mea maxima culpa
Last week, the Church of England issued an apology to Charles Darwin, 126 years after his death. Comparisons have been made to Pope John Paul II’s reconcilliatory admission of the erring of the Catholic church in its treatment of Galileo.
At first I thought about what the Church of England had to gain by a posthumous apology. The newspapers reported the story with quotes from Darwin’s great-great grandson, saying how he thought it was pointless. I suppose that posthumous apologies are always going to be pointless, but they can act as an invite of public pardon for the behaviour of an institution. Of course, it also turns down the heat a little when it comes to secular criticism.
I can only speak from my own experiences – but it seems there is a prevalent lack of understanding when it comes to spiritual or religious systems. People pay attention to what is thrust in front of them most often – and I believe that through a mixture of lazy media coverage and unengaging education, things become boiled down to the least number of options. Christianity is simmered down to bible-belt creationists; Islam is reduced to babbling terrorists.
A posthumous apology then, may be a good way of distancing the C of E from Palin and the religious right in the US, that are currently dominating our newspapers (and soon, possibly our world).
The apology itself was an interesting read. It seems to have a kind of ‘misery loves company’ angle, and though it admits that the critical attacks on Darwin in the 1860s were ‘misguided’ – it places more emphasis on the misapplication of Darwin’s ideas, arguing that natural selection effectively encourages racism and discrimination. It then suggests that these misuses were ‘perhaps predicted’ all along.
Undeniably, the C of E’s message to focus on the ‘human capacity for love, for altruism, and for self-sacrifice’ is relevant and applaudable.
However, by offering what will be seen as a watered down apology, they leave themselves open to criticism. When you are extending olive branches, it is good practice to make sure they are strong and firm.
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008 and is filed under Dialogue, Great men and women, Other Religions/denominations, Science, Views on News.
Responses are currently closed
Matthew Says:
Did you know that George bush got 48 % of the Catholic vote in Massachusetts in the last election? Are these Catholics part of the “religious right” which you seem not to happy to have in power. Or are they simply people who understand the moral imperative on the United states to end the massacre of 4000 children every day in the US. I would believe so.
It would be a marvelous thing if John McCain won this election because it will be the first time since roe v wade that we can actually tip the conservative majority on the supreme court.
As for Galileo, remember the there was nothing wrong with the Catholic churches scientific position as they saw it at the time. Galileo was the one who was being quite unreasonable. Perhaps his punishment was a little harsh, but such is a prudential judgment made at the time.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Dave Says:
Matthew, thanks for your response.
My point was on how religious institutions tend to all be lumped together in one kind of sticky media mess. The Church of England, I believe, realised how unsavoury a mess it was beginning to look, and in their act of apology, tried to clamber free and disassociate themselves from the negative spin that is being put on things at the moment (ie regarding Palin’s Creationist beliefs etc).
You say ‘we’ can tip the balance with McCain in power – who are you speaking on behalf of? Americans? Republicans? Baptists? 48% of Catholics in Massachusetts that voted for Bush ?
Well done on an enlightening statistic – do you think that they all voted based solely on the abortion issue? If so, why did the majority of Catholics in Massachusetts not choose to vote for Bush?
To remake the point of my post, lazy media coverage means things get boiled down to the least number of options.
There’s no doubting the questions surrounding abortion are important – but whether you want to boil an election (or indeed an unrelated post regarding media relations) down to just one issue is up to yourself.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Matthew Says:
The Catholic teaching has never been to boil an election down to one issue.
Nevertheless certain issues are more important than others.
Some candidates support intrinsic evils that must always be opposed.
The US bishops make this pretty clear in their main document on voting in the elections.
see http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf
If a candidate such as barack obama cannot recognise the difference between killing the citizen and protecting them ( the first role of government) then that candidate is unqualified for public office. Such a postion is simply having a bottom line. Now if an american wants to vote for the consitutional party or a pro life libertarion that’s a different issue, but the church make pretty clear that you must have a “truly grave reason” to vote for a candidate who suuport such an intrinsic moral evil.
This is basic moral philosophy dave.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Dave Says:
Matthew, thanks for taking your time to respond again.
I’ve been reading your other responses to Mike in various other posts and though you say Catholic teaching has been never to boil an election down to one issue, I believe that is what you are doing.
I would like to echo Mike by saying that your consistent and obviously deep concern regarding the abortion issue is commendable.
I read through the link that you posted and yes, it does make clear that the USCCB teach that abortion is ‘never morally acceptable and must always be opposed’.
It also goes on to say torture is ‘always wrong’, it says that Catholics must work to ‘avoid war and promote peace’ that the ‘continued reliance on the death penalty cannot be justified’ and also that it is a requirement for Catholics to ‘care for and stand with immigrants’.
So you must appreciate that whatever way you choose to vote, you will be in direct conflict with the teachings of the USCCB.
I understand that abortion is a huge issue here, and which you believe outweighs all the others. And so the following, from the same document:
‘a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other
important moral issues involving human life and dignity’
will be easily dismissed by you. Another part may be worthy of attention:
‘We recognize that the responsibility
to make choices in political life rests with
each individual in light of a properly formed
conscience, and that participation goes well
beyond casting a vote in a particular election.’
