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.”
Friday, February 15, 2019
Diei Creationis
DAYS OF CREATION
Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,
The Old Testament reading in the daily Divine Liturgy for 02/12/2019 concludes the account of creation with Genesis 1:20-2:3. As I promised previously, this post provides a correlation between the six 24 hour days of Genesis with the actual multi-billion year age of the universe. Now first a note to my readers – traditional Catholics, as well as Pentecostal and Evangelical Protestants – who take a very literal view of the account of Genesis: you are correct but in a way that you do not suspect. First, however, in order to understand how you can be correct about a literal set of six 24 hour days of creation, and science can be correct about a multi-billion year age of the universe, you must understand something about physics: per Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, time is completely relative to the frame of reference of an observer. If an observer is near a large gravity well like a black hole, then time for him will pass more slowly as time in the external universe seems to speed up. Likewise as an observer approaches light speed, then time for him will pass more slowly as time in the external universe seems to speed up. We absolutely know for certain that this phenomenon is fact because we have seen it demonstrated in particle accelerators where radioactive nuclei are accelerated close to light speed and their decay time increases. Likewise we have to adjust communications between satellites in Earth orbit and cell phones on Earth’s surface to account for this time differential, else the GPS location feature of the cell phone would be exceedingly inaccurate. Therefore, 2nd Peter 3:8 is literally correct when it states, “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” The passage of time for the Lord is different than the passage of time for us terrestrials. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that a universe age of 13, 14 or 15 billion years to our terrestrial perspective is merely day 7 of creation for the Lord. Time as recorded in Genesis chapter 1 is given from the perspective of God and NOT from the perspective of us terrestrial observers looking backward to the Big Bang – the creation event where God said, “Let there be light.”
You see, dear reader, if we measure time at the rate at which it had passed when the first particle of matter appeared (i.e., the proton) out of the Big Bang event when God created space and time, matter and energy, then we find a natural log relationship between this and the rate at which time currently passes in our present epoch on Earth. The first six days of creation described in Genesis are measured with respect to local time when protons coalesced out of the primordial Big Bang. This allows billions of years to transpire until the present with respect to current local time on Earth while preserving the veracity of the ancient Biblical record that the Universe was created in six 24 hour days. Said another way, the six days are told from the standpoint of Someone (i.e., God) at the beginning when protons first appeared out of the “soup” of quarks and leptons. That Someone, being outside space and time, saw the whole saga unfolding over a duration of six primordial 24 hour days as measured locally to the Big Bang.
Remember that for pure energy (i.e., the photon, a particle of light) time is at a stand-still. Thus, time began to progress when the first particles of matter coalesced out of the Big Bang and that’s the time perspective of the Creator. As the density of the mass in the early universe decreased with the expansion that occurred after the Big Bang, the rate of the passage of time increased locally. The equation for this can be given as:
A = [(-Ao/ln(2))*e^(-ln(2) * t)] / 365.25
where:
Ao = [ proton threshold temperature (1.0888E+13 Kelvin) ] / [ the current microwave background temperature (2.725 Kelvin) ].
ln(2) = natural log of 2 or 0.693
e = 2.71828
t = the Genesis day
A = the number of years into the past (will be a negative number)
NOTE: We divide by 365.25 to convert days to years.
Please see attached screen capture photos for a graph on the Age of the Universe and an associated data table.
Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,
The Old Testament reading in the daily Divine Liturgy for 02/12/2019 concludes the account of creation with Genesis 1:20-2:3. As I promised previously, this post provides a correlation between the six 24 hour days of Genesis with the actual multi-billion year age of the universe. Now first a note to my readers – traditional Catholics, as well as Pentecostal and Evangelical Protestants – who take a very literal view of the account of Genesis: you are correct but in a way that you do not suspect. First, however, in order to understand how you can be correct about a literal set of six 24 hour days of creation, and science can be correct about a multi-billion year age of the universe, you must understand something about physics: per Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, time is completely relative to the frame of reference of an observer. If an observer is near a large gravity well like a black hole, then time for him will pass more slowly as time in the external universe seems to speed up. Likewise as an observer approaches light speed, then time for him will pass more slowly as time in the external universe seems to speed up. We absolutely know for certain that this phenomenon is fact because we have seen it demonstrated in particle accelerators where radioactive nuclei are accelerated close to light speed and their decay time increases. Likewise we have to adjust communications between satellites in Earth orbit and cell phones on Earth’s surface to account for this time differential, else the GPS location feature of the cell phone would be exceedingly inaccurate. Therefore, 2nd Peter 3:8 is literally correct when it states, “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” The passage of time for the Lord is different than the passage of time for us terrestrials. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that a universe age of 13, 14 or 15 billion years to our terrestrial perspective is merely day 7 of creation for the Lord. Time as recorded in Genesis chapter 1 is given from the perspective of God and NOT from the perspective of us terrestrial observers looking backward to the Big Bang – the creation event where God said, “Let there be light.”
You see, dear reader, if we measure time at the rate at which it had passed when the first particle of matter appeared (i.e., the proton) out of the Big Bang event when God created space and time, matter and energy, then we find a natural log relationship between this and the rate at which time currently passes in our present epoch on Earth. The first six days of creation described in Genesis are measured with respect to local time when protons coalesced out of the primordial Big Bang. This allows billions of years to transpire until the present with respect to current local time on Earth while preserving the veracity of the ancient Biblical record that the Universe was created in six 24 hour days. Said another way, the six days are told from the standpoint of Someone (i.e., God) at the beginning when protons first appeared out of the “soup” of quarks and leptons. That Someone, being outside space and time, saw the whole saga unfolding over a duration of six primordial 24 hour days as measured locally to the Big Bang.
Remember that for pure energy (i.e., the photon, a particle of light) time is at a stand-still. Thus, time began to progress when the first particles of matter coalesced out of the Big Bang and that’s the time perspective of the Creator. As the density of the mass in the early universe decreased with the expansion that occurred after the Big Bang, the rate of the passage of time increased locally. The equation for this can be given as:
A = [(-Ao/ln(2))*e^(-ln(2) * t)] / 365.25
where:
Ao = [ proton threshold temperature (1.0888E+13 Kelvin) ] / [ the current microwave background temperature (2.725 Kelvin) ].
ln(2) = natural log of 2 or 0.693
e = 2.71828
t = the Genesis day
A = the number of years into the past (will be a negative number)
NOTE: We divide by 365.25 to convert days to years.
Please see attached screen capture photos for a graph on the Age of the Universe and an associated data table.
 |
| Days of Creation - Graph |
 |
| Days of Creation - Data |
Dr. Gerald Schroeder explains this correlation in the following way at his web site and provides a correction to due universe inflation just after the Big Bang where the stretching of the fabric of space-time accounts for the difference between the calculated 15.6 billion year age of the universe and the observed 13.73 billion year age. We know from the Biblical record that this stretching occurred because both Psalm 104:2 and Isaiah 40:22 talk about the stretching of the heavens like a fabric. Therefore, what the good doctor writes below is reasonable – God created the 13.73 billion year old universe in six 24 hour days.
Today, we look back in time and we see approximately 14 billion years of history and those years went by. But how would they be perceived from the Bible’s perspective of time? Looking forward from when the universe was very small – billions of times smaller – the Bible teaches that six days passed. In truth, they both are correct. What’s exciting about the last few years is that we now have quantified the data to know the relationship between the perception of time from the beginning of stable matter, the threshold energy of protons (their nucleosynthesis), looking forward and our measure of the history of the universe. It’s not science fiction any longer. A dozen physics textbooks all bring the same generalized number. The general relationship of the stretching of space between the era of proton anti-proton formation, that time near the beginning at the threshold energy of protons when the first stable matter formed, and time today is a million million. That’s a 1 with 12 zeros after it. Space has stretched by a million million. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says “I’m sending you a pulse every second,” would we see a pulse every second? No. We’d see one every million million seconds. That’s the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe on the perception of time.
The biblical text shows us (and the Talmud confirms) that the soul of Adam was created five and a half days after the big bang creation. That is a half day before the termination of the sixth day. At that moment the cosmic calendar ceases and an earth based calendar starts. How would we see those days stretched by a million million? Five and a half days times a million million, gives us five and a half million million days. Dividing that by 365 days in a year, comes out to be 15 billion years. NASA gives a value of just under 14 billion years. Considering the many approximations, and that the Bible works with only six periods of time, the agreement to within a few percent is extraordinary. The universe is billions of years old but from the biblical perspective those billions of years compress into five and a half, 24 hour days.
The five and a half days of Genesis are not of equal duration. Each time the universe doubles in size, the perception of time halves as we project that time back toward the beginning of the universe. The rate of doubling, that is the fractional rate of change, is very rapid at the beginning and decreases with time simply because as the universe gets larger and larger, even though the actual expansion rate is approximately constant, it takes longer and longer for the overall size to double. Because of this, the earliest of the six days have most of the 15 billion years sequestered with them.
Following a talk I gave at AZUSA Pacific University, February 2011, a participant noted that when calculating the expansion ratio of space (that is, the fraction by which space had stretched) from the era of proton formation to our current time, I had neglected to correct for the fact that the rate of universal expansion is actually increasing. The million million expansion ratio is gotten by calculating the averaged ratio of the temperature of space now (2.76 K) relative to the threshold temperature of proton anti-proton pair production that marks the start of the biblical clock. The correction for this increase in the rate of universal expansion is in the order of 10%. Had the expansion been constant [and not super-linear resulting from the increased expansion rate], the temperature of space would be, not the currently observed 2.76 K, but 3.03 K. Introducing this correction reduces the expansion factor of the million million ( that is, a trillion) cited above, by 10% to 900 billion. As discussed above, the biblical time prior to the creation of the soul of Adam is 5 and half days. Expanding those biblical pre-Adam five and a half, 24 hour days by the expansion factor, 900,000,000,000, (i.e., 900 billion) results in age of the universe as viewed from our perspective of 13.6 billon years.
