Radio Replies Vol 2 - Catholic Apologetics Online

That cannot be accepted. Both in theological and in secular matters she has not only left men free to think, but has urged them to do so. She does take precautions to prevent people from thinking wrongly, in religious matters particularly; but that is a true service to mankind. If at times she has been over-cautious, that was a fault on the right side. Scientists who complain of the restrictions of the Church have had to unsay far more things than those subject to the said restrictions.

She has not done so. In fact, the Catholic Church really gave civilization to the world. She is the mother of architecture, music, painting, and sculpture; of ethics, philosophy, and education. Her monks founded schools all over Europe, preserving the literature of the past, and inspiring the literature of the future. She established the great Universities of Europe, including both Oxford and Cambridge. Professor Whitehead, a non-Catholic, says that the middle ages were "pre-eminently an epoch of orderly thought, rationalist through and through ... forming one long training of the intellect of Western Europe in the sense of order." Let me advise you to get the book entitled, "The World's Debt to the Catholic Church," by Dr. James J. Walsh. It will surprise you.

No sound argument can be based on a few isolated cases. Also, if in some individual cases the Church opposed theories later proved to be right, would you blame her for opposing those which later events proved to be wrong? The conservatism of the Church meant the very great benefit of cautious thought; and the modern license has resulted in many things being swallowed as facts which are not facts, and the constant unsaying by "scientists" of what previous "scientists" have said.

It was not. They were taught agriculture and various trades, and were most skilled workers. The glorious buildings they erected shows that. The monks who gave us the most beautifully illuminated manuscripts, and who were devoted to teaching, were drawn from the ordinary people. But book learning is not the only learning, and prior to the inventing of the printing press, the diffusion of literary education as compared with today was impossible. To blame limitations due to lack of facilities as if they implied a deliberate discouragement of learning by the Church is unpardonable.

That is not true. In his book, "The Flight from Reason," written by Arnold Lunn before his conversion to the Catholic Church we read these words: "I sympathize with Dr. Walsh's reaction to the popular misrepresentation of the attitude of the mediaeval Church. It is as unreasonable to represent the mediaeval Church as hostile to science, as to suggest that the Popes were keenly interested in the advancement of scientific notions. The mediaeval Church was uninterested in, rather than hostile to science. The intellectual energies of the great mediaeval thinkers were concentrated on philosophy. The neglect of science must be ascribed, not to the active opposition of the Church, but to the fact that the great Churchmen were absorbed in other intellectual interests. The Popes, indeed, were always ready to patronize scientific discovery provided the scientists did not trespass on the province of the theologians."

Roger Bacon did not get into any trouble for predicting flying machines. He was a most aggressive and tactless man who caused all his own difficulties. His best friend was Pope Clement IV., who was deeply interested in his first attempts at experimental science. Bacon did not suffer "severe punishment." He was a Franciscan Friar, and his own Order had to keep him in retirement because of his belligerent ways.

Your history is at fault. Copernicus had often spoken of his theories on that subject, and far from being condemned as a heretic, was induced by clerical friends to put them into print. Only 73 years after his death was his book censured; and then merely because of the use Galileo made of it. But these individual cases, even were your interpretation of them correct, would not justify a general indictment of the Church.

Prudential decrees against a few particular theories in the field of science cannot rightly be construed as opposition to science. Also, such decrees are outside the field to which infallibility is restricted, and consequently do not affect that aspect of the Church.

The Church is infallible in her official definitions of correct moral teaching. But disciplinary decrees of Roman Congregations are not definitions of doctrine, and are not infallible. It is one thing to define a doctrine concerning moral principles, but quite another to regulate conduct in accordance with such principles as one believes them to apply to particular circumstances in some given period.

I am afraid that you begin with the belief that Catholic teaching is "obviously superstitious"; and so strong is this prejudice that any explanation which would show that it is not superstitious must seem wrong to you. Your attitude seems to be this: "As explained by this Catholic priest, Catholic teaching does not seem to be superstitious. But I am quite convinced that it is superstitious. Therefore this Catholic priest must be glossing it over." You put me "between the devil and the deep sea"; for you insist that I am either a knave or a fool. If what I say seems reasonable, then I must be insincere and a knave, because Catholic teaching is superstitious. If I do sincerely believe in it, I am a fool, because Catholic teaching is superstitious. So you have me both ways! But your obligation is to prove Catholic teaching superstitious.

Catholic theology has always classed superstition as sinful, andhas labored to stamp it out. That ignorant people are apt to minglesuperstition with religion is quite true. But superstition is notnecessarily associated with religion. It is a strange tendency inhuman beings, due to the limitations of the human mind, which isapt to break out at any time. The man who advertises lucky charmstoday is as sure of a harvest as ever. As regards your estimate ofthe "dark ages," it is necessary to make a distinction.Intellectually, the thirteenth and fourteenth and fifteenthcenturies do not constitute the "dark ages." The real"dark ages" are to be found between the sixth and theeleventh centuries. From the moral point of view I am willing toadmit that the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries could rightly bethus called. Side by side with the revival of art and literaturedue to intense study of the classics there was a revival also ofpagan morality in place of Christian virtue. Intellectual interestin a sensual philosophy very easily ends in a greater interest in sensuality. Men, interested in the beautiful style ofthe pagan classics, absorbed the immoral poison of what theycontained and they fell into vices quite at variance with Christianstandards. Men began to write filth beautifully only to rendertheir beautiful souls filthy. The Renaissance had very ill effectsupon the religious lives of both clergy and laity, and rendered thetimes very dark indeed from a moral point of view.

