The Principle of Double Effect

Some philosophers, such as Peter Knauer, have argued that the principle of double effect is the "fundamental principle of ethics." I would argue that this position is overstated, but that nonetheless, an analogous extension of the principle of double effect might correctly be called the fundamental principle of ethical "problems." How so? The truly fundamental principle of moral action is "do good and avoid evil." And so the fundamental moral "problem" to be encountered and dealt with, is the twofoldness of an action, when an action has something good and something bad about it.

The principle of the double effect is usually traced back to Thomas Aquinas, but its modern formulation derives from Cajetan and others. The principle is usually articulated along the following lines: an act with two effects, one good and bad, is a morally good action if:
(1) the act is in itself good or at least indifferent;
(2) the agent intends the good effect, and does not intend the bad effect, neither as an end, nor as the means to the good effect;
(3) the bad effect is not in fact the means to the good effect;
(4) the goodness of the good effect sufficiently outweigh the badness of the bad effect.

So basically, the "principle of double effect" is an articulation of how the basic principle "do good and avoid evil" is to be applied in certain situations of conflict between some good and some evil.

Extension of the principle

There are other situations of conflict between some good and some evil that arise in human life, which do not seem to be resolvable by the principle of double effect, at least not if causes, effects, means, end, etc., are taken in their ordinary sense.

Some examples of such problems:

(1) A spouse must make a decision whether to have marital intercourse with a spouse who engages in contraception.

(2) A married priest (a Catholic Eastern Rite priest, or an Orthodox priest), learns through a confession he hears, that his wife was actually already married to another man, and so his marriage with her is invalid.

(3) A judge in the highest court of the land has weighty personal or private reasons indicating that an accused person is innocent, yet all the public evidence is decidedly against that person.

(4) Doctors must decide whether to make an experiment aimed at discerning the effectiveness of a drug, an experiment whose effectiveness depends upon the use of placebos, and thus upon not giving the drug to many persons who would benefit from it, if it is in fact beneficial.

(5) An agent who expects his imminent capture by the enemy considers deliberately making himself drunk, so that he will be entirely unable to give information about a code, even under torture. (The code is so complex he would not be able to explain it in a drunken state).

These problems cannot be straightforwardly resolved by recourse to the principle of double effect, at least not in its normal modern formulation. Still, if any general principle can be formulated to resolve them, such a principle will be somewhat like the principle of double effect, i.e., based upon a comparison of the conditions of the good and bad aspects of the act.

I will return to this issue in later posts.

Christmas Sermon 25 of Leo the Great

Leo the Great

Sermon 25

The Nativity of the Lord

Translated by Joseph Bolin

CHAPTER 1

My beloved people, although the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which he clothed himself with the flesh of our nature, is ineffable, I make bold to speak, not trusting in my skill, but relying on his inspiration, so that in this way, on the day which was chosen for the mystery [sacrament] of the restoration of man, we may offer something that can edify those who hear it. For the fact that the greater part of the Church of God already understands what it believes, does not make it unnecessary to repeat things that have already been said, for since we owe our office of speaking to many who are new in the faith, it is better to bore those who have been taught with things they already known, then to defraud those as yet unlearned. Therefore that the Son of God, who is not the same person as the Father and the Holy Spirit, but is one in essence with them, deigned to become a partaker of our lowliness, and willed to be one of us corruptible, of us mortal ones, is so sacred and wonderful, that the reason of the divine counsel cannot be seen by the wise of this world, unless the true light has scattered the darkness of human ignorance. For not only in the work of the virtues, or in the observance of the commandments, but also in the course of faith “hard and narrow is the way that leads to life” (Mat 7:14), and it needs great labor and great discernment, among the dubious opinions of the ignorant and the falsehoods that have the appearance of truth, to walk the one path of sound doctrine without stumbling, and though the snares of error are all around, to avoid all danger of deception. For who is suited for this, if he is not taught and led by the spirit of God? As the Apostle says, “We have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God” (1 Cor 2:12), and David sings, “Blessed is the man whom thou dost educate, O Lord, and whom thou dost teach out of thy law” (Psalm 94:12).

CHAPTER 2

Therefore, beloved, having the protection of truth among the dangers of error, and taught not with words of human wisdom, but by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, we believe what we have learned, and preach what we believe, that the Son of God, begotten before the ages by the Father, and eternal with the Father and coeternal in consubstantial equality, came into this world through the womb of the Virgin in this sacrament of chosen tenderness, in which and from which “Wisdom has built herself a home” (Prov 9:1), and the unchangeable Divinity of the Word fitted for itself the form of a slave, in the likeness of sinful flesh, being in no way before himself and the Father and Holy Spirit less in glory, since the nature of the supreme and eternal essence cannot be diminished or changed. But on account of our weakness he diminished himself, and veiled with his body the splendor of his majesty, which human sight could not bear. Hence also he is said to have emptied himself (Phil 2:7), as though pouring himself out by his own power, in that in this humility by which he looked out for us, he became not only lower than the Father, but than himself. Yet by this bending down nothing was taken away from that which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, i.e., being, understanding this to pertain to omnipotence, that he who according to our nature [secundum nostra] is less, is not less according to his own. For since light regards the blinded, strength the weak, mercy the miserable, it was a deed of great power, that the Son of God received human substance and position, in order to restore the nature which he created, and to do away with the death which he did not make.

