This space takes inspiration from Gary Snyder's advice:
Stay together/Learn the flowers/Go light

Monday 31 January 2022

CRT rife with cult-like violations

It pays to keep exploring the powerful ideas that are shaping society in many parts of the world. There are the dominant ideas of globalism rather than supporting what is local, capitalism rather than cooperative economic activity (which is different from socialism), consumption, pleasure, self-absorption, and, appearing on the scene very rapidly in recent years, the weird cocktail of what is called wokeism.  

To be woke is to be aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues, especially issues of race and social justice. But this concept has gained power because of its academic underpinning in the form of the fashionable critical race theory, and its which displaces reality with what is deemed politically correct. 

However, the behavioural characteristics of wokeism, in giving expression to critical race theory, bear a remarkable resemblance to the practice and belief structure of religion. As practised over the centuries and in a myriad of beliefs, religion contains common elements that are now observed in the lives of the wokeist elite in many societies.

Associate professor of linguistics at New York’s Columbia University John McWhorter is one of those who have identified how the behaviours of critical race theory stalwarts go beyond followers of religion in that it makes specific cult demands not only on believers but on the whole society. In contrast, while Christianity has shed the pursuit of a theocracy, CRT's true believers drive hard for the submission of all. Late last year,  McWhorter’s  Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America was published, and it continues to get attention in response to its relevancy in explaining the “catalogue of contradictions” exposed by practitioners’ responses to current issues.

McWhorter says that white people are proud of themselves for taking on board since the 1970s the social precept we should not only get rid of racial segregation but we should not be prejudiced, be a bigot. This has become a form of self-righteousness.

[That pride has] “slowly transmogrified into a kind of replacement for Protestantism where your grace is that you are not a racist. So you have white people who are ready to demonstrate this at the same time as you have black people who, after the civil rights revolution, are still haunted by insecurity because of how black America was treated for almost 400 years.

If you are a human being seeking a sense of purpose and security and well-being and comfort, you might choose the victimization complex. Any human being can do this but if you're a black person a particular way to do it is to exaggerate about racism and to found your sense of significance on being a victim of something now referred to abstractly as systemic racism.

So there are many black people who enjoy the condescension that comes from a lot of whites in treating us as these delicate creatures… .

We're not allowed to admit how much better things have gotten. There's a certain kind of person - and they are of all colors - where if you point to the good news, they don't want to accept it. It's unpleasant for them to hear how much better things have gotten and they're thinking that their job as moral actors is to find evidence to go against it. 

That's a weird thing. It's probably unprecedented in human history for a group of people to not want to admit that things are better. We live in strange times, but that's what happened in the late 20th century in the United States.

Referring to the Calvinistic doctrine of certain people being predestined by God to be saved – the Elect  – and others to be damned, McWhorter expands on why CRT, expressed as wokeism, has become a religion: 

“The Elect” is my term for not just woke people … it's woke people who are mean; it's the nasty woke people; it's the nastiness that we've seen especially since last summer, during our so-called racial reckoning.

What I mean by the elect is they're people who seem to think of their purpose as being to demonstrate that they're not racist and to police the rest of us for racism and to defenestrate and shun people who they deem to be not anti-racist enough.

Which leads us to “virtue-signalling”:

Prof. John McWhorter Source
So their idea is that they're doing something that's maximally good for humankind. To battle power differentials and especially ones about race is the paramount goal of the concerned human being. Everything is supposed to be centered on that and this is important. All people won't understand it but this is so important that it's okay to hurt people - and it's okay to do things that you wouldn't urge your own children to do - in the name of this larger good.

Although the people don't think about it, all of this is very, very Cultural Revolution, very Stalin, frankly metaphorically it's Hitler in many ways, but as with all of those people the elect today, the woke people who are okay with being mean in the name of wokeness, think of themselves as having come to the ultimate answer.

The parallels with religion, especially evangelical religion, are almost uncanny, especially given that most of these people look askance at Christianity in its more extreme forms.

But white privilege is Original Sin. The idea is that if you're white you're privileged and that will never change. Even if you're poor, no matter what you do, that's Original Sin.

The idea that we're waiting for America to come to terms with racism has no meaning. What are the terms? To come to terms with race doesn't mean anything. What it is, is the Rapture. It's that business of the End of Days and Judgment Day.

The reason that if a person says something that isn't sufficiently anti-racist they have to be chased out of the room or their job is because it's about heresy.

The parallels just go on and on, and so you have a clergy, you have writers who are looked to say things over and over again, many of which are very hard to square with reality.

Frankly people like Ta-Nehisi Coates, and now Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X Kendi, are priests of this religion. They don't think of themselves that way, they're certainly not saying it, but the way their writings are received is not as informational tracts but as scriptural counsel. 

So it's a rather alarming movement because you can't reason with people who are working from religion rather than logic. That's not to say that religion is idiocy in itself, but a part of religion is that you sequester a part of your brain away from logic that goes from a to b to c.

You have to suspend your disbelief and the new wokeness - Electivism - is religious in that way and the people in question can't be reached, and that's scary given how much power they're beginning to amass.

McWhorter spoke about Andrew Sullivan losing his staff position as a writer for New York magazine because other staff reckoned him not woke enough, and Don McNeil being forced to resign from the New York Times because he used the forbidden “N….” word when speaking to a bunch of teenagers.

These Don McNeil kind of stories are now legion and the idea that he deserved to lose this job is not something that a critical mass of people would agree with.  It's the Elect who think that he should lose his job.

What's going on is that the Elect get their way because we're all so deeply afraid of being called racist. It's a reign of terror. The reason that a person can get fired for some minor transgression like that, that nobody would ever have blinked at or would have given him a smack on the hand about just 10 minutes ago is because nobody wants to be called a racist on social media by these people.

If there was no Twitter there'd be no Elect - part of this is technology - you don't want to be called racist on Twitter. So the problem is that this fear means that people lose their jobs for no moral reason.

It means that educational institutions are being turned upside down, into these anti-racism academies that don't give people a real education and excommunicate anybody who questions it. 

That's a serious problem right there. It's vastly transforming our whole intellectual, moral and even artistic culture, and what bothers me so much about it is that it's mendacious.

It's all about fear. It's not that these people are convincing most of society of these very narrow extremist and self-indulgent views that this hyper wokeism has. It's that everybody's just afraid of them and I think it's time that we stop being so afraid. 

What's driving all of this are whites who have found their sense of purpose on showing that they're not racist and teaching other people not to, and […] a kind of black person who loves to paint white people as the enemy because, therefore, you are a noble victim – the noble victim complex.

Those together, when you have black people with that problem, and white people with their problem, [are] the Elect, and can that be powerful because those people like to call other people racists and once there's social media [in the mix] that can be really, really scary unless you're somebody who has the [peace] of not minding being despised. That's not most people.

All this is affecting the broader world culture, and while there is benefit in exposing racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination against parts of the human family, we must beware the nature of the reform movement so that the cultural winds nudge the manner of change in the direction of truth, moderation, patience and a sense of common cause rather than toward the nastiness, hypocrisy and posturing that spring from the true Original Sin that contends for control of our heart.

💢 Watch McWhorter interview here 

Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

Wednesday 26 January 2022

CST not CRT: understanding true values

Public policy needs to be built on values-based principles   Photo: Kelly L 

Catholic Social Teaching arises from close involvement with nations and institutions over the two thousand years of the Church's existence. In a very practical way it speaks from what it has experienced, but its social teaching has come into its own as a valuable resource for humanity since its withdrawal from the government of extensive territory under its own jurisdiction and its transformation into a partner of all those throughout the world dedicated to enabling the human family to thrive.

As well as reaping the fruit of its own experience, what the Church brings to human affairs today is what is written in each person's conscience, the natural law expressed by the Medes and ancient Greeks, and performed within cultures all around the world. The Church also learns from observing and, most importantly, by applying the guidance of God in identifying what is true, good, and just.

