Who are we? Why are we here? What is life all about? We all have asked these questions, and from the earliest times religion has given us answers. In modern times, science has sometimes attempted to answer the questions from a strictly scientific, materialistic perspective. Those with a religious perspective would see this as scientism: the view that science should be the ultimate authority for understanding all of life, the sole arbiter for determining what is true and what is false. The article on "Scientism and Catholicism" in the Catholic Times examines this perennial debate.
Pope Benedict in Porta Fidei sums up the Church's position on the subject. "To a greater extent than in the past, faith is now being subjected to a series of questions arising, especially today,
from a changed mentality that limits the field of rational certainties
to scientific and technological discoveries. Nevertheless, the Church
has never been afraid of demonstrating that there cannot be any conflict
between faith and genuine science, because both, albeit via different
routes, tend toward the truth."
We have
all benefited from the discoveries of science and technology, but they
do not give us the answers to the meaning of life. The scientific, materialistic answer of no meaning, which comes from misunderstanding the legitimate role of science, has greatly influenced the spread of atheism in recent years, and is deeply troubling to the Church.
The article mentions the scientist Richard Dawkins, and others, the so-called "new atheists," who see God as a wild fantasy and religion as unwittingly evil. Those opposed to the new atheists--like Alister McGrath--see this new breed of atheists as laying the foundation a new religion based on scientific fundamentalism.
"The
human being is made by gift and for gift-giving, which expresses and
makes present humanity's transcendent dimension. Sometimes, modern man
is wrongly convinced that he is the sole author of himself, his life and
society." These words from Charity in Truth point directly to the problem: Did humanity naturally appear on earth or are we from God?
The article mentions in unfavorable terms the collusion of science and capitalism, resulting in humans being treated as commodities to be bought and sold in the marketplace: embryonic cells, blood, body organs, and so forth. It is changing the way we see life and the culture we should be working to achieve.
The
article make clear that the Church has not been able to keep up with
the development of science that now challenges the Church's worldview
and its understanding of creation. The well-meaning but non-scientific
responses to the advances of science have given the impression that the
Church is opposed to science, a false view which many scientists readily
acknowledge. And the Church has itself acknowledged the good that
science has done.
That science has changed the way we see the world is now beyond dispute. The thinking of the Church is rather clear about the important role science has played in shaping our present world. But the dangers of
using the advances in science and technology intemperately are always
present. Instead of using, for instance, the discoveries in medical
science for the health and welfare of humanity, they can be used for
cloning and similar unethical experiments. The same can be said of
nuclear energy and chemical weapons. These are the concerns that many have expressed repeatedly over the years. The concerns are best answered not by a science that roams outside its legitimate domain, but by an enlightened, scientific understanding that respects the religious perspective.
The expression
"give" is missing from the internal dictionary of many of our
contemporaries; only the word 'take' seems to be there, says the
columnist writing on spirituality for the Catholic Times. From parents,
from nature, from neighbors, from the Creator we are content to take and
are not accustomed to the practice of giving. Isn't this, the columnist
asks, the reason our marriages, society, culture, politics have
problems?
Even when it comes to 'love', a word that should mean
to give in the highest sense, our internal dictionary is content to use
it most often to describe the taking and receiving of pleasure from a
sexual attraction. But it's the give and take of life that is the way
of providence, he says, the way we have been made and the way we are
to grow.
Many of us have forgotten this principle, which, regrettably,
can also be seen, he says, in the lives of religious and priests, when
receiving takes precedence over giving. A sign, he asserts, that the
formation was not properly done.
Giving includes many things
besides material things. It can be as simple as a smile on our face, and
a bowing of our head in greeting one another. We have forgotten, he
says, this simple act of giving, and the ease it brings when we
acknowledge the presence of others.
Close our eyes, he tells us,
and reflect on the ways we can give. Think of the many things the sun,
the trees and all earthly things continue to give us. Are we not to
return this giving? he asks. It is when we give that we become beautiful. An easy way to undergo a facial
transformation, he says.
He
has read many books on philosophy and theology, and other books of
eminent thinkers. And he has carried away the same message from all of
them: We have been created beautiful; our eyes were made to see the beauty of creation; our minds to have beautiful thoughts; our mouths to say beautiful things; and our hands and feet to do beautiful things.
All
that we encounter during the day enables us to come in contact with
God. God has made the night for us to rid ourselves, he says, of the
noise of the day. Do we use the quiet of the night to make contact with
God? he wonders. The give and take of everything in the universe should
allow us, as we joyfully join this give and take, to find our rightful
place in God, making our lives and the lives of others more beautiful.
