such.

Autonomous, it is astounding that you actually believe the myth that the earth is overpopulated. If anything, the Western world is underpopulated as it is suffering from low birth rates and their governments (in Europe & Russia) have finally started offering incentives to have more children-lest their societies literally disappear in a few generations. (Most liberals would greet this as a positive as they worship the earth more than anything). Most of the famine disasters in Africa and other areas have more to do with disfunctional economic policies and/or authoritarian government actions.

Be fruitful & multiply (well, unless you're a liberal)

All that can be said about contraception and conventional birth control methods is this - without the widespread use of condoms and birth control pills the increase in abortions would have been vastly greater over the last 30 years, in the USA alone.

The usual nonsense of 'moral' and Church approved birth control methods notwithstanding. Sex within marriage may be amenable to the use these highly restrictive 'fertility cycle' methods - if you're a Catholic. BTW, to much of the free world, birth control is birth control - regardless the method of contraception employed.

Preventing fertilization is not a moral or ethical issue in the minds of most - I really thought that mindset died out with my mother's generation....but apparently not. Preventing an unwanted pregnancy prevents a moral/ethical dilemma, in the minds of most folks with any common sense.

The much larger world of sexual behavior that exists outside the confines of conservative Catholic bedrooms benefits greatly from more practical methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies...... this is not a battle the Catholic Church has any hope of winning.

As long as the Church and the Pontiff maintain their present position on contraception, expect the rest of the world to marginalize that point of view as hopelessly outmoded and obstinately authoritarian - this greatly undermines any beneficial message or point of view the Pope might otherwise hope to offer.

...and next up on the world stage, let's hear it for Geroge Bush and his sidekick Kark Rove. Their essay on "How to conquer weak minds and hearts" and "How to conquer Christians" is now out in paperback.

Act I - Lie hard and blame reasonable minded people (aka liberals) for all that's wrong in the world.

Act II - Lie harder and blame reasonable people (aka liberals) for all that's wrong with religion.

Intermission

Act III - Double-up lying and blame reasonable people (aka liberals) for a failed war.

Act IV - (unscripted future) - Continue misinformation and brainwashing attempts such as Limbaugh and other mindlss conservative trash-talkers, increase payouts to Fox News and other disseminators of policy and misinformation.

And, most importantly, teach conservatives from womb to college to hate - not to respectfully disagree - but actually hate with all their hearts all the reasonable people (aka liberals) who think for themselves, question authority, and thinks anyone but a Christian is the devil.

Then the world will be GOP perfect.

Signed, George and Karl

A book actually called 'Liberal Fascism'? I wonder if a certain shotgun-armed murderer in Tennessee read that one too. Perhaps Robert B should send him one.

"And please clarify - you don't think that family planning and birth control methods should be part of any third world global education program? What would be the Church role in these efforts?"

Family planning IS part of the church's education program, both here and in 3rd world countries - NATURAL family planning. And no, that's not the rhythm method. It's a scientific method based on fertility periods, is 99% effective, is free, environmentally friendly, and completely moral. Google the Couple to Couple League's Symptothermal Method, the Billings Ovulation Method, the Creighton Method for details.

"The pope has outlined the connection between these issues and abortion: now it is time for Catholics in America to listen and defend both with equal vigor"

The Pope did not in ANY WAY mean that environmental issues deserve the same vigorous defense as unborn children! How ridiculous for Stevens-Arroyo to use the Pope's speech to lower hte importance of the abortion issues and raise the environmental issues to the same level. yes, the environment is important, but not as important as innocent human life being murdered in the womb.

This is just one more non-subtle push from the author to try to put Obama on even ground with pro-lifers like McCain so more Catholics would vote for baby-killing Obama.

And for those who say the Church should be all for "contraception", read the packaging: the pill, Depo-provera, the IUD, and all other hormonal contraceptives attempt to prevent ovulation, but when that fails, they all prevent the embryo from implanting after fertilization, which of course means the embryo dies = abortion.

It is helpful to keep in mind that, in evolutionary terms, all living beings on this planet at this time are equally successful. Each has survived through adaptation to the planet's changing environment. Each has developed those attributes that have allowed it to survive.

Popular thought views man as the most successful because it is the most evolved. It defines conciousness as man's conciousness and assumes it superior to that of other life forms. While our conciousness is well suited to the way in which our species has adapted and survived, we should be sufficiently humble to acknowledge that all other beings have been equally successful and that their conciousnesses, which we cannot know, is well suited to their adaptablility and survival. I direct your attention to Thomas Nagel's article in the October 1974 issue of The Philosophical Review" "What is it like to be a bat?"

Robert B - any comment made here is fair game, wouldn't you agree? BTW, Chris Matthews is a putz and a McCain apologist, so no thanks.

In our recent history, it's always been the republican habit to support (covertly and otherwise) right-wing dictatorships throughout the world - being fundamentally authoritarian themselves, they relate best to this kind of government operation.

Now, who's proto-fascist?

_______________

Sarah - de Chardin did have a bit of the mystic about him, although he clearly believed in a Creator in the conventional sense....if you look at the Intelligent Design position you will see that it has two branches - the hard ID position finds Man to be the center of creation and he has been created purposely by some kind of Cosmic Intelligence, whereas the soft ID position sees Man as having purpose and meaning in the cosmic scheme of things, but without declaring a specific source for the creation.

Certainly de Chardin believed that the cosmos had meaning and purpose, and it was Man's divine task to discover what it is....Intelligent Design is not always contrary to certain scientific views, but is not supported by most scientists because of the implied religious aspects contained therein.

Teilhard de Chardin did believe in an evolving cosmos and in the spiritual evolution of Man - it is my contention that one day this idea will gain much greater acceptance....certain decidedly non-religious authors that I've read are convinced that human consciousness is evolving at present.

If we find consciousness to be a separate and primary phenomenon in the universe (apart from brain physiology and neurological/cortical functions) there will be a need to re-examine many views that science currently holds to be relatively indisputable. Time will tell.