An exponential equation can be developed that details the number of years as measured from our perspective of time compressed within each of the five and half 24 hour days of Genesis Chapter One, taking each day as one “half life.” However rather than using the highly rounded off expansion factor of 900 billion, this equation uses the exact expansion factor (the ratio of the energy or temperature of space at the threshold energy of protons [10.9 x 1012 K ] to the “AZUSA” corrected current energy or temperature of space [3.03 K ]). The result gives an overall age of the universe of 13.9 billion years and also the number of those 13.9 billion years of cosmic history held compressed within each of the biblical five and a half, 24 hour days of Genesis prior to the creation of the human soul of Adam. Starting with Day One, the results are, approximately: 7; 3.5; 1.8; 0.9; 0.5; 0.2 billions of years compressed within each successive 24-hour biblical day. This is in close agreement with the NASA number of 13.7 billion years. Interestingly, several years ago an article in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal, Nature, used this identical approach to discuss the time from the beginning of the universe, but with a totally different agenda and so started its clock at the very creation which they projected as a singularity. The significance of this is that this respected science journal has given its stamp of approval for the methodology used here.
Today, we look back in time and we see approximately 14 billion years of history and those years went by. But how would they be perceived from the Bible’s perspective of time? Looking forward from when the universe was very small – billions of times smaller – the Bible teaches that six days passed. In truth, they both are correct. What’s exciting about the last few years is that we now have quantified the data to know the relationship between the perception of time from the beginning of stable matter, the threshold energy of protons (their nucleosynthesis), looking forward and our measure of the history of the universe. It’s not science fiction any longer. A dozen physics textbooks all bring the same generalized number. The general relationship of the stretching of space between the era of proton anti-proton formation, that time near the beginning at the threshold energy of protons when the first stable matter formed, and time today is a million million. That’s a 1 with 12 zeros after it. Space has stretched by a million million. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says “I’m sending you a pulse every second,” would we see a pulse every second? No. We’d see one every million million seconds. That’s the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe on the perception of time.
The biblical text shows us (and the Talmud confirms) that the soul of Adam was created five and a half days after the big bang creation. That is a half day before the termination of the sixth day. At that moment the cosmic calendar ceases and an earth based calendar starts. How would we see those days stretched by a million million? Five and a half days times a million million, gives us five and a half million million days. Dividing that by 365 days in a year, comes out to be 15 billion years. NASA gives a value of just under 14 billion years. Considering the many approximations, and that the Bible works with only six periods of time, the agreement to within a few percent is extraordinary. The universe is billions of years old but from the biblical perspective those billions of years compress into five and a half, 24 hour days.
The five and a half days of Genesis are not of equal duration. Each time the universe doubles in size, the perception of time halves as we project that time back toward the beginning of the universe. The rate of doubling, that is the fractional rate of change, is very rapid at the beginning and decreases with time simply because as the universe gets larger and larger, even though the actual expansion rate is approximately constant, it takes longer and longer for the overall size to double. Because of this, the earliest of the six days have most of the 15 billion years sequestered with them.
Following a talk I gave at AZUSA Pacific University, February 2011, a participant noted that when calculating the expansion ratio of space (that is, the fraction by which space had stretched) from the era of proton formation to our current time, I had neglected to correct for the fact that the rate of universal expansion is actually increasing. The million million expansion ratio is gotten by calculating the averaged ratio of the temperature of space now (2.76 K) relative to the threshold temperature of proton anti-proton pair production that marks the start of the biblical clock. The correction for this increase in the rate of universal expansion is in the order of 10%. Had the expansion been constant [and not super-linear resulting from the increased expansion rate], the temperature of space would be, not the currently observed 2.76 K, but 3.03 K. Introducing this correction reduces the expansion factor of the million million ( that is, a trillion) cited above, by 10% to 900 billion. As discussed above, the biblical time prior to the creation of the soul of Adam is 5 and half days. Expanding those biblical pre-Adam five and a half, 24 hour days by the expansion factor, 900,000,000,000, (i.e., 900 billion) results in age of the universe as viewed from our perspective of 13.6 billon years.
An exponential equation can be developed that details the number of years as measured from our perspective of time compressed within each of the five and half 24 hour days of Genesis Chapter One, taking each day as one “half life.” However rather than using the highly rounded off expansion factor of 900 billion, this equation uses the exact expansion factor (the ratio of the energy or temperature of space at the threshold energy of protons [10.9 x 1012 K ] to the “AZUSA” corrected current energy or temperature of space [3.03 K ]). The result gives an overall age of the universe of 13.9 billion years and also the number of those 13.9 billion years of cosmic history held compressed within each of the biblical five and a half, 24 hour days of Genesis prior to the creation of the human soul of Adam. Starting with Day One, the results are, approximately: 7; 3.5; 1.8; 0.9; 0.5; 0.2 billions of years compressed within each successive 24-hour biblical day. This is in close agreement with the NASA number of 13.7 billion years. Interestingly, several years ago an article in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal, Nature, used this identical approach to discuss the time from the beginning of the universe, but with a totally different agenda and so started its clock at the very creation which they projected as a singularity. The significance of this is that this respected science journal has given its stamp of approval for the methodology used here.
Contendens Suptilis Universitatis
Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,
The Old Testament reading in the Divine Liturgy for 02/11/2019 is Genesis 1:1-19 – the first four days of creation during which God created:
Light (Day 1)
Firmament (Day 2)
Land, Sea and Plants (Day 3)
Lights in the Firmament (Day 4)
Today I am going to write about the fine-tuning of the universe – yes, SCIENCE. Tomorrow I will write about the age of the universe (more science) – how the six 24 days in Genesis correlate to the 13.72 billion year age of the observable universe (yes, the Bible is 100% correct, and so is science – are you surprised?). There will be some math, so the reader will have to recall natural logarithms from high school. (PS, the language God used to create the universe is mathematics even as the language of God’s Church is Aramaic, Koine Greek and Latin – just saying 😁).
Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a physicist and an Orthodox Jew, has written many articles about the Genesis account of creation. His article on the fine tuning of the universe may be found here:
http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=49
The reason why this article struck me so was because of a certain fact about nuclear fusion which I had known from my days of Naval Nuclear Power School back in 1978, but which I had never put together with the creation event. Early stars formed from clouds of hydrogen and helium produced by the Big Bang to undergo fusion (I’ll discuss the Big Bang later – fear not, for it is proof positive of a Divine Creator, not atheistic evolution). When enough helium is produced by fusion of hydrogen, then that helium itself can undergo fusion to produce beryllium via what is called the triple alpha process:
2He4 + 2He4 → 4Be8
Once formed, that beryllium can undergo fusion with leftover helium to produce the carbon so essential to life:
4Be8 + 2He4 → 6C12
Finally the carbon can continue to react with leftover helium to form oxygen which we all need to breathe:
6C12 + 2He4 → 8O16
And then subsequent fusion reactions build up all the heavy elements up to uranium out of which asteroids, moons and planets are made. Now why is this so significant? Because of the extremely short half-life of 4Be8:
6.7E-17 seconds
This means that half the amount of beryllium-8 formed out of fusion in stars will decay back to helium and hydrogen in a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second, and after five half-lives, no beryllium would be left:
33.5E-17 seconds
All the beryllium would revert back to helium:
4Be8 → 2He4 + 2He4
Thus, if the half-life of beryllium were any shorter, then no heavy elements would form to be spread into the universe when the star goes supernova, and no plants, no moons, no asteroids would exist. And if the half-life were any longer, then too much beryllium-helium fusion would occur, and the star would collapse before it could go supernova and spread heavy elements into the universe; and in that scenario there would be no asteroids, moons or planets.
This amount of fine tuning – the half-life of beryllium-8 must be exactly 6.7E-17 seconds (no shorter and no longer) – to result in the observable universe we inhabit surely points to a Divine Creator. And that’s not the only variable fine-tuned for the existence of the universe and life therein (I got the following list from the “Evidence for God” website):
1. strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
The Old Testament reading in the Divine Liturgy for 02/11/2019 is Genesis 1:1-19 – the first four days of creation during which God created:
Light (Day 1)
Firmament (Day 2)
Land, Sea and Plants (Day 3)
Lights in the Firmament (Day 4)
Today I am going to write about the fine-tuning of the universe – yes, SCIENCE. Tomorrow I will write about the age of the universe (more science) – how the six 24 days in Genesis correlate to the 13.72 billion year age of the observable universe (yes, the Bible is 100% correct, and so is science – are you surprised?). There will be some math, so the reader will have to recall natural logarithms from high school. (PS, the language God used to create the universe is mathematics even as the language of God’s Church is Aramaic, Koine Greek and Latin – just saying 😁).
Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a physicist and an Orthodox Jew, has written many articles about the Genesis account of creation. His article on the fine tuning of the universe may be found here:
http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=49
The reason why this article struck me so was because of a certain fact about nuclear fusion which I had known from my days of Naval Nuclear Power School back in 1978, but which I had never put together with the creation event. Early stars formed from clouds of hydrogen and helium produced by the Big Bang to undergo fusion (I’ll discuss the Big Bang later – fear not, for it is proof positive of a Divine Creator, not atheistic evolution). When enough helium is produced by fusion of hydrogen, then that helium itself can undergo fusion to produce beryllium via what is called the triple alpha process:
2He4 + 2He4 → 4Be8
Once formed, that beryllium can undergo fusion with leftover helium to produce the carbon so essential to life:
4Be8 + 2He4 → 6C12
Finally the carbon can continue to react with leftover helium to form oxygen which we all need to breathe:
6C12 + 2He4 → 8O16
And then subsequent fusion reactions build up all the heavy elements up to uranium out of which asteroids, moons and planets are made. Now why is this so significant? Because of the extremely short half-life of 4Be8:
6.7E-17 seconds
This means that half the amount of beryllium-8 formed out of fusion in stars will decay back to helium and hydrogen in a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second, and after five half-lives, no beryllium would be left:
33.5E-17 seconds
All the beryllium would revert back to helium:
4Be8 → 2He4 + 2He4
Thus, if the half-life of beryllium were any shorter, then no heavy elements would form to be spread into the universe when the star goes supernova, and no plants, no moons, no asteroids would exist. And if the half-life were any longer, then too much beryllium-helium fusion would occur, and the star would collapse before it could go supernova and spread heavy elements into the universe; and in that scenario there would be no asteroids, moons or planets.
