Suicide: The Wrong Exit

 

It is with heavy heart that I composed this post. I had never personally known anyone who had committed suicide---until last month. I received a phone message that my friend "Peter" (not his real name---Introibo) had tragically taken his own life. I had written on the painful and incredibly sad life of Peter before; See introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/04/covering-up-obvious.html. I cannot do his story justice here in a short synopsis, so I kindly ask you to read the whole story at the above referenced post.

Suicide is tragic in the extreme. I'm still reeling from the shock and sorrow in the aftermath, and wondering if there was anything more I could have done. He showed no signs of being suicidal and left no note. I'm writing this post to honor Peter's memory. I will set forth Church teaching on the topic, explain the possible causes of suicide, and expose the modern world's attempt to make taking your own life seem acceptable (at best) or even noble (at worst). In this way, maybe I can prevent someone from taking their life, no matter how bad their circumstances may be; and although we all must all leave this world one day, they may realize that suicide is the wrong exit.  

Church Teaching on Suicide

Suicide is either direct or indirect, according to both the intention and mode. A person who kills himself from knowledge and choice makes the act direct. The mode is direct if what is done tends by its very nature to cause death (e.g., taking a lethal dose of cyanide). Someone who is mentally ill would only kill himself indirectly. The mode is indirect if that which is done tends from its nature to another end, i.e. to struggle with a criminal wielding a gun. It is wrong to assume that all people are mentally ill, and the suicide is only indirect (although one is free to assume a majority may be psychologically disturbed). N.B. If someone mentally disturbed  kills himself, it would, in most cases, not constitute mortal sin, and they may not be damned. For sin to be mortal, the matter must be serious, and it must be done with full knowledge it is wrong and full consent of the will. The mentally disturbed will most likely lack the full knowledge and/or full consent of the will for mortal sin---Introibo

 Direct  suicide is always a mortal sin that deprives the person of ecclesiastical burial unless they were able to give signs of repentance before death (See Canon 1240, section 3). If the person who attempts suicide is unsuccessful, they are subject to various penalties pronounced in Canon 2350, section 2. If it is doubtful that the person killed himself, the doubt is decided in the decedent's favor that he did not, provided there would be no scandal. 

Suicide is a grave sin for three (3) reasons:

1.It is a most grave offense against the rights of God. The act usurps God's authority over life and death. "Thou, O Lord, hast the power of life and death." (Wisdom 16: 13). Human life has intrinsic worth because it comes from God, and God wills the salvation of all. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity took on a human nature and died for humanity, to give all a chance to get to Heaven. 

2. It is a grave offense against society. A community has the right to be benefited by the lives of their members. It has a demoralizing effect on those who loved the person. People valuable to society would rashly kill themselves in a fit of depression thinking they are not valuable. Even members of society not able to contribute in any substantial, material way would deprive others of an example of fortitude, or the opportunity to show charity and mercy to the needy. 

3. It is a grave offense against the natural law. You cannot "love thy neighbor as thyself," unless there is love of self (not inordinate). Those who kill themselves to escape pain and miseries, incur the greater evils of death and moral cowardice, to be followed by eternal damnation--the greatest of all evils and suffering.  

(Material above condensed from theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology, [1930], 2: 117-123).

The Alarming Statistics

Between 2020 and 2021, suicide rates alarmingly increased.  According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the statistics are startling:

• Suicide is the 11th leading cause of death in the U.S.
• Suicide is the 2nd leading cause of death for individuals ages 20 to 34.
• Suicide rates increased 37 percent between 2000 and 2018 and decreased 5 percent between 2018 and 2020. However, rates nearly returned to their peak in 2021. 
• Each year, nearly 48,000 Americans die by suicide – that is 132 per day or 1 death ever 11 minutes.

(See brownhealth.org/be-well/rise-suicide)

Those are scary numbers. Next, consider the suicide statistics concerning young people from jasonfoundation.com:

• Suicide is the SECOND leading cause of death for ages 10-24

• Suicide is the SECOND leading cause of death for college-age youth and ages 12-18 

• More teenagers and young adults die from suicide than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke, pneumonia, influenza, and chronic lung disease, COMBINED

• Each day in our nation, there are an average of over 5,240 suicide attempts by young people grades 7-12

Common Causes/Risk Factors of Suicide

• mental health conditions
• serious or chronic health conditions, particularly chronic pain
• traumatic brain injuries
• recent suicide attempts or recent discharge from a psychiatric unit
• access to lethal means
• prolonged exposure to stress
• stressful life events, such as a death, relationship break-up, or job loss
• exposure to another person’s suicide
• a history of suicide attempts
• a family history of suicide
• experiencing childhood abuse, neglect, or trauma
• use of alcohol and/or drug abuse

(See Op. cit.)

Things Connected to Suicide and Almost Never Discussed

There are four (4) contributing factors to suicide in today's culture that are hardly ever discussed. Each will be examined in turn. They are:

• Involvement with the occult
• Protestant and Modernist theology
• Glamorization of suicide in the media
• Acceptance of assisted suicide for the sick and elderly

Involvement with the Occult

I came across this article, written in 2017, which demonstrates exactly this point. The website containing the article is non-religious, and well worth reprinting here:

As occult practices are on the rise, contemporary theologians become increasingly interested in psychology, with many Christian authors wrestling with the question of how demons can influence mental disorders.

It is only fair to say, people with psychological problems should receive psychological treatment: and indeed the majority of therapists will point blank refuse to link depression with virtually any form of witchcraft, magic or occult involvement. But an increasing number of theologians appear less inclined to accept occultism as an innocuous pastime.

So, the question is: Can we screen episodes of mental illness from, literally, the devil's work?

While many forms of depression result from a chemical imbalance, it is usually a combination of events and a variety of long-term or personal factors, rather than one immediate issue that breed anxiety and depression. And as any mental disorder goes, it will be medical practitioners and therapists who administer treatments upon tracing the root cause of the problem.

But whereas it may be difficult to tell whether certain patterns of depressive behavior are innate or inherited, the article published last week in Open Theology suggests, a contact with the Satanic and occult rituals may trigger off psychopathological reactions. Psychopaths are generally less likely to suffer from typical depressive disorders, but drawing upon an extensive research, Dr. Zlatko Sram from Croatian Center for Applied Social Research argues, that people who practice black magic or have otherwise occult bondage in their history are particularly susceptible to comorbidity of depression and psychopathy.

The author conducted a survey on over one thousand participants and found strong evidence that people suffering from depression and psychopathy simultaneously are attracted to satanic practices as a means of obtaining magical power and control over their destiny—regardless of their sex or ethnic origin. The research categorized different esoteric practices that spanned from psychic séances, through black magic, to engaging with an occult society or reading books and magazines dealing with esoteric and occult issues. Psychopathy and depression were significantly predictive of "satanic syndrome" in individuals who had been subjected to the occult involvement, suffering bouts of depression and mental disorders nearly twice as often compared to the rest of society. Given the nature of the satanic syndrome, namely the fact that it is measured by specific occult practices, the author suggests to verify the scale of the problem in psychiatric hospitals and clinics.

