Universal and all embracing

As a proud Catholic, I am often surprised by people accusing Catholics of being closed to non-Catholics. I can honestly confess that not once in my life have I come across an official Catholic teaching that excludes people or discriminates against any group based on race, sex or religion, whether they are Catholic or not. In the movie "Angels and demons", Robert Langdon, played by Tom Hanks is hot on the trail of a dangerous gang plotting to murder important Catholic Cardinals and take control of the Vatican. He's trying to get the help of Commander Richter, the top cop of the Vatican to try and stop the next murder. The dialogue goes:

Robert Langdon: If you care at all about your church, you'll listen to me.

Commander Richter: My church? My church comforts the sick and dying. My church feeds the poor. What does your church do, Mr. Langdon? That's right. You don't have one.

The movie is a work of fiction₁₂, but the above statement by Richter is one of the few truths in the movie. Commander Richter shows an important reason why Catholics should be proud of their faith. In India itself, Catholics make up about 2-4 percent of the population. However, the Catholic Church is the strongest contributor to healthcare and education, with more than 3,300 member institutions part of CHAI (Catholic Health Association of India) including 484 large hospitals, more than 2000 medium as well as small hospitals and health centres, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. It is not difficult to make speeches and talk about inclusiveness, but to reach out and work for the poor takes real sacrifice and commitment. In an era of individualism, it is clear sign of a divine presence that so many Catholic priests, religious and even lay people are dedicating their lives in service of the poor. Agree there are faults in the Church, but that is true of any institution made up of fragile human beings.

Universal Church

So maybe in healthcare and education the Church reaches out to the poor, but does the Church discriminate when it comes to openness to other faiths? This is where a lot of misconceptions about the Church come to light. The Church is open to people of all faiths, regardless of their nationality, cast of creed. In the early Church, this was not easy to bring about. In fact, since Jesus, the twelve Apostles and early Christians were mostly Jews, there was actually a disagreement, you can even say a quarrel between Peter the leader of the early Church, and Paul - one of the most important early missionaries. Paul felt that Peter was discriminating against non-Jews and challenged him about it. Eventually the issue was resolved. But the important thing here is that for the early Christians being open to non-Jews was a natural challenge, because for years they believed themselves to be the chosen people. However, this changes dramatically in Acts 10, when Cornelius receives the Holy Spirit, which was considered a privilege only for Jews. The apostles are surprised about this but realize that God has chosen to open wide the gates of the Church to all people. Later Paul went to many countries all around the Mediterranean to preach Christ. This Christianity reached the "ends of the earth" for the first century believers (for first century people, the ends of Roman empire were the ends of the world).

Did you know that the word Catholic means universal? The word Catholic was first used by Ignatius,  Bishop of Antioch in the first century A.D. He said to the people of Smyrna in a letter:

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.

So contrary to what one might assume, though the Eastern Schism and the Protestant Reformation created new churches, the Catholic Church was not named as such during the schisms. Rather, it was right from the beginnings of Christianity in the 1st century A.D, that the word Catholic was associated with the Church. At that time, there was only one Church. Though now there are many denominations, there is a strong move towards unity of the Churches.

Biblical Roots of the Church

As a Catholic, my Church claims to have been founded by Jesus Christ, a claim supported by history. We know from the Bible and from several other non-Biblical sources, that the Apostles of Christ preached Christianity after the death and resurrection. Paul mentions in his letters, his conversion story from a staunch Jew, and a fierce opponent of Christians to someone who boldly preached Christ travelling far and wide on his missionary journeys. His transformation was effected through a vision of the risen Jesus on his road to Damascus to arrest the Christians there. Though for Christians, the Bible is the primary source about early Christianity, these events are corroborated by different other writings of the time.

The Bible says Jesus chose twelve apostles, but one of them he specially calls kepha (or rock in Aramaic). This is Simon Peter, about whom Jesus says

"You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

- Matthew 16:17-19

Jesus confirms this highly specific call to Peter after his resurrection in John chapter 21 -

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. 

