Friday 24 December 2010
Happy and Blessed Feast to you all.
"That than which nothing greater can be conceeived" has become incarnate.
Saturday 4 December 2010
Life Must Be Protected With Greatest Care
VATICAN CITY, NOV. 28, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI is affirming that life, once conceived, "must be protected with the greatest care."
The Pope pronounced these words Saturday while presiding at vespers for the first Sunday of Advent in St. Peter's Basilica.
The liturgy was preceded by a Vigil for All Nascent Human Life, which was promoted by the Pontiff on Nov. 14.
This vigil was also observed in union with the Holy Father in parishes, communities, movements and associations throughout the world.
"Experience and right reason," Benedict XVI said, "attest that the human being is a subject capable of understanding and willing, self-conscious and free, unrepeatable and irreplaceable, the meeting point of all terrestrial realities, that demands to be recognized as a value in himself and merits always being welcomed with respect and love."
The Pope continued: "He has the right not to be treated as an object to be possessed or as a thing that can be manipulated at will, not to be reduced to a pure instrument for others' advantage and interests.
"The person is a good in himself and his integral development must always be sought."
Furthermore, the Pontiff observed, "love toward all, if it is sincere, tends to become preferential attention for the weakest and the poorest."
In the womb
"In regard to the embryo in the maternal womb," he said, "science itself provides evidence of its autonomy, capable of interaction with the mother, the coordination of biological processes, the continuity of development, the growth in the complexity of the organism."
"It is not a matter of an aggregate of biological material," the Holy Father asserted, "but of a new living, dynamic and marvelously ordered being, a new individual of the human species."
"This is how Jesus was in Mary's womb," he added. "This is how it was for each of us in the mother's womb."
The Lord's incarnation and the beginning of human life, in fact, are intimately connected, Benedict XVI pointed out.
He explained that the former reveals that every human life has an "incomparable dignity," to which the "great responsibility toward all" is linked.
The Pope noted that, unfortunately, even after birth the lives of many children continue to be exposed to abandonment, hunger, misery, sickness, abuse, violence and exploitation.
He called on politicians, economists and the mass media to promote a culture that is ever more respectful of life.
Reciting the prayer for life at the conclusion of the celebration, the Pontiff invoked the Creator's protection of children, spouses, of all those who suffer from the impossibility of having children, and of orphans.
He asked for the light of the Holy Spirit to be shed on the decisions of legislative assemblies and the work of scientists and physicians, so that progress will contribute to the integral good of the person.
The Pope pronounced these words Saturday while presiding at vespers for the first Sunday of Advent in St. Peter's Basilica.
The liturgy was preceded by a Vigil for All Nascent Human Life, which was promoted by the Pontiff on Nov. 14.
This vigil was also observed in union with the Holy Father in parishes, communities, movements and associations throughout the world.
"Experience and right reason," Benedict XVI said, "attest that the human being is a subject capable of understanding and willing, self-conscious and free, unrepeatable and irreplaceable, the meeting point of all terrestrial realities, that demands to be recognized as a value in himself and merits always being welcomed with respect and love."
The Pope continued: "He has the right not to be treated as an object to be possessed or as a thing that can be manipulated at will, not to be reduced to a pure instrument for others' advantage and interests.
"The person is a good in himself and his integral development must always be sought."
Furthermore, the Pontiff observed, "love toward all, if it is sincere, tends to become preferential attention for the weakest and the poorest."
In the womb
"In regard to the embryo in the maternal womb," he said, "science itself provides evidence of its autonomy, capable of interaction with the mother, the coordination of biological processes, the continuity of development, the growth in the complexity of the organism."
"It is not a matter of an aggregate of biological material," the Holy Father asserted, "but of a new living, dynamic and marvelously ordered being, a new individual of the human species."
"This is how Jesus was in Mary's womb," he added. "This is how it was for each of us in the mother's womb."
The Lord's incarnation and the beginning of human life, in fact, are intimately connected, Benedict XVI pointed out.
He explained that the former reveals that every human life has an "incomparable dignity," to which the "great responsibility toward all" is linked.
The Pope noted that, unfortunately, even after birth the lives of many children continue to be exposed to abandonment, hunger, misery, sickness, abuse, violence and exploitation.
He called on politicians, economists and the mass media to promote a culture that is ever more respectful of life.
Reciting the prayer for life at the conclusion of the celebration, the Pontiff invoked the Creator's protection of children, spouses, of all those who suffer from the impossibility of having children, and of orphans.
He asked for the light of the Holy Spirit to be shed on the decisions of legislative assemblies and the work of scientists and physicians, so that progress will contribute to the integral good of the person.
Thursday 18 November 2010
When Medical Care Gets Expensive
Economic Considerations in the Removal of Life Support
WASHINGTON, D.C., NOV. 17, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.
