Recognizing And Resisting The Errors Of R&R

 

Every now and again, it becomes necessary to to revisit certain obstinate errors that continue to arise. Once such error is the idea that you can recognize the Conciliar "popes" from Roncalli (John XXIII) to Prevost (Leo XIV) and yet decide what you will and won't obey/believe when he teaches. Recently, one of my readers was perturbed over this site: catholiccandle.org/2025/12/29/all-catholics-are-in-communion-with-the-pope/#sdfootnote19anc. 

I have addressed the errors of this particular site before. It's more of the same, tired, rehashed and refuted arguments. Nevertheless, those new to the One True Faith, or those who have not had the time to look more deeply into the issues might be understandably upset. Therefore, I will present some of these arguments from "Catholic Candle" to show the "light" of this candle comes from the deceptive flames of Hell. I've written on these issues in the past, but it never hurts to refresh the reasons that the "R&R" is not the Catholic position.

Catholic Candle: A 67 Year Interregnum is Impossible 

Catholic Candle (CC): Sedevacantists generally hold that Pope Pius XII has had no successors during the last 67 years.  In an attempt to avoid the contradiction between Vatican I’s infallible teaching and their own (false) theory, the sedevacantists simply label the last 67 years as a “papal interregnum”.

But if a sedevacantist would examine his position objectively, he would see that the supposed “facts” he asserts would not constitute a real interregnum but rather would be in an interruption in papal (monarchical) succession.  The sedevacantists assert that there will be a pope in some future time.  But their theory (viz., no pope now, but there will be a future pope) really supposes there would be (what historians call) a restoration of the (papal) monarchy which had been interrupted.

Reply: According to theologian Dorsch: "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate. These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine).

The most probable way of restoring the papacy is an "imperfect General Council." Some pre-Vatican II theologians pondered such a Council in the absence of cardinals. Indeed, theologian Van Noort pondered it as late as 1956 (See Dogmatic Theology 2: 276).

 Theologian Cajetan wrote: "...by exception and by supplementary manner this power [electing a pope], corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by absence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happened at the time of the schism."  (See De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii)

Theologian Billot wrote: "When it would be necessary to  proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a...Council...Because natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a superior is passed to the immediate inferior because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need." (See De Ecclesia Christi).

It has been established at the Vatican Council of 1870 that the papacy must last until the end but not that there must always be a living pontiff on the Throne of St. Peter.  Furthermore, having a long interregnum is not inconsistent with having perpetual successors. There is a possibility of an end of the papal interregnum before the end of the world. According to theologian O'Reilly, one of the most orthodox and erudite theologians of the 19th century, in his 1882 book (written a scant twelve years after the Vatican Council), entitled The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, he brings home this important point. On page 287, he writes in reference to the Great Western Schism:

There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...

The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. 

Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. 

We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree. (Emphasis mine).

So an interregnum of a long duration does nothing to affect the monarchial constitution of the One True Church. 

CC: Sedevacantism Cannot Be True Because The Church Must be Visible and Have Unity

CC: Because the Church will always be visible, and because unity of government is an element of the Mark of Unity by which the Church can always be known, the Church will always have a visible government, so that the true Church can be recognized by this Mark of Unity of Government.  

Because the Church’s government is visible and monarchical, “the Church, being a visible body, must have a visible head and centre of unity.” This is obviously true.  For the Church is not one, with a visible government, if it is unknown “who is in charge”.  In fact, governing authority is the efficient cause giving unity as one body to any society of men. 

For there is not one visible society if it consists of men united only by ideas and not by a unified, visible government.  That is why even basic catechisms teach us that the Catholic Church is “under one visible head.”

Reply: According to theologian Van Noort, "[The Church] enjoys a three-fold unity...unity of doctrine and profession, unity of communion, and unity of government." (See Dogmatic Theology [1956] 2:126; Emphasis in original). 

1. Doctrine and Profession of Faith

"The unity of Faith which Christ decreed without qualification consists in this, that everyone accepts the doctrines presented for belief by the Church's teaching office." (Ibid:127; Emphasis in original). Furthermore, "Christ demanded faith not just in some doctrines, but in all those doctrines which authority set up by Him should teach. Consequently, any distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles of belief is contrary to the mind and will of Christ...Furthermore...it is impossible to determine a sure standard for distinguishing fundamental from non-fundamental articles" (Ibid:128). 