- John 21::15-17  

 Any Christian accepts Jesus as Lord and Jesus word as the last word. So when Jesus says the above of Peter, it is clear that Jesus had a special role for Peter, which is mentioned very clearly in the Bible. No other apostle has anything similar written about him. "Feed my lambs" was a commission to Peter to be a shepherd or pastor of the Christians. The Bible is full of the examples where God is represented by a shepherd. Psalm 23 says "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want". In John 10:11, Jesus says "I am the good shepherd who lays down my life for my sheep". So it is clear that Jesus wants Peter to be a shepherd for all the sheep, that is the followers of Christ, the Christians. These passages are important because they show Jesus plan for the Church. After his death, resurrection and ascension, it was very clear to the Apostles how Jesus followers were to continue. There was to be a Church led by the Apostles. One Apostles would be the leader, the shepherd or pastor. Peter was the therefore the head of the early Church, representing Christ. He was to have the authority of Christ. A deeper study of the book of Isaiah reveals the meaning of some of the words used by Jesus in Matthew 16.

According to Isaiah 22, the prophet Isaiah is sent to a man called Shebna, the steward of the house of David to warn him that God will remove him from his office as steward (or Prime Minister) and put in his place Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. Isaiah 22:20

On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;

I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.

I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;

- Isaiah 22:20-23

This passage reveals the deeper meaning of the words "open" and "close". It also reveals the what Jesus means when he says keys to the kingdom (Matthew 16:18). Jesus clearly spoke the words so that there would be no doubt whatsoever in the minds of those who heard him, that Peter was going to be the head of the Church. Jesus wanted there to be one Church, one body of believers headed by a shepherd. The Catholic Church is that body of believers, which has remained for 2000 years, despite many struggles and dangers. It survives because it is blessed by Christ as the bride which will be ready when Jesus comes again in glory. When we say "Marana tha". Come Lord Jesus. But that time is not now, and there is much work to be done. Many poor to feed and sick and dying to take care of. This is how we reflect Jesus work - by reaching out to the poor and most abandoned and proclaiming the Good News - that God is with us, that He has come to this world of ours, He knows our pain and He is with us always, even to the end of time - Matthew 28:20.

Footnotes:

1. It is obvious that this movie is a story set in the future and hence is a work of fiction. However, there are several facts which the story depend on which are untrue. But dealing with this is beyond the scope of this article.

2. If you're Catholic, and you're wondering whether I watched "Angels and demons", I certainly did. The first Dan Brown film actually strengthened my knowledge of Church history - opening up questions, it led me to further strengthen my knowledge, sharpen my approach and prepare a better defence. The movie came up when I was checking out those playing on TV. As a senior member of the youth group, I watched this film so that I'd be better prepared in case a youth or someone has a question or two about the faith based on the film.

Myths and the Da Vinci code

Tomorrow is the feast of St. Martha of Bethany, and exactly one week after the feast of St. Mary Magdelene (July 22nd). These two are women, believed to be sisters, are venerated by the Catholic Church as Saints. Mary Magdelene was also the center of the book and movie "The Da Vinci code" by Dan Brown. I but decided to watch the movie, not with the hope of learning anything, but more out of curiosity, since the book has sold so many copies. One of the few things I learned from the movie is that either the author has little idea or has got mixed up about the Bible, early Christianity, Church history and quite a few other facts. A friend told me not enough is done to clarify the facts, so here goes:

Myth 1 - Mary Magdelene was the wife of Jesus, but the Catholic Church defamed her reputation

The Catholic Church actually venerates Mary Magdelene as a Saint, and an important one, at that. So she is someone to emulate and pray to for intercession. The sources quoted in Dan Brown's movie - the gospel of Mary Magdelene and the gospel of Philip are the so called Gnostic gospels. These were written centuries after the life of Jesus, and centuries after the lives of Philip and Mary Magdalene (the Gospel of Philip was written about 250 AD), needless to say they could not have been written by Philip or Mary Magdalene.