Q: Is it ever legitimate to remove or withhold life-sustaining procedures from a patient in order to save excessive expenses to persons other than that patient (e.g., the patient's family, the community)? -- W.G., Denver, USA
E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:
A: Given the danger of unfair rationing posed by the implementation of the Obama federal health care law, the question of whether others may legitimately decide whether I receive life-sustaining care promises to become menacingly pertinent. Would it be licit, for example, for a committee of physicians, or a hospital ethics board, or, heaven forbid, a gang of Washington bureaucrats, to decide that some needed but costly medical treatment, because it promises me too little quality of life over too short a time, should be withheld or removed from me? The question here is "who decides?"
What's not being questioned is the basic ethical legitimacy of patients refusing life-support. On this, there is no serious debate. In the Catholic Church over the past 30 years norms for the legitimate refusal of life-support have been formulated multiple times.[1] In one place, the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Services (ERDs) of the USCCB, the norm is worded as follows:
"A person may forgo extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life. Disproportionate means are those that in the patient's judgment do not offer a reasonable hope of benefit or entail an excessive burden, or impose an excessive expense on the family or the community" (ERD, No. 58).
The directive states clearly the underlying norm: disproportionate means rightly may be refused. But notice the important words, "in the patient's judgment." The patient -- not the family, a hospital ethics committee or even (though you might find this startling) the Secretary for Health and Human Services -- should decide whether or not a means is disproportionate. The ERD identifies futility (no "reasonable hope of benefit"), the burden threatened, and excessive expense as legitimate grounds for making that judgment. And judging rightly in these matters may require counsel from experts and the advice of loved-ones. But the final judgment is for the patient to make.
Does the bare fact alone that patients decide for themselves make their decisions morally upright? Of course not. They might be inordinately influenced by depressive mental states, morbid fear, self-loathing, or a misguided sense of their own "right-to-die." Still, the decision rests with them. What's the basis for this norm?
Bioethics textbooks refer to it as the principle of "respect for patient autonomy." The concept of "autonomy" can be slippery and secular bioethicists tend to use it to justify a multitude of sins. But rightly construed it's perfectly legitimate. It means simply the quality of being self-governing. Humans, unlike dogs (or at least unlike my enormous Alaskan Malamute, Wolfgang), are intelligent and free. Consequently, they can and do make for themselves free and informed decisions. In other words, they are self-governing (or self-determining, or in self-possession, or, as Aquinas says, self-moving) and, therefore, responsible. This status of being free and self-possessing is, in the Christian philosophical tradition, precisely the status of a person. In this sense, we can say persons are autonomous.
Translated into an ethical directive, this means that competent adults should be left free to make their own healthcare decisions. It follows that patients should be adequately told whatever they need to know to make informed decisions about their health care (especially about treatments bearing upon the end-of-life); and they should be left free to make those decisions. To withhold information necessary for informed consent, or to impose upon patients a decision against their consent, disrespects their status of being free and self-possessing, that is, violates their autonomy.
But isn't this all falsified by the behavior of embryos, fetuses, babies, small children and severely cognitively impaired adults (and many college students), who manifestly don't make for themselves intelligent and free decisions? No, it is not falsified. Although they cannot, or cannot yet, exercise intelligence and free choice, they are still, all of them, humans. They are by definition -- following Aristotle -- animals of the rational type (and following Sacred Scripture, creatures made in God's image and likeness). By nature, embryos, babies and mentally disabled patients are rational beings -- persons, although their cognitive functions may lack development or be disabled. So they always should be respected precisely as persons. Proxy decision makers therefore have a duty to respect the rightful decisions of those for whom they are proxies. If they must make decisions for patients without knowledge of the patients' wills, they should place themselves in the position of the patients and ask themselves: "in this situation, how would I want to be treated?"
How then should we understand ERD 58 which says that a patient may decide to forgo life-support if it imposes an excessive expense on the family or the community? In considering whether or not to accept or continue some treatment, a patient may consider not only the burden that the cost of that treatment would impose on himself, but also the burden, including financial burden, it imposes on his family, or even the wider community. And he may forgo that treatment intending to free his family or community from that burden. It should be said, however, that his life is never rightly considered a burden from which he intends to relieve his family or community. This would be suicide. But his acceptance of a hastened death as a result of refusing costly treatment can be an act of mercy (perhaps even justice) towards his loved ones. The Vatican Declaration on Euthanasia writes: "Such a refusal is not the equivalent of suicide; on the contrary, it should be considered as an acceptance of the human condition, or a wish to avoid the application of a medical procedure disproportionate to the results that can be expected, or a desire not to impose excessive expense on the family or the community" (CDF, 1980, part IV)
If a patient is permanently unconscious, a proxy caregiver may execute a pre-written order of the patient's for the removal of futile or burdensome procedures. One should never consent, however, to execute an order to remove means of care that are morally required, such as the feeding and hydrating of patients whose bodies can assimilate food and water.
Would it ever be legitimate for the family of a patient to make the decision that some form of life-support is "disproportionate" exclusively on the grounds that it is excessively expensive to the family? After what was said above -- namely, that the patient, not the family, should decide -- it would appear not. But I would like to qualify this.