2. Communion

"Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of communion or of (social) charity which consists in this, that all members of the Church, whether as individuals or as particular groups, mutually cohere like the finely articulated parts of one moral body, one family, one single society. It follows from this that they all share the same common benefits: sacrifice [Mass], sacraments, intercession." (Ibid:128)

3. Government

"Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of rule (hierarchical unity) which consists in this, that all members of the Church obey one and the same visible authority." (Ibid:130)  

Anticipating the objections of  the R&R (as well as Vatican II apologists), who will claim that the Mark of Unity as expressed by the Church does not apply to the sedevacantists because (1) we have different groups (SSPV, CMRI, etc.) and (2) we don't have a visible authority to follow, a couple of responses are in order. 

In a prolonged state of sedevacante, you would expect that novel theological questions would cause rifts. Nevertheless, we profess the Integral Catholic Faith. As Van Noort teaches, "[During the Great Western Schism]...hierarchical unity was only materially, not formally, interrupted.  Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the [papal] contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed to one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance." (Ibid:131; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine)

According to canonist Wernz-Vidal, "... [the] visibility of the Church consists in the fact that She possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognized and discerned..." (See Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pg. 454; Emphasis mine). The Church does not, strictly speaking, need an actual living pope to be a visible society, the Mystical Body of Christ. 

CC: The Pope Can Be Resisted Like a "Bad Dad"

CC: Pope Leo is a bad pope and a bad father. We must oppose the evil he does but must avoid the sedevacantists’ (objective) mortal sins of rashly judging his interior culpability and of denying that he is the pope or is even Catholic.

Here, it is alleged that just as a child can refuse to obey the evil command of his father, so too can Catholics refuse to obey "bad teachings" of the Conciliar "popes."

The pope cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to the whole Church. According to theologian Herrmann:

"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Para. #9:

"[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Para. #66

"Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors."

The pope's infallibility extends to universal disciplinary laws. The pope can give "opinionative" decisions, which by their very nature could be modified or abrogated. In that sense he could be "wrong," but not in promulgating universal disciplinary laws, or deciding upon doctrinal issues.

Extinguishing The R&R Candle: If Prevost is Pope You Must Obey

According to the eminent theologians McHugh and Callan these are the moral principles regarding the assent owed by Catholics:

760. Many tenets of the Church, indeed, have not the prerogative of infallibility—for example, decrees of the Popes not given ex cathedra, decisions of Congregations made with Papal approval, teachings of Bishops to particular members of the Church, doctrines commonly held by Catholics as theological truths or certain conclusions. These decrees, decisions, etc., receive not the assent of Catholic faith, but what is called religious assent, which includes two things, viz., external and internal assent.

(a) External assent should be given such teachings—that is, the homage of respectful silence due to public authority. This does not forbid the submission of difficulties to the teaching authority, or the scientific examination of objections that seem very strong.

(b) Internal assent should be given such teaching—that is, the submission of the judgment of the individual to the judgment of the teacher who has the authority from Christ and assistance from the Holy Spirit. This internal assent differs, however, from the assent of faith, inasmuch as it excludes fear of error, but not of the possibility of error, and it may later on be suspended, called into doubt, or even revoked. Pope Pius X in his Motu proprio, "Praestantia scripturae Sacrae" (Nov. 18, 1907), indicated the binding force of the decrees both of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and of all doctrinal decrees:

 All are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees which appertain to doctrine, issued by the Sacred Congregations and approved by the Supreme Pontiff; nor can they escape the stigma both of disobedience and temerity, nor be free from grave guilt as often as they impugn their decisions either in word or writing; and this over and above the scandal which they give and the sins of which they may be the cause before God by making other statements on these matters which are very frequently both rash and false. (Reaffirmed by the Biblical Commission on Feb. 27, 1934.)

761. The objects, therefore, which formally or reductively pertain to the virtue of faith, are as follows:

(a) Divine faith has for its object all the truths revealed by God as contained in the Canonical scriptures approved by the Church, and in the teachings received by the Apostles from Christ or the Holy Spirit and handed down to the Church as Tradition. Private revelations in exceptional cases may also be the object of divine faith.