"No small dreams; they do not move hearts." With these words from Goethe, the
columnist on the opinion page of the Catholic Times gives us his
thoughts on the implications of this kind of thinking. The priest-columnist heard similar words in Chicago in
connection with plans for a construction project. But Goethe, the columnist reminds us, did not limit his dreams to
material things.
We are familiar, he says, with the great
plans of Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan to expand their empires,
and the great construction feats of the pyramids and the great wall of
China. These were
not dreams of the ordinary person. And today, there are many who want
to solve our problems with big dreams that will continue on after death.
These
dreams all require determination, a great deal of support and financial backing, and a plan to silence the opposition.
Once begun, the end has to be reached. However, big dreams usually encounter great
problems, and in opposing the critics, dialogue is squashed and many are alienated, losing their own dreams.
In
the story of Babel, people came together to build a tower to
the heavens. Vying with God, wanting to be free of the will of God, they
were ultimately unsuccessful. But dreaming big is a great motivator.
Coming together is a good and dreaming is a good but forgetting the will of God is not a good. But what kind of
dreams, the columnist asks, should we be dreaming?
He wants us
dreaming together. When we dream together, great things happen. The vision of
Jesus for God's reign was of this type. Like the small mustard seed that
becomes a tree or the yeast that becomes bread, the reign of God comes
not with competition but with cooperation and with faith. With love
and patience, our dreaming together will turn into doing great things
together.
We are faced with
great problems and those that want to solve them with big dreams, there is a need to be hesitant. We need to trust one another, rely on each other, think deeply on
what is to be done, and dream together.
Some priests were going over their plans for the new year when one of them said he hoped to meet in the new year
someone who will 'scratch the gourd', a Korean expression
meaning to nag.
The
columnist writing on spirituality for the Catholic Times said that the
unexpected words were met with laughter and incomprehension. "Haven't
you heard," one of them replied, "the complaints of husbands at the
nagging of their wives? At those times, we rejoice in our celibacy, but
you have never been nagged and don't know the harm it can do, otherwise
you would not be saying that."
Hearing these words the priest
shook his head in disagreement, "You do not know how spiritually
motivated those nagging words really are. When we go behind those
nagging words, we see they are often meant to stop the husband's bluster
and self-importance, forcing him to face reality.
The wife is concerned, he continued, about managing the household. educating the children,
putting aside money for retirement; she is concerned for the
total welfare of the family. On the other hand, the husband wants to be
seen as more than the family breadwinner and appreciated as a worthwhile person apart from his role in the family.
It isn't that the wife doesn't know this, the priest said. She is not talking this way to destroy the husband's sense of self. No wife would be doing that, It is an attempt to make him a better husband and father.
"Look at ourselves," he explained. "As priests we appear to our parishioners as able
to know and do everything, which often causes us to bluster and act
big. It is because we have not been faced with the 'scratching of the
gourd'. We all want to do certain things, to display ourselves, make
ourselves known. Don't we need someone to tell us what should and should
not be done? Someone to 'scratch the gourd'?. To have persons helping us face reality and to see ourselves more objectively is a great blessing. It may be uncomfortable, hurt, but it's good for us."
The
'scratching of the gourd' is not an attempt to inflict pain, but the
scratching, if done out of love, will help us grow and keep us from
being carried away by our feelings. It will help us find a middle ground
where we can confidently stand, seeing ourselves as others see us.
The issue of suicides is once again big news with the recent suicide of a celebrity. "A caring culture that respects life will go a long way to reducing
suicides," said a professor in an interview with the Catholic Times
Working
in the preventive medicine department of the Catholic University
Medical School, the professor laments the lack of a support system
within society to prevent suicides, and praises the Gate Keeper Movement
who have taken on the task. All of us have the mission of gate keepers, she said, in helping to put an end to the suicides. Last year in the Seoul Diocese there were efforts to educate the parishioners about the Gate Keepers, and to making us more sensitive to picking up the signs of those who were contemplating suicide among all segments of society.
The
most likely danger signals are feelings of isolation, recent divorce,
unemployment, bodily disabilities, death of a loved one, mental traumas,
past mental problems, dependence on alcohol, and depression. Also at
risk are people of fragile temperament who are placed in a situation
where they see only the dark side, and those who have experienced a
loss, even in small matters. Once suicide has been attempted the chances
are high that they will try again.
If our intervention is not successful, persuading persons at-risk to
seek professional help would be the next step. Also important: the
media has to stop sensationalizing their accounts of these deaths. The
Seoul diocese has also helped by providing information on suicide prevention from their One-Body One-Spirit Center in suicide prevention.