That is a travesty of Scholasticism. Scholasticism, or thephilosophy of the Schoolmen of the Middle Ages, can be divided intofour periods. It arose between the ninth and the eleventhcenturies; developed rapidly during the twelfth century; attainedperfection during the thirteenth century with the great St. Thomasof Aquin; and then fell into decline in the fourteenth andfifteenth centuries. In this last period the best traditions ofScholasticism were forgotten, and would-be philosophers were nolonger creative thinkers, but rather fought amongst themselves forthe honor of the systems they had adopted rather than for thetruth. This led to a lot of hair-splitting debates, and when theRenaissance came, men judged Scholasticism by the type they foundprevailing, making no distinction between the later and the earlierSchoolmen. It was a superficial judgment; and superficial writerstoday still repeat the foolish statement that the Schoolmen wastedtime debating about the number of angels who could sit on the pointof a needle. That is simply a caricature. Men who really knowsomething of history have realized that the Scholastic philosophymust be judged by its uncorrupted form in the golden age of thethirteenth century, and not by those who, in the period of decline,were forsaking its true principles. So Professor Whitehead, Fellowof Trinity College, Cambridge, writes in his book, "Scienceand the Modern World," that "the greatest contribution ofmediaevalism to the formation of the scientific movement was theinexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can becorrelated in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying generalprinciples." And he adds that to the Schoolmen is due"faith in the very possibility of science." Those wordsof Professor Whitehead are more valuable than the verdict ofnonentities. It may be that modern materialists wish to live onlyby their senses which they have in common with animals, and refuseto accept as facts all that is not subject to sense-experience. Butthe Schoolmen preferred reason, and felt obliged to account forfacts made known by a revelation from God which reason justified.Knowing thus of the existence of purely spiritual beings calledangels, they quite reasonably discussed their relation to space,just as much a problem as the fact that one can get more and moreideas into his head without having to enlarge his head to providespace-accommodation for them. But the verdict that angels, likeideas, do not occupy space to the exclusion of others is aperfectly rational conclusion which irrational people too easilydismiss with a contemptuous reference to angels sitting on thepoint of a needle. No Schoolman was such a fool as to think thatany bodily posture was proper to an angel. A childish want ofthought is the chief characteristic of many modern supposedly wisemen when they begin to discuss a Scholastic philosophy of whichthey know practically nothing.

You exemplify my contention that those who suppose a conflict between science and the Catholic religion understand neither science nor Catholicism.

That statement you must try to prove. You do not attempt to do so. I maintain, of course, that it is wrong. God, the Creator of all things, is eternal. He exists, yet He had not to begin to exist, and can never cease to exist. I grant that no created thing exists which had not at least a beginning. And as time and space are co-terminous with created existences, they, too, had a beginning. As for the necessity of created things having an end, that can be disputed; but all I will say here is that whilst the existence of a created thing is dependent upon its beginning to exist, it is certainly not dependent upon its having an end or ceasing to exist!

That is true. But note two things. You confine your remark to matter, restricting yourself to material things, and omitting reference to non-material being. Secondly, whilst matter does not exist unless it can give physical evidence of its presence, it does not follow that matter is non-existent merely because we fail to detect that evidence. The existence of things does not depend upon our knowledge of them. There are people who have the foolish idea that if they have not seen or heard of a thing, it therefore does not exist. They remind one of the legend of the ostrich which buries its head in the sand and believes that it has no pursuers because it cannot see them.

The case is not made stronger by appealing to stars thousands of light years away. There is no need to go so far afield to prove the existence of matter. This earth is quite enough for your purpose, as you will find if you try to walk through a brick wall as if it were not there.

I must ask you to define what you mean by science. Do you intend merely experimental science? Do you intend to abandon all reliance upon pure reasoning? Will you deny all value to history? Do you deny for example that Christ ever lived because the fact cannot be discovered with a microscope? Or, granted that He lived, will you deny that His teachings merit credence because you cannot boil those teachings in a test tube? And even if you restrict science to experimental procedure, will you brush aside all the findings of the Society for Psychical Research as being the result of either folly or fraud? You must really decide for yourself more precisely what you mean by science.

Though no human mind can fully comprehend the doctrine of the Trinity, yet the concept is not unintelligible. It certainly conveys a definite meaning to Christians. In revealing Himself to us God had to employ terms on our own level which could not but be inadequate to express His infinite perfection. But the terms used are not nevertheless without meaning. We know what a nature is, and we know what a person is. It may be, and in fact must be, that the Divine Nature, and the real character of Personality in God will be mysterious to us. But that does not mean that our ideas are wrong, or that they have nothing in them. It only means that if our ideas are right as far as they go, they do not go far enough to completely exhaust the reality.

I can but assure you that the matter is of supreme importance. For if the doctrine of the Trinity be false, that would be the end of the Christian religion.The very essence of the Christian religion is that the Eternal Son of God became man for our salvation. If there is no Trinity of Persons in God, there would be no Eternal Son to become man at all, and the whole of Christianity would be built on a mere flight of fancy. If I believed the doctrine of the Trinity to be false, or in the least uncertain, I would abandon Christianity altogether. That would be the only logical thing to do. So from the Christian point of view you can see that it is no question of hair-splitting, but a matter of supreme importance.

The doctrine of the Trinity lifts the notion of God, and carries it beyond the most powerful created intelligence, as befits the dignity and majesty of God. By it, God takes life instead of being the great unknown X of the universe. One, He is not solitary. And the multiplicity of the universe is but the shadow of the diversity of God in Himself according to the Trinity of relationships. How conceive of God save as knowing and loving? And how conceive of thought and love in God save as God Himself, yet distinct as operations? How conceive of God as happy without society and reciprocal activity, before the universe; and after its creation, since the universe adds nothing to God Himself? The Trinity gives us a living rather than an abstract God, individualizing Thought and Love in Him, giving interior multiplicity with His eternal unity. If my thought became myself intimately and adequately, and my happiness in myself were essentially identified with myself, I would be a trinity whilst remaining myself. But what is not possible with me is a fact with God; and His living unity is the Trinity.

The philosophy of Plato has contributed towards explanations of the subject, as it has contributed much towards many other departments of human thought. But the dogma of the Trinity in no way came from Plato, or from any other merely human source. The Trinity of Persons in God was taught as a fact by Christ to explain His own Person and work. He gave the dogma, and the dogma gave rise to philosophical explanations of it. Nor does the doctrine merely give ways of thinking of God. Aspects of our own thinking would not be Divine Persons. The dogma tells us of God's own intimate life within the Divine Nature.

They are not merely three different titles of the one Being as if they were names only and in no sense realities. They are three relative personal aspects of one absolute and substantial Being. One and the same Absolute Being can have relative aspects distinct from one another. In God, of course, we meet with what should not be an unexpected mystery. The three relative aspects of the one Divine Nature are Personal. Our experience of finite and created man is of one nature and one person. But our knowledge of finite and created man cannot give us an adequate knowledge of the Infinite Creator unless we are prepared to work on a very crude and anthropomorphic basis. The fact that in the one Absolute God there are three relative Personalities, distinct in virtue of their relationship to each other, yet identically possessing the Divine Nature, is known to us by revelation alone. And we know the fact without being able to comprehend it fully, not because of any defect in God, but because of the defect in our finite selves.