(b) Catholic faith has for its object all the truths formally revealed in scripture and Tradition that have been defined as such by the Church. The definitions of the Church are either solemn (e.g., those given in the Creeds, ex cathedra definitions of the Popes, decisions of Ecumenical Councils) or ordinary (e.g., those contained in the universal preaching, practice or belief of the Church, encyclical letters [see Humani Generis, n.20]). Equivalent to definitions are the condemnations of error opposed to revealed truths.

(c) According to some theologians ecclesiastical faith has for its object all infallible decisions of the Church about matters not revealed, but connected with revelation, or necessary for the exercise of the teaching office of the Church. Such are: (i) definitions, that is, definitive declarations of theological conclusions or of dogmatic facts, disciplinary laws made for the entire Church, canonization of the saints, solemn approbation of religious Orders, express or special recognition of Doctors of the Church, declaration of the relation of private revelations to the public revelation; and (ii) censures, that is, condemnations of teachings, on account of falsity, as heretical, near to heresy, savoring of heresy, erroneous, rash, etc.; on account of their expression, as equivocal, ambiguous, presumptuous, captious, suspected, ill-sounding, offensive to pious ears, etc.; on account of their tendency, as scandalous, schismatical, seditious, unsafe, etc. Examples: The definitions concerning the sense of the book Augustinus, the suitability of the terms "consubstantial" and "transubstantiation," the agreement of the Vulgate with the original scriptures, the lawfulness of the insertion of the Filioque.

(d) Religious assent has for its object all doctrinal pronouncements of the Church that are not infallible, but are yet official and authoritative. Examples are ordinary instructions and condemnations given by Pontifical Congregations and Commissions. The Syllabus of Modern Errors issued by Pius IX was most likely not an infallible or definitive document, although many of the errors it rejects are contrary to dogma, and hence, even apart from the Syllabus, they are to be rejected as opposed to Catholic faith. Likewise, many of its tenets are drawn from encyclical letters. Papal allocutions, radio addresses, and the doctrinal parts of Apostolic Constitutions, in themselves, are in this class.

(e) Respect is due to the judgment of the Church even in non-doctrinal matters and where no obligation is imposed by her, on account of her position and the careful examination given before decision. Example: It would be disrespectful to reject without good reason a pious belief which the Church after mature deliberation has permitted to be held.

762. Though the truths of faiths are many, the duty of believing imposes no great burden on the believer. Thus: (a) it is not required that explicit belief be given to all the teachings of faith; (b) it is not required that one distinguish the particular kind of assent in case of uncertainty, but it suffices to yield assent according to the mind and intention of the Church. Example: When a group of propositions is condemned under various censures, no indication being made of the censure that applies to particular propositions, it suffices to hold that all of them are false, and that to each of them applies one or more of the censures listed.

(Source: Fr. McHugh, John A. and Fr. Callan, Charles J. (May 24, 1958) “Part II. Special Moral Theology: Art. 1. The Virtue of Faith – The Object of Faith.” Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities. New York City: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc. para. 760-762. Italics in original).

CC repeats the Feeneyite/Dimondite error of "you only need to obey infallible teachings." They state: Popes can err in any other teachings, unless those teachings are themselves a faithful repetition of truth contained in infallible Catholic Tradition. No pope (or anyone else) can err when faithfully repeating the teachings of Catholic Tradition. The Church has condemned this very idea. 

• Condemned proposition #22 of the Syllabus of Errors, addressed to the whole Church teaches, "22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith."

• Pope Pius XII condemns the idea popes need not be given assent in their teachings that are not ex cathedra: "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their Magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary Magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine." (See Humani Generis [1950]).

Conclusion

Consider this post another one of my "refresher courses" on why the R&R position makes no sense and contradicts Church teaching on the papacy. I could go on and on with that false and misleading website, but I hope the point has been made. Join the Vatican II sect and follow Prevost as a Catholic should if you recognize his "papacy." Otherwise, embrace sedevacantism--true Catholicism--to have the hope of saving your soul. 

Contending For The Faith---Part 47

 

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.

AI: Can a Machine Be Conscious?

