Devil and Science:

Demon Possession and Mental Illness: Should we be making a differential diagnosis? ——————————————————————————– Christians have held many different views on how we should apply New Testament accounts of demon possession (or ‘demonisation’) to the construction of a contemporary understanding of spiritual and mental disease. Following the enlightenment, and particularly within more academic or scientific circles, it has been popular to ‘demythologise’ the Gospel stories of demon possession[1] Anthropologists, psychotherapists, psychologists and psychiatrists see beliefs about demonology as being culturally or socially determined explanations for problems which can otherwise be fully explained in sociological, psychodynamic, psychological or psychiatric terms. However, many Christians (particularly in some charismatic circles) still believe that demons really do exist as actual spiritual entities, and that they can adversely affect or invade the lives of men and women today. It is not possible here to provide a full coverage of this subject. The interested reader is encouraged to read Roy Clements’ brief but excellent Cambridge Paper, ‘Demons and the Mind’, or else the book ‘Demon Possession’ by John Montgomery, which provides a multi-disciplinary, perspective on the subject[2]. However, a particular aspect of this problem is of very practical relevance in medicine – and especially in psychiatry. Should we see demon possession (or ‘demonisation’) as being a differential diagnosis for certain kinds of mental disorder. or should we see it as being an alternative, perhaps redundant, explanation for such disorders? Alternatively, and this point has recently been argued particularly cogently by Roy Clements[3], should we see demonic influence as being a neglected aetiological factor within a multifactorial model for the aetiology of mental disorder? Demythologisation Before giving consideration to the Gospel accounts of demonisation, it is interesting to reflect briefly on some of the general issues concerned here. For example, how did Jesus respond to the erroneous scientific views of His time? We have no account of Jesus ever trying to correct prevailing beliefs that the earth was flat. He does not seem to have engaged with Luke in a dialogue about the aetiology of any of the illnesses that He healed. Of course, His mission was not to interfere with the scientific accumulation of human knowledge about the world and the universe, but to win back those who were spiritually lost because of sin. We presume, therefore, that He shared our human limitations in terms of His understanding of other matters. To ‘go along with’ prevailing errors of a medical or scientific kind was not dishonesty, but rather a sharing of our human limitations. When we consider Jesus’ understanding of demons, however, it is really not satisfactory to suggest that He was limited by a lack of scientific knowledge. Demons, if they exist, are spiritual beings and Jesus came to bring spiritual truth. Surely, He would not accede to erroneous views regarding the influence of evil in human lives? Furthermore. the Gospels provide evidence that Jesus actually saw the casting out of demons as a part of His mission on earth (eg Lk 13: 32), and that He made it a part of the mission of His disciples (eg Lk 9: 1). We must, therefore, be very hesitant to accept any idea that Jesus was simply acceding to, or actively colluding with, a primitive misconstruction of the nature of mental illness. In any case, elsewhere, the Bible suggests that Hebrew culture did indeed have an understanding of mental illness as being separate and different from demonic activity or human evil (eg 1 Sa 21: 13). If mental illness and demonisation are not simply different names for, or different models of understanding of. the same thing, then we are left then with two possibilities. Either they are unrelated phenomena, or else there is some kind of association between them. Of course, even if they are unrelated, they may stilt be confused with each other because of superficial similarities. If they are related, however, we need to understand the nature of the connection between them. Thus, we may be faced with a differential diagnostic problem. Either we need to distinguish which of these two entities we are dealing with, or else we need to identify which is the primary problem which led to the other as a secondary ‘complication’ . Alternatively, perhaps we may need to identify a third, independent, variable which gives rise to both demonisation and mental illness. Demon possession: Biblical and Contemporary Presentations In order to answer some of these questions, we need to turn to the New Testament accounts of demonisation. Jesus clearly cast evil spirits out of many people who He met (Mt 4:24, 8:16; Mk 1:32, 4:41). However, we are told about 6 cases in some detail: The demon possessed Gerasene(s): Mt 8:28-34; Mk 5:2-20; Lk 8: 26-39 A demon possessed mute man: Mt 9:32-34; Lk 11:14-26 A demon possessed blind and mute man: Mt 12:22-28 The Canaanite or Syro-Phoenecian woman’s daughter: Mt 15:22-28; Mk 7:25-30 An epileptic boy: Mt 17:15 -21; Mk 9:14-2 9; Lk 9:3 8-43 The man in the synagogue at Capernaum: Mk 1:21-28; Lk 4:33-36 From these accounts. we may see that there is a diversity in the presentation of demon possession. The demon possessed Gerasene showed enormous strength, cried out loudly, engaged in deliberate self-harm, and immediately recognised Jesus as the Son of God. Others were mute, or blind and mute, or epileptic. We must, therefore, be wary of imagining that there are invariable and characteristic signs or symptoms of demonisation. We must also, apparently, look out for demonic influence in the neurology clinic as well as in the psychiatric clinic. Clearly, differential diagnosis along traditional medical lines is going to be a very difficult if not futile exercise, even if we accept the Biblical accounts as providing a comprehensive picture of the different possible presentations. In fact, it would appear more reasonable to argue that the Biblical presentations are so diverse that they probably represent just a small proportion of the full spectrum of possibilities. It would seem, therefore, that the exercise of a spiritual gift (1 Cor 12: 10) would be likely to be more useful than the application of medical knowledge when a person is demon possessed, although a knowledge of psychiatric illness is undoubtedly of value in continuing the diagnosis of a psychiatric illness when one is present. The relationship between demonisation and mental illness Why, then, is psychiatry particularly thought of as being the area of medicine in which demon possession is most likely to be encountered? It is true that behavioural disturbance, and deliberate self harm, such as that presented by the Gerasene, might also accompany psychiatric disorder. In fact, the range of possible differential diagnoses in this case is probably quite wide. In the other Biblical cases, loss of sight or hearing, and epilepsy, could all have an hysterical basis rather than being due to a neurological diagnosis. Roy Clements has also suggested that the voices reported as those of demons might be the alter-egos of multiple personality disorder. (It is worth noting, though, that this is a contentious diagnosis, which is rarely made in the UK at the present time). However, there are no scriptural accounts of demonisation which sound particularly like schizophrenia as we see it today. Furthermore, there is every reason to believe that most prevalent psychiatric disorders may have more to do with environmental stress, psychological or biological vulnerability, and social deprivation rather than the influence of evil spirits. In the lay mind, some accounts of demonisation (notably the Gerasene) do present a very convincing example of ‘madness’ . However, I believe that there is a danger that we look for demonisation amongst those who are psychiatrically ill for a variety of reasons which do not have a basis in their similarity with the description of demon possession as found in the Gospels. Psychiatric patients, especially those who are psychotic, behave, speak and think in ways that we find difficult to understand. We therefore struggle to find an explanation for their experiences, and if science does not have convincing answers, then we look elsewhere. Not only this, but we find the behaviour, speech and thought of these patients frightening, both because of what they might do to us or others, and because of the recognition that ‘there but for the grace of God go I’ . As Christians in psychiatry, then, we have an important responsibility. We need to be informed of the findings and limits of psychiatric research, so that we can offer rational scientific explanations and treatments for psychiatric illness, where these exist. We need to bring healing to, and show love and care for, patients with stigmarising mental illnesses, just as Jesus showed compassion for those who were stigmatised by physical illness (eg Mt 8:1-4). However, we also need to recognise that not all human problems will be explicable by medical science. The New Testament tells us that Jesus has commissioned us to ‘ drive out demons’ (Mk 16:17), and we must be ready to respond to this commission if and when we are called to do so. Psychiatry, then, is not the only domain within which we need to be aware of demonic influence, and perhaps it is not even the most important such domain. Furthermore, we cannot expect to make a simple differential diagnosis according to certain signs or symptoms of demonisation. However, this does not exclude the need to consider other possible links between demonic activity and mental illness. We recognise that psychiatric illnesses, and also a wide range of so-called ‘somatic’ disorders, are of a multifactorial aetiology involving psychological and social, as well as physical components. Why, then, should not spiritual factors also play a part? For example, if people can become depressed because they are bereaved, or because of physical illness, why should they not also become depressed because of demonic interference in their lives? Thus, we must keep in mind a truly holistic view of the human condition, which involves spiritual, as well as psychological, social and physical dimensions. Psychiatrists are particularly familiar with assessing the physical and social, as well as the psychological, aspects of their patients lives. Like other doctors, they need to ensure that they do not neglect the spiritual dimension of life. However, I am not convinced that psychiatric clinics are particularly full of unrecognised demonic influence. Neither is the recognition of demonisation a question of medical differential diagnosis, although a psychiatric assessment may sometimes assist the non-medical minister to avoid attributing a primary psychological disturbance to demonic activity. Rather, I believe, that we may encounter demonic activity in all walks of life, just as Jesus did. If, and when, we have such an encounter, we can be confident in His authority over such matters – an authority which He has delegated to us. Demon Possession and Mental Illness: Conclusions Demon possession and mental illness, then, are not simply alternative diagnoses to be offered when a person presents with deliberate self harm or violent behaviour, although they may need to be distinguished in such circumstances, whether by spiritual discernment or the application of basic psychiatric knowledge. It would seem reasonable to argue that demon possession may be an aetiological factor in some cases of mental illness, but it may also be an aetiological factor in some non-psychiatric conditions, and in other cases it may be encountered in the absence of psychiatric or medical disorder. Furthermore, demon possession is essentially a spiritual problem, but mental illness is a multifactorial affair, in which spiritual, social, psychological and physical factors may all play an aetioIogical role. The relationship between these concepts is therefore complex. Differential diagnostic skills may have a part to play in offering help to those whose problems could be of demonic or medical/psychiatric origin. However, spiritual discernment is of at least equal, if not greater, importance in such matters. Professor Chris Cook Kent Institute of Medicine and Health Science University of Kent at Canterbury 11 May 1997