Therefore, even though the Church is vexed by the sins of its members and the metaphysically opposed forces at play in the world, as are other institutions, like them it encapsulates a set of basic values that can guide decision-making in the public arena.

How this can play out in the real world is the subject of a book by constitutional lawyer and former vice chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, Greg Craven. The author makes his point this way: 

Our own challenge is that we live in a world, particularly in the context of government, that literally is starving for basic values to guide policy choices. 

[...] It becomes soulless game-playing. I have been told to achieve a particular policy outcome, and you are trying to stop me. My objective is to beat you, regardless of the consequences. Usually, this tendency is accompanied by name-calling, and false characterizations: You are a leftie... fascist... lunatic.

Craven identifies four social values that the Catholic Church offers the world. These are the dignity of the human being; the common good; solidarity; and subsidiarity. 

Take the common good. It is not mere utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number. Of course, people should be fed, educated, have proper health care and be allowed to vote. Yet the common dignity of human beings is at the heart of Catholic social teaching, not in operative applications, however worthy.

All humans — however vulnerable or socially useless — remain human, and are to be valued as such. This applies to the elderly, the dying, the unborn, the sick, the poor and even criminals. As Catholics we are called to defend them. We cannot plead inconvenience or calumny as an excuse.

The notion of the common good is closely related to the value of human beings. In one sense, it is the generalization of the individual proposition, but the Catholic notion of the common good goes beyond the incidental adequacy of a society. It is moral, as well as a material proposal. People should live in a ‘good society’. 

From a Catholic perspective, a society acting in the common good cannot support abortion or euthanasia, however popular these causes may be. By debasing the moral quality of that society and its respect for life, these cannot be for the common good. 

Craven talks next of the importance of solidarity as a public value, a matter highlighted by the heat generated among some over Covid-19 public health regulations. Solidarity would put the needs of the community over one's own preferences, all things being equal with regards the rules being legitimately put in place. Craven says:

Ultimately, [solidarity] is about connectedness. The actions of every person affects, at whatever degree of remoteness, every other person. Therefore, we should act with the interests of other people firmly in mind.

The connection with the dignity of the human person and the common good are obvious, but solidarity goes further. It demands that we be with the poor, the sick and the dying, not merely around them. It requires an intimacy with suffering that many of us find emotionally very difficult. 

Subsidiarity is the final value considered in the book:

Subsidiarity demands that decisions be taken at the lowest possible effective level of governance. This reflects the inherent value of the human being, but also the common good, as decisions made at a local level are most likely to reflect local needs and values.

Subsidiarity as a principle is rather popular these days, as it is thought to encourage local experimentation and independence. But one needs to understand its inherent limitation: decisions should be taken at the lowest effective level. 

These values need to be at the forefront of public policy, but cannot be used just for good "optics". Each must be the foundation for comprehensive action. Subsidiarity, for example, can be abused by central government handing over to a lower authority an essential task such as housing or health, without giving the necessary resources to fulfil the responsibility.

Catholic Social Teaching is a body of work that is directed toward integral human development in solidarity, that lifts the individual and family to a protected status not possible under the morally handicapped market economy. 

Finally, just as only love can completely transform the human person, the Church holds love as the greatest social value because it respects others and their rights, requires the practice of justice and it alone makes us capable of charity to all in the sense of self-giving. Our relationship with God propels love's full effectiveness in human relationships and social relations, including public policy.*

*See Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church para 383

  • See also CRT values are an absolute fizzle* without love 
  •               CRT: The Church's teaching on how to reform society 
  • Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can   subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.
  • Wednesday 19 January 2022

    Kanye West: surmounting the pain

    "This is not about me, God is still alive, so I'm free" ... rising above the turmoil

    In August last year Kanye West released Donda, an album named after his late mother, Donda West. Culture and arts commentator Nathaniel Hunter wrote at the time:

    It (mostly) successfully merges Kanye’s own musical history, his newfound identity in Christ, and the state of hip-hop at large to create a record worth listening to (and a few songs that might be some of the best Kanye has ever written). As far as I can tell, Donda is a model of what conversion ought to look like: messy, but also a process that draws one out of isolation into the larger body of Christ.

    In addressing his own difficulties, and political and social issues like gang violence, Kanye seems to surmount the pain with a call to God - "one struggles to find a verse on the album that doesn’t explicitly mention God", Hunter states.

    The lyrics of Come to Life, from Donda, give the measure of the man in a maelstrom:  

    Intro

    My soul cries out Hallelujah and I thank God for saving me

    I thank God for...

    Chorus

    Here go all your problems again (I thank God)

    Three, two, one, you're pinned (I thank God)

    Uncle now he back in the pen' (Hallelujah)

    Auntie shut down again

    Did she finally come to life? (Thank you, Jesus)

    Ever wish you had another life?

    Ever wish you had another life?

    Ever wish you had another life?

    Verse 1

    Don't you wish the night would go numb?

    I've been feelin' low for so long

    I ain't had a high in so long

    I been in the dark for so long

    Night is always darkest 'fore the dawn

    Gotta make my mark 'fore I'm gone

    I don't wanna die alone

    I don't wanna die alone

    I get mad when she gone

    Mad when she home

    Sad when she gone

    Mad when she home

    Sad when she gone (Loosen right now, the spirit that wants to run)

    Floatin' on a silver lining (In the name of Jesus)

    Yeah, you know where to find me, ridin' on a silver lining

    And my God won't deny me, tell the Devil, "Get behind me"

    And all the stars are aligned, lift me up every time

    You know exactly where to find me

    Interlude

    Hallelujah (Thank you, Jesus)

    Hallelujah (Yes)

    Hallelujah...

    Pre-Chorus

    Did those ideas ever really come to life?

    Make it all come to life

    Make it all come to life

    Prayin' for a change in your life

    Well, maybe it's gon' come tonight

    Chorus

    Sadness settin' in again

    Three, two, one, you're pinned

    Uncle right back in the pen'

    Tell me how auntie been

    Took your thoughts and penciled 'em in

    Should've wrote 'em down in pen

    And maybe they'll come to life

    And maybe they'll come to life

    Sadness settin' in again

    Three, two, one, you're pinned

    Uncle right back to the pen'

    Tell me how auntie been

    Thoughts, you had penciled 'em in

    Probably should've wrote 'em in pen

    And maybe they'll come to life

    They could finally come to life

    They could finally come to life

    Verse 2

    You know where to find me, they cannot define me

    So they crucify me, how so fazed when I leave?

    Come and purify me, come and sanctify me

    You the air that I breathe, the ultra-ultralight beam

    Brought a gift to Northie, all she want was Nikes

    This is not about me, God is still alive, so I'm free

    Floatin' on a silver lining, floatin' on a silver lining

    So when I'm free, I'm free

    Notes from the Genius lyric site offer these thoughts about this song:
    On Come to Life, Kanye sings about his desire for another life, wishing he had listened more to his ex-wife Kim Kardashian’s thoughts, dreams, problems, and aspirations. He shares his mixed emotions about her presence and absence, expressing how he does not want to die alone without her at his side. He sings about the silver-lining, which he latches on to during his darkest nights, which are his children. He treats his children as one of the most important things in his life and the one thing holding him together amid the divorce.

    This song was debuted during the finale of the third and final Donda Listening Party, held in Kanye’s hometown of Chicago, in which he was set on fire inside of a replica of his childhood home. He then reenacted his wedding to Kardashian, which could be interpreted as Kanye burning his past and bringing forth the life he has always wanted with Kardashian.

    With Kanye's mental health problems, and the distress that divorce tends to bring with it, we should pray for him, Kim and their children. 

