Not Just Stuff

Jim Naughton reports on an interview between Patricia Churchland and Graham Lawton, concerning her book Touching a Nerve: The Self as Brain. Perhaps in a Freudian slip, she refers to her conclusions as, "unnerving..." But if you take away the nerves, by her standards, there can be no ideas!

The "mind-body" debate is a very old one, with a great deal of nuance. Even materialism has to first decide what "matter" is, and I don't think physics has yet plumbed the depths of material and energetic nature to the extent of absolute assurance. I don't think it is likely ever to be settled, as Churchland seems to think it is, through her process of elimination — which I fear looks a bit like a mere reluctance to accept others' perceptions as "real" — a hands over the ears and "la la la la" refusal even to accept the possibility that there is more to the mind than the brain, more to reality than just matter and energy.

Ultimately, neuroexistentialism is just another minimalizing answer to the question of Mind. I find such reductionist models less than helpful — and after all, why should I believe what Churchland or any other collection of tissues suggests is the ultimate reality?

Further questions remain: What if there is an ultimate reality to which, as Neal Stephenson suggests in Anathem, nerve tissue is uniquely sensitive and responsive? What if the brain, even if "just" tissue, is a sense organ designed to pick up on realities not otherwise sensible? What if Spirit is just as real as atoms?

If human beings are just sacks of meat, then soylent green is in our future. No thank you, P.C., I'll stick with the mind as more than the sum of its parts. As Teilhard so wisely said, "My matter is not a 'part' of the universe that I possess totaliter. It is the totality of the universe possessed by me partialiter." My mind exists outside my body, including in other minds — even as you read these words.

So here's to an expansionist, rather than a reductionist, understanding of the mind.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Welby Begins, Wilson Continues

There are hopeful signs from the General Synod of the Church of England. In particular, the opening address of Archbishop Welby, with a character of thoughtfulness and honesty, made some very good points, revealing something of his own process of coming better to understand “some issues of sexuality.” For example, he noted

Anyone who listened, as I did, to much of the Same Sex Marriage Bill Second Reading Debate in the House of Lords could not fail to be struck by the overwhelming change of cultural hinterland. Predictable attitudes were no longer there. The opposition to the Bill, which included me and many other bishops, was utterly overwhelmed, with amongst the largest attendance in the House and participation in the debate, and majority, since 1945. There was noticeable hostility to the view of the churches. I am not proposing new policy, but what I felt then and feel now is that some of what was said by those supporting the bill was uncomfortably close to the bone. Lord Alli said that 97% of gay teenagers in this country report homophobic bullying. In the USA suicide as a result of such bullying is the principle cause of death of gay adolescents. One cannot sit and listen to that sort of reality without being appalled. We may or may not like it, but we must accept that there is a revolution in the area of sexuality, and we have not fully heard it.

Powerful testimony, including the closing affirmation that the evidence has not been heard. How revealing that it took the voices of the lay Lords, some of them not Anglicans or Christians, to make a somewhat less than fully convicting impression on the Archbishop. It is also poignant in that it had to be these voices from outside the clerical circle, or outside the church's circle altogether, rather than the voices of his own gay and lesbian clergy — whose souls lie in his cure — who have had to live with the sad effects of not being asked and not telling (or at least not overtly, for fear of the consequences engineered in the system).

Let's hope for more honesty, more openness, less fear, on all sides. Bishop Alan Wilson, God bless him, shows one way forward, modeled on, of all people, Paul of Tarsus. It is the way of charity, honesty, and dialogue — the only way through the times when irreconcilable differences could otherwise separate and divide. It doesn't mean pretending differences don't exist. It means not judging one another on the basis of those differences. Someone more significant than Paul of Tarsus limned out that pattern of behavior for us.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
Tips of the biretta to Thinking Anglicans and Episcopal Café

Ethical Divide (?)