I would say that if the patient has no advanced directive, and the form of life-support is not medically futile (e.g., ventilator use for patients with advanced Lou Gehrig's Disease), then ordinarily, even if the cost is burdensome, it would not be permissible to make a judgement for a patient that a treatment is "disproportionate" unless the caregivers know that this conforms to the will of the patient (even if that will is not expressed on an advanced directive).
If family members do not know the patient's clear will on the matter, but they are confident that removal of life-support would not be contrary to the patient's will, then, in my opinion, it would only be legitimate to remove life support if the financial burden on the family was very grave, and then, only if the family could say honestly that such a decision would be expressive of the patient's will had he the opportunity to express his will.
NOTES:
[1] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Evangelium Vitae" (1995), No. 77; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia (1980), part IV; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Ethical & Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 5th ed. (2009), Nos. 56-58, esp. 57.
* * *
E. Christian Brugger is a Senior Fellow of Ethics at the Culture of Life Foundation and is an associate professor of moral theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado. He received his Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford in 2000.
WASHINGTON, D.C., NOV. 17, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.
Q: Is it ever legitimate to remove or withhold life-sustaining procedures from a patient in order to save excessive expenses to persons other than that patient (e.g., the patient's family, the community)? -- W.G., Denver, USA
E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:
A: Given the danger of unfair rationing posed by the implementation of the Obama federal health care law, the question of whether others may legitimately decide whether I receive life-sustaining care promises to become menacingly pertinent. Would it be licit, for example, for a committee of physicians, or a hospital ethics board, or, heaven forbid, a gang of Washington bureaucrats, to decide that some needed but costly medical treatment, because it promises me too little quality of life over too short a time, should be withheld or removed from me? The question here is "who decides?"
What's not being questioned is the basic ethical legitimacy of patients refusing life-support. On this, there is no serious debate. In the Catholic Church over the past 30 years norms for the legitimate refusal of life-support have been formulated multiple times.[1] In one place, the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Services (ERDs) of the USCCB, the norm is worded as follows:
"A person may forgo extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life. Disproportionate means are those that in the patient's judgment do not offer a reasonable hope of benefit or entail an excessive burden, or impose an excessive expense on the family or the community" (ERD, No. 58).
The directive states clearly the underlying norm: disproportionate means rightly may be refused. But notice the important words, "in the patient's judgment." The patient -- not the family, a hospital ethics committee or even (though you might find this startling) the Secretary for Health and Human Services -- should decide whether or not a means is disproportionate. The ERD identifies futility (no "reasonable hope of benefit"), the burden threatened, and excessive expense as legitimate grounds for making that judgment. And judging rightly in these matters may require counsel from experts and the advice of loved-ones. But the final judgment is for the patient to make.
Does the bare fact alone that patients decide for themselves make their decisions morally upright? Of course not. They might be inordinately influenced by depressive mental states, morbid fear, self-loathing, or a misguided sense of their own "right-to-die." Still, the decision rests with them. What's the basis for this norm?
Bioethics textbooks refer to it as the principle of "respect for patient autonomy." The concept of "autonomy" can be slippery and secular bioethicists tend to use it to justify a multitude of sins. But rightly construed it's perfectly legitimate. It means simply the quality of being self-governing. Humans, unlike dogs (or at least unlike my enormous Alaskan Malamute, Wolfgang), are intelligent and free. Consequently, they can and do make for themselves free and informed decisions. In other words, they are self-governing (or self-determining, or in self-possession, or, as Aquinas says, self-moving) and, therefore, responsible. This status of being free and self-possessing is, in the Christian philosophical tradition, precisely the status of a person. In this sense, we can say persons are autonomous.
Translated into an ethical directive, this means that competent adults should be left free to make their own healthcare decisions. It follows that patients should be adequately told whatever they need to know to make informed decisions about their health care (especially about treatments bearing upon the end-of-life); and they should be left free to make those decisions. To withhold information necessary for informed consent, or to impose upon patients a decision against their consent, disrespects their status of being free and self-possessing, that is, violates their autonomy.
But isn't this all falsified by the behavior of embryos, fetuses, babies, small children and severely cognitively impaired adults (and many college students), who manifestly don't make for themselves intelligent and free decisions? No, it is not falsified. Although they cannot, or cannot yet, exercise intelligence and free choice, they are still, all of them, humans. They are by definition -- following Aristotle -- animals of the rational type (and following Sacred Scripture, creatures made in God's image and likeness). By nature, embryos, babies and mentally disabled patients are rational beings -- persons, although their cognitive functions may lack development or be disabled. So they always should be respected precisely as persons. Proxy decision makers therefore have a duty to respect the rightful decisions of those for whom they are proxies. If they must make decisions for patients without knowledge of the patients' wills, they should place themselves in the position of the patients and ask themselves: "in this situation, how would I want to be treated?"