     â„¦ If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

    Tuesday 18 January 2022

    Joyful energy over Amazing Grace

    Good news to dance about
    Hyper Fenton is a rap singer among other things. His song on the theme of Amazing Grace certainly got the young video group moving. The Genius lyrics resource has this note on the song:
    Amazing Grace is an upbeat electronic song showing off Hyper Fenton’s energetic side. He sings about life and the uncertainty of death, with the chorus headlining that God is the only one who is certain, saving us through His “amazing grace”.

    The song was originally released as a single before being added to the Remembering Me tracklist. Spotify picked the single for their Top Christian playlist in the spring and summer of 2018, introducing Hyper Fenton to the playlist’s 1,000,000+ followers. As of August 2019, it’s both his and Moflo Music’s most popular song thus far, boasting over 450,000 plays on Spotify.
    Rap songs in particular are saying something. Check out Fenton's message:

    Verse 1
    Okay, look, I'd never forget that day
    In the 1990s, you know where to find me
    Bein' born, I'm a millennial
    Run for cover before he put you on Vimeo
    Or the Twitter
    C'mon y'all, get a grip
    I don't give a flip, I just wanna live but
    Better yet, I don't wanna die livin' a lie
    Does anyone even realize I'm alive?
    Chorus
    Like stop, wait, hold up the club
    I found somebody that I love
    Like stop, aye, hold up the grave
    I found somebody that can save
    Like stop, dance, come get your mans
    Bring 'em to the Man who atones for your sins
    Like stop, aye, hold up your praise
    Get a little taste of amazing grace like
    Breakdown
    Get a little taste of amazing grace like
    Verse 2
    Daddy, Daddy
    I'm inadequate to battle
    With the sadness
    Saddled with depression
    Misdirection of an addict
    I've been wishin' as a mission
    I would have somebody listen
    And be born again a Christian
    Maybe then they go the distance
    As a disciple
    Go and get your rifles
    Bang bang you're dead, and I lay in bed
    Wonderin' if you knew about Him
    And let Him inside for eternal life
    Last night woke up in a cold sweat
    With the same nightmare that I had an old friend
    Guess I should've told him that you never know when
    God is gonna blow in, hopin' y'all told him
    Chorus
    I said stop, wait, hold up the club
    I found somebody that I love
    Like stop, ayy, hold up the grave
    I found somebody that can save
    Like stop, dance, come get your mans
    Bring 'em to the Man who atones for your sins
    Like stop, ayy, hold up your praise
    Get a little taste of amazing grace like
    Breakdown
    Get a little taste of amazing grace like
    Chorus
    I said stop, wait, hold up the club
    I found somebody that I love
    Like stop, ayy, hold up the grave
    I found somebody that can save
    Like stop, dance, come get your mans
    Bring 'em to the Man who atones for your sins
    Like stop, ayy, hold up your praise
    Get a little taste of amazing grace like

    Monday 17 January 2022

    God's sense of humour shows through

    Made in God's image. Photo by Mary Taylor

    Does God have a sense of humour? asks Denis O'Hagan.

    Some say “yes”. Some say “no”. Some say “I don’t know”. In a spoof he did about hell, comic Rowan Atkinson identified a group of inhabitants who were there because they laughed at the movie The Life of Brian. “No,” he admonished them, “God does not have a sense of humour”. On the other hand, a friend of mine had a large poster on her wall that proclaimed, “When God created man she was only joking”.

    Those with insight may by now realise that I have a quirky humour that is not universally appreciated. From time to time, people have admonished me for laughing inappropriately. So, let’s get profound and theological - can theology be anything but profound? In an anthropomorphic sense, God must have a sense of humour because God made me in his image in likeness and I have a sense of humour. The fact that some may doubt that I have does not weaken the argument. Human beings laugh.

    The gospels record that Jesus wept on three occasions. He was also familiar with laughter’s little sister, joy — there is no mention in the Gospels that he ever laughed. But I believe Jesus laughed every day. He could not have been the Son of God and the Son of Man if he did not laugh. Perhaps the evangelists just didn’t like his jokes.

    The ability to laugh is a beautiful gift. No other sentient being known to humans is capable of it although I suspect my cat is capable of a sly grin from time to time. As with all God’s gifts, laughter can be used or misused. We are capable of cruel and cynical laughter. We can make fun of people and cause them to feel bad.

    And, of course, there are times when mirth is inappropriate. There are seasons for weeping and seasons for laughing. But we don’t just laugh when we hear a joke. Reasonably frequently, we find ourselves laughing amid tears, not because something is funny, but because it brings relief. Tears and laughter are like identical twins; sometimes, we are not sure which is which.

    There are times when, for example, we are confronted with a compelling truth, that makes laughter well up from a deep cavern in our soul, a refreshing spring gushing forth to bring us life in the shadow of death. Laughter is not a denial of the pain and suffering. It is an admission of helplessness and our willingness to accept sadness, pain and suffering as part of creation without giving into desolation. “Well, all you could do was laugh”.

    Laughter can also be a form of prayer. A friend recently sent me an email attachment. “This short clip is for anyone who loves coloratura sopranos and parrots. Do watch to the end. It’s only 55 seconds”, she said. Well, a coloratura soprano is not my artist of choice; I prefer Queen and Pink Floyd. And divas, in general, are not funny; not intentionally so anyway. But to humour my friend I dutifully watched. The soprano lady was a bit scary, and to a philistine like me, somewhat unintentionally funny. But the parrot! The parrot! He or she performed the same piece of music and executed it to perfection. I was engulfed by a tsunami of delicious laughter.

    The first and obvious lesson to draw from this experience is that when you pray, don’t give up too soon. Jesus often keeps the best wine until last. The second, perhaps debatable lesson, is that laughter is a form of contemplation. It is a moment of ecstasy. Your whole person, mind, body, emotions and soul are enveloped. You don’t think,  “Oh, I am laughing”. You don’t say to yourself, "Something must be funny because I am laughing”.

    You have lost control of your body which heaves and shakes. Your mind is filled with light, and your heart is filled with joy. There is no self-analysis. The rest of the world is forgotten. You are lost in the moment, and that is contemplation; being utterly present to the present.

    In an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times published in 1978, to celebrate his 75th birthday, Malcolm Muggeridge offered 25 propositions. The tenth one states: “Mystical ecstasy and laughter are the two great delights of living, and saints and clowns, their purveyors, the only two categories of human beings who can be relied on, to tell the truth. Hence, steeples and gargoyles side by side on the great cathedrals”.

    Why do so many people find it necessary to wear their Sunday face to church? Like the divas as mentioned earlier, religiously minded people are not primarily remembered for their cracking sense of humour.

    Pope Francis is a dazzling exception to the rule. It is not disrespectful to call him a clown –“one of only two categories of human beings who can be relied on, to tell the truth”. I have a photograph of the laughing Pope on the wall.

    Laughter is a foretaste of what is to come. No need for harps to play and clouds to sit on. Heaven will be one long laugh.

    💢 Denis O'Hagan is a Marist priest and lives in New Zealand. This column, and family-friendly jokes, can be found here.

    💢 An afterthought: Variations on a theme:

    Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

    Sunday 16 January 2022

    Tips on how to achieve joy in life

    Something for January to start us off in the new year with an idea of where we find that higher form of happiness, joy. As the makers of this video say, "Joy is what makes life beautiful. It's what gets us through challenges and allows light in to illuminate the shadows. Joy heals our wounds and fills our souls with goodness." They have created a series that offers many riches drawn from life experience. We are not on our own in life! The path is well worn. Therefore, we can benefit what others have found to be true.
     

    Friday 14 January 2022

    Where evolution meets Christian life

    Beeple continues the human trait of artistic exploration - NFT detail

    Ruth Schuster is a senior writer on archaeology and science at the Haaretz newspaper in Israel. She had an interesting opening paragraph on a story this week about the news just out that a key set of human-like skull bone fossils is now reckoned to be thousands of years older than first thought. She begins:

    When did modern humans begin to evolve? And from who? Once upon a time it was thought that, OK, we began from a monkey but then there was a linear progression to the wonder that is us, starting about 200,000 years ago. It is now abundantly clear that we are mongrels, admixing merrily with other human species until they all died out, and now an early modern human previously found in Ethiopia has been redated with the help of a volcano to 233,000 years ago. 

