Ei, qui te percutit in maxillam, praebe et alteram

David, Abishai and Saul

TO HIM WHO STRIKES YOU ON THE CHEEK, ALSO PRESENT THE OTHER

Amici, Americani, Compatrioate,

We had a visiting priest from Columbia, SC at our parish, Our Lady of Grace, while Father Kirby was on pilgrimage to give a talk out of town at a Divine Mercy conference. When we have had substitute priests from St. Matthew’s in nearby southern Charlotte, invariable we receive liberal progressive Catholicism-lite with the usual anecdotal stories on the priest’s family or his favorite football team or whatever. Little if any exposition of Sacred Scripture is provided, and what does issue forth is along the theme of “Jesus is your buddy” instead of “Jesus is the Lord God Almighty.” But thanks be to God yesterday’s Vigil Mass with this visiting priest was refreshingly different. The gentleman was older, perhaps retired. He gave us his name and sadly I didn’t hear it well. He ran a very reverent and respectful Novus Ordo Mass. And he gave a barely five minute talk on the Gospel passage for the 7th Sunday in Ordinary Time that was so packed full of truth that I had to go back to my Bible at 4 am this morning to study what he meant. Below are my notes on that study.

You can read today’s Scripture passages here:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/022419.cfm

David Spares Saul a Second Time: 1st Samuel 26
The Lord Kind and Merciful: Psalm 103
Earthly and Heavenly Beings: 1st Corinthians 15:45-49
Love Your Enemies: Luke 6:37-3

To get a proper view of what the visiting priest was saying about turning the other cheek, I also read:

Esau Sells His Birthright: Genesis 25:29-34

Birth of Amalek: Genesis 36:12

The Amalekites Attack the Israelites: Exodus 17:8-16

The First Time David Spared Saul: 1st Samuel 24
Nabal and Abigail: 1st Samuel 25
Saul Consults a Medium: 1st Samuel 28
Saul’s Death: 1st Samuel 31

Haman the Agagite in Esther

Father explained to us that when the Lord told His disciples to love their enemies and to turn the other cheek, He didn’t intend for them to become doormats and not defend themselves against unlawful aggression. Rather, Father explained, we must have an interior heart of forgiveness, not holding grudges and not seeking revenge. With that briefest of explanation, he ended the homily. What he said however, only makes sense if you look at the relevant Old Testament readings which Jesus’ audience, being devout Jews, would have known and understood intimately.

You see, Saul was the first King of Israel. But he disobeyed God. He was supposed to defeat and destroy the Amalekites. These people were descendants of Esau (son of Isaac and brother of Jacob) who had sold his birthright for a pot of porridge. The Amalekites had harassed and attack the Israelites after Hebrew exodus from Egypt and during the wandering in the desert. So, God’s wrath burned against the Amalekites and He ordered Saul to wipe all of them out. But when Saul had won victory over them in battle, he spared their king, Agag and while he did destroy everything that was worthless, he took for himself the best of the Amalekite livestock and provisions as his spoil. By doing this, he allowed the eventual rise (hundreds of years later) of a descendent of Agag named Haman who was a vizier in the Persian empire under King Ahasuerus (Xerxes I). This man plotted the genocide of the Jews but was thwarted by Queen Esther. King Saul’s disobedience almost led to the extermination of God’s Chosen People.

So how does this all tie into “turn the other cheek.” Well, you have to understand that the prophet Samuel had told Saul that the kingdom of Israel had been torn away from him because of his disobedience and given to another – obviously David. Saul was filled with jealousy at that and pursued David throughout the land, intending to kill him. During one such pursuit, Saul had to relieve himself in a cave which was the vey place where David and his men were hiding. But Saul was unaware of it, and as he went about his business, David cut the hem of his cape off. David’s men urged him to slay Saul (since David was destined by God’s will to be the new king anyways), but David said no, he would not touch the Lord’s anointed. This is very important: even though Saul had disobeyed God and was under the sentence of defeat and death, he remained the Lord’s anointed. So David turned the other cheek and after Saul left the cave, David came out with his men and said, “What is the king of Israel attacking? What are you pursuing? A dead dog! A single flea!” Saul, feeling foolish and humiliated, then asked David to spare his descendants when he would become king and David so promised. But consistent with what the visiting priest told us at Vigil Mass, David and his men went separately from Saul to their own stronghold. They didn’t trust Saul and they defended themselves.

The story of Abigail and her husband Nabal (whose name means fool) is likewise interesting. Nabal was a rich landowner whom David and his men had protected. Being hungry and worn out from all the conflict, David sent his men to ask Nabal for provisions but was rejected. So David was filled with wrath and intended to exact vengeance. But Abigail heard about this and gathered provisions to help David and his men. When David met her and saw her intent, he spared both her and Nabal. He turned the other cheek. But in the end, God had the last word. Nabal had gotten drunk that night at a party, so Abigail waited till morning to tell him that David would have come to wipe him and his possessions out if it were not for her intercession. Scripture says, “At this his heart died within him, and he became like a stone. About ten days later the LORD struck Nabal and he died.” Being merciful to one’s enemies doesn’t mean that justice won’t be served.

Then for a second time Saul sent out in pursuit of David. Saul was never a man of his word. One night during the pursuit, Saul and his 3000 men made camp to sleep. David and Abishai stole into Saul’s camp under the cover of darkness. Seeing Saul’s spear and water jug beside his head as he lay sleeping, Abishai asked David to allow him the plunge the spear through him just once; he wouldn’t need a second try. David again said not for Saul was still the Lord’s anointed until the Lord Himself removed him. But David did take Saul’s spear and jug of water, and after leaving the camp, awoke everyone by crying out to Abner, Saul’s servant, that he had both spear and water jug and thus Abner deserved to die for failing to provide adequate protection for his master. Again, Saul admitted, “I have done wrong. Come back, David, my son! I will not harm you again, because you considered my life precious today even though I have been a fool and have made a serious mistake.” But even though David had turned the other check, he still didn’t trust Saul’s entreaty to return. So, Scripture says that David and his went their way, and Saul returned to his place.

Scripture goes on to explain that Saul seeks to talk with Samuel (who is now deceased) visits the Witch of Endor, asking her to conjure up Samuel’s spirit. The witch does so, and Samuel declared to Saul, “Moreover, the LORD will deliver Israel, and you as well, into the hands of the Philistines. By tomorrow you and your sons will be with me, and the LORD will have delivered the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines.” The last chapter in the book of 1st Samuel records that Saul and his son Jonathan died in battle against the Philistines. And the 1st chapter in the book of 2nd Samuel says, “David seized his garments and tore them, and so did all the men who were with him. They mourned and wept and fasted until evening for Saul and his son Jonathan, and for the people of the LORD and the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword.” David always defended himself and his men, but David likewise always turned the other cheek. That’s what the visiting priest at Our Lady of Grace meant yesterday evening.