That doctrine was first promulgated by Christ Himself, as recorded in the Gospels. Thus Christ said, "I and the Father are one." The doctrine was also clearly taught by St. Paul. Against various heretics in the early Church again and again the Bishops re-declared the truth both implicitly and explicitly. The General Councils of Nicea, and of Ephesus, as well as other Councils, excluded all ambiguity as to what Christ had revealed by their specific definitions and formulas.

No. Nor is there any need to do so.

There is no question of supposition. The doctrine is clearly given by Christ in His words, "Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Matt. XXVIII., 19.

The one name of the Three Persons was certainly meant to indicate the unity of God despite triple Personality.

Our exegesis involves no violation of grammar. And all danger of distortion is removed by the use of the usual safeguards of exegesis; namely, the analogy of faith, the interpretations of the Fathers, and the constant tradition of the Catholic Church. No argument based on grammatical form arises where the baptismal formula is concerned; nor can any such considerations rob the words of their trinitarian value.

The Word of God was personal. My hand is not a person. The Word was with God, because the Second Person of the Trinity is distinct by personality from the Father and the Holy Ghost; yet the Word was God because possessing the same Divine Nature with them. To suggest that the Word of God is no more personal than my hand is quite opposed to the truth. St. John, who declares that the Word was with God, and was God, says also that the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us; that in "Him" was life; that "He" was in the world; that "He" dwelt amongst us; that we saw "His" glory, and of "His" fullness we receive grace. The Word was the Eternal Son of God, every bit as personal as the Father.

It is also explicitly stated that the Word is "the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father." God may act in a fatherly way towards us men, but He is a true Father to the only-begotten Son, generated in the same Divine Nature, and equally the uncreated God with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

He was addressing His heavenly Father, and in virtue of the sufferings of His created human nature.

It did not imply any distinction between Himself and His Father so far as the Divine Nature was concerned. It implied that, in His human nature, He experienced that sense of dereliction by God which man deserved. If man abandons God he deserves to be abandoned by God. Jesus took the place of sinners, and suffered the sense of dereliction deserved by sinners.

Centuries ago St. Augustine replied to a similar complaint with the words, "If you do understand, then that is what God is not." He meant, of course, that no human being can fully comprehend God. We cannot exclude mystery when speaking of God, for if He came within the limits of our finite intelligence He would be finite and not God at all. At the same time, we can understand on our own level what the doctrine of the Trinity means. The idea of personality is not foreign to us, nor is the idea of a given nature. If the Trinity is a mystery it is because both the Nature and the Persons in God transcend all our notions of these things, our ideas giving but a faint and most inadequate reflection of the truth. It is also a mystery because our experience is limited to a single nature with a single personality. A single Divine Nature with a threefold Personality is not on the same plane as any of our ordinary experiences, and is known by revelation alone; and even then only insofar as human words can express the transcendent truth. But the terms are not meaningless, and we do find a profound significance in the doctrine.

If you intend, by eternal evolution, to dispense with God, you would find it a bigger problem to see what is right in it. In dealing with the origin of the universe you will find yourself in deep waters whichever way you turn. We know, however, by revelation that all things less than God were created from nothing by God, and that therefore they are not eternal.

To know how the world could be created you would have to comprehend God; and no finite mind can do that. But we do know that God could create by the mere fact of His being God. Creation in time is, I admit, also a mystery. For there was no time before created things came into existence. Creatures began in eternity, and time began with them, and belongs to them because of their successive duration. The universe had a first moment, before which it did not exist. And referring to that moment we say that the world was created at the beginning of time.

We do not hold that God gave only one beginning to created things, allowing evolution to account for all subsequent developments. God continues to create, or to give new beginnings to new creatures. For example, we admit a new and distinct creation for each human soul. We maintain that new creative activity was required for new species, and for the production of life. Life did not come from brute matter by simple development; nor did intelligence come merely from lower forms of organic life. New creative activities of God could alone account for these things. For the rest we are free to believe, not in an eternal, but in a temporal evolution of created beings. I might point out to you that many thinkers today demand much more creative activity in the world than any Catholic will admit. Bergson, the French philosopher, says that there are always new beginnings in almost every phase of existence. Ever there are new and unforeseen productions, according to him. And he tries to explain all by what he terms "creative evolution." It is impossible to accept his ideas of evolution; but it is significant that he by no means regards evolution as excluding the notion of creation.

That is not true. We do not reject any scientifically demonstrated facts. Give us any fact that is scientifically demonstrated, and we will accept it at once. But no such fact would, or could, in the least affect our belief in the Bible. We Catholics stand for the principle that truth can never be opposed to truth. God cannot contradict Himself. He is the Author of nature, and He is the Author of the Bible. No truth discoverable from a study of nature will ever be found to contradict a truth set forth in the Bible.

That the earth is at least 2000 million years old is a good conjecture, but not an established fact. Were it an established fact, there would be no difficulty in accepting it, so far as the Bible is concerned. It would not matter were the earth a billion billion years old, taking a billion as a million millions. For the Bible nowhere makes any statement as to the age of the earth at all. We can therefore accept both the truth of the Bible, and any age geology or astronomy can reasonably assign to our planet.

The Christian religion does not demand the rejection of that explanation.

There is no such thing as "the" theory of evolution. There are dozens of theories of evolution, whether of the major or of the minor variety. Nor have any of these theories been put forward by any sensible and well-informed men as anything more than a theory, for demonstration is as absent as refutation. And whether any particular theory of evolution be true or not, no one could possibly derive from such considerations any reasonable objection to the practice of religion. There's about as much connection between the theory of evolution, as you term it, and the practice of religion, as there is between the wave theory of light and a pain in one's kidneys.