This key correlation yields new perspective on the early-onset depression. "This is an important study in that it takes ontological claims seriously and supports the real possibility that demonic forms of bondage may be linked to psychopathology as [...] evil forces can interfere in human behavior." comments Prof. Ralph W. Hood from University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.

(See medicalxpress.com/news/2017-01-occult-depression-psychopathy.html; Emphasis mine). 

Protestant and Modernist Theology

The Protestant doctrine of "salvation by faith alone" lends itself to suicide. After all, if you believe in Christ and are guaranteed Heaven, if your life on Earth is miserable, why not kill yourself and go to paradise? The typical Protestant response to get out of that logical extension of their doctrine is to say, "If you REALLY believed, you wouldn't commit suicide" (so you can never be sure your faith is "real"), or "Once you are born-again you will not want to kill yourself" thereby implying you're not really "born-again" if you commit suicide. 

The Vatican II sect has eliminated any idea of Hell (or if it does exist no one--or almost no one--goes there. Peter was hit by a double dose of heresy, from the Vatican II sect in which he was raised (and abused), and from the "born-again" heresy to which he converted. It might have convinced him suicide would put him in a better place.

Glamorization of Suicide in the Media

Here, I give but two examples:

In 2017-2020, there was the Netflix series, 13 Reasons Why, which was based on an internationally bestselling book of the same name by author Jay Asher. It chronicles the story of Clay Jenson who has received cassette tapes in a package and hears the voice of deceased classmate Hannah Baker. He's one of 13 people who receive Hannah's story, which details the circumstances that led to her suicide. The show glorifies teenage suicide. Hannah was a victim of rape, cyber-bullying and other evil acts. She kills herself to "get revenge" on the thirteen people who wronged her. This female "protagonist" is shown as a "martyr," thereby displaying the show's complete disregard (and a warped understanding) of martyrdom. It also romanticizes suicide as "heroic."

The 2016 movie Me Before You is a PSA for assisted suicide. The movie tells the story of Will Traynor, who is a good-looking, wealthy, and intelligent young man. Will's spinal chord is irreparably damaged when a motorcycle strikes him as he crosses the street chasing a cab. He cannot accept his new life as a quadriplegic facing profound physical limitations, pain, and recurring episodes of pneumonia that undermine his efforts to rehabilitate what is left of his upper body function. He is determined to end his life even after meeting and falling in love with Louisa Clark (Lou), a quirky, young working-class woman from his hometown whom his mother employs in the hopes her companionship can help Will find the desire to live. He eventually argues that his death is his gift to Lou to free her from the bonds her devotion to him would place on her life. It seems a strange way to say “I love you.”

He is committed to dying because he used to be an athletic, adventurous, sexual player with considerable resources to thrill-seek in stunning international locales. One cynically could conclude if Will had been introverted, clumsy, and less attractive, the tragedy of his loss might have been more bearable for him. There is frequent mention of how much pain he is in, but it is difficult to determine whether this is primarily psychological pain. At one point Nathan, Will’s in-home medical healthcare provider, illustrates Will’s suffering for Lou by explaining Will often dreams he is his old self skiing, then endures the pain of waking up to this terrible reality. That is reason enough for Nathan to voice his full understanding of Will wanting to die.

The primary moral justification offered to support the choice for suicide is that this is Will’s decision, a direct appeal to the principle of autonomy. In this regard, Me Before You continuously begs the question in relation to the issue of physician-assisted suicide. All protestations are met with assurances that this is simply Will’s choice. No character is ever asked to argue whether this is a morally legitimate choice. No alternative voice is offered from other people living with this same condition that enjoy life. The film assumes the very thing that must be argued in continuously framing the issue as a settled matter of autonomy--and you, the movie viewer, should agree.

Acceptance of Assisted Suicide

A form of euthanasia, physician assisted-suicide is legal in many countries and in ten (10) U.S. states as well as Washington D.C. The term active euthanasia in this section is the same as assisted suicide.

Most Common Assisted Suicide Arguments:

1. The Autonomy Argument. Since biological life is not the real, moral issue, then life is not intrinsically valuable or sacred simply because it is human life. The important thing is that one has biographical life and this involves a person's ability to state, formulate, and pursue autonomously chosen interests, desires, and so on. If a person autonomously chooses to end his life or have someone else assist him in ending his life, then such action is morally permissible. One should be free to do as one chooses as long as no harm is done to others.

2. The Mercy Argument. It is cruel and inhumane to refuse the plea of a terminally ill person that his or her life be mercifully ended in order to avoid unnecessary suffering and pain.

3. The Best Interests Argument. If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights, then that action is morally acceptable. In some cases, active euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights. Therefore, in those cases, active euthanasia is morally acceptable. 

4. The Golden Rule Argument. Moral principles ought to be made universal. If I don't want someone to apply a rule to me, I shouldn't apply it to them. Similarly, if I want someone to apply a rule to me, I ought to be willing to apply it to others. Now suppose I were given a choice between two ways to die. First, I could die quietly and without pain, at the age of eighty, from a fatal injection. Or second, I could choose to die at eighty-plus-a-few-days of an affliction so painful that for those few days before death I would be reduced to howling like a dog, with my family standing helplessly by. The former death involves active euthanasia, and if I would choose it, I should be willing to permit others to choose it too. 

Replies to the Common Assisted Suicide Arguments:

A) Reply to the Autonomy Argument. First, it begs the question that there is no God and no Natural Law/Divine Law. The same could be said for all five arguments. However, all fail on separate and independent grounds as well. As to this argument, if we only need to protect people with "biographical lives," it would seem, then, that a person who no longer has such a life, who has no point of view, is no longer covered by the duty not to kill. However, if the person has lost the right not to be killed, it would seem that other rights would be lost as well, since the right to life is basic to other rights. In this case, it would be morally permissible to experiment on such a person or kill him brutally. Why? It is because we are no longer dealing with an object which has the relevant rights. 

B) Reply to the Mercy Argument. First, there are very few cases where modern medicine cannot alleviate suffering and pain. It is wrong ethical methodology to build an ethical doctrine on a few problem cases. The mercy argument violates this methodological principle by placing too much weight on an argument which only applies to a small number of situations. 

Second, though this can be abused, there is a point to suffering. One can grow through it; one can teach others how a wise, virtuous person handles life's adversities including suffering and death. The person can expiate his/her sins and offer the suffering up in union with the suffering of Christ.  One can also show that one cares for his or her membership in community with others and that is not right to withdraw from one another in time of need. Further, one can affirm the fact that people have value and purpose beyond happiness, the absence of pain, or the ability to pursue autonomously chosen goals.

Third, life is a gift and we are not the sole, absolute owners of our lives. We are made in the image and likeness of God. He decides matters of life and death, not us. 