Be a forgiving and merciful David, not a vengeful and spiteful Saul. But don’t be a doormat. Jesus said, "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." Matthew 10:16

Dilecti

PETS

Amici, Amercani, Compatriotae,

Two Wednesdays ago Father Kirby gave a talk a my parish on the topic of the Environment and Sanity which you may read here:

Oecologia et Sanitas

While Father explained that mankind has a duty of stewardship over the environment, he also pointed out that God gave man dominion over the Earth and all the plants and animals therein. It isn’t vice versa. He also pointed out that only man is created in the image and likeness of God, not animals, Rather, animals are said to be the vestiges or footprint of God. But animals do not have sentience, and they do not possess eternal souls.

Yes, Proverbs 11:12 states, “Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.” Thus, my priest explained, “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.” My priest went on with a personal anecdote.

When he was a child, my priest’s family had a pet dog. The dog had developed (or perhaps already had) epilepsy for unknown reasons. My priest’s father brought the dog to the veterinary to see what could be done. Treatment was available, but the cost was very high. So one day when my priest came home from school, the dog was nowhere to be found. He asked his father where the dog was and what had happened. His father explained that he had taken the dog out in the woods and shot it dead. My priest asked why. His father explained that as long as there were human children with epilepsy, he in good conscience could not and would not spend an exorbitant amount of money on a mere animal. Humans, being in God’s image and likeness, are far more important. So he painlessly put the dog out of misery, and the family got a new (and health) dog.

Father Kirby explained that it is wrong to ascribe to mere animals human feelings, motivations and intelligence. He described with disparagement current practice among young millennials of carrying their small dogs in baby baskets or treating their cats like little infants. A dog and a cat need to be what they are: animals. Anthropomorphizing them does a disservice to them by not treating them as what they truly are, and ends up denigrating us humans as nothing better than animals. My priest explained that all this is due to the fact that people don’t want to be inconvenienced by babies, so they end up unnaturally redirecting affections (rightfully reserved for children) to their pets. He ended by saying that if people treated the pre-born as they treat their pets, then abortion would be a thing of the past. And he reminded me of what Saint Paul wrote in Romans 1:22, 23 & 25:

“Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles…..they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!”

Pets (dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, etc.) and service animals (horses, cows, oxen, goats, sheep, etc.) are wonderful gifts from God. But let them be what (not who for they aren't a "who") they are – animals. And don’t give to them what is rightfully reserved for humans.

Noe et Alluvio Magna

NOAH AND THE GREAT FLOOD,

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

Today's Old Testament Mass reading was about Noah and the Great Flood. The entire story is in Genesis chapters 7 and 8. I used both my Catholic Navarre Study Bible and my Protestant Henry Morris Study Bible. While I am not too keen about Dr. Morris' literalism, he has some key insights which I found valuable. In both cases, however, there is a wealth of symbolism just waiting to be unlocked, so it's important not to get lost in arguments about whether or not the Great Flood was truly world-wide or merely a local event constrained to the geographical location of the Middle East.

In Genesis 7:5 there is a contrast between Noah's obedience and Adam's disobedience. Hebrews 11:7 states:

By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, took heed and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; by this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith.

In Genesis 6:14-16 the Ark is built precisely to the dimensions God gave Noah, and in Genesis 7:7 Noah and his family enter it. St. Augustine explains the symbolism of the Ark's design in De Civitate Dei 15:26 as follows:

Moreover, inasmuch as God commanded Noah, a just man, and, as the truthful Scripture says, a man perfect in his generation — not indeed with the perfection of the citizens of the city of God in that immortal condition in which they equal the angels, but in so far as they can be perfect in their sojourn in this world — inasmuch as God commanded him, I say, to make an ark, in which he might be rescued from the destruction of the flood, along with his family, i.e., his wife, sons, and daughters-in-law, and along with the animals who, in obedience to God's command, came to him into the ark: this is certainly a figure of the city of God sojourning in this world; that is to say, of the church, which is rescued by the wood on which hung the Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus 1 Timothy 2:5). For even its very dimensions, in length, breadth, and height, represent the human body in which He came, as it had been foretold. For the length of the human body, from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, is six times its breadth from side to side, and ten times its depth or thickness, measuring from back to front: that is to say, if you measure a man as he lies on his back or on his face, he is six times as long from head to foot as he is broad from side to side, and ten times as long as he is high from the ground. And therefore the ark was made 300 cubits in length, 50 in breadth, and 30 in height. And its having a door made in the side of it certainly signified the wound which was made when the side of the Crucified was pierced with the spear; for by this those who come to Him enter; for thence flowed the sacraments by which those who believe are initiated. And the fact that it was ordered to be made of squared timbers, signifies the immoveable steadiness of the life of the saints; for however you turn a cube, it still stands. And the other peculiarities of the ark's construction are signs of features of the church.

Genesis 7:12 records that rain fell on the Earth 40 days and 40 nights. This prefigures the 40 year wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness, the 40 year reign of King David, and the 40 day sojourn of Jesus in the desert before His temptation by the devil. 

In Genesis 8:4 the Ark is said to have finally rested on Mount Arat on the 17th day of the 7th month. Dr. Morris observes that the 7th month in the Hebrew calendar is Nisan (March / April). The 17th day is 3 days after Passover - a Sunday, the very day on which our Blessed Lord rose from the dead. The resting of the Ark on dry land after the world's destruction by flooding prefigures the resurrection of the Lord after his death by crucifixion.

Genesis 8:6-12 records that after 40 days Noah opened a window on the Ark to first let a raven go then a dove. The dove returned, having found no resting place. After 7 days he let the dove go again and she returned with an olive branch in her beak, and after a final 7 days he let the dove go and she did not return. Rubert of Deutz explains this symbology in his work, Commentarius in Genesim. He explains that the dove represents the Holy Spirit which comes to us three times: (1) when we are initially baptized into the Church (the Body of Christ which the Ark prefigures), (2) when we are confirmed by the imposition of hands from the Bishop, and (3) in the resurrection of the dead where we do not return to this world but remain with the Lord forever.

The whole story of the Great Flood is doubly symbolic: it stands for destruction and purification from evil on the one hand and for a means of salvation and a new start on the other hand. This dual symbology is repeated in the story of the Israelite exodus from Egypt. The waters of the Red Sea receding were a source of salvation for the Hebrews, but their collapse was a source of destruction for the Egyptians. Thus 1st Peter 3:20-21 states:

....who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ....

St. Bede writes in Hexaemeron 2:

The Ark stands for the Church; the flood for the water of baptism whereby the Church in all its members is washed and sanctified.

There is much more symbolism of the Christ and the Church in these two chapters of Genesis. The real miracle isn't so much a world-wide flood (a story repeated by Summerians, Egyptians and others in their various mythologies). the real miracle is the God had planned all this out from the very beginning of time when He said let there be light in order to point the way to the Messiah. One cannot read the Old Testament without seeing Christ in each of its pages.

Triticum et Zizania

St. John Chrysostom

WHEAT AND TARES

Regarding my previous discussion about the heresy of religious pluralism, in a comment Archbishop Gordon wisely pointed out St. John Chrysostom’s homily on Matthew 13:24-30, the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. That homily is reproduced below. Note that St. John Chrysostom is one of 36 Doctors (or Teachers) of the Church and was Bishop of Constantinople in the late 4th, early 5th century AD. I should have remembered this: God tolerates religious pluralism that that the faithful aren’t uprooted by uprooting the heretics, and that all, even the heretics, might be saved.