You may well find some scientists supporting the 'soft' ID position - other cosmologists (Stephen Hawking for example) does not support a teleological approach - Man (and creation) have no ulterior or 'external' meaning in the grand scheme of things, other than our own self-made meaning and purpose. In this view, the cosmic creation and the Big Bang are simply an accidental fact without any good explanation at present. This is pretty much the standard materialist position that holds sway in science today.

Where de Chardin would fall in the mix today is anybody's guess...but he would be very far from a fundamentalist of any kind.

LISABE wrote: "As a Catholic, I feel that I just have to ignore all the hateful statements made on these WaPo "On Faith" posts, because every time anything Catholic is mentioned, the hate spews forth. Pray for the haters, that's all I can say, for they are damaging themselves more than they are hurting us."

Uh, you're not ignoring anything. Ignoring is not replying. You're being disingenuous -- using a pose of false innocence and playing the victim card. Tired, predictable and dishonest.

"Haters" is easy to write. Think carefully -- are people criticizing you for your beliefs (in the sacraments and the dogma of your faith), or are they criticizing your actions (serving as an apologist for an organization that enables sexual abuse of children)? Big difference.

And I think you are hurt and scared that people are willing to stand up and tell people like you that they're enabling child sexual abuse. Sure that you pine for the old days when people were afraid to hold religious organizations to the same laws that bind the rest of us.

Don't blame the truth-tellers and the accepters of reality. Blame the old men in their vestments who promise you everything and deliver nothing. Look honestly into yourself and examine the consequences of your actions.

Hope exists! A discussion on Teilhard's noosphere on how the Pope is moving toward a "pagan" view of our relationship with the planet.

This article is completely unclear on where the writer stands on abortion. This is the poorest articulation ever. I figure that the Pope is against abortion, but I know that Stevens-Arroyo is for abortion because he just said so in a recent article on late-term abortion and Barack Obama. So is this article a retraction for his cannibalistic views expressed in that article or is he saying that Catholics should stand in support of abortion? Because that would go against mainstream Catholicism.

If only the pope had any care for the people who are actually living and starving.

He could sell off his riches.. oops ,nope , that would mean following Chirsts word

Charlie Bailey - we thank you for the facts of the matter.

But surely you don't propose that either Washington politics or the Catholic Church are going to solve the problem of global poverty through the massive re-distribution of wealth and economic opportunity that your analysis concludes as necessary? And 6 billion is not too many for the planet - now who's being Utopian?

Reading Malthus and Benthem, we find that the world population is reaching a critical mass of geometric expansion - where the present population will double within 50 years. And we think we're crowded now and suffering from shortages!

Can we imagine for a moment that republican policies of the last 8 years, much less the consumer driven ethos of the entire Western world, is going to come to the rescue?

We in the USA generally don't come to the rescue unless it does us some perceived political good....otherwise, the government of Darfur would not have been allowed to slaughter hundreds of thousands of it's citizens as part of a giant land grab operation...while employing North African Muslims to do the dirty work.

The Catholic Church is massively wealthy, and has vast property holdings. It's easy to point out all the unfair ills of the world when you have lived in a privilaged position among the high clergy of the Catholic Church for a literal lifetime - as Benedict has. The Vatican is the dwelling place of Church royality, and always has been.

And please clarify - you don't think that family planning and birth control methods should be part of any third world global education program? What would be the Church role in these efforts?

Pontificating is really what Popes do best - practical solutions that include self-deprivation?
Well, not so much.....

A note to Autonomous,

Contrary to your comments, the Catholic Church has never denounced Darwin's Theory of Evolution and therefore never suppressed de Chardin's view of the matter. They took issue with many other of his views, but as a whole, the Catholic Church has formerly acknowledged that evolution is entirely "plausible." Perhaps individually some Catholoics (and perhaps even some past Popes) disagree with the concept. It is the Protestants who have (in one form or another) come up with the narrow-minded idea that evolution was the work of the Devil (I was raised as a Protestant, btw). Additionally, if one reads de Chardin's work carefully, one could never imply that de Chardin would support today's Intelligent Design theory because of its blatant dismissal of scientific theory, of which de Chardin was a proponent.

Peace to you.

Autonomous, since I had directed my comments about Nazis and Fascism toward someone other than you..and yet you responded, I must conclude that you 'associated' it with yourself--another condition psychologists have a term for....I guess you know when someone's talking to you when the Nazi allegations start flying, right?

And, I haven't had cable for years. You, I'm sure, lap up every word from Chris Matthews as Gospel (when you're not watching MTV).

Robert B - for you and all of your right-wing pals, including Jonah Goldberg ..... you're looking in a mirror pal - the psychologists have a word for it. They call it PROJECTION.

Read Eric Alterman's book - 'Why We're Liberals'.
He and Jonah don't see eye to eye at all.

You're watching way too much Fox News for your own good.

Excalibur 2 says "the RC church is the principal cause of over population on this planet because of its senseless, draconian dark ages laws re its total ban on contraceptives and other birth control methods. This of course is the leading cause of the massive aids pandemic and also deaths through malnutrition, disease and the starvation of hundreds of millions in the dust bowl overpopulated and polluted countries on this planet. This is where frightened indigenous people or peasants are told they will go to hell if they disobey the church, so these poor frightened souls end up with families of up to 20 children that they can neither feed nor support."

With all do respect, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I don't know if you've ever been to a developing country but that is one of the poorest assessments of the problems facing this planet I've ever seen. Having lived in a "dust bowl developing country" let me be the first to educate you.

First, the world is not overpopulated. The current problems have more to do with consumption than they do with individual numbers: specifically, the one billion people in the developed world consume, on average, 36 times that of those in the developing world. That doesn't make "frightened souls with 20 children" the source of the problem: it makes those of us who consume 4,000 calories a day, overfeed on meat (cows have a calorie conversion rate of roughly 7 to 1: talk about a waste of food!), and use a disproportionate share of natural resources like we have some right to. Just to do the obvious math for you: you yourself are equal to a family of 36. Any children you have will obviously exacerbate the problem.
Mostly the economic model of consumption, which was intentionally set as the foundation for U.S. and world growth post WWII is to blame for a) the current state of our planet and b) lack of resources.