CHAPTER 3

Therefore having put away and entirely rejected all the opinions of the wicked, according to which Christ is either a scandal or folly, the faith of right minds exults, and understands the one true Son of God, not only according to the Deity by which he was begotten from the Father, but also according to the humanity by which he was born from the Virgin Mother. For he is both in our humility and in the divine majesty, true man and true God; eternal in his own nature, temporal in ours; one with the Father in substance, which was never less than the Father, one with his Father in the body which he created. Indeed by the taking on of our nature, the step was made for us, by which we can ascend to him through him. For that essence which is always and everywhere in its entirety, did not need to descend locally, and it was as proper to it to be joined in its entirety to man, as it is proper to him not to be divided from the Father. Therefore it remains, that “in the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1), and nothing accrues to him so that what he is, he sometime was not. For the Son is eternally Son, and the Father, eternally Father. Hence also the Son himself says, “He who sees me, sees the Father too” (John 14:9). Your impiety, heretic, has blinded, so that you who have not seen the Son’s majesty, do not see the Father’s glory; for by saying that he who was not was begotten, you assert that the Son is temporal, and asserting that the Son is temporal, you believe that the Father is changeable. For not only is that which decreases changeable, but also whatever increases; thus if, as it seems to you, the Begotten is unequal to the Father because, in generating him who was not, the essence also of the generator was also imperfect, in that by generating it progressed to having that which it did not have. But the catholic faith detests and condemns this impious perversity of yours; it admits nothing of temporality in true Deity, but confesses both the Father and the Son to be of one eternity, since the splendor born from a light is not posterior to the light, and the true light was never lacking its splendor, the substantial always having its shining, just as the substantial always has its existing. But the manifestation of this splendor is called mission, by which Christ appeared to the world. He who always filled all things with his invisible majesty, still, as though from a most remote and high secret place, came to those to whom he was unknown, when he took away the blindness of ignorance, and, as has been written, “To those who sat in darkness and in the shadow of death, a light has shone” (Isa 9:2).

CHAPTER 4

For although the light of truth was also sent in previous ages to illuminate the holy fathers and prophets, as David saids, “Send forth your light and your truth” (Psa 43:3), and in different ways and by many signs the Deity of the Son declared the works of his presence, still all those significations, and all the miracles, were testimonies of that mission of which the Apostle says, “When the fullness of time came, God sent his son, born of a woman, born under the law” (Gal 4:4). What is this, but that the Word becomes flesh, the creator of the world is born from the womb of the Virgin, the Lord of majesty makes for himself a human beginning, and although no earthly seed was involved in that spiritual conception, takes a nature from his Mother to receive only the substance of true flesh? By this mission, bu which God was united to man, the Son is unequal to the Father, not in that which is from the Father, but in that which was made from man. For the humanity does not destroy the equality, which his Deity has inviolably, and the descent of the Creator to the creature, is the promotion of believers to eternal things. “For since,” as the Apostle says, “in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe” (1 Cor 1:21). To the world therefore, i.e., to the wise of the world, its wisdom became blindness, nor could they recognize God, to the knowledge of whom one attains only in his wisdom. And therefore, since the world boasted of the vanity of its doctrines, the Lord established the faith of those to be saved in that which seemed unworthy and foolish, so that, all presumptuous opinions being of no avail, the grace of God alone should reveal what human intelligence could not comprehend.

CHAPTER 5

Therefore the catholic faith acknowledges the Lord’s glory in his humility, and the Church, which is the body of Christ, rejoices in the sacraments of its salvation; for if the Word of God had not become flesh and dwelt among us, if the Creator had not descended to communion with the creature, and recalled the old man to a beginning in his birth, death would have reigned from Adam (Cf. Rom 5:14) until the end, and condemnation would have remained indestructibly on all man, when by the condition of birth, there is one cause of perishing for all. And so among the sons of men, the Lord Jesus alone was born innocent, since he alone was conceived without the pollution of carnal concupiscence. He became a man of our race, so that we might be able to be partakers of the divine nature. He took an origin in the womb of the Virgin, was placed in the baptismal font; he gave to the water, what he gave to his mother; for the power of the Most High and the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, which worked that Mary gave birth to the Savior, also worked that water regenerate the believer. For what was more suited to heal the sick, enlighten the blind, give life to the dead, than that the wounds of pride be cured by the remedies of humility? Adam, neglecting God’s precepts, brought in the condemnation of sin; Jesus, born under the law, restored the freedom of righteousness. The former, obeying the devil unto transgression, merited that in him all death; the latter, obeying the Father unto the cross, worked that in him all be made alive. The former, desiring angelic honor, ruined the dignity of his nature; the latter, receiving the condition of our weakness, on account of whom he descended to hell, by the same [act] placed [it] in heaven. Finally, to the former, fallen through extolling itself, it was said: “You are earth, and to earth you will return” (Gen 3:19); to the latter, exalted through subjection, it was said: “Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalm 110:1).