How then should we understand ERD 58 which says that a patient may decide to forgo life-support if it imposes an excessive expense on the family or the community? In considering whether or not to accept or continue some treatment, a patient may consider not only the burden that the cost of that treatment would impose on himself, but also the burden, including financial burden, it imposes on his family, or even the wider community. And he may forgo that treatment intending to free his family or community from that burden. It should be said, however, that his life is never rightly considered a burden from which he intends to relieve his family or community. This would be suicide. But his acceptance of a hastened death as a result of refusing costly treatment can be an act of mercy (perhaps even justice) towards his loved ones. The Vatican Declaration on Euthanasia writes: "Such a refusal is not the equivalent of suicide; on the contrary, it should be considered as an acceptance of the human condition, or a wish to avoid the application of a medical procedure disproportionate to the results that can be expected, or a desire not to impose excessive expense on the family or the community" (CDF, 1980, part IV)
If a patient is permanently unconscious, a proxy caregiver may execute a pre-written order of the patient's for the removal of futile or burdensome procedures. One should never consent, however, to execute an order to remove means of care that are morally required, such as the feeding and hydrating of patients whose bodies can assimilate food and water.
Would it ever be legitimate for the family of a patient to make the decision that some form of life-support is "disproportionate" exclusively on the grounds that it is excessively expensive to the family? After what was said above -- namely, that the patient, not the family, should decide -- it would appear not. But I would like to qualify this.
I would say that if the patient has no advanced directive, and the form of life-support is not medically futile (e.g., ventilator use for patients with advanced Lou Gehrig's Disease), then ordinarily, even if the cost is burdensome, it would not be permissible to make a judgement for a patient that a treatment is "disproportionate" unless the caregivers know that this conforms to the will of the patient (even if that will is not expressed on an advanced directive).
If family members do not know the patient's clear will on the matter, but they are confident that removal of life-support would not be contrary to the patient's will, then, in my opinion, it would only be legitimate to remove life support if the financial burden on the family was very grave, and then, only if the family could say honestly that such a decision would be expressive of the patient's will had he the opportunity to express his will.
NOTES:
[1] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Evangelium Vitae" (1995), No. 77; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia (1980), part IV; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Ethical & Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 5th ed. (2009), Nos. 56-58, esp. 57.
* * *
E. Christian Brugger is a Senior Fellow of Ethics at the Culture of Life Foundation and is an associate professor of moral theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado. He received his Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford in 2000.
Thursday 30 September 2010
Philospohy of Religion, Oxford Study Day
Just in case any of you are looking and have not yet returned your reply slips for the Oxford Study Day on Nov 26th, please remember that I need them in v soon.
MC
MC
Thursday 24 June 2010
Thursday 25 March 2010
Faith and Science Are Friends, Says Pope
Notes St. Albert's Contribution to Philosophy
VATICAN CITY, MARCH 24, 2010.- There is no opposition between faith and science, says Benedict XVI, who proposed the example of St. Albert the Great to illustrate this truth.
The Pope considered this 13th century saint today during the general audience in St. Peter's Square. "He still has much to teach us," the Pontiff said of him.
"St. Albert shows that between faith and science there is no opposition, notwithstanding some episodes of misunderstanding recorded in history," Benedict XVI proposed. "[...] St. Albert the Great reminds us that between science and faith there is friendship, and that the men of science can undertake, through their vocation to the study of nature, a genuine and fascinating journey of sanctity."
The Holy Father noted how Albert effected a cultural shift by accepting and evaluating the thought and works of Aristotle.
"St. Albert the Great opened the door for the complete reception of the philosophy of Aristotle in Medieval philosophy and theology, a reception elaborated later in a definitive way by St. Thomas," he explained. "This reception of a philosophy, let us say, pagan and pre-Christian was an authentic cultural revolution for that time. And yet, many Christian thinkers feared Aristotle's philosophy, non-Christian philosophy, above all because, presented by its Arab commentators, it was interpreted in a way of appearing, at least in some points, as altogether irreconcilable with the Christian faith."
A father of philosophy
This situation, the Pope noted, presented a dilemma that Albert would address: Are faith and reason in opposition to one another or not?
The Pontiff explained that here "is one of the great merits of St. Albert: with scientific rigor he studied the works of Aristotle, convinced that everything that is rational is compatible with the faith revealed in sacred Scriptures. In other words, St. Albert the Great, thus contributed to the formation of an autonomous philosophy, different from theology and united to it only by the unity of the truth."
The Holy Father concluded by inviting the faithful to pray that God will continue to send his Church men and women like St. Albert, "learned, pious and wise theologians."
And he added: "May he help each one of us to make our own the 'formula of sanctity' that he followed in his life: 'To want everything that I want for the glory of God, to wish and do everything only and always for his glory.'"
Full text: http://www.zenit.org/article-28741?l=english
VATICAN CITY, MARCH 24, 2010.- There is no opposition between faith and science, says Benedict XVI, who proposed the example of St. Albert the Great to illustrate this truth.
The Pope considered this 13th century saint today during the general audience in St. Peter's Square. "He still has much to teach us," the Pontiff said of him.