Second, for subsistence farmers, a population that has historically dominated the demographics in developing countries (although it is shrinking), larger families mean MORE food, not less. Unlike developed countries where children cost you more more, for subsistence farmers, more children mean the ability to farm larger fields, and larger yields. There is a point where returns diminish, but that has a lot to do with insufficient crop rotation or over grazing. Also, an unfortunate truth is that many families are unable to reach the "20 children" size you mention due to diseases and malnutrition (again, that has a lot more to do with education than with a child existing to begin with).

Finally, the idea that a ban on contraception and other birth control methods has led to the massive AIDS epidemic is, if you think about it, really dumb. Premarital sex would be the root cause of AIDS and contraception, if anything, gives a false confidence of safety. You can contract AIDS whether you are using contraception or not (especially if you are on the pill).

I don't know what bone you have to pick with the catholic church, but next time you so sanctimoniously charge a group with the ills of the world, make sure you do it with some array of facts on your side. Also, speaking of draconian, people in developing countries don't like to be called "peasants" and they don't need your paternalistic judgments: they need fair trade and responsible economic policies in developed countries. Use your righteous energy to take a swing at the farm bill or energy policy, not at the catholic church.

Hey Buckwheat, I hate to tell you this, but your Nazi friends lost about 60 some years ago. But don't worry, fascists are actually the liberals all around us..indeed, check out Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism to read all about your like-minded types in the Democrat Party. You'll plug in nicely there. They like to control people's lives' under the guise of creating a kind of utopia on earth--you know, like your Hitler buddies.

Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Seig Heil!!!!!!

The whole article can be summed up as, "Catholics are better than Protestants because we 'care more' about the environment."

Since when? What empirical data do you have to substantiate this ludicrous claim? In Logic, this fallacy is called a "Description of Hasty Generalization". (I could easily retort with an equally ignorant generalization about Catholic priests and little boys, but I digress.)

Your religious views have nothing to do with your environmental views. Both religious & non-religious Repubs and Dems drive gas-guzzling SUV's and luxury vehicles. I'm curious, Mr. Stevens-Arroyo, do you drive a Prius?

The comments about Catholicism are to be expected, religious intolerance has many forms, intellectual arrogance is as empty as the hateful statements of intolerant evangelical Christians, Islamic extremists and their like in all religions. More interesting is the positive comments on Mr Stevens-Arroyo's inspiring message, especially for environmentalists and people who hold dear the cause of environmentalists. In the field for decades, I have always felt isolated because I could not separate my faith from my work; how could anyone work to protect the environment and not feel spirit of the life you protect. Yet notwithstanding counter culture spiritual endeavors, like those of Oprah Winfrey's web cast on Eckhart Tolle, environmentalism has little connection with the spirituality of most people. I am inspired by the Pope's message, Mr. Stevens-Arroyo essay and the many positive comments afterwards.

KMSL1975 - I fail to find the 'hatred' toward the Catholic Church that you speak of in any of these posts....certainly you can't expect every poster to agree with the Pope and the Catholic Church on all positions regarding theology, dogma, and the ethics of public policy? Dissent is inevitable and desirable in a democracy.

I see now the paranoia is spreading.....

For KMSL1975:

I wholeheartedly agree with you. As a Catholic, I feel that I just have to ignore all the hateful statements made on these WaPo "On Faith" posts, because every time anything Catholic is mentioned, the hate spews forth. Pray for the haters, that's all I can say, for they are damaging themselves more than they are hurting us.

But, and I've said this before, shame on the Washington Post for allowing this to go on. (Check out the NYT, their posts are moderated and therefore intelligent). WaPo is my hometown paper, but I am truly disappointed in the lack of care, and therefore the lack of quality, in this On Faith board.

It's true - perhaps only Catholics should be reading this blog. Who else would swallow this stuff hook, line, and sinker?

Teilhard de Chardin's views on evolution were suppressed by the Church for a very long time, until it finally seemed prudent to embrace the reality of evolutionary theory. And while the Church position is no longer geocentric with regard to cosmology (pity poor Galileo), it is still adamently anthropocentic, with humans beings (teleologically) presented as the pinnacle and purpose of creation - but how would the Church know this? The universe is probably more vast then we can presently imagine, and is perhaps even multi-dimensional.

Had de Chardin lived to the present, it would be interesting to see how his thinking progressed with advances in science, cosmology, and quantum physics.

While it is very clear that de Chardin would be considered an Intelligent Design proponent of the first rank in today's cosmology discussions (he was after all a Jesuit), he was not held in great favor by the Church early on because of his pro-science mindset. How much has that really changed down here on earth?

I'd venture to say that de Chardin would see the practical value of employing widespread birth control, for example. The Church adamently refuses to consider the use of birth control and very vocally preaches against it - in a world of 6 billion with abundant and abject poverty, and rampant suffering all around. More love will solve this vast and growing reality??

In this, Benedict is more in accord with Bush, who now proposes to restrict government funding to medical institutions based on more Bush neocon ideology (protection of medical providers/pharmacists that don't want to participate in 'disagreeable' medical procedures, including 'morning after' pills) - this is predicted to impact healthcare in general and may even include restrictions on the dispensing of birth control products - in the USA of all places. Is there no stopping this fool?

This proposed move is well supported by the Catholic Church, needless to say. Many of us are hoping for a much saner world come November - but we're wise enough not to count on it.

Coupling the official anti-abortion position long held by the Church with the idea of more responsible planetary stewardship is pure hyperbole - something Popes are typically very good at. This one is no exception.....

And for the poster that yearned for the pure Catholicism of the early Church fathers - e.g. Origen - do be careful. He was believed to sympathize with the Gnostics, and had himself castrated in order to prevent the distraction of impure thoughts. While probably the greatest thinker of the early Church, he took purity to unreasonable limits by today's standards.

Certain Church singers in the Middle Ages (castrada) employed the same technique to keep their voices high, pure, and forever pre-pubescent. The perennial Church position on birth control is just as primitive in it's 'purity'.

Does Teilhard's "view of the seamless web of life" really "frame Catholic theology"!

According to Wikipedia, "In 1925, Teilhard was ordered by the Jesuit Superior General Vladimir Ledochowski to leave his teaching position in France and to sign a statement withdrawing his controversial statements regarding the doctrine of original sin....This was the first of a series of condemnations by certain church officials that would continue until long after Teilhard's death. The climax of these condemnations was a 1962 monitum (reprimand) of the Holy Office denouncing his works.... [T]he 1962 statement remains official church policy to this day."