Read more: http://meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/Demonic_possesion/dp_and_mental_illness.htm#ixzz0Rcu0zdhd

Yves Congar (1904-1995):

Yves Marie Joseph Congar, born on April 8, 1904, died on June 22, 1995). He was a French Dominican cardinal and theologian.

Early life

Born in Sedan, in northeast France, in 1904, Congar’s home was occupied by the Germans for much of World War I. During this time he kept extensive, illustrated diaries recording the occupation, which provide a unique historical insight into the war from a child’s point of view.

In his early twenties, Congar spent three years in a Carmelite monastery where he encountered Thomistic philosophy through the works of the renowned lay philosopher Jacques Maritain and the Dominican theologian Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange.

Priest and POW

In 1925 he joined the Dominican Order at Amiens. Following his theological studies at the seminary at Le Saulchoir in Etiolles, near Paris with its strong emphasis on historical theology, Congar was ordained a priest in 1930. During World War II he was drafted into the French army as a chaplain, and was held from 1940 to 1945 as a prisoner of war by the Germans in Colditz.

Scholar and ecumenist

After the war, he continued to teach and to write, eventually becoming one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century on the topic of the Roman Catholic Church and ecumenism,and influenced also the thinking of Karol Wojtyła (the future Pope John Paul II) from the year 1946 onwards. Active in the ecumenical movement, Congar was once removed from teaching or publishing for a time by the Holy See, during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. However, his reputation was rehabilitated, as he was made a cardinal, in 1994, by Pope John Paul II.

Congar encouraged openness to ideas stemming from Protestant Christianity. He published on wide ranging topics, including Mary, the Eucharist, lay ministry and the Holy Spirit, as well as his diaries from his experiences during the Second Vatican Council. His works include The Meaning of Tradition, I Believe in the Holy Spirit and After Nine Hundred Years, which addresses the East-West Schism. His personal experiences were recently published in Journal d’un theologien 1946-1956.

Selected works

• Divided Christendom: a Catholic Study of the Problem of Reunion, 1937
• Vraie fausse reforme dans l’Eglise (“True and False Reform in the Church”), Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1950
• The Mystery of the Temple, or the Manner of God’s Presence to His Creatures from Genesis to the Apocalypse, 1962
• Report from Rome: on the First Session of the Vatican Council, translated by A. Mason, London: Chapman, 1963
• Report from Rome II: The Second Session of the Vatican Council, London: Chapman, 1964
• Power and Poverty in the Church, translated by Jennifer Nicholson, London: Chapman, 1964
• Lay People in the Church, translated by Donald Attwater, London: Chapman, 1965
• Dialogue Between Christians, London-Dublin: Chapman, 1996
• Mon Journal du Concile, (1946-1956), Paris: Cerf, 2002

Reis Magos Fort:

I have been schooling in Reis-Magos (Verem) from 1952 till 1957, where I really grew in the surroundings of the church, school and neighbourhood. I had contacts not only with the parish-priest, but also with the teachers and soldiers from the fort of Reis-Magos. I was friendly with the portuguese military people. Afonso de Albuquerque entered first the placide waters of the river of Mandovi in February of 1510, at the head of warships on the way to conquer the City of Goa. He was opposed by the King of Nijapur Yusuf Adil Shah, from a small fortified outpost built on the northern bank of the mouth of the river in 1493.  He came back on November 25, 1510. Later on, when th eprotugurese conquered dhte neighbouring territoties of Bardez and Salsete in 1543, Reis Magos fort came into being (from 1551 till 1554). It was called the Royal Fort (“Fortaleza Real“)–every new Vice-Roy that came to Goa would disembark at the Port  and present his credentials from King, before going for a ceremonial welcome in the City of Goa (Old Goa, “Velha Cidade”).