"St. Albert shows that between faith and science there is no opposition, notwithstanding some episodes of misunderstanding recorded in history," Benedict XVI proposed. "[...] St. Albert the Great reminds us that between science and faith there is friendship, and that the men of science can undertake, through their vocation to the study of nature, a genuine and fascinating journey of sanctity."
The Holy Father noted how Albert effected a cultural shift by accepting and evaluating the thought and works of Aristotle.
"St. Albert the Great opened the door for the complete reception of the philosophy of Aristotle in Medieval philosophy and theology, a reception elaborated later in a definitive way by St. Thomas," he explained. "This reception of a philosophy, let us say, pagan and pre-Christian was an authentic cultural revolution for that time. And yet, many Christian thinkers feared Aristotle's philosophy, non-Christian philosophy, above all because, presented by its Arab commentators, it was interpreted in a way of appearing, at least in some points, as altogether irreconcilable with the Christian faith."
A father of philosophy
This situation, the Pope noted, presented a dilemma that Albert would address: Are faith and reason in opposition to one another or not?
The Pontiff explained that here "is one of the great merits of St. Albert: with scientific rigor he studied the works of Aristotle, convinced that everything that is rational is compatible with the faith revealed in sacred Scriptures. In other words, St. Albert the Great, thus contributed to the formation of an autonomous philosophy, different from theology and united to it only by the unity of the truth."
The Holy Father concluded by inviting the faithful to pray that God will continue to send his Church men and women like St. Albert, "learned, pious and wise theologians."
And he added: "May he help each one of us to make our own the 'formula of sanctity' that he followed in his life: 'To want everything that I want for the glory of God, to wish and do everything only and always for his glory.'"
Full text: http://www.zenit.org/article-28741?l=english
A War on Science
When Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection he shattered the dominant belief of his time - that humans were the product of divine creation. Now some scientists fear it is facing the most formidable challenge yet: a controversial new theory called Intelligent Design
Thursday 11 March 2010
The Irenaean Theodicy
The 2nd Century Bishop of Lyon attempts to explain the presence of evil in a world created by a good God.
Sunday 7 March 2010
Thursday 4 March 2010
St Augustine's Theodicy
Click the link below for the animation:
Transcript:
Good evening St Augustine, we’re here to discuss your theodicy. It is an interesting subject
Yes it is, evil is all around us and it’s dangerous. It hurts people physically, but worse it causes people to doubt the existence of God. Because I know they are completely wrong I had to work out reasons why evil exists alongside God.
Is it possible that God doesn’t exist?
No! That’s impossible! God is the only certainty we have. I started my search in the Bible, which, as the word of God can’t be wrong. I think we all already know that the answer to our question lies in the Book of Genesis. There it says that God created the universe and everything in it..
So he created evil then?
Certainly not! A perfect being like God couldn’t create evil. It’s logically impossible! Think about it another way. If a perfect God created everything in existence then it is impossible for evil to exist.
But we know evil exists as sure as ……………
No, you think evil is present but you have got it wrong. Evil is not a substance, it is an absence. It is the absence of goodness. If you think about the inconsistent triad we know God is good, we know God is omniscient, yet we see evil in the world. So it must follow that our consistency lies in our concept of evil. Evil is not a substance, it is a privation.
Where does it come from then? That is supposing you can say ‘it’ about something that doesn’t exist.
Well! God created a perfect world. Adam and Eve were made in God’s likeness and lived in harmony with God and nature in the Garden of Eden.
So what went wrong?
The Fall of Man. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and that created sin, or call it evil. Because God is omniscient he knew this would happen. Just as he had foreseen that dispute between the angels which led Satan to being kicked out of heaven for his arrogance.
Couldn’t God stop it? I thought he was omnipotent.
Of course he could, but a perfect creation is not one of robots! God knew this would happen and made plans for it.
Hang on. If God didn’t cause evil, who did?
They did, the first humans. God gave the angels and humans he created the free will to choose whether to love and obey him or not.
That’s risky.
But without free will God’s creation would be merely mechanical. No, for creation to be truly good, God’s creatures must be free to choose. You value a relationship more when someone freely chooses to love you, rather than be forced to by someone or something else.
Yes, but what if people choose the wrong thing?
They punish themselves just as Adam and Eve did when they chose to turn away from good with the consequence that they had to leave the Garden of Eden. They had destroyed God’s natural order and that created natural evil.
Yes, but this was all in the past. What has it got to do with us today?
We all descended from Adam and Eve so we all inherit their guilt. Some humans today turn away from God and evil flourishes. But this is a loving God, who sent his Son Jesus Christ to save us. Jesus’ sacrifice paid the price of Adam and Eve’s original sin so humans who want to, can get close to God once more.
Thank you.
Transcript:
Good evening St Augustine, we’re here to discuss your theodicy. It is an interesting subject
Yes it is, evil is all around us and it’s dangerous. It hurts people physically, but worse it causes people to doubt the existence of God. Because I know they are completely wrong I had to work out reasons why evil exists alongside God.