C) Reply to Both the Best Interests and Golden Rule Argument. Two responses have been offered which apply equally to the Golden Rule argument and the Best Interests argument. First, the arguments beg the question against a sanctity-of-life view in favor of a quality-of-life view. In other words, if life is sacred, or if persons have intrinsic value simply by being human and, thus, are ends in themselves, then active euthanasia inappropriately treats a person as a means to an end (a painless state of death). Not everything a person takes to be in his own best interests is morally acceptable. Similarly, not everything a person would wish to have done to him or her is morally good. Quality-of-life judgments are often subjective and can be morally bad.

Put differently, a person can dehumanize himself--- and actually does so--- in active euthanasia by intentionally killing himself (or if someone else intentionally kills the person). Hence, when one engages in active euthanasia, one abdicates one's privilege and responsibility to live out one's life in community with and for others. This signals a failure of the community to be present to the sick person in a caring way. It also signals a failure of the person himself to die in a morally appropriate way (e.g., to teach others how to suffer and die) and to undergo a manner of dying which does not hinder those left behind from remembering the person in a morally helpful way. 

Conclusion

I grieve for Peter and pray for the repose of his soul. I ask all of my readers to please do the same. I wonder if I did enough to try and get him out of his apartment and help him. If anyone you know seems depressed and going through a hard time, please listen to him and let him know you are there to help. Don't be afraid to ask if they have thoughts of suicide. There are hotline numbers to call (now you can call 3 digits here in the U.S. --988). PRAY FOR THE PERSON. 

Suicide is a great way for Satan to get a soul in Hell. Never let anyone convince you otherwise. Call on the Blessed Virgin Mary when you feel alone and depressed. God will win in the end, not suffering and evil. However, you must stay close to Him and never despair in His help. "I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your seed." (Deuteronomy 30:19). 

The Catholicity Of The Church And Sins Against The First Commandment

 

To My Readers: This week, John Gregory writes about the importance of the First Commandment, and how we must be diligent in following all this Divine precept compels and forbids us to do. Feel free to comment as usual. If you have  a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

The Catholicity of the Church and Sins Against the First Commandment

by John Gregory 

The following is from the beloved Catechism of Trent (COT):

 

From you is spread abroad the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place, your faith which is toward, is gone forth (1 Thessalonians 1: 8).

 

THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH

“CATHOLIC”

 The third mark of the Church is that she is Catholic; that is, universal.  And justly is she called Catholic, because as Saint Augustine says: she is diffused by the splendor of one faith from the rising to the setting sun.

 

In the Mass for the 6^th Sunday after the Epiphany the Introit is as follows:

 

“Adore God, all you His angels: Sion heard, and was glad and the daughters of Juda rejoiced.  The Lord has reigned; let the earth rejoice: let many islands be glad.”

 

Very appropriately the introit speaks of Sion, the heavenly Jerusalem.  Sion can refer to the Mother of God who contained God within her womb, the universal Catholic Church, which she embodies, and heaven itself.  In the most holy Mass, we adore God in the most perfect way possible on earth.  The best the protestants can do is pray.  The Catholics have Jesus offering Himself to His Father every day on our holy altars throughout the world. Making present to us in an unbloody manner the one sacrifice of His death on the cross and applying to our souls the merits He won for us on that cross for the sanctification of our souls.  Christ died for our sins, yes.  But His merits must be applied.  It is not a name it and claim it Gospel.  I believe, therefore I am saved.  No.  His merits must be applied to our souls through His valid ministers through the aforementioned daily Mass, the Holy Eucharist, the sacrament of Penance and the other sacraments which the protestants do not have, apart from baptism in some instances. It is only the Catholic Church's ministers, her bishops and priests, who are sent by Jesus for the instruction and sanctification of His chosen people’s souls. 

 

Unlike states of human institution, or the sects of heretics, she is not confined to any one country or class of men, but embraces within the amplitude of her love all mankind, whether barbarians or Scythians, slaves or freeman, male or female.  Therefore it is written: Thou . . . hast redeemed us to God, in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and hast made us to our God a kingdom. (Apocalypse 5: 9, 10) Speaking of the Church, David says: Ask of me and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession; (Psalm 2: 8) and also, I will be mindful of Rahab and of Babylon knowing me; (Psalm 86: 4) and man is born in her. (Psalm 86: 5) The Psalmist is proclaiming the glory of the Messianic Kingdom, the Church, to which all nations shall be gathered.

 

In the Collect for this Mass the Catholic Church “asks” God for detachment from worldly things and attachment to heavenly things, so that we may avoid sin and be pleasing to God:

 

“Grant us, we beseech Thee, almighty God, ever to think of spiritual things and in every word and work always to do what is well pleasing in Your sight.  Through Jesus Christ, thy Son our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end.”

 

We should not be attached to worldly things, things we perceive with our senses as an end in themselves, but a means to an end, which is always our eternal salvation.  We are not attached to our jobs or money as an end in themselves, but as a means to an end.  For example, some may be attached to the prestige of their jobs, the high regard others have for them because of the position they hold.  This is an inordinate attachment to what others think of you.  If your end goal is to make as much money as you can, so people can admirer you for all the special things you can afford, then you have money as and end instead of a means to an end.  The purpose of our jobs and money is so that we can support ourselves and our families with the necessities of life. We sanctify our souls, strive for salvation, by fulfilling our natural state of life, whether that be the single life, married or religious.  The husband and father, for instance, fulfills his state in life by being a good husband and father.  Such a one has a job and earns money so he can provide for the necessities of his family.  If this is done for the love of God, then such a one is using his job and money as a means to an end.  Though his is and his family's eternal salvation being foremost in his mind as he strives to raise godly offspring who know and practice the faith.

 

Moreover to this Church, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, (Ephesians 2: 20) belong all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or who shall exist, in the profession of the true faith, to the end of time; all of whom are founded and raised upon the one corner-stone, Christ, who made both one, and announced peace to them that are near to them that are far.

 

She is also called universal, because all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her, like those who entered the ark to escape perishing in the Flood.  This (note of catholicity), therefore, is to be taught as a most reliable criterion, by which to distinguish the true from a false Church. (COT - p. 106)

 

In the Gradual we see that despite calling all to salvation, that most of chosen people of the old covenant, ceased to be chosen by refusing the new and everlasting covenant that the Gentiles embraced.

 

“The Gentiles shall fear Thy name, O Lord, and all the kings of the earth Thy glory.  For the Lord has built up Sion, and He shall be seen in His glory.  Alleluia, alleluia.  The Lord has reigned, let the earth rejoice: let many islands be glad.  Alleluia."

 

We must fear the Lord.  Our souls are in His hands.  What happened to the Jews can happen to us.  They were the chosen people.  God’s most favored first-born.  But they rejected Him, over and over again, finally they rejected Him, God the Son, completely and irrevocably when they clung to their power, prestige and money, by holding the people who supported them to the Old Covenant and spitting on the New Covenant, despite the countless miracles that proved Christ was Who He said He was, and His dying to establish the New and everlasting Covenant. We were grafted on in place of the Jews, when they rejected and we accepted Christ.  At the eleventh hour they could replace us again.  Since Vatican 2, how many gentiles have an authentic belief in Christ AND act accordingly?  A faithful remnant?  When Christ comes will He find faith on earth?  The implication is that if He finds any, it won’t be many who hold to it.  And if there is barely any faith left when He comes, what about love?  How many will be in a state of sanctifying grace when He comes again?