Celibacy is not something invented by the Catholic Church. The Prophet Jeremiah was a celibate, and so were members of an ancient Jewish group called the Qumran community. This group actually advocated celibacy. Jesus told His apostles "blessed are those who become eunuchs for the kingdom of God", and Saint Paul writing to the early Christians said "I'd prefer you to be [celibate] as I am". Celibacy was by no means unnatural or unheard of among the early Christians, and co-existed alongside marriage.

Myth 2 - The Catholic Church invented the idea that Jesus was divine at the Council of Nicaea and changed the existing known understanding of a mortal, married Jesus

The divinity of Jesus was never in question to the early Christians as known by several references at different points in the Church's history. People living in Jesus time and leaders of the early Church spoke of Jesus divinity, some of which I quote here:

Jesus is called Lord, God, and Son of God in all four canonical Gospels (Matt 1:23; 4:3,6; 14:33; 16:16; 26:63-66; 27:40,43,54; Mark 1:1; 3:11-12; 14:61-62; 15:39; Luke 1:32,35; 8:28; 22:70; John 1:1-3,14,18,34,49; 3:16-18; 5:18,25-29; 8:58-59; 10:30-36; 11:27; 19:7; 20:28,31; etc), in Acts of the Apostles (Acts
3:13; 8:37; 9:20; 20:28; etc) and the New Testament epistles (Romans 1:3-4; 5:10; 8:3; 9:5; 10:9-10; 1 Cor 8:4-6; Gal 2:20; 4:4; Eph 4:13; Phil 2:5-11; Col 1:15-20; 2:9; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8-10; 4:14; 5:8; 10:29; 2 Peter 1:1,17; 1 John 3:8; 4:9-10,15; 5:5-13,20; etc). The divinity and deity of Jesus Christ is really unquestioned in the New Testament itself. These are the earliest Christian documents we have, despite the false claims of Brown. They are dated (with few exceptions) to the first century AD by all biblical scholars conservative or liberal.

St Ignatius of Antioch was a Christian leader who lived little after the time of Jesus (c.110AD). To quote his letter to the Ephesians:

Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia, which is worthy of all felicitation, blessed as it is with greatness by the fullness of God the Father, predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father IN JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD...."

"For OUR GOD, JESUS CHRIST, was conceived by Mary in accord with God's plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit.

This is from Ignatius letter to the Ephesians, the people of Ephesus (an ancient Roman city in modern day Turkey). Other places this can be seen in the same document are 7:2; 9:1; 18:2. Ignatius also calls Jesus Lord in his letter to the Smyrnaeans in chapter 1 verse 1.

St. Justin the 'martyr' (c.100 - 165 AD) wrote in his First Apology:

"Although the Jews were always of the opinion that it was the Father of all who had spoken to Moses, IT WAS IN FACT THE SON OF GOD, who is called both Angel and Apostle, who spoke to him; they are, therefore, justly accused by both the prophetic Spirit and by Christ Himself of knowing neither the Father nor the Son. They who assert that the Son is the Father are proved to know neither the Father, nor that the Father of all has a Son, who is both the first-born Word of God AND IS GOD [John 1:1].

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c.40 - 202 AD) wrote in Against Heresies

....and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to re-establish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD AND GOD AND SAVIOR AND KING, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue shall confess Him, and that He may make just judgment of them all....

Myth 3 - 325 - 30 = nearly 400

On a more humourous note, the Council of Nicaea supposedly happened almost 4 centuries after Christ, according to Brown, while its actual date is around 325 AD. The Council of Nicaea was not responsible for establishing belief in the divinity of Jesus. The Council was called to clarify precisely how the Son of God related to God the Father (as "one in being [or substance or essence] with the Father" as the Creed states). As for it being a "relatively close vote" -- the final tally was 300 bishops (give or take a few, the exact number is uncertain) to two. Nobody at the Council was there thinking Jesus was just a "mortal prophet" -- not even the Arian heretics who clearly believed Jesus was "divine" or "God" in some sense. The Council of Nicaea clarified the exact nature and meaning of Jesus as "Lord and God." The Council of Constantinople in 381 AD clarified further how the Holy Spirit related to the Father and the Son in the Holy Trinity (Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14).