This amount of fine tuning – the half-life of beryllium-8 must be exactly 6.7E-17 seconds (no shorter and no longer) – to result in the observable universe we inhabit surely points to a Divine Creator. And that’s not the only variable fine-tuned for the existence of the universe and life therein (I got the following list from the “Evidence for God” website):
1. strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Non Habes Quod Requiritur
NON HABES QUOD REQUIRITUR
YOU DON’T HAVE WHAT IT TAKES
On Sunday, January 27, 2019, my wife wanted to attend service at the Protestant Evangelical Church in the southern part of our city. I actually am quite happy that we did attend for the message from the pulpit was appropriate and timely. My notes (with some side commentary) are provided below. The chosen Scripture passage was Hebrews 4:11-16:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+4%3A11-16&version=RSVCE
INTRODUCTION
The message of the culture is not the message of the Gospel. It is a false message to say that you can do anything you put your mind to do for you are not God. You are not omnipotent and you cannot do it by your own power. In Genesis 41:16, when asked to interpret his dream, “Joseph answered Pharaoh, ‘It is not in me; God will give Pharaoh a favorable answer.’”
In another respect God uses marriage to bring us to the end of ourselves because by our own effort without His help we cannot make the marriage relationship work, hence the modern divorce rate.
The message in the Epistle to the Hebrews is that Jesus as our High Priest is superior to all. And St. Paul emphasizes in Ephesians 2:8, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God…”
COME WHOLEHEARTEDLY TO THE FAMILY OF GOD (HEBREWS 4:11)
In Hebrews 4:11, we “strive to enter that rest.” Rest is peace with God. But the use of the word strive seems contradictory.
All are born in sin. David said in Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (This Psalm was written in repentance for the adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah her husband which David had committed). God required everything from David and in like manner God requires everything from us in order to receive everything from Him. We live by Faith in Christ, NOT in self. Therefore, we must strive – be diligent and come wholeheartedly into God’s family. 2nd Corinthians 13:5 states, “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you fail to meet the test!” Seek out Godly counsel. Don’t bank on the supposition that you prayed a prayer. You must live the life. Examine yourself.
It is here that I am going to diverge from my notes and give a more correct explanation of what the preacher was trying to say. He denied the salvific effect of baptism, treating it as a mere ordinance of the confirmation of one’s pre-existing salvation and not as a Sacrament. I think that he was trying to say that just because you’re baptized doesn’t mean you get an automatic ticket into Heaven. That’s true by itself. I agree with that. Baptism isn’t a free ticket where I can do whatever sin I want but I remain saved just because I was baptized. So I think this is more a matter of semantics. Let me explain and tie this into what the preacher went on to say.
Jesus in Mark 16:16 says, “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved…” And 1st Peter 3:21 states, “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….” However, James 2:17, 19 & 24 state, “So FAITH BY ITSELF, if it has no works, IS DEAD….Even the demons believe—and shudder…You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
Therefore, to be saved: (1) one must believe, AND (2) one must be baptized AND (3) one must put one’s faith and baptism into action by good works in obedience to glory of God. Salvation isn't just an event. It is a process of living.
Thus, those three Scripture passages directly support what the preacher did say, that (for example) the Jews being God’s Chosen people was insufficient for their salvation. Obedience is the authentic mark of a follower of Christ – a willingness to die to self. That’s the second part of Hebrews 4:11, “….that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience.”
COME EXPECTANTLY TO THE WORD OF GOD (HEBREWS 4:12-13)
God loves me and I must love Him. We must come back to God’s Word to let it shape us. “For the word of God is living and active…” This is the basic nature of God’s Word. 2nd Peter 1:20-21 states, “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”
God never has to make His rules better. His Word is living and God-breathed. In the same way, Genesis 2:7 says, “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being…” Just as man became a living being by being God-breathed, so too the Word of God.
The Word of God is active. The Greek word used here is ενεργός which goes into our English word energy. The Word is at work.
The Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword. Ephesians 6:17 says, “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Thus, the Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit. The written Word of God can be no less powerful than the words that Jesus Himself used to forgive sin and raise the dead.
2nd Timothy 3:14-15 states, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” The Word of God teaches us and makes us wise unto salvation.
2nd 3:1-17 states, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” The Word of God equips us for every good work.
The Word of God pierces to the innermost being and cuts us surgically.
Should we read God’s Word daily? YES! We all need to be daily cut in order to be continuously conformed to God’s image. The sword of the Spirit is life-changing.
Matthew 4:4 states, “But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” This must start at childhood, for Deuteronomy 4:9 states, “Only take heed, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life; make them known to your children and your children’s children…” The Word of God is more important than food, clothing, housing, work, etc. You don’t have what it takes without following what the Bible says.
The preacher explained that he does expository – verse by verse – preaching in order to feed the people of God, and he cited Hebrews 5:11-14 which states:
“About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.”
And Revelation 20:12 states, “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done.” At this point the preacher speculated that one of the books to be opened would be the Bible. The Navarre Study Bible has a note on this. That note describes only the two sets of books mentioned in Rev 20:12, and states in part the following:
“The author [of Revelation] then turns his attention to the resurrection, when all men will be judged according to their works. He describes this by using the metaphor of two books. One of these records the actions of men (as in Daniel 7:10 and other passages of the Old Testament, cf., e.g., Is 65:6; Jer 22:30). The second book contains the names of those predestined to eternal life (an idea inspired by Daniel 12:1; cf. also, e.g., Ex 32:32). This is a way of showing that man cannot attain salvation by his own efforts alone…”
At this point the preacher expounded on the evil of abortion, describing abortion as a mess and as sin. The Bible states that life begins in the womb – Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…” Pictures of baby formation at 12, 27 and 40 weeks were displayed on massive screens at the front of the Sanctuary. Psalm 139:13 states, “For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb.” However, in NY State it is now permissible to kill a baby at the moment of birth. Governor Andrew Cuomo signed such a bill into law. That is heinous and unspeakable.
God uses His Word to point out our sins. We don’t have what it takes to get saved, to live day by day.
COME CONFIDENTLY TO THE THRONE OF GOD (HEBREWS 4:14-16)
We have an Advocate – Christ Jesus – to speak on our behalf. Nothing can deliver our deepest needs but Jesus. He never failed in His temptations and He won’t fail us in ours. We are able to pray because of Jesus and we are able to receive help because of Jesus. He is the Bread of Life (John 6:22-59). He is life itself (John 14:6). John Newton once said that no one can ask too much of Jesus. Therefore, let us come confidently to the Throne of Grace.
Should we pray every day? YES! Just as we should read His Word every day.
Romans 12:3 states, “For by the grace given to me I bid everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him.” This shows that we can’t do it by ourselves but only by the measure of faith that God assigns us. Therefore, why don’t we come to the Word of God, the Throne of God? Maybe we’re lost, in which case we need to repent and convert.
We cannot be with God and be separated from His Word, His Throne.
PERSONAL COMMENT
The respect that Protestant Evangelicals have for the written Word of God should be practiced by every Catholic and Orthodox person. I cannot emphasize that enough. We Catholics and Orthodox directly descended from the first century Christians gave the Bible to the world, and for us to NOT know what it says is absolutely shameful. But the Word of God isn’t just written.
YOU DON’T HAVE WHAT IT TAKES
On Sunday, January 27, 2019, my wife wanted to attend service at the Protestant Evangelical Church in the southern part of our city. I actually am quite happy that we did attend for the message from the pulpit was appropriate and timely. My notes (with some side commentary) are provided below. The chosen Scripture passage was Hebrews 4:11-16:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+4%3A11-16&version=RSVCE
INTRODUCTION
The message of the culture is not the message of the Gospel. It is a false message to say that you can do anything you put your mind to do for you are not God. You are not omnipotent and you cannot do it by your own power. In Genesis 41:16, when asked to interpret his dream, “Joseph answered Pharaoh, ‘It is not in me; God will give Pharaoh a favorable answer.’”
In another respect God uses marriage to bring us to the end of ourselves because by our own effort without His help we cannot make the marriage relationship work, hence the modern divorce rate.
The message in the Epistle to the Hebrews is that Jesus as our High Priest is superior to all. And St. Paul emphasizes in Ephesians 2:8, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God…”
COME WHOLEHEARTEDLY TO THE FAMILY OF GOD (HEBREWS 4:11)
In Hebrews 4:11, we “strive to enter that rest.” Rest is peace with God. But the use of the word strive seems contradictory.
All are born in sin. David said in Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (This Psalm was written in repentance for the adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah her husband which David had committed). God required everything from David and in like manner God requires everything from us in order to receive everything from Him. We live by Faith in Christ, NOT in self. Therefore, we must strive – be diligent and come wholeheartedly into God’s family. 2nd Corinthians 13:5 states, “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you fail to meet the test!” Seek out Godly counsel. Don’t bank on the supposition that you prayed a prayer. You must live the life. Examine yourself.
It is here that I am going to diverge from my notes and give a more correct explanation of what the preacher was trying to say. He denied the salvific effect of baptism, treating it as a mere ordinance of the confirmation of one’s pre-existing salvation and not as a Sacrament. I think that he was trying to say that just because you’re baptized doesn’t mean you get an automatic ticket into Heaven. That’s true by itself. I agree with that. Baptism isn’t a free ticket where I can do whatever sin I want but I remain saved just because I was baptized. So I think this is more a matter of semantics. Let me explain and tie this into what the preacher went on to say.
Jesus in Mark 16:16 says, “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved…” And 1st Peter 3:21 states, “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….” However, James 2:17, 19 & 24 state, “So FAITH BY ITSELF, if it has no works, IS DEAD….Even the demons believe—and shudder…You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
Therefore, to be saved: (1) one must believe, AND (2) one must be baptized AND (3) one must put one’s faith and baptism into action by good works in obedience to glory of God. Salvation isn't just an event. It is a process of living.
Thus, those three Scripture passages directly support what the preacher did say, that (for example) the Jews being God’s Chosen people was insufficient for their salvation. Obedience is the authentic mark of a follower of Christ – a willingness to die to self. That’s the second part of Hebrews 4:11, “….that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience.”
COME EXPECTANTLY TO THE WORD OF GOD (HEBREWS 4:12-13)
God loves me and I must love Him. We must come back to God’s Word to let it shape us. “For the word of God is living and active…” This is the basic nature of God’s Word. 2nd Peter 1:20-21 states, “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”
God never has to make His rules better. His Word is living and God-breathed. In the same way, Genesis 2:7 says, “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being…” Just as man became a living being by being God-breathed, so too the Word of God.
The Word of God is active. The Greek word used here is ενεργός which goes into our English word energy. The Word is at work.
The Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword. Ephesians 6:17 says, “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Thus, the Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit. The written Word of God can be no less powerful than the words that Jesus Himself used to forgive sin and raise the dead.