    The previous date for the human ancestor referred to as Omo 1 was 197,000 years ago.

    Schuster quotes one of the leaders of the study that produced the new dates as saying:

    In my opinion, Omo 1 is the oldest unchallenged fully modern specimen, the oldest Homo sapiens as we morphologically define the species nowadays. This is why this new dates are important. They may not tell us much about how modern humans evolved, but they tell us that before 200,000-230,000 years ago, hominins that are by our current standard recognizable as Homo sapiens, were already present in Eastern Africa.

    That leader is Professor Aurélien Mounier, a paleoanthropologist with the Museum of Mankind in Paris. His comment that there was still a lot unknown "about how modern humans evolved" underlines the still rudimentary state of knowledge concerning human prehistory. He goes on to discuss the doubts and debate arising because of  "the complexity of the evolutionary processes which gave birth to our species". 

    Dark areas in this reconstruction show the Omo1 fossils found by Richard Leakey in Ethiopia over 50 years ago. The Natural History Museum, London
    The main body of Christianity accepts evolution in general and of the human species. Pope John Paul II declared presentation to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that evolution is more than a mere hypothesis or theory – it has significant arguments to commend its truth. However, as Pope Pius XII had noted in 1950 in his encyclical Humani Generis, physical evolution is not all there is to the story.

    To explore the unique feature of human evolution, I pick up the examination of this issue by Robert Spitzer PhD, an American Jesuit priest who has written extensively on scientific matters.  I like reading his writings because he believes in giving proofs for his statements. In giving a Christian context to the study of human evolution, he states:
    A pure physical, organic evolution is only part of the truth of human origins because God has given every human being an individual and unique transphysical soul  – something that is not reducible to physics or to a physical evolutionary process.

    [But] there is considerable evidence from all these rational domains [science, medicine, anthropology] to corroborate the existence of our transcendental souls. 

    Spitzer provides evidence that, added to the physical element of human evolution, which can leave fossils across the hundreds of thousands of years, is the spiritual element, which he refers to as "transphysical". Therefore, the only thing about evolution Christians cannot accept is "a pure reductionistic physical evolution which precludes the existence of a unique human soul".

    At some stage of human evolution God intervened and endowed the human species, through our first parents, a spiritual capability. However, Spitzer points out that the woman geneticists call “Mitochondrial Eve” was probably not the first woman (biblical Eve) having a soul – a non-physical capability – necessary for free choice and moral decisions , and the man geneticists call “Y-Chromosome Adam” was probably not the first man (biblical Adam) having a soul capable of free choice and moral decisions. 

    Evidence of the spiritual ability in the human person comes from a scholarly work: 

    There is a new book from the foremost linguistic theorist in the country, Noam Chomsky, and an MIT professor of computational linguistics and computer science and engineering named Robert Berwick, entitled, Why Only Us (published by MIT Press in 2016).

    Without delving into the complexities of their analysis, I will give their main point – that between 60,000 to 70,000 years ago, human beings developed a capacity for abstract, syntactical, and universal communication that no other species – not even our most proximate ancestors – developed.

    First, there is no known or probative biological or genetic explanation for this unique development in human beings, [which provokes] the questions, “What caused it?”, and “Was this cause physical or transphysical?”

    Second, it seems that the progeny between mitochondrial Eve/Y chromosome Adam (200,000 years ago) and their progeny who were invested with this abstract and syntactical linguistic ability (70,000 years ago) did not seem to do anything more significant than use stone tools, live in community, and hunt in tandem – and then suddenly, after 130,000 years, an explosion of language, discovery, religion, symbolism, art, and geographical exploration. What happened? And what caused it?

    It seems that our genetic ancestors did convey a genetic-biological-physical profile to us, but they did not give everything to us that makes us human.

    Something else was added 130,000 years after them (70,000 years ago) that gave rise to the explosion of universal syntactical language, religion, art, mathematics, and the precursors to complex civilization.
    I would submit that this “something” is a transcendent soul, and that such a soul is the condition necessary for all of the above powers and characteristics – syntactical language, abstract mathematics, religion, symbolic art, and the free choice and moral awareness necessary for law and civilization.

    First, Spitzer looks at what Noam Chomsky and Robert Berwick have to say about "the sudden and unique occurrence – explosion – of universal syntactical language".

    Thus, very small children can understand the difference between “dog bites man” and “man bites dog” – and even see the humor in it.

    But no chimpanzee – which can learn 200 individual signs in American Sign Language – can make this distinction.

    They simply do not have the capacity for abstraction (necessary to relate distinct objects to one another in various categories) required to differentiate between subjects (in general) and objects (in general).

    Chomsky and Berwick believe that there might be a physical explanation linked to a special genetic switch affecting the brain, but they are far from showing how such a genetic switch or a patterning of brain modalities could give rise to the power of abstraction (necessary for relating objects to one another in various categories).

    The ability to distinguish that some things are in a relationship with each other and to apply the questions why, how, how many, what, where, and when show the power of our (spiritual) intellect.

    These big general ideas could not have been abstracted from experience or from wiring or patterns in the brain, and this is what has caused philosophers like Bernard Lonergan, or the Nobel Prize winning physiologist, Sir John Eccles, to declare that they must have a transphysical status and origin – a soul.

    The universality of the uniquely human capacity to pass the syntax test comes next:

    What is remarkable about human beings is that we could take a child from an African culture which has a rather unique way of expressing syntax and grammar, and place him, say, in a Chinese culture which has a totally different way of expressing syntax and grammar, and that child will be able to learn the syntax and grammar of that completely different language almost immediately – as if there were a universal syntax underlying every particular expression of it which young children understand from birth!

    No other primate, no matter how sophisticated, has ever crossed the syntax threshold according to the studies of not only Chomsky and Berwick, but also Herbert Terrace and a variety of others.

    Along with this capacity for universal syntactical abstraction (and universal abstract language), humans received five other capacities/tendencies as well. The first was the spirit of discovery:

    What explains this radical transition from a rather sedentary human community on the border of Namibia and Angola, to world exploration? Was it simply a lack of food? Simply a desire to escape tribal enemies?

    Though this may have been part of the reason, it does not explain the rapid and world-wide expansion of the human population even on the oceans to Indonesia and even Australia.

    I would submit that there is something more than simple need – there was a “spirit” of curiosity and adventure – something absent in our most proximate ancestors – that engendered the spirit to discover and explore.

    Burial of the dead is another feature of this period about 70,000 years ago:

    Something else also happened in this period: human beings started burying their dead, treating the remains of their deceased with respect, and burying them with rituals and objects indicating a belief that they would survive their physical death (see, for example, a burial site with these objects from this period in the Skhul cave at Qafzeh, Israel).

    If humans did not believe in their spiritual nature or life after death, we might ask, “Why did they bother to bury their dead with great respect – and with rituals and objects?”

    And if they did have an awareness of their spiritual nature and life after death, we might ask the further question, “Where did they get this awareness from?”

    After all, 130,000 years of ancestors did no such thing – and then suddenly, human beings seem to be doing it as a universal practice.

    Did this spiritual awareness – this awareness of something beyond the physical world also come from our transphysical soul?

    An additional quality that makes us human is the desire to express ourselves through what we call art, and symbolic representation:

    There are cave drawings dating back to at least 35,000 years ago (see Jo Marchant in Smithsonian January 2016) that have been more recently dated at 44,000 years ago (see Ewen Callaway in Nature December 2019) on the island of Sulawesi in Indonesia.

    Many scholars believe that the animal drawings have sacred and cultural symbolic significance (see Ghosh, Pallab, “Cave paintings change ideas about the origins of art”). 