The book in question is not scientific. In it the authors say that "evolution is a fact as well established as the roundness of the earth." Huxley's grandfather, the famous T. H. Huxley, once said that "an assertion which outstrips the evidence is not only a blunder, but a crime." That brands his grandson, together with Wells, as criminal. Sir Ambrose Fleming, President of the Philosophical Society of Great Britain, says, "There are no sufficient reasons for declaring the evolutionary origin of the human race to be a fact." Professor Albert Fleischmann, of Erlangen University, says that "our modern knowledge of animal anatomy is quite incompatible with the leading tenets of the theory of organic evolution." Delage, who accepted the theory of evolution, but who was a real scientist, said frankly that his belief was based less on natural history than on personal opinion. "On facts," he said, "it must be acknowledged that the formation of species one from another has not been demonstrated at all." Popularizers, like Wells and Huxley, are devoid of the scientific temperament. They excel in giving exact descriptions of things which never existed, and for which there is not a shadow of evidence. In the light of the scientists I have quoted what is one to make of the statement in the book you mention that "no denial of the fact of organic evolution except on the part of manifestly ignorant and prejudiced and superstitious minds, exists today"?

Your question concerns what is really merely a scientific matter quite independent of the Catholic religion. It is no more relevant to the religious question than would be my opinion as to the nutrition value of cheese. However, since you think it relevant, I will answer your queries. A Catholic is quite free to hold the evolutionary formation of one species from another, or to deny it and hold that evolution has occurred only within specific types. My personal opinion is that there is not a vestige of proof in favor of the transformation of species, and that the probabilities are against it.

Firstly, even were one put to death for an opinion concerning any natural department of knowledge, one would not earn a martyr's crown. Secondly, I have no faith at all in any theory of evolution. I am of the opinion that minor evolution has occurred within certain limits, an opinion which is based upon such evidence as science has produced. But that opinion is not faith, for I do not hold it solely upon the authority of others who choose to advance the theory. Thirdly, apart from the martyr's crown, and the nature of my opinion, I would not have been put to death for my views on this subject either in the Middle Ages or in any other Age.

It has not. It might surprise you to know that St. Augustine, in the fourth century, and St. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, expressed more advanced views favorable to evolution than those I hold today. And they have been canonized, not crucified.

You absurdly say that the Church now says, though the Church has never said anything else. Then you predict that the Church will "believe" it, as if you imagine that this purely natural matter could become part of the Catholic Faith. It could no more become part of the Catholic Faith than the discovery that gasoline can drive cars. Finally the reference to the "authority" of the Church is ridiculous, for the infallible authority of the Catholic Church concerns matters of faith and morals.

That is not true. You see, the proofs of organic evolution do not consist in producing isolated and graded fossil remains. What you have to prove is that lower grades evolved into higher grades. You have to prove a process. And to prove that process you need, not what you are able to produce at present, but what you are not able to produce. In other words, you have to produce missing links whose chief characteristic is that they are missing. Professor Berg, in his book "Nomogenesis," speaks as follows: "It is truly remarkable that paleontology in no way displays transitional forms between phyla and classes; and possibly not even between orders. Thus we are ignorant of transitional forms not only between vertebrates and invertebrates, fishes and tetrapods, but even between the cartilaginous (chondrichthyes such as sharks, etc.) and higher fishes (osteichthyes) ; in spite of a wonderful affinity between reptiles and birds, no transitional forms between them are known. Formerly this was accounted for by the imperfection of the geological record; but the deeper our knowledge penetrates into the domain of fossils, the farther back recede genetic inter-relations, which ever elude our grasp." In the face of that, how can you speak of visible proofs advanced by organic evolutionists?

If you believe in God who is an invisible and purely spiritualBeing, it is difficult to see why you should refuse to believe inangels. If one invisible and purely spiritual being can exist, whynot others? There is nothing against the possibility of theirexistence, did God choose to create them. And God has told us thatHe did create angelic beings.

That is not true. You yourself believe in logic and thought; yetyou have never had sense experience of these things. You may seeprinted words as a dog could see them. But you have never seen withyour bodily eyes the logic of thought. Then, too, you say that youbelieve in God. But you have never had sense experience of God.

An angel is a purely spiritual creature endowed withintelligence and will power.

That information was quite correct, though it was not set downin the book you read any more solemnly and seriously than othermatters in it.

By God's revelation we have to believe that angels exist. Weare not required to believe in any theological explanations aboutthe nature and prerogatives of angels. But that does not forbid ourdiscussing their nature, and setting down what reason tells usconcerning them. Now reason compels us to believe in the physicalagility of angels. But that has nothing to do with the agility ofan acrobat. That agility is bodily and muscular. No one assertssuch agility of angels. Bodily and muscular agility, however, donot exhaust the varieties of physical agility. There are otherkinds. Wireless waves have tremendous physical agility. They are aphysical force, traveling with an incalculable rapidity of motion.Angels are physical, though immaterial and spiritual beings. Andthey are endowed with an agility proper to themselves.

Angels have a mental agility far above that possessed by anyhuman mind. Being purely spiritual intelligences, they haveimmediate intuitions as opposed to human methods of discursivereasoning. Still, the reference to physical agility is concernedwith their physical rather than with their intellectualrapidity.

It means that angels are not conditioned by time or space as aremen, but that they can operate immediately in widely separatedspheres of action. And since angels are created spiritualsubstances, not possessing the omnipresence of God, they have to bewhere they operate, which supposes instantaneous transition fromone sphere to another. One who believes in angels cannot deny all possiblemovement to them. And if we admit that angels can act now here andnow there, we have no reason to deny that rapid transition ispossible to them.

Most probably, even though they themselves do not think so.After all, our Lord's words could apply to any little childrenwhen He said, "Their angels always see the face of my Fatherin heaven." Matt. XVIII., 10. St. Thomas Aquinas says that Goddenies to no one the general helps towards salvation. Now amongstthe general helps he ranks the assistance of guardian angels, andgives it as his opinion that every human being has a good angelassigned to him for his protection against evil.

We cannot suppose an eternal uncreated devil. Yet God did not create the devil as a devil. In other words, God did not create any evil spiritual being as evil. He created all things other than Himself, including angels. The angels as created by God were beings of a spiritual nature, endowed with intelligence and free will; and as the terminus of God's creative action they were entirely good. But some angels misused their freedom of will, and rendered themselves evil by their opposition to the God who is goodness itself. Evil is opposed to good. He who is opposed to God is opposed to the good, and renders himself therefore evil. But God is not the cause of such evil. His purpose in giving freedom of will was in order that the angels might have the great dignity of offering Him, not a compulsory love, but a love of free choice. And He forbade that misuse of the gift of freedom which rejects the infinite goodness of its source. God could not forbid sin yet be the cause of it. St. Peter's words that God spared not the angels who sinned show that some angels fell from the good state in which they previously existed into a sinful state; that they were responsible for their own evil choice; that God had that dominion over them which could belong only to their Creator; and that God does punish deliberately chosen and unrepented wickedness.