To My Readers: This is my second installment on the dangers and challenges of AI. My first installment was in "Contending For The Faith---Part 45." (N.B.  This post is a compilation of all the resources, both online and print, which I used in my research. I take  absolutely no credit for any of the information herein. All I did was condense the information into a terse and readable post---Introibo).

It’s commonplace to hear the language of consciousness applied to computing technology, especially AI. Neural networks, machine learning, artificial intelligence, automated reasoning, knowledge engineering, emotion AI. This isn’t surprising, though, given AI’s (seeming) ability to approximate various functions of human consciousness. No harm, no foul. After all, we use language figuratively all the time. The problem arises when people believe AI literally has consciousness in the same sense in which human persons are conscious. People often point to Turing tests to support this idea. Contrary to popular belief, though, passing a Turing test does not establish that AI is conscious (or much else of interest). This should matter to Traditionalists, because to attribute genuine consciousness to AI is seriously to demean humans who were created in the image and likeness of God. 

What is a "Turing Test"?

Alan Turing (1912–1954) was a British mathematician, widely recognized as the father of modern computer science. His famous article, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” (1950), asks the question, “Can machines think?” 

(See doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433). 

To get at an answer, Turing proposes the “imitation game.” (See Ibid, pg. 433). 

The game itself is simple. We have two rooms. In the first room we place a person and a machine, and in the second room we place an investigator. Unable to see into the first room, the investigator knows the other person and the machine simply as ‘X’ and ‘Y.’ The investigator passes questions into the first room, directed to X or Y. For example, “Does X play chess?” The other person aims to help the investigator correctly identify which of X or Y is the machine, while the machine’s aim is to trick the investigator into mistaking machine for human. The object of the game is for the investigator to identify correctly, on the basis of the answers returned, whether X is the person or the machine. Hence, for the machine (or AI) to “pass the Turing test” is for it so to function in such a way that humans cannot recognize it as non-human.

For his part, Turing believed “that in about fifty years’ time it will be possible to programme (sic) computers…to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent. chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning.”

(See Ibid, pg. 442). 

Was Turing right? More or less. One recent study, conducted by researchers at the University of California San Diego, evaluated three systems (ELIZA, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4). The report, published under the title “People Cannot Distinguish GPT-4 from a Human in a Turing Test,” claims to provide the first serious empirical proof that any artificial system passes an interactive Turing test. The study found that human participants “were no better than chance at identifying GPT-4 after a five minute conversation, suggesting that current AI systems are capable of deceiving people into believing that they are human.” (See arxiv.org/html/2405.08007). 

What is Consciousness?

However, even given the above information, who cares? Suppose we stipulate that AI is regularly mistaken for human consciousness. Would that establish that AI is, in fact, conscious in the same way as humans? Not at all. To see why, let’s reflect briefly on human consciousness.

Considerations of consciousness (and the philosophy of mind generally) can get fairly technical, so I'll keep this simple. Each of us, as persons, are directly familiar with our own individual consciousness. I experience my consciousness, but obviously I cannot experience yours--- and vice versa. I am directly familiar with what it is like to be me, but I am not — indeed, cannot be — directly familiar with what it is like to be you. And again, vice versa. This is because access to what it is like to be one is available only via one’s first-person, inner perspective. We each are the unique subjects of our conscious experiences, and in the absence of subjects there cannot be consciousness.

Each of us knows via first-person experience that there are various states of consciousness. We refer colloquially to being in a “semi-conscious state” when we’re half asleep or distracted, but that’s not the sort of state I mean. I’m referring instead to what philosophers call mental states. We experience sensations — being in pain, for example (“My toe hurts”). We also experience desires (“I’d really like to get out of attending that meeting”), beliefs (“I believe the party is at 6:00 P.M.”), thoughts (“I love my wife”), understanding, and others, all of which are impossible for AI.

Let’s focus on thoughts. Thoughts are about something (perhaps even something fictitious); they can be true or false; and they can logically imply further thoughts. As I type this, I can form thoughts about what I’m typing. I notice I can form thoughts about the appearance of the letters on the screen (“Gee, I meant 'there' not 'their'”), but I can also form thoughts about the meaning conveyed by what I’m typing (this paragraph is about one’s thoughts). We can use thoughts to have the mental state of understanding, and that’s pretty extraordinary. Again, these states are mental; they are not physical (e.g., brain) states.