    We come to numbers, which play a big part in human life:

    There is no evidence of abstract numeration in any other species except human beings. Did this originate from our heuristic notion of “how many?” – And can this innate heuristic notion (standing at the foundation of all quantitative relationships) be explained by programming of the brain?

    It is quite unlikely. For it is one thing to program a brain (or computer) to count, but quite another thing to understand counting itself and its significance.

    It is these abstract concepts that elude mere programming or patterning of the brain. As Gödel's theorem reveals, humans do mathematics very differently from computers.

    The latter follow programs while the former invent them. The former have an abstract understanding of numeration itself in all of its permutations, while the latter lack all such understanding.

    The development of advanced social norms is also on our list of attributes anthropologists have noticed in our human ancestors from about 70,000 years ago:

    Human communities having durable structures, some specialization of labor and commerce, and a sense of social norms began to arise as a result of migrations, differentiated linguistic systems resulting from those migrations, and the ability to barter and exchange on the basis of counting and tallying.

    It seems that as migration occurred, some groups stayed behind while others continued to migrate. Those who stayed behind used their linguistic and numeric capacities to specialize labor, and their religious instincts to solidify basic social norms and rules.

    Evolution within the physical world is one thing, but as we have seen here, our human experience makes a compelling case that there is more to the human person than the blind outcome of various environmental stimuli.

    However, there is harder evidence for God's intervention at a point in the development of human ancestors, a historical point in time that stands alongside the original spark of creation launching the universe on its way, and the overwhelming arrival of God in our midst in Jesus, God uniting with the human as a single person.

    But, please, pursue these issues by either going to Robert Spitzer's text, The Soul’s Upward Yearning: Clues to Our Transcendent Nature from Experience and Reason (2016) or the article that gives a fuller  account than what is possible here of what science tells us about how modern humans are uniquely different from the rest of the natural world. Go here for Spitzer's article.

    💢 See also: What about similarity to Chimpanzees?

    Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published. 

    Wednesday 12 January 2022

    That religion-science 'conflict' is nonsense

                                                                                                                                               Photo Word on Fire.org
    Christianity is not in conflict with science, and that is one reason why those preaching hardline atheism fail to make headway in winning converts. This is true even in societies where there is a growing tide of disaffiliation with Christianity.  But the point is that reality can be encountered in different ways, a fact that materialists do not always appreciate but everyday people do.

    Scientific endeavour that limits itself to only what can be counted and measured will remain blind to the state of pleasure or joy or bliss that are the product of art and music and friendship. These feelings are generically different from more ordinary psychical outcomes.

    For example, people have always seen evidence that a Supreme Being exists and that there is more to our existence than meets the eye. Roy Abraham Varghese, an author the subject of science and religion, has written*:

    While primitive animism and nature deities can be easily explained as attempts to personalize the forces of nature, the same cannot be said of the concept of a Supreme Being. It is entirely abstract and with no physical or imaginative correlate; and yet it came naturally to humans throughout history.

    Scholars call this intrinsic awareness the numinous. It is the experience of the "uncanny" and the "awe-inspiring", which can have a positive impact on our lives. See this article on the BBC website that explores how intentionally seeking the feeling of awe can improve memory, boost creativity and relieve anxiety. 

    The interest in what might be called "neopaganism" and in the occult also reflect how people recognise that a "creature-feeling" that causes a "shudder" in their self-consciousness can give those people a sense of the true nature of their place in existence, and that "the feeling of personal nothingness before the awe-inspiring object directly experienced", as Rudolf Otto described it,  can be related to the Christian understanding that "God is near us, that we can possess and apprehend Him, and that [each person] is His image and likeness".

    But let's look at the way "science" is thrown at Christianity, and religion as a whole, as a kind of grenade in the hope of disabling belief in God, the transcendent, the holy, and perhaps (for some atheistic proselytizers) the hope of undermining the morality common to religions.

    "The number one reason young people say they disaffiliate from religion," says Bishop Robert Barron of the Los Angeles archdiocese, "is that religion is in conflict with science. And in that conflict, science wins." He continues:

    They have great reverence for science; religion's out of step with it; therefore, religion has to go. The warfare between religion and science is kind of assumed by a lot of young people who disaffiliate today.

    And just think of the rhetoric that you'll pick up all over the culture. People just say “Galileo",  and right away you think, "Oh, there's obscurantist, oppressive religion standing in the way of the advance of the sciences."

    The idea of there being conflict between religion and science is a relatively recent phenomenon, as Church scholars had largely laid the foundations of modern science. The rift arose particularly in the 1800s:

    For the first roughly three centuries of the natural sciences, most of the great figures—Descartes comes to mind, Galileo himself, Gregor Mendel, so many others, Newton—were all devoutly religious people. So it's a relatively recent conceit that somehow religion and science are at odds, but it's certainly gotten into the minds of our young people.

    Of course, there is the embarrassing refusal of some fundamentalist Christians to accept the evidence of evolution, preferring to hold to Luther's view that it is the "historical sense alone which supplies the true and sound doctrine” (LW 1.283) when reading the Bible, and also being entrapped by his emphasis on literal interpretation. 

    However, presenting an accurate picture of the role of science vis-à-vis Christian belief, Barron delves into Matthew's infancy narrative of the foreign "Three Kings", or Magi, coming to pay homage to the newborn Jesus having studied the stars to learn place and time.

    He relates how Matthew uses magoi in the Greek and that word covers astronomer, astrologer, wise man. He then develops how their scientific status is held up for admiration, their knowledge being so advanced that even the experts in nearby Jerusalem were unaware of what was going on:

    In the Chaldean culture of that time, there was a pretty advanced culture of stargazing, and it probably involved, by our standards, a combination of both astronomy and astrology. But wise people, using their analytical reason, would look up into the night sky, and they would measure and they'd calculate the movements of the planets, and the positions of the stars.

    [This is] in a very scientific spirit, but also something else. They would have recognized in these beautiful intelligibilities a sign of the intelligence who put them into existence. They would have looked at the stars and planets, and they would have delighted in understanding them more fully, but behind it, they would also have been discerning the will and purpose of the divine.

    I think if you had said to these Magi, "There's a conflict between religion and science." They wouldn't have known what you were talking about. If they had said, "Hey, there's a tension between what you're doing, looking up at the night sky, and what people of faith are doing," I think they would have just looked at you with puzzlement.

    No, they saw both/and: looking analytically into the night sky also brought to mind the will and purposes of God.

    And so, this beautiful image—and we've got it from a thousand Christmas cards, but hold that in your mind— of these wise men, astronomers, call them if you want scientists, who on the basis of their scientific investigation are now journeying to find this newborn King of the Jews.

    At the end of their journey, they present him with their gifts. They opened the coffers of their wisdom and riches before him.

    In other words, their science didn't lead them away from God and the things of God, but precisely toward God and the things of God.

    We Christians understand why this is true, and I'm going to rely here on the great work of Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict, [who] said that in the Gospel of John, Jesus is referred to as the Logos.

    “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God." And through that Logos, “all things came to be”.

    I'm keeping it on purpose there in the original Greek, because I want to give this richer sense of what that word means. We say “Word”, in a fair enough translation. But think of Logos as the logic, the mind, the pattern—the intelligent pattern that was present to God from the beginning—and again, given God's simplicity [unity] was God from the beginning.

    God is this primal patterning intelligence that lies behind all things. So nothing came to be, unless it was touched somehow by the Logos.

    The world is not dumbly there for Christians—just there in a sort of chaotic, random manner. No, no; it's been spoken into being. Logos can mean tongue too.

    When Aristotle referred to the human being as the zoon logikon, the rational animal, but what he meant was the animal with a tongue, and that knows how to use that tongue for language, for speech.

    In the beginning was intelligent speech, and through that intelligent speech, all things came to be.

    A further step in Barron's analysis of the supposed conflict between religion and science is this:

    What do scientists look for? I mean every scientist up and down the ages, from the ancient philosophers and researchers, up through the modern scientists.