It is a mystery which human reason cannot probe to its full depths, but in no way is there any actual conflict with reasonable principles.

That is true. Where men have to secure data through their senses, and reason discursively from premises to conclusions, with liability to error both as regards facts and logical process, the angels, as pure spirits untrammelled by the weight of earthly and material bodies, could perceive truth by an immediate intuition. For this reason their guilt was immeasurably greater than that of human beings. And therefore God showed mercy to men, though He spared not the angels who sinned.

That is quite true. They fell into no intellectual error on that point.

They were not so foolish, of course, as to think that they could be equal to the uncreated God. Yet pride did cause their fall. Pride is a sin of the will, not of the intelligence. But every choice of the will, even though it be an evil choice, presupposes at least an intellectual apprehension of the evil thing to be chosen. There must be a theoretical error before a practical error. But how could an angelic intelligence go wrong in its ideas? We must remember that the angels were creatures, and not the Creator. Keener though they were than men in their powers of intuition, their intelligence was yet finite and limited. It was quite possible for them, therefore, to give less attention to one aspect of the truth, and to give more attention to another. It was possible for them to concentrate their attention upon their own natural perfection, and to fail to advert sufficiently to their origin by creation, and to their essential dependence upon God. Granted this, an evil choice of the will by pride was correspondingly possible. Regarding themselves as made for themselves rather than for God, they could pretend to an independence of Him, regarding Him as not necessary to them. And all this without wrongly thinking that they could be absolutely equal to Him and infinitely perfect.

We cannot say that he is an evil influence. Rather he has an evil influence, both upon individuals and upon society.

It is quite true that those possessed by devils were maddened by them, and exhibited signs of lunacy. But it is not true to conclude that this lunacy was due to merely natural and physical causes. If Protestant clergymen wish to deny the existence of evil spirits as personal enemies of mankind, then they will have to abandon belief in the Gospels and in Christ, if they are logical. Christ spoke of the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. That would be absurd if the devils were not individual, intelligent, responsible, and personal beings. The effort to find any explanation other than the actual existence of unseen spirits is useless and ridiculous; useless in the light of such texts as St. Peter's words, "God spared not the angels who sinned"; ridiculous in those who still pretend to believe in the Christian religion. The argument can only be, "I do not believe in the devil because he is not seen, and because he is evil." Yet these people believe in God despite His not being visible to bodily eyes; and they have to believe in the existence of moral evil, at least in the case of human beings. There is no reason why they should deny the existence of created spiritual beings who are morally evil, save the prevailing fashion of unbelief in the supernatural altogether.

How can men tempt each other? They sow evil thoughts into the minds of their fellow men, or impress weaker individuals by the subtle influence of a strong yet evil personality. Devils can do the same. They have but to enter into the current of our own inclinations, or into the smiling appeal of seductive pleasures. They have only to lean on that which is already at breaking-point, or check higher aspirations as they present themselves. The influence of devils can be like that of an undetected poison gas breathed in imperceptibly with the atmosphere.

If a man is evil, he uses even his good powers for evil. We know how evil men can be apostles of evil. Now having fallen themselves, evil spirits want other creatures of God to fall; and they use their powers for this evil purpose.

It is true that men are responsible only for such conduct as is their own deliberate choice. And therefore men alone are responsible for the evil they do. But they are not responsible for all their temptations to do evil. If people blame the devil by saying, "The devil made me do it," that is a subterfuge. The devil cannot "make" people sin against their own will. But it is not a subterfuge to attribute to the devil certain temptations, although I admit that some people are only too ready to declare that he is the source of their temptations. Often enough their own crass stupidity, and lack of care, is the cause of their temptations.

The beast spoken of by Daniel the prophet means in general the spirit of evil as in bitter opposition to the good. But the vision of Daniel had a very wide and complex significance. It was on four planes at one and the same time. On the cosmic plane he saw, not any particular conflict, but the universal triumph of God in the whole of creation. On the ethical plane he saw the struggle of right and wrong amongst men. On the eschatological plane he saw the consummation of this struggle at the end of the world. On the historical plane he saw Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, who in 172 B. C. took Jerusalem by force, and later desecrated the Temple, setting up a pagan altar which, in the First Book of Machabees is called the "Abomination of Desolation"--an expression used by Daniel himself.

The verse says, "Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man; and the number of him is six hundred sixty six." As regards the explanation, we must remember that the Greek and Hebrew alphabets have numerical significance. If the letters of a man's name added up to a certain number, that would be his number. Dozens of names throughout history have been made to add up to 666 by various methods, and no certain solution is possible as to the actual meaning of St. John. The name of Nero Caesar in Hebrew lettering makes 666; and possibly that is as good an explanation as can be given. The number may, of course, refer to some adversary of Christ yet to appear. St. John's words suggest that the correct interpretation will require a wisdom on the plane of his own inspiration when he wrote the Apocalypse. And that, of course, could only be a special gift of God, which the average reader cannot expect to possess.

I do not know. There is no indication whatever in the Bible as to when the first man was created. Nor is it a religious question. It is for science to seek for such evidence as it can discover from geological research. On such indications as science has so far been able to offer, it is probable enough that the first man was created perhaps 35,000 years ago. It would certainly be rash to go beyond 50,000.

The problem of the age of the earth itself differs from that of man. In relation to the probable existence of the earth man has lived upon it for a very short time.

The pre-Adamite theory was first put forward seriously by a Calvinist named Isaac de la Peyrere in 1655. But Isaac de la Peyrere himself ended by renouncing Calvinism and becoming a Catholic; and he also renounced his pre-Adamite theory. The pre-Adamite theory did not mean animals with a degree of likeness to men, but men truly human beings equally as developed as Adam himself. Adam, therefore, was not the first man, but merely the first remote ancestor of the Jewish race, the Gentiles being descended from other and previous human stock. This doctrine is condemned by the Catholic Church as opposed to the Scriptural teaching that all men without exception are descended from Adam even as Christ, the second Adam, died for the redemption of all.