CHAPTER 6

These works of our Lord, beloved, are not only useful to us in the manner of a sacrament, but also by offering an example for imitation, if these remedies are transferred into a discipline, and what is done in the mysteries, is also of value for morals, so that we remind ourselves that we should live in the humility and meekness of the Redeemer; for as the Apostle says, “if we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him” (Rom 8:17). For in vain are we called Christians, if we are not imitators of Christ, who said that he is the way (Joh 14:6) so that the teacher’s way of living might be a model for the disciplines, and the servant might choose that humility embraced by the Lord, who lives and reigns forever and ever.

Creation and Evolution I – Hugh Owen's Response

Hugh Owen took the time to write a lengthy response to my first critique of his account of contradiction between the theory of evolution and the divinely revealed account of genesis. (Original post: Evolution and Creation I – Scripture and Tradition). I'm posting it here.

The affirmations in question that are stated by Hugh Owen are the following:

Theistic evolutionists and defenders of the traditional doctrine of creation both agree that the literal historical interpretation of Genesis was upheld by all of the Fathers, Doctors, and magisterial pronouncements of the Catholic Church for more than 1800 years. According to this common doctrine: (emphasis added)

1. God created all of the different kinds of creatures ex nihilo in six days or less. etc.

I emphasize the term "interpretation" because the real issue is not what the fathers believed to be an actual fact, but what they believed to be divinely revealed through the Scriptures.

To the first point about creating all the different kinds of creatures in six days or less I responded, (1) that "species" or "kinds" are fixed in such a way that new kinds could not develop after creation is not common patristic or magisterial teaching; (2) Irenaeus allows that the sixth day could be a thousand years, in accordance with the text "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," and Justin Martyr makes the same interpretation. Origen and Augustine do not take the six days as a narrative of the historical order of creation at all, but as a manner of revealing God's creation of the world.

[Hugh Owen's response]

You wrote: God created all of the different kinds of creatures [that is, plants, animals, fish, etc.–that "species" or "kinds" are fixed in such a way that new kinds could not develop after creation is not common patristic or magisterial teaching] ex nihilo in six days or less. [Irenaeus allows that the sixth day could be a thousand years, in accordance with the text "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," and Justin Martyr makes the same interpretation. Origen and Augustine do not take the six days as a narrative of the historical order of creation at all, but as a manner of revealing God's creation of the world.]

I Reply: The Fathers are unanimous in holding that the prototypes of creatures that reproduce sexually, like humans, whales, and wolves, were specially created by God in the beginning and that all of the different kinds of sexually reproducing creatures are descended from those specially created prototypes. This is entirely consistent with what we observe in nature. Here are two good examples of the patristic teaching:

St. Basil the Great writes:

The nature of existing objects set in motion by one command, passes through creation without change, by generation and destruction, preserving the succession of kinds by resemblance, until it reaches the very end. It begets a horse as the successor of a horse, a lion of a lion, and an eagle of an eagle; and it continues to preserve each of the animals by uninterrupted successions until the consummation of the universe. No length of time causes the specific characteristics of the animals to be corrupted or extinct, but, as if established just recently, ever fresh, moves along with time. (St. Basil the Great, Hexaemeron, 9:2)

St. Ambrose writes:

The Word of God permeates every creature in the constitution of the world. Hence, as God had ordained, all kinds of living creatures were quickly produced from the earth. In compliance with a fixed law they all succeed each other from age to age according to their aspect and kind. The lion generates a lion; the tiger, a tiger; the ox, an ox; the swan, a swan; and the eagle, an eagle. What was once enjoined became in nature a habit for all time. Hence the earth has not ceased to offer the homage of her service. The original species of living creatures is reproduced for future ages by successive generations of its kind. (Hexaemeron, 3:16

These statements are perfectly in harmony with what 21th century natural science observes: adaptation and devolution of the original kinds of creatures, rather than mutation and natural selection of new organs and functions evolving new kinds of creatures, like birds from reptiles or whales from land mammals. The patristic understanding is perfectly compatible with speciation (which is devolutionary) but not with evolutionary transformations like reptiles changing into birds.

I strongly recommend that you read Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by the famous Cornell University geneticist Dr. John Sanford http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0981631606 (The first review on the Amazon web page for his book provides an excellent summary of the book.) Dr. Sanford shows that twenty-first century genetics not only contradicts the primary axiom of the Neo-Darwinian Theory that is taught in virtually all mainstream schools and universities (i.e. mutations + natural selection = evolution). He actually shows that most so-called “neutral” mutations are actually slightly deleterious and that these slightly-negative mutations accumulate in the genome of every kind of organism fast enough so that every kind of organism on earth is not evolving but devolving. In fact, Sanford shows that, in light of current research, the human genome likely cannot be more than thousands–not tens of thousands–of years old, because if it had been accumulating mutations at the current rate for more than 10,000 years we would be extinct! In short, 21st century genetics indicates that all genomes are devolving from an original state of integrity and that this process of devolution cannot have been going on for more than thousands of years. (I refer you to the first review of the book on the Amazon web page for details.) Dr. Sanford also shows that the declining ages of the patriarchs recorded in Genesis 1-11 agree perfectly with the findings of 21st century genetics.