Existence of God - the Moral Argument

C.S Lewis "Mere Christianity" is a book worth it's weight in gold. As Archbishop Fulton Sheen says, the way to read a book is simliar to eating. You benefit more from it when after reading, you put it aside and "chew" on it.

I was chewing on Lewis arguments in the book and was struck how it corresponds with reality:

The news channel "Headlines today" was full of debates between Chetan Bhagat, the author of a book and Bollywood movie producer Vidhu Vinod Chopra. Chetan was claiming that he deserves recognizition for the story, which he is being denied. Apparently, he mentioned this on his blog and the rest took off from there.

There is clearly a moral dilemma here. But one thing to notice is that by the very act of writing about it on his blog, Chetan is appealing to a common morality which we all have. This is the morality which Lewis speaks of in his book. Another common place I can see Lewis argument is:

A person takes your seat in the queue, you protest that you came first.

This and many other instances in daily life indicate that we can argue or appeal based on the understanding that the listener shares a common morality - sense of justice in this example.

Now, it may be argued that this differs from culture to culture. For example, in the West, it may considered modest for women to wear a skirt, but not expose the midriff, but in India, the sari may worn without it being considered immodest.

The answer to this is that standards like modesty and courage cut across borders, even if the codes may be different. There is no culture, as Lewis argues (and Peter Kreeft in his book "Handbook of Christian Apologetics"), which patronizes immodesty or cowardice.

Origin of standards

So far we have seen that there is a common Moral Law, though moral practices differ. But where do these standards come from?

It cannot come from matter, since matter cannot think, cannot hold two ideas side by side and compare them. It needs a mind to weigh and judge one as better than the other.

It cannot come from the individual, since it is something Universal and does not differ from person to person. We are bound by the Moral Law. We know it to be right and try to explain ourselves when questioned.

If someone asked me why I have taken the place in the queue, I'd give an explanation based on some reason because I feel bound to justify myself.

Therefore, this Moral Law cannot come from the individual.

It may be claimed that this comes from society. Well, if that were true, then what is society? A nation, or ethnic / religious group? Whichever kind of group it may refer to, how can the collection of individuals be right about something which the individual cannot? Society cannot be a source of the Moral Law because it is a Universal Law which consists not of codes of conduct, but underlying principles. Behaviour and dress codes differ across societies, but the underlying principles like courage and modesty do not.

The only possible answer is that they come from something higher than us. This something must have a mind to think of conduct. This something with a mind that is greater than us is perfectly compatible with the Christian concept of God. He is a good God, and a law giver. He loves good and despises evil.

There can be another view here. One may claim the common standards of morality come from one's conscience. But where does conscience get its authority? The possible alternative sources of this authority - matter, the individual and society do not satisfy for the same reasons that they do not satisfy as an explanation for the origin of the Moral Law.

Conscience cannot get it's authority from matter because that would require a mind. Without a mind, moral possibilities cannot be weighed and judged.

Neither can the authority of conscience come from the individual. I cannot bind myself with a law I have invented. If I do, I can quite easily release myself.

Society cannot, either, be the source of the authority of conscience, because:

1. Society is just a collection of individuals. Surely number does not make something right.

2. There are rebel reformers who oppose prevalent social evils, what about reformers who oppose the accepted view.

The Good Law-giver greater than us

Peter Kreeft mentions these in his Moral Argument and Argument from Conscience. And he quite rightly points out that this is only a small portion of what Christians believe as God. A Good Law-giver is still a long way off from the Christian God, but it is certainly compatible with Him, while materialistic view of the Universe does not explain either the origin of the Moral Law or the source of the authority of Conscience.

Finally, whether you are a believer looking for wisdom and clarity, or an agnostic or atheist open to the truth, "Mere Christianity" is one book that would figure on my list "books to read before you die". Still, I rate the "Handbook of Christian Apologetics" as a the best book on Apologetics I have read. A true gem, and it gets my ten on ten.