2nd Timothy 3:14-15 states, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” The Word of God teaches us and makes us wise unto salvation.
2nd 3:1-17 states, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” The Word of God equips us for every good work.
The Word of God pierces to the innermost being and cuts us surgically.
Should we read God’s Word daily? YES! We all need to be daily cut in order to be continuously conformed to God’s image. The sword of the Spirit is life-changing.
Matthew 4:4 states, “But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” This must start at childhood, for Deuteronomy 4:9 states, “Only take heed, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life; make them known to your children and your children’s children…” The Word of God is more important than food, clothing, housing, work, etc. You don’t have what it takes without following what the Bible says.
The preacher explained that he does expository – verse by verse – preaching in order to feed the people of God, and he cited Hebrews 5:11-14 which states:
“About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.”
And Revelation 20:12 states, “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done.” At this point the preacher speculated that one of the books to be opened would be the Bible. The Navarre Study Bible has a note on this. That note describes only the two sets of books mentioned in Rev 20:12, and states in part the following:
“The author [of Revelation] then turns his attention to the resurrection, when all men will be judged according to their works. He describes this by using the metaphor of two books. One of these records the actions of men (as in Daniel 7:10 and other passages of the Old Testament, cf., e.g., Is 65:6; Jer 22:30). The second book contains the names of those predestined to eternal life (an idea inspired by Daniel 12:1; cf. also, e.g., Ex 32:32). This is a way of showing that man cannot attain salvation by his own efforts alone…”
At this point the preacher expounded on the evil of abortion, describing abortion as a mess and as sin. The Bible states that life begins in the womb – Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…” Pictures of baby formation at 12, 27 and 40 weeks were displayed on massive screens at the front of the Sanctuary. Psalm 139:13 states, “For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb.” However, in NY State it is now permissible to kill a baby at the moment of birth. Governor Andrew Cuomo signed such a bill into law. That is heinous and unspeakable.
God uses His Word to point out our sins. We don’t have what it takes to get saved, to live day by day.
COME CONFIDENTLY TO THE THRONE OF GOD (HEBREWS 4:14-16)
We have an Advocate – Christ Jesus – to speak on our behalf. Nothing can deliver our deepest needs but Jesus. He never failed in His temptations and He won’t fail us in ours. We are able to pray because of Jesus and we are able to receive help because of Jesus. He is the Bread of Life (John 6:22-59). He is life itself (John 14:6). John Newton once said that no one can ask too much of Jesus. Therefore, let us come confidently to the Throne of Grace.
Should we pray every day? YES! Just as we should read His Word every day.
Romans 12:3 states, “For by the grace given to me I bid everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him.” This shows that we can’t do it by ourselves but only by the measure of faith that God assigns us. Therefore, why don’t we come to the Word of God, the Throne of God? Maybe we’re lost, in which case we need to repent and convert.
We cannot be with God and be separated from His Word, His Throne.
PERSONAL COMMENT
The respect that Protestant Evangelicals have for the written Word of God should be practiced by every Catholic and Orthodox person. I cannot emphasize that enough. We Catholics and Orthodox directly descended from the first century Christians gave the Bible to the world, and for us to NOT know what it says is absolutely shameful. But the Word of God isn’t just written.
John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The written Word is merely a reflection of the Divine Word (Jesus Christ) Who created all of existence and became incarnate of a Virgin in order to die on a Cross for our sins; he descended into hell, rose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God the Father from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. When we are baptized, we are baptized into His Body the Church of which He the crucified and risen Lord is the Head exactly as St. Paul describes it. When we partake of the Holy Eucharist, we eat that Word as His flesh and drink His blood exactly as the Bread of Life Discourse in John chapter 6 describes it.
Reading the Bible is absolutely necessary, but the Holy Spirit through the very real power of the Sacraments makes its power alive within us. Jesus said in John 6:53-58, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
The Eucharist – not the Bible – is the source and summit of our Faith. In fact, there was no Bible (as we know it today) before the late AD 300s when the Church at two different councils decided on what books would be in the Bible and what would not be. Before that time the only thing that Christians had were the Church, Sacred Tradition and scattered collections of Scared Books. That’s why St. Paul says in 1st Timothy 3:15, “…if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” And in 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 he says, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
I was very pleased and blessed with the overall sermon, especially that the subject of abortion was directly and forthrightly dealt with (sadly unlike Catholic Parishes which are running scared under the priestly sex abuse scandal and lack of leadership from the current Pontiff). And I like being stimulated to think on these things. Furthermore, I have nothing but encouragement to offer this Protestant preacher. But I always go back to how the early Church Fathers in the first four centuries AD viewed Scriptures. They were the closest to the Apostles, and I would urge any preacher - Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant - to read how the Church Fathers viewed and interpreted Sacred Scripture.
The Eucharist – not the Bible – is the source and summit of our Faith. In fact, there was no Bible (as we know it today) before the late AD 300s when the Church at two different councils decided on what books would be in the Bible and what would not be. Before that time the only thing that Christians had were the Church, Sacred Tradition and scattered collections of Scared Books. That’s why St. Paul says in 1st Timothy 3:15, “…if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” And in 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 he says, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
I was very pleased and blessed with the overall sermon, especially that the subject of abortion was directly and forthrightly dealt with (sadly unlike Catholic Parishes which are running scared under the priestly sex abuse scandal and lack of leadership from the current Pontiff). And I like being stimulated to think on these things. Furthermore, I have nothing but encouragement to offer this Protestant preacher. But I always go back to how the early Church Fathers in the first four centuries AD viewed Scriptures. They were the closest to the Apostles, and I would urge any preacher - Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant - to read how the Church Fathers viewed and interpreted Sacred Scripture.
Sunday, January 13, 2019
Immigratio et Bonum Commune
TALK ON IMMIGRATION BY MY PARISH PRIEST
Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,
On the evening of January 10, 2018 (Wednesday), Father gave a talk on Immigration and the Common Good at our Parish. The following are my notes on that presentation.
When we consider issues like immigration, we must do so with the sobriety that comes with sound theology. It is all too easy to become overwhelmed with sentiment.
PRUDENCE
Faith, hope and love are the primary virtues instilled by the Sacrament of Baptism. After these comes the virtue of prudence given in article 1806 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going." "Keep sane and sober for your prayers." Prudence is "right reason in action," writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle. It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.
Jesus gave two examples of the virtue of prudence in Luke 14:28-32:
28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build, and was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king, going to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an embassy and asks terms of peace.
HUMAN SOLIDARITY
Human solidarity builds a civilization of love. We have been given to each other. This is exemplified in the principle of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37. We as Christians are obliged to give out of our extra means to other in need, when we are employers, we are duty-bound to pay a just wage. Human solidarity is discussed in articles 1939 through 1941 of the Catechism.
1939 The principle of solidarity, also articulated in terms of "friendship" or "social charity," is a direct demand of human and Christian brotherhood.
An error, "today abundantly widespread, is disregard for the law of human solidarity and charity, dictated and imposed both by our common origin and by the equality in rational nature of all men, whatever nation they belong to. This law is sealed by the sacrifice of redemption offered by Jesus Christ on the altar of the Cross to his heavenly Father, on behalf of sinful humanity."
1940 Solidarity is manifested in the first place by the distribution of goods and remuneration for work. It also presupposes the effort for a more just social order where tensions are better able to be reduced and conflicts more readily settled by negotiation.
1941 Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace depends in part upon this.
SUBSIDIARITY
The twin of solidarity is subsidiarity. The lowest level of public authority should take care of the need because the lowest level is closest to our neighbor and as such understands what the need really is. Subsidiarity is opposed to socialism and collectivism which are antithetical to the right to private property. The Church is always cautious of government involvement. The government is not the solution to everything.
The Founders of the United States instituted a government based on subsidiarity. The individual sovereign states keep the Federal government in check, and individual counties within a state keep the state government in check.
Subsidiarity is discussed in articles 1883 through 1885 of the Catechism:
1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."
1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.
1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.
CIVIL AUTHORITY
Christianity views authority as a blessing in providing social order whereas the West typically views authority as a necessary evil to prevent anarchy and citizens killing each other. In Christianity we obey lawful authority so that we can grow in virtue. Laws are given for our own good. For example, why is a certain road designated with a 35 mph speed limit even though we see we can drive on it at 55 mph? Well, we may not the reasons why that speed limit was selected. Is there a deaf child living in the area? Are there unsafe curves up ahead that we cannot see? Is there construction going on? Civil authorities in that particular area who are mothers and fathers had to select a speed limit based on protecting both driver and residents. Therefore, we are supposed to honor all those in authority because all authority comes from God. Romans 13:1-7 states:
1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
1st Peter 2:13-17
13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution,[b] whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. 17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
John 19:10-11 states:
10 Pilate therefore said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.”
Like Pontius Pilate, the Nazis and Communists received their authority from God, but they abused that authority and as history records suffered the consequences. Political authority is obliged to respect human rights, and people have a right to migrate.
Because civil authority is a representative of God (Romans 13:2), they are stewards of His gifts. Thus, Sirach 10:1-5 states:
1 A wise magistrate will educate his people,
and the rule of an understanding man will be well ordered.
2 Like the magistrate of the people, so are his officials;
and like the ruler of the city, so are all its inhabitants.
3 An undisciplined king will ruin his people,
but a city will grow through the understanding of its rulers.
4 The government of the earth is in the hands of the Lord,
and over it he will raise up the right man for the time.
5 The success of a man is in the hands of the Lord,
and he confers his honor upon the person of the scribe.
We the citizens have a right and a duty to voice just criticism of what is harmful to the dignity of persons and the good of the community based on the principles of Truth, Justice, Solidarity and Freedom. Note that charity and sentimentality do not appear in that list, and that truth leads the list. But we must still exercise submission to authority. This is based on the ancient Roman principle of pietas which means responsibility, sense of duty; loyalty; tenderness, goodness; pity; piety. A civilized person owes pietas to God, Republic and Family. This means that we must vote, pay taxes (Romans 13:7) and defend the homeland.
If civil authority does not violate goodness, then we must obey even when we disagree. If there are no violations of human rights and moral goodness, then obedience is required. We must not be given over to sloppy theology.
Civil authority is discussed is articles 2234 through 2240 of the Catechism
Duties of civil authorities
2235 Those who exercise authority should do so as a service. "Whoever would be great among you must be your servant."41 The exercise of authority is measured morally in terms of its divine origin, its reasonable nature and its specific object. No one can command or establish what is contrary to the dignity of persons and the natural law.