The new fort was built above the old outpost–it could subject enemy ships to a withering fusillade of cannon fire. Later on, when the Dutch challenged portuguese supremacy over the sea, another fort came up in 1595, on the oppositie bank, on land belonging to a noble man named Gaspar Dias( at Miramar). When the Dutch ships started blockading Goa by cruising in the Mandovi bay, the portuguese built additional forts at Aguada, Cabo and Mormugao. Reis Magos fort was extensively modified in 1707 by the Vice-Roy Caetano de Melo e Castro, and its arsenal expanded to thirty-three cannons of difefrent  calibre. This proved most useful during yhe Maratha incsions from 1739 till 1741, when the rest of Bardez was conquered by the zbhonsles of Sawantwadi.

Its Structure: A walled corridor connected the main fortress with the river qanchorage. The high walls had cylindrical watch turrets, a distinctive feature of medieval fortifications. The fort had a small well, plus a perennial source of water from the nearby Quegdevelim spring.

In the 1950s the Reis Magos fort was converted into a jail to lodge freedom fighters and political prisoners. After liberation, it was turned into a sub-jail for short term convicts and undertrials. The fort functioned as a jail till 1993.

Compendium of the Social Teaching:

The Church has given us a Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church in 2004. It is a wonderful resource book for us all. The Church’s social doctrine aims to build a more humane society within a civilization of love. Cardinal Renato Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, delivered the message to the faithful in Zagreb, during a tour that time to promote the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church.

In Zagreb, after presenting the Compendium to social workers and then to the media, Cardinal Martino talked about Benedict XVI’s encyclical, “Deus Caritas Est,” to theology students, candidates to the priesthood and religious life, and lay Catholics.

The Compendium of the Church’s social doctrine is a theological reading of the signs of the times.  The Compendium was released in 2004, prepared by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

“Curiously, interest in Catholic social teaching waned with the coming of Vatican II,” Archbishop Martino said. “Many were unhappy with the term doctrine, preferring social teaching or social reflection or social thought.

“There was the feeling in many places that the social teaching of the Church should be a form of social ethic which could be shared by people of various viewpoints, religious or not.”

A book on Catholic social teaching is not a recipe book, or a catechism old-style with a list of ready made answers to the social and political questions of the day.It presents a unified corpus of principles and criteria which draw their origin from the Gospels and which are applied to the realities of the times in order to form Christians to make their own personal responsible judgments on the best manner to stimulate the ideals proposed by the Gospel in contemporary culture.

Catholic social doctrine does not take away the risk of politics, but it aims to provide an injection of purpose, idealism, integrity and truthfulness into the way politics is carried out.

The social teaching of the Church is an admirable instrument for community formation. The Compendium is too important a document to be usurped by episcopal commissions or professional Church bureaucrats.

There is a sense in which the real ‘translation’ of any social encyclical or any document of the social teaching of the Church is written not by professional interpreters, but by the action of Christian laypeople in the world — who try, day by day, to apply these principles in their life and commitment.

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church is an asset, it reminds us of the tremendous value of the social teaching of the Church and the deep ancient wells from which it springs.

Rodger Charles, S.J., wrote the single best expression of the social teaching of the Church in its entirety and he makes it clear that it is a teaching with a history that began with Genesis.

His two-volume work was published in Great Britain in 1998, Christian Social Witness and Teaching: The Catholic Tradition from Genesis to Centesimus Annus (Volume 1) & (Volume 2) The Modern Social Teaching Contexts: Summaries: Analysis.

An excerpt: “Like the Old Testament, the New spoke of man made in God’s image, but now he was in a new relationship with God, taken up into Christ and therefore into the life of God himself. The parable of the vine and the branches (John 15: 5-6) brings this out. St. Paul extended this parallel using the example of the human body. It is made up of many parts but is none the less one body; so it is with Christ’s mystical body, the Church. ‘In one spirit we were baptized, Jews as well as Greeks, slaves as well as citizens’ (1 Cor.12:12-30, Rom. 12: 4-8, Eph. 4: 11-13).

“The kingdom, then, is vivified by the life of Christ, and his Church is its first budding forth on earth, though potentially it embraces all mankind. The Gospel which united man to his God therefore was also a Gospel of solidarity and brotherhood. It encourages its citizens toward mutual association and these characteristics of its history are not accidental. There is a natural instinct which draws mankind to mutual co-operation; he is a social being. But membership of the Church raises the social connection of human beings from the sphere of convention to that of moral obligation.

“Charity among men, as a duty stemming from love of God, follows; the parable of the Good Samaritan and its practical implications demonstrate this most fully. (Luke 10: 29-37). Christ was talking about solidarity with his suffering brethren whoever they are, not only those of the Jews. ‘I was hungry and you gave me food, thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you made me welcome, naked and you clothed me, sick and you visited me…’ (Matt. 25: 35-46). This new aspect of the theology of benevolence has been the basis of Christian works of charity in which the Church has been outstanding from the earliest times. In the long term, and peacefully, this kingdom, purely spiritual and moral though it was, was to exercise immense influence on earth, precisely because it did not seek access to direct political power. This is the paradox of the kingdom of God in terms of the social order, of ethics and civil society. There was in the Gospel a message of solidarity and brotherhood, an impulse to mutual association which was not accidental or peripheral to it. It spiritualized all that was best in man’s social nature, the impulse that draws us to one another and endows what had been simple social convention with the character of moral obligation.

“It does this through the grace of Christ. He is the vine, we are the branches. The human race, human society, is bound up into his mystical body—which is not only the Church, though it is the Church primarily; secondarily but no less really it is all mankind, whether mankind knows it or not. There is in us a supernatural life, and through us as social beings that life permeates human society also. This bond between men is capable of being stronger than any merely human bond. It should bind us together from the time we come into human society through the most basic of its forms, the family. It should teach us that man is more to be valued for what he is than for what he has, to protect the poor and defend their rights and dignity. It should enable the rich to use their riches for God’s glory and the service of others as well as for their own honest enjoyment, and warns of the spiritual dangers wealth can bring.

“If we let it, it provides in sum the principles and ideals on which a healthy human society can be based; it exhorts us to pray that the kingdom will come on earth and that the Father’s will be done here as it is in heaven, and through grace it gives us the power to do this. Fulfilled as it will be only in eternity, the kingdom none the less begins on earth and helps inspire human society to charity and justice. It secures for us the means to self-giving because the Christ in whose life we live gave himself of us. It bases human rights on man’s dignity as made in God’s image and likeness, and it establishes human freedom in the context of the divine and natural laws which alone can ensure the true happiness and fulfillment which men and women seek.” (Volume 1, pp. 32-33)

INTRODUCTION

AN INTEGRAL AND SOLIDARY HUMANISM

a. At the dawn of the Third Millennium
b. The significance of this document
c. At the service of the full truth about man
d. In the sign of solidarity, respect and love

PART ONE

CHAPTER ONE
GOD’S PLAN OF LOVE FOR HUMANITY

I. GOD’S LIBERATING ACTION IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL
a. God’s gratuitous presence
b. The principle of creation and God’s gratuitous action

II. JESUS CHRIST, THE FULFILMENT OF THE FATHER’S PLAN OF LOVE
a. In Jesus Christ the decisive event of the history of God with mankind is fulfilled
b. The revelation of Trinitarian love