The World War Pope and the Holocaust

The Holocaust saw the death of some 6 million Jews. This was probably one of the most gruesome events in our history, when untold suffering was unleashed on the hapless Jews - a systematic and organized extermination fueled by Hitler's madness. Could something have been done to stop this? What about the Pope? Did he do enough? There is a rumour that Pius XII, the then Pontiff, did nothing to save them. Here's a video with newspapers and significant people of that time revealing some truth about this man's life:

As the video shows, the myth that the Pope remained quiet did not start until years after the death of the Pontiff. The play called "The Deputy" tried to spread this fabricated story, with no basis in facts. Today, decades later, such myths propound as much, if not more than facts. This does not do justice to the real person of Eugenio Pacelli, the Pope during the Second World War.

Myths about this historical icon, who defied Hitler are in fact just lies. This man, as a true disciple of Jesus, extended his hand and his heart to the Jews as if they were his own people. This is a witness of love of God and love of neighbour. Pope Pius XII rose to the great challenge for our world - to follow the Truth and live it out in one's concrete life. Not without reason did Israel Zolli, Chief Jewish Rabbi take the name Eugenio, the first name of this Pope, showing his deep respect for this great man.

The Crusades and their Interpretation

I used to play the game "Age of Empires" years back. In one of the episodes, you get to play Saladin, a general who fought the Crusaders. As you play the game (you are controlling the Persians), you see peasants crying "The Crusaders are attacking our caravans" and "The Crusaders are attacking our trade routes".

Few of us today have studied the historical facts of the Crusades. History tells us that Saladin won the war he was involved in with the Crusaders. It turns out that most of the Crusades after the First failed to achieve their objective - to free Jerusalem from the Muslims and making it available to Christian pilgrims.

Brief Background of the Crusades

Mohamed founded the Muslim religion by preaching about the one God, Allah. He claimed divine revelation from the angel Gabriel. After his death in 632, there was disagreement about succession. The Shia and Sunni divisions we have till today are based on two lines of succession - Ali, nephew of Mohamed and Abr Bakr, one of his closest disciples.

Military conquest expanded Muslim influence. They took Jerusalem in 638 A.D. By 700 they had North Africa and Middle East. Then, they took modern day Turkey. What was then Nicaea is now called Istanbul. So they covered areas all around the Mediterranean, entering Spain and the Iberian Peninsula in 711. By 846, a Muslim raiding party sacked St Pauls outside the walls and St Peter's Basilica. So there was a century long conquest without response.

In 1009 A.D, the church of the Holy Sepulchre, considered the holy shrine, where Jesus is believed to have been buried, was destroyed completely. It was not until 1095, that the First Crusade was dispatched to recapture Jerusalem.

Meet the Crusaders

Leaders all over Europe unanimously agreed that they needed to free Jerusalem for pilgrims to the Holy Land. People from all over Europe gathered and went East via Constantinople fighting different armies on their way to Jerusalem. The Holy City was captured by 1099.

Military historians agree that if the Crusaders went further, they could have dealt a blow to the communication center of the Muslim world and prevented them from recuperating, ensuring holding Jerusalem for long. But their objective was to make it possible for pilgrims to visit they holy places in Jerusalem, so they stopped there. Successive Crusades hardly achieved their desired goals. Saladin successfully defended Jerusalem and sent back the armies from Europe.

The Muslims expanded further in the centuries after the First Crusade, capturing Bulgaria and Serbia by 1390. Constantinople was next, captured in 1453. In 1492 they were beaten back from Spain, but they advanced from the Eastern side of Europe. After the lands around Black Sea, their land and sea assault challenged many lands. Their pirates sacked towns in Great Britain and Iceland about 1500. They laid Vienna to siege in 1529. In 1571 in the there was a great naval battle of Lepanto near Italy, where a a fleet of hundreds of ships fought on either side. Eventually, the Holy League defeated the Ottoman Turks, bringing lasting security.