The "Chinese Room" Thought Experiment

The suggestion that AI can form thoughts and have understanding depends on a radically different view: that humans’ (physical) brains are what have mental states; humans do not have (nonphysical) minds (the soul). “Mental,” on this suggestion, does not mean nonphysical. The suggestion is that mental states are to be understood as functions, and AI can certainly exhibit functions. To get the idea, think in terms of input = programming (plus enormous data, if you like) = output. That is fundamentally how AI works; humans’ minds are to brains what programming is to AI. (See John R. Searle, “Minds, Brains, and Programs,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, no. 3 [1980], pg. 421). When fed input AI produces output indistinguishable from that of human consciousness, and so AI is said to have understanding (consciousness). In a word, AI is a “mind” in the same sense you are.

Yet, as (atheist) philosopher John Searle explains, the input = programming  = output model cannot establish understanding. No matter how sophisticated the programming may be, functioning in a certain way is not identical to understanding. To see why, let’s imagine what Searle calls "the Chinese room." 

Suppose you have no knowledge of the Chinese language. Chinese characters are, to you, “just so many meaningless squiggles. Now suppose you’re given a handful of Chinese writings and then locked in a room. Shortly, a second batch of Chinese writings are slid into the room beneath the door. Meantime, the room contains a rulebook, written in English. The rulebook tells you how to correlate symbols (e.g., when you see squiggle symbol, put it with a squoggle symbol). You’ve no idea what the symbols mean, but you find you’re able to locate symbols in the writings that match these squiggles and squoggles and get on with the correlations. Later a third batch of Chinese writings appear beneath the door, along with further English instructions. These instructions enable you to correlate this batch with the first two batches, and then to pass your latest correlations back under the door. Unbeknownst to you, the people giving you these writings “call the first batch ‘a script,’ they call the second batch ‘a story,’ and they call the third batch ‘questions.’ Furthermore, they call the symbols [you] give them back in response to the third batch ‘answers to the questions,’ and the set of rules in English…they call ‘the program.’

(See Ibid, pg. 418). 

It’s easy to imagine that after a while you’d become really good at following the instructions for manipulating the Chinese symbols and the programmers would become so good at writing programs that someone outside the room would be unable to distinguish your answers from those of a native Chinese speaker. You passed the Turing test. Except you still don’t understand Chinese.

If you still don’t understand Chinese, then what exactly have you become really good at in the Chinese room? The answer is that you’ve become good at a certain syntactical operation, namely manipulating the symbols based purely on syntax. Your manipulations of the symbols, in other words, are based entirely on the shape of the Chinese symbols (e.g., squiggle and squoggle) and the order in which they appear. The instructions in the rulebook concern nothing beyond this syntax. 

Can AI perform this syntactical operation? Yes, perhaps even better than you can. In following the rulebook, though, are you not thinking “about” the Chinese symbols? Yes, in a sense you are — but only in the sense in which I formed thoughts about not liking the word on my computer screen. The manipulation of symbols in keeping with a syntax, after all, has (literally) no meaning. In order to understand Chinese (or anything else), you must be able to think “about” the meaning of the symbols.

(See E. J. Lowe, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind, [2000], pgs. 214-217). This is what Searle calls “semantic” understanding, and this cannot be done merely through complicated syntactical operations.

In the Chinese room experiment, you are in the place of AI. If you can follow the formal rules spelled out in the rulebook, after all, then surely an AI can, too. You’ve got the batches of writing (inputs); you’ve got ideal programming; and you’ve generated the expected outputs. Yet you lack any understanding whatsoever of Chinese. As Searle concludes, since “the program is defined in terms of computational operations on purely formally defined elements” (i.e., input = programming = output, which is how AI functions), the experiment reveals that mere program functioning cannot yield understanding. (See “Minds, Brains, and Programs,”pg. 418). AI can make an impressive simulation indeed of human consciousness. However, an impressive simulation of understanding is no more conscious than a computer simulation of rainstorms is wet.