Why
so many suicides? The professor said that a random sample taken on
eight different occasions found discord in the family harder to accept
than problems with school studies and violence. Children who need help
from family and are not receiving it are especially in need of
help--help that often can only be given by religion; the schools cannot fill
that gap. She hopes that the Sunday School teachers, the Legion of
Mary, and other organizations will take a more active interest in the
problem, and use the Gate Keeper's educational programs to help stem a
growing threat to a stable, sane
society.
Because of our rapidly changing society, it has become increasingly
important, said the new rector of Taejon seminary, recently interviewed
by both Catholic papers, to teach today's seminarians that despite all
the societal changes there are truths and values that do not change. Korea has seven seminaries and although there is a drop from the past they are still doing well.
While
engaged in the formation of priests as imitators of Christ, as persons
who can respond to the times, the seminary cannot be oblivious to the
many changes occurring in society, the rector said, but must strive to
convey to its students what is unchangeable. Particularly important for
priests are the unchanging goals of self-emptying, learning and service,
which will continue to motivate our teachers and students, he said,
with even greater emphasis placed on improving the quality of the
educational and spiritual formation of the candidates. As the world has
become more technologically sophisticated, the priests also must keep up
with these recent advances, and our seminary professors, he added, will
provide a mirror to our students so they can more clearly discern and
respond to our changing times.This will be especially helpful for
students here from abroad, who have the added burden of adjusting to a
new culture.
Since the Korean Church has grown and prospered in
recent years, the Church felt it was time to cooperate in the formation
of seminarians from other countries. And today, Taejon seminary has the
most foreign seminarians in the country, with most coming from Asia.
After ordination; they will return to their country, and in this way the
Korean Church is helping in the evangelization of many Catholics in
these countries.
This year the seminary will sponsor a school for
teaching courses on marriage and the family, which will be similar to
those taught at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on
Marriage and the Family. The students, future teachers of marriage and
family studies, will be concerned with long-standing, troublesome
problems in Korea such as suicides, abortions, bullying--in a word,
violence.
The rector hopes that priests, religious and
laypeople who have
completed their theology courses will be motivated to take these special
studies in marriage and family, in preparation for leadership roles in
these fields. The objective of the school is to pass along the ability
to see sex and sanctity from a Gospel
viewpoint, to discern in every human encounter a "theology of the body,"
and to strengthen the
family, where many of our problems are unknowingly nurtured, and
subsequently spread throughout society.
The Peace Weekly column on the culture of life reports that clinical
tests often do not respect the dignity of those tested. One striking
example, mentioned by a Catholic University professor, took place in the
US between 1932 and 1972 . Nearly four hundred black, poor and
illiterate persons were involved in a clinical test on syphilis.
They were never told they had syphilis, or what the tests involved,
or did they give permission for the tests.
Gaining more knowledge
of the
natural progression of syphilis was the object of the tests. And even
though
the researchers had enough knowledge for remedial treatments, they were
not interested and
prevented their test subjects from getting help. It was clearly the
exploitation of a poor and vulnerable group without the resources to do
anything about it.
Also mentioned in the column was a group of
pharmaceutical companies conducting clinical tests in India in 2005. The
subjects--minors, the disabled,
illiterate, poor, and tribal people--were encouraged by their doctors to
join the clinical tests. The columnist said that the consent to the test
was
not clearly ascertained, and that the minors did not receive their
parents' approval.
During the clinical tests about 1,730 died.
Today,
young people with part-time jobs and college students volunteer for
clinical tests because of the money being offered. The invitations to
volunteer are often seen on
Internet portals. Many of these invitations are for bioequivalence
testing, which ascertain whether the generic medicines are absorbed into
the body as well as the brand-name
products, whether the generic delivers the same therapeutic effect as
the brand counterpart, and whether it can be safely substituted for the
brand
product.
The columnist reminds us that when a patent for a drug
runs out, other drug companies can manufacture and sell that drug as a
generic. This is the reason pharmaceutical companies have trials to
prove that their generic product has the same therapeutic effect
and is as safe as the brand counterpart. One week they use the brand
name drug and the following week the generic drug, analyzing and
comparing the effects of the two.
Many laws are now on the books,
thanks
to the 1932-72 case, to prevent the abuses. Our
columnist concludes with the hope that the government, the
pharmaceutical industry, and related
organizations will be more concerned with their test subjects than they
have been in the past. She
hopes for the day when the clinical tests have an oversight committee
established to periodically study the trials and make sure the rights of
the subjects are respected.