Regensberg Speech - Pope Benedict XVI

The history of military conflict goes on, but the above summary of history between the 7th and 16th centuries, suffices for our context - the conversation quoted by Pope Benedict XVI in his speech at Regensberg, Germany. The Pope quoted a conversation between the Byzantine emperor and an educated Persian. The emperor spoke about a verse in the Koran, sura 2:256. He spoke about the differences between Christianity and Islam.

During those days, the language was more brusque than it is today. The emperor spoke with the background of the violent history of Islam and said that violence is not needed to spread religion. At Regensberg, Pope Benedict XVII was speaking about this conversation in an academic setting. The intent was not to attack Muslims by any means. However, the media quoted what the Byzantine emperor said as if the Pope himself said it. Put plainly, it is an instance of something taken right out of context. This is the cause for misinterpretation that we know, leading to much violence.

The Evolution Debate

When the topic of Evolution comes up, there are two extreme opinions. One side says that no evolution could have happened because everything was created by God in 6 days. So Evolution is completely impossible. The other side regards Evolution as established truth. For people in this second category, Evolution has conclusively proved the Bible wrong. It seems that one has to choose between the two views. I beg to differ.

Evolution and the existence of God

There is a major confusion about the connection between Evolution and the existence of God. I say that Evolution need not exclude the possibility of God's existence. Rather, it is completely compatible with the existence of God, the Creator. It is not Evolutionists, rather materialists that take the extreme view that Evolution has proved the Theistic claim false.

There is an interesting point that is worthy of note about the compatibility between the so called book religions or Western religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and Evolution. In both, there is a progression from simple forms to more complex creatures, not the other way around. Only one stream of evolution, a materialistic evolution that happens ultimately by chance is incompatible with belief in a Creator. But evolution is not limited to that interpretation.

Insufficient data

The survival of the fittest presumes the arrival of the fit. Natural selection gives a reasonable explanation about why animals with particular characteristics like moths of a given colour, give way to those having a different colour over a period of time. This much can and has if I'm not mistaken, been measured and observed. But for one species to lead to another is quite another matter - it is a giant leap to take, not backed by sufficient data. And to conclude that this "Origin of Species" happens by complete chance, just on its own? Someone explain the rationale behind this kind of assumption.

We are speaking as if Evolution is established fact. This is not completely true. The test of any scientific theory is empirical data. Anthropologists have found some fossil records of species with different levels of development. However, they have not found sufficient intermediate species to show a clear progression from simple to complex life forms. When the relationships between different elements was expressed as the periodic table, there was some data to show it possible. Later, when missing elements were found, it corroborated what was earlier a possible and plausible explanation. Honest examination of the data for Evolution does not yield the same clarity and prove it indisputable.

Mind over matter?

Here's a mock dialogue with a blind chance Evolutionist:

Evolutionist: Evolution has proved the Bible wrong

Rebel: So you're convinced Evolution is proven fact. You say we all came from apes?

Evolutionist: Yes, we are all products of Evolution. Accept defeat.

Rebel: Why should I?

Evolutionist: You ought to be convinced. It's clean enough to my mind? Doesn't yours.

Rebel: Ah, so you trust your mind, and expect me to trust mine? And you say these evolved by blind chance?

Almost every sane person (in fact even an insane person) trusts his mind. So we believe our minds have a positive ability to understand and know truth chance. It begs the acceptance of deliberate intentional design to direct a possible Evolution to yield our human species.

The Great Mind and our existence

In the true scientific spirit, the search for evidence to verify Evolution - exploring, discovering and examining the data that corroborates or refutes it will continue. Nevertheless, the fact that we exist here on earth and can think and reason bears witness to the fact that there is a Great Mind that willed us to be here. We are deliberately bestowed with intelligence - to be able to think, reason, invent, improve our lives, both individual and collective.