Notate Bene: the translation below was copied from the Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia and is a very literal rendering, so sometimes the wording may be a bit stilted. I’m sure the original Koine Greek text can be found somewhere on the internet for the those of you willing to go that far! Ha! Ha!

Homily on Matthew XIII: 24-30.

Another parable put He forth unto them, saying, The Kingdom of Heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field. But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares. So the servants of the householder came and said to him, Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? Whence then has it tares? He said to them, An enemy has done this. The servants said to him, Will you then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay, lest while you gather up the tares, you root up also the wheat with them. Let both therefore grow together until the harvest.

What is the difference between this, and the parable before it? There He speaks of them that have not at all holden with Him, but have started aside, and have thrown away the seed; but here He means the societies of the heretics. For in order that not even this might disturb His disciples, He foretells it also, after having taught them why He speaks in parables. The former parable then means their not receiving Him; this, their receiving corrupters. For indeed this also is a part of the devil's craft, by the side of the truth always to bring in error, painting thereon many resemblances, so as easily to cheat the deceivable. Therefore He calls it not any other seed, but tares; which in appearance are somewhat like wheat.

Then He mentions also the manner of his device. For while men slept, says He. It is no small danger, which He hereby suspends over our rulers, to whom especially is entrusted the keeping of the field; and not the rulers only, but the subjects too.

And He signifies also that the error comes after the truth, which the actual event testifies. For so after the prophets, were the false prophets; and after the apostles, the false apostles; and after Christ, Antichrist. For unless the devil see what to imitate, or against whom to plot, he neither attempts, nor knows how. Now then also, having seen that one brought forth a hundred, another sixty, another thirty, he proceeds after that another way. That is, not having been able to carry away what had taken root, nor to choke, nor to scorch it up, he conspires against it by another craft, privily casting in his own inventions.

And what difference is there, one may say, between them that sleep, and them that resemble the wayside? That in the latter case he immediately caught it away; yea, he suffered it not even to take root; but here more of his craft was needed.

And these things Christ says, instructing us to be always wakeful. For, says He, though thou quite escape those harms, there is yet another harm. For as in those instances the wayside, and the rock, and the thorns, so here again sleep occasions our ruin; so that there is need of continual watchfulness. Wherefore He also said, He that endures to the end, the same shall be saved (Matthew 10:22).

Something like this took place even at the beginning. Many of the prelates, I mean, bringing into the churches wicked men, disguised heresiarchs, gave great facility to the laying that kind of snare. For the devil needs not even to take any trouble, when he has once planted them among us.

And how is it possible not to sleep? One may say. Indeed, as to natural sleep, it is not possible; but as to that of our moral faculty, it is possible. Wherefore Paul also said, Watch ye, stand fast in the faith (1 Corinthians 16:13).

After this He points out the thing to be superfluous too, not hurtful only; in that, after the land has been tilled, and there is no need of anything, then this enemy sows again; as the heretics also do, who for no other cause than vainglory inject their proper venom.

And not by this only, but by what follows likewise, He depicts exactly all their acting. For, When the blade was sprung up, says He, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also; which kind of thing these men also do. For at the beginning they disguise themselves; but when they have gained much confidence, and someone imparts to them the teaching of the word, then they pour out their poison.

But wherefore does He bring in the servants, telling what has been done? That He may pronounce it wrong to slay them.

And He calls him an enemy, because of his harm done to men. For although the despite is against us, in its origin it sprang from his enmity, not to us, but to God. Whence it is manifest, that God loves us more than we love ourselves.

And see from another thing also, the malicious craft of the devil. For he did not sow before this, because he had nothing to destroy, but when all had been fulfilled, that he might defeat the diligence of the Husbandman; in such enmity against Him did he constantly act.

And mark also the affection of the servants. I mean, what haste they are in at once to root up the tares, even though they do it indiscreetly; which shows their anxiety for the crop, and that they are looking to one thing only, not to the punishment of that enemy, but to the preservation of the seed sown. For of course this other is not the urgent consideration.

Wherefore how they may for the present extirpate the mischief, this is their object. And not even this do they seek absolutely, for they trust not themselves with it, but await the Master's decision, saying, Will You?

What then does the Master? He forbids them, saying, Lest haply ye root up the wheat with them. And this He said, to hinder wars from arising, and blood and slaughter. For it is not right to put a heretic to death, since an implacable war would be brought into the world. By these two reasons then He restrains them; one, that the wheat be not hurt; another, that punishment will surely overtake them, if incurably diseased. Wherefore, if you would have them punished, yet without harm to the wheat, I bid you wait for the proper season.

But what means, Lest ye root up the wheat with them? Either He means this, If you are to take up arms, and to kill the heretics, many of the saints also must needs be overthrown with them; or that of the very tares it is likely that many may change and become wheat. If therefore ye root them up beforehand, you injure that which is to become wheat, slaying some, in whom there is yet room for change and improvement. He does not therefore forbid our checking heretics, and stopping their mouths, and taking away their freedom of speech, and breaking up their assemblies and confederacies, but our killing and slaying them.

But mark thou His gentleness, how He not only gives sentence and forbids, but sets down reasons.

What then, if the tares should remain until the end? Then I will say to the reapers, Gather together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them (Matthew 13:30). He again reminds them of John's words (Matthew 3:12), introducing Him as judge; and He says, So long as they stand by the wheat, we must spare them, for it is possible for them even to become wheat but when they have departed, having profited nothing, then of necessity the inexorable punishment will overtake them. For I will say to the reapers, says He, Gather ye together first the tares. Why, first? That these may not be alarmed, as though the wheat were carried off with them. And bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.

Haeresis Pluralismi Religiosi

Pope Francis Kisses Grand Imam of Egypt

THE HERESY OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

Once again Jorge Bergoglio (Pope Francis) has done the idiotic. He has signed a statement with Muslim clerics during his visit to the United Arab Emirates which asserts in part the following:

“Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept….”

Father Zuhlsdorf at his blog tries to put a positive spin on this by saying that there is God’s perfect will of one and only one Faith in Christ Jesus, and God’s permissive will wherein people have freedom to choose what faith to believe. Father’s effort is admirable. But this episode is merely a continuation of all the other nonsense that has come out from Jorge Bergoglio’s horrible Pontificate.

Father Hunwickie in the United Kingdom discusses this whole issue at his blog, Mutual Enlightenment, where he quotes what Blessed John Henry Newman said in the 19th century:

"For thirty, forty, fifty years I have resisted to the best of my powers the spirit of liberalism in religion. Never did Holy Church need champions against it more sorely than now, when, alas! it is an error overspreading, as a snare, the whole earth ... Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion, [that] revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and [that] it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy."

There are some things we authentic Christians need to grasp, whether we are Catholic, Protestant or Eastern Orthodox:

(1) The ONLY true religion is the Christian one, and yes, it is a religion – a binding together in Christ as the original Latin word (religare = to bind) means.
(2) Islam and all the rest of the world’s religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, etc. are false.
(3) God wants everyone to come to the saving knowledge of the truth; He does NOT will false belief.