Has he been rehabilitated to the point that his views now "frame Catholic theology"?

I read this article with interest, having some slight knowledge of Chardin's work and being a Catholic who believes that environmental issues are matters of faith and morals.

After reading the comments posted, however, I can hardly think about the article at all. Frankly, I'm just too shocked by all of the hatred apparent in people's responses. In all my life, I've never encountered such bigotry towards my faith. Considering that the Post readership is made up of generally thoughtful and educated people, I find such bigotry particularly shocking.

Ask yourselves this: If you heard someone speaking about people who are gay, or Jewish, or African American in such blind generalities and with such vile, wouldn't you be mortified?

I guess I didn't realize that anti-Catholicism is as alive and well as homophobia, Antisemitism, and racism. Consider me schooled.

What a waste that I'm too overwhelmed by the amount of hatred to even think about the environment and my personal responsibility to love and care for it.

Mariano Patalinjug wrote of "Chardin's 'God'" being one tied to pre-Copernican conceptions of the universe, and therefore entirely irrelevant/irrational. As noted in the article, Teillard de Chardin was a paleontologist trained in evolutionary biology. He was as current on the cosmologies of his day (1920s -40s) as any other scientist.

Stevens-Arroyo's premise is intriguing, but far-fetched. I don't think the present Pope is quite "down with" Chardin. That said, some knee-jerk reactionaries who love to bash the Church might wish to consider the mounting evidence that hormone-based contraception is poisoning our water supply and endangering the lives of amphibian species (all that estrogen in the water supply makes it hard for males to develop!). Ah see, given enough time, science and faith sometimes meet. Nothing's easy, especially not common sense.

Yonkers, New York
31 July 2008

In this long essay of his, Anthony Stevens Arroyo says, and I quote:

"For Chardin and the pope, however, the comparison is with a person who lives in a house he/she has built, high in the upper branches of a huge and growing tree."

This is obviously a ridiculous statement.

Where, oh where, in the world we now live in does one ever see a human being who lives in a house he himself has built, "high in the upper branches of a huge and growing tree?"

Mr. Arroyo's imagination, or that of Chardin and the pope's, I am afraid, has run wild.

Then there is this other sentence somewhere in his narrative, and I quote:

"Chardin's 'The Divine Millieu' described knowledge of God as the essential purpose of the universe."

Assuming that Mr. Arroyo paraphrases Chardin correctly, it is far from clear and reasonable that "knowledge of God" is "the essential purpose of the universe."

I should remind Mr. Arroyo that for hundreds of years, the Catholic Church adherred steadfastly to a cosmology which held that planet earth was the center of the universe, and that all other cosmic bodies (in our own solar system) revolved around it.

If this is the "universe" which Chardin had in mind, it is only one very insignificant part of the actual immeasurably vast universe, or universes, that together constitutes the "Cosmos."

It should follow, reasonably and logically, that Chardin's "God" had--and has-- nothing to do with the vast universe, or universes, outside the limited "universe" of which planet earth was the "center."

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

testing

The Catholic Church worldwide has vast amount of real estate, it owns more land globally than any other organization on the planet.

The Vatican has billions of dollars in solid gold in its coffers, mostly stored in gold ingots with the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, while banks in England and Switzerland hold the rest. But this is just a small portion of the wealth of the Vatican, which in the U.S. alone, is greater than that of the five wealthiest giant corporations of the country. The Church possesses more riches in real estate, property, stocks and shares than any other single institution, corporation, bank, government or state, making the Pope, the official ruler of this vast reserve, the richest man in modern history. Indeed the staggering accumulation of the wealth of the Catholic Church becomes so formidable as to defy any rational assessment.

No one can realistically assess how much the Pope is worth in terms of billions of dollars and the church cunningly values most of its artwork and valuables at just 1 euro, so they will never be sold. And it doesn't pay any taxes anywhere.

Now why does this church that is constantly criticising so called "rich" nations and cries about social injustice and the world imbalance of world wealth, need to have this massive accumulation of wealth that makes it by far the world's richest institution?

Keeping in mind that the RC church is the principal cause of over population on this planet because of its senseless, draconian dark ages laws re its total ban on contraceptives and other birth control methods. This of course is the leading cause of the massive aids pandemic and also deaths through malnutrition, disease and the starvation of hundreds of millions in the dust bowl overpopulated and polluted countries on this planet. This is where frightened indigenous people or peasants are told they will go to hell if they disobey the church, so these poor frightened souls end up with families of up to 20 children that they can neither feed nor support.

The Catholic Church worldwide has vast amount of real estate, it owns more land globally than any other organization on the planet.

The Vatican has billions of dollars in solid gold in its coffers, mostly stored in gold ingots with the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, while banks in England and Switzerland hold the rest. But this is just a small portion of the wealth of the Vatican, which in the U.S. alone, is greater than that of the five wealthiest giant corporations of the country. The Church possesses more riches in real estate, property, stocks and shares than any other single institution, corporation, bank, government or state, making the Pope, the official ruler of this vast reserve, the richest man in modern history. Indeed the staggering accumulation of the wealth of the Catholic Church becomes so formidable as to defy any rational assessment.

No one can realistically assess how much the Pope is worth in terms of billions of dollars and the church cunningly values most of its artwork and valuables at just 1 euro, so they will never be sold. And it doesn't pay any taxes anywhere.

Now why does this church that is constantly criticising so called "rich" nations and cries about social injustice and the world imbalance of world wealth, need to have this massive accumulation of wealth that makes it by far the world's richest institution?

Keeping in mind that the RC church is the principal cause of over population on this planet because of its senseless, draconian dark ages laws re its total ban on contraceptives and other birth control methods. This of course is the leading cause of the massive aids pandemic and also deaths through malnutrition, disease and the starvation of hundreds of millions in the dust bowl overpopulated and polluted countries on this planet. This is where frightened indigenous people or peasants are told they will go to hell if they disobey the church, so these poor frightened souls end up with families of up to 20 children that they can neither feed nor support.