Is it possible that God doesn’t exist?
No! That’s impossible! God is the only certainty we have. I started my search in the Bible, which, as the word of God can’t be wrong. I think we all already know that the answer to our question lies in the Book of Genesis. There it says that God created the universe and everything in it..
So he created evil then?
Certainly not! A perfect being like God couldn’t create evil. It’s logically impossible! Think about it another way. If a perfect God created everything in existence then it is impossible for evil to exist.
But we know evil exists as sure as ……………
No, you think evil is present but you have got it wrong. Evil is not a substance, it is an absence. It is the absence of goodness. If you think about the inconsistent triad we know God is good, we know God is omniscient, yet we see evil in the world. So it must follow that our consistency lies in our concept of evil. Evil is not a substance, it is a privation.
Where does it come from then? That is supposing you can say ‘it’ about something that doesn’t exist.
Well! God created a perfect world. Adam and Eve were made in God’s likeness and lived in harmony with God and nature in the Garden of Eden.
So what went wrong?
The Fall of Man. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and that created sin, or call it evil. Because God is omniscient he knew this would happen. Just as he had foreseen that dispute between the angels which led Satan to being kicked out of heaven for his arrogance.
Couldn’t God stop it? I thought he was omnipotent.
Of course he could, but a perfect creation is not one of robots! God knew this would happen and made plans for it.
Hang on. If God didn’t cause evil, who did?
They did, the first humans. God gave the angels and humans he created the free will to choose whether to love and obey him or not.
That’s risky.
But without free will God’s creation would be merely mechanical. No, for creation to be truly good, God’s creatures must be free to choose. You value a relationship more when someone freely chooses to love you, rather than be forced to by someone or something else.
Yes, but what if people choose the wrong thing?
They punish themselves just as Adam and Eve did when they chose to turn away from good with the consequence that they had to leave the Garden of Eden. They had destroyed God’s natural order and that created natural evil.
Yes, but this was all in the past. What has it got to do with us today?
We all descended from Adam and Eve so we all inherit their guilt. Some humans today turn away from God and evil flourishes. But this is a loving God, who sent his Son Jesus Christ to save us. Jesus’ sacrifice paid the price of Adam and Eve’s original sin so humans who want to, can get close to God once more.
Thank you.
Friday 26 February 2010
Monday 15 February 2010
Bioethics Needs Natural Law
VATICAN CITY, FEB. 14, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI is affirming that bioethics, with all of the scientific developments it takes into account, needs the principles of natural law so as to uphold human dignity.
The Pope stated this Saturday in an audience with members of the Pontifical Academy for Life who gathered in Rome for a general assembly on the topic of bioethics and natural law.
"The relationship between bioethics and the natural moral law" appears more "relevant in the present context because of the continual development in the scientific sphere," the Pontiff noted.
He affirmed, "The issues that revolve around the theme of bioethics allow us to confirm how much these underlying questions in the first place pose the 'anthropological question.'"
The Holy Father stated that "it is necessary to create a holistic pedagogical project that permits us to confront these issues in a positive, balanced and constructive vision, above all in the relationship between faith and reason."
He continued: "The questions of bioethics often place the reminder of the dignity of the person in the foreground.
"This dignity is a fundamental principle that the faith in Jesus Christ crucified and risen has always defended, above all when it is ignored in regard to the humblest and most vulnerable persons: God loves every human being in a unique and profound way."
"Bioethics, like every discipline, needs a reminder able to guarantee a consistent understanding of ethical questions that, inevitably, emerge before possible interpretive conflicts," Benedict XVI stated.
Human dignity
"In such a space a normative recall to the natural moral law presents itself," he added. "The recognition of human dignity, in fact, as an inalienable right first finds its basis in that law not written by human hand but inscribed by God the Creator in the heart of man."
The Pope pointed out that "joining bioethics and natural moral law permits the best confirmation of the necessary and unavoidable reminder of the dignity that human life intrinsically possesses from its first instant to its natural end."
He underlined the task of ensuring "that human life always be seen as the inalienable subject of rights and never as an object subjugated to the will of the strongest."
"History has shown us how dangerous and deleterious a state can be that proceeds to legislate on questions that touch the person and society while pretending itself to be the source and principle of ethics," the Pontiff warned.
He explained, "Without universal principles that permit a common denominator for the whole of humanity the danger of a relativistic drift at the legislative level is not at all something should be underestimated."
"The natural moral law," the Holy Father affirmed, "strong in its universal character, allows us to avert such a danger and above all offers to the legislator the guarantee for an authentic respect of both the person and the entire created order."
The Pope stated this Saturday in an audience with members of the Pontifical Academy for Life who gathered in Rome for a general assembly on the topic of bioethics and natural law.
"The relationship between bioethics and the natural moral law" appears more "relevant in the present context because of the continual development in the scientific sphere," the Pontiff noted.
He affirmed, "The issues that revolve around the theme of bioethics allow us to confirm how much these underlying questions in the first place pose the 'anthropological question.'"
