Sentire Cum Ecclesia

It’s late, and I am just adding a quick note to say that the encounter this evening between Fr Brendan Purcell and Prof Peter Singer in St Paul’s Cathedral has restored my faith in the possibility of rational debate between atheists and theists. The audience was also intelligent and respectful. No cheap shots, good questions, well thought out and argued answers. Thought provoking all round. They should have played this debate on QandA last Monday.

The Cathedral recorded the debate, and so hopefully before long I will be able to link to it for you. If I get the chance in the next few days, I will bring you some highlights.

_______________________

Ok, a few thoughts. First, I was reflecting today that Brendan Purcell’s light Irish humour was a definite plus to his delivery. One of my Anglican friends commented that he talked too fast, but at least that meant that he got in a lot of material. He didn’t waste words, he didn’t engage in invective. Neither did Singer, although he was not quite so well prepared with his arguments as Purcell was.

One thorny issue that came up – and I recall it being a bone of contention at the Melbourne Town Hall “Intelligence Squared” debate too – was the matter of condoms, Africa and AIDS. Singer raised it, and he seemed to do so as a kind of non-sequitur in the discussion as a reposte to some argument made by Purcell for which he (Singer) didn’t have a better answer. It stuck out like a sore-thumb, because it wasn’t a logical argument. Singer claimed that “millions” had died in Africa because of the Catholic Church’s stance on condoms. Purcell came back to point out that the countries with the highest AIDS related mortalities in Africa have correspondingly low Catholic populations. In the African Countries with the highest Catholic (and Anglican) populations, which promoted the policies of abstinence, there was correspondingly many fewer deaths from AIDS. The argument put up against Singer by Purcell is essentially this one, but Purcell made a comment about studies by “Marshall”. The only “Marshall” I could find who has written on the subject is this one, so I am not sure if I have the right reference. I will try to track it down. In any case, we have heard this argument far too often. It is time that it was categorised firmly in the “myth” section of atheist/Christian debates. Singer degraded his arguments by bringing it up.

The subject probably came up in the first place because the debate focused on the question of suffering. Fr Purcell launched into this discussion in his first presentation (the program was 15 minutes from Purcell, 15 minutes from Singer, followed by 5 minutes each responding, followed by answering questions from the floor and submitted by SMS – the latter was a really clever method of moderating the discussion). Purcell expounded on the various causes of suffering, from the natural (such as animals eating one another) to “natural disasters” (such as earthquakes) to suffering caused by the willful actions of human beings (I think there were a few more categories than that, but that’s what I can remember). He chose this approach (despite the fact that the topic for the evening was “the role of reason in faith and unbelief” – a topic Purcell did get around to addressing eventually – largely on the basis of the Greek Philosophers) because it seems that this is one of Singer’s principle problems with theism (see here and here).

Here I thought that the discussion was especially interesting. Purcell said that Singer appears to regard suffering as the “ultimate evil”. Singer agreed with this. The upshot is that the highest good would come from the avoidance of suffering. There is – it appears to me – something of the Christian/Buddhist dichotomy in this approach: Buddhism is a system for reaching “salvation” (my word, not the Buddhist word) by avoiding suffering while Christianity is a system of belief in which suffering – though an evil in itself – can become a path toward salvation. In any case, Purcell seemed especially concerned here with explaining the “suffering” that is due to natural causes, and why such suffering does not contradict the existence of a “good God”. He spoke about earthquakes (there having been one in Indonesia in recent days): these are due to the way in which our planet is constructed, tectonic plates etc. Is this an evil? As a parallel, he cited the case of gravity. Gravity is a necessity for the existence of space-time, and certainly for our existence on this planet. Yet many people die because of the results of gravity every year (from falling from high buildings etc.). Is gravity an evil? Should God have constructed a world without gravity? I think you get his point.

Singer came back to say that just because we can’t imagine a world without tectonic plates or gravity, if God is all powerful, wouldn’t he have been able to devise a world in which these things did not cause suffering? Curiously, when asked about an hour later whether or not it would be possible to have a world without suffering in it, Singer responded “not as long as sentient beings exist in that world”. That seems to be the point, doesn’t it? To me, the question “Couldn’t God have created a world in which there is 1) no suffering, 2) sentient beings?” is a bit like asking “If God is all powerful, can he create a rock so big that he can’t lift it?” The question is “unreal”, like asking if it is possible for a square circle to exist.