2236 The exercise of authority is meant to give outward expression to a just hierarchy of values in order to facilitate the exercise of freedom and responsibility by all. Those in authority should practice distributive justice wisely, taking account of the needs and contribution of each, with a view to harmony and peace. They should take care that the regulations and measures they adopt are not a source of temptation by setting personal interest against that of the community.
2237 Political authorities are obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the human person. They will dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone, especially of families and the disadvantaged.
The political rights attached to citizenship can and should be granted according to the requirements of the common good. They cannot be suspended by public authorities without legitimate and proportionate reasons. Political rights are meant to be exercised for the common good of the nation and the human community.
The duties of citizens
2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts: "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.
2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.
2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:
Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.
The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."
IMMIGRATION PROPER
More prosperous nations to the extent of their ability are obliged to welcome the foreigner. But the number of immigrants welcomed and the process of administering immigration are both determined by civil authority. Public authority must respect the right of the immigrant. This is based on the Biblical notion of hospitality. But the right to immigrate to subject to juridical conditions. Based on the principle of solidarity, civil authority should be generous to our neighbors, but based on the principle of subsidiarity civil authority must be protective of the citizenry. Civil authority has a responsibility for safety, the common good and economic well-being, and has a duty to say, “Not here,” “Not now,” or “Not in this way.” This stems from moral theology where human rights are accompanied by human duties.
The immigrant must respect the country into which he immigrates. Immigrants must not create colonies of the countries of their origin in their new country. They must integrate and respect the new country’s laws such as paying taxes.
We as citizens may voice opposition to a certain immigration policy, but ultimately we must obey. Legal immigration is encouraged and illegal immigration is prohibited.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is NOT the Gestapo, a hyperbole that a bishop in Texas unfairly used. ICE is simply doing its job in enforcing the law. Either the immigrant enters the country legally or is subject to penalty. Likewise someone harboring an illegal immigrant is subject to penalty. This is nothing like harboring persecuted Jews to hide from the Nazis.
What if a family has entered the country illegally but has remained here for an extended period of time? Then the Church argues for compassionate accommodation. But we don’t know if the people to be accommodated are actually a family or not. Ultimately civil authority decides whether or not to provide accommodation.
Likewise what if a child was born to illegal immigrants in this country and was raised for years here, never knowing the country of his parents’ origin? Again we ask for compassionate accommodation, but ultimately civil authority decides.
Immigration proper is discussed in article 2241 of the Catechism:
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,
On the evening of January 10, 2018 (Wednesday), Father gave a talk on Immigration and the Common Good at our Parish. The following are my notes on that presentation.
When we consider issues like immigration, we must do so with the sobriety that comes with sound theology. It is all too easy to become overwhelmed with sentiment.
PRUDENCE
Faith, hope and love are the primary virtues instilled by the Sacrament of Baptism. After these comes the virtue of prudence given in article 1806 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going." "Keep sane and sober for your prayers." Prudence is "right reason in action," writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle. It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.
Jesus gave two examples of the virtue of prudence in Luke 14:28-32:
28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build, and was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king, going to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an embassy and asks terms of peace.
HUMAN SOLIDARITY
Human solidarity builds a civilization of love. We have been given to each other. This is exemplified in the principle of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37. We as Christians are obliged to give out of our extra means to other in need, when we are employers, we are duty-bound to pay a just wage. Human solidarity is discussed in articles 1939 through 1941 of the Catechism.
1939 The principle of solidarity, also articulated in terms of "friendship" or "social charity," is a direct demand of human and Christian brotherhood.
An error, "today abundantly widespread, is disregard for the law of human solidarity and charity, dictated and imposed both by our common origin and by the equality in rational nature of all men, whatever nation they belong to. This law is sealed by the sacrifice of redemption offered by Jesus Christ on the altar of the Cross to his heavenly Father, on behalf of sinful humanity."
1940 Solidarity is manifested in the first place by the distribution of goods and remuneration for work. It also presupposes the effort for a more just social order where tensions are better able to be reduced and conflicts more readily settled by negotiation.
1941 Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace depends in part upon this.
SUBSIDIARITY
The twin of solidarity is subsidiarity. The lowest level of public authority should take care of the need because the lowest level is closest to our neighbor and as such understands what the need really is. Subsidiarity is opposed to socialism and collectivism which are antithetical to the right to private property. The Church is always cautious of government involvement. The government is not the solution to everything.
The Founders of the United States instituted a government based on subsidiarity. The individual sovereign states keep the Federal government in check, and individual counties within a state keep the state government in check.
Subsidiarity is discussed in articles 1883 through 1885 of the Catechism:
1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."
1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.
1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.
CIVIL AUTHORITY
Christianity views authority as a blessing in providing social order whereas the West typically views authority as a necessary evil to prevent anarchy and citizens killing each other. In Christianity we obey lawful authority so that we can grow in virtue. Laws are given for our own good. For example, why is a certain road designated with a 35 mph speed limit even though we see we can drive on it at 55 mph? Well, we may not the reasons why that speed limit was selected. Is there a deaf child living in the area? Are there unsafe curves up ahead that we cannot see? Is there construction going on? Civil authorities in that particular area who are mothers and fathers had to select a speed limit based on protecting both driver and residents. Therefore, we are supposed to honor all those in authority because all authority comes from God. Romans 13:1-7 states:
1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
1st Peter 2:13-17
13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution,[b] whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. 17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
John 19:10-11 states:
10 Pilate therefore said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.”
Like Pontius Pilate, the Nazis and Communists received their authority from God, but they abused that authority and as history records suffered the consequences. Political authority is obliged to respect human rights, and people have a right to migrate.
Because civil authority is a representative of God (Romans 13:2), they are stewards of His gifts. Thus, Sirach 10:1-5 states:
1 A wise magistrate will educate his people,
and the rule of an understanding man will be well ordered.
2 Like the magistrate of the people, so are his officials;
and like the ruler of the city, so are all its inhabitants.
3 An undisciplined king will ruin his people,
but a city will grow through the understanding of its rulers.
4 The government of the earth is in the hands of the Lord,
and over it he will raise up the right man for the time.
5 The success of a man is in the hands of the Lord,
and he confers his honor upon the person of the scribe.
We the citizens have a right and a duty to voice just criticism of what is harmful to the dignity of persons and the good of the community based on the principles of Truth, Justice, Solidarity and Freedom. Note that charity and sentimentality do not appear in that list, and that truth leads the list. But we must still exercise submission to authority. This is based on the ancient Roman principle of pietas which means responsibility, sense of duty; loyalty; tenderness, goodness; pity; piety. A civilized person owes pietas to God, Republic and Family. This means that we must vote, pay taxes (Romans 13:7) and defend the homeland.
If civil authority does not violate goodness, then we must obey even when we disagree. If there are no violations of human rights and moral goodness, then obedience is required. We must not be given over to sloppy theology.
Civil authority is discussed is articles 2234 through 2240 of the Catechism
Duties of civil authorities
2235 Those who exercise authority should do so as a service. "Whoever would be great among you must be your servant."41 The exercise of authority is measured morally in terms of its divine origin, its reasonable nature and its specific object. No one can command or establish what is contrary to the dignity of persons and the natural law.
2236 The exercise of authority is meant to give outward expression to a just hierarchy of values in order to facilitate the exercise of freedom and responsibility by all. Those in authority should practice distributive justice wisely, taking account of the needs and contribution of each, with a view to harmony and peace. They should take care that the regulations and measures they adopt are not a source of temptation by setting personal interest against that of the community.
2237 Political authorities are obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the human person. They will dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone, especially of families and the disadvantaged.
The political rights attached to citizenship can and should be granted according to the requirements of the common good. They cannot be suspended by public authorities without legitimate and proportionate reasons. Political rights are meant to be exercised for the common good of the nation and the human community.
The duties of citizens
2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts: "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.
2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.
2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:
Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.
The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."
IMMIGRATION PROPER
More prosperous nations to the extent of their ability are obliged to welcome the foreigner. But the number of immigrants welcomed and the process of administering immigration are both determined by civil authority. Public authority must respect the right of the immigrant. This is based on the Biblical notion of hospitality. But the right to immigrate to subject to juridical conditions. Based on the principle of solidarity, civil authority should be generous to our neighbors, but based on the principle of subsidiarity civil authority must be protective of the citizenry. Civil authority has a responsibility for safety, the common good and economic well-being, and has a duty to say, “Not here,” “Not now,” or “Not in this way.” This stems from moral theology where human rights are accompanied by human duties.
The immigrant must respect the country into which he immigrates. Immigrants must not create colonies of the countries of their origin in their new country. They must integrate and respect the new country’s laws such as paying taxes.
We as citizens may voice opposition to a certain immigration policy, but ultimately we must obey. Legal immigration is encouraged and illegal immigration is prohibited.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is NOT the Gestapo, a hyperbole that a bishop in Texas unfairly used. ICE is simply doing its job in enforcing the law. Either the immigrant enters the country legally or is subject to penalty. Likewise someone harboring an illegal immigrant is subject to penalty. This is nothing like harboring persecuted Jews to hide from the Nazis.
What if a family has entered the country illegally but has remained here for an extended period of time? Then the Church argues for compassionate accommodation. But we don’t know if the people to be accommodated are actually a family or not. Ultimately civil authority decides whether or not to provide accommodation.
Likewise what if a child was born to illegal immigrants in this country and was raised for years here, never knowing the country of his parents’ origin? Again we ask for compassionate accommodation, but ultimately civil authority decides.
Immigration proper is discussed in article 2241 of the Catechism:
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
Oecologia et Energia Nuclearis
Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,
The priest at our parish is giving a series of talks on major issues of our time. One of those talks scheduled for mid-February concerns the environment. I sent the following letter to the priest since this topic is near and dear to my heart.