The Holy Father stated that "it is necessary to create a holistic pedagogical project that permits us to confront these issues in a positive, balanced and constructive vision, above all in the relationship between faith and reason."
He continued: "The questions of bioethics often place the reminder of the dignity of the person in the foreground.
"This dignity is a fundamental principle that the faith in Jesus Christ crucified and risen has always defended, above all when it is ignored in regard to the humblest and most vulnerable persons: God loves every human being in a unique and profound way."
"Bioethics, like every discipline, needs a reminder able to guarantee a consistent understanding of ethical questions that, inevitably, emerge before possible interpretive conflicts," Benedict XVI stated.
Human dignity
"In such a space a normative recall to the natural moral law presents itself," he added. "The recognition of human dignity, in fact, as an inalienable right first finds its basis in that law not written by human hand but inscribed by God the Creator in the heart of man."
The Pope pointed out that "joining bioethics and natural moral law permits the best confirmation of the necessary and unavoidable reminder of the dignity that human life intrinsically possesses from its first instant to its natural end."
He underlined the task of ensuring "that human life always be seen as the inalienable subject of rights and never as an object subjugated to the will of the strongest."
"History has shown us how dangerous and deleterious a state can be that proceeds to legislate on questions that touch the person and society while pretending itself to be the source and principle of ethics," the Pontiff warned.
He explained, "Without universal principles that permit a common denominator for the whole of humanity the danger of a relativistic drift at the legislative level is not at all something should be underestimated."
"The natural moral law," the Holy Father affirmed, "strong in its universal character, allows us to avert such a danger and above all offers to the legislator the guarantee for an authentic respect of both the person and the entire created order."
Friday 12 February 2010
Thursday 4 February 2010
Kant & the Summum Bonum ~ The Moral Argument
TRANSCRIPT
It is an a-posteriori argument.
• The argument starts from our experience of morality (right and wrong) and concludes that God must exist to explain this fully.
• Kant didn't believe the argument proved God's existence. Rather, Kant said it was reasonable to postulate God in order to make final sense of reality.
• It is based on three assumptions:
(i) We are free to do both right and wrong.
(ii) God will reward the person that lives dutifully.
(iii) There us an after-life to make this possible.
So here is how it goes...
1. People who are good should be happy. However, this is not always true. Some good people are very unhappy because life treats them badly.
2. There must be something else which makes them act morally. This is the highest good or what Kant call 'Summum bonum' and their sense of duty to achieve the highest good.
3. Our 'reason' tells us which laws should be obeyed; these are laws that can universalised. For example, we know stealing is wrong because if everyone went around stealing, society would fail. They are called categorical imperatives; non-negotiable and absolute requirements fulfilling their duty.
4. There must be a reward for our moral behaviour in the next world- the summum bonum.
5. Hence, it is reasonable to believe God exists as he is entity that promises to reward us.
Sigmund Freud's criticisms
• He believed our sense of duty and moral awareness can be explained by socialisation i.e. the adaptation of behavioural patterns of the surrounding culture.
• He said our conscious (decisions to do right or wrong) was a product of our unconscious mind or super-ego of the human psyche.
There are 3 parts to the human psyche...
1. ID- Basic instincts and primitive desires e.g. hunger, lust, greed etc.
2. Ego- Perception of the external world that makes us aware of the 'reality principle'. It is one's most outward part and personality.
3. Super-ego - This is the unconscious mind which consists of: (i) the ego ideal: this praises all good actions and (ii) conscious who makes you feel guilty for bad actions.
• For Freud, moral awareness cannot derive from a divine origin because then the commands would be absolute and we all would come to the same conclusion. For example; in the case euthanasia some find it unmoral and other find it moral (relieving loved one from pain)
A further development on the criticism...
• If the conscious which makes good and bad decisions is the word of God than you would expect the moral code enforced by God to be consistent.
• However, this does not explain cases such as the Yorkshire Ripper who claimed to follow voices in his head.
• It can be implied from that, that the conscious is not truly objective.
• Therefore, it has a human not divine origin.
Friday 29 January 2010
Wednesday 27 January 2010
Thursday 21 January 2010
Science needs Religion
Catholic and Jewish leaders are underlining the need for the ethical guidance of religion to direct scientific progress in responsible ways that respect the environment and human persons.
This was affirmed in an English-language statement released today by the Vatican, from the bilateral commission meeting of Catholic and Jewish leaders.
A delegation of the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations With the Jews, led by Cardinal Jorge Mejía, met in Rome with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel's delegation for Relations with the Catholic Church, led by Chief Rabbi She'ar Yashuv Cohen.
This 9th meeting of the commission took place in Rome, beginning Sunday in conjunction with Benedict XVI's historic visit to the Synagogue of Rome.
The statement noted that at this event, in which all the commission members participated, the Pope "confirmed the commitment of the Catholic Church and its will to deepen dialogue and fraternity with Judaism and the Jewish People," while "unequivocally condemning anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism."