But then, later in the discussion, the topic of heaven came up. Yes, there is suffering in this world, but doesn’t God compensate for this by planning for us a life without suffering in heaven? Certainly, the Scriptures in many points, Isaiah and Revelation for a start, envisage such a world. (BTW, at one point Singer criticised Christianity for teaching that there is only salvation for human beings, to which I was very glad that Purcell responded that we believe in a “new heaven and a new earth” in which the whole cosmos – animal life included – will be redeemed.) Isn’t “heaven” precisely supposed to be a world “without suffering”, and yet inhabited by “sentient beings”? How is that possible, given what we have just said?

Again, it is the mark of the quality of this exchange that it got me thinking further on these matters. I think the answer here is precisely that the “new heavens and the new earth” are predicated on the existence of this world. The future redeemed world could not exist without the prior existence of this world. Creation had to occur before there could be “new creation”. And in the “new creation”, creation will in fact cease. The inauguration of the “new creation” is in fact the ultimate act of creation after which the creative act of God will cease (I am wondering about this even as I write it, but follow me on this). We know that in “heaven” there will be no “marriage or giving in marriage”. So no procreation. We also know that although we will have bodies in the new creation, they will be “spiritual” bodies, not “physical” bodies (1 Cor 15). God alone knows what kind of “bodies” these will be, since we can’t conceive of them (note that this was a topic in the Dawkins/Pell debate – handled badly by both). Yet the fact is that, because the essential nature of the “new creation” will be spiritual rather than physical, there is no need to worry about tectonic plate movements or the nasty effects of gravity. Neither will exist (no floods, droughts, famines, cyclones etc.). It seems that the “new creation” will indeed be what Peter Singer says is impossible – a world of sentient beings without suffering. And yet, this could not exist if it were not for the prior fact of the existence of this creation, in which suffering is a necessity of the existence of sentience.

Of course, debates like this don’t resolve such questions. What this debate did – quite unlike any other that I have attended – is raise very interesting lines of further enquiry. There was no heckling from the assembly, and no laughter at the expense of either believers or atheists. It was respectful, and demonstrative (if not constitutive) of the topic “the role of reason in faith and unbelief”.

Most of you, like me, probably had never heard of Lawrence Krauss or his “theory of nothing” until the debate on QandA between Cardinal Pell and Professor Dawkins on Monday night. Clearly, both Pell and Dawkins were in on something that the rest of us were not.

But since then, I have noted multiple articles on Lawrence Krauss’ book “A Universe from Nothing” since Monday night appearing in my google reader. Here is one such article, which supports the point Cardinal Pell was trying to make. It is by ACU philosopher Neil Ormorod, and is called “Behold the Mighty Multiverse! The Deficient Faith of Lawrence Krauss” and, yes, it is on the ABC Ethics and Religion website. Enjoy!

[Nb. Krauss is in town for the Atheists Convention]

What’s wrong with the world today, you may well be asking yourself? If we could send our Western Democratic Society off to the doctor for an analysis, what would the diagnosis of our illness be?

I recently listened to an old RN Drive radio program with Waleed Aly on the issue of Melinda Tankard Reist’s position within the “feminist” camp. In that program, Scott Stephens, the editor of the excellent ABC Religion and Ethics website, posited a term that was completely new to me: “agonistic hyperpluralism”.

Now, following the QandA debate between Pell and Dawkins, Stephens has published a complete essay (“Questions without Answers in the Kingdom of Whatever”) on the phenomenon he calls “agonistic hyperpluraism”. I challenge you to read the article and NOT conclude – as I have done – that he is absolutely spot on with his diagnosis of our society’s present illness.

It is a devasting critique of what happens when there is no longer any shared basis for communal discourse.

One phrase in his essay stood out to me: “provided our lives are never constrained by the moral demands of actual community”.

That is what the Church represents for me living in today’s society – an “actual community” that makes real “moral [and faith] demands” upon me as an individual who has chosen to belong to it. Rejecting the kind of “agonistic hyperpluralism” that besets our modern society (and, I would have to be honest to say, also our Church), I have chosen to belong to the community known as “the Catholic Church” and to conform my thinking as an individual to the thinking of this community as a whole. In other words, “Sentire Cum Ecclesia”.

You may think there is “freedom” in being a “free thinker”, unconstrained by the demands of belonging to a coherant and real community. You may say that such “constraint” forces not only uniformity but is a rejection of diversity. I say that such is freedom is nothing but a recipe for the complete disintegration of society. To use an analogy from physics: the reason the world of matter exists and exists in such a marvellous pluriformity, is precisely because the individual building block that make up everything that exists (atoms etc.) hold together and interact on the basis of immutable laws of physics. If each atom was indeed “atomic” (in the sense of individual) nothing concrete would exist. Everything would, in fact, be exactly the same – a dull thin soup of atoms tasting of absolutly nothing.