St. Irenaeus does not say that the sixth day could be a thousand years. In fact, he makes quite clear that the days of creation are natural days consisting of “an evening and a morning.” Moreover, he calls the sixth day when Adam sinned the day preceding the Sabbath, thus confirming that the sixth day is a normal day. Irenaeus does say that Adam’s lifespan could be interpreted as lasting a thousand years in keeping with the saying, “A thousand years are as one day.” But that has nothing to do with the length of the creation period. Here is the pertinent passage from Against Heresies

Thus, then, in the day that they ate, in the same did they die, and became death's debtors, since it was one day of the creation. For it is said, There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day. Now in this same day that they ate, in that also did they die. But according to the cycle and progress of the days, after which one is termed first, another second, and another third, if anybody seeks diligently to learn upon what day out of the seven it was that Adam died, he will find it by examining the dispensation of the Lord. For by summing up in Himself the whole human race from the beginning to the end, He has also summed up its death. From this it is clear that the Lord suffered death, in obedience to His Father, upon that day on which Adam died while he disobeyed God. Now he died on the same day in which he ate. For God said, In that day on which you shall eat of it, you shall die by death. The Lord, therefore, recapitulating in Himself this day, underwent His sufferings upon the day preceding the Sabbath, that is, the sixth day of the creation, on which day man was created; thus granting him a second creation by means of His passion, which is that [creation] out of death. And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since a day of the Lord is as a thousand years, 2 Peter 3:8 he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin. Whether, therefore, with respect to disobedience, which is death; whether [we consider] that, on account of that, they were delivered over to death, and made debtors to it; whether with respect to [the fact that on] one and the same day on which they ate they also died (for it is one day of the creation) ; whether [we regard this point], that, with respect to this cycle of days, they died on the day in which they did also eat, that is, the day of the preparation, which is termed the pure supper, that is, the sixth day of the feast, which the Lord also exhibited when He suffered on that day; or whether [we reflect] that he (Adam) did not overstep the thousand years, but died within their limit—it follows that, in regard to all these significations, God is indeed true. For they died who tasted of the tree; and the serpent is proved a liar and a murderer, as the Lord said of him: For he is a murderer from the beginning, and the truth is not in him. John 8:44 (Book V, Chapter 23, 2; Against Heresies) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103523.htm

With regard to Justin Martyr, the place where he is alleged to have said that the seventh day had no end does not support your thesis at all. Here is the passage:

And the fact that it was not said of the seventh day equally with the other days, And there was evening, and there was morning, is a distinct indication of the consummation which is to take place in it before it is finished, as the fathers declare, especially St. Clement, and Irenæus, and Justin the martyr and philosopher, who, commenting with exceeding wisdom on the number six of the sixth day, affirms that the intelligent soul of man and his five susceptible senses were the six works of the sixth day. Whence also, having discoursed at length on the number six, he declares that all things which have been framed by God are divided into six classes—viz., into things intelligent and immortal, such as are the angels; into things reasonable and mortal, such as mankind; into things sensitive and irrational, such as cattle, and birds, and fishes; into things that can advance, and move, and are insensible, such as the winds, and the clouds, and the waters, and the stars; into things which increase and are immoveable, such as the trees; and into things which are insensible and immoveable, such as the mountains, the earth, and such like. For all the creatures of God, in heaven and on earth, fall under one or other of these divisions, and are circumscribed by them.— Justin Martyr, From the writings of Anastasius. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0132.htm

In the first place, the fact that Justin refers to the days of creation as days with “evening and morning” proves that he understands them to be 24 hour days. In contrast, the seventh day, in his interpretation, has no end, because it refers to the period of providence that began after the creation period, when all of the different kinds of creatures will fulfill the purpose for which they were created in the beginning. There is another passage in Justin’s First Apology where he says of the Holy Eucharist:

But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world (First Apology, Chapter 67).

Here again, Justin refers to Sunday as “the first day,” the day on which God created light, thus underscoring his conviction that the days of creation were natural days. This is precisely the same understanding that we find in the other Fathers and in the Sacred Liturgy, as in the writings of St. Gregory the Theologian, fourth century Patriarch of Constantinople:

Just as the creation begins with Sunday (and this is evident from the fact that the seventh day after it is Saturday, because it is the day of repose from works) so also the second creation begins again with the same day [i.e. the day of the Resurrection] (bold added). According to the 1994 Catechism, the Syriac Office of Antioch includes the following prayer:

When we ponder, O Christ, the marvels accomplished on this day, the Sunday of your holy Resurrection, we say: “Blessed is Sunday, for on it began creation” (emphasis added) (Fanquith, The Syriac Office of Antioch, vol. VI, first part of Summer, 193 B. (CCC, 1167).

With regard to Origen and St. Augustine, I did not say that they regarded the six days as a record of the order of creation, I wrote that all of the Fathers held that the creation period was six natural days (the overwhelming majority view) or an instant (the minority view held by Origen and St. Augustine). According to Origen:

the Mosaic account of creation … teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that (Against Celsus, 1:19) (emphasis added).