Various peoples descended from our first parents, Adam and Eve. Definite historical details of the Jews can scarcely go back beyond 2094 B. C. when Abraham went from his native land in Babylonia down into Palestine. Egyptian historical records can be traced back to 4000 B. C. We have evidences of a Chinese civilization back to 2000 B. C. Records of the Persians, Indians, Greeks and Romans, of later periods, yet contemporary with the Jews of the Old Testament are also available. History, of course, does not go back very far. The earliest fixed date in history is about 4200 B. C. In the absence of records we have nothing but conjectures to go upon for pre-historic periods. But this gives no reason for doubt as to what we do know. What we know of Christ and of His teachings is not invalidated by obscurity as to the history of dispersed mankind during the period which elapsed between the creation of Adam and the earliest historical records of subsequent generations.

Other peoples besides the Jews are mentioned in the Bible. But since the Old Testament is the inspired record of God's chosen people, it cannot be expected to contain exhaustive accounts of other peoples. Other peoples are mentioned only insofar as they came into contact with, and affected the Jews.

Whatever may be said of possibility, there is no probability that life exists upon millions of other spheres. Probability demands at least some shred of evidence, and there is no such evidence in existence. It is possible that life exists on other spheres; but Christianity has never denied that. It is illogical to attribute to Christianity a teaching you think narrow-minded, and then to transfer your epithet to Christianity whether it contains that teaching or not.

Not in the least.

To that I can but give a conditional reply. If there be living beings on other planets; and if they be endowed with free will; and if they have sinned against the moral law of God; and if God did attach their salvation to the death of Christ on the Cross, then Christ died for their salvation also. But who could verify all those "ifs"? Meantime God has revealed to us on this earth all that we need to know for our own needs; and such speculations concerning other possibilities are of little practical importance. The lack of such knowledge is no hindrance to our own salvation, and will not excuse us if we fail to attain it.

Yes.

We are told three things in the Bible concerning this matter, and there is no other source of information. The three things are these: Firstly, that Adam and Eve were the first two human beings on earth. Secondly, that the days of Adam were 800 years, and that he begot sons and daughters. Thirdly, that Cain took a wife. The only possible conclusion is that Cain married a female descendant of Adam. Cain most probably married a sister. He could have married a niece, although that would have involved the prior marriage of a brother and sister.

The marriage of brothers and sisters is against the natural moral law in the present state of the human race. But laws which are normal now need not have obliged when conditions were abnormal. Special conditions demand special laws. And the beginning of the human race is an abnormal thing. God Himself created two human beings and commanded them to increase and multiply. The only possibility was by the intermarriage of their children. And God permitted this as long as it was necessary. He who could create human beings could easily preserve them from the evils usually associated with close intermarriage by a special act of His providence; and, in any case, the children of our first parents were not so closely related to each other as Eve was to Adam.

That could not reasonably be maintained. A mother drawn from a lower species would not be capable of producing children fulfilling all the requirements of a higher species. The offspring of such a marriage would not be human beings at all. The only explanation which does not violate reason is that Cain married a female descendant of Adam and Eve within his own species.

The Bible tells us that Cain went out to dwell in the land of Nod. But this does not mean that he went to an inhabited place. In Hebrew the expression "land of Nod" merely means "land of exile." The verse intends only that Cain fled from the others into exile. He took his wife with him, having married one of the daughters of Adam. Knowing of the command to increase and multiply, he feared that future men, hearing that he had murdered his own brother, would kill him if they found him.

Essentially all human beings are similar. Racial differences afford no real difficulty against humanity's unity of origin. In fact, all such differences are accidental, not essential. The geographical distribution of peoples even to the most isolated places from a common center is easily accounted for whether by land routes, or by primitive rafts and boats. And the mere fact of such dispersion would give rise to differences in language.

There is no evidence to tell us whether Adam was white, black, or between the two, much as the Arabs today. It is certain that all human beings are descended from Adam, whatever their color. How then account for the colors of different peoples? Simply by natural factors, such as climate, operating through thousands of years, the effects becoming permanently ingrained by heredity. As regards color, it is certain that it depends neither upon the blood nor upon the skin itself. Beneath the skin there are pigment cells which are the sources of color, and which are affected by many things, heat, cold, mode of life, etc. Darwin himself admits, in his book "The Descent of Man," that diversity of color is no sound argument at all against the derivation of all men from a common first parent.

There are no indications that it differed in length from the year as we know it. The attempt to diminish the length of the years lived by our earliest ancestors leads to formidable difficulties--far more formidable than the long lives granted to them. That men could live such long lives did God will them to do so affords little difficulty. And there are good reasons why they should do so, both for the purpose of the multiplication of the race, and for the preservation of primitive revelation through successive ages. That man does not live so long now can be due in no small way to the advent of sin and moral depravity. Vitality and vigor diminish in a degenerate race; and the general laws of heredity help to explain a progressive enfeeblement of humanity as a whole through the many thousands of years since its creation.

Her teaching on that subject is that of all sound philosophy. Man consists of body and soul, the body being material and perishable, the soul spiritual and immortal.

They have; and therefore the sense in which the words are used must be determined from the context in which they appear. The same thing is true of the English language. Both words are still used with very many different meanings. If we say of a sick person "poor soul," we do not imply that he is without a body. If we say that some friend was "the soul" of the party, we do not imply that others present had no souls of their own. If we quote the hackneyed lines, "Breathes there a man with soul so dead," we do not intend that his living body is animated by a soul that is actually dead. In the same way we can speak of the "spirit" of a man, intending the spiritual principle of his very being, or merely his mentality, or character, or intentions, or motives, or his influence, or a dozen other aspects of his person. But the fact that a word can be used in many ways does not destroy its value when it is used in a particular way. All that we have to ask ourselves is in what particular way the word is used in a given context. And when Christ said, "Fear not them that can kill the body, but who cannot kill the soul," Matt. X., 28, He obviously intended that the death of the body does not involve the death of the soul. And the only reason for that is the totally different nature of the soul from that of material objects. The soul is non-material, spiritual, and immortal, or not subject to physical death. It can be morally dead by sin; but that does not mean that it ceases to exist.