In positing the idea of “agonistic hyperpluralism”, Stephens has offered a diagnosis of our woes. He does not offer a cure. I believe that the Church does offer a cure. It is an “actual community” that exists with no less an aim than uniting the whole of human society in the Kingdom – not of “whatever” but – of God.

[P.S. If you are not completely burnt-out with these “science and religion” debates, then you might like to join me tonight at 7:30pm at St Paul’s Anglican Cathedral in Melbourne for a conversation between two eminent philosophers, Peter Singer and Brendan Purcell. The topic is “the role of reason in faith and unbelief”.]

Yes, folks, you read that right: 3,500 new adult Christians were received into the Catholic Church through the rites of initiation on the Easter Vigil in the Diocese of Hong Kong. And that is with an overall population of some 500,000 Catholics. Just imagine… It must have been like Pentecost all over again!

It was billed as a “battle of biblical proportions”, with the Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney George Pell in the “red corner” and the high-priest of militant atheism, Professor Richard Dawkins, in the “blue corner”. If the “debate” between the Archbishop of Canterbury and Richard Dawkins turned out to be more of an afternoon tea with scones, then what we were built up to expect in this encounter was nothing less than the world championship fight between “mors et vita”.

In the end though, the QandA debate wasn’t much of a battle. Professor Dawkins was somewhat subdued, and the Cardinal – despite getting in a few good one liners – was generally incoherant. I don’t mean to be mean in that statement. It’s just that if you go into this kind of encounter, you should be able to present a clear and simple line of argument, speak in full sentences, stay on the topic and – above all – remember that the Neanderthal were our evolutionary “cousins”, not our ancestors. Cardinal Pell may be Australia’s “most senior churchman” (as the media insist on calling him) but he is unfortunately not our most articulate in these kinds of circumstances. He has the knowledge and the intellect to engage with the kinds of issues that emerge in any discussion with Richard Dawkins on such matters, but doesn’t have the skill of an “off-the-cuff” “heat-of-battle” apologist. As the report in The Sydney Morning Herald put it

While he kept his retorts short, the priest landed some blows. But as the exchange wore on and Dawkins sank into exasperation with the vapidity of some of the questions, Pell became more expansive. And the more liturgical rope he was allowed, the more thoroughly he hanged himself.

The QandA website has the full transcript as well as the video for those who missed it, but a few comments here.

1. The discussion about the “why” of our existence was very telling. Dawkins stated that the question “why?” in terms of the purpose of our existence is “not a meaningful question”. And yet it is THE question of the human condition. It is THE question that has bugged philosophers since the beginning of the philosophical endeavour. The fact that Professor Dawkins does not find the question “meaningful” raises questions for me about just how “in touch” he is with the rest of humanity.

2. George’s comments about the “intellectual” inferiority of the Jews was deeply regretable, and I don’t think he meant it. What he meant, I think, was that the Jewish culture – although so rich in many ways that it has become a foundational culture of modern Western (Christian) culture – it wasn’t one of the great cultures of the ancient world. He should have used this terminology rather than speaking about the “intellectual” qualities of the ancient Jewish civilisation. That being said, he should also have used Dawkins question “why the Jews?” as an opportunity to speak about the particularity of God’s revelation. George started going there but was diverted in his argumentation.

3. I think one of the Cardinal’s strongest points was that while Christianity may indeed have a “problem” with the question of the existence of evil and suffering, the atheists have an equally large problem in explaining why there is “truth, goodness and beauty”. It was very telliing that Dawkins, while embracing a basically evolutionary biological viewpoint, disowned the principle of the “survival of the fittest” in matters of ethical and social behaviour. However, he didn’t give us a viable alternative basis within his world view for any higher level of behaviour.

Finally, one would have thought that given the debate was held on Easter Monday, George could have brought in the Resurrection of Jesus. When it all comes down to it, we believe in God because he raised Jesus from the dead, not because of any philosophical or scientific “proofs”. This is a point well made in the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Easter Sunday sermon.

Rowan Williams began his sermon by observing that there might be signs that the high water mark in the current assault upon people of faith from atheists may have been reached (a little optimistic, I think, but nevertheless):

So we have reason to feel thankful that things appear to be moving on from a pointless stalemate. Yet, granted all this, and given all the appropriate expression of relief Christians may allow themselves, Easter raises an extra question, uncomfortable and unavoidable: perhaps ‘religion’ is more useful than the passing generation of gurus thought; but is it true? Easter makes a claim not just about a potentially illuminating set of human activities but about an event in history and its relation to the action of God. Very simply, in the words of this morning’s reading from the Acts of the Apostles, we are told that ‘God raised Jesus to life.’

