Science challenges us to show that our Catholic faith is supremely meaningful

[rug]

by Michael H. Crosby | Aug. 7, 2014

In an earlier essay for NCR, I described how I, as a male religious priest, have been helped in my ministry by investigating the implications of conscious evolution. I attempted to respond to Cardinal Gerhard Müller's concern expressed to the Leadership Conference of Women Religious in April. Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said: "The fundamental theses of conscious evolution are opposed to Christian revelation and, when taken unreflectively, lead almost necessarily to fundamental errors regarding the omnipotence of God, the incarnation of Christ, the reality of original sin, the necessity of salvation and the definitive nature of the salvific action of Christ."

Something that has helped me see a deeper connection with Christian revelation and conscious evolution came from Karen Armstrong's comparison between what she calls logos (the realm of fact) and mythos (the arena of faith). Mindful of her distinction, I wrote that science involves what is observable; religion reflects what is not observable but is, nonetheless, believable. But when religious leaders equate religion's ancient mythologies with demonstrable facts, faith will suffer, and religion will become increasingly irrelevant.

Since reading Müller's comments, I have wondered if his concern with conscious evolution may rest on a fear that our key Christian mythos of Jesus Christ as universal savior is being called into question. If so, it certainly needs addressing. Along with John's Samaritan woman, I believe that Jesus Christ is the "savior of the world." I believe the universe was and is made through the Word, this Word became flesh in the historical Jesus, and because he proclaimed the "Gospel of the kingdom of God, (which today can be understand to be the "Gospel of the governance of Trinitarian relationships&quot , he underwent a passion and death through which he evolved in a resurrected form to be embodied mystically in the church.

This belief helps me accept Jesus Christ as the unique savior of the world. But this narrative represents my belief. I will not impose it nor flaunt it. I don't believe that anyone of goodwill and informed conscience who disbelieves it will be outside salvation. In fact, it would do my faith a disservice if I try to interpret this belief, or mythos, as demonstrable in the same way of logos that comes through science.

http://ncronline.org/news/spirituality/science-challenges-us-show-our-catholic-faith-supremely-meaningful

[intaglio]

1. Well Karen Armstrong's use of Logos is going to cause confusion.

??έ???? (exetash) would have been better.

As for the rest, well I'm sure my opinion is different from that of Fr Crosby and not appropriate for this group.

[rug]

2. Why would "examination" be better than "fact"?

[intaglio]

3. For "Logos" is used in several senses

Originally it had many possible uses in Greek including "opinion" or just "word"
Theologically it is the word of God and can describe Jesus himself it might also be the logos spermatikos of the Hebrew and Stoic philosophers.
Rhetorically it can mean any rhetorical argument
Philosophically, to the Sophists, it meant reasoned argument
In Jungian Psychology only it came to mean reason as the mental process

Even on the theological grounds logos carries too much freight

[rug]

4. Well, Logos is the word John used.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

It would not be an exaggeration to say he used it as existence itself, in this case, the existence of God. A self-evident tenet of faith.

To me, it looks like Crosby is accurately using Armstrong's distinction between logos and mythos to argue against Muller's heavy handedness, i.e., that Muller's analysis of evolution conflated the raw basic tenet of faith with unwarranted extrapolations from that tenet, which extrapolations carry far less authority and are open to debate.

In any event, I don't see how "examination" would be a better word or a better analysis.

(See, we can civilly discuss religious matters in here.)

[intaglio]

5. The Logos you cite in John is the logos spermatikos

Now I do not object to Armstrong trying to make a distinction between her use of logos as fact and the more generally understood mythos but I feel that she has chosen the wrong word because of the freight it carries in relation to theology. Another example of how other uses can damage an otherwise useful term consider "pussy cat"; in discussions about Felis silvestris cattus or other members of the family Felidae it is fine, however use it to describe a man and it can be considered a homophobic slur.

The word I chose, exetash, can mean examination, but examination as analysis of the real properties of the thing examined. However I am open to other suggestions.

[rug]

6. That is more a Stoic term than a Christian one.

Two verses later it does take on more of that meaning

All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people

but this Gospel starts with a simple declaration of fact, one rooted in faith to be sure, but still a simple declaration.

[IrishAyes]

8. If not here, then where?

I'm still haunted by the memory of 2 men in a church parking lot about to duke it out over politics. I left before seeing what happened, but they were already red in the face and waving their arms.

[okasha]

7. Suggest you transcribe that eta on the end

as an "e," sounded as the double vowel in "deep."