The Galileo Controversy

Many people believe that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for his heliocentric theory, forcing him to recant. I recently read an excellent article about the Commons - software, literary and artistic products here. While praising the sharing of ideas, and intellectual freedom, the author writes:

Scientists learn from very early in their training the faults of suppressing information, perhaps most iconically in the person of Galileo Galilei, who published evidence supporting the Copernican theory that the planets orbited the Sun (primarily his observations of Jupiter’s satellites), and was proscribed and forced to recant his beliefs by the Catholic Church.

Scientists view Galileo in heroic terms, and the Church’s resistance to the Copernican theory was ultimately futile. Without the Copernican theory, we’d have never made it to the Moon. So it is fitting that Galileo’s famous hammer and feather experiment was actually demonstrated by Cmdr. Dave Scott at the Apollo 15 landing site on the Moon.

Galileo is presented as the person who proved the Copernican theory, and the Church as anti-scientific and out-dated. Since neither you nor I were present then, we can only understand about the facts if we delve a little deeper.

Myth #1: The Catholic Church hates science

Scientific discoveries require funding to be sustainable. The Church funded many scientific discoveries over the centuries and many eminent scientists where priests, for example, Georges Lemaitre, who proposed the big bang theory; or religious or sponsored by the Catholic Church. Nicholas Copernicus, who proposed the heliocentric theory was a canon of a Cathedral, and dedicated his work to Pope Paul III. These are just a couple of examples from a whole list of priest scientists.

Myth #2: The Church was afraid that science would prove the Bible wrong

The Church did not immediately endorse Copernicus theory, because She decided to proceed with caution until things were proved conclusively. This is because the Church believes She has been entrusted with the mission by Jesus Christ, to safeguard the truth, so that people may not be misled. So proceeding with prudence, She did not change her stance before time.

The Church does not say that the Bible is a scientific or historical book. Though it contains these aspects, it was written with the intention of showing God's creative, redemptive and salvific action in human history, containing stories, wisdom and lessons to teach people. So interpretation of Scripture should be in the context of what it was written.

Myth #3: Though scientists knew that heliocentric theory was true, the Church rejected it

The accepted theory, not within the Catholic Church at the time, but among scientists, was towards geocentricism. Even Copernicus delayed the publication of his work because he feared ridicule from his colleagues. The Church did not interfere with science first. It was Galileo who interfered with religion first. He said that on the basis of his theory, the Bible is wrong. This was what the Church officials took exception to, not the theory itself. Even so, his trial and arrest were unwarranted.

Myth #4: Galileo was attacked though he did not provoke anyone

Galileo went to Rome to get Church approval, since this would guarantee good publicity for his work. The then pope, Urban VIII, was a friend of Galileo, and agreed.

Galileo placed a character of his making, called Simplicio in the book, who was a kind of joker and fool, and had Simplicio speak the Pope's words. The Pope felt mocked and insulted and Galileo was tried by a court.

Myth #5: The Pope's reaction contradicts papal infallibility

First, papal infallibility is applicable when the Pope is speaking in his public and official capacity as spiritual head of the Universal Church. This happens rarely, for example in the case on a canonization or the promulgation of a dogma. It is not applicable outside this realm, and certainly not in Galileo's case.

Second, the subject of the proclamation should be with regard to faith and morals, which was certainly not true in this case.

Also, the Pope should make a solemn proclamation to be held by all the faithful, and there are well defined, unambiguous formulas in which such teachings are made.

Finally, Papal infallibility is a charisma, personal to the Pope, not communicated to another. But in Galileo's case, the Pope did not personally conduct the trial, rather a certain Cardinal Bellarmine conducted it.

Myth #6: Galileo was tortured into submission by the Church

The reason matters went to such a stage was because of the personal reaction of Pope Urban to what he perceived as Galileo's mockery. Yet, quite contrary to belief, Galileo was treated very well when under house arrest, and was well provided for. The Church does not deny that Galileo's case should not have resulted in arrest and recently, Pope John Paul II apologised for the mistreatment of Galileo, though it was just a personal overreaction of a previous Pope, acting on his own, and outside the scope of his role as pastor of the Church.

Read more at Catholic Answers