The specific points which are clearly handed down by the apostolic preaching are these: First, that there is one God who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into existence (The Fundamental Doctrines, 1, preface, 4)

Origen also emphasizes that the creation was completed at the beginning of the world, and that the sabbath rest of the Lord continues to this day.

For he [Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world's creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep festival with God who have done all their works in their six days, and who, because they have omitted none of their duties, will ascend to the contemplation [of celestial things], and to the assembly of righteous and blessed beings (Against Celsus, Book vi. chap. 1xi.) (emphasis added).

From all of this we can deduce the following:

Origen's creation is instantaneous. We can be sure of this because Origen says that the Mosaic account gives much less than ten thousand years since the creation of the world. This is only possible if he considers the Genesis genealogies as beginning at creation. Otherwise, he would have no way of determining the age of the world. But if the Genesis genealogies begin at creation and give us the time that has elapsed since the beginning of the world, then there cannot be any time taken up with the creation itself. This interpretation of Origen's words is strengthened by the fact that he confidently asserts that the entire world is much less than ten thousand years old. This view is also supported by the fact that Origen speaks of "all things" being called into existence at once out of nothing–a statement which does not allow for any lapse of time or evolutionary development. Lest we entertain any doubt on this point, he insists that the sabbath rest of the Lord–which continues to this day–began after creation was completed in the beginning. Finally, there is the following statement from Against Celsus

And since he [the pagan Celsus] makes the statements about the 'days of creation' ground of accusation–as if he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed before the creation of light and heaven, the sun and moon and stars, and some of them after the creation of these we shall only make this observation, that Moses must have forgotten that he had said a little before 'that in six days the creation of the world had been finished' and that in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he subjoins to these words the following: 'This is the book of the creation of man in the day when God made the heaven and the earth [Gen. 2:4]'" Against Celsus 6:51).

From this passage we can see that Origen regards the six days as one day and appeals to Genesis 2:4 as his proof text. When we set this passage alongside the other passages quoted above, we can see that Origen belongs in the ranks of the minority among the Fathers who held that God created all things instantaneously, a view that St. Augustine championed in the late fourth and early fifth centuries. Therefore, the Kolbe Center is quite justified in saying that all of the Fathers held that God created all things in six days or less.

It is noteworthy that even the allegorically-minded Origen believed that Genesis contained an accurate chronology of the world from creation to the historical period of Abraham and the later patriarchs. His "very much under" ten thousand years is right in the same ballpark as the chronologies of the rest of the Fathers who taught that there had been less than 6000 years from creation to the Incarnation, in contrast to the pagan intellectuals of the patristic era many of whom believed in long ages and who mocked the Fathers for their faith in the Hebrew chronology. For example, St. Augustine, commenting on this topic in the City of God, wrote:

They [pagans] are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents that profess to give the history of [man as] many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed (bold added) (St. Augustine, City of God, 12:10).

And St. Theophilus of Antioch wrote in a similar vein:

If even a chronological error has been committed by us, for example, of fifty or 100 or even 200 years, yet [there have] not [been] the thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written (bold added) (To Autolycus 3:28-29 [A.D. 181]).

In short, the writings of the Fathers that you cite in contradiction to my argument do not support your thesis.

St. Gregory Nazianzen, Homily 44, “On the New Week, Spring, and the Commemoration of the Martyr Mamas,” quoted in Fr. Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation, and Early Man (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2000), p. 402.

[My response] Regarding the Fathers and the permanence of species, I repeat again, the issue is not what the Fathers thought to be the natural facts about the world on the basis of the natural history and science available to them (facts which of course they will make use of also in commentaries on scripture, just as someone will make use of facts about lilies when commenting on a passage on lilies), but what they thought to be the divine teaching of Scripture.

In regards to modern science on the issue of evolution, there are multiple problems with Dr. John Sanford's arguments. E.g., if the accumulation of mutations in men means that after a mere 10,000 years men would be extinct, then the accumulation of mutations in more rapidly reproducing creatures would mean that they would be extinct after some hundreds of years, which is not the case. In any case, my intent is not to address the empirical, modern scientific issues here, but the scriptural and theological issues.

Quoting a text of Irenaeus to which one might be presume I referred (and had read) is not going to be enough to convince me to change my interpretation. I won't here pursue the question of the interpretation of that passage, as it is disputed, and is unlikely to be resolved in an exchange of this sort.

The passage of Justin I was referring to is not where he speaks of the seventh day having no end, but of the day on which Adam lived as being one thousand years. "For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ is connected with this subject." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 81; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm)

My point in noting that Origen and Augustine do not take the six days as a narrative of the historical order of creation at all, is that it follows from this that they do not take them as teaching any particular historical length of time, whether an instant, six periods of 24 hours, or any other definite length.

In interpreting Origen, a false dichotomy is set up between an indefinitely long period of creation, and instantaneous creation. "Origen's creation is instantaneous. We can be sure of this because Origen says that the Mosaic account gives much less than ten thousand years since the creation of the world. This is only possible if he considers the Genesis genealogies as beginning at creation." In fact, Origen does not believe that everything in the world was created instantaneously (an illustrative text is below), and yet he is convinced that there are less than ten thousand years since the creation of the world. How is this possible? There are several things Origen may be thinking. First, the "ten thousand years" may refer to the end of the period of creation. Secondly, and more likely, Origen thinks that the period of creation was a relatively short one–e.g., in any case no more than the lifespan of a human being.