Over at Thinking Anglicans, the still swirling debate concerning the ordination of women to the episcopate has raised some questions about the underlying worldviews (or perhaps it would be better to say church-views) of the various sides. There is no doubt that there is on this issue a divide between traditionalists and progressives. But surely it is an error for the traditionalists to try to co-opt every element of the tradition, and to charge advocates for change with a wholesale abandonment of the philosophical bases of Anglicanism if not Christianity itself.

One of these claims took the form of the statement that the traditionalists are following a basically deontological system of ethics while the progressives have adopted a consequentialist mode of ethical thinking. There is a tiny grain of truth in this, to the extent that deontology tends, in itself, to be rather dogmatic and a bit less interested in the broader context of actions in determining their ethical weight. This may reflect a general tendency towards idealism and an attendant yearning for objectivity. But the suggestion that deontology is the standard mode of Anglican — or Christian — ethical thinking is unsupportable.

Let me first say a few words about these two approaches. Deontological ethics rest on the principle of duty — an action is right not because it leads to right results, but because it is right in and of itself, in conformity with law, whether human or divine. Consequentialism, as a species of teleological ethics, tends to look at the results of actions. Utilitarianism falls under this heading, as one particular manner of making judgments about the rightness of an action in terms of its producing the greatest good for the greatest number.

It has to be admitted that there is a deontological strand in Christianity, and hence in Anglicanism; as indeed there is in Judaism and Islam. Any ethical system that is based on law and obedience to law, especially when that law is held to have a divine mandate, will value duty and obedience as high ethical principles.

But it is equally true that Jesus himself appeared to take a consequentialist approach for much of the time — not looking at acts in themselves, but in a larger context including intent prior to action and results in the wake of action. This is perhaps summed up nowhere so well as in his teaching on the nature of Sabbath observance — that it is not observed simply for its own sake as a matter of duty, but for the good results that come from the observance, whether the right use of leisure, or the opportunity for acts of charity. He also adopts a strictly teleological ethic when he speaks of knowing virtue by the fruits it bears. In other words, there is a strong subjective element in the ethical teaching of Jesus; and his Summary of the Law, while it gives a nod to duty, also places a reflexive value on the moral and ethical relationship of oneself to others, as does the Golden Rule a fortiori.

In any discussions of changes in practice — whether the ordination of women or marriage equality — it is of little use, and of minimal persuasive value, to rest ones opposition on the charge that those advocating change are advocating change, and that only those opposed to the change are truly faithful to the tradition. As with the claim that traditionalists are absolutists and progressives moral relativists, it is a brush far too broad to paint an accurate picture. It is good to be aware of the underlying differences in philosophical approach employed by any argument, upon whichever side of the debate it is deployed; and it is perhaps helpful to attempt to have some agreement on basic philosophical or ethical approach prior to engagement. But many traditionalists, far from cleaving to the dogmatic and deontological, have often employed arguments that are at least in part teleological, or, as in the case of opposition to marriage equality, baldly utilitarian.

So let us deal with the actual content of arguments rather than their formal or philosophical attributes.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

---

Note to Pundits

To all of the pundits who predicted the election of Governor Romney by more than 300 electoral votes: There is no need to acknowledge your error, explain how or why you were mistaken, or express regrets or apologies. Reality is what it is, and has a way of taking care of itself without your input. It might be as well to remember this:

If a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it. — Deuteronomy 18:22

So I do have to wonder why the error-prone talking heads are still nattering away on the airwaves and intertubes, and why anyone would listen to them for any other reason than to assuage their own disappointment by listening to the echoes of their ideology. Perhaps that is reason in itself. Misery loves company, the old saying has it.

Meanwhile, it is time for the country to pick itself up, dust itself off, and get to work. The Republican members of Congress should realize that obstruction will not be long tolerated, and for most of you the next election is in two years. It is time to lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Mr. President, you have our attention. 