And that’s the point, isn’t it? It isn’t a question of whether ‘science’ approves of this event. It is a question of “Did it really happen?” and “If it did, what difference does that make to how we see reality and our place in it?” Monday night’s debate wasn’t just about Science and Religion – it was about whether or not the Christian religion is true. It doesn’t really matter that 76% of viewers thought that “Religious belief does not make the world a better place” (or, perhaps it does, but not to this specific question), but rather “Did Jesus rise from the dead?”

Somehow, we have to get that question – and more to the point, the proclamation that he has INDEED risen from the dead – out there. I don’t know how entertaining people would find that discussion though.

Many people have commented to me – and of course it has been covered extensively on the blogosphere – of the Pope’s Chrism Mass homily. See here for Kate Edward’s comments, and here for Fr Z.’s comments.

Yes, I think it is wonderful that the Pope has taken on the Austrian rebel priests. But I also note that these priests have wiped off the criticism as so much water off a duck’s back.

It just so happens that, in preparation for my course on Kings and Prophets, I have been reading James Kugel on the prophet Samuel and his relationship with King Saul. The passage in question is 1 Samuel 15 – a disturbing passage in many ways to modern ears, but one which concerns obedience to the Lord, even where the ‘common sense’ approach would demand otherwise. Saul makes all kinds of excuses about why he did not follow the command of the Lord, but Samuel will have none of it. Reading the passage together with the Pope’s Chrism mass homily and the Austrian priests’ excuses for why his comments do not apply to them is very instructive.

A couple of reflections:

1) The pope outlines a series of ways in which we can determine whether movements in the modern age are actually “of God”: “This new fruitfulness requires being filled with the joy of faith, the radicalism of obedience, the dynamic of hope and the power of love.” Do you spot the ‘odd one out’? Yes, faith, hope and love – AND obedience. To be obedient is true ‘radicalism’. To be ‘disobedient’ is passe. Ho hum. You want to be radical? Then be obedient.

2) The pope goes on to discuss something actually authentic and essential to his whole theology: the anthropology of body and soul. Under the topic “animarum zelus” (the ‘zeal for souls’) he discusses the body/soul existence of human beings that has been central to his theology since at least the time when he wrote “Eschatology“. But curiously I was just reflecting on this myself only a few days ago, when I asked myself, “What makes the difference between your average ‘run of the mill’ Catholic parish priest and a really ‘on fire’ priest?’. The answer I provided myself was “A zeal for the salvation of souls”. Now, I know that sounds hopelessly outdated, but in this homily Pope Benedict defends exactly this outlook. A priest who has the “animarum zelus” will not be a rebellious priest, but one who seeks at every turn to call the people of God back to God in Christ Jesus in a spirit of repentance, seeking wholeness and well being – no less than human flourishing!

I commend the pope’s homily to you for full reading.

Just very quickly, as I am about to head into the Cathedral for the Chrism Mass, I would like to join my voice to the chorus congratulating Archbishop Mark Coleridge on his appointment to the See of Brisbane. Full links to the stories and documents here.

Next boot to fall then will be Canberra-Goulburn.

For the first time in what seems like at least five years, the fountains in front of the Archdiocesan offices were switched on again today:

They were switched off during the drought, but following an extensive cleaning and resealing program, the first test of the renovated system was done this afternoon. A small boy shared the joy:

I was working out in the courtyard underneath when the water was turned on and went up to investigate. When I announced to the staff inside I was greeted with incomprehension: “what fountains?” What short memories we have.

After watching an episode of “Woodley” with my family together with my parents who are visiting us at the moment, I decided in the spur of the moment that we should all go out to see his new show “Bemusement Park” which is showing at the Comedy Festival.

I am not completely sure why the “Pastoral Letter on the True Meaning of Marriage” released this morning comes “from the Catholic Bishops of Victoria” and not the entire Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, but three cheers for Archbishop Hart and the other bishops of the Province for taking the initiative. What is especially significant – because it says everything about how the Catholic Church understands Church/State relationships – is that the letter is addressed (in the style of the apostolic letters) “Dear Brothers and Sisters”. In other words, for the Catholic community, rather than (for eg.) to all Victorians or to the Federal Government. It is a teaching document, intended to teach the Catholic faithful.