 

THE SINS AGAINST THE FIRST COMMANDMENT

You turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God (1 Thessalonians 1: 9) (COT - p. xliii)

The words of the First Commandment “Thou shalt not have strange gods before me, both command and prohibit or forbid.  The (COT) teaches that the words of the Commandment “is equivalent to saying: Thou shalt worship me the true God; thou shalt not worship strange gods.” 

WHAT THEY COMMAND 

The (mandatory part) contains a precept of faith, hope and charity.  For, acknowledging God to be immovable, immutable, always the same, we rightly confess that He is faithful and entirely just.  Hence in assenting to His oracles, we necessarily yield to Him all belief and obedience.  Again, who can contemplate His omnipotence, His clemency, His willing beneficence, and not repose in Him all his hopes? Finally, who can behold the riches of His goodness and love, which He lavishes on us, and not love Him?  Hence the exordium and the conclusion used by God in Scripture when giving His commands: I, the Lord. 

WHAT THEY FORBID 

The (negative) part of this Commandment is comprised in these words: Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.  This the Lawgiver subjoins, not because it is not sufficiently expressed in the affirmative part of the precept, which means: Thou shalt worship me, the only God, for if He is God, He is the only God; but on account of the blindness of many who of old professed to worship the true God and yet adored a multitude of gods Of these there were many even among the Hebrews, whom Elias reproached with having halted between two sides, (3 Kings 18: 21) and also among the Samaritans, who worshipped the God of Israel and the gods of nations. (4 Kings 17: 33) 

IMPORTANCE OF THIS COMMANDMENT 

After this it should be added that this is the first and principal Commandment, not only in order, but also in its nature, dignity and excellence.  God is entitled to infinitely greater love and obedience from us than any lord or king.  He created us, He governs us, He nurtured us even in the womb, brought us into the world, and still supplies us with all the necessaries of life and maintenance. 

SINS AGAINST THIS COMMANDMENT 

Against this Commandment all those sin who have not faith, hope and charity.  Such sinners are very numerous, for they include all who fall into heresy, who reject what holy mother the Church proposes for our belief, who give credit to dreams, fortune-telling, and such illusions; those who, despairing of salvation, trust not in the goodness of God; and those who rely solely on wealth, or health and strength of body.  (COT p. 368-369) 

THEY FORBID IDOLS A ND REPRESENTATIONS OF THE DEITY 

As far as this Commandment is concerned, it is clear that there are two chief ways in which God’s majesty can be seriously outraged.  The first way is by worshipping idols and images as God, or believing that they possess any divinity or virtue entitling them to our worship, by praying to, or reposing confidence in them, as the Gentiles did, who placed their hopes in idols, and whose idolatry the Scriptures frequently condemn.  The other way is by attempting to form a representation of the Deity, as if He were visible to mortal eyes, or could be reproduced by colors or figures.  Who, says Damascene, can represent God, invisible, as He is, incorporeal, uncircumscribed by limits, and incapable of being reproduced under any shape. This subject is treated more at large in the second Council of Nice.  Rightly, then, did the Apostles say (of the Gentiles): They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things; (Romans 1: 23) for they worshipped all these things as God, seeing that they made the images of these things to represent Him.  Hence the Israelites, when they exclaimed before the image of the calf: These are thy gods, O Israel, that have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, (Exodus 32: 4) are denounced as idolaters, because they changed their glory into the likeness of a calf that eateth grass. (Psalm 105: 20) (COT p. 374) 

In the post communion we ask assistance to avoid seriously outraging God through sin: 

“Nourished by Thy heavenly food, O Lord, we beseech Thee that we may always strive after those things that give us true life.  Through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.”

 

What things do we strive for?  Beer?  Games?  Entertainment?  Leisure?  Sumptuous feasts and extravagant vacations?  To be admired and esteemed?  To die with the most toys?  Flirtatious exchanges with women who are not our wives?  Men who are not our husbands?  To gain the whole world at the expense of our souls?  In every Mass we are reminded to have our focus on the right things.  The things that are above.  Spiritual things.  Leading a good moral life.  Detachment from worldly things.  God.  Heaven.  

THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH FROM SAINT MATTHEW

The Sins Against the First Commandment.—The kingdom of heaven is likened to a grain of mustard seed which is the least indeed of all seeds; but when it is grown up, it is greater than all herbs and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and dwell in the branches thereof (Matthew 13: 31, 32).

Those who understand the above verse do indeed marvel at the things that come from the mouth of God as stated in this Mass’s Communion:

“They all marveled at these things that came from the mouth of God.”

 

Here are a few words from God that should make all men marvel and accept the fact that the Catholic Church is only Church founded by God for our salvation.  The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church: 

 

All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.  Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

 

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.  And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

 

Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.  When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.  Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

 

I am the living bread which came down from heaven.  If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.  Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.  For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.  As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.  This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

 

The Lapide commentary continues with the description of the catholicity of the Catholic Church on the above verse from Saint Matthew: 

In Arabic: “to such an extent that the birds of the air are overshadowed by its branches.”  This is Christ’s third parable (the mustard seed), the occasion and cause of which Saint Chrysostom gives as follows: “Because the Lord had said that of the seed three parts perish, and one is preserved and again of that which is preserved, this great loss on account of the cockle which is sown over it, lest people should say, who then and how many will believe?  He removes this fear by the parable of the grain of mustard seed, and, therefore, it is said, another parable He proposed unto them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, etc.” 

You will enquire in the first place, what it is which is here compared to the kingdom of heaven, and likened to a grain of mustard seed?  First, Saint Hilary understands it of Christ Himself.  He says, “The Lord compares Himself to a grain of mustard seed, which is very sharp and the least of all seeds, and whose virtue and power are increased by the bruising and pressure.  After this grain had been sown in the field—that is, when He was apprehended by the people and delivered to death, and His body was buried, as though in a field by a sort of sowing—it grew above the measure of all herbs—i.e., He exceeded the glory of all the prophets.  For the preaching of the prophets was given to Isreal like an herb to a man who is sick; but now in the branches of the tree, lifted above the ground on high, the birds of air dwell.  By these we understand the Apostles, lifted up by the power of Christ, and they overshadow the world with their branches.  To them the gentiles flew for the hope of life; and when they are vexed with whirlwinds, that is by the blasts of the devil, they rest as in the branches of a tree.”  Hear Saint Gregory, who in like manner expounds this whole parable, part by part: “Christ Himself is the grain of mustard seed, who was planted in the sepulcher of the garden, and rose again a mighty tree.  He was but a grain when He died; a tree when He rose again.  A grain through lowliness of the flesh; a tree by the power of His majesty.  A grain, because we saw Him, and there was no comeliness; but a tree because He was fairer than the children of men.  The branches of this tree are sacred preachers.  And let us see how widely they are spread.  For what is spoken concerning them?  Their sound is gone out into all the earth, and their words unto the end of the world.  The birds rest in their branches, because holy souls who lift up themselves from earthly thoughts by the wings, as it were, of virtues are refreshed after the fatigue of this life by their words and their consolations.”  Similar expressions are found in Saint Augustine. 