Video of the Stations of the Cross at World Youth Day, Sydney (all thirteen stations can be viewed)

First Station:

http://video.wyd2008.org/?MediaId=b56a9793-76c4-4c01-aea3-f1d0b807b92c&CategoryId=1463c47f-6b42-4149-b8ec-49efb5fbf292

I had posted the link to the official World Youth Day 2008, Sydney, before. Here it is again:

http://www.wyd2008.org/

Pope Benedict is a tired old dog, completely out of touch with the modern world of sexual relations. Not long ago, a minion cardinal tried to discredit the use of condoms by claiming that the allowed the passage of the HIV virus. This shameful lie has been reputiated again and again by the WHO and the CDC, yet the vatican insists on
repeating it, especially in third world countries where birth control is needed the most. And of course, Catholicism’s historical contempt for women is glaringly evident here. Shame on “Mother” Church!

Mighty Mouse, the Vatican does not issue "fatwas" for laughing at the Pope. The Popes are used to being laughed at for centuries. The Catholic Church is two thousand years old. Popes have taken quite a lot of laughing and still do. Just read the blogs on this forum alone.

Mighty Mouse, go right ahead and laugh as much as you want and invite as many people as you want to do the same. You will notice that the Catholic Church is strong enough to take it.

Past mass extinctions from asteroid and comet impacts, super volcanoes, disease and chronic climate change would argue that god is hardly what one might call a tree hugger.

Wikipedia information about World Youth Day Sydney 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Youth_Day_2008

Title song for WYD 2008

"Receive the Power"

from the Holy Spirit...
Receive the Power,
be a light unto the world...

Sung by Guy Sebastian and Paulini (link)

http://wjd.jongerenwebsite.nl/wyd2008beindex.htm

The Pope is a Joke but no one is laughing because they are to scared to.

Vatican link to the welcoming ceremony address in Sydney by the Pope, 17 July 2008, the excerpt of which was taken for the previous post:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080717_welcome_en.html

WELCOMING CEREMONY

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

Government House, Sydney
Thursday, 17 July 2008

Your Excellencies,
Dear Australian Friends,

It is with great joy that I greet you today. I would like to thank the Governor-General, Major-General Michael Jeffery and Prime Minister Rudd for honouring me by their presence at this ceremony and for welcoming me so graciously. As you know, I have been able to enjoy some quiet days since my arrival in Australia last Sunday. I am most grateful for the hospitality that has been extended to me. Now I look forward to this evening’s “Welcome to Country” by the indigenous people and to celebrating the great events which form the purpose of my Apostolic Visit: the Twenty-Third World Youth Day.

Some might ask what motivates thousands of young people to undertake what is for many a long and demanding journey in order to participate in an event of this kind. Ever since the first World Youth Day in 1986, it has been evident that vast numbers of young people appreciate the opportunity to come together to deepen their faith in Christ and to share with one another a joyful experience of communion in his Church. They long to hear the word of God, and to learn more about their Christian faith. They are eager to take part in an event which brings into focus the high ideals that inspire them, and they return home filled with hope and renewed in their resolve to contribute to the building of a better world. For me it is a joy to be with them, to pray with them and to celebrate the Eucharist with them. World Youth Day fills me with confidence for the future of the Church and the future of our world...

"With many thousands of young people visiting Australia at this time, it is appropriate to reflect upon the kind of world we are handing on to future generations. In the words of your national anthem, this land “abounds in nature’s gifts, of beauty rich and rare”.

THE WONDER OF GOD'S CREATION REMINDS US OF THE NEED TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND TO EXERCISE RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF THE GOODS OF THE EARTH.

In this connection I note that Australia is making a serious commitment to address its responsibility to care for the natural environment. Likewise with regard to the human environment, this country has generously supported international peace-keeping operations, contributing to conflict resolution in the Pacific, in South-East Asia and elsewhere. Owing to the many religious traditions represented in Australia, this is particularly fertile ground for ecumenical and interreligious dialogue. I look forward to meeting local representatives of different Christian communities and other religions during my stay, so as to encourage this important work, a sign of the reconciling action of the Spirit who impels us to seek unity in truth and charity..."

PS: Capitals mine, for emphasis only.

JO: link to an earlier discussion on this forum about sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy (earlier discussions on Professor Stevens-Arroyo's blogs cover the topic too):

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2008/04/benedict_protect_children_from/all_comments.html

why we know the people who lie with serious keeper? like we think jesus and other religion made it to know what he respect for. Now i musti give another explanation.

Note the previous post by "Charles" and this one is a different person than other posts. I will be less ambiguous next time.

Another note: pro-life doesn't stop at the womb. It carries on throughout life until natural death. We should be able to provide for all children in need, which includes those who did not get aborted.

And before anyone makes a snap at priests abusing children, let me submit that Catholic and non-Catholic journals reported that the same amount or even of sexual abuse occurred in other Christian sects and other religions. Also, pretty much every diocese in the US has enacted safe environment programs to report incidents of abuse, leading to the removal of offending priests from public ministry. Also, they have counseling centers to care for victims of sexual abuse. To say that no one cares or people are turning a blind eye to the situation is incorrectly assessing the situation. The Church may have made administration mistakes in the past, but are rigorously trying to prevent and stop these events from happening.

Mr. Arroyo has it right but does not go far enough.

Pope Benedict's thinking is much more deep then seeing mankind as building a tree house in the branches.

What Pope Benedict does that is so profound is to link the plight of the unborn to the plight of the planet. When man exalts his own ego above that of the planet, we get an environmental catastrophe. When man exalts his ego over the unborn we get abortion. The cause of both is rampant ego; "me first". The solution is selfless living. This has been Catholic thinking for nearly two-thousand years, from the ascetic monks in Egypt, to St. Francis till the present.

It's not just Chardin who talks about nature and God like this, it's the Bible itself. Check out Proverbs 8-9, where divine Wisdom speaks about how the world was created through Wisdom, and how the created world shows God's divine order throughout. Or read the book of Wisdom (wrongly removed by Protestants), a work that shows how God works through the natural world.