The mind or the conscience is not the soul itself, but a power possessed by the soul. The soul is a created spiritual being made in the image and likeness of God, the Supreme and Infinite Spirit. And just as we speak of the "Divine Mind" in God, or of an "angelic mind" in the angels, so the "human mind" is the power of intelligence in human souls. Conscience is merely a judgment of the human mind concerning the moral goodness or badness of conduct. So long as the soul is united with the body in this life, the soul exercises its intelligence or mind with the help of the material brain, which is like a telephone exchange linking it with all the bodily senses--senses which put us into contact with the material world around us.

In that text spirit and soul are the same thing considered under different aspects. As giving life to this body of ours it exercises the functions of a soul, and is the principle of sensitive life in us in conjunction with the sense faculties. But that same soul is, in its intrinsic nature, spiritual and in the image and likeness of God, capable of purely intellectual operations. Whilst the soul is immersed in a material body it must regulate the lower passions with God's help; but as purely spiritual, its mind and will must be united to God by truth and love; and when the soul is separated from the body these last operations are the ones that will persist. Therefore St. Paul speaks of our animating principle first in virtue of its higher and more important capacity as spirit; then in virtue of its lesser capacity as soul informing the body; and finally of the body itself. St. Paul, therefore, does not intend three principles in man, but two; one of which, the soul, he takes according to its two different functions.

Yes. Eternal destiny is but the manifestation of the true state of conscience in a saint or in a sinner at the moment of death. All that happens is that this state is fixed eternally. One is either in God's grace and friendship or not at the moment of death. What you are now would be your eternity were you to die now. "The Kingdom of Heaven" is within you--if you be in the grace of God. The life given by Christ to those who love Him and serve Him simply continues. Our earthly existence merely serves to enable us to get God's grace if we lack it; or to recover it, should we lose it.

No. So long as it is in this material body it needs the help of material bodily powers to exercise its intelligence. But once the soul is liberated from the body by death, it enters into a completely different state; and under the new conditions the mind or intelligence of the spiritual soul will be able to operate without the aid of a material brain and senses which are adapted to this world. Neither God nor the angels have any need of a body to exercise their spiritual powers. Nor will the human soul once it enters into the realm of the spirit beyond the portals of death. Therefore you can dismiss the idea that, immediately after death, the soul makes contact with another body. It will exist in a state of separation until the last day, when it will be united in the resurrection with the body it possessed in this life.

The patient was not really, but only apparently dead. His soul, therefore, was still united with his body. Normally speaking actual death does not occur until some hours after the heart has stopped beating. Death really and finally takes place when the soul has left the body; and no one maintains that the soul loses its association with the body the moment the heart stops beating. So long as any cells remain in a state of animation the soul can be present. For that reason the Catholic Church permits the anointing of the apparently dead up to two hours after the heart has stopped.

It is certain, of course, that Lazarus had really died, and that his soul had separated from his body. Then why couldn't he tell of his experiences? If we dealt with this question from the mere viewpoint of fact, we could say that there is no evidence that he could not have done so. However, it is not recorded that he ever did so. Personally I do not think that he had any conscious experiences to tell. God knew that the death of Lazarus was to be but for a few days, and that he was to be restored to life again. At once we see that his soul could not have encountered the fate of those whose term of probation in this life is definitely over. Some special provision had to be made for the soul of Lazarus. And I think it very probable that, just as the soul is inoperative as regards knowledge whilst still in a body under the influence of chloroform, so the soul of Lazarus, though separated from his body, was preserved in being, but with its normal operations suspended. Under such conditions Lazarus would simply know that he was restored to life, finding out from others how long he had been dead, four days.

There is every probability that they retain memories of those whom they loved or met during their life on earth. But there is no real probability that they are aware of things which have occurred since their death, except insofar as God may choose to manifest such knowledge to them. The human soul secures its information concerning this world through the bodily senses--seeing, hearing, and touching things. Those senses are its normal means of contact with this earthly life. But when the soul leaves the body, it is separated from these sense-faculties, and therefore loses the normal means of contact with the life we still experience.

Catholic dogmatic teaching absolutely excludes belief in thedoctrine of reincarnation, or the transmigration of souls, withtheir consequent reappearance in this world in other bodies.

Not in the least.

No. Henry VIII. was Henry VIII., and no one else. And Judas wasJudas. Under no circumstances could the one become the other. Norcould I imagine either wishing to be the other, even were itpossible.

No. Jesus Christ is "the same yesterday, today, andforever." He is the Eternal Son of God, who became man, wascrucified, died, and was buried. He rose from the dead and ascendedinto heaven in His glorified human nature. There will be no furtherincarnations of the Son of God in this world; but He will appear inall His glory and majesty at the end of time to judge mankind. AndHe will appear in the one human nature He took from the BlessedVirgin Mary. He will never acknowledge any other human nature asHis.

Sin is undoubtedly a fact in this world; and if the true religion be for men, it cannot overlook that fact. Religion cannot abandon the sinner to himself. It is there to do something for him, and chiefly to destroy sin. The word "sin" is from the Latin word "sons" meaning "guilty"; and he who is guilty of moral evil is a sinner. Such moral evil is an offense against God.

Inability to do actual harm to God personally does not mean innocence and irresponsibility. As a matter of fact, One whom we cannot hurt because of His greatness and majesty deserves the greater reverence. And one does offend God in His designs by opposing His will of perfection and order. Moral evil introduces discord and abominations into the harmony of God's work. You say that evil-doers do not intend this, and have no thought of offending God. It may be that sinners rarely think of this aspect. Some do. But the majority rather seek to have whatever they desire, and merely ignore God's will. They would prefer to be able to sin without offending God. But that is not the wish to avoid evil. It is merely to wish that evil were good. That, however, cannot be; and they deliberately choose evil, despite God's prohibition.

Those words are certainly not meant to be taken literally, for such mutilation of self would be sinful; and one can avoid sin without having to do that. Christ was driving home the lesson that sin as such, and above all grave sin, is the greatest of all evils. Speaking to the Jews He used a mode of speech with which they were quite familiar. He meant: "The salvation of your soul is your chief work." He chose a metaphor from surgery which, to save the body, has at times to amputate a limb or remove an organ--in those days a most painful business. And He meant, "Be ready to endure any suffering or trial rather than sin. Even had you to pluck out your eye or cut off your limbs--a thing which will never be necessary--deliberate sin would still be the worse alternative."