You will say, how can Christ be called the kingdom of heaven, when He is not the kingdom, but its king?  The response is: just as a king is, so to speak, the head in a kingdom, so in turn a kingdom is as the body of the king, its head.  Therefore, a king represents the whole state or kingdom.  Hence according to the rule of Ticonius, often in scripture what belongs to the Church (which is the kingdom of Christ) is attributed to Christ, and vice versa. Then again, the plain meaning is as if to say: The kingdom of heaven is like someone who sows in it, as though in God’s field, a mustard seed, i.e., Christ, who grows exceedingly high and spreads its branches in all directions.  We heard a similar phrase in verse 24.

 

2. More plainly and aptly, the kingdom of heaven and the grain of mustard seed are the Church, especially the primitive Church.  Thus Saint Chrysostom.  Saint Augustine claims that it stands for faith, or rather the gospel and the evangelical doctrine, as Saint Jerome, Saint Ambrose, Saint Bede and others assert (although all these things amount to almost the same thing).  The Church (or her doctrine) is compared, first, to the seed [being sown] (vv. 3, 24); second to a mustard seed (this verse); third, to yeast (v. 33); fourth, to a treasure hidden in a field (v. 44); fifth, to a precious pearl (v. 46); sixth, to a dragnet cast into the sea (v. 47).  She is called the kingdom of heaven, because by her God reigns in us and leads us to His kingdom in heaven.

 

You will enquire, in the second place: Why is the gospel compared to a grain of mustard seed, and what are the resemblances between the two things?  I answer, the first reason is that Christ by this parable intends to signify the immense power and fruitfulness and propagation of evangelical preaching, for what had a very small beginning with Christ, and by a few Apostles, diffused itself over the whole world.  For a grain of mustard seed is “the least indeed of all seeds”, as the Syriac and Arabic have it (Vulgate: “less than all seeds”).  The Greek is “less than all seeds”, meaning the smallest.  This must be understood according to the common usage of speech, by which we call what is very little, or one of very small things, the least; for otherwise to speak precisely, poppy seed, and the seed of rue, basil and some other herbs, is less than mustard seed.  Thus the preaching of the gospel was carried on at first by Christ and the Apostles and was very limited. 

2. [sic] A grain of mustard seed, especially in Syria, grows into a tree, so that birds dwell (Syriac, “build their nests”) in its branches.  Thus the gospel grew and filled the whole world, so that the birds of heaven, i.e., men lofty in knowledge and understanding as well as kings and princes dwelt in its branches.  (See Daniel 4: 9 and 19).  Some understand by the birds, the angels, because they have wings, and are very swift.  Hear Saint Augustine: “Peter is a branch; Paul is a branch; blessed Laurence, whose birthday [into heaven] we are celebrating, is a branch.  All the Apostles and martyrs of the Savior are branches; and if anyone will bravely lay hold of them, they will escape being drowned in the waves of the world.  He who dwells under their shadow shall not feed the fire of hell, and shall be secure from the storm of the devil’s tempest, and from being burnt up in the day of judgment.” 

3. And chiefly by mustard is denoted the fiery force and efficacy of the gospel.  “Pythagoras,” says Pliny, “considered that mustard holds the chief place amongst those things whose force is borne upward; since there is nothing which more thoroughly penetrates the nose and the brain.” A grain of mustard refers to the fervor of faith, says Saint Augustine.  “For the dogmas of the philosophers,” says Saint Jerome, “when they have grown up, show nothing of life or strength, but watery and insipid they grow into grasses and other greens, which quickly dry up and wither away.  But the gospel preaching, though it seems small in its beginning, when sown in the mind of the hearer, or upon the world, comes up not a garden herb, but a tree.”

4. Mustard seed must be crushed; for when it is crushed it emits its igneous force and flavor.  So, too, the preaching of the gospel was, as it were, crushed by a thousand oppressions and persecutions which the Apostles suffered; and then it breathed forth its igneous force and strength. 

5. Mustard seed, as Pliny says, is sharp and biting.  It draws tears, purges away phlegm and cerebral secretions and facilitates excretions; it is masticated for toothache; when ground up with vinegar it is applied to the stings of scorpions and the bites of snakes; it is an antidote to the poison of fungi; it is most useful against stomach illnesses; it is beneficial for the breast and lungs; it is useful against epilepsy, dropsy, asthma, lethargy, baldness, psoriasis, kidney stones and many other diseases.  Thus the gospel expels poisons, that is sins, by the emetic of confession; it is sharp and biting, because it teaches penance and the cross; it excites the tears of compunction; it is medicine for all the faculties of the soul, and especially it dries up concupiscence, expels vices and animates to virtue.  “The bitterness of its words is the medicine of souls,” says Saint Augustine.

 6. Mustard seed by its sharpness seasons food, and renders it palatable.  So also the gospel renders palatable everything which is hard and difficult by means of the example of Christ, and by the hope of future glory which it promises.  Almost all these things are taught by Saint Augustine in sermons 31 and 33 “On the Saints,” which are the second and fourth about Saint Laurence.  The same sermons are found in Saint Ambrose, volume 5, sermons 19 and 20, for the Sixth Sunday after Epiphany, but the style is redolent of Saint Augustine’s phrases.  He expresses himself there as follows: “A grain of mustard seed is great, not in appearance, but in virtue.  At first glance it seems small, worthless, despised, not marked by any flavor, nor surrounded by any odor, nor giving any sign of sweetness; but once it is bruised, it sheds abroad its odor, displays its sharpness and exhales nourishment of a fiery taste.  It is so inflamed with the fervor of heat that it is a marvel how much fire can be enclosed in such a slight thing.  Indeed, men put this grain into their food, especially in the winter-time, for its great flavor and also to drive away cold, to expel humors and to warm themselves inwardly.  For this reason they often apply it as a medicine, so that if there is some infirmity or illness, it is cured by the fire of mustard.”  After this he applies the qualities of mustard to the gospel and the Christian Faith: “Thus, too, the Christian Faith, at first sight, appears small, worthless and frail, not manifesting its power, not carrying any semblance of pride, nor conferring grace.  But as soon as it begins to be bruised by divers temptations, immediately it manifests its vigor, indicates its sharpness, breathes the warmth of belief in the Lord, and is possessed with so great ardor of divine fire, that both itself is hot and it compels those who participate to be fervent also.  As the two disciples said in the holy gospel, when the Lord spoke with them after His passion, ‘Did not our hearts burn within us by the way, while the Lord Jesus opened to us the Scriptures?’  A grain of mustard, then, warms the inward members of our bodies, but the power of faith burns up the sins of our hearts.  The one indeed takes away piercing cold; the other expels the devil’s frost of transgressions.  A grain of mustard, I say, purges away corporeal humors, but faith puts an end to the flux of lusts.   By the one, medicine is gained for the head; but by faith our spiritual Head, Christ the Lord, is often refreshed.  Moreover, we enjoy the sacred odor of faith, according to the analogy of mustard seed, as the blessed Apostle saith, ‘We are a sweet savor of Christ unto God.’”