III. THE HUMAN PERSON IN GOD’S PLAN OF LOVE
a. Trinitarian love, the origin and goal of the human person
b. Christian salvation: for all people and the whole person
c. The disciple of Christ as a new creation
d. The transcendence of salvation and the autonomy of earthly realities

IV. GOD’S PLAN AND THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH
a. The Church, sign and defender of the transcendence of the human person
b. The Church, the Kingdom of God and the renewal of social relations
c. New heavens and a new earth
d. Mary and her “fiat” in God’s plan of love

CHAPTER TWO
THE CHURCH’S MISSION AND SOCIAL DOCTRINE

I. EVANGELIZATION AND SOCIAL DOCTRINE
a. The Church, God’s dwelling place with men and women
b. Enriching and permeating society with the Gospel
c. Social doctrine, evangelization and human promotion
d. The rights and duties of the Church

II. THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH’S SOCIAL DOCTRINE
a. Knowledge illuminated by faith
b. In friendly dialogue with all branches of knowledge
c. An expression of the Church’s ministry of teaching
d. For a society reconciled in justice and love
e. A message for the sons and daughters of the Church and for humanity
f. Under the sign of continuity and renewal

III. THE CHURCH’S SOCIAL DOCTRINE IN OUR TIME: HISTORICAL NOTES
a. The beginning of a new path
b. From Rerum Novarum to our own day
c. In the light and under the impulse of the Gospel

CHAPTER THREE
THE HUMAN PERSON AND HUMAN RIGHTS

I. SOCIAL DOCTRINE AND THE PERSONALIST PRINCIPLE

II. THE HUMAN PERSON AS THE “IMAGO DEI”
a. Creatures in the image of God
b. The tragedy of sin
c. The universality of sin and the universality of salvation

III. THE MANY ASPECTS OF THE HUMAN PERSON
A. The unity of the person
B. Openness to transcendence and uniqueness of the person

a. Open to transcendence
b. Unique and unrepeatable
c. Respect for human dignity

C. The freedom of the human person

a. The value and limits of freedom
b. The bond uniting freedom with truth and the natural law

D. The equal dignity of all people
E. The social nature of human beings

IV. HUMAN RIGHTS
a. The value of human rights
b. The specification of rights
c. Rights and duties
d. Rights of peoples and nations
e. Filling in the gap between the letter and the spirit

CHAPTER FOUR
PRINCIPLES OF THE CHURCH’S SOCIAL DOCTRINE

I. MEANING AND UNITY

II. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMON GOOD
a. Meaning and primary implications
b. Responsibility of everyone for the common good
c. Tasks of the political community

III. THE UNIVERSAL DESTINATION OF GOODS
a. Origin and meaning
b. The universal destination of goods and private property
c. The universal destination of goods and the preferential option for the poor

IV. THE PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY
a. Origin and meaning
b. Concrete indications

V. PARTICIPATION
a. Meaning and value
b. Participation and democracy

VI. THE PRINCIPLE OF SOLIDARITY
a. Meaning and value
b. Solidarity as a social principle and a moral virtue
c. Solidarity and the common growth of mankind
d. Solidarity in the life and message of Jesus Christ

VII. THE FUNDAMENTAL VALUES OF SOCIAL LIFE
a. The relationship between principles and values
b. Truth
c. Freedom
d. Justice

VIII. THE WAY OF LOVE

PART TWO

CHAPTER FIVE
THE FAMILY, THE VITAL CELL OF SOCIETY

I. THE FAMILY, THE FIRST NATURAL SOCIETY
a. Importance of the family for the person
b. Importance of the family for society

II. MARRIAGE, THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY
a. The value of marriage
b. The sacrament of marriage

III. THE SOCIAL SUBJECTIVITY OF THE FAMILY
a. Love and the formation of a community of persons
b. The family is the sanctuary of life
c. The task of educating
d. The dignity and rights of children

IV. THE FAMILY AS ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN SOCIAL LIFE
a. Solidarity in the family
b. The family, economic life and work

V. SOCIETY AT THE SERVICE OF THE FAMILY

CHAPTER SIX
HUMAN WORK

I. BIBLICAL ASPECTS
a. The duty to cultivate and care for the earth
b. Jesus, a man of work
c. The duty to work

II. THE PROPHETIC VALUE OF “RERUM NOVARUM”

III. THE DIGNITY OF WORK
a. The subjective and objective dimensions of work
b. The relationship between labour and capital
c. Work, the right to participate
d. The relationship between labour and private property
e. Rest from work

IV. THE RIGHT TO WORK
a. Work is necessary
b. The role of the State and civil society in promoting the right to work
c. The family and the right to work
d. Women and the right to work
e. Child labour
f. Immigration and work
g. The world of agriculture and the right to work

V. THE RIGHTS OF WORKERS
a. The dignity of workers and the respect for their rights
b. The right to fair remuneration and income distribution
c. The right to strike

VI. SOLIDARITY AMONG WORKERS
a. The importance of unions
b. New forms of solidarity

VII. THE “NEW THINGS” OF THE WORLD OF WORK
a. An epoch-making phase of transition
b. Social doctrine and the “new things”

CHAPTER SEVEN
ECONOMIC LIFE

I. BIBLICAL ASPECTS
a. Man, poverty and riches
b. Wealth exists to be shared

II. MORALITY AND THE ECONOMY

III. PRIVATE INITIATIVE AND BUSINESS INITIATIVE
a. Business and its goals
b. Role of business owners and management

IV. ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS AT THE SERVICE OF MAN
a. Role of the free market
b. Action of the State
c. Role of intermediate bodies
d. Savings and consumer goods

V. THE “NEW THINGS” IN THE ECONOMIC SECTOR
a. Globalization: opportunities and risks
b. The international financial system
c. Role of the international community in an era of a global economy
d. An integral development in solidarity
e. Need for more educational and cultural formation

CHAPTER EIGHT
THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY

I. BIBLICAL ASPECTS
a. God’s dominion
b. Jesus and political authority
c. The early Christian communities

II. FOUNDATION AND PURPOSE OF THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY
a. Political community, the human person and a people
b. Defending and promoting human rights
c. Social life based on civil friendship

III. POLITICAL AUTHORITY
a. The foundation of political authority
b. Authority as moral force
c. The right to conscientious objection
d. The right to resist
e. Inflicting punishment

IV. THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM
a. Values and democracy
b. Institutions and democracy
c. Moral components of political representation
d. Instruments for political participation
e. Information and democracy

V. THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY AT THE SERVICE OF CIVIL SOCIETY
a. Value of civil society
b. Priority of civil society
c. Application of the principle of subsidiarity

VI. THE STATE AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES
A. Religious freedom, a fundamental human right
B. The Catholic Church and the political community

a. Autonomy and independence
b. Cooperation

CHAPTER NINE
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

I. BIBLICAL ASPECTS
a. Unity of the human family
b. Jesus Christ, prototype and foundation of the new humanity
c. The universal vocation of Christianity

II. THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
a. The international community and values
b. Relations based on harmony between the juridical and moral orders

III. THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
a. The value of international organizations
b. The juridical personality of the Holy See

IV. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION FOR DEVELOPMENT
a. Cooperation to guarantee the right to development
b. The fight against poverty
c. Foreign debt

CHAPTER TEN
SAFEGUARDING THE ENVIRONMENT

I. BIBLICAL ASPECTS

II. MAN AND THE UNIVERSE OF CREATED THINGS

III. THE CRISIS IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MAN AND THE ENVIRONMENT

IV. A COMMON RESPONSIBILITY
a. The environment, a collective good
b. The use of biotechnology
c. The environment and the sharing of goods
d. New lifestyles

CHAPTER ELEVEN
THE PROMOTION OF PEACE

I. BIBLICAL ASPECTS

II. PEACE: THE FRUIT OF JUSTICE AND LOVE

III. THE FAILURE OF PEACE: WAR
a. Legitimate defence
b. Defending peace
c. The duty to protect the innocent
d. Measures against those who threaten peace
e. Disarmament
f. The condemnation of terrorism

IV. THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE CHURCH TO PEACE

PART THREE

CHAPTER TWELVE
SOCIAL DOCTRINE AND ECCLESIAL ACTION

I. PASTORAL ACTION IN THE SOCIAL FIELD
a. Social doctrine and the inculturation of faith
b. Social doctrine and social pastoral activity
c. Social doctrine and formation
d. Promoting dialogue
e. The subjects of social pastoral activity

II. SOCIAL DOCTRINE AND THE COMMITMENT OF THE LAY FAITHFUL
a. The lay faithful
b. Spirituality of the lay faithful
c. Acting with prudence
d. Social doctrine and lay associations
e. Service in the various sectors of social life

1. Service to the human person
2. Service in culture
3. Service in the economy
4. Service in politics

CONCLUSION
FOR A CIVILIZATION OF LOVE

a. The help that the Church offers to modern man
b. Starting afresh from faith in Christ
c. A solid hope
d. Building the “civilization of love”

Index of references
Analytical index

---

ABBREVIATIONS

Symposium on Social Teaching of the Church:

Use Church’s social teachings to build justice, say speakers

MUMBAI, India (UCAN) — A symposium on the Catholic Church’s social doctrines has stressed Indian Catholics’ role in working for a just and peaceful society based on Church teaching.

India is a country of “great opulence” and “dehumanizing poverty” with millions living “on the fringes of existence,” Cardinal Oswald Gracias of Bombay told symposium participants during the March 13-15 meeting.

Referring to Catholic social teaching compiled in the “Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church,” he said the Church in India “has shown her concern for human life in society through various development works, numerous social institutions, schools and hospitals.”

The compendium was published in 2004 by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

The cardinal urged participants to “expand their hearts to meet the needs of the poor” and take steps to fight poverty” in attempts to “build a civilization of peace.”

The Theological and Doctrinal commission of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of India organized the symposium in Mumbai. It discussed the “Church’s Social Doctrine Promoting A Civilization Of Peace: Commitment To The Common Good In A World of Economic, Political And Social Conflicts.”

About 600 people including 12 bishops, 90 priests and some 150 nuns from 58 dioceses attended the program. Speakers said the Church’s social doctrines can be used as an instrument to build up a civilization of peace.

Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, in his paper, said newspapers routinely report about social, economic and political troubles.

“There has been so much of bad news” from India with anti-Christian violence continuing “to plague the lives of so many people in various areas of the country,” said the cardinal’s paper, which was read out as he did not attend the program.

“The solutions to many of these troubles come directly from the Gospel message given to us by our Lord Jesus. One of the ways by which this message comes to us is through the social doctrine of the Church,” Cardinal Martino said.

Cardinal Gracias, in his presentation, spoke of how discriminatory and inhuman treatment of over 165 million dalit people in India has been justified on the basis of caste, an issue which the Church here needs to address.

About 60 percent of the 2.3 million Indian Christians come from dalit groups. Dalit, literally meaning “trampled upon” or “broken open,” denotes the former untouchables at the bottom of the Indian caste system.

Cardinal Gracias, president of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of India based in Mumbai, said the “Compendium on the Social Doctrine of the Church” asserts “radical equality and brotherhood among all people, regardless of their race, nation, sex, origin, culture or class.”

The Church also works to eliminate exploitation of women and gender discrimination, he said. On sexual exploitation of women and children, the prelate noted that human trafficking is reportedly the third most profitable crime worldwide, after drugs and arms dealing. “We need to make every effort to ensure that women regain full respect” in terms of their dignity, he stressed.

Church teachings also urge Catholics to protect families, fight poverty and care for the elderly, he added.

The cardinal stressed that “our commitment to a culture of life and a civilization of peace can be evaluated by our attitude and response to these poorer and weaker human beings.”

The 2001 Indian census showed that 12.5 million children aged 5-14 years were child laborers then, he said. Many of them, including girls, were engaged in hazardous occupations despite a law prohibiting the employment of children.

“This is the sign that the values of the Gospel have not yet percolated far enough to destroy that ruthless combination of poverty and selfishness that makes child labor possible. This is surely the task at hand for the Indian Church,” the cardinal emphasized.

The Church on Cohabitation:

Pennsylvania Catholic Conference

A Letter to Engaged Couples from the Bishops of Pennsylvania (Click here to read Questions and Answers in Spanish.) 1. What is cohabitation? “Cohabitation” is commonly referred to as “living together.” It describes the relationship of a man and woman who are sexually active and share a household, though they are not married. 2. Why is cohabitation such a concern for the Church? As you work with your priest during this time of preparation for marriage, you will speak with him about many issues. But the Church is particularly concerned about cohabitation because the practice is so common today and because, in the long run, it is causing great unhappiness for families in the Church. This is true, above all, because – even though society may approve of the practice – cohabitation simply cannot be squared with God’s plan for marriage. This may be why most couples who live together before marriage find married life difficult to sustain for very long. The Church does not invent laws. It passes on and interprets what God has revealed through the ages. No one in the Church has the right to change what Jesus has taught. To do so would be to deprive people of saving truths that were meant for all time. Our Christian faith teaches that a sexual relationship belongs only in marriage. Sex outside of marriage shows disrespect for the sacrament of marriage, the sacredness of sex, and human dignity. 3. We have good reasons for living together before our wedding. Why can’t the Church just accept that? The Church cares for you as a parent cares for a beloved son or daughter. Knowing that cohabitation increases a couples’ chance of marital failure, the Church wants to protect you and preserve your happiness. Besides, most couples don’t really evaluate the reasons they give to justify their decision. Think about it: Reason 1: “It’s more convenient for us.” “Convenience” is a good thing, but it’s not the basis for making a decision that will affect your entire life. Married life is sometimes inconvenient and even demanding. Cohabitation for convenience is poor preparation for that kind of commitment. Research bears this out. Studies show that those who live together before marriage tend to prefer “change,” “experimentation” and open-ended lifestyles – all of which could lead to instability in marriage. One study, conducted by researchers at the University of Chicago and the University of Michigan, concluded that couples who cohabit tend to experience superficial communication and uncommitted decision-making once they are married. Cohabitation for convenience does not allow for the careful thought and adequate “space” necessary for making wise life decisions. Reason 2: “We’re trying to save money for the wedding, so living together is more economical.” Sure, you might save the price of monthly rent, but you’re sacrificing something more valuable. Engagement is more than just time to plan the party. It is a time for deeper discussion and more thorough reflection, which are best carried out in a detached way. Couples who are living together do not have the luxury of such detachment. So whatever expenses you save, you’ll likely pay more in the end. Dr. Joyce Brothers said it well in an article on cohabitation: “short-term savings are less important than investing in a lifetime relationship.” Reason 3: “Because of the high divorce rate, we want to see if things work out first.” Studies consistently show that couples who live together score significantly lower in both marital communications and overall satisfaction. On the surface, a trial run at marriage may seem to make sense, allowing one to screen out less compatible mates. But it doesn’t work out that way. Couples who live together before marriage actually have a 50% greater chance of divorce than those who don’t. And about 60% of couples who cohabit break up without marrying. Living together before marriage is different from living together in marriage, because there is no binding commitment to support the relationship. Reason 4: “We need to get to know one another first. Later we’ll start having kids.” Cohabitation is actually the worst way to get to know another person, because it shortcuts the true development of lasting friendship. Those who live together before marriage often report an over-reliance on sexual expression and less emphasis on conversation and other ways of communication – ways that ultimately lead to a more fulfilling sexual union after marriage. Traditionally, the process of dating or “courtship” has led couples to a deeper appreciation of one another through conversation, shared ideals and dreams, and a mutual understanding of one another’s values. Reason 5: “The Church is just outdated and out of touch with its thinking in this matter. Birth control made those old rules obsolete.” That’s just not true. In the early days of the Church, living together outside of marriage was common among the non-Christians in the Roman Empire – as was the use of artificial contraception. But these practices were devastating for individuals, families, and society. Women were treated as disposable objects, mere toys for sexual pleasure, to be discarded when passions waned. The Christian vision of marriage and family led to happiness and fulfillment for individuals and families – and a great renewal of culture and society. Far from being outmoded, then as now, the Church’s teaching is revolutionary – and it works! 4. Why does the Church interfere in the sex lives of couples? It’s really just a private matter between us. Sex is intensely private and personal, but it also has deep moral and social dimensions. Sex works as a primary bonding agent in families and the family is the building block of society. Sexual rights and wrongs influence the health and happiness of individuals, families and neighborhoods. That’s why sexual behavior has always been the subject of many civil laws. The Church, of course, wishes to safeguard the family and society. But, more than that, the Church wishes to safeguard your relationship with your future spouse and with God. Sex is the act that seals and renews the couple’s marriage covenant before God. Sexual sins, then, are not just between a man and a woman, but between the couple and God. And that’s the Church’s responsibility. Sex is not simply a private matter. If it’s between you and God, it’s between you and the Church. You need to ask yourself: “When do I stop being a Christian? When I close the bedroom door? When does my relationship with God cease to matter?” 5. But, really, how does what we do with our own bodies affect our relationship with each other and our spiritual relationship with God? The gift of your body in sexual intercourse is a profound symbol of the giving of your whole self. In making love, the husband and wife are saying to one another in “body language” what they said to each other at the altar on their wedding day: “I am yours, for life!” God created sex to be physically pleasurable and emotionally fulfilling. But it is even greater than all that. It is, above all, the deepest sign of the complete gift of self that a husband and wife pledge to each other. This mutual gift empowers the couple to become co-creators with God in giving life to a new person, a baby. According to God’s design, the gift of sexual union has two primary purposes: strengthening married love and sharing that love with children. The only “place” where this total self-giving between a man and a woman is to take place is in marriage. It is the only “place” where children can be raised with the secure, committed love of a mother and a father. So sexual intimacy belongs only in marriage. Outside of marriage, sex is a lie. The action says: “I give you my whole self” – but the man and woman are really holding back their commitment, their fertility, and their relationship with God. Before giving your body to another person, you need to give your whole life, and you need to receive your spouse’s whole life in return – and that can only happen in marriage. 6. Why can’t I just follow my conscience if I believe living together is okay? People can be wrong in matters of conscience, and people often are. Where our self-interest is concerned, our capacity for self-deception is huge. Here, as in everything we do, we need an objective standard to tell us if our conscience is properly formed and able to make right judgments. Morality is not a matter of opinion or “gut feeling.” Conscience is God’s voice, speaking the truth deep within your heart. It’s unlikely – if not impossible – that God would contradict His own commandments just for your convenience or desires. You are acting in good conscience when you choose to do what God intends. The choice to live together outside a marriage is always wrong and sinful. 7. Why does the Church claim that living together is a scandal to others? Many of our family and friends are doing the same thing. Just because everyone does something doesn’t make it right or any less serious. A couple’s choice to live together is not simply made in isolation. It affects everyone in relationship with these two people – parents, brothers, sisters, friends, and even other members of the parish. A cohabiting couple implicitly communicates that there is nothing wrong breaking God’s law. This can be especially misleading to young children – nieces, nephews, and children of friends – who are impressionable and whose moral reasoning is immature. 8. What is the best way to prepare ourselves spiritually for our upcoming marriage? “A wedding is for a day, but a marriage is for a lifetime.” That can be a long and happy time, but only with good preparation. The best way to get ready for marriage is to practice your faith. Catholics do this by faithful attendance at weekly Sunday Mass, by going to the Sacrament of Penance (confession), by prayer, and by practicing works of charity. If you haven’t been attending Mass regularly, your parish priest will want to see you back. If it’s been a long time since your last confession, your priest will help you. Confession is a necessary step if you have already been cohabiting. During the days of preparation, you are strongly encouraged to pray together as a couple, read Scripture, and lead a virtuous life. For guidance, look to other couples with strong Christian values. 9. Why should we need to separate now? It’s just an arbitrary rule of the Church. The Church’s teaching on cohabitation is not an “arbitrary” rule. Living together before marriage is a sin because it violates God’s commandments and the law of the Church. St. Paul lists this sin – technically called “fornication” among the sins (whether within or outside cohabitation) that can keep a person from reaching heaven (see 1 Corinthians 6:9) Cohabitation works against the heart’s deepest desires and greatly increases the chances of a failed marriage. If you are honest with yourself, every practical consideration will tell you that separating before marriage is the right thing to do. It is a decision to turn away from sin and to follow Christ and His teaching. That is always the right decision. But it’s a good decision for other important reasons, too: it will strengthen your marriage it will deepen your friendship it will foster deeper intimacy and communion it will build up your problem-solving and communications skills it will give your marriage a greater chance for success You may think you are unique and that your passion for each other will never wane. But that’s what most couples think. No one goes into marriage planning for a breakup; yet a majority of couples today do break up. You want to be one of the exceptional couples who not only succeed in marriage, but also live together in happiness and fulfillment. Some couples who are living together think that separation before marriage is artificial or meaningless. Some fear that halting sexual activity will be harmful to the relationship. But this is rarely the case. Sometimes in marriage, too, a sexual relationship will have to be suspended for a time due to illness, military service, business travel, or the good of a spouse. Relationships not only survive this , but actually grow stronger. God rewards such sacrifices with graces for a good relationship. Abstaining from sex will also enable you to rely on other means of communication, which ultimately will empower you to get to know each other in a deeper, lasting way. 10. What good will following the Church’s teachings do for us anyway? Catholic teaching in this matter brings rich blessings to those couples who willingly accept it. The Good News of Jesus frees you to enjoy intimacy even more: by appreciating your spouse as a person, not an object by living in a stable, secure, permanent, and faithful relationship by expressing true, committed love rather than simply satisfying a physical urge Married life has a special place in God’s plan. Like everything good, it requires sacrifices. But they’re small compared to the rewards. Seek first the Kingdom of God; everything else you desire will be given to you – and more! 11. RELATED ARTICLES: “IS CHASTITY FOR SINGLE WOMEN MORE FULFILLING THAN FREE LOVE? THE THRILL OF THE CHASTE” Questions for Reflection and Prayer: As an engaged couple, why did you choose to cohabit before marriage? What have the two of you learned from your experience of living together? What have you learned about yourselves as a couple and as individuals? What is the driving force behind your decision to marry at this time? What has changed in the relationship and made you wish to marry and have your marriage blessed in this Church? Was there a previous reluctance or hesitation to marry? If so, why? Have those issues been completely resolved? Why are you seeking marriage in the Catholic Church? What does marriage as a sacrament mean to the two of you? How do you see your faith and love for each other as an intimate part of your marriage? How do you want your marriage to be open to life? “At the beginning, the Creator made them male and female and declared for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. And the two shall become as one. Thus, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, let no man separate what God has joined.” – Matthew 19:4-6 “The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws . . . God himself is the author of marriage.” – The Church in the Modern World, Vatican II, 48 “The conjugal covenant of marriage opens the spouses to a lasting communion of love and life, and it is brought to completion in a full and specific way with the procreation of children. The communion of spouses gives rise to the community of the family.” – Letter to Families, Pope John Paul II, 7 “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses . . . is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death . . .That total physical self-giving would be a lie if it were not the sign and fruit of a total personal self-giving.” – Familiaris Consortio, Pope John Paul II, 11 “The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family. The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.” – Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2363 “The very preparation for Christian marriage is itself a journey of faith. It is a special opportunity for the engaged to rediscover and deepen the faith received in Baptism and nourished by their Christian upbringing. In this way they come to recognize and freely accept their vocation to follow Christ and to serve the Kingdom of God in the married state.” – Pope John Paul II, The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World