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

UPDATE: See this graphic from the inimitable folks at Slate.com. It is a graphic display of who among the pundits did well or poorly in their estimations. The fact that Conservative pundits were more "off" than the moderates or liberals testifies to the stupifying effects of their ideology.

tsh

Thought for 10.25.12

Bats and ideologues, while not literally blind, rely primarily on the echoes of their own voices for their livelihood.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Culture of Belief

I have no difficulty with people who ardently believe — or who ardently deny, for that matter — propositions that are incapable of proof or for which evidence is either scant or absent; to wit, that God is (though perhaps in some manner rather different from how things are). But what makes me wonder sometimes about the human race is the capacity to cling to beliefs or denials about which there is more than enough actual evidence, and in some cases incontrovertible proof, to the contrary.

This seems to be a malady that is aggravated by the closing chapters of the current political season. One can easily witness people, who by all accounts appear to be rational, fervently espousing propositions that are little more than nonsense, plainly false, proven to be false, and yet clutched to the breast like a life-preserver in a flood. Whether it is birth certificates or climate change, the abiding power of money to trickle down as of its own accord, the omnicompetence of states to solve all human ills by the mere redistribution of said money, or the marvelous capacity of women’s bodies to fend off microscopic cells even if unable to fend off the body of their larger host — ideologies corrupt the ability to perceive evidence and reach rational conclusions.

My principal fear as we slouch toward the November elections is that the common sense of the vast number of the people will be eroded by the vast stupidity of a few of the people. And I begin to fear that there is more stupidity than I suspected. Or more who are simply lying. That's always a possibility, though I'd like to believe otherwise, as little comfort as I take from thinking more people are stupid than are liars.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Identity as Response to Social Pressure

The Archbishop of Canterbury made some interesting observations concerning what is commonly called identity politics, which leads me to a thought that has been brewing for a few weeks, since I gave a talk at the Church Club on the history and development of the marriage canons.

I have often observed that people are most concerned about other people's identities. So society insists it know if one is male or female: note the anxiety comically portrayed in SNL's "Pat" sketches. This is where identity actually becomes political -- when the polis demands that one retreat from the Christ-like mode of New Adam into the "male" or "female" or "French" or "Welsh" for that matter.

After the talk at the Church Club, one gentleman in the audience was adamant that "marriage" ought not be used for same-sex couples, not on the grounds that it is an innovation or an inaccuracy, but on the grounds that henceforth when someone tells him he or she is married, he will have to ask if they are married to a person of the same or different sex. It is this man's need to know and annoyance at not knowing that makes the identity of the other significant. And of course, why he needs to know is based on his need to treat different people differently.


This reminds me of a feature of the Japanese language and culture, in which it is very important to know the identity of the person to whom you speak, because your societal relationship determines the form of language used, unless one is to be considered boorish for treating social superiors informally or impolitely! This is an example of identity very much determined by society, based on a need to classify and categorize rather than to deal with each and every individual as a unique entity, even without getting into the theological arena that holds each person to be a precious gift of God.

So long as people push their own "need to know" on others -- or are pushed by their society to feel such a need -- a degree of "identity politics" will remain in place. If all people were simply treated as people -- images of God each and every one, male and female, Japanese and Welsh -- much of this would disappear.

I'm not holding my breath.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Conviction is not Truth

Strength of conviction is not proof of rightness — it says more about the person than the premise.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Thought for 2.28.12

Why is it that some who are most fervent in defense of objective truth seem to adopt positions that are subjective at best and improbable at worst?

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Maxim for 02.18.12

Epistemic humility does not mean submitting to others’ certainties. It means sitting lightly with one’s own.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Thought for 2.18.12

There are few better sedatives than ideology.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
in response to a question from Grandmère Mimi about how certain people can sleep at night.

Thought for 02.10.12

Your religious rights end with your own body. You have no right to expect or demand that all will do as you believe all ought to do.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
with the emphasis on the expectation; one can, of course, “demand” anything one likes, but no one need heed those demands

The Outer Limits (of Communion)

We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical... We can change the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity. — Not The Joint Standing Committee of the Primates Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council

“Communion is the fundamental limit of autonomy.” So proclaimed the Windsor Report (¶82). This observation could be merely the recognition of the harsh reality that people often break up when one does something of which the other disapproves, even when the action is objectively within the competence, authority, or right of that other person. But “limits” here has a stronger, and more intentional meaning. It is not a mere marker of a transition point, but an attempt to bar the transition — not a mere border marker but a sentry point, armed and at the ready to prevent any incursion.