Bishop Prowse has been the public spokesman for the bishops who signed the letter, and has apparently done dozens of interviews today in relation to the letter. One journalist asked him something along the lines of: “But surely there are many Catholics who support the change in the law to allow same-sex marriage?” His reply was that this is precisely why the letter was written – to begin a process of discussion and catechisation within the Catholic community about the “true meaning of marriage”. The letter says:

Catholics, as responsible citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia, have a duty to remind their political representatives that much is at stake for the common good in this debate. We urge you to exercise that right and make direct representation to your Members of Parliament.

So the letter is not a case of the Church heirarchy telling to the Australian Government or society what they should do. That isn’t the role of the Church. The role of the Church is to form their members in the Catholic faith, and the role of the members of the Church – who are simultaneously also citizens of our democratic state – is to participate directly in the processes which have been established to determine what the law of the land should be. That is exactly right.

Also exactly right is the position taken by the Pastoral Letter. It does not make this into an issue of opposition to homosexuality. The case could be argued like that, but probably not helpfully. Quite apart from the question of the morality of sexual acts between persons of the same sex, the fundamental issue here is the meaning of marriage. Note, not the “definition” of marriage. Marriage is not something which can be, strictly speaking, defined, as if the definition forms the reality. Rather, the reality exists – more than that, it “subsists”, which means that it exists in actuality, not just in potentiality. When we formulate a statement of what marriage is, we are not “defining” marriage, as if marriage derives from our definition of it. We are, rather, describing marriage, that is, speaking about the properties which pertain to the universal institution which IS “marriage”. Hence the letter is not titled “On the True Definition of Marriage” but rather “On the True Meaning of Marriage”.

Hence the letter is not about the morality of homosexual acts. Catholics need to inform themselves (and their consciences) about this, but this isn’t the focus of the Pastoral Letter. The letter itself states that “We are all blessed by God with the gift of sexuality” and that

God loves human beings very much. He especially loves those who are wounded and suffering. God loves each of us so much despite the fact that we are all sinners, make mistakes and often do not live up to our responsibilities… [The Church’s opposition to the proposal to redefine marriage] in no way implies that the Church accepts discrimination against other’s human rights. Nor does it mean we fail to understand the complex nature of human sexual identity and desire.

No, the issue here is about the proposal to legally redefine what marriage means in the Commonwealth of Australia. The bishops wish to inform Catholics why such a redefinition would be “a grave mistake” (that is using the word “grave” in the same sense in which we would use it to speak of “grave” sin) in other words, fundamentally wrong.

A grave mistake will be made if such legislation is enacted. The Government cannot redefine the natural institution of marriage, a union between a man and a woman. The Government can regulate marriage, but this natural institution existed long before there were any governments. It cannot be changed at will. The argument that same sex marriage supports marriage is wrong. The natural institution will not only be changed, it will be re-defined absolutely. It will become something different. Such a re-definition will undermine rather than support marriage.

In order to illustrate how a “redefinition of marriage” would undermine ALL marriages, let me propose a hypothetical change to the meaning of marriage which has nothing to do with the sex of the marriage partners.

The Marriage Act (1961, ammended 2004) says that:

Marriage means [Nb. “means” not “is defined as” – the Act currently recognises the “meaning” of marriage] the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.

Now imagine that a change to the law were proposed which would remove the two words “for life” from this statement of meaning. Suppose that under this change, it would be possible for couples at the time of their wedding chose either to enter into a union which was “for life” or, on the other hand, to choose to stipulate a “end-by date” for the union into which they are voluntarily entering. If marriage was thus to be redefined in such a way as to allow for temporary “marriages” alongside an option for a life-long relationship, would the institution called “marriage” still be “true marriage”? The answer of the Church would be “No.” An institution called “Marriage” which included even an option for a temporary union would no longer be “true marriage”, even if that option were not chosen by the couple getting married.

Were such a change to the Act be proposed – a change which has nothing to do with the sex of the two people entering this relationship (ie. nothing to do with the morality of same-sex sexual relations) – the Church would be just as vehement in her opposition as she is to the current proposal, because it would “redefine absolutely” the “natural institution” of marriage. If any element of the current meaning of marriage in Australian law were to become optional, then the entire meaning of all legal marriages performed in Australia would be changed.

I commend the Pastoral Letter to you all to read. You might like to visit this page on our Archdiocesan website, which has a video by Bishop Prowse explaining the reason for the letter, the link to download the letter, the link to the Australian Government’s online-survey on the matter, and the link to the Marriage, Life and Family Office’s “how to vote” card about the survey.