    They're all looking in some way for Logos. They're looking for some patterned intelligibility in things. This or otherwise, science wouldn't get off the ground. If the world were simply a chaotic, random mess, science wouldn't work because there would be no objective intelligibility that corresponds to an inquiring intelligence.

    Just think for a second, the way we name the sciences: psycho-logy, logos, the logos about the “psyche”, about the psyche. Physio-logy, the logos about the body. The sciences have that suffix of logos because they have to do with objective intelligibility.

    "Where's that come from?" Barron asks. Further, does it strike you as a reasonable position if someone were to say that the world is a wild cosmic accident, but "every nook and cranny of the physical world is marked by patterned intelligibility"?

    On the contrary. This very objective intelligibility, which is the ground for all science, leads one to acknowledge the existence of this Logos, which has spoken all things into being.

    Now, go back to the Magi: good scientists looking up into the night sky, looking at the patterned intelligibilities in the stars and the planets. Where did it lead them? To a gross materialism? “That's all there is: just matter in motion.”

    It's silliness; it's nonsense. They were quite right in intuiting that these patterned intelligibilities [would] lead them to the great intelligent Logos that has brought all things into being.

    And so, beautifully, they go in search of this Word made flesh. What had they heard about in the ancient prophecies? That that Word, that Logos, the Creator God was becoming a king in the form of this little baby. Science led to faith; it was not repugnant to faith.

    Where did I first learn science? And then philosophy, which I came to love? At Catholic schools, at Catholic University in Washington, at the Institut Catholique in Paris.

    The Catholic faith at its best has never stood opposed to reason. No, no; it loves and embraces the sciences, loves and embraces philosophy, loves and embraces all expressions of rationality.

    Where did I first study the great novelists and the poets, those who explore the objective intelligibilities within human experience, within the human mind? I learned all that in Catholic schools.

    Very early on in the Christian tradition, there was a fellow named Tertullian—Church Father, great figure in many ways. But Tertullian said something and he expressed an attitude that the Church found repugnant.

    Tertullian said, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" And what he meant was: What do the speculations of the philosophers of Athens have to do with the revelation given to the Jews?

    Well, the Church repudiated that. The Church at its best, from the earliest days—think of Paul himself, all the way through Thomas Aquinas, and up to the present day—the Church at its best has said, "No, Athens and Jerusalem belong together." The questing mind of Athens should not be put to rest.

    No, no; on the contrary. Allow all of that rich intellectual energy to express itself as fully as possible—because, because, it's always seeking some form of Logos and, therefore, ultimately is seeking the source of that objective intelligibility. It's seeking the source of all of that patterned intelligibility in the great intelligence of God.

    Now, that's the Catholic tradition: faith and reason. John Paul II—one of his last encyclicals is called Fides et Ratio. That wonderful et: and... See, the Magi believed in reason, and faith; their reason brought them to faith.

    Since it was the last Sunday of Christmastime when Barron drew into his analysis the shepherds that attended the infant Jesus.

    In fact, shepherds were kind of seen as lowlifes. Their testimony wouldn't have been accepted in court; they weren't taken seriously. The angel appeared though to the shepherds. The simplest people come to Christ, and maybe they're the first ones really to hear the message [of God become man].

    But now think of the Magi. Now [...] we're dealing with the cultural elite; we're dealing with the philosophers and scientists in one of the most advanced cultures of that time. Christ has come to them too. And in fact, their very work leads them to Christ.

    You know, faith needs science to keep it from becoming superstitious. There's a danger of that. If you just block out reason, then faith can become superstitious. But the sciences need faith, so they don't become self-contained and self-referential.

    Pope John Paul's document Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), which Barron refers to above, opens this way:

    Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.

    The document spells this out in more detail:

    [The Church teaches ] that the truth attained by philosophy [meaning science] and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: “There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known”.

    It refers to the Book of Wisdom, missing from some Protestant Bibles:

    There the sacred author speaks of God who reveals himself in nature. For the ancients, the study of the natural sciences coincided in large part with philosophical learning. Having affirmed that with their intelligence human beings can “know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements... the cycles of the year and the constellations of the stars, the natures of animals and the tempers of wild beasts” (Wis 7:17, 19-20)—in a word, that he can philosophize—the sacred text takes a significant step forward.

    Making his own the thought of Greek philosophy, to which he seems to refer in the context, the author affirms that, in reasoning about nature, the human being can rise to God: “From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator” (Wis 13:5). This is to recognize as a first stage of divine Revelation the marvellous “book of nature”, which, when read with the proper tools of human reason, can lead to knowledge of the Creator. If human beings with their intelligence fail to recognize God as Creator of all, it is not because they lack the means to do so, but because their free will and their sinfulness place an impediment in the way. (para.19)

    In addition:

    Seen in this light, reason is valued without being overvalued. The results of reasoning may in fact be true, but these results acquire their true meaning only if they are set within the larger horizon of faith: “All man's steps are ordered by the Lord: how then can man understand his own ways?” (Proverbs 20:24). For the Old Testament, then, faith liberates reason in so far as it allows reason to attain correctly what it seeks to know and to place it within the ultimate order of things, in which everything acquires true meaning.

    In brief, human beings attain truth by way of reason because, enlightened by faith, they discover the deeper meaning of all things and most especially of their own existence. Rightly, therefore, the sacred author identifies [awe-inspired respect] of God as the beginning of true knowledge: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7; cf. Sirach 1:14). (20)

    Finally, it is the Church that finds itself in the position of defending reason:

    There are signs of a widespread distrust of universal and absolute statements, especially among those who think that truth is born of consensus and not of a consonance between intellect and objective reality. In a world subdivided into so many specialized fields, it is not hard to see how difficult it can be to acknowledge the full and ultimate meaning of life which has traditionally been the goal of philosophy [including science]. Nonetheless, in the light of faith which finds in Jesus Christ this ultimate meaning, I cannot but encourage philosophers—be they Christian or not—to trust in the power of human reason and not to set themselves goals that are too modest in their philosophizing. 

    The lesson of [20th Century] history [...] shows that this is the path to follow: it is necessary not to abandon the passion for ultimate truth, the eagerness to search for it or the audacity to forge new paths in the search. It is faith which stirs reason to move beyond all isolation and willingly to run risks so that it may attain whatever is beautiful, good and true. Faith thus becomes the convinced and convincing advocate of reason. (56)

    💢 Fides et Ratio can be accessed here    

    * The Christ Connection: How the World Religions Prepared the Way for the Phenomenon of Jesus (2011)

    Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published. 

    Monday 10 January 2022

    Abortion leaves women no less burdened

    For good reason: The poorest 30% of women account for 75% of abortions in the US. 

    "Our liberation cannot be bought with the blood of our children" has become a common slogan on placards or T-shirts carried or worn by women at events involving abortion laws. It's powerful because it captures the weakness of so much of the pro-abortion argument. Abortion kills, but also to argue in favour of abortion is to undermine the status of women, to present the unique dignity of each woman as nothing else than that a woman should be like a man in every way including unlovely sexual behaviour.

    As Mary Harrington points out in reviewing Erika Bachiochi's The Rights Of Woman: Reclaiming A Lost Vision (2021) the central issue over women's rights, especially in the fraught area of reproduction that society has allowed to bear most heavily on women, is that campaigning should be directed to allowing women to be women, rather than trying to shoehorn one sex into the shape of the other. She writes:

    Babies and children take a lot of looking after. How, then, [are] ideals of individual liberty to be balanced with the evidently asymmetrical burdens of human reproduction?

    As in many areas of  activism,  "progressives" show a certain laziness intellectually and organisationally in ignoring the difficult duty of rectifying society's disregard of  the toxic economic inequality we see generally, shirking the task of taking on corporate power to enable the flourishing of unions, the sharing of profits with a greater focus on equity, the reduction of real working hours, more holidays, and parental leave. Instead, they use their elite status to impose a set of cultural dogmas that are as false as they are acceptable to their peers in academia, the mainstream media, and corporate and political leaders.