Conclusion

AI will never be human. It will always be an "it;" a thing without a soul. St.  Thomas Aquinas explains: “Since human beings are said to be in the image of God in virtue of their having a nature that includes an intellect, such a nature is most in the image of God in virtue of being most able to imitate God.” (See Summa Theologica Ia q. 93 a. 4). Aquinas goes on to explain that “only in rational creatures is there found a likeness of God which counts as an image….As far as a likeness of the divine nature is concerned, rational creatures seem somehow to attain a representation of [that] type in virtue of imitating God not only in this, that he is and lives, but especially in this, that he understands.” (Ibid, Ia q. 93 a. 6). 

A real problem arises when people believe AI has consciousness in the same sense in which human persons are conscious. Such a view diminishes what it means to be a human and demeans the image of Almighty God. Don't fall for it. 

The Ghosts Of Christmas

                           

To My Readers: This week, TradWarrior writes a most interesting piece I think you'll enjoy very much. It is the first time a post of this unique quality has been published. The images above show the Most Blessed Trinity and the "ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future" from the classic A Christmas Carol by Dickens. Please continue to pray for John Gregory and his family. 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 Ghosts of Christmas

By TradWarrior

Every December, the world waits in great anticipation as Christmas approaches. The Season of Advent paves the way as the precursor to what becomes the most joyful season of the year. We remember family members and friends who have gone before us. Their memories are etched in our own memories as we recall many joyful times that we celebrated in years past with them.

          There are many stories that capture the Christmas spirit quite well. One such story that has always been a favorite of many is Charles Dickens “A Christmas Carol.” Penned as a novella by Dickens in 1843, it has captured the thoughts and hearts of countless people around the globe. There are an array of characters in it that very much resemble all of us in our own individual lives. The Christmas Spirit is woven throughout the story.

          The story begins with Ebenezer Scrooge, a cold-hearted miser, who despises all things Christmas and everything that has to do with it. He only cares about himself, his money, and greed. On Christmas Eve, he refuses a dinner invitation from his nephew Fred. He turns away two men seeking a donation for food and heating for the poor. He grudgingly gives Christmas off to his underpaid clerk Bob Cratchit. He spends Christmas the way he always prefers to: Alone!

          That night, he is alone in his home when he hears the sound of moans and groans and the sound of dragging chains. An apparition appears to him that frightens him very much. The ghostly apparition reveals himself to be Jacob Marley, his business partner who died 7 years earlier. Scrooge finds it hard to believe that he is actually seeing what he is seeing, much like Thomas doubted that it was the risen Jesus that appeared to him. Marley asks Scrooge, why does he doubt his senses, just as Christ told Thomas to doubt no longer, but rather believe. Scrooge inquires further why Marley is appearing to him and why he appears to be in horrible pain as he drags his chains. Marley responds that he drags the chains for all of the life choices that he made in life that were not good that he is now paying the price for. He is a soul in Purgatory. His apparition is very much like an apparition out of Fr. Schouppe’s books “Purgatory” and “Hell”. In his book, “Purgatory”, there are all kinds of stories of souls who appear to those on Earth who are suffering horrible torments in Purgatory. They ask for prayers and indulgences offered up so that the painful flames that they are suffering will cease and they will be taken to Heaven where they can live forever with God in glory. Some souls in Purgatory are there for a very brief time. They had very little expiation to make for their temporal punishment that remained on their souls at the time of their deaths. 

    Other souls were not so fortunate. They are on the bottom level of Purgatory, right at the base of Hell. Their torments are far more severe and they will not be released from Purgatory for a very long time. To satisfy God’s divine justice, they suffer multiple torments and their pain is exponentially worse. In Fr. Schouppe’s book “Hell”, the stories are even more frightening and overwhelming. Many people who have read his “Purgatory” book had to stop because it was too intense. His book on Hell is even far scarier. In his book on Hell, Fr. Schouppe tells stories of souls in Hell who are burning in pain forever. They will never be released, their torments will never cease, and their pain will go on and on forever. There is no help for them. The stories of apparitions of the damned in his book are horrifying and take the torments mentioned in his Purgatory book to a whole other level. As 2 Maccabees reminds us, it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sin. This applies to the souls in Purgatory.

          Marley reveals to Scrooge that if Scrooge does not amend his sinful ways, he awaits a fate far worse than his own. He tells Scrooge that on that very Christmas night, he will be visited by three ghosts. Scrooge tells Marley that he would rather not be visited by these ghosts. Marley tells him that he has no choice. These ghosts will be sent to Scrooge as one last wake up call. Scrooge either changes his life or he lives a life damned in Hell, far worse than what Marley is experiencing in Purgatory.