The claim that Origen sees creation as all happening instantaneously because of the affirmation of creation ex nihilo, he says God "when nothing existed, called all things into existence", rests on a misunderstanding of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. The point is that God did not use pre-existing matter for creation, not that there is no process of change through which the various elements of creation were formed.

What is the order of creation as Origen sees it? First, spiritual beings were created. Some of these sinned, and consequently were attached to matter and bodies, and in this process the concrete material universe was formed. But there is an order among these, e.g., the devil is the first. It was not all simultaneous.

90 …"The term 'beginning'… has multiple meanings even in divine discourse.'

91 One of these meanings refers to a commencement…

95. There is also a 'beginning' in the sense of coming into existence attested in 'In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth' (Gen. 1:1). I believe this sense is indicated even more clearly in Job where it says: 'This is the beginning of the Lord's fashioning, made as a sport for his angels' (Job 17:19 LXX).

96. Someone might assume that 'heaven and earth' were made 'in the beginning' of those things that existed when the world came to be, but it is better to say, as in our second citation, that of the many things that came to be in bodies, the first of those in the body was the so-called 'dragon,' also named somewhere 'great whale,' which the Lord subdued (see Job 3:8; 2 Pet. 2:4).

103…Third is the sense of 'beginning from which,' as in beginning from underlying matter. This is proposed by those who believe that matter is ingenerate, but not by us who believe that God made the things that are from things that are not, as the mother of the seven martyrs in Maccabees (2 Mac. 7:28) and as the angel of repentance in Shephard taught (Hermas, Mand. 1,1; Vis. 1.1.6).

Commentary on John, Book I. Translation from Origen (The Early Church Fathers) by Joseph W. Trigg.

Augustine, too, did not believe in an instantaneous creation, in the sense in which this would be incompatible with theistic evolution (though there are other senses in which he believed in an instantaneous creation–e.g., within the spiritual creation]). Augustine believed in continuous creation: God is the creator of everything that comes into being, both because he gave to creation the power from which they come into being, and because he actualizes this power.

Causaliter ergo tunc dictum est produxisse terram herbam et lignum, id est producendi accepisse uirtutem. In ea quippe iam tamquam in radicibus, ut ita dixerim, temporum facta erant, quae per tempora futura erant; nam utique postea plantauit deus paradisum iuxta orientem et eiecit ibi de terra omne lignum speciosum ad aspectum et bonum ad escam. … non solum tunc plantauit paradisum, sed etiam nunc omnia, quae nascuntur. Quis enim alius etiam nunc ista creat, nisi qui usque nunc operatur? Sed creat haec modo ex his, quae iam sunt; tunc autem ab illo, cum omnino nulla essent, creata sunt, cum factus et dies ille, qui etiam ipse omnino non erat, spiritalis uidelicet atque intellectualis creatura.

The earth is said to have produced plants and trees causally, i.e., it received the power to produce them. In it those temporal things that were to come to be in the future were made as in their roots, so to speak; for indeed God afterwards planted Paradise and drove up from the earth every tree beautiful to look at and good for food…. he planted not only the Paradise at that time, but also now all the things that are born. For who else creates those now, except he who works even now? But now he creates from things that already are, while then things were created when they had not been at all, when that day was made that had not been at all, namely the spiritual and intellectual creature. (On Genesis According to the Letter V, 4).

Note that if one is interpreting evolution in another way than as God bringing things actually into existence from the power he previously bestowed on creation, one is not speaking of theistic evolution, but of materialistic, hegelian, or some other interpretation of evolution.

Priestly ordination of Thomas Bolin

On Oct 31, 2009, my brother, Thomas Bolin, OSB, was ordained to the priesthood by His Excellency Renato Boccardo. I was privileged to be present for the ordination, as well as his first Mass on the following day, for which I was also the subdeacon. Below are a couple photos from the ordination, and one from the first Mass. Each photo links to a bigger image of the same.

Making Time for What Really Matters

A few years ago, the Washington Post made an arrangement with Joshua Bell, one of the best violinists in the world, to play incognito as a street busker at the Metro subway station L'Enfant Plaza in Washington, D.C., during the morning rush-hour.

What happened?

Asked to predict the outcome if one of the world's great violinists performed incognito before a traveling rush-hour audience of 1,000-odd people, Leonard Slatkin, music director of the National Symphony Orchestra, responded: "I don't think that if he's really good, he's going to go unnoticed. He'd get a larger audience in Europe … but, okay, out of 1,000 people, my guess is there might be 35 or 40 who will recognize the quality for what it is. Maybe 75 to 100 will stop and spend some time listening."

And how much will he make?

"About $150."

In fact, out of 1,097 people who passed by, only seven stopped to listen, at least for a short time. (All the children who passed by wanted to stop and listen, but their parents hurried them on.) Excluding $20 given him by a woman who was at a concert of his three weeks earlier, and recognized him, he was given $32.17 over a period of 43 minutes. Most passers-by didn't even slow down.