As Christians we see the figure of Wisdom who speaks in Proverbs as the Son of God, Christ Jesus, who is "the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God's majesty, and the image of his goodness. (Wisdom 7:26) This is similar language to St. Paul, Jesus is "...is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation." (Col 1:15)

And man is created in the image and likeness of God. In our rational minds, though they are limited and fallible, God shares with us his Wisdom. This is why we can understand the physical world with our reason, because both are based in the same divine Wisdom. That is also why man can be adopted Son's of the Living God through communion with his Eternal Son.

In response to Jo's and similar postings:
You write as if the Church teaches that what happened to the children was okay. Leaders of the Church did evil by turning a blind eye, transfering abusive priests, and not rooting out the abuse decades ago. The Church simply was not upholding its own teachings when it failed to do so. But that doesn't mean the teachings of the Church are wrong -- those leaders were. So too, the Church is following it's own teachings when it speaks about the sanctity of life in a woman's womb, just as it does when it speaks about the sanctity of all life, wherever it may be -- just as we now look with condemnation at the abuse of all children. Just because a child is a womb makes it of itself no less precious. It's value stands alone not just as an extension of its mother. So to, the church speaks of injustice in general. Try to understand that at the heart of the teachings, if not always the actions, of the Church is human dignity and the respect for all life that comes from God. That men did evil does not undermine that teaching but calls us to also hold them responsible for failing to follow that teaching.

"...he did relate the preservation of the planet to the survival of human life in the womb"

I may be interpreting this incorrect, but I am assuming that Stevens-Arroyo equated the sinfulness of abortion to the abuse of the environment. Even though blatantly destroying the Earth is a mortal sin, I'm not quire sure Pope Benedict intended that each have the same gravity. Also, there were many other problems Pope Benedict brought up in the same speech (Relativism, sexual degradation, violence, etc.), which also have urgency and importance.

Although I'm not an environment "nut," I very much agree with Pope Benedict's assessment of the sinfulness of ruining the environment. I reflected on Genesis 1, especially Genesis 1:26-30 where God gives us dominion of all the animals and vegetation. It's quite profound and unimaginable that He would do that for us, but He love us more than we can possibly ever understand. The least we can do is to do is take care of this great gift. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle is a good place to start.

JO: there has been plenty of discussion on sexual abuse of minors by a few Catholic clergy on the Catholic America blog. Maybe you'd like to read all the earlier posts concerning this topic on other threads?

The millions of aborted/to be aborted babies need voices to speak for them since they have none of their own. Don't you think that is only fair? I'm sure those who fight for animal rights would understand perfectly and agree.

Is it just me or is bobbi knight really the pope?

The article states:

This is how the pope met Chardin, making defense of all life a Catholic duty.

But where was the pope and the hierarchy of the clergy, and how were they upholding their "Catholic duty" to defend the lives and innocence of so many little boys when those little boys were horrifically destroyed? Aren't little boys part of all life that we all have a duty to defend.

Those lives were destroyed, for some perverted utilitarian purpose.

I don't understand, how similarly we look past the human being, the woman, and get inside her womb to do the business of the Church. Didn't God put that woman in charge of her own womb and its functions? What is the Church doing inside of that poor woman's womb?

I guess if they've fed the poor, cared for the sick, put roofs over the homeless, brought peace to the war zones, and protected the little boys from lecherous priests, they can move on from working on solving all the external problems in the world, and begin to consider some of the internal issues.

But I don't think they are there yet.

The article states:

This is how the pope met Chardin, making defense of all life a Catholic duty.

But where was the pope and the hierarchy of the clergy, and how were they upholding their "Catholic duty" to defend the lives and innocence of so many little boys when those little boys were horrifically destroyed? Aren't little boys part of all life that we all have a duty to defend.

Those lives were destroyed, for some perverted utilitarian purpose.

I don't understand, how similarly we look past the human being, the woman, and get inside her womb to do the business of the Church. Didn't God put that woman in charge of her own womb and its functions? What is the Church doing inside of that poor woman's womb?

I guess if they've fed the poor, cared for the sick, put roofs over the homeless, brought peace to the war zones, and protected the little boys from lecherous priests, they can move on from working on solving all the external problems in the world, and begin to consider some of the internal issues.

But I don't think they are there yet.

NOTE TO MONITOR: Is it possible to have a rule that long Bible passages should not be posted? It is really annoying, when a simple citation would suffice.

Pope Benedict XVI said:

"...It is as though ONE CATCHES GLIMPSES OF THE GENESIS CREATION STORY - light and darkness, the sun and the moon, the waters, the earth, and living creatures; all of which are “good” in God’s eyes (cf. Gen 1:1 - 2:4). Immersed in such beauty, who could not echo the words of the Psalmist in praise of the Creator: “how majestic is your name in all the earth?” (Ps 8:1).

And there is more – something hardly perceivable from the sky – MEN AND WOMEN, MADE IN NOTHING LESS THAN GOD'S OWN IMAGE AND LIKENESS(cf. Gen 1:26) AT THE HEART OF CREATION ARE YOU AND I, THE HUMAN FAMILY "CROWNED WITH GLORY AND HONOUR" (Ps 8:5). How astounding! With the Psalmist we whisper: “what is man that you are mindful of him?” (Ps 8:4). And drawn into silence, into a spirit of thanksgiving, into the power of holiness, we ponder.

What do we discover? Perhaps reluctantly we come to acknowledge that there are also scars which mark the surface of our earth: erosion, deforestation, the squandering of the world’s mineral and ocean resources in order to fuel an insatiable consumption. Some of you come from island nations whose very existence is threatened by rising water levels; others from nations suffering the effects of devastating drought.

GOD'S WONDROUS CREATION IS SOMETIMES EXPERIENCED AS ALMOST HOSTILE TO ITS STEWARDS, EVEN SOMETHING DANGEROUS.

How can what is “good” appear so threatening?

And there is more.

WHAT OF MAN, THE APEX OF GOD'S CREATION?
Every day we encounter the genius of human achievement. From advances in medical sciences and the wise application of technology, to the creativity reflected in the arts, the quality and enjoyment of people’s lives in many ways are steadily rising..."