          Scrooge thinks that this was just a dream. He awakens to see a figure next to his bed. He sees a striking figure who appears young and yet old with wisdom all at the same time. The figure has bright flowing hair and is in a white robe with summer flowers and a silver sash. This is The Ghost of Christmas Past. The Spirit takes him back to when he was a boy. He sees his old school he attended when he was a child. He sees a solitary student by himself very lonely. He reveals to The Ghost of Christmas Past that he is saddened because his mother died while giving birth to his sister. Next, he is transported to another scene where he is now a youth. His sister Fan visits with him. Fan tells him that his father has arranged for Ebenezer to be an apprentice for Mr. Fezziwig, a jolly man. The Ghost of Christmas Past remarks to Ebenezer that his sister died a young woman but that she had a child. He tells her that is true, it is his nephew Fred. The Ghost transports him to see another scene from his past. He is at the Fezziwig Christmas Eve party. 

    There is dancing and music and everyone is happy. Ebenezer realizes that he was once happy in his youth. Time grows short as The Ghost informs him and he is transported to yet another scene from his past. He is with a beautiful young woman named Belle. She was hoping to marry Ebenezer. She knows that he has changed. She tells him that an idol has replaced her. It is Scrooge’s love of money. It is his sole passion, his only love now and Belle points this out very clearly to him as she confronts him. She asks Scrooge if he is willing to marry a poor dower-less girl. Ebenezer looks down and refuses to answer her. Belle sees right through him and no longer wants anything to do with him. She will not marry him. He chose money over her (you cannot serve two masters). She says to him that she releases him and, “May you be happy in the life you have chosen!” The Ghost shows Scrooge that Belle eventually was happily married to another man and had several children. 

    He saw what his life could have been with her, had he chosen her over his love of money. Scrooge gets angry with The Spirit and demands that this ghost stop showing him these images. The Ghost shows him one more image, that of Jacob Marley dying as onlookers remark that Ebenezer is a miserable wretch. Scrooge is angry at The Spirit and demands to be taken away from these images that he does not want to see, just as the Pharisees could not bear to see that the long awaited Christ made the blind see, the deaf hear, the mute speak, etc. Scrooge tells The Ghost “Spirit! Remove me from this place!” The Ghost of Christmas Past responds, “I told you, these are shadows of things that have been. That they are what they are, do not blame me!” Scrooge begs The Spirit to be taken back to his bedroom for he can take no more of this. Scrooge is taken back to his bedroom.

          Scrooge wakes up in his bedroom, relieved that this was all just a dream (or so he thinks). He then sees a huge figure, seated on a throne, dressed in a green robe and wearing a wreath of mistletoe. His beard, robe, and crown of mistletoe are reminiscent of Christ’s beard, His robe when the Romans mocked Him, and the crown of thorns on His head. Who is this startling figure? He is revealed as The Ghost of Christmas Present. Despite The Ghost of Christmas Past and everything this spirit showed to Ebenezer, he is not a changed man. He is still a miserable, greedy miser who cares only about himself. This Spirit tells him that there are those who walk this Earth who do deeds of passion, pride, ill will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness. How right he is. 

    The Earth is full of these sins and more. He transports Scrooge to the Cratchit house. Bob and his family are a poor family, who own very little, but they have love in their house. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Bob and his wife love each other and their many children beautifully. Ebenezer sees the youngest Cratchit, Tiny Tim. He is a sickly boy, on a crutch. Mrs. Cratchit asks if Tiny Tim behaved himself in church. Bob said he did and that Tiny Tim doesn’t mind if people see him in public places as a crippled. Tiny Tim hopes that people see him crippled on Christmas Day because the little boy hopes that it will remind people of who was the one who made lame beggars walk and blind men see. The boy has a pure heart. Ebenezer remarks to The Ghost of Christmas Present that he had no idea that Bob had a crippled son. The Ghost remarks, “I wonder why.” Ebenezer was too wrapped up in his money and greed to have ever noticed before.