    From a Guttmacher Institute statement on a study of reasons women give for abortion, the top is that:

    Having a baby would dramatically interfere with their education, work or ability to care for their dependents, or they could not afford a baby at the time. In addition, qualitative data from in-depth interviews portrayed women who had had an abortion as typically feeling that they had no other choice, given their limited resources and existing responsibilities to others.  

    The point is that: Under these circumstances there is no way abortion can be called a “choice”. Furthermore, as a response to an article in The BMJ (British Medical Journal) the authors state:

    75% of women requesting abortion in the US are in poverty or in the low income bracket. The poorest 12% of women account for almost 50% of abortions and the poorest 30% for 75% of abortions. 

    They continue: 

    Abortion cannot be a solution for poverty; thereby surreptitiously allowing those in authority to abdicate responsibility of tackling socio-economic inequality. The BMJ has shown commendable leadership and been at the forefront of the campaign to eradicate period poverty but has been much less vocal at the scourge of poverty which suffuses the issue of abortion. Abortion may be a right in the UK but it is clearly not a choice.

    To pick up again Harrington's concern that today's feminism is hurting rather than empowering women, she highlights the fact is that going back at least to the late 1700s it has been argued that "motherhood and family life are both ennobling in themselves and compatible with other activities in the wider world". Further:

    As the pro-life feminist Clair de Jong put it in 1978, “Accepting the ‘necessity’ of abortion is accepting that pregnant women and mothers are unable to function as persons in this society”.

    US President Joe Biden’s recent description of mothers as “locked out of the workforce” by caregiving responsibilities is typical. Mothers are, in effect, illegible to the prevailing conception of personhood — which is based on market participation — except when we detach ourselves from caregiving, which is seen largely as an obstacle to that participation, and therefore to self-realisation.

    An unborn child is absolutely dependent on its mother, and she cannot be replaced. Within an atomised understanding of what humans are, we have no way of weighing competing interests in such a context. And if personhood relies on us having absolute autonomy over our bodies, we must begrudge any claim, however slight, of a dependent baby still contained in that body — lest its rights-bearing nature conflict with ours.

    But women are more likely to show a willingness to accept that a woman's "absolute autonomy" does not reflect reality:  

    Polls consistently show us to be ambivalent on this question, across both sexes. More women than men believe life begins at conception, while in this 2017 poll, 41% of UK women supported reducing the gestation limit to 12 weeks or lower, compared to 24% of men.

    Harrington speaks on this in a very personal way:

    We can only resolve this via positions most people find intuitively repellent, such as the claim that signs of trying to avoid pain aren’t evidence of life. Or even, as the Nobel Prize-winning philosopher Peter Singer argues in Practical Ethics, that because “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time,” therefore “they are not persons”. If you’d told me, when I was grieving a pregnancy loss, that I was mourning “little more than cells and electrical activity“ I’d have punched you. And yet we nod along to this idea in other contexts, where doing so supports women’s bodily autonomy.

    She adds that because a baby just a few days after conception looks little like an adult can explain why so many lack of willingness to face the reality of a claim from within the womb that demands recognition as an equal. However, the same is true with a newborn and an adult. In addition, peer pressure can override the scientific reality of what is being killed in abortion. 

    For Bernard Nathanson, the co-founder of Naral, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, and who was once the director of the US's largest freestanding abortion clinic, the development of ultra-sound technology was a game-changer. Ultra-sound "for the first time threw open a window into the womb" and his rejection of the abortion industry.

    In Nathanson's own words: 

    Although we had a mound (literally) of empirical data attesting to the fact that a living human being had been destroyed in the act of abortion, it was not until after the advent of ultrasound technology that a true paradigm change took place. With ultrasound technology, we could not only know that the fetus was a functioning organism, but we could also estimate its age, watch it swallow and urinate, view it in its sleeping and waking states, and watch it move itself as purposefully as a newborn. 

    No matter, science takes a backseat when self-interest is in play. As Harrington puts it:

    The atomised vision of personhood is nigh-on unchallenged today. So, many decades into the victory of autonomy over dependence, in the name of feminism, it’s easier to see why even Right-wing young women [at New York University] were unwilling to hear Bachiochi’s arguments. The Right may speak more warmly than the Left about family life, but while we grant personhood and citizenship on the basis of bodily autonomy, what sane woman would seek to deny those goods to her own sex?

    The necessity in a woman's life to provide care and cope with dependents has long been a feature of Bachiochi's career in law, including lecturing at Harvard, and in the exploration of sexual economics. Harrington taps into her expertise:  

    Nothing, [Bachiochi] suggests, could more viscerally epitomise the conflict between the individualistic logic of the market, and a more communitarian one that values and centres dependency and care, than the question of abortion. A women’s movement that “regards abortion rights as equal citizenship rights”, Bachiochi suggests, has already conceded nearly the entire battle on valuing dependency: it has “surrendered, once and for all, to the logic of that market”.

    And this means, in effect, that the central political demand of feminism is for women’s rights to enter a “marketplace” of notionally free, unencumbered individuals on the same terms as men. To compete in the workplace without asymmetrical reproductive handicaps; to live without strings. In other words, to be functionally indistinguishable from the most Hobbesian vision of men at their most radically rootless.

    And from this vantage-point, even those feminists who resist the claim that “a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman” find their proposition fatally undermined if they support abortion. For if Bachiochi is right, then they are defending the distinction between the sexes while fiercely committed to the medical intervention most critical to collapsing the distinction between the sexes.

    Therefore, speaking to her sisters, Harrington asks: 

    Can we really protest the degradation of feminism into a campaign to free us from our biology, while digging our heels in to defend a vision of personhood that rests on exactly that? For 21st-century feminism, the question of choice poses some difficult choices.

     On Twitter, Bachiochi posted this note:
    NB: I was a pro-choice feminist (& women's studies student at Middlebury College) before coming to see what abortion *is* and what it has wrought for women's equality, so no "on-going strategy" here. "Feminists" always assume pro-life women are but a puppet of some man somewhere.

    Her point that society must get away from the whimsical view of feminism and into the nitty-gritty of establishing a social order that defends women's needs and so the family, was made clear by a critical tweet in response to her op-ed in the New York Times in December (2021). It said:

    How does forced gestation bode for women's equality? Asking for myself, who was terminated from a job while pregnant and couldn't find employment as a noticeably pregnant woman.

    This challenge exemplifies the nature of  Bachiochi's argument that women will make no further progress in society unless society makes provision for the needs of women. And abortion is principally a factor of poverty, which is a route "progressives" decline to take because it means breaking from the rich and powerful elite that they travel with.

    💢 Read more of Bachiochi's views here

    💢 The Rights of Women: Reclaiming a Lost Vision - details here

    💢 Read Life in the womb matters to these women

    💢 Read Trauma from abortion - why the surprise?

    Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.   

    Friday 7 January 2022

    Christians have a happy-marriage advantage

    Equal in dignity but with different ways of serving the family.    Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko

    Christians have an advantage toward achieving a happy marriage because they acknowledge how God has created each man and each woman in His own image, especially with regards generous love and fecundity. They know that God gives each man and woman an equal dignity though in a different way, and this complementarity is oriented toward the good of the marriage and the flourishing of family life.

    So we observe the equal personal dignity of husband and wife since both are created in the image and likeness of the personal God. However, to avoid a stalemated clash of wills, God offers a pattern for family life that also appears in His orientation of the Church, and that is referred to as "headship", where all conditions being equal, one of the parties is called to exercise a vocation to be decision-maker. Self-sacrificing love and a commitment to the common good are the guiding principles for the exercise of such a vocation.