At its most generous reading, this represents an aspirational and idealistic approach to human and ecclesiastical affairs. The sentries do not want to shoot anyone; they do want everyone voluntarily to submit to the discipline. They want no one to do anything to offend anyone else. This must mean, when push comes to shove in the situational and real world, that some are expected to refrain from doing something — something they feel strongly about, something they think is right and that they have the right to do, something which the failure to do would be wrong — on the basis of the possible (or real) offense such action may (or will) give to someone else.

This becomes particularly difficult in our touchy times and even touchier Communion, in which a pervasive neuralgia and hypersensitivity seems to have afflicted portions of our former fellowship — to the extent that fellowship is now actually broken. A recent instance of this is the “Dear John” letter from Archbishop Daniel Deng Bul of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan to the Presiding Bishop of TEC. It is a masterpiece of high dudgeon, closing with, “We will not give TEC advice anymore, because TEC ignored and has refused our advices.”  Clearly, either you do as they think right, or that’s the end of it. If you do not take Sudan’s expert advice on the interpretation of Scripture, they will have nothing more to do with you.

All of this leads me to see things rather differently from Windsor, and from the optimistic view of the Communionists and Covenanters, and to place the shoe delicately on the foot of the one taking offense. It is not the exercise of autonomy that ruptures communion, but the abreaction of those who find that exercise intolerable. Thus: tolerance is the limit of communion. As I wrote back in December 2010

It is not possible to “agree never to disagree”; [but it is possible to adopt] a commitment “never to allow any disagreements to lead to a severance of communion or any other consequences to the covenanted relationship.” The short message is in this maxim: “It is never possible not to give offense; but it is always possible not to take offense.” ...It is always possible to forgive, in the manner of Christ, even those who do not think or know they need forgiveness. It is possible not to insist that all do as I do, or think as I think. This is the way of Christ...

It is, in the long run, more Christlike and more practically possible to “agree to disagree” while remaining committed to one another, “for better, for worse,” than to walk on ecclesiastical eggshells for fear of doing anything others might not like.

Case in point

Over at Thinking Anglicans, an interesting comment stream developed in response to the post about Jonathan Clatworthy’s worthy essay on the proposed Anglican Covenant. One commenter, in response to the appeals (such as my own) for an essentially laissez-faire model for the Communion, threw down the gauntlet (or the other shoe for the other foot) of lay presidency at the Eucharist as proposed in Sydney, Australia.

A few responded that such a thing would be a move beyond the pale, but a number of others, including myself, reflected that this is precisely what I would see as something to tolerate even while disagreeing with it — that is, I could tolerate, and believe the Communion could tolerate, Sydney approving such a novel experiment. I hasten to repeat that I would not personally support such an innovation and would oppose its introduction in my own province. Frankly, while I don’t see the idea catching on, I have my reasons for not feeling this need be a communion-breaking issue.

My general reason is that lay presidency is, as far as I can see, similar to the question of same-sex marriage or the ordination of bishops engaged in such marriages, to the extent that these questions cannot be answered by a sole appeal to Scripture. In Reasonable and Holy I have laid out at some length how I feel Scripture, Tradition, and Reason can support the broadening of marriage to include same-sex couples, and I won’t belabor that here.

But let me sketch out a few of the reasons I see lay presidency as a tolerable experiment, even though I do not support it, except perhaps in the emergency “desert island” situations in which I think the commandment of the Lord to “do this in remembrance of me” outweighs the church’s tradition requiring a priest or bishop to preside at the remembrance.