Tropologically, all these things may be applied to a faithful soul. And especially to an Apostle, and to a suffering Christian, or to a martyr, who hears the word of God, like a mustard seen, meditates on it and preaches it, transmitting it both to his own heart and to the hearts of others. Therefore, the Church adapts this parable to Saint Laurence, as the gospel for his festival.  As Saint Augustine says, in the work already cited, “We may compare the holy martyr Laurence to a grain of mustard seed; for he, being bruised by various sufferings, merited to become fragrant throughout the whole world by the grace of his martyrdom.  He, when he was in the body, was humble, unknown, and held in low estimation; but after he had been bruised, torn, and burnt he diffused the odor of his nobleness in the churches throughout the world.  Rightly, therefore, is this comparison coupled with him.  For Laurence, when he suffers, is inflamed.  The heat of being ground down moves the one; the other breathes forth fire in his manifold tribulations.  Mustard, I say, is cooked in a small vessel; Laurence is roasted on the gridiron by the fiery flame.  Blessed Laurence the martyr was burnt outwardly by the flames of the raging tyrant, but he was inflamed inwardly by the far greater fire of the love of Christ.”  The Arabians have a proverb, “A grain of pepper is more powerful than many large gourds,” because if it be bruised it emits a fiery force, and makes itself felt in everyone's nostrils.  You may say the same of a grain of mustard.  A believer, therefore, should be a grain of pepper or mustard, and breathe everywhere, and upon all, a divine fire, and so pepper all men, and make them like himself, zealous that is, and ardent in the love of God. 

Let us benefit from what Saint Jerome has to say on this Gospel:

 

The kingdom of heaven is the proclamation of the Gospel, and that knowledge of the Scriptures, which leadeth unto life, and whereof it is said to the Jews: The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (Mathew 21: 43) Therefore is this kingdom like to a grain of mustard-seed, which a man took and sowed in his field.  By the man that sowed it in his field, many understand to be meant the Saviour, because He is the Sower that soweth in the souls of believers; others understand every man that soweth good seed in his own field, that is, in himself and in his own heart.

 

Who is he that soweth, but our own mind and soul, which take the grain from preaching, and by nourishing it in the soil, cause it to sprout in the field of our own breast?  The preaching of the Gospel is the least of all doctrines.  He that preacheth, for his first lesson, God made man, Christ dead, and the stumbling block of the Cross, receiveth at first but little credit.  Compare such teaching as this with the doctrines of the Philosophers, with their books, their magnificent eloquence, and their rounded sentences, and thou shat see how the grain of the Gospel, when it is sown, is the humblest of all seeds.

 

But when the doctrines of men grow up, there is therein nothing piercing, nothing healthy, nothing life-giving.  The plant is drooping, and delicate, and soft.  There are herbs and grass whereof it may truly be said that the grass withereth and the flower fadeth. (Isaias 40: 8) But the grain of Gospel seed, though, when it was sown, it seemed to be the least of all seeds, when once it is rooted in the soul of man, or in the whole world, groweth not into an herb, but becometh a tree so that the birds of the air (whereby we may understand, either the souls of believers, or the (angelic) powers bound to the service of God, come and lodge in the branches thereof.  I consider that the branches of the Gospel tree, which groweth from the grain of mustard-seed, are the diverse developments of doctrine, on which the birds above mentioned find resting places. (From the Divine Office)

 

Conclusion

May the Catholic Church’s teaching on her Catholicity help us appreciate the truth contained in the offertory of this Mass:

 

The right hand of the Lord has wrought strength; the right hand of the Lord has exalted me: I shall not die, but live, and shall declare the works of the Lord.

Contending For The Faith---Part 40

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

The Big Bang: Pointing to God

Last month there were several comments on one of my posts taking exception to my belief in the Big Bang Theory (BBT).  It was claimed that the BBT was "pseudo-science" and used by atheists to promote disbelief in the supernatural. It was further claimed that belief in a literal creation of six 24-hour days each is required of Catholics in the interpretation of Genesis chapter 1. 

The purpose of this post is to show that none of these claims is accurate theologically or scientifically. I believe in the BBT. However, I will be the first to state that there is nothing that prevents a Traditionalist Catholic from reading Genesis 1 literally. The Church has not decided the issue, so one is free to accept the BBT and an "old Earth," or reject the BBT and believe in a 6,000 year old "young Earth." For those who wonder why I (and other Traditionalists) accept the BBT, I wrote this post to dispel the myths surrounding the theory, and explain why I stand by it. Anyone who, nevertheless, remains unconvinced, can continue to believe in a literal six days of creation and a young Earth.

To be clear, the BBT states that the entire universe (all matter, energy, and even time and space itself) came into existence from nothing approximately 13.8 billion years ago. 

(I wish to credit the many sources I used in the compilation of this post that were online and hardcopy--both theological and scientific. I only take credit for the compilation of the material into a readable post, and for nothing more---Introibo). 

The Big Bang and Theology: The Teaching of the Church

The Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1909, affirmed that Genesis teaches the following facts about creation which are to be accepted by all Catholics. The decree was promulgated by Pope St. Pius X:

...the creation of all things which was accomplished by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the divine command laid upon man to prove his obedience; the transgression of that divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from their primitive state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer. (See Acta Apostolis Sedis, 1 [1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission], pages 567-69).

Day of Rest (Genesis 2:3): Moses employed a period of a week for the Creation to impress upon the Jews the fact that the seventh day of the week was holy and a day of rest. Catholic exegetes [interpreters] are unanimous in rejecting the old theory that God accomplished everything in the space of six twenty-four hour periods. (See theologian Cevetello, Getting to Know the Bible, [1957], pg. 64; Emphasis mine).

On June 30, 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission (as above) issued a decree answering eight (8) questions about the Book of Genesis. The decree was approved by His Holiness, Pope St. Pius X, Foe of Modernism. The answers to the first three questions upholds the overall historical character of the first three chapters of Genesis, however the last two questions are instructive as to the mind of the Church in Biblical exegesis ("interpretation").  

Question # 7: "Whether, since it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things, and to present the complete order of creation but rather to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adopted to the senses and to man's intelligence, we are strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?"  Answer: In the negative.

Question # 8: "Whether the word yom ('day'), which is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, may be taken in its strict sense as the natural day, or in a less strict sense as signifying a certain space of time; and whether free discussion of this question is permitted to interpreters?"  Answer: In the affirmative.