St. Paul addressed this whole issue in his sermon on the Aeropagus in Athens as Acts 17:22-31 records:

22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23 For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ 29 Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30 Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

Now some people in a fit of misunderstanding will say that the Pope is supposed to be infallible, so how can this happen? Vatican Council I back in the late 1800s addresses this as follows:

“For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”

Pope Francis for the entirety of his Pontificate has been shooting off his mouth about stuff in which he has no expertise, no knowledge and certainly no charism (or gift) (e.g., climate change, economics, gun control, immigration, etc.). A great deal of what he has said and done has been contrary to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Therefore, what Vatican Council I states more than 100 years ago applies: he is NOT infallible (just the opposite in fact) when he contradicts Sacred Scripture and 2000 years of Judeo-Christian Tradition. I do not base what I just said merely on my own interpretation of Sacred Scripture contrary to what 2nd Peter 1:20-21 states:

20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Rather, I base it on the continuous Tradition of Holy Mother Church from the early Church Fathers in the first four centuries after Christ. Do we for a second imagine that St. Ignatius of Antioch (the man who was taught by St. John the Apostle) believed in the legitimacy of a plurality and diversity of religions when he refused to offer incense to Caesar and Caesar’s gods and goddesses, preferring instead to be eaten by lions in the Coliseum? He even said, “I am the wheat of God and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.” Would that man say as Pope Francis did, “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom?” I think NOT!

Pray for Pope Francis, that the Holy Spirit will take the baseball bat of common sense and hit him straight across the head with it so he’ll wake up and fly straight.

Noe et Maria

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

Yesterday's Old Testament reading for daily Mass was Genesis chapter 6, the beginning of the story of the patriarch Noah. There is an interesting parallel to be found between Noah and the Blessed Virgin Mary which I hadn’t previously noticed. Both are called “favored” or “full of grace.” In Genesis 6:8, the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate describes Noah as having found grace (i.e., χάριν and gratia respectively). In Luke 1:28, the Greek original and the Latin Vulgate describes Mary as most favored or full of grace (i.e., κεχαριτωμένη and gratia plena respectively). Note in both cases the occurrence of the Greek that root word χαρι (grace). You can easily see it in χάριν used to describe Noah and in right after the κε and before the τωμένη in κεχαριτωμένη used to describe Mary.

Now why were both Noah and Mary found with grace before the Lord God? Because in the face of being given what was humanly impossible (e.g., prepare for a world-wide flood and conceive a child without having known a man), both Noah and Mary said YES to God. The first built an Ark (to rescue people and animals), and the second became an Ark (the Ark of the New Covenant). The first provided the means of saving humanity from a planetary flood, and the second provided the Christ Child who would save humanity from its sins.

So Noah found grace with God and Mary was full of grace. Here is a comparison of the Greek, Latin and English texts. Gaudeatis magna cum laeitita!

GENESIS 6:8

GREEK SEPTUAGINT

Νωε δὲ εὗρεν χάριν ἐναντίον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ

LATIN

Noë vero invenit gratiam coram Domino

ENGLISH

Noah found grace before Lord the God.

LUKE 1:28

GREEK

καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν, Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.

LATIN

Et ingressus ad eam dixit: “Ave, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.”

ENGLISH

And [the angel] having come to her said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord with you.”

Oecologia et Sanitas

THE ENVIRONMENT AND SANITY
Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

On Wednesday evening, February 13, 2019, the priest at my parish (Father Kirby) gave a talk entitled, “The Environment and Sanity.” In this talk Father discussed the following:

Hope (CCC 1817-1821)Natural Law (CCC 1954-1960)Creation (CCC 279-314)Stewardship (CCC 2415-2418)
My notes on this talk follow each relevant section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that Father used in his explanation.

EXCERPT ON HOPE FROM THE CATECHISM

Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful." "The Holy Spirit…he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life."

The virtue of hope responds to the aspiration to happiness which God has placed in the heart of every man; it takes up the hopes that inspire men's activities and purifies them so as to order them to the Kingdom of heaven; it keeps man from discouragement; it sustains him during times of abandonment; it opens up his heart in expectation of eternal beatitude. Buoyed up by hope, he is preserved from selfishness and led to the happiness that flows from charity.

We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere "to the end" and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ.

NOTES ON HOPE

The virtue of hope is the most attacked one in this present age, and this results in much of the depression driving people into despair.

None of us have our salvation assured for Philippians 2:12 states, “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” But our hope is in the desire for heaven and eternal life as our happiness, not the things of this world.

The story of Pandora’s box is illustrative of how the ancients viewed hope. According to Hesiod, when Prometheus stole fire from heaven, Zeus, the king of the gods, took vengeance by presenting Pandora to Prometheus' brother Epimetheus. Pandora opened a jar (i.e., box) left in his care containing sickness, death and many other unspecified evils which were then released into the world. Though she hastened to close the container, only one thing was left behind – usually translated as Hope, though for the Greeks it had the pessimistic meaning of "deceptive expectation." To them hope meant that an outcome cannot be changed for the better.

The Christian view is however very different. Romans 4:18-22 explains this:

18 In hope [Abraham] believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations; as he had been told, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead because he was about a hundred years old, or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. 20 No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was “reckoned to him as righteousness.”

And Hebrews 11:17-19 states:

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, 18 of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named.” 19 He considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead; hence he did receive him back, and this was a symbol.

Pope Benedict XVI used as one of the underlying themes in his encyclical Spe et Salvi the observation that most people have trouble with faith and hope because they have forgotten about heaven. In his discussion of the resurrection of the dead in 1st Corinthian 15, St. Paul said that if there no resurrection, then we are of all people the most pitiable.

Those who say that they have a bucket list of things to do prior to death are those without hope. To them all that exists is this material world and of all people they are truly the most hopeless. But 1st Corinthians 2:9 gives us as Christians our hope: “But, as it is written, ‘What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him.’”

Yes, we must be stewards of the environment. But our destination is heaven. The environment will one day pass away.

EXCERPT ON NATURAL LAW FROM THE CATECHISM

Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie.

The "divine and natural" law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one's equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue.

This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature.

The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties.

NOTES ON NATURAL LAW

Animals and angels do not bear God’s image, only we human do. Animals in fact are called the vestiges or footprint of God.

We – that is to say, humankind – participate with God by self-mastery through reason. Animals cannot, being subject to blind instinct. Likewise angels cannot, for they merely obey.

We – humankind – can tell the truth from a lie. However, in order to grow in truth we must submit to God. That’s why the Catechism states that the moral life hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him. Furthermore, natural law provides the precepts for a moral life which in turn are expressed in the Decalogue: the Ten Commandments:

I am the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no strange gods before Me.
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.
Thou shalt honor thy father and mother.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.

Considering these things, the imposition of personhood on animals is cruel for they are irrational and incapable of the cognitive reasoning that typifies sentience. Such personhood descends from natural law, and natural law consists of both rights and duties, of which animals have neither.

By definition natural law is not a legislation passed into effect by government. It exists because of God. An attempt to codify such human rights from such natural law was made in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights drafted by a Catholic and actively supported by Eleanor Roosevelt. One of the fundamental rights recognized in this document was the right of personhood – the right to a name. In the Nazi concentration camps of WW II, names of prisoners were replaced by numbers. Nothing was more dehumanizing than to remove someone’s personhood and treat him as a mere animal or less.

