Happy for Science, Sad for the Church

   The other day, scientists at CERN in Switzerland celebrated the discovery of the Higgs boson--or something very close to it--that explains why all matter has mass.  They were able to make this discovery because they kept learning new things about the universe and therefore were able to ask new questions of it.  The search for the Higgs boson was intense, e.g., it took billions of dollars and the exhausting study of over 500 trillion sub-atomic collisions.  And finally, the universe revealed itself in this new and wondrous way!  One grateful scientist exclaimed, "Thanks, Nature!"

   The discovery challenges the Standard Model of particle physics.  This model, as I understand it, is the latest and best mathematical understanding of how the universe works at the sub-atomic level.  The measurements from the Higgs boson diverge from the Standard Model.  These measurements will be fully tested and if they are proved to be true, scientists will happily admit that the Standard Model is wrong and they will change it to accommodate the new measurements.  What a refreshing example of humility and openness to the truth these scientists are giving the world!


   In the past, the church has also changed its "Standard Model" to accommodate new insights and understanding, though not always happily or willingly.  E.g., it changed when it discerned that Galileo was right, that slavery is immoral, that religious freedom is from God and must be respected for all peoples, that there is salvation outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic church.  


   Today however, church leaders are not disposed to test new insights, and if they are found true, make the necessary changes in the church's "Standard Model" of experiencing God and of moral teachings.  For example, Sister Elizabeth Johnson and Sister Margaret Farley have been severely criticized without being truly tested to see if they have discerned truth that God is revealing to us today.  Even fifty years after Vatican II, some leaders today will not consider the council's teaching that we should adopt a new style for understanding the church and for relating to the everyday world.  To them, the "Standard Model," of understanding the church and relating to the world is unchangeable.  It is as if the Spirit has withdrawn from the world, so there is no opportunity for progress and no need to test new insights.  (Cf. 1 Jn. 4:1)


   In light of the new scientific discovery and its celebration, the church leaders' intransigence stands out as all the more embarrassing.  And harmful.  The church has been losing scientists for centuries, and even today, many look at the church and simply turn away.  What does their loss do?  To them?  To the church?  To today's society and culture?


   Look, for example, at Lawrence Krauss and his new book, A Universe from Nothing, which he wrote with atheist, Richard Dawkins.  Speaking to comedian Stephen Colbert, Krauss took an excursion from his field of science and glibly declared that God is no longer necessary to explain the origin of the universe.  Critics strongly question his understanding, or misunderstanding, of "nothing."  But on Amazon, there are more five star reviews than all the others combined.  I wonder if Krauss or his "five-star" readers know that Catholic cosmologist/mystic, Brian Swimm, describes this "nothing" as "fecund emptiness."  Another writer has called it the "pregnant void."  Far from being nothing, it is a wondrously exciting something.


   Also worrisome to me, Krauss is a university professor, influencing young minds.


   As we celebrate science's latest victory, we look thoughtfully at our church and ask, "How is it influencing today's world?"    















































  

Behold the Men??

   Msgr. Lynn's conviction brought back to me two memories of my time in Rome.  The comparison I will make to the present situation in Philadelphia is not exact but close enough to make my point.

   One: During August, the seminarians at the North American College put on "secular" clothes and vacationed throughout Europe.  In my third year there, I ran out of money.  So I prepared to stay the the College alone.  The Vice Rector instructed me to write a letter to the Archdiocese and ask if they could send me some money. Several bishops were paying for their seminarians' trips.  I wrote the letter.  In return I received a letter telling me that I was in danger of being dismissed from the seminary for my  action.  I showed the letter to the Vice Rector and he wrote to the Archdiocese saying, "This excellent seminarian wrote his letter in obedience to my instructions.  If there is any fault here, it is entirely my own."  My respect for him, as my superior and as a man, soared.

   (A fellow seminarian, Bill Barnett, of Camden, NJ, gave me the money.  His father had recently died and he had come into a very small inheritance.  He adamantly refused to have me pay him back.  Later, a group of officials from the Archdiocese came to Rome.  One of them took me aside and said, "That thing that happened, didn't happen.")

  Two:  Corruptio optimi pessima.  In Rome, all my studies were in Latin, and that Latin sentence especially struck me for its terse balance, directness and truth.  "The corruption of the best is the most evil corruption of all." 

   Now of course, Msgr. Lynn did not write an innocent letter.  He committed a very serious crime.  And he was was left hanging by his superiors, who were part of his crime.  They know this, and Archbishop Chaput knows it.  But I don't expect any of them to "write a letter," and accept responsibility, as the Vice Rector of the North American College did.  So, Corruptio optimi pessima still hangs over them.  As does the curse of Christ:  there are millstones waiting to be distributed.

   We are all sinners and it is hard to "throw a stone" at someone, let alone a millstone.  But in this case, the sins and crimes we are dealing with cry out for justice with the voice of thousands of still suffering victims, parents, families, and Catholics and others in general--a voice of suffering and justified anger.  We all know that the "apologies" and "penance services" were nothing more than mere theatre.  

   We all know what Lynn's superiors should do.  They should present themselves to the civil authorities so that the lawfulness or unlawfulness of their actions can be clearly determined.  And if their actions were unlawful, they should accept the punishment that is due them as just penance for their crimes and sins.  Only in this way will the church be truly purified. But short of another civil investigation, such action is up to these men and their conscience. 

  In the meantime, we have the right to demand that church leaders cease being dissidents and begin to obey all the teachings and laws of the church.  Simple morality demands it!  Vatican II, which represents the highest level of church teaching, shows for example, the role of bishops in running the church with the pope.  The pope is not Christ; he is Peter.  It's O. K. to correct him, as Paul corrected Peter.  And the Council teaches the necessary transparency of the church.  These are not "liberal" or "progressive" teachings that could be "interpreted" or denied by "conservative" bishops.  They are the teachings of the church!

   Church teaching requires that the bishops duly inform the pope of the truth, and even compel him if necessary, to change the criminal and sinful power structure that is at the heart of this calamity, and that is in contradiction to the explicit will of Jesus.  They should tell him, "People are suffering.  Waiting is not an option."  

   As I said above, my respect for the Vice Rector as my superior and as a man soared.  If the bishops want to get back the respect they have lost, the way is clear.  Are they men enough to do what they have to do?