He highlighted the "work, significance and achievements of the bilateral commission," due to discuss "Catholic and Jewish teaching on creation and the environment."
Environmental crisis
The Pontiff expressed the hope for a "profitable dialogue on such a timely and important theme."
In today's statement, which marked the last day of the meeting, the commission highlighted the current "unique environmental crisis which is substantially the product of unbridled material and technological exploitation."
It continued, "While this challenge must obviously be addressed through the necessary technical means as well as self restraint, humility and discipline; the participants emphasized the essential need for society to recognize the transcendent dimension of creation that is critical to ensure sustainable development and progress in an ethically responsible manner."
"Not everything that is technically feasible is morally acceptable," the commission asserted.
It noted that this consciousness "ensures that every aspect of human advancement promotes the wellbeing of future generations and sanctifies the Divine Name."
The absence of this consciousness "leads to destructive consequences for humanity and environment and profanes the Divine Name," it added.
Human intervention
Making reference to the Biblical tradition, the commission affirmed that "our responsibility for the eco-system is bound up with and reflective of our obligations to one another."
Quoting the Holy Father's address at the Synagogue of Rome, the statement underlined in particular "a special generosity toward the poor, towards women and children, strangers, the sick, the weak and the needy."
"The ethical aspect of human intervention in the natural order lies in the limitation on the power of science and its claim to absoluteness, and in the expression of human solidarity and moral responsibility towards all," it affirmed.
Thus the commission urged "that all scientific innovation and development work in close consultation with religious ethical guidance."
"A genuine environmental ethic is a key condition for world peace and harmony," it stated.
The statement underlined "the critical importance of a moral religious education at all levels" in order to "guarantee responsible scientific and social development."
In these days, the commission members also participated in a presentation at the Pontifical Gregorian University by Father Patrick Desbois, who spoke about the work of Yahad-In Unum to "locate and memorialize the unidentified sites in Eastern Europe of mass murder during the Shoah."
The commission urged the support and publication of this "very important work, in order to learn from the tragedies of the past to protect and respect the sanctity of human life everywhere so that atrocities will never reoccur."
h/t Zenit
This was affirmed in an English-language statement released today by the Vatican, from the bilateral commission meeting of Catholic and Jewish leaders.
A delegation of the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations With the Jews, led by Cardinal Jorge Mejía, met in Rome with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel's delegation for Relations with the Catholic Church, led by Chief Rabbi She'ar Yashuv Cohen.
This 9th meeting of the commission took place in Rome, beginning Sunday in conjunction with Benedict XVI's historic visit to the Synagogue of Rome.
The statement noted that at this event, in which all the commission members participated, the Pope "confirmed the commitment of the Catholic Church and its will to deepen dialogue and fraternity with Judaism and the Jewish People," while "unequivocally condemning anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism."
He highlighted the "work, significance and achievements of the bilateral commission," due to discuss "Catholic and Jewish teaching on creation and the environment."
Environmental crisis
The Pontiff expressed the hope for a "profitable dialogue on such a timely and important theme."
In today's statement, which marked the last day of the meeting, the commission highlighted the current "unique environmental crisis which is substantially the product of unbridled material and technological exploitation."
It continued, "While this challenge must obviously be addressed through the necessary technical means as well as self restraint, humility and discipline; the participants emphasized the essential need for society to recognize the transcendent dimension of creation that is critical to ensure sustainable development and progress in an ethically responsible manner."
"Not everything that is technically feasible is morally acceptable," the commission asserted.
It noted that this consciousness "ensures that every aspect of human advancement promotes the wellbeing of future generations and sanctifies the Divine Name."
The absence of this consciousness "leads to destructive consequences for humanity and environment and profanes the Divine Name," it added.
Human intervention
Making reference to the Biblical tradition, the commission affirmed that "our responsibility for the eco-system is bound up with and reflective of our obligations to one another."
Quoting the Holy Father's address at the Synagogue of Rome, the statement underlined in particular "a special generosity toward the poor, towards women and children, strangers, the sick, the weak and the needy."
"The ethical aspect of human intervention in the natural order lies in the limitation on the power of science and its claim to absoluteness, and in the expression of human solidarity and moral responsibility towards all," it affirmed.
Thus the commission urged "that all scientific innovation and development work in close consultation with religious ethical guidance."
"A genuine environmental ethic is a key condition for world peace and harmony," it stated.
The statement underlined "the critical importance of a moral religious education at all levels" in order to "guarantee responsible scientific and social development."
In these days, the commission members also participated in a presentation at the Pontifical Gregorian University by Father Patrick Desbois, who spoke about the work of Yahad-In Unum to "locate and memorialize the unidentified sites in Eastern Europe of mass murder during the Shoah."
The commission urged the support and publication of this "very important work, in order to learn from the tragedies of the past to protect and respect the sanctity of human life everywhere so that atrocities will never reoccur."
h/t Zenit
Wednesday 13 January 2010
The Argument fom Design - Paley
A reading from William Paley's Natural Theology for my Philosophy class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)