Read the whole article here.

So, what does that tell us? That we can't recognize greatness? Or perhaps rather, we don't have time for it, time to recognize, appreciate, seek it? I think the latter is more accurate. Americans have a history of pragmatism, and for many of us, urgent practical matters tend to exercise a tyranny over less urgent, less practical, yet intrinsically more worth while goods and activities. (This tendency is growing in Europe, as well.)

Though we recognize at some level the difference between things worth pursuing for their own sake, and things which are practical necessities, but may marginalize it when it comes to making concrete decisions. Ironically, a helpful analysis has come in the framework of ways to be "effective" or "successful", which name, as such,
the attainment of practical goals. Stephen Covey distinguishes four classes of tasks (things we are considering doing): (1) those which are important and urgent; (2) those which are important, but not urgent; (3) those which are urgent but not important; (4) those which are neither urgent nor important.

We are unlikely to neglect the first type (unless we really don't consider them important at all). But very often we prioritize the third type of tasks or duties (those which are urgent, though not important) to the neglect of the second (those which are important, but not urgent). (One basic reason for this is that we naturally place greater priority on urgent things or things close at hand than they objectively deserve according to a reasoned consideration–more on this in another post). Once we draw this tendency to our attention, we can seek a solution. When we take note that urgent activities tend to draw all our attention to themselves, at the expense of important but non-urgent activities, we can, as a consequence, mentally re-evaluate the urgency of these activities: (it's not in itself urgent to read this spiritual book TODAY, to make a retreat THIS MONTH, to find a spiritual director RIGHT AWAY, to write that letter NOW, etc., but if I don't do it now (or in the respective time period) I'm likely to put it off unduly long, so in the long term view it actually IS urgent.)

Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (Philippians 4:8)

Thoughts from St. Josemaria Escriva 2

The cheerful smile for those who bother you; that silence when you're unjustly accused; your kind conversation with people you find boring and tactless; the daily effort to overlook one irritating detail or another in those who live with you… this, with perseverance, is indeed solid interior mortification.

Don't say, "that person bothers me." Think: "That person sanctifies me." (The Way, nn. 173-174)

This was a method employed by St. Therese of Lisieux as well; she succeeded so well that annoyances became no longer annoying, because her attitude towards them we so much shaped by the aspect in which they were good–as a means of showing her love for Jesus and her sisters. This way of handling annoyances from other persons is in many cases also the most effective way of resolving them; people tend to act as we expect them to–if we treat people as grumpy persons, they are more likely to be so; if we treat them as cheerful and kind persons, they are more likely to be that way. Also in this sense, then, a cheerful reaction to annoyances brought by others around us is often, though not always, an effective means that gets rid of those annoyances.

There is no excuse for those who could be scholars are are not (The Way, n. 332).You frequent the sacraments, you pray, you are chaste, but you don't study. Don't tell me you're good, you're only "goodish" (n. 337).

Formerly, when human knowledge–science–was very limited, it seemed quite feasible for a single scholar to defend and vindicate our holy faith.
Today, with the extension and the intensity of modern science, the apologists have to divide the work among themselves, if they wish to defend the Church scientifically in all fields.
You… cannot shirk this responsibility (n. 338).

St. Josemaria Escriva applies the principle of charity, that where there is a pressing human need, those with particular talents to fill that need are called to do so. And in order for the faith to be received in the manner it deserves, it is necessary for there to be many scholars of deep faith… some whose scholarship is of properly religious matters, others whose scholarship directly pertains to secular matters, but whose life is imbued with Christian spirit, manifesting the harmony of reason and faith, nature and grace–how grace ennobles nature rather than contradicting it.

St. Josemaria's claim that for one called to scholarly work, the "interior life" is insufficient, is a particular example of St. James rule, "faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead" (James 2:17). The interior life has to be expressed in deeds profitable for the building up of God's children in charity.

It's good for you to put such determination into your study, as long as you put the same determination into acquiring interior life (n. 341).

As an interior life that does not produce works of charity is barren and deserving of being cut down, so external works without an interior life are dry and of little value. Though he stresses the importance of scholarly work for those called to it, St. Josemaria Escriva avoids the activist or intellectualist error of seeing the true value of a scholar's life in his "success" in scholarly endeavors.

Booklet On Evolution

The booklet on evolution I was writing, and mentioned in an earlier post, has now been published under the title Darwin and Evolution: from a Catholic Perspective, and is available from Catholic Truth Society in England. I've also had several copies shipped to the USA and arranged to resell them from there, which for one or two copies will be cheaper (and presumably quickly) than having them shipped from England. More information and selections from the book are available here.

Thoughts from St. Josemarie Escriva

Never reprimand anyone while you feel provoked over a fault that has been committed. Wait until the next day, or even longer. Then make your remonstrance calmly and with a purified intention. You'll gain more with an affectionate word than you ever would from three hours of quarreling. Control your temper (The Way, n. 10).