Another violation of natural law that occurred under Nazism was the fact that concentration camp officers committed crimes against humanity, and later said, “I was order to do this.” It is a basic principle of natural law that we don’t violate our neighbor to save our own skin. If to save our neighbor we must be martyrs, then that is what God calls us to do.

Throughout all this the Church again and again cites reason. Contrarily, the Enlightenment of the 1700s was actual an “endarkment.” That period of time resulted in the French Revolution where in the name of science and logic, reason was overthrown in favor of emotion as hundreds of thousands (or more) of Catholic clergy and laity were executed under Maximillian Robespierre’s Reign of Terror.

Any sane person is reasonable with ordered emotions, but often people today are pathetic, ascribing to dogs the power of reason while themselves neglecting their own gift of reason. Such is pathos (πάθος) – the pathology of today’s culture. Pathos is an appeal to people’s emotions and elicits feelings that already reside in them without appealing to their God-given charism of reason and logic.

EXCERPT ON CREATION FROM THE CATECHISM

We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God's free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness.

To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of "subduing" the earth and having dominion over it. God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors. Though often unconscious collaborators with God's will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings. They then fully become "God's fellow workers" and co-workers for his kingdom

NOTES ON CREATION FROM THE CATECHISM

Before I begin with my notes on the creation portion of Father Kirby’s talk, links are provided below on the first two chapters in Genesis to give a correlation between science and Sacred Scripture. Apparent inconsistencies hyped up by fascist materialists have resulted in much false propaganda and disinformation. It is therefore important that the air of confusion and falsehood be cleared up first before proceeding. As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical Fides et Ratio, the Revelation by Faith and the Revelation by Science are two sides of the one coin that is Truth.

FINE TUNING OF THE UNIVERSE
https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/contendens-suptilis-universitatis.htmlMonday in the 5th Week of Ordinary Time
Genesis 1:1-19 – First through Fourth Days of Creation

DAYS OF CREATION
https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/days-of-creation-amici-americani.htmlTuesday in the 5th Week of Ordinary Time
Genesis 1:20-2:3 – Fifth through Seventh Days of Creation

CREATION OR EVOLUTION
https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/creatio-aut-evolutio.htmlWednesday in the 5th Week of Ordinary Time
Genesis 1:20-2:3 – Creation of Man

MITOCHONDRIAL EVE
https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/heva-mitochondrialis.htmlThursday in the 5th Week of Ordinary Time
Genesis 2:18-25 – Creation of Woman

The world exists as an act of wisdom. Indeed, Father George LeMaitre (the astrophysicist who first formulated the theory that accurately described the origin of the universe) called his idea NOT the Big Bang (which denotes anarchy and confusion) but the Primeval Atom (which denotes order and reason). That is how God made the universe.

EXCERPT ON STEWARDSHIP FROM THE CATECHISM

The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.

Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

NOTES ON STEWARSHIP FROM THE CATECHISM

Mankind is called to be a steward of the physical environment of the planet Earth. A steward is the leader of a household and he is governed by prudence.

The Church’s teaching on the environment derive from the Seventh Commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.” To arbitrarily and willfully damage or destroy the environment is to steal God’s gift from future generations of humankind. Therefore, we are called to respect creation made by God. Indeed, we cannot separate our treatment of creation from God’s moral imperative.

Now care of the environment must be tempered by the quality of life available to one’s neighbor. We must not destroy what does not need to be destroyed. However, we are not radical environmentalists.

The Church has no official teaching on climate change. Questions remain on whether or not there is climate change, how much the climate is changing, in what direction it’s changing, and what part of the change is caused by man. Pope Francis has issued his personal thoughts on the environment and climate change in his encyclical, “Laudato Si.” His personal opinion is prudential and as good Catholics we are free to disagree. The important thing is to use our reasoning capabilities and not be governed by emotion.

Now animals are a natural part of the environment. As such the Catechism states that they may be used for food and clothing, and medical and scientific experimentation is a “morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving of human lives.” For example, while experimentation may be conducted on dogs to find a cure for epilepsy in humans, it is improper to give money to cure one’s pet dog of epilepsy when human children have epilepsy and are lacking medical care. Indeed, if more people treat the unborn as they treat their pet animals, then there would be no abortion.

Humankind is hardwired to worship no matter what. Take God away, and humans will worship the environment. St. Paul states in Romans 1:25, “….they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!”

Today more and more we see a new barbarism in identity politics – one must be a member of a certain tribe or group, some protected class – to be worthy of equal rights and fair treatment. This is because of the abandonment of reason where the life of a speckled owl in a forest is more important than building a shopping center that will provide meaningful income for families to support themselves.

But there is a flip side to this. Sometimes a vast geographical area like the Amazon rain forest in Brazil must be protected at an international level because of its global effect on worldwide weather patterns. In cases like this the international community must work together to ensure that the people within the Amazon basin are not unfairly deprived of the life-saving infrastructure of modern science and technology.

Here I shall depart from my notes and point out to the reader that a large part in ensuring health and prosperity is access to low cost, pollution free energy that doesn’t devastate the environment as erection of a 1000 MWe wind farm or solar cell array covering hundreds of square miles would. I have written on this topic before. Please click here:

The Environment and Nuclear Energy
https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/01/oecologia-et-energia-nuclearis.html
I encourage the reader to review this essay.

At the end of Father’s talk, one brave lady spoke up to explain that when she was pregnant with her fourth (I think) child, a modernist secularist approached her to ask her why she wasn’t doing something about her carbon footprint. I thought to myself when I heard that, “What asininity!” To place animal babies ahead of human babies is to sink to a new low in morality that St. Paul described in Romans 1:25 quoted above. (Side Note: I will also add my wager that the person who asked the woman that question about carbon footprint was more than likely an anti-nuclear environmentalist, and irony is that nuclear power is the ONLY baseload source of energy that can provide electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at a capacity factor of 92% without any carbon pollution.) Thankfully the woman who made the original point went on to say that she had a total of 12 (I think) children. God bless her! Let’s have children ahead of animals!

In conclusion, I was as always very impressed with Father Kirby’s talk. It is rare but very refreshing to hear actual Roman Catholic doctrine from a Roman Catholic cleric nowadays. Bravo to Father!

Heva Mitochondrialis

MITOCHONDRIAL EVE

Amici, Americani, Compatrioatae,

As my siblings and my friends from the Pentecostal Church of my youth will recall, the apparent discrepancies between the scientific account of the origin of the universe and humankind, and the Biblical account of Creation bothered me a great deal as a teenager. When as an adult I became a Catholic and began unlocking the treasures of the Church over the past 2000 years – especially the early Church Fathers and all those Catholic clergy (like Father Georges LeMaitre) who were scientists – I came to discover that there is no conflict between real science and the teaching of Holy Mother Church found in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Her Magisterium. This post is a continuation along that theme and I hope it (along with other recent posts) helps the reader (whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant) in seeing and understanding the essential unity of science and our Christian Faith.