We see that in the response to question # 7, we are not bound to treat Genesis as some sort of science textbook. Question # 8 clearly shows that we are not bound to believe in six literal days of 24 hours each in the creation account as theologian Cevetello notes. God created the universe in six yom, or time periods, the exact duration of which may be much more than 24 hours. Nor is it necessary to believe in a 6,000 year old Earth. Modern science and Genesis do not contradict each other.

Objection: Don't the Church Fathers unanimously teach a literal six day Creation?

The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in question six of its decision of 1909, says that we should follow the example of the Fathers in making allegorical and prophetical interpretations, after having determined the literal and historical sense. This means that it is perfectly acceptable to make allegorical interpretations, not that we have to follow the Fathers in all of their interpretations. The Commission declared:

...in interpreting those passages of these chapters [of Genesis] that the Fathers and Doctors have interpreted in divers ways without leaving anything definite or certain, it is permitted, subject to the judgment of the Church and the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which each one has prudently found correct. 

There is Magisterial authority that the Fathers do not present a doctrinally-binding, unanimous consensus on the first chapters of Genesis.

In his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Pius XII taught:

...there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church. (para. #47; Emphasis mine).

Pope Pius XII also teaches that the first chapters of Genesis are not among those "few texts" settled by the Fathers of the Church:

Moreover we may rightly and deservedly hope that our time also can contribute something towards the deeper and more accurate interpretation of Sacred Scripture. For not a few things, especially in matters pertaining to history, were scarcely at all or not fully explained by the commentators of past ages, since they lacked almost all the information which was needed for their clearer exposition. How difficult for the Fathers themselves, and indeed well nigh unintelligible, were certain passages is shown, among other things, by the oft-repeated efforts of many of them to explain the first chapters of Genesis;...(Ibid, para. #31; Emphasis mine). 

Objection overruled! 

Objection: The "Plain Meaning" of Genesis shows a Young Earth and Six-day Creation

When it comes to "the plain meaning" of Scripture, those untrained in Catholic exegesis fall into serious errors. According to the eminent theologian Van Noort:

Furthermore, even in those truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium unmistakably inculcates, there is sometimes room for questioning whether all the elements of that teaching are meant to be inculcated with equal force. For example, the following doctrines have always been unmistakably proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium: that God created our first parents by forming their bodies from the slime of the Earth and from the rib of the man; that Adam sinned in tasting the forbidden fruit at the urging of the serpent; that God in punishment for mankind's sins caused a deluge over the entire Earth; that Christ will come one day as the Judge upon the clouds of Heaven, etc.

Do you think that the definitive intention of the Magisterium bears with equal force upon the mode of the bodily formation and on the very fact of creation? With equal force upon upon the external description of the sin of our first parents and upon the sin itself? With equal force upon the universality of the flood and upon the manifestation of Divine Justice? With equal force upon the circumstances of the heavenly spectacle and upon the actual return of the Judge? Even upon a priori grounds an affirmative answer would have little probability to it, seeing that the circumstances described contribute either nothing at all or very little to religion. Actually, if one checks history, he will find at least a number of the circumstances enumerated have been called into doubt by one or another of the Fathers of the Church, or by excellent theologians, without their teaching ever being considered in the slightest heretical...

Actually the immense flowering of Catholic biblical research during the past fifty years has done much to eliminate unnecessary bewilderment on the part of the ordinary Bible reader trying to reconcile his own reading of the "obvious" meaning of Scripture with the findings of modern science. This bewilderment has been caused by an almost total ignorance of what is meant by "scriptural inerrancy," "inspiration," and "revelation." 

It has been further nurtured by a failure to enter sympathetically into the mentality of the ancient Semitic world, a lack of knowledge of ancient languages and history, a total unawareness of literary genres, and a lack of theological insight into what in the Bible pertains to "matters of faith and morals" and what is merely "accidentally inspired." 

Such readers, lacking both biblical and theological training, when coming across ancient cosmological viewpoints, unconsciously reflected by the sacred writers, have taken such viewpoints to be revelation by God on matters of science. Hence, a whole rash of unnecessary problems, concordism and the like. (See Dogmatic Theology, 3:223-225 [1960 English edition]; Emphasis in bold and italics from the original text--bold, italicized, and underlined is mine. N.B. Theologian Van Noort died in 1946. His original Latin edition was published with full ecclesiastical approbation prior to his death). 

In reference to true biblical scholars, Pope Pius XII condemns those who would oppose them simply because they propose a new solution to a difficulty:

Let all other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all, moreover, should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. (See Divino Afflante Spiritu [1943]; Emphasis mine). 

The Church permits belief in an old Earth. It does not conflict with Holy Scripture or Sacred Tradition. If it did, the Holy Ghost would have prevented Pope St. Pius X from approving the permission for the whole Church, since a true pope cannot give heresy or evil to the whole Church. The dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church demands such.

The Big Bang and Science: The Best Theory

As a former NYC science teacher (with a Masters Degree in science education), there is some nomenclature I want to clarify. I find it sad that, here in America, there are many people who do not understand the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. The common (and incorrect) notion is that a theory is a "hunch" or an "idea." A law is something true. Scientific theories can become scientific laws with enough facts proving them true. All of this is wrong.

Just as theology has words with specific meanings within the discipline, so does science. A scientific theory is a description of the natural world that scientists have arrived at by means of rigorous testing. It tries to explain the "why" about something. Scientific laws explain the "what" that has always been observed and tested. So, for example, gravity is both a theory and a law. The law of gravity explains what happens between objects depending on mass and distance. Laws also usually describe what happens in the terms of a mathematical formula. 

An accepted theory is the one that has the most evidence in its favor from multiple sources. Both theories and laws can change when/if new evidence is found which causes the theory or law to be undermined or in need of revision due to the newly discovered evidence. The BBT is not some "hunch" that isn't true because it's not a law. It is the best scientific theory backed up by multiple lines of evidence as to the origin of the universe. Over 98% of cosmologists, and over 95% of all scientists subscribe to it because of the evidence.

Of course, the usual objection to follow is the disparaging of science by declaring that the scientific establishment gave us COVID vaccines and climate change nonsense. While science can be abused and misused, two points must be made: (1) most scientific advances have been genuine and wonderful. Think of neurosurgery that routinely saves lives and wasn't available a mere 40 years ago. (2) the establishment has every reason to be against the BBT because it was discovered and promoted by Catholics, and it points to God. 

The Catholic Origin of the Big Bang

Father Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Roman Catholic priest and physicist from Belgium, was the scientist who proposed the BBT. The notion that the universe had a beginning did not sit well with many at that time. Some were even disgusted by it. Renowned English astronomer and physicist Arthur Eddington said that “philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant.” (See Arthur S. Eddington, “The End of the World: From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics,” Nature 127 (March 21, 1931): 447–53).Notice that Eddington didn’t claim the science was bad or that these new scientific discoveries were repugnant. Rather, he was bothered by the philosophical implications of the discovery.

