The Throne of Science in the Church

Fr. John McMonagle, B. Min.

A discussion on science and the old gods may sound conflictual they are related in the topic of observation, interpretation and application of scripture. Prior to the Reformation, the main source from which legitimate science was drawn was Aristotelian. Theologians, like Aquinas, wrote their theories using logic based on Aristotle’s conceptualizations of nature. This influenced the science of the Church in such a way that it seemed unnecessary to inquire further afield than this ancient philosophers methodology.

Likewise, in the case of the Enlightenment, the dissatisfaction of some in society on the way the Church viewed the world brought about a retrospective of the antecedent to the Christian culture of the Middle Ages. By turning to philosophers, playwrights, historians, artists, worldviews and such like from antiquity, a re-emergence of the old ways came about. The formers of the Enlightenment, especially in the hands of the Philosophes of France, began to unyoke themselves from the views of the Church. Innovative ways of seeing God were introduced. Questioning authority was not thought to be taboo (although this was done within certain cultural boundaries). Faith in God now needed empirical undergirdings since theology on its own could no longer silence the inquisitive.

Why, for instance, must Aristotle be the sole contributor and ground for science? Could not Pythagoras and Euclid also provide substantive contributions to science in same manner in which Aristotle did? What was science anyway? Did it not seek truth and fact, which, if authentic, not but establish the veracity of the biblical testimony? If it did not, was the Church’s pursuit and declaration of truth inauthentic? If a thing could be proven by inquiry and testing then why should this be bothersome? Part of this questioning of authority had much to do with legitimate boundaries. The Church sincerely wanted to hold fast what had been handed down to her and to what she was convinced was incontrovertible. To have to change the position that as commonly held, as in, the egocentricity of Earth, could undermine the great influence she held over much of Europe, for good or for bad.

With the Copernican and Galilean declarations that the earth was not in fact the center of the Universe was an open contest as to whether the Church was interpreting the Bible correctly on the topic. The Church found their ideas unsettling first of all because a change in what constituted the immovability and unchanging nature of creation could also call into question down the road, whether or not redemption, incarnation, resurrection would also be called into question. This would inevitably lead to pastoral concerns about the security of the vast numbers of Christians.

In less cosmological implications that contribute to pastoral care, there is the basic concern about the accepted hermeneutic of the Church developed or inherited down the centuries. If science implied that the universe, as it was then known, could not be understood factually from scripture then scripture was either wrong or its interpretation had been wrong. This was shortsighted in that given time science would show that there were no inconsistencies in the scripture; however, it did become necessary to accept a reshaping of the minds eye on the universe. Science proved, for instance, the great disparity between astrology and astronomy, superstition and fact. It appears that with this kind of success science has tried to overwhelm the Church in facts thus insinuating tacitly or not so tacitly that the Church is bound to outmoded beliefs about everything. Science forgets here that this kind of conclusion is unscientific and out of its own realm (for science is not so much about conclusions or implications of its findings as much as it is about details, observations and fixed laws).

The Enlightenment did not differ a great deal on where science was going even though one could say that as a child of the Renaissance its domain grew out of the arts, rather than as a species of science. Like science, the realm of the mind in the arts was elevated higher than it had been for a thousand or more years. Disenchantment with the role of the Church, the biases of Christendom, promises that had little this-worldly value, the purveyors (or were they seekers?) of the enrichment of the mind sought and proffered more anthropocentric foundations, thusly called humanism.

The Church was clearly revisiting an old battle. She was at a disadvantage in this round of the war, however. In the Patristic and late Antiquarian periods there were living examples of how the gospel could be thought through with astonishing brilliance and the lived neo-martyrdom of the saints and monastics. Now, there was a palpable disillusionment with the direction the Church had gone and definitely had to be addressed. But, what was the nature of this battle?