The next Old Testament reading on Creation in the daily Divine Liturgy is Genesis 2:18-25, the account of the creation of Eve, wife of Adam and Mother of Humankind. This post will explain the scientific basis for the Genesis account. Much of what is provided below was prepared and delivered as an apologetics training course some 10 or so years ago.

In 1987, geneticists in the journal Nature examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 147 people across all major racial groups. These researchers found that the lineage of all people alive today falls on one of two branches in humanity's family tree. One of these branches consists of nothing but African lineage. The other contains all other groups, including some African lineage.

The geneticists concluded that every person on Earth can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200K years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve.

Another geneticist, Dr. Wesley Brown, in 1980 noticed that when the mtDNA of two humans is compared, the samples are much more similar than when the mtDNA of two other primates -- for example, two chimpanzees -- is compared. Brown found, in fact, that the mtDNA of two humans has only about half as many differences as the mtDNA of two other primates within the same species. This suggests that humans share a much more recent common ancestor

Evolutionists maintain that the Mitochondrial Eve was not the first -- or only -- woman on Earth during the time she lived. Instead, this woman is simply the most recent person to whom all people can trace their genealogy. According to them, there were many women who came before her and many women who came after, but her life is the point from which all modern branches on humanity's family tree grew. If true, then why is she the only one to have successfully passed down her mtDNA?

When the researchers in the 1987 study looked at samples taken from 147 different people and fetuses, they found 133 distinct sequences of mtDNA. After comparing the number of differences among the mtDNA samples within races, they found that Africans have the most diversity (that is, the most number of differences) of any single racial group. This would suggest that the mtDNA found in Africans is the oldest. Since it has had the most mutations, a process which takes time, it must be the oldest of lineages around today.

The two distinct branches contained the mtDNA are found in the five main populations on the planet:

1. African
2. Asian
3. European
4. Australian
5. New Guinean

Researchers found that in the branch that was not exclusively African, racial populations often had more than one lineage. For example, one New Guinean lineage finds its closest relative in a lineage present in Asia, not New Guinea. All of the lineages and both of the two branches, however, can all be traced back to one theorized point: Mitochondrial Eve.

So how did Eve end up being humanity's most recent common ancestor? We shall investigate that, as well as some arguments lodged against the Mitochondrial Eve theory. But first, what is DNA, what are mitochondria, and why do scientists use mtDNA to track lineage?

Biologists have been aware of mitochondria since the 19th century. In the late 1970s the value of using the DNA within mitochondria to track ancient human history became clear. Mitochondrial DNA differs in a few key ways from nuclear DNA -- the variety of DNA located within the nucleus of each of one’s cells determines eye color, racial features, susceptibility to certain diseases and other defining characteristics. mtDNA, on the other hand, contains codes for making proteins and carrying out the other processes mitochondria undertake.

The genes carried in the form of nuclear DNA are the result of a merger between mother's and father's DNA -- this merger is called recombination. mtDNA, however, is derived almost exclusively from the mother. This is because the egg of a female human contains lots of mtDNA, while male sperm contains just a bit of mitochondria. A function of a single mitochondrion is generating power for the cell containing it, and sperm use a few mitochondria in the tail to power their race towards the egg for fertilization. These mitochondria are destroyed after the sperm fertilizes the egg, and thus any mtDNA that could be passed on from the father's side is lost.

This means that mtDNA is matrilineal -- only the mother's side survives from generation to generation. A mother who gives birth only to sons will see her mtDNA lineage lost. Examination of mtDNA so far has yielded only rare and unusual cases where paternal mtDNA survives and is passed onto the child. Mitochondria are also valuable to evolutionists because copies of the exact same mtDNA one has can be found in cells throughout one’s body. Within each cell, too, there may be thousands of copies of mtDNA. Conversely, the nuclear DNA in a cell usually contains just two copies. It is also easier to extract mtDNA than nuclear DNA, since it is found outside the fragile and more rapidly decaying nucleus of the cell.

What all this adds up to is that a one’s mtDNA is the same as one’s mother's, since there is no recombination to form a third version, distinct from both one’s mother's and father's but a combination of both. This makes mtDNA much easier to track from an anthropological standpoint. Humans have been around for a long time. In the hundreds of thousands of years we've been walking the planet, our numbers have grown. How is it that only about 200K years ago a single woman became the great-grandmother of us all? Does NOT human history go further back than that? In the following text we will see how humanity may have come close to extinction, setting the stage for Mitochondrial Eve to leave her enduring legacy.

It was estimated that Mitochondrial Eve lived about 200K years ago. With a margin of error included, she would have been alive between 500K and 50K years ago. Given that Eve is thought to have lived during a time when there were other women alive, how is it that all of us alive today descended from her alone? There are a couple explanations for how only Eve’s mtDNA alone could have survived. Most likely a combination of converging factors is responsible.

The likeliest possibility is that an evolutionary bottleneck occurred among humankind while Eve was alive. This is a situation where a large majority of the members of species suddenly die out, bringing the species to the verge of extinction. This sudden decrease in numbers is NOT due to any kind of failure to adapt. Instead, it's more likely the result of a catastrophe of some sort, for example, the result of a comet hitting the Earth or a super volcano eruption. Afterward, just a few members remain to repopulate the group and continue to evolve. Bottlenecks are suspected to have taken place at different times in humanity’s history Thus, it is credible that an event like this could have taken place during Eve’s lifetime.

A 1998 report concluded that about 70K years ago, humanity was reduced to only about 15K people on the whole planet. With very few people spread out across the planet, humankind was on the verge of extinction. The event that caused the near-loss of our species was an eruption of Mount Toba in Sumatra. This volcanic eruption was so immense that it lowered global temperatures, killed off the animals and plants that nourished humans, and spurred the coldest ice age the planet has seen, lasting 1,000 years.

The Mitochondrial Eve theory evokes similar scenarios. IF the human population was reduced dramatically, AND there were NOT many women around to bear children, THEN the stage is set for one “Lucky Mother” to emerge as a most recent common ancestor. It is possible that after a few generations, the mtDNA of the other women died out. IF a woman produces only male offspring, THEN her mtDNA will NOT be passed along, since children do NOT receive mtDNA from their father. This means that while the woman’s sons will have her mtDNA, her grandchildren will NOT, and her line will be lost. It is possible that this was the cause of Eve emerging as the sole “Lucky Mother” who in essence gave birth to us all.

Alternate Hypothesis - A reviewer of this presentation asked: Is it truly Eve we are talking about or is it not more likely that the "Lucky Woman" was Noah's wife? She fits the conditions described exactly...except the literal readers of the Bible would place her more in the 5,000 - 10,000 BC range. While the Bible states we have one common mother in Eve, the events that have occurred since then would seem to make it impossible to ascertain what she was like. Only Noah's wife, or the wives of his sons could be the focal point of our mtDNA since the Flood. And the Flood provides exactly the kind of cataclysmic event that would have created a bottleneck as described in your presentation.

My answer to this alternate hypothesis is as follows: For mtDNA to be common in all humans, both Noah’s wife and the wives of Noah’s sons must have had common mtDNA. Given that the wives of Noah’s three sons were from parents other than Noah and Noah’s wife, this means the common mtDNA must have originated with a primordial Eve.