PS: All capitals mine, for emphasis only.

yes, Ash, why are you reading this blog? I sometimes wonder why I do given the predictable entries by the usual suspects. But every once in a while, as a person of faith, I am moved to a deeper level of understanding...Chardin today, something else another. But to one who refers to the Pope's "fairy tales," why are you reading? My suggestion: don't ask -- read, reject, think, consider, act. The Spirit moves us to do things even while we scoff, and it doesn't matter that you are scoffing so long as you follow where you are being led. (should be interesting to see what kind of repsonse this brings forth!)

Pope Saves the World

» Anthony Stevens-Arroyo | Benedict links saving life in the womb to preservation of the environment.

Title of this essay appropriate??? Read the full text of Pope Benedict's message on the Vatican link to find out...

I invite everyone to read the full text of Pope Benedict XVI message to the Catholic Youth from around the world gathered in Sydney, in order to post a more considered response.

Vatican links provided to the full text of the message Professor Stevens-Arroyo has addressed in his essay as well as the details of the Pope's journey to Sydney, Australia

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY
OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT
TO SYDNEY (AUSTRALIA) ON THE OCCASION
OF THE 23rd WORLD YOUTH DAY
(JULY 12 - 21, 2008)

WELCOMING CELEBRATION BY THE YOUNG PEOPLE

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

Barangaroo, Sydney Harbour
Thursday, 17 July 2008

Dear Young People,

What a delight it is to greet you here at Barangaroo, on the shores of the magnificent Sydney harbour, with its famous bridge and Opera House. Many of you are local, from the outback or the dynamic multicultural communities of Australian cities. Others of you have come from the scattered islands of Oceania, and others still from Asia, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas. Some of you, indeed, have come from as far as I have, Europe! Wherever we are from, we are here at last in Sydney. And together we stand in our world as God’s family, disciples of Christ, empowered by his Spirit to be witnesses of his love and truth for everyone!

I wish firstly to thank the Aboriginal Elders who welcomed me prior to my boarding the boat at Rose Bay. I am deeply moved to stand on your land, knowing the suffering and injustices it has borne, but aware too of the healing and hope that are now at work, rightly bringing pride to all Australian citizens. To the young indigenous - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders - and the Tokelauans, I express my thanks for your stirring welcome. Through you, I send heartfelt greetings to your peoples...

For some of us, it might seem like we have come to the end of the world! For people of your age, however, any flight is an exciting prospect. But for me, this one was somewhat daunting! Yet the views afforded of our planet from the air were truly wondrous. The sparkle of the Mediterranean, the grandeur of the north African desert, the lushness of Asia’s forestation, the vastness of the Pacific Ocean, the horizon upon which the sun rose and set, and the majestic splendour of Australia’s natural beauty which I have been able to enjoy these last couple of days; these all evoke a profound sense of awe. It is as though one catches glimpses of the Genesis creation story - light and darkness, the sun and the moon, the waters, the earth, and living creatures; all of which are “good” in God’s eyes (cf. Gen 1:1 - 2:4). Immersed in such beauty, who could not echo the words of the Psalmist in praise of the Creator: “how majestic is your name in all the earth?” (Ps 8:1).

And there is more – something hardly perceivable from the sky – men and women, made in nothing less than God’s own image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26). At the heart of the marvel of creation are you and I, the human family “crowned with glory and honour” (Ps 8:5). How astounding! With the Psalmist we whisper: “what is man that you are mindful of him?” (Ps 8:4). And drawn into silence, into a spirit of thanksgiving, into the power of holiness, we ponder.

What do we discover? Perhaps reluctantly we come to acknowledge that there are also scars which mark the surface of our earth: erosion, deforestation, the squandering of the world’s mineral and ocean resources in order to fuel an insatiable consumption. Some of you come from island nations whose very existence is threatened by rising water levels; others from nations suffering the effects of devastating drought. God’s wondrous creation is sometimes experienced as almost hostile to its stewards, even something dangerous. How can what is “good” appear so threatening?

And there is more. What of man, the apex of God’s creation? Every day we encounter the genius of human achievement. From advances in medical sciences and the wise application of technology, to the creativity reflected in the arts, the quality and enjoyment of people’s lives in many ways are steadily rising. Among yourselves there is a readiness to take up the plentiful opportunities offered to you. Some of you excel in studies, sport, music, or dance and drama, others of you have a keen sense of social justice and ethics, and many of you take up service and voluntary work. All of us, young and old, have those moments when the innate goodness of the human person - perhaps glimpsed in the gesture of a little child or an adult’s readiness to forgive - fills us with profound joy and gratitude.

Yet such moments do not last. So again, we ponder. And we discover that not only the natural but also the social environment – the habitat we fashion for ourselves – has its scars; wounds indicating that something is amiss. Here too, in our personal lives and in our communities, we can encounter a hostility, something dangerous; a poison which threatens to corrode what is good, reshape who we are, and distort the purpose for which we have been created. Examples abound, as you yourselves know. Among the more prevalent are alcohol and drug abuse, and the exaltation of violence and sexual degradation, often presented through television and the internet as entertainment. I ask myself, could anyone standing face to face with people who actually do suffer violence and sexual exploitation “explain” that these tragedies, portrayed in virtual form, are considered merely “entertainment”? ...

Dear friends, life is not governed by chance; it is not random. Your very existence has been willed by God, blessed and given a purpose (cf. Gen 1:28)! Life is not just a succession of events or experiences, helpful though many of them are. It is a search for the true, the good and the beautiful. It is to this end that we make our choices; it is for this that we exercise our freedom; it is in this – in truth, in goodness, and in beauty – that we find happiness and joy. Do not be fooled by those who see you as just another consumer in a market of undifferentiated possibilities, where choice itself becomes the good, novelty usurps beauty, and subjective experience displaces truth.

Christ offers more! Indeed he offers everything! Only he who is the Truth can be the Way and hence also the Life. Thus the “way” which the Apostles brought to the ends of the earth is life in Christ. This is the life of the Church. And the entrance to this life, to the Christian way, is Baptism...