---

The material presented on this page is the responsibility of Ms. Kathy Schmugge. Any errors and/or suggested additions or deletions should be reported to her either by telephone at (803) 547-5063 or by e-mail (click on Coordinator’s E-mail below).

The Bible in the Life of the Church

Spiritual experiences and traditions are recorded in the sacred books. We Christians have the Bible: what is its place in the life of the Church, in my life?

Jesus is God’s final Revelation: ‘In these last days God has spoken to us in his Son” (Heb 1:2). His oldest name is Immanuel, God-with-us (is 7:14; Mt 1:23). In Jesus God is with us. It is thus that the disciples recognized him (cf.Mk1:1). In his death and Resurrection, through his abiding and life-giving presence in the Church, God is with us. This is the core of the Christian faith.

Jesus never told his disciples to write down his message: he himself is the message. It will be preserved not by documents, in the files of archives, but in the living community of his diciples. For ever he remains alive in their community.

Charles Darwin(1809-1882)

Charles Robert Darwin was born on February 12, 1809 in Shrewsbury, England. He was the fifth child and second son of Robert Waring Darwin and Susannah Wedgwood. Darwin was the British naturalist who became famous for his theories of evolution and natural selection. Like several scientists before him, Darwin believed all the life on earth evolved (developed gradually) over millions of years from a few common ancestors.

From 1831 to 1836 Darwin served as naturalist aboard the H.M.S. Beagle on a British science expedition around the world. In South America Darwin found fossils of extinct animals that were similar to modern species. On the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean he noticed many variations among plants and animals of the same general type as those in South America. The expedition visited places around the world, and Darwin studied plants and animals everywhere he went, collecting specimens for further study.
Upon his return to London Darwin conducted thorough research of his notes and specimens. Out of this study grew several related theories: one, evolution did occur; two, evolutionary change was gradual, requiring thousands to millions of years; three, the primary mechanism for evolution was a process called natural selection; and four, the millions of species alive today arose from a single original life form through a branching process called “speciation.”
Darwin’s theory of evolutionary selection holds that variation within species occurs randomly and that the survival or extinction of each organism is determined by that organism’s ability to adapt to its environment. He set these theories forth in his book called, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859) or “The Origin of Species” for short. After publication of Origin of Species, Darwin continued to write on botany, geology, and zoology until his death in 1882. He is buried in Westminster Abbey.
Darwin’s work had a tremendous impact on religious thought. Many people strongly opposed the idea of evolution because it conflicted with their religious convictions of creation.  Darwin avoided talking about the theological and sociological aspects of his work, but other writers used his theories to support their own theories about society. Darwin was a reserved, thorough, hard working scholar who concerned himself with the feelings and emotions not only of his family, but friends and peers as well.
It has been supposed that Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed. Shortly after his death, temperance campaigner and evangelist Lady Elizabeth Hope claimed she visited Darwin at his deathbed, and witnessed the renunciation. Her story was printed in a Boston newspaper and subsequently spread. Lady Hope’s story was refuted by Darwin’s daughter Henrietta who stated, “I was present at his deathbed … He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier.”

We celebrate the 200th anniversary of the birth of  Charles Darwin on February 12th and 150th year of the publication of  “On the the Origin of Species”.  The Church accepts evolution, provided that we uphold the biblical teaching of creation (‘evolutive creation‘).

Faith and Reason

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
FIDES ET RATIO
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON

My Venerable Brother Bishops,
Health and the Apostolic Blessing!

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).

INTRODUCTION

“KNOW YOURSELF”

1. In both East and West, we may trace a journey which has led humanity down the centuries to meet and engage truth more and more deeply. It is a journey which has unfolded—as it must—within the horizon of personal self-consciousness: the more human beings know reality and the world, the more they know themselves in their uniqueness, with the question of the meaning of things and of their very existence becoming ever more pressing. This is why all that is the object of our knowledge becomes a part of our life. The admonition Know yourself was carved on the temple portal at Delphi, as testimony to a basic truth to be adopted as a minimal norm by those who seek to set themselves apart from the rest of creation as “human beings”, that is as those who “know themselves”.

Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives.

2. The Church is no stranger to this journey of discovery, nor could she ever be. From the moment when, through the Paschal Mystery, she received the gift of the ultimate truth about human life, the Church has made her pilgrim way along the paths of the world to proclaim that Jesus Christ is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6). It is her duty to serve humanity in different ways, but one way in particular imposes a responsibility of a quite special kind: the diakonia of the truth.(1) This mission on the one hand makes the believing community a partner in humanity’s shared struggle to arrive at truth; (2) and on the other hand it obliges the believing community to proclaim the certitudes arrived at, albeit with a sense that every truth attained is but a step towards that fullness of truth which will appear with the final Revelation of God: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully” (1 Cor 13:12).

3. Men and women have at their disposal an array of resources for generating greater knowledge of truth so that their lives may be ever more human. Among these is philosophy, which is directly concerned with asking the question of life’s meaning and sketching an answer to it. Philosophy emerges, then, as one of noblest of human tasks. According to its Greek etymology, the term philosophy means “love of wisdom”. Born and nurtured when the human being first asked questions about the reason for things and their purpose, philosophy shows in different modes and forms that the desire for truth is part of human nature itself. It is an innate property of human reason to ask why things are as they are, even though the answers which gradually emerge are set within a horizon which reveals how the different human cultures are complementary.

Philosophy’s powerful influence on the formation and development of the cultures of the West should not obscure the influence it has also had upon the ways of understanding existence found in the East. Every people has its own native and seminal wisdom which, as a true cultural treasure, tends to find voice and develop in forms which are genuinely philosophical. One example of this is the basic form of philosophical knowledge which is evident to this day in the postulates which inspire national and international legal systems in regulating the life of society.

4. Nonetheless, it is true that a single term conceals a variety of meanings. Hence the need for a preliminary clarification. Driven by the desire to discover the ultimate truth of existence, human beings seek to acquire those universal elements of knowledge which enable them to understand themselves better and to advance in their own self-realization. These fundamental elements of knowledge spring from the wonder awakened in them by the contemplation of creation: human beings are astonished to discover themselves as part of the world, in a relationship with others like them, all sharing a common destiny. Here begins, then, the journey which will lead them to discover ever new frontiers of knowledge. Without wonder, men and women would lapse into deadening routine and little by little would become incapable of a life which is genuinely personal.

Through philosophy’s work, the ability to speculate which is proper to the human intellect produces a rigorous mode of thought; and then in turn, through the logical coherence of the affirmations made and the organic unity of their content, it produces a systematic body of knowledge. In different cultural contexts and at different times, this process has yielded results which have produced genuine systems of thought. Yet often enough in history this has brought with it the temptation to identify one single stream with the whole of philosophy. In such cases, we are clearly dealing with a “philosophical pride” which seeks to present its own partial and imperfect view as the complete reading of all reality. In effect, every philosophical system, while it should always be respected in its wholeness, without any instrumentalization, must still recognize the primacy of philosophical enquiry, from which it stems and which it ought loyally to serve.

Although times change and knowledge increases, it is possible to discern a core of philosophical insight within the history of thought as a whole. Consider, for example, the principles of non-contradiction, finality and causality, as well as the concept of the person as a free and intelligent subject, with the capacity to know God, truth and goodness. Consider as well certain fundamental moral norms which are shared by all. These are among the indications that, beyond different schools of thought, there exists a body of knowledge which may be judged a kind of spiritual heritage of humanity. It is as if we had come upon an implicit philosophy, as a result of which all feel that they possess these principles, albeit in a general and unreflective way. Precisely because it is shared in some measure by all, this knowledge should serve as a kind of reference-point for the different philosophical schools. Once reason successfully intuits and formulates the first universal principles of being and correctly draws from them conclusions which are coherent both logically and ethically, then it may be called right reason or, as the ancients called it, orthós logos, recta ratio.

5. On her part, the Church cannot but set great value upon reason’s drive to attain goals which render people’s lives ever more worthy. She sees in philosophy the way to come to know fundamental truths about human life. At the same time, the Church considers philosophy an indispensable help for a deeper understanding of faith and for communicating the truth of the Gospel to those who do not yet know it.

Therefore, following upon similar initiatives by my Predecessors, I wish to reflect upon this special activity of human reason. I judge it necessary to do so because, at the present time in particular, the search for ultimate truth seems often to be neglected. Modern philosophy clearly has the great merit of focusing attention upon man. From this starting-point, human reason with its many questions has developed further its yearning to know more and to know it ever more deeply. Complex systems of thought have thus been built, yielding results in the different fields of knowledge and fostering the development of culture and history. Anthropology, logic, the natural sciences, history, linguistics and so forth—the whole universe of knowledge has been involved in one way or another. Yet the positive results achieved must not obscure the fact that reason, in its one-sided concern to investigate human subjectivity, seems to have forgotten that men and women are always called to direct their steps towards a truth which transcends them. Sundered from that truth, individuals are at the mercy of caprice, and their state as person ends up being judged by pragmatic criteria based essentially upon experimental data, in the mistaken belief that technology must dominate all. It has happened therefore that reason, rather than voicing the human orientation towards truth, has wilted under the weight of so much knowledge and little by little has lost the capacity to lift its gaze to the heights, not daring to rise to the truth of being. Abandoning the investigation of being, modern philosophical research has concentrated instead upon human knowing. Rather than make use of the human capacity to know the truth, modern philosophy has preferred to accentuate the ways in which this capacity is limited and conditioned.

This has given rise to different forms of agnosticism and relativism which have led philosophical research to lose its way in the shifting sands of widespread scepticism. Recent times have seen the rise to prominence of various doctrines which tend to devalue even the truths which had been judged certain. A legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today’s most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth. Even certain conceptions of life coming from the East betray this lack of confidence, denying truth its exclusive character and assuming that truth reveals itself equally in different doctrines, even if they contradict one another. On this understanding, everything is reduced to opinion; and there is a sense of being adrift. While, on the one hand, philosophical thinking has succeeded in coming closer to the reality of human life and its forms of expression, it has also tended to pursue issues—existential, hermeneutical or linguistic—which ignore the radical question of the truth about personal existence, about being and about God. Hence we see among the men and women of our time, and not just in some philosophers, attitudes of widespread distrust of the human being’s great capacity for knowledge. With a false modesty, people rest content with partial and provisional truths, no longer seeking to ask radical questions about the meaning and ultimate foundation of human, personal and social existence. In short, the hope that philosophy might be able to provide definitive answers to these questions has dwindled.

Evolution and the Church

The position of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has moved over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years. Today, the official Church’s position remains a focus of controversy and is fairly non-specific, stating only that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a “special creation”, and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of human origins. This view falls into the spectrum of viewpoints that are grouped under the concept of theistic evolution.