Although talk of genetic mutations and DNA sequences makes it seem complex, at its core, tracking mtDNA is based on a deceptively simple notion: People whose ancestors were once closely related should have almost identical mtDNA. mtDNA can undergo mutations over time, but it takes time for these mutations to occur. Logically, the fewer there are, the less time has gone by since two families' ancestors diverged. Those people who have just a few differences in their mtDNA sequences would be more recently related than those sequences which bear many differences.

Let us suppose your great-great-grandmother on your mom's side -- whom we'll call Mildred -- had a sister, whom we'll call Tillie. Both shared identical mtDNA which they received from their mother. But imagine that Tillie and Mildred had a terrible argument, and Tillie moved across the country, while Mildred's descendants -- including you -- stayed put. Tillie and Millie never spoke again. Both women gave birth to girls, and so their matrilineal mtDNA was passed on. But as the generations continued, the families of the two grew less and less aware of the existence of the other branch, until neither line was aware of the other. But the two lines are about to be inadvertently reunited. Researchers placed a national advertisement asking for test subjects for a study of recent human population trends using mtDNA for mapping. By coincidence, you and a distant cousin of yours on Tillie's side of the family both decide to volunteer.

After they collect a DNA sample from you, the researchers compare your mtDNA to the sequences from the other candidates. Lo and behold -- they find that two volunteers are cousins. Comparing your mtDNA to your cousin's, the geneticists should be able to tell about how long ago Tillie and Mildred had their argument. If they checked the local populations of your area and your cousin's area, they should also be able to tell whether it was Tillie or Millie who migrated, by finding which population shared more of the mtDNA present in your family line. More people with the same mtDNA means that that sequence has been around longer. What's more, they can also conclude that since you and your cousin share similar mtDNA, you have a most common recent ancestor, the woman who is mother to Tillie and Mildred.

Since it takes a while for mtDNA mutations to occur, it would be pretty difficult for these imagined geneticists to pin down you and your cousin with accuracy. But when this technique is extrapolated over a period spanning tens or hundreds of thousands of years, it becomes much more viable. Not everyone accepts the Mitochondrial Eve theory, however.

Evolutionary mapping through the use of mtDNA is inexact. As mtDNA study continued after the late 1970s, scientists discovered a property known as heteroplasmy -- the presence of more than one sequence of mtDNA found in the same person. Even within a single person, there are differences between mtDNA that make comparing one person or group to another tricky. The 1987 study of the Mitochondrial Eve came under attack when it was pointed out that the "African" population the researchers sampled was actually made up almost entirely of African-Americans. Is it possible that in the few hundred years since Africans had been imported to the Americas against their will that African-Americans' mtDNA had mutated enough so as to render the sample useless? In the face of the criticism, researchers took an additional sample of Africans living in Africa, but found virtually the same results.

Another problem with mtDNA study is the differences in the rate of mutation. If a particular sequence of mtDNA was concluded to develop a mutation in 1,000 years, then would two strains of mtDNA from the same lineage with two mutations have diverged about 2,000 years ago? This is how researchers decided Mitochondrial Eve was living around 200,000 years ago. The researchers assumed that mtDNA mutates at a consistent rate. However, the rate of mutation for mtDNA is uncertain and immeasurable. If we look at the rate of mutation among a whole group of organisms, say, all people alive today -- called the phylogenetic rate -- we might conclude that mtDNA mutates at a consistent rate. But if we look at a single family line within that larger group -- the pedigree rate – we will most likely find an entirely different rate of mutation.

Since the "mutational clock" used by the researchers was called into question, they expanded the date for Eve's existence to between 500,000 and 50,000 years ago. Decades after the Mitochondrial Eve study was published, the results are still hotly debated. Are we all descended from a most recent common ancestor who lived 200,000 years ago? Can mtDNA even tell us precisely? These questions remain unanswered by science and frame the future work of evolutionary geneticists. But the 1987 study changed the way we think about ourselves as humans. It pointed out that somewhere down the line of history, we are all related.

Genesis chapter2: The LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being. Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and he placed there the man whom he had formed. …The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it. The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die." The LORD God said: "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him." …So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man, the man said: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called 'woman,' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken."

Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam, and which, through generation, is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states: "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390). Conclusion: If there is no Fall, then there is no Redemption.

Creatio aut Evolutio

CREATION VS EVOLUTION

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

Previously the Old Testament reading in the daily Divine Liturgy was Genesis 1:1-19 where we talked about the Fine Tuning of the Universe. Then on the next day the Old Testament reading was Genesis 1:20-2:3 where we talked about Days of Creation. Following that is the Old Testament reading from Genesis 2:4-17 where we will talk about Creation vs Evolution. Finally the Old Testament reading will be Genesis 2:18-25 where we will talk about Mitochondrial Eve. Hopefully you, dear reader, will begin to see the unity of Science and Faith which Pope St. John Paul II explains in his encyclical, “Fides et Ratio,” which means (when translated) “Faith and Reason.” The following material for today’s discussion is derived from an apologetics training course that I gave some ten years ago entitled, “How the Church Deals with Evolution.” Yes, it’s long-winded and detailed with lots of science and lots of quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and from Papal Encyclicals (those prior to the current Pontiff), but truth cannot be distilled into a Facebook meme or Twitter soundbite. (PS, just wait till I get to Dr. High Ross’ work on the Book of Job.)

Theory

1. Definition: The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.
2. A theory is a way of explaining one’s observations of facts and itself is NOT fact.
3. Examples
a. The Atomic Theory is an analysis on the nature of matter
b. The Special Theory of Relativity is an analysis of the structure of space-time
c. The General Theory of Relativity is an analysis of existence and action of gravitation
d. The Theory of Evolution is an analysis of the process of change in the inherited traits of organisms across of generations

Fact

1. Definition:
a. A thing done
b. The quality of being actual
c. Something that has actual existence
2. Examples:
a. Matter can be sub-divided into smaller particles
b. Objects approaching light speed get more massive
c. A dropped object falls
d. Organisms change over generations

Evolution

1. Definition:
a. A process of change in a certain direction
b. A process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state
2. Examples:
a. Domestication of wolf to dog
b. Adaptation of viruses and bacteria to medicine
c. Progression from ape to man

Creation

1. Definition:
a. The act of bringing the world into ordered existence
b. The act of making, inventing, producing
2. Examples:
a. Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Big Bang
b. Made, Invented or Produced: Cars, jets, trains, houses, etc.
3. St. Augustine: "[T]hough God formed man of the dust of the earth, yet the earth itself, and every earthly material, is absolutely created out of nothing; and man’s soul, too, God created out of nothing, and joined to the body, when he made man" (The City of God 14:11 [AD 419]).

Three Basic Positions on Origin of the Cosmos, Life and Man:

1. Special or Instantaneous Creation: a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God
2. Developmental Creation or Theistic Evolution: a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance
3. Atheistic Evolution: a thing developed due to random forces alone

Evolution answers HOW things originated, NOT WHY:

1. Universe: Cosmological Evolution
2. Life: Biological Evolution
3. Man: Human Evolution

Related to the question of how the universe, life, and man arose is the question of when they arose.