Matthew, everyone is going to have a different opinion on this, and at the end of the day, it is an individuals choice. At Mike said, banging the same beat over and over again makes it difficult to listen to. I think we just need to respect one anothers thoughts on it.
I hope you understand this, and I hope I do not cause any offence.
I believe that pro-life laws will not last long in a pro-choice society or culture. I don’t want to sound condescending Matthew, but the choice to abort a pregnancy is not a ‘quick-fix’ that gleeful, wicked heathens choose to carry out. It’s a devastating and horrible personal trauma for everyone involved, with long lasting repercussions.
I believe that when you give people the education, health care and support systems that they need, you will see younger families thrive, and abortion will become an option that we need no longer consider.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:20 am
Matthew Says:
Some other quotes from the document that you should reflect very seriously on. Again , this is not just the bishops speaking, this is 2000 years of consistent teaching basic moral philosophy. “ Catholics must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death” ( par 32)
“ A Candidates postion on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidates position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support” ( par 42)
Let me also state one other thing I forgot to mention and this you should think very seriously about too. Obama has promised to sign into effect the freedom of choice act. Let me explain what this means. It will eliminate all pro-life laws that have been implemented in states across the US which have been proven to reduce abortions.
Therfore a vote for obama will most certainly INCREASE the number of abortions not decrease them.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Dave Says:
Matthew, thanks again for your lengthy and thought provoking response.
I will try to respond with brevity, as I believe that this issue is a stalemate, and I believe that both sides of the debate have valid points. And we could list these ad infinitum.
I recognise the ferocious intensity of your argument and agree again that it is a pressing matter. But I simply do not believe the world is doomed if people are given the choice to legally seek abortions.
Though you may not like the sound of it, countries where organised religion is waning or has no grasp have lower abortion rates, the Netherlands is a prime example. The statistics seem to speak for themselves.
Am I suggesting that the collapse of the Church is what is needed? Certainly not – but I am saying that secularized society seems to be offering other ways to combat issues like abortion.
Could one continue to be a committed Catholic, while benefitting from what a secularized society can offer? Effectively riding on the coat-tails? Doesn’t everybody win that way?
I think that I can predict your answer Matthew. But remember that there’s more than one way to skin a cat.
While you won’t find that sort of thinking in the USCCB – that doesn’t neccessarily make it wrong, does it? Certainly, I’m sure you can appreciate that point of view –
“As for Galileo, remember the there was nothing wrong with the Catholic churches scientific position as they saw it at the time. Galileo was the one who was being quite unreasonable. Perhaps his punishment was a little harsh, but such is a prudential judgment made at the time.”
I would like to thank you for all your insights and information, I feel I have gained a great understanding of your points, and I believe I have made a good representation of the way I view the issue.
Matthew, I, like you would dearly like to see the act of abortion made redundant.
I feel that any further back and forth would be a waste of your valuable time, which I am glad to see that you spend passionately bringing your opinions to those who are being directly affected by this most important issue.
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Matthew Says:
My friend Dave,
I will be brief.
Supporting a situation where abortion is illegal is effectively saying that evil is excusable. This would be a grave sin.
October 4th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Matthew Says:
misake … “illegal” should read “legal”
October 4th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
LMaher Says:
It is also worth mentioning that abortion is legal in the US through all nine months of pregnancy. People should understand that abortion was compelled on most US states by seven men on the Supreme Court – not by legislatures and certainly not by popular vote. It can be compared to the infamous Dred Scot decision.
That is why the comment about “pro-choice” societies burdened by pro-life laws do not apply to most US states.
October 12th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Fiachra Says:
On relation to the topic of abortion.
Abortion is a tool (I’m neither accepting it nor condoning it) used mainly by unmarried women obviously engaging in fornication if one wishes to be polite about it. Around 1700 years have passed since the completion of the Bible, is it not time the church moved into the modern era?
Premarital sex occurs, of that there is no denying, so if the Catholic Church was to encourage safety i.e. contraception, would this not help lower the amount of unwanted pregnancies and abortions?
November 4th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Fiachra Says:
Also I have just completed reading the Darwin Apology, does this mean that the Church Of England is admitting and accepting that “Adam and Eve” is a fable? Where does this stop? Can we also now accept that the story of Noah and his 400ft boat that manages to hold 2 of every animal is also nothing more than a fictional story? It seems to be more like the Church is no more than the Editor than a teacher or educator with the recent removal of limbo from the Catholic teachings because its not longer necessary? Like I said it seems to be that the entire church is dissolving into a mere editor to try and make it all more appealing?
November 4th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Bill Says:
Charles Darwin has done more for the human species than the historical figure known as Jesus.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:10 am
John Says:
Fiachra, show me a country on the planet where contraception provision to a population has reduced abortion or STDs. You will never find one because contraception increases promiscuity.
And how can the taking of innocent human life EVER be condoned?
February 17th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
John Says:
Bill, Darwin has done nothing. He did not invent evolution. He merely pointed out the fact it was there. (God put it there.) Erring bible-only protestants were the only ones to have a problem with these facts, not Catholics who do not take and never did take Genesis literally.
Jesus started Christianity which has built countless hospitals, schools, universities, charitable institutions, scientific institutions, throughout history, not to mention the unmeasurable benefits to spirituality.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
John Says:
Fiachra, limbo was never a official teaching of the Church.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:40 pm