This battle had to do with how much of what was innate in man was of value in and of itself without burdening the accepted interpretation of redemption? A bold question that is reduced to “am I really so bad?” “I can think, I can do, I can speak, and walk, and love, and build – look at what the hand of man can accomplish, given the right understanding and the right tools?” Man could therefore plausibly be alone in the universe and forge his own destiny. With this came new terminology and language to test the facts and assertions of all that had previously been known. Some facts had rightly been corrected but much was discarded since science and art had asserted a discrimination against old definitions of right and wrong, tasteful and distasteful, assurance and doubt, holy and profane. Thus, the interpretation of redemption as understood in the Creed, scripture and tradition was, in the end, burdened.

The end of this game, if we can call it that, is illustrated in the conversation I heard last night on Bill Mahrer’s Politically Incorrect, where the panel of guests declared 3 to 1 that there are things that are ‘wrong’ but that there is no such thing as sin. Secondly, they stated vehemently that the great evil axis of power is not North Korea, Iraq and Iran, but Christianity, Judaism and Islam. However, they did back peddle on Judaism. Christianity and Islam, they stated, would better the world by not even existing. Who was on the panel? A militant lesbian, a cartoonist, a well-known actress and an ornery preacher. It was a set up, in hindsight. Of course, that was the outcome. Each were highly outspoken in their fields of provocation.

There is a far more disturbing development in society (which can be said to be the spawn of the Renaissance) in which the accepted lexicons of the language are being redefined and a new speak being formulated. There is a grassroots movement in academie that wants to dilute the offensiveness of harsh sounding words that invoke feelings of prejudice common to speakers of our language. What this means is a case in point. The word Pedophilia is too strong a word, apparently, to be used in civil society; in fact, the concept may be all wrong to boot. A quarter century ago the diagnosis of homosexuality as a pathology was dispensed with as lobbyists for this lifestyle fought for its mainstreaming. The terms buggery, sodomy and queer have been overshadowed by the “Gay Lifestyle.” Okay, be that as it may, but to change language in such a way as to redefine the very language spoken by the common man and manipulate feelings (certainly an excellent persuasive technique but divorces one from the agreed upon usages of a language). All that to say that Pedophilia will be given a new name to get rid of discriminating feelings that arise when people use this word. The alternative word is to be Transgenerational Sex.

Having dispensed with the boundaries set by God through Christ and his Apostles the world has indeed chosen a path of its own making. It is not concerned that the consequence will lead ultimately to its overthrow. The Church would do well to dissociate from the etymologies and logomachies of today’s world.

There are pastoral concerns that relate to the outcome of this reemergence and contemporary enthronement of the mind and, frankly, the denuding of meanings. Science has a way of making a lovely and perhaps inspiring sunset into a meteorological project, the firth of a child into a sanguine, sterile, anatomical and physiological procedure dependent more on technique than joy or sorrow. Science reshapes not by concluding a new truth but by exposing a reality to its hintermost reduction. Meanings are stripped down to numbers.

Together with science as it is described here the arts of mankind do something different to the mind. Mankind submits to his own creativity. He has ideas, longings, expressions, practices, words and so on. All of this is channeled into the ‘works of his hands’, and emulates and venerates his own cleverness.

How does this translate into the aforementioned pastoral concern? In this, that by giving overly deserved deference to science and art, the Church tends to adopt the views and techniques of the worlds of science and art. The Word of God, for instance, is not divinely inspired. To what scientific test could it be subjected? With science, art or humanism, the Word of God cannot be the word the Church says it is since man is full of imperfections and the transmission of texts over the course of thousands of years most certainly is errant. The intentions of the writers must certainly have been lost. One can choose to accept the writings as myth, perhaps. That would be convenient. The authority of the Church, of Scripture, the validity of sacral worldview and tradition become an inferior form of understanding the world – just compare it to other religions and look at the evidence of science, some might say.