Dear Father,
Thank you for the excellent Masses this past week, and the great homilies therein. Evoking the lesson of the prophet Hosea and his faithless wife Gomer in Friday evening’s homily was especially noteworthy. Additionally, the celebration of the Eucharist Ad Orientem was positively beautiful. I am also happy to learn that you will be delivering a series of instructional talks on major issues of our time on Wednesday evenings over the next two months. I look forward to attending. One of the topics caught my specific interest. It was related to the environment. Being a 40+ year nuclear energy professional, this topic is of course near and dear to my heart. So below I am presenting a short distillation of the environmentally positive aspects of nuclear energy. Of course, as a priest you should neither support nor oppose any particular technical methodology of good stewardship of God’s creation – that over which He has given us dominion. And I suspect your topic will likely not touch on the technical aspects of what I present below. In fact, you may already be aware of much of this. But I fully expect so-called environmentalists to be as critical of nuclear energy (if not more so) as they are of carbon-emitting fossil energy (though their reflexive anti-nuclearism is slowly changing). And while I am no climate change activist (I do NOT adhere to or otherwise believe in the fiction of anthropogenic global warming), anyone with normal intelligence can see that indiscriminately dumping billions of tons of fossil fuel pollution into the environment year in and year out is an untested experiment which inevitably will have unanticipated and undesirable consequences. Don’t pollute isn’t just good theology. It’s common sense – one doesn’t poop in one’s backyard (sorry for the visualization, but I am a submarine sailor). J
DISCLAIMER 1: this paper is NO criticism of anything you have said or done (quite the contrary, you’re one of the best priests I know). But it is a long winded explanation based on my 40+ years of training and experience as a nuclear energy professional. So please forgive me for having “diarrhea of the keyboard” (humor – Ha! Ha!). And forgive any typographical errors.
DISCLAIMER 2: I have freely “plagiarized” from various sources in the discussion below (yes, I know I am long-winded, but I can’t distill those 40+ years of training and experience into a Facebook sound bite or a Twitter meme, so you may want to read the rest of this when you have time). I have include screen capture diagrams and have identified the source where I have “plagiarized” (I don’t know everything and I rely heavily on sources like the US NRC, NEI, IAEA, etc. – people who do know more than me). I cover the following:
Fuel Comparison
Pollution
Land Use
Capacity Factor
Mortality Rate per Terawatt Hour
Accidents (TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima)
Spent Fuel
Radiation Hormesis
The only thing I can add to these sources is the following: I have worked in nuclear power for 40+ years. I have stood watch in an enclosed metal tube right next to a 158 MWth nuclear reactor while 1000 feet beneath the ocean’s surface (obviously it’s called a submarine). I have held uranium pellets (unirradiated of course) in my hands and have had my nose mere inches away from newly manufactured uranium fuel rods (again unirradiated). I have stood above spent fuel pools full of irradiated fuel rods, I have worked atop the head of a reactor pressure vessel at a 1000 MWe reactor plant, I have dismantled and installed instrumentation on reactor plant components in radiologically controlled areas, etc. ad nausaeam. If radiation were as deadly as environmentalists say, then I would be dead by now. But the good Lord has (for some reason unknown to me) kept me alive (in spite of my best efforts to the contrary). Nuclear power is the safest, most environmentally benign form of power generation, even including solar, wind and all the rest of the so-called renewables. My life is proof of that because if I had been working in coal, oil, gas, wind or solar, then I would be dead (long story for a different letter).
FUEL COMPARISON
According to the European Nuclear Society, “With a complete combustion or fission, approx. 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235. Related to one kilogram, uranium-235 contains two to three million times the energy equivalent of oil or coal. The illustration[s] show how much coal, oil or natural uranium is required for a certain quantity of electricity. Thus, 1 kg natural uranium - following a corresponding enrichment and used for power generation in light water reactors - corresponds to nearly 10,000 kg of mineral oil or 14,000 kg of coal and enables the generation of 45,000 kWh of electricity.”
POLLUTION
“The World Nuclear Association carried out a review of over twenty studies assessing the greenhouse gas emissions produced by different forms of electricity generation. The results summarized in the chart below show that generating electricity from fossil fuels results in greenhouse gas emissions far higher than when using nuclear or renewable generation.”
“In 2011 the world's nuclear power plants supplied 2518 TWh (billion kWh) of electricity. The following table shows the additional emissions that would have been produced if fossil fuels had been used to generate the same amount of electricity.”
NOTA BENE: nuclear power’s life cycle carbon emissions come from initial construction and from periodic testing of the emergency diesel generators. These emissions are orders of magnitude smaller than fossil fuel emissions. Read also the following essay from the late Dr. Bernard Cohen of the University of Pittsburg: “Environmental Problems with Coal, Oil and Gas.”
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter3.html
LAND USE
A company (for which I once worked) did a study some time ago to compare “…how much land would be needed to produce 1,800 Megawatts of solar or wind energy compared to the amount of land currently in use at the Arkansas Nuclear One Station.” This study states:
Assuming the wind and sun were able to generate electricity at a 90 percent capacity factor (of course the sun cannot shine 22 hours, or 90 percent of each day), land requirements necessary to generate 1,800 MW of electricity, the equivalent of our nuclear facility, would be as follows:
Modern Wind Power
Modern Solar Power
The bottom line is that a massive amount of land area must be torn up for so-called renewable energy and that has an environmentally harmful impact. Why such large land use? Because sunlight and wind are diffuse and highly variable sources of energy. Such is NOT the case for nuclear power.
CAPACITY FACTOR
The following graph comes from the Office of Nuclear Energy in the US Department of Energy:
“Nuclear power plants are typically used more often because they require less maintenance and are designed to operate for longer stretches before refueling (typically every 1.5 or 2 years). Natural gas and coal capacity factors are generally lower due to routine maintenance and / or refueling at these facilities. Renewable plants are considered intermittent or variable sources and are mostly limited by a lack of fuel (i.e. wind, sun, or water). As a result, these plants need a backup power source such as large-scale storage (not currently available at grid-scale) — or they can be paired with a reliable baseload power like nuclear energy.”
“A typical nuclear reactor produces 1 gigawatt (GW) of electricity. That doesn’t mean you can simply replace it with a 1 gigawatt coal or renewable plant. Based on the capacity factors above, you would need almost two coal or three to four renewable plants (each of 1 GW size) to generate the same amount of electricity onto the grid.”
The bottom line is this: if solar and wind were so great, then why don’t we still bake bricks in the sun as the ancient Sumerians did, and why don’t we sail across the sea in sailing ships as the Vikings did? Solar and wind have capacity factors of less than 30% and always require polluting fossil energy backup as spinning reserve for the 70% of the time that they can’t generate electricity. Every renewable energy plant is a methane gas power plant, and they pollute.
MORTALITY RATE PER TERAWATT HOUR
Nuclear energy has the lowest mortality rate per terawatt hour of electrical power generation. The following chart comes from Next Big Energy Future and is a summary of data from the International Energy Agency. Nuclear has 0.04 fatalities per terawatt hour (even including Fukushima and Chernobyl and TMI and Windscale) compared to solar at 0.1, wind at 0.15, gas at 20, oil at 52 and coal (USA) at 10.
ACCIDENTS
There have been three big accidents during my professional nuclear career:
TMI
Chernobyl
Fukushima
You can read about the TMI accident here:
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html.
In the TMI accident the operators did not believe their indications and incorrectly secured the safety injection pumps. If they had done what they were supposed to do, then the accident would not have been nearly as severe as it was. That said, not one member of the public was injured or died from the TMI event. And the amount of radioactivity that was released in the form of noble gases (argon, krypton and xenon) had no significant impact on background radiation levels to which local residents are exposed with or without nuclear power.
You can read about the Chernobyl accident here:
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html.
Read also Dr. Bernard Cohen’s essay, “The Chernobyl Accident – Can It Happen Here?”
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter7.html .
Regarding the Chernobyl accident, this reactor was a mad atheist communist design: water cooled, graphite moderated reactors are inherently unstable by the laws of physics (positive void coefficient of reactivity). I won’t go into details here, but this design – RBMK (Реактор Большой Мощности Канальный or High Power Channel-type Reactor) – could never be licensed in the West. Yes, scores of people died. That’s what communism does. This was a communist problem, NOT a nuclear power problem. The fools there did a test outside of procedure, overrode automatic reactor protection, and then the God-ordained Laws of Physics took over. I can explain more but the explanation requires some rudimentary knowledge of nuclear physics which is beyond the scope of this discussion. Bottom line: obey God’s Law, whether divine or physical, because you won’t like the consequences if you don’t.
You can read about the Fukushima accident here:
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/japan-events.html.
In the Fukushima accident, for decades TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) ignored advice that it was given by General Electric (GE) and the rest of the West. You see, when the earthquake happened off Japan’s east coast in March, 20011, the six reactors at Fukushima were placed in safe shutdown right away. The emergency diesel generators were started to keep vital safety-related equipment running. But the diesels were essentially on the beach and exposed to the tsunami which of course hit. This flooded the diesel intakes and the safety-related cooling water equipment eventually de-energized when backup batteries died. Then the inevitable happened: physics. The Japanese had to learn that God’s Law is immutable, and they learned it the hard way. If TEPCO hadn’t been so cheap and had built its diesels above the 35 foot tsunami line as GE told them to, then the accident would never have happened. Again, the issue isn’t nuclear power. The issue is taking stupid risks and expecting that God is going to exempt you from the Laws of Physics. That’s not what will happen – or in this case, happened. Nevertheless, not one person in the public died from the Fukushima accident (compared to the thousands who died from a near dam failure and from explosions at petrochemical installations in the Chiba Prefecture), and less than a half dozen died on site, all due to industrial accidents from recovery operations, not any radiological event.
SPENT FUEL AND WEAPONS PROLIFERATION
Currently designed light water reactors in the West (Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors) typically use only 5% of the available energy content in the fuel. The reason why is the low enrichment of U-235 in the fuel and the accumulation of fission product poisons as the core operates over a few year’s time. We store spent (or more properly used) fuel for eventual geological repository, hence the never ending fight over Yucca Mountain. Why did we do that? Because first Gerald Ford then his successor Jimmy Carter enacted a policy of no reprocessing on unfounded fears of the proliferation of plutonium for weapons use. But that’s ridiculous. Why? Because the only isotope of plutonium that is usable in bombs is 92+% pure Pu-239 and spent fuel from light water reactors has too much non-fissile Pu-240 mixed in. Any bomb made from such material would fizzle out. It wouldn’t be a militarily useful weapon (as the North Koreans found out when they exploded several duds). Sadly sometimes Presidents (Republican and Democrat) make stupid decisions, and this was one (though Jimmy Carter, a former nuclear trained submarine officer, should have known better; he was one of Admiral Rickover’s few failures). Bottom line: reactor fuel cannot be used for a bomb because a bomb requires 92+% enriched U-235 or Pu-239, and reactor fuel is enriched to less than 5%.