1. Those who attribute the origin of all three to special creation hold that they arose at about the same time (e.g., 6 to 10 thousand years ago).
2. Those who attribute all three to atheistic evolution have a much longer time scale and generally hold:
a. The universe to be ten billion to twenty billion years old,
b. Life on earth to be about four billion years old, and
c. Modern man (the subspecies homo sapiens) to be about thirty thousand years old.
3. Those who believe in varieties of developmental creation hold dates used by either or both of the other two positions.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican Council I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5). The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets were created at that time or whether they developed over time (e.g., in the aftermath of the Big Bang). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan. Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Evidence of the Big Bang and Cosmological Evolution:

1. Large Scale Homogeneity of the Universe indicates a common, central point of origin.
2. The Hubble Diagram: the further away objects are from one another, the greater the red shift in their spectrum, and this indicates the expansion of the universe from a common, central point.
3. Abundance of Light Elements: the ratios of hydrogen to helium are mathematically consistent with what would be expected on initial hydrogen fusion during and after the Big Bang.
4. Cosmic Microwave Background: the current temperature (2.725 Kelvin) of the universe as measured from background is consistent with what mathematics predicts would be the case 15 billion years after the Big Bang.
5. Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background are consistent with the hyper-inflation that occurred after the Big Bang.

Father Georges LeMaitre and the Big Bang:

1. Belgian Roman Catholic Priest
a. Lived from July 17, 1894 to June 20, 1966.
b. Professor of physics and astronomy at Universite Catholique de Louvain
c. Member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
d. Member of the Royal Academy of Sciences and Arts of Belgium
2. Pioneer in applying Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to Cosmology.
3. He deduced the Big Bang decades before Hubble demonstrated its existence via the red shift in far away stars.
4. His work was the basis for Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis.
5. He died in 1966 shortly after learning of the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation which was the final conclusive demonstration of the validity of his “Primeval Atom” Theory.

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Evidence of Biological Evolution:

• Fossil Record and Radioactive Dating
• Genetics – Molecular Relatedness
• Anatomical Relatedness

These could equally be considered evidence of special creation over long periods of time.

Concerning human evolution, the Church allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions…take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it enquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter— [but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

Evidence of Human Evolution – same as Biological Evolution:

• Fossil Record and Radioactive Dating
• Genetics – Molecular Relatedness
• Anatomical Relatedness

These could equally be considered evidence of special creation over long periods of time.

Conclusion:

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared.

The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but has NOT infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence.

"Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).

Age of the Universe: NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Project estimates the age of the universe to be 13.73 billion years old based on the decay and distribution of the background microwave radiation.

Age of Earth: The age of Earth is about 4.55 billion years based on the radioactive decay of Pb-206 / 204 or Pb-208 / 204 in Earth’s crust.

Age of Homo Sapiens: The age of humanity is about 30,000 years old, based on radioactive dating of fossils (K-40 / Ar-40 and C-14 / N-14).

Radioactive Decay

An object’s age can be measured by comparing the ratio of daughter isotopes to parent isotopes and calculating the elapsed time based on a mathematical equation from particle physics.

Radioactive Decay Equation

A(t) = [Ao] [e(-ln2(t/T)]

Use this equation to determine the activity of a radioactive material at any given period of time.

A(t) = the number of radioactive atoms at time (t)
Ao = the number of radioactive atoms at time zero (originally)
e = base of the natural log
ln2 = a constant (0.693)
t = the number of days of decay
T = the half-life in days of the radioactive material of interest

Conclusion

While there are many interpretations of the six days of Genesis 1, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the account:

1. Chronological Reading
2. Topical Reading.

According to the chronological reading, the six days of creation should be understood to have followed each other in strict chronological order and were standard 24-hour days.

Some argue these may NOT have been standard days because the Hebrew word used for day (yom) may mean a longer-than-24-hour period (as it does in Gen. 2:4).

However, the text in Genesis 1 presents the days to us as standard days. At the end of each one is a formula like, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen. 1:5). Evening and morning are, of course, the transition points between day and night (this is the meaning of the Hebrew terms here), but periods of time longer than 24 hours are not composed of a day and a night. Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, then it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account.

Pope Pius XII warned us:

"What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East." (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).

This leads us to the possibility that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order. The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was "formless and empty" (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different aspects of the environment. In the second three days, God solves the emptiness problem by populating the sky, dry land and sea.

Sequencing of the Days of Creation

1. Giving form to the world in the first three days
a. On day one God separates day from night.
b. On day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between.
c. On day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land.
d. Thus the world has been given form.
2. Solving the world’s emptiness problem
a. The world is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days.
b. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.

DAY 0
Formless Wasteland Darkness Covered the Abyss
No Space, No Time, No Matter, No Energy

DAY 1
Separating Day from Night
Big Bang, Decoupling of Matter, Nucleosynthesis, Star and Galaxy Formation

DAY 2
Separating the Waters Below from the Waters Above
Solar System / Planet Formation

DAY 3
Separating Dry Land and Seas, Creation of Plants
Continent Formation, Evolution of Photosynthesis, Production of N2 / O2 Atmosphere

DAY 4
Creation of Lights in the Sky
Breakup of Planetary Cloud Cover from O2 Formation via Photosynthesis.

DAY 5
Creation of Sea Animals and Birds
Evolution of Aquatic Life and Dinosaurs (progenitors of birds)

DAY 6
Creation of Animals and Man
Evolution of Mammals and Man

DAY 7
God Rested
Start of Local Calendar Time

The argument is that all of this is real history: it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis would have understood it as such. Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, then it still records God’s work—things God really did. The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338). It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

Out of Africa Hypothesis

Anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, with members of one branch leaving Africa around 60,000 years ago. These emigrants spread to the rest of the world, replacing other Homo species already there, such as Neanderthals and Homo Erectus. The hypothesis is derived from research in several disciplines, chiefly genetics, archaeology and linguistics. Examination of mitochondrial DNA in fact indicates that all women are descended from the same woman – Eve.

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated, "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam, and which, through generation, is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states: "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390). Conclusion: If there is no Fall, then there is no Redemption.

The Catholic Church has always taught that “No real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits…If nevertheless there is a disagreement….it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation;’ and that for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

As the Catechism puts it "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

Conclusion from the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous, Pages 53-54: “…we [the agnostic] had to fearlessly face the proposition that either God is everything or else He is nothing. God either is or He isn’t. What was our choice to be? ….Without knowing it, had we not been brought to where we stood by a certain kind of faith? Or did we not believe in our own reasoning? Did we not have confidence in our ability to think? What was that but a sort of faith? Yes, we had been faithful, abjectly faithful to the God of Reason. So, in one way or another, we discovered that faith had been involved all the time! Imagine life without faith! Were nothing left but pure reason, it wouldn't be life. But we believed in life-of course we did. We could not prove life in the sense that you can prove a straight line is the shortest distance between two points, yet, there it was. Could we still say the whole thing was nothing but a mass of electrons, created out of nothing, meaning nothing, whirling on to a destiny of nothingness? Or course we couldn’t. The electrons themselves seemed more intelligent than that. At least, so the chemist said. Hence, we saw that reason isn’t everything.”