First, that “desert island” scenario is a good example of “the exception proves the rule.” There is a rule, no doubt about it, from very early on in the church’s history, that the eucharistic assembly is to be presided over by a bishop. This presidency came eventually to be shared with and committed to presbyters. But that evolution itself reveals that the rule is not hard and fast, and bears exceptions as it evolves. No doubt there were those in that transitional period who felt short-changed or took offense that the bishop was not the chief celebrant in their assembly, as the officiant’s task in a growing and spreading church was committed to mere “country-bishops” (chorepiscopoi) — who are very likely the genetic ancestors of our later “parish priest.”

This reveals a church willing to experiment — as experiment it must if it is to survive in a changing world, and evolves new ministries such as the diaconate and presbyterate as part of that experimentation. Look at Paul’s advice to Titus concerning establishing presbyters in Crete, for example. This is evolution and experiment at work.

As the Scripture gives no clear evidence as to who the celebrant must be, other than by commission of the apostles or someone commissioned by them, the question can turn to the various means by which this commissioning has been performed since their times. Although laying on of hands holds pride of place, insufflation, anointing, and the handing over of the instruments essential to the performance of the rite all have formed part of the elements of the rite by which a person was authorized to take on the office of Eucharistic presidency. The crucial factor is authorization, not the form or sign by which that authorization takes place, since the form or sign is of human origin. Late patristic scholar the Rev Canon Richard Norris was once asked, “What do you call a lay person authorized by a bishop to preside at the Eucharist?” His pert response, “A priest.” Celebrating the Eucharist is a“faculty” that when conferred, is conferred.

Moreover, old models of “confection” of the Eucharist by the celebrant have in more recent years given way to a much broader community-based understanding of the sacrament even in many “catholic” contexts. Sydney is not, as I understand it, talking of a kind of informal “anyone like to officiate?” model for the Eucharistic assembly, but the designation of certain individuals to take up this function. This may press the buttons of those — including myself — who favor the rich and sacramental understanding of ordination. But the buttons marked “Break Communion” or “Schism” need not be among those pressed.

Again, let me state that this is not meant to be an argument in favor of lay presidency. It is, however, an argument for toleration of such an experiment, for mission needs in face of pressing situations. Meanwhile, such a local experiment will either catch on or not, and no other province need participate or copy, and the economy of God will cover any other deficits. Or so I trust.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

---

No Way to Run...

Every time I come upon the passage from the 24th chapter of Acts (appointed for the Daily Office today) I am reminded of the resonance between references to the early church as “the Way” to the Rabbinic concept of Halakah: the law as a Way in which one walks.

This struck me particularly this morning because I have been thinking a great deal about the dangers of ideology, and how an ideology or a theory (properly understood as a “way of seeing”) can actually prevent one from seeing a deeper reality. The phenomenon is known as “perceptual set” in some circles, “paradigm blindness” in others. Put briefly, the way you see the world can come to dominate what you see. I referred in an earlier post to the old saying, “If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” If as Thomas Kuhn suggests, we need a shift in our paradigms in order to see changes in reality, it seems to me that across the board in many areas of our lives we need a whole new shift-load of paradigms!

For both in church and state these days ideology is at the forefront and reality has become deeply shrouded in veils of preconception. From conversations on climate change to sexuality, the debt crisis to marriage equality, the verbiage — I cannot in good conscience call it conversation for the most part — appears to be dominated by ideologies and theories rather than fact. (I cannot be the only one who is appalled to see what has become of journalism these days: and there are times I long for a supply of bricks next to my easy chair to toss through the television screen when a “news” program cuts from an actual live speech by a world leader to a panel of pundits even before the speech is finished!) Whatever reality there may be is cocooned in layers of opinion, and there is no sign of a butterfly emerging. Not a chrysalis, but a mummy.

But back to Saint Paul and the rabbis, and this idea of the faith being a “way” — and of course acknowledging that the Jewish tradition had long understood various “ways” as being either wicked or good, depending. (See Psalm 1!)