The prevailing scientific theory in cosmology prior to Fr. Lemaitre, was The Steady State Theory (SST), which claimed the universe always existed from eternity. The Communists and other atheists loved the SST because if someone asked, "What created the universe?" the answer was straightforward---"The universe was always there. It didn't need or have a creator." Fr. Lemaitre's theory was met with derision and horror by Communists/atheists. A beginning of the universe clearly implied a Creator. The question of how the universe was created was back on the table. 

Schools in Communist countries banned the teaching of the BBT so young Communists wouldn't doubt atheism. In fact, it was an opponent of the theory, Sir Fred Hoyle, who coined the name for Lemaitre’s theory, referring to it mockingly as “this big bang idea” during a radio broadcast. Over the years, many theories were proposed to get rid of this “definite beginning” of the universe, and a war of theories was waged until, finally, in the 1960s, the BBT displaced the SST as the accepted cosmological theory. (N.B. Although the formal SST was developed by Hoyle in response to the BBT that he so hated, it was held that the universe was "always there" --a form of the SST--a long time prior. Einstein himself subscribed to it until Fr. Lemaitre's work changed his mind). 

Note well why Hoyle rejected the BBT; he was an atheist and anti-Catholic.

Hoyle did not want to believe that the universe was created from a big bang, because that would imply that there was a creator, and to him, that idea wasn’t a possibility because he was an atheist. He believed that, “religion is but a desperate attempt to find an escape from the truly dreadful situation in which we find ourselves…No wonder then that many people feel the need for some belief that gives them a sense of security, and no wonder that they become very angry with people like me who say that this is illusory” (positiveatheism.org). His belief, in his own words, was that “‘every cluster of galaxies, every star, every atom...had a beginning, but the universe, itself, did not’” (Willick 2003). This is why he proposed that the universe has been around forever, and that we were not created from some all powerful deity, but from the right combinations of heavy elements that were fused through the nuclear reactions that take place in the center of stars, a process that he named “nucleosynthesis."

(See csueastbay.edu/philosophy/reflections/2004/contents/jon-brix.html; Emphasis mine). 

This puts the lie to the contention that the BBT was "used by atheists to deny God" as some assert. It is actually the opposite---it was opposed by atheists in academic circles until the manifest weight of the credible evidence was too great to hold the BBT back from acceptance. An assertion by those who oppose the BBT on religious grounds is an ad hominem attack on Fr. Lemaitre as a "Modernist." This is rank calumny. Father was never under suspicion of Modernism or any heresy by the Holy Office. He was praised by Popes Pius XI and Pius XII.

In 1951, Pius XII gave an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences entitled “The Proofs for the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Natural Science,” offering an enthusiastic endorsement of the theory with Fr. Lemaitre present in a place of honor.

With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty “Fiat” pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter busting with energy. It would seem that present-day science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the primordial Fiat Lux [Let there be Light], when along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies.

The Supreme Pontiff asserted that the BBT proved the existence of God.

Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, science has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the Creator.  Hence, creation took place.  We say: therefore, there is a Creator.  Therefore, God exists! (See ucatholic.com).

Evidence for the BBT

I strongly suggest reading the four page summary of evidence which I now condense. It comes from the University of Western Australia.

Two major scientific discoveries provide strong support for the Big Bang theory:

• Hubble’s discovery in the 1920s of a relationship between a galaxy’s distance from Earth and its speed; and

• the discovery in the 1960s of cosmic microwave background radiation

1. Early in the 20th century the Universe was thought to be static: always the same size, neither expanding nor contracting. But in 1924 astronomer Edwin Hubble used a technique pioneered by Henrietta Leavitt to measure distances to remote objects in the sky. Hubble used spectroscopic red-shift data to measure the speeds these objects were travelling then graphed their distance from Earth against their speed. He discovered that the speed at which astronomical objects move apart is proportional to their distance from each other. In other words, the farther away objects are from Earth, the faster they are moving away from us. This became known as Hubble’s law

2. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was initially very hot and dense. As it expanded, it cooled (your refrigerator works on the same idea, expanding a liquid into a gas to cool the inside). Cosmologists were able to calculate the theoretical temperature of today’s Universe and began to search for evidence of it.

It was eventually discovered by accident in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson as ‘noise’ in an antenna they had built to research how radio signals could be reflected off orbiting satellites. They first thought it was radio interference from nearby New York City, but eventually recognized it as radiation from beyond the Milky Way. The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) that Penzias and Wilson observed is leftover heat radiation from the Big Bang. Today, CMBR is very cold due to expansion and cooling of the Universe. It’s only 2.725 Kelvin (-270.4 °C), which is only 2.725 °C above absolute zero. Cosmic microwave background radiation fills the entire Universe and can be detected day and night in every part of the sky.

(Condensed from "Evidence for The Big Bang;" uwa.edu.au/study/-/media/Faculties/Science/Docs/Evidence-for-the-Big-Bang.pdf).

Philosophical Argument for God from the BBT

The BBT shows that all which exists in the universe--all matter, energy, and even space and time itself--started from nothing in an amazing singularity approximately 13.8 billion years ago. The Kalam Cosmological Argument runs thus:

Premise 1: Everything which begins to exist must have a cause.

This is common sense and proven from all experience. No scientist (or anyone else) believes things pop into existence out of nothing. Atheists Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking have redefined "nothing" to mean "space" and "gravity" respectively. This is disingenuous to say the least. If I say, "I had nothing for breakfast today." It means I didn't have anything. It doesn't mean I ate something and that something I call "nothing." Krauss and Hawking do NOT believe something comes from "not anything;" they just want to escape the beginning of the universe and its theistic implications.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist. 

This we know from the BBT. 

Conclusion: The universe has a cause.

It follows logically from the two premises. The First Cause must be space-less (because there was no space), timeless (because there was no time), immaterial (because there was no matter--or even energy), and a Mind of great Power (because if all the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe to exist were present, then it would have existed from eternity--therefore, it must have been willed into existence at a certain point). You just described God. Welcome to theism.  

Objection: Then who created God? Answer: God wasn't created. Notice that the first premise is whatever begins to exist must have a cause. God, unlike the universe, is eternal. Moreover, the question is irrelevant. Once, I had a very bad gastrointestinal issue that couldn't be resolved. My doctors were stumped. One very intelligent gastroenterologist thought it was a rare bacteria that's hard to diagnose even with extensive tests.  The cure, if that was the cause, was to take a powerful medication for ten days, along with some other protocols. Desperate for a cure, I agreed. After the ten days, I was cured. When I asked him, "Where could I have gotten this bacteria?" he replied, "Who knows? The fact that the cure worked means we found the cause." Analogously, even if God "needs a creator" (He doesn't) it wouldn't mean He didn't create the universe.

Conclusion

The BBT was the brainchild of a devout Roman Catholic priest. It was embraced by two true popes. It was opposed by Communists, other atheists, and anti-Catholics. It is a powerful indicator that God exists. If you want to believe in a literal six day (24 hours each) creation, you can certainly do so. However, the almost unanimous consent of the theologians and exegetes reject it in favor of an old Earth. You may reject the BBT, but you may not disparage as "not Catholic" those of us who do.