If the Church adopts the humanist and scientist worldview then nurturing faith with trusted and ancient traditions and documents, the theologies and definitions of the Councils and Creed become unsupportable because the Church will have relinquished its arsenal to the powers of the world. In the case of abortion, if the Church accepts that a fetus is a piece of flesh that must develop through the many stages of embryology then it loses any basis for making moral statements of any kind. Why is this? Simply, because She has deferred to a sterile reductionism that withdraws from higher meanings of life. She would forget then that the fetus is a child who needs to be cared for with the utmost concern and love.

Now, there have been tremendous wonders and accomplishments of science and art. I have an affinity for both. What is dangerous is that what started out as a quest for truth and a suppression of a disillusionment with the Church of a bygone era, the spirit of antichrist has found a most willing ally in undermining the credibility of the doctrine and dogmas of the Church. In this 21^st century may we ever more diligently concern ourselves with those things that have always benefited the Body of Christ and dismiss what has malefacted her.

The Church has most certainly forgotten that She has her etymologies too. She has a lexicon that rigorously precise and yet fresh in its ability to give life. The humanism of the past 400 years has already coalesced, and is now festering, consuming itself. The Church, be it Catholic or Protestant, is also fetid in as much as it has adopted the world’s definitions and applications of those definitions. For example, faith is a word that has been unleashed onto the world in recent years as a method of getting through life. The humanist view of this is form someone to reach out of themselves and believe that something can change. That is the end of the matter. There is no fuller expression of faith as a means to grasp something that can in fact help. There is no relation to God as understood through the eons; rather, the god of this faith is an ephemeral self-personification of the great “maybe”.

Perhaps that example is too vacuous and a better one is needed. An example pertinent to a Christian’s theology. Eucharist has been the subject of many a debate. The basic question is ‘how can Christ, who is alive and seated at the Right Hand of God, be made manifest to believer’s in a chunk of bread and a glass of wine?” Using a scientific approach one quickly comes up short with a plausible answer. There is no way to transmogrify one substance into that of another without specific, predictable chemical laws being observed or broken. The elements can only be viewed from this position as symbolic at best but is out of the realm of sciences’ influence. It is deferred to the arts. By arts, I am here suggesting the expressions of the human heart through passions plastered on paper, dance, music, philosophy, wishful thinking, pleasure, pain and such like. In this realm, there is no true acceptance of what is holy because that would bake a judgment on the work of art as potentially profane. If profane, then wrong. If wrong, culpable. Eucharist can function in this ethos as a symbol or denounced as superstition, but only in rare artists is it appreciated as understood by the Church. If the Church accepts the hermeneutic of the world, she will have lost her ontological self. Which is to say that the Church could be reduced to a collection of superstitions, body movements, irritating noises and an intrusion into reality?

With the identification of this insipid spirit that has been insinuating itself into the Church for hundreds of years now, it is very important that we, as the Church, recapture our own definitions and leave the world to theirs. There are consequences of living in any ethos and the proffered one of the world to the Church is benignity, incredulance and neutralization.

To avoid entrapment in the ethos of the 21^st Century the Church must review its classical beliefs and those that are novel. It is incumbent upon the Church to also discern the times in which she lives and bring to remembrance times of earnest peril she has lived through to inform her about today. She also needs to renounce the worldviews that have stolen her own sacral view of the world. The Church has much to offer; Life itself, in fact. The eastern half of the Church has well understood the dilemma the Western Church is now facing. When she had the opportunity to lay hold of the humanist approach to Christianity she dabbled briefly (and in some circles still does) with it. I think she recognized the self-delusion and illusions of grandeur inherent in adopting the contemporary worldview. Her message seems to be “lay hold of what you have been taught by the Fathers, be faithful to the Rule of Faith or you will perish.” Unfortunately, most of us in the West know little to nothing of the Fathers, or the Rule of Faith. Perhaps here is where the change must first take place: in listening to the Gregory’s, Basil, Lactantius, Cyprian, Athanasius, Pachomius, Cassian and so many others. Why them? They know the old definitions and give meaning to life in the Church. They predate eve the ascension of Aristotle to his scientific throne in the Church.