There certainly are two kinds of sin, some of a very grave character called mortal sin; others of a less grave character called venial. Mortal sins rob the soul of grace, and forfeit one's union and friendship with God. The man who deliberately disobeys the known law of God in grave and serious matters sets himself up against God, turns away from Him, and renounces His friendship. By doing so he turns his back on his eternal destiny in favor of a futile and transitory pleasure or advantage. Venial sins do not have such a far-reaching effect; but they do render one less pleasing in God's sight. The man who respects God's will in serious matters, but who offends in smaller matters, does not forfeit God's friendship altogether; and, therefore, by retaining His friendship, he maintains the true direction of his life towards God. But he does stray from the direct path of the good; and for that he will need forgiveness, and have to undergo proportionate purification of soul.

Venial sin is a sin--not "more or less" a sin. But there can be sins of more or less gravity. Sin is a crime insofar as it is a violation of God's laws. Now God is not less just than men. And crimes against human laws are of more or less gravity. Thus, we have capital crimes and penal crimes. Some offenses against civil law are so venial that the highest penalty for them is a small fine. The Judge may not inflict more. Murder, however, is in a different category altogether. It is a capital or mortal sin against the law, and can merit deprivation of life itself. Your own sense of justice will tell you that these distinctions between crimes against state laws are justified. And the same principle must apply to crimes against God's laws.Mortal sin puts one beyond the pale of God's friendship; venial sin does not do so, but it carries with it its just penalties.

It may be just as much stealing, but it is not stealing just as much--even in God's sight. We do not say that venial sins are little sins as if they were negligible. Though they are not so grave as mortal sins, Catholic doctrine insists that no sins, grave or less grave, are ever justified.

God

Man

Religion

The Religion of the Bible

The Christian Faith

A Definite Christian Faith

The Protestant Reformation

The Truth of Catholicism

The Church and the Bible

The Dogmas of the Church

The Church and Her Moral Teachings

The Church in Her Worship

The Church and Social Welfare

Comparative Study of Non-Catholic Denominations

To and From Rome

Catholic Apologetics in Question & Answer Form

God

Man

Religion

The Religion of the Bible

The Christian Faith

A Definite Christian Faith

The Protestant Reformation

The Truth of Catholicism

The Church and the Bible

The Dogmas of the Church

The Church and Her Moral Teachings

The Church in Her Worship

The Church and Social Welfare

Comparative Study of Non-Catholic Denominations

To and From Rome

QUESTIONS IN VOLUME 2

502. Through the ages your Church has stood in the way of freedom of thought, even apart from theological matters.

503. Why has she exercised such a retarding influence on the advance of civilization?

504. History records many instances where the Church opposed lines of thought later proved to be right.

505. In the middle ages learning was discouraged for the mass of the people.

506. Independent scientific thought was regarded as heresy.

507. For predicting flying machines Roger Bacon was looked upon as being in league with the devil and was severely punished.

508. Copernicus was attacked by the Church as a heretic because he said the earth went round the sun.

509. How can an infallible Church approve such sciences today after bitterly opposing them in the past?

510. The Church is infallible in her moral teachings, and her opposition was on moral grounds.

511. I am surprised that you should even try to defend the obviously superstitious teachings of Catholicism, and gloss them over.

512. You know quite well that in the dark agesimmediately preceding the Reformation theology tried to sanctifysuperstition.

513. Did not the Schoolmen spend their time debatingsuch questions as the number of angels that could sit on the pointof a needle?

514. Science leaves no room for an other-worldly religion.

515. Before a thing can exist it must have a definite beginning and an end. Time and space are the only exceptions.

516. Unless matter can give physical evidence of its presence, it simply does not exist.

517. Science has proved the existence of matter by revealing stars thousands of light years away.

518. Yet what evidence has science given us of the existence of what people of all creeds refer to as "the better world"?

519. Let us turn to your abstract and intangible dogmas; and firstly the doctrine of the Trinity.

520. To the lay mind it seems a hair-splitting of terms which cannot be of supreme importance.

521. Wherein lies the significance?

522. Isn't it merely ways of thinking of God, drawn from Plato?

523. Are the names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, merely different titles of the one Being?

524. Who first promulgated the doctrine that Christ is equal to the Father in power and glory?

525. Can you find one Scripture text containing the word Trinity?

526. Can we suppose that the doctrine of the Trinity is taught in the Bible, yet no such word is there?

527. The recurring genitive indicates a plurality of names, so that we should say, "In the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost." In that case the one name does not indicate one Divine Nature.

528. If you discount grammar in the interests of a particular exegesis words lose the power to prove anything.

529. When St. John says, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God," God was the subject of attribution where His word was concerned just as your hand is the instrument of your own conduct.

530. God the Father is explicitly stated.

531. When Christ said, "My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?", whom did He address? Was He speaking to Himself?

532. What did the expression imply?

533. I certainly do not understand the mystery of the Trinity.

534. Turning to visible things around us, I cannot see what is wrong with eternal evolution.

535. Creation in time is a great mystery to me, and I cannot see how the world could be created.

536. Was creation an instantaneous act in the beginning, or does God still create?

537. You people who believe in the Bible are apparently prepared to repudiate certain scientific facts arrived at by the ceaseless and untiring work of generations of earnest men.

538. One fact you repudiate is that the earth is at least 2000 million years old.

539. You have to repudiate the fact that the earth was not suddenly created out of nothing, but was formed slowly from a mass of molten matter.

540. I refuse to practice any religion until the theory of evolution has been refuted.

541. In their book "The Science of Life" Wells and Huxley seem to prove the evolutionary origin of life.

542. Do I understand that you believe only in evolution within the species?

543. Your halting, tame, and tepid faith in the theory of evolution astonishes me. It would have earned for you the martyr's crown in the Middle Ages!

544. The whole attitude of your Church has changed on this point.

545. Your Church says now, "Evolution might be true. We do not know. If it is proved to be true, then we shall believe it." And that is authority speaking in the name of God!

546. Organic evolutionists can point to visible proofs of their theory which would appear almost overwhelming.

547. I believe in God, but I do not believe in theCatholic doctrine that besides this material universe He createdangels.

548. One can go only by his senses.

549. Would you please tell me what an angel is?