    C S Lewis's The Four Loves has a section that examines headship: 

    And as we could easily take the natural mystery [of sex] too seriously, so we might take the Christian mystery [of marriage] not seriously enough. Christian writers (notably Milton) have sometimes spoken of the husband’s headship with a complacency to make the blood run cold. We must go back to our Bibles. The husband is the head of the wife just in so far as he is to her what Christ is to the Church. He is to love her as Christ loved the Church—and gave his life for her (Eph 5:25). 

    This headship, then, is most fully embodied not in the husband we should all wish to be but in him whose marriage is most like a crucifixion; whose wife received most and gives least, is most unworthy of him, is - in her own mere nature - least lovable. For the Church has no beauty but what the Bridegroom gives her; he does not find, but makes her, lovely. The chrism [anointing] of this terrible coronation is to be seen not in the joys of any man’s marriage but in its sorrows, in the sickness and sufferings of a good wife or the faults of a bad one, in his unwearying (never paraded) care or his inexhaustible forgiveness: forgiveness, not acquiescence. As Christ sees in the flawed, proud, fanatical or lukewarm Church on earth that Bride who will one day be without spot or wrinkle, and labours to produce the latter, so the husband whose headship is Christ-like (and he is allowed no other sort) never despairs. 

    Phil Monroe, a psychologist who can speak from a Christian perspective, concludes in support of Lewis's insights into the husband's headship, "when we must refuse a loved one or confront them about their flaws, it should be done for their sake, and not our own". 

    Furthermore:

    There is great power in choosing to set aside personal desire for the sake of another. The same can be said for women who are trying to figure out how to “submit” to “unworthy” husbands.

    Note that "headship" does not refer to the type of behaviour where the husband is addicted to "bossing around" his wife. As one female writer put it:

    If I am to enter into a marriage one day, I would expect that we at least consider that my thoughts, opinions, and decisions are as important as my husband’s. If not, then you won’t find me at the altar. I am not alone in this — I have a troupe of lovely lady friends who will tell you the same thing.

    Rather, she concedes, it is "when fair discussion is exhausted and compromise is impossible, that Lewis suggests that it must be the man who is the 'head' of the family".

    But Keri Wyatt Kent questions why a husband and wife need to have someone to break the tie: I [suggest] that God would break the tie, if you continued to seek God’s wisdom, asking to be led by the Spirit to unity. In a way, giving the man the deciding vote keeps God small, and prevents the man from actually having to do what Ephesians 5:21 says: submit to one another. If you know you’ve got the deciding vote, you aren’t really submitting.

    If you trust that God is able to lead and give you the right direction, why does one person need to be the tie-breaker? Is it impossible for God to lead both a man and a woman to peace about a decision? Why the man? Can men hear God better than women? Is God incapable of speaking directly to both husband and wife?

    Support for this view might be seen in the assent given to the equality of partners: “Children, obey your parents, and honor your father and mother” (Ephesians 6:1-3).

    However, Wyatt Kent seems to focus on where power lies, as if the wife would suffer with regards a loss of personal empowerment in the marriage, and by extension in the life of the household.

    A different perspective is given by Stella Morabito, who admits to a long struggle in reconciling her own views as a young woman on roles in marriage with that of Christian teaching. 

    When responding to the modern arguments about the role of women, I had to ask myself: Does the order of creation as described in the Scriptures signify the inferiority of women? A number of annoying biblical terms haunted me: Woman is the "helpmate" of man (Gen. 2:18); the wife is to "submit" to her husband (Eph. 5:22) and "obey" him (I Pet. 3:4-6); and the woman is the "weaker sex" (I Pet. 3:7).

    In our culture there are no two ways about it: All these terms are now pejorative, all these concepts are now reviled. And, to make matters worse, many men habitually exploit those passages for their own worldly and selfish gain. On the surface, this apparent male bias and condescension seemed to be a strong case for "editing" or rewriting Scripture passages that deal with the order of creation of male and female.

    I could not deny that God intentionally created humanity as male and female — one species with two halves, each having different functions. I could not deny that Jesus Christ came to us in the form of a human male born of a human female. And I could not doubt that Christ died for the sins of both men and women.

    Morabito examines how modern sensibilities have made this area of teaching more provocative:

    [Paul] definitely sounds chauvinistic to contemporary ears. We so easily view the idea of headship of the husband as a position of power. This is not only the modern worldly view of headship, but an ancient view as well. However, the Christian view — Paul's view — is neither. The headship of the husband is not a position of worldly power. Rather, it is a function of total surrender to the Cross.

    I finally came to terms with Paul's call to submission in marriage when I began to reflect on Christian marriage as a two-partner dance. Leading in a dance is simply a function. Following in a dance — i.e., "submitting" or "obeying" — is merely the reciprocal function. Both the husband and the wife are subject to Christ, as a man and a woman are subject to the music as they dance.

    If the husband's role is to lead, and the wife's role is to follow, so what? What's the big deal? How does it make the wife inferior? The husband superior? To claim such things of dance partners would be as nonsensical as stating that an axle is superior to the wheel attached to it. They are simply acting as one unit. In fact, they don't get anywhere unless they act as one unit. The most important element of the dance is that both partners must follow the same music.

    Contrary to popular revisionist belief, the writers of the Scriptures do not advise [a wife] to wallow in her suffering and to submit to abuse from a wayward husband who doesn't obey the Word. None of that is part of the solution offered in 1 Peter: that the wife, by example, show her reverence for the Word in order to bring her husband back to the Word (3:1-2). This passage reminds the woman that her first allegiance is always to Christ. She must, figuratively speaking, just keep humming the music of the Gospel to let her husband know he is out of line and out of step. Her tune should remind him that they are both called to total surrender to the Cross.

    The wife can't easily do this if she loudly complains about his sins or tries to lead him or push him around the dance floor. The best bet is to remain humble yet active, and firmly determined to let the Holy Spirit lead her thoughts, words, and deeds. Then the husband is most likely to be brought back into the dance. Otherwise, there can be no dance, no Christian marriage.

    In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul prefaces his whole discussion of headship with a statement clearly indicating that neither party has power over the other: "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph. 5:21). 

    Feminists seek to replace Paul's formula for organic unity with the formula of secular equality. It is an unordered view of equality where there are no specific or reciprocal functions. The result is chaos, where there is really no room for the Cross to be the tempering, binding, and ordering force in marriage. It's a dance where everybody leads and nobody follows. 

    [Revisionists] refuse even to entertain the possibility that headship and submission to headship can be reciprocal functions of total surrender to the Cross.  

    By virtue of valid baptism, we are — regardless of our sex or other circumstances of birth — united into the One Body of Christ in the world. But how does that translate into the notion that God intended all Christians to have the same function? How does that translate into the absence of any specific God-given order for our creation as male and female — the only basic distinction in the creation of humanity? Revisionists ignore the fact that we are incarnational beings, created as male or female. The task of Christians is to deal with God's creation as He wills, not as we will. Therefore, our bounden duty is to put aside our egos.

    When we filter out the modern distortions of Paul's message, his logic becomes obvious and plainly positive. If a man and a woman are to unite as one flesh that submits to Christ, they must perform complementary functions in order to work together as one.

    One flesh, one organism, in marriage, but "male and female He created them" in the order of creation. Therefore, husbands must respect their own dignity and not contrive to get their way on trivial matters, but instead serve their family and provide it with authentic leadership that is pleasing to Christ. 

    A final thought is this: The vocation of headship does not grant infallibility to the husband. A husband, in good conscience, though in the face of opposition from his wife, who does submit to the husband, may make a decision involving the family that does not achieve the desired goal. Such an outcome is not an argument against Christian headship. Rather it can be viewed as a "What's good luck, what's bad luck?" scenario. Humanly speaking the outcome may be a failure, but with a spiritual lens we see God blessing the family with valuable insights, a character-building experience, and success in enriching family life.  

    See also: Women's full equality in the Christian family  

                    Complementarity and Spiritual Headship

    Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.