The irascible passions, such as anger, or to a lesser extent, annoyance, can color our thoughts and actions a lot. St. Therese of Lisieux sometimes fled a situation in order to avoid acting upon the anger that she felt. Based on this, St. Josemaria gives two reasons for waiting, if possible, before our anger or irritation subsides before acting to remedy a situation, by reprimanding someone, correcting an error, etc. First, our action will be calmer. Consequently, it will be seen as more reasonable by the other person. It is well known that anger makes us less reasonable, and so a reprimand or correction given while one is angry is taken less seriously. Even if the reprimand is objectively justified, the reasonableness of it is less apparent, since it manifests itself under the appearance of anger. In the words of St. Francis de Sales, "it is a duty to resist evil and to repress the faults of those for whom we are responsible, steadily and firmly, but gently and quietly…. Correction given in anger, however tempered by reason, never has so much effect as that which is given altogether without anger; for the reasonable soul being naturally subject to reason, it is a mere tyranny which subjects it to passion, and where ever reason is led by passion it becomes odious, and its just rule obnoxious" (Introduction to the Devout Life III, ch. 8).

Secondly, our intention will be purer. Even if our main intention in correcting a person is good, namely to guide them to act well, out of concern for them, anger brings its own motive, which weakens this main intention, even if it does not destroy it.

Will-power. A very important quality. Don't disregard the little things, which are really never futile or trivial. For by the constant practice of repeated self-denial in little things, with God's grace you will increase in strength and manliness of character (The Way, n. 19).

If you don't get up at a set hour, you'll never fulfill your plan of life. (The Way, n. 78)

I put these two sayings together because there is a close connection between the second, particular advice, and the first general principle. Because sleep, like food, is a basic human need, regularity in this matter conditions the will overall to obey a reasonable rule rather than whatever impulse moves it at the moment. This advice, however, needs two qualifications. First, from the point of view of orderliness, the "rule" for wakefulness and sleep need not be as simple a rule as going to bed at the same time and getting up at the same time every day (although there is much to be said for this, on account of the body's natural waking and sleeping cycle). Someone whose work requires him sometimes to work days and sometimes to work nights cannot keep the same waking and sleeping schedule all the time (at least if keeps a basically normal schedule). Secondly, like all concrete practical rules, this rule is open to exceptions. If one stays up most of the night with a sick person, the good of regularity and of getting up at the usual hour is in quite a few cases more than offset by the harm produced by the deprivation of sleep, and one ought therefore to get more sleep (though sometimes, for the reason to be stated below, it is better to make up for the short sleep by way of a nap or going to bed earlier).

The reason for stating "get up at a set hour," rather than "go to bed at a set hour" is probably for two reasons. First, sleeping later than usual more frequently leads us to skip a significant part of our daily plan (e.g., morning meditation or spiritual reading, breakfast, or a shower) than going to bed early does, and sleeping later than usual leads directly to these omissions, while staying up late only leads to them indirectly, inasmuch as it makes it more difficult to get up at the customary time. Secondly, getting up at a set hour is a more reasonable rule than going to sleep at a set hour. Because, by and large, our activities on various days differ more than our activity on various nights, the time when we are tired enough to sleep may vary more than the time when we wake up does.

Problems with commenting

There have now been two instances to my knowledge where someone had problems posting a comment on this blog. Perhaps there are others who have tried to post a comment and were unable. If anyone else has had or has problems commenting, please let me know by e-mail. It is possibly a problem with Firefox or older versions of Internet Explorer and the embedded comment form, which is what this blog has at present. If this is the problem, I will have to change the comment form back to a pop-up window.

Health Care Reform

A few thoughts on the proposed reform of health care. American bishops' criticism of it has mostly focused on the unborn and on conscience. But though I have not myself studied the document at length, I have heard from reliable persons that the proposal is unsound, even rotten, from beginning to end.

A few articles have been written critiquing the proposal from the point of view of the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. See this article by Bosnich and this one by De Vous. The principle of subsidiarity means, basically, that decisions and actions should be made by the persons most directly concerned, unless this is impossible. The principle of subsidiarity does not of itself exclude the managing of the overall financing of health care at the highest level. However, it does require that decisions be left up to the individuals in need of health care and who provide it (doctors and hospitals). A couple of examples: (1) The possibility of choosing other means of financing, e.g., should be left open. If the health care system is on the broad level financed by taxes, people should be given the possibility of financing their health care by other means–e.g., through private insurance, or from their own income–and be proportionately freed from the taxes that finance health care. (2) Patients and the doctors who treat them should be able to make the decisions relevant to the health care. This is thoroughly violated by the proposal, which aims directly, or indirectly through monetary sanctions, at reducing the decision-making power of individuals, doctors, and hospitals, and increasing the power of the bureaucratic administration.

Many other criticisms (rationing of healthcare, the requirement for end-of-life counseling) build upon or follow from this basic problem of the government taking over too much responsibility for decisions that should be made at an individual level. If, e.g., co-payments are reduced to such an extent that patients have little financial reason to refrain from treatments that are not really necessary, and yet financial considerations must be taken into account, then they will have to be taken into account, and the decisions made by others. This is practically an unavoidable consequence of the top-down approach that is determined to provide health-care for all, but which does not in fact have unlimited resources. In principle a much better approach would be to have those who can finance their own health care do so, and to provide it for those who cannot by way of non-profit institutions, individual assistance, etc.