In the case of Candu heavy water reactors in Canada, the Canadians don’t enrich their fuel at all. They use natural uranium and heavy water as the neutron moderator. Their reactors do produce some plutonium, but there’s so much Pu-240 mixed with the Pu-239 that it can’t be used for a bomb.
So now we have enough spent fuel from 100 reactors in the US to fill a football field to a depth of some scores of feet (compare that to the multi-million ton coal ash accident Duke Energy spilled from one coal fired power plant into the river system in North Carolina). And we plan to send used fuel to Yucca Mountain. But 95% of its energy content remains. Why don’t we use it? We could build fast neutron burner reactors like GE-Hitachi’s PRISM sodium cooled reactor, or something like a Carlo Rubbia Energy Amplifier to consume all the long lived actinides that present the long-term radiation hazard. There are plenty of other designs too: Oak Ridge’s molten salt thorium reactor from the 1960s, General Atomics high temperature helium cooled reactor, Westinghouse’s DaVinci lead cooled reactor, etc. With any of these we could obviate the need for Yucca Mountain because fast neutron burner reactors leave behind "ash" that decays in 600 years, not a million years. Compare that to heavy metal pollution in coal ash from coal fired power plants which never ever decays away – BTW, coal fired generation releases far more radioactivity than nuclear because coal contains naturally occurring uranium, thorium and radium that’s dumped will-nilly into the environment in the coal ash:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
We don’t have a spent fuel problem. We have a political problem of greed. Not reprocessing spent fuel means we leave ourselves reliant on fossil fuel and that enriches fossil fuel purveyors and the politicians who receive tax revenue therefrom.
RADIATION HORMESIS
The International Atomic Energy Agency has a paper on radiation hormesis here:
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/35/034/35034260.pdf.
“Hormesis is defined as the stimulating effect of low doses of agents that cause an inhibiting effect at high doses…..The theory of radiation hormesis states that low doses of ionizing radiation are not only harmless, but they have beneficial effects by stimulating the immune system and repair mechanisms.”
Dr. Bernard Cohen maintained that the current no linear threshold theory of radiation exposure (which asserts that any radiation exposure is harmful) is erroneous. His essay on “How Dangerous is Radiation?” is noteworthy:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter5.html.
Read also Atomic Insights’ article on radiation hormesis:
https://atomicinsights.com/radiation-hormesis-a-profound-truth-that-might-induce-a-few-more-converts-to-support-nuclear-energy/.
The bottom line is this: we are exposed to radiation all the time: cosmic radiation, radiation from soil and ricks, radiation from foods like bananas naturally containing radioactive potassium, etc. If radiation were as dangerous as environmentalists assert, then we should all be dead.
I will stop for now. There is so much to say and explain and I have continued for nine pages (and perhaps have bored you to tears if you managed to make it this far). So that’s long enough. I hope that some of this information may be of some small use to you. I however repeat that as a priest you must maintain objectivity and be “agnostic” (dare I use that word?) with regard to energy sources and technical methods of environmental stewardship. But I can personally assure you based on my 40+ years of training and experience that you won’t die from a reactor accident at the nearby nuclear power plants south of the greater metro area or ones north of that area.
The priest at our parish is giving a series of talks on major issues of our time. One of those talks scheduled for mid-February concerns the environment. I sent the following letter to the priest since this topic is near and dear to my heart.
Dear Father,
Thank you for the excellent Masses this past week, and the great homilies therein. Evoking the lesson of the prophet Hosea and his faithless wife Gomer in Friday evening’s homily was especially noteworthy. Additionally, the celebration of the Eucharist Ad Orientem was positively beautiful. I am also happy to learn that you will be delivering a series of instructional talks on major issues of our time on Wednesday evenings over the next two months. I look forward to attending. One of the topics caught my specific interest. It was related to the environment. Being a 40+ year nuclear energy professional, this topic is of course near and dear to my heart. So below I am presenting a short distillation of the environmentally positive aspects of nuclear energy. Of course, as a priest you should neither support nor oppose any particular technical methodology of good stewardship of God’s creation – that over which He has given us dominion. And I suspect your topic will likely not touch on the technical aspects of what I present below. In fact, you may already be aware of much of this. But I fully expect so-called environmentalists to be as critical of nuclear energy (if not more so) as they are of carbon-emitting fossil energy (though their reflexive anti-nuclearism is slowly changing). And while I am no climate change activist (I do NOT adhere to or otherwise believe in the fiction of anthropogenic global warming), anyone with normal intelligence can see that indiscriminately dumping billions of tons of fossil fuel pollution into the environment year in and year out is an untested experiment which inevitably will have unanticipated and undesirable consequences. Don’t pollute isn’t just good theology. It’s common sense – one doesn’t poop in one’s backyard (sorry for the visualization, but I am a submarine sailor). J
DISCLAIMER 1: this paper is NO criticism of anything you have said or done (quite the contrary, you’re one of the best priests I know). But it is a long winded explanation based on my 40+ years of training and experience as a nuclear energy professional. So please forgive me for having “diarrhea of the keyboard” (humor – Ha! Ha!). And forgive any typographical errors.
DISCLAIMER 2: I have freely “plagiarized” from various sources in the discussion below (yes, I know I am long-winded, but I can’t distill those 40+ years of training and experience into a Facebook sound bite or a Twitter meme, so you may want to read the rest of this when you have time). I have include screen capture diagrams and have identified the source where I have “plagiarized” (I don’t know everything and I rely heavily on sources like the US NRC, NEI, IAEA, etc. – people who do know more than me). I cover the following:
Fuel Comparison
Pollution
Land Use
Capacity Factor
Mortality Rate per Terawatt Hour
Accidents (TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima)
Spent Fuel
Radiation Hormesis
The only thing I can add to these sources is the following: I have worked in nuclear power for 40+ years. I have stood watch in an enclosed metal tube right next to a 158 MWth nuclear reactor while 1000 feet beneath the ocean’s surface (obviously it’s called a submarine). I have held uranium pellets (unirradiated of course) in my hands and have had my nose mere inches away from newly manufactured uranium fuel rods (again unirradiated). I have stood above spent fuel pools full of irradiated fuel rods, I have worked atop the head of a reactor pressure vessel at a 1000 MWe reactor plant, I have dismantled and installed instrumentation on reactor plant components in radiologically controlled areas, etc. ad nausaeam. If radiation were as deadly as environmentalists say, then I would be dead by now. But the good Lord has (for some reason unknown to me) kept me alive (in spite of my best efforts to the contrary). Nuclear power is the safest, most environmentally benign form of power generation, even including solar, wind and all the rest of the so-called renewables. My life is proof of that because if I had been working in coal, oil, gas, wind or solar, then I would be dead (long story for a different letter).
FUEL COMPARISON
According to the European Nuclear Society, “With a complete combustion or fission, approx. 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235. Related to one kilogram, uranium-235 contains two to three million times the energy equivalent of oil or coal. The illustration[s] show how much coal, oil or natural uranium is required for a certain quantity of electricity. Thus, 1 kg natural uranium - following a corresponding enrichment and used for power generation in light water reactors - corresponds to nearly 10,000 kg of mineral oil or 14,000 kg of coal and enables the generation of 45,000 kWh of electricity.”
POLLUTION
“The World Nuclear Association carried out a review of over twenty studies assessing the greenhouse gas emissions produced by different forms of electricity generation. The results summarized in the chart below show that generating electricity from fossil fuels results in greenhouse gas emissions far higher than when using nuclear or renewable generation.”
“In 2011 the world's nuclear power plants supplied 2518 TWh (billion kWh) of electricity. The following table shows the additional emissions that would have been produced if fossil fuels had been used to generate the same amount of electricity.”
NOTA BENE: nuclear power’s life cycle carbon emissions come from initial construction and from periodic testing of the emergency diesel generators. These emissions are orders of magnitude smaller than fossil fuel emissions. Read also the following essay from the late Dr. Bernard Cohen of the University of Pittsburg: “Environmental Problems with Coal, Oil and Gas.”
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter3.html
LAND USE
A company (for which I once worked) did a study some time ago to compare “…how much land would be needed to produce 1,800 Megawatts of solar or wind energy compared to the amount of land currently in use at the Arkansas Nuclear One Station.” This study states:
Assuming the wind and sun were able to generate electricity at a 90 percent capacity factor (of course the sun cannot shine 22 hours, or 90 percent of each day), land requirements necessary to generate 1,800 MW of electricity, the equivalent of our nuclear facility, would be as follows:
Modern Wind Power
- Power Output: Above Average Wind Turbine Generates2.5 Megawatts/turbine
- Number of 2.5 MW Turbines Needed to Generate 1,800 Megawatts:720
- Average Acres Per Megawatt: 60
- Land Use: 108,000 acres (169 square miles)
Modern Solar Power
- Power Output:1 Megawatt per 7.4 acres of photovoltaic solar panels
- Land Use:13,320 acres (21 square miles)
The bottom line is that a massive amount of land area must be torn up for so-called renewable energy and that has an environmentally harmful impact. Why such large land use? Because sunlight and wind are diffuse and highly variable sources of energy. Such is NOT the case for nuclear power.
CAPACITY FACTOR
The following graph comes from the Office of Nuclear Energy in the US Department of Energy:
“Nuclear power plants are typically used more often because they require less maintenance and are designed to operate for longer stretches before refueling (typically every 1.5 or 2 years). Natural gas and coal capacity factors are generally lower due to routine maintenance and / or refueling at these facilities. Renewable plants are considered intermittent or variable sources and are mostly limited by a lack of fuel (i.e. wind, sun, or water). As a result, these plants need a backup power source such as large-scale storage (not currently available at grid-scale) — or they can be paired with a reliable baseload power like nuclear energy.”
“A typical nuclear reactor produces 1 gigawatt (GW) of electricity. That doesn’t mean you can simply replace it with a 1 gigawatt coal or renewable plant. Based on the capacity factors above, you would need almost two coal or three to four renewable plants (each of 1 GW size) to generate the same amount of electricity onto the grid.”