The major contrast I want to note is the difference between a way and a place. In this case I am particularly thinking about how Paul’s alleged insult to the Temple (in fact baseless) led to his having to defend this new Way. And what is ironic is that the old Way of rabbinic Halakah itself turned out to be the means by which this form of Judaism was able to survive the destruction of the Temple — a Temple which God appears, from the early record, not actually to have wanted all that much; God preferring the Tent and Tabernacle, or the terrifying Chariot, to the petrified establishment on the hill of Zion. (Ezekiel sees a new Temple, Revelation assures us there is no Temple in the New Jerusalem. Take your pick.)

So it appears to me that Christianity itself could well be seen as an emergent non-Temple-based Judaism (among the many Judaisms of the first century) that gets detached and takes on a life of its own; much as rabbinic (rather than Temple) Judaism continued the life of that faith because it had come to see the living out of the Way of God was not dependent upon an external institution but an internalized (both individually and corporately) Way of life under the guidance of a transcendent God.

So does this have anything to say to our current ecclesiastical troubles — say, in relation to a proposed Anglican Covenant or the Indaba Process as “ways” of working? Or to our civic, national, or international concerns — government as institution or government as way of being?

Discuss among yourselves and report back!

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

---

Asking the questions

Mark Vernon's Guardian column has a great catchline at the head, and while the article as a whole doesn't quite live up to the pugnacity and poignancy of the slug, it is well worth reading. The catchline or slug is,

Why do we have such an unbalanced attitude to doubt, demanding certainty where there is none, and pretending to doubt what everyone knows?

This got me thinking about the level of certainty with which some approach the question of same-sex marriage: they are completely sure it is ruled out by Scripture, in spite of the fact that the evidence is indirect and circumstantial (that is, the Scripture does not rule out SSM in so many words, unlike, for instance Sifra on Aharei Mot in the Jewish tradition); and yet they take a very chary attitude towards the evidence of the experience of those who live in or witness the evident virtues of such longstanding relationships, and dismiss it as if living "experience" were somehow less reliable than their just-possible interpretation of ancient documents, venerable though that interpretation may be.

One can sense this tension in the papers and responses that grew out of the House of Bishops Theology Committee blue-ribbon panel of theologians and scholars, recently published in the Anglican Theological Review. I've just finished reading them and am allowing them to percolate before saying any more in detail, but I did sense, in the "traditionalist" papers and responses a growing awareness of this dissonance between ideology and reality.

The question is, in reference to Vernon's catchline, How long are people expected to submit to an unverifiable requirement when the experience of their own lives and of those closest to them casts more and more doubt on its veracity?

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Of Starfish, Spiders, and People

This morning I listened to an NPR interview with Ori Brafman, author of The Starfish and the Spider:the Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations. It got me thinking about how little I care about ideology. That is, I'm not one who goes for the starfish or the spider, the federation or the dictatorship, monarchy or democracy. Starfish are great at self-perpetuation and coral reef predation, but what else do they do? Spiders (at least some of them) build webs of astonishing intricacy. Both seem to be good at what they do.

But what about humans? People can be good or bad at governing themselves and other humans, and no system will guarantee a maximum best of all possible worlds. I reject the old saw that "democracy is a terrible form of government but better than all the others" simply on the facial evidence. There have been terrible, repressive, abusive and dehumanizing democracies; and there have been noble, righteous and humanizing monarchies.

In short, systems, as interesting as they may be, as important as they are, are not the answer. Those who put their hope in a system --- that if we just got it right --- all would be well, are fooling themselves with the dream of Utopia, which means nowhere.

I would start the Pragmatist Party if I thought starting a party would accomplish anything. But I know it would just be one more voice in the whirling storm. Yet it is ultimately how each human acts -- each human him or herself a form of government with a head and heart and hands -- that will produce the net effect of any society's worth.

And yet each one of us is living in the flesh the drama of coalescence and senescence and evanescence; each of us a little State soon subject to overthrow as the Monarch loses power, the Workers go on strike, the Resources are exhausted.