But what of our social environment? Are we equally alert to the signs of turning our back on the moral structure with which God has endowed humanity (cf. 2007 World Day of Peace Message, 8)? Do we recognize that the innate dignity of every individual rests on his or her deepest identity - as image of the Creator - and therefore that human rights are universal, based on the natural law, and not something dependent upon negotiation or patronage, let alone compromise? And so we are led to reflect on what place the poor and the elderly, immigrants and the voiceless, have in our societies. How can it be that domestic violence torments so many mothers and children? How can it be that the most wondrous and sacred human space – the womb – has become a place of unutterable violence?

My dear friends, God’s creation is one and it is good. The concerns for non-violence, sustainable development, justice and peace, and care for our environment are of vital importance for humanity. They cannot, however, be understood apart from a profound reflection upon the innate dignity of every human life from conception to natural death: a dignity conferred by God himself and thus inviolable. Our world has grown weary of greed, exploitation and division, of the tedium of false idols and piecemeal responses, and the pain of false promises. Our hearts and minds are yearning for a vision of life where love endures, where gifts are shared, where unity is built, where freedom finds meaning in truth, and where identity is found in respectful communion. This is the work of the Holy Spirit! This is the hope held out by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is to bear witness to this reality that you were created anew at Baptism and strengthened through the gifts of the Spirit at Confirmation. Let this be the message that you bring from Sydney to the world!

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080717_barangaroo_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/travels/2008/index_australia_en.htm

As a Catholic, I appreciate the more theologically practical line the Church has taken in regards to the realities of science. Many of the Church's stances on issues such as abortion, birth control and (especially lately) the environment, though out of fashion in this rapidly deteriorating world we live in, are inherently logical, moral and universal approaches to avoiding the deterioration of our world and ourselves. I don't think all that many atheists who readily dismiss Catholicism and its apparent restrictiveness realize this. I would also say that secular progressivism has only brought us the division, selfishness, and moral apathy that will guarantee a bleak future to come regardless of their positions on the issues. The Pope's employment of Teilhard de Chardin's profound ideas regarding the nature of life on earth and our place in it should only strengthen our resolve as the faithful to find solutions to the world's problems.

Did someone on this board actually say that the Pope's comments were "unjustifiably anthrocentric" and therefore "chauvanistic" - as well as "self-serving"? Is that intended to constitute a serious comment? Should I consult my dog or the next insect that buzzes by my head to determine if he (or she, to be consistent with the tone) is offended?

Perhaps descriptions of things generally (whether on a message board or otherwise) should be linked to a specific context (i.e., a point) - so as not to create the impression that someone is merely disgressing with a mindless polemic disguised by jargon and book cites.

I'd say who really cares about the specific details of the pope's personal fairy tales, but then why am I reading this blog?

The Pope is not a policeman or a Gov't Bureaucrat. When B16 or Paul VI come out against abortion and contraception, they are telling us what will happen to mankind if we accept these practises wholesale. They have been absolutely correct

- Gov't acceptance of contraception and abortion has meant Coercive Gov't use of both, and expansion of Gov't power into the most private of functions (ie. China, ie. Govt funded abortions, etc...)
- The increasing inconsequence of the sexual act means a direct lowering of the status of Women Tell me - what is the male/female ratio in India? Which sex is responsible for using birth control? Which sex is more responsible for the unintended consequences?
- The increasing inconsequence of the sexual act due to contraception and abortion have meant the resultant breakdown of the family - the first and greatest defence against poverty.

Humans are the apex of life on this earth. If we do not cherish life and the act that creates life, we will suffer hundreds of unintended consequences.

Neither abortion nor birth control is addressed by Jesus in the Christian Gospels.

The early Christian Church shunned marriage and reproduction -- thus the 2,000 year tradition of
monasticism and clerical celibacy for the spiritual elite in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions.

So-called "family values" emerged in Christian history only with Luther and the Protestant Revolt...a millennium and a half LATER. Like the centrality of capitalism in Protestantism, the veneration of "family values" is antithetical to everything in the Gospels. Check them out, if you dare...

Jesus in Matthew 19 praised those who become
"eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,"
thus anticipating need to LIMIT reproduction in order to usher in the longed for millennium.

All scripture scholars are aware that the Jesus of the Gospels is notoriously hostile to what we today refer to as "family values."

That the Pope has embraced the Protestant point of view merely reflects how far Christianity has fallen from its original ideals.

I think natural historians might take issue with humans being at the "apex of Creation" and the idea that there's an evolutionary progression from simple to complex. Organisms may evolve to be simpler or more complex, based on which way selective pressures push them. To say that we're at the apex fits naturally with our chauvanistic nature, but is unjustifiably anthrocentric. We may be the most complex organisms (though I'm not entirely sure) or the most intelligent. But isn't it a bit self-serving to have chosen those categories to determine which side of the tree of life is up? This was a recurring theme in the late Stephen Jay Gould's books and essays.

I realize that Catholicism has come a long way toward bridging the gap with science, especially regarding evolution (I think Catholicism has moved past the whole 5,000 year-old Earth thing, right?). Still, I have a feeling the Pope might not be ready to concede that we have a more ambiguous position on the tree of life.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's surname is Teilhard de Chardin, not Chardin. If it's going to be shortened, the usual usage is just Teilhard.

7...10...20....30 billion people on the planet...

At what point does the Pope think that there WILL be too many people on the planet?

I can understand being opposed to abortion but to be against contraception is silly.

We can make a choice now or just wait until super over-crowding will make us fight over every last bit of the natural resources in the world. Then we'll see real misery and suffering.

Can you honetsly say there are too many children in the world? Or is it rather there are too many unloved/unwanted children in the world? I suspect the case is the latter, in which case the rememdy is the remedy for so many problmes: more love.

As a Catholic in America, I agree that it is time for everyone to speak up and demand more when it comes to environmental issues.

However, I feel it is pretty selfish and backwards for Catholics to be concerned with abortion at the moment: there won't be a place for our unwanted children to live in if we don't start taking care of our planet. If there is still a planet by the time we are required to have all of our unwanted children, they will most likely be fed terrifyingly "super sized corn".

I think it is selfish and backwards for anyone to protest reproductive rights at any time, but now it's even more so.

Gee... if they'd have listened to the indigenous people that they wiped out or forced to convert to Catholicism, the Church would have figured this out a lot earlier.

A perfect vp for McCain....Dumb and Dumber, the sequel.