The bottom line is this: if solar and wind were so great, then why don’t we still bake bricks in the sun as the ancient Sumerians did, and why don’t we sail across the sea in sailing ships as the Vikings did? Solar and wind have capacity factors of less than 30% and always require polluting fossil energy backup as spinning reserve for the 70% of the time that they can’t generate electricity. Every renewable energy plant is a methane gas power plant, and they pollute.
MORTALITY RATE PER TERAWATT HOUR
Nuclear energy has the lowest mortality rate per terawatt hour of electrical power generation. The following chart comes from Next Big Energy Future and is a summary of data from the International Energy Agency. Nuclear has 0.04 fatalities per terawatt hour (even including Fukushima and Chernobyl and TMI and Windscale) compared to solar at 0.1, wind at 0.15, gas at 20, oil at 52 and coal (USA) at 10.
ACCIDENTS
There have been three big accidents during my professional nuclear career:
TMI
Chernobyl
Fukushima
You can read about the TMI accident here:
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html.
In the TMI accident the operators did not believe their indications and incorrectly secured the safety injection pumps. If they had done what they were supposed to do, then the accident would not have been nearly as severe as it was. That said, not one member of the public was injured or died from the TMI event. And the amount of radioactivity that was released in the form of noble gases (argon, krypton and xenon) had no significant impact on background radiation levels to which local residents are exposed with or without nuclear power.
You can read about the Chernobyl accident here:
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html.
Read also Dr. Bernard Cohen’s essay, “The Chernobyl Accident – Can It Happen Here?”
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter7.html .
Regarding the Chernobyl accident, this reactor was a mad atheist communist design: water cooled, graphite moderated reactors are inherently unstable by the laws of physics (positive void coefficient of reactivity). I won’t go into details here, but this design – RBMK (Реактор Большой Мощности Канальный or High Power Channel-type Reactor) – could never be licensed in the West. Yes, scores of people died. That’s what communism does. This was a communist problem, NOT a nuclear power problem. The fools there did a test outside of procedure, overrode automatic reactor protection, and then the God-ordained Laws of Physics took over. I can explain more but the explanation requires some rudimentary knowledge of nuclear physics which is beyond the scope of this discussion. Bottom line: obey God’s Law, whether divine or physical, because you won’t like the consequences if you don’t.
You can read about the Fukushima accident here:
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/japan-events.html.
In the Fukushima accident, for decades TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) ignored advice that it was given by General Electric (GE) and the rest of the West. You see, when the earthquake happened off Japan’s east coast in March, 20011, the six reactors at Fukushima were placed in safe shutdown right away. The emergency diesel generators were started to keep vital safety-related equipment running. But the diesels were essentially on the beach and exposed to the tsunami which of course hit. This flooded the diesel intakes and the safety-related cooling water equipment eventually de-energized when backup batteries died. Then the inevitable happened: physics. The Japanese had to learn that God’s Law is immutable, and they learned it the hard way. If TEPCO hadn’t been so cheap and had built its diesels above the 35 foot tsunami line as GE told them to, then the accident would never have happened. Again, the issue isn’t nuclear power. The issue is taking stupid risks and expecting that God is going to exempt you from the Laws of Physics. That’s not what will happen – or in this case, happened. Nevertheless, not one person in the public died from the Fukushima accident (compared to the thousands who died from a near dam failure and from explosions at petrochemical installations in the Chiba Prefecture), and less than a half dozen died on site, all due to industrial accidents from recovery operations, not any radiological event.
SPENT FUEL AND WEAPONS PROLIFERATION
Currently designed light water reactors in the West (Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors) typically use only 5% of the available energy content in the fuel. The reason why is the low enrichment of U-235 in the fuel and the accumulation of fission product poisons as the core operates over a few year’s time. We store spent (or more properly used) fuel for eventual geological repository, hence the never ending fight over Yucca Mountain. Why did we do that? Because first Gerald Ford then his successor Jimmy Carter enacted a policy of no reprocessing on unfounded fears of the proliferation of plutonium for weapons use. But that’s ridiculous. Why? Because the only isotope of plutonium that is usable in bombs is 92+% pure Pu-239 and spent fuel from light water reactors has too much non-fissile Pu-240 mixed in. Any bomb made from such material would fizzle out. It wouldn’t be a militarily useful weapon (as the North Koreans found out when they exploded several duds). Sadly sometimes Presidents (Republican and Democrat) make stupid decisions, and this was one (though Jimmy Carter, a former nuclear trained submarine officer, should have known better; he was one of Admiral Rickover’s few failures). Bottom line: reactor fuel cannot be used for a bomb because a bomb requires 92+% enriched U-235 or Pu-239, and reactor fuel is enriched to less than 5%.
In the case of Candu heavy water reactors in Canada, the Canadians don’t enrich their fuel at all. They use natural uranium and heavy water as the neutron moderator. Their reactors do produce some plutonium, but there’s so much Pu-240 mixed with the Pu-239 that it can’t be used for a bomb.
So now we have enough spent fuel from 100 reactors in the US to fill a football field to a depth of some scores of feet (compare that to the multi-million ton coal ash accident Duke Energy spilled from one coal fired power plant into the river system in North Carolina). And we plan to send used fuel to Yucca Mountain. But 95% of its energy content remains. Why don’t we use it? We could build fast neutron burner reactors like GE-Hitachi’s PRISM sodium cooled reactor, or something like a Carlo Rubbia Energy Amplifier to consume all the long lived actinides that present the long-term radiation hazard. There are plenty of other designs too: Oak Ridge’s molten salt thorium reactor from the 1960s, General Atomics high temperature helium cooled reactor, Westinghouse’s DaVinci lead cooled reactor, etc. With any of these we could obviate the need for Yucca Mountain because fast neutron burner reactors leave behind "ash" that decays in 600 years, not a million years. Compare that to heavy metal pollution in coal ash from coal fired power plants which never ever decays away – BTW, coal fired generation releases far more radioactivity than nuclear because coal contains naturally occurring uranium, thorium and radium that’s dumped will-nilly into the environment in the coal ash:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
We don’t have a spent fuel problem. We have a political problem of greed. Not reprocessing spent fuel means we leave ourselves reliant on fossil fuel and that enriches fossil fuel purveyors and the politicians who receive tax revenue therefrom.
RADIATION HORMESIS
The International Atomic Energy Agency has a paper on radiation hormesis here:
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/35/034/35034260.pdf.
“Hormesis is defined as the stimulating effect of low doses of agents that cause an inhibiting effect at high doses…..The theory of radiation hormesis states that low doses of ionizing radiation are not only harmless, but they have beneficial effects by stimulating the immune system and repair mechanisms.”
Dr. Bernard Cohen maintained that the current no linear threshold theory of radiation exposure (which asserts that any radiation exposure is harmful) is erroneous. His essay on “How Dangerous is Radiation?” is noteworthy:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter5.html.
Read also Atomic Insights’ article on radiation hormesis:
https://atomicinsights.com/radiation-hormesis-a-profound-truth-that-might-induce-a-few-more-converts-to-support-nuclear-energy/.
The bottom line is this: we are exposed to radiation all the time: cosmic radiation, radiation from soil and ricks, radiation from foods like bananas naturally containing radioactive potassium, etc. If radiation were as dangerous as environmentalists assert, then we should all be dead.
I will stop for now. There is so much to say and explain and I have continued for nine pages (and perhaps have bored you to tears if you managed to make it this far). So that’s long enough. I hope that some of this information may be of some small use to you. I however repeat that as a priest you must maintain objectivity and be “agnostic” (dare I use that word?) with regard to energy sources and technical methods of environmental stewardship. But I can personally assure you based on my 40+ years of training and experience that you won’t die from a reactor accident at the nearby nuclear power plants south of the greater metro area or ones north of that area.
Monday, November 19, 2018
Tempora Finis
Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,
The night before yesterday I returned from a business trip on the left coast of the United States. I was there for a little more than a week and had the opportunity to attend Mass at one of the local parishes in the area where I was staying.
Obviously yesterday I returned to Mass at my hometown Parish. I may as well have stayed on the left coast given the message that issued forth from a substitute priest who admitted from the pulpit to being a product of the 1960s.
Now the
Daily Scripture Readings for the 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time included
Daniel 12:1-3 and
Mark 13:24-32, both of which have an eschatological (or end-times) theme. The visiting priest started off his homily innocently enough, explaining that Fundamentalist Christians often take a literal
view of almost all of Sacred Scripture without giving sufficient allowance to the fact that the Bible is actually a collection of many different books written by authors of varied experiences over millennia, and as such has literary genres that employ a wide variety
of techniques such as parables, allegories, hyperboles, metaphors, similes, etc. He used the example of non-literal meaning by citing a typical sports news report on the television or internet that the Tigers slaughtered the Gamecocks. Would a reader a thousand years in the
future assume that a pride of tigers actually slaughtered a flock of chickens in a sports arena? So this point is correct.
But then the priest went far afield when he claimed that Jesus own words that heaven and earth will pass away does not mean that earth will be destroyed because God loves the earth (and us) so much that He would never destroy it (and by
extension punish us). This obviously is in direct conflict with what 2nd Peter 3:10-13 states:
10 But the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence, and the elements shall be melted with heat, and the earth and the works which are in it, shall be burnt up. 11 Seeing then that
all these things are to be dissolved, what manner of people ought you to be in holy conversation and godliness? 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of the Lord, by which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall
melt with the burning heat? 13 But we look for new heavens and a new earth according to his promises, in which justice dwelleth.
And the priest ignored precisely what Revelation 21:1 states:
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone, and the sea is now no more.
Now I do agree with the emphasis placed on Mark 13:32:
32 But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.
The Lord could return today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year or a thousand years from now. No man knows. And any one of us could die tonight, making the timing of the Lord’s return a moot point as we enter our Particular Judgment.
But the disregard given to the prophetic aspect of Christ’s own words was (while not surprising since it came from a priest of the 1960s), very disappointing and depressing. We can disagree about various interpretations of events described in Mark chapter 13 and its corollaries in the other two synoptic Gospels (Matthew 24 and
Luke 21). For example, some parts of Jesus’ prophecy obviously were fulfilled when Roman General Titus destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, but others remain yet to be fulfilled. This
disagreement among modern commentators is why I default to what the Church Fathers wrote, in this case St. John Chrysostom who wrote about these things in Homilies
75,
76 and 77 on the Gospel of St. Matthew. I really wish that before priests begin to give a homily or sermon, they would at least read what the early Church Fathers said instead of “winging” it with
post-Vatican II nonsense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)