Vanity, all is vanity, saith the Preacher.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Thought for 12.30.09

I am struck by how much theories of Natural Law share principal characteristics with Creationism, Phlogiston, and the Lumeniferous Æther... as opposed to Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Relativity.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Thought for 11.12.09

One of the tragic discontinuities in the Western Christian Tradition, since Augustine anyway, is the notion that the universe at hand (that is, as we know it) is simply not as it ought to be. This offers a neat way to avoid any data that might actually be at our disposal in favor of unrealized (and unrealizable) idealistic hopes and dreams. That this worldview is not one Jesus would have comprehended ('the kingdom is among you') is bypassed in the interests of privileging some of what is "natural" over and against other things equally "natural" (but deemed "fallen"). And the choice is sometimes quite arbitrary, depending on whose cow is sacred, and whose ox is gored.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Generalities -- Thought for the New Year

Generalities are fine (when accurate) for making general decisions, but less helpful for making decisions on individual cases. One may assert, and it may be true, that "most people arrested for a crime are found guilty" -- but that is no reason simply to stop having trials and assume all persons arrested are guilty. When a generalization has many exceptions, it is proportionately less useful as a tool for discernment and action. As the old saw has it, "It is always wrong to make sweeping generalizations."

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Some thoughts on Benedict’s Natural Lawsuit

The Pope is closing out Advent and bringing us into Christmastide with yet one more rendition of his favorite theme: natural law and its place in scholastic theology, in particular as it speaks to the divinely ordered status of men and women qua men and women. (I like to use qua in contexts such as this, as it gives the appearance of seriousness to an otherwise trivial concept: that men and women are men and women.) It's what the Scholastic Theologians got from this that is the problem; and the pope is hammering away on his one-note marimba once again. As the officers will say at a roadside accident, "Nothing to see here; move along."

I can't help but take note, however, about the insistent persistence of this outmoded metaphysic, and the natural law to which it gives rise. Of course, as reported in the Australian, the pope told his audience, "It is not 'outmoded metaphysics'" to urge respect for the "nature of the human being as man and woman."

Oh, but it is, when you get beyond the respect due to individual men and women, and try to draw conclusions for the whole, in an essentialist mode. "Scholastic theology" is at the root of the problem. For all of his Scriptural references, when it comes to anthropology Aquinas relies as much on "the Philosopher" (i.e, Aristotle) as on Scripture. This is precisely where the outmoded metaphysics comes in. Not only outmoded (lots of old fashioned things are just fine!) but wrong. Just factually wrong, erroneous, mistaken. I mean, read Aquinas on where babies come from and how sperm is made, and what the fundamental difference between man and woman is. Any theology based on falsehoods cannot claim to be in keeping with the one who is the Perfect Truth.

Of course, back in the days when he went by Ratzinger, the present pontiff had defended the church's actions in re Galileo; continuing to affirm the authority of the magisterium over against the insufficiencies of mere secular science.

Infallible? Sed contra.

And while I'm at it, let me make an observation about the pope's "ecological" concern about human nature and the damage any legitimizing of same-sex relationships or other gender-bending might cause to society as we know it, perhaps leading, as he suggests, to its "destruction." As quoted by John Allen in NCR:

[The Church] must also defend the human person against its own destruction. What's needed is something like a 'human ecology,' understood in the right sense. It's not simply an outdated metaphysics if the church speaks of the nature of the human person as man and woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected... Here it's a question of faith in creation, in listening to the language of creation, disregard of which would mean self-destruction of the human person and hence destruction of the very work of God...

Yes, let's listen to creation, and take heed that if celibacy were given approval, then too many people might become celibate, and the human race would die out.

Oh, wait.

Blessed Feast of the Incarnation -- when perfect Truth dared enter this world in a completely unnatural way, and without making use of what Benedict sees as the God-ordained pairing of male and female. Odd that God chose not to use what Benedict thinks all folk should choose.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
with a tip of the hat to Episcopal Café