     Scrooge asks The Spirit if the boy will live? The Sprit replies, “If these shadows remain unaltered by the future, the boy will die.” Scrooge is troubled by this but The Spirit replies that it is good for the lame and poor and sickly to die to decrease the surplus population. These were Scrooge’s very words earlier in the story and The Spirit is throwing them right back at Ebenezer. The Cratchit family gives a toast to Mr. Scrooge, the founder of the feast. Although he treats Bob poorly and pays him little, the family is very thankful for everything that they are given in life. It is reminiscent of the one leper who returned to give thanks to Jesus for curing him of his leprosy. The Ghost of Christmas Present transports him to his nephew Fred’s house. Fred wishes that his Uncle Scrooge would attend Christmas dinner with his family but he never does. Fred has a lovely young wife Janet. Fred remarks how his uncle only sees Christmas as a humbug. He talks about how his uncle has all of this wealth but does nothing good with it. This is reminiscent of Christ talking about what good is it if a man has all the wealth in the world, but still loses his soul. In the end, he loses everything. Janet has no pity for Ebenezer. But Fred does. He sees him as a poor soul and always hopes he one day changes his ways. Ebenezer sees his sister’s face in his young nephew. He misses her dearly.

          The Ghost of Christmas Present transports Ebenezer to the frigid outside weather. There are beggars on the streets and Scrooge wants to be taken away. The Ghost opens his robe where he shows him a little boy and a little girl who are dressed in rags and are malnourished. Scrooge asks him who these children are. The Ghost tells them that the boy is Ignorance and the girl is Want. These are all the poor children of the world that roam the streets, neglected by many who see them. This is reminiscent of Jesus saying, “Let the little children come to me.” The Ghost says, “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?” Again, he uses Scrooge’s own words against him. Scrooge begs him to get him out of such a wretched place. He can see no more of this! The Ghost of Christmas Present is gone.

          Scrooge finds himself alone in the cold streets. It is windy and there is thunder in the background. He sees a tall figure, completely cloaked and hooded in black. This figure has skeletal hands with bony fingers and never talks. This is The Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come (Future). Scrooge says to The Spirit, “I take it that I am in the presence of The Spirit of Christmas Yet To Come?” The Ghost nods. This Spirit never speaks. Scrooge continues, “You are about to show me shadows of the things that have not happened, but will happen in the time before us. Is that not so, Spirit?” The Spirit nods. Scrooge tells The Spirit that he fears this Ghost more than any of the others thus far. This ominous figure cloaked and hooded in black terrifies him and is reminiscent of the grim reaper. The Ghost then transports him to a scene where bankers are discussing a man that died and how they do not know where the man’s money will be dispersed. One of the men says that no one will want to go to this man’s funeral. Scrooge does not understand why The Ghost is showing this vision to him.

          Scrooge is next transported to a scene where people are discussing items that belonged to a dead man as they discuss what these items may be worth. Scrooge still does not understand why The Ghost is showing him these scenes.

          The Ghost transports Scrooge to yet another place, this time to the Cratchit home. He sees the Cratchit household very sad and downtrodden. Bob Cratchit enters the house and he is extremely somber. Scrooge sees that the reason that everyone is so sad in the house is because Tiny Tim has died. Bob is especially saddened as he no longer has his little son to carry on his shoulders. The emotions start to get to Scrooge as he sees a future that is dark with an empty chair and a crutch with no owner by it.

          The Spirit is not through with Scrooge yet. He next transports him to a cemetery. Scrooge is very nervous and frightened by this point of the story. The Ghost points to a tombstone. Scrooge asks The Ghost, “Before I draw nearer to that stone to which you point, answer me one question. Are these the shadows of the things that will be, or are they the shadows of things that may be, only?” This is a very powerful moment and reminiscent of the difference of the Catholic position where grace and free will work together vs. the Calvinist position where things are predetermined and there is no chance of changing them. According to Calvinist predestination, held by many, God predetermined some souls to go to Heaven and some souls to go to Hell before the world ever was and there is nothing that we can do to change our fate. Our free will is useless in the matter. This has of course been condemned by the Catholic Church but this part of the story is very important because the “will” vs. the “may” makes all the difference here. The Ghost points to the tombstone. Scrooge creeps towards the tombstone and upon seeing the inscription on it, he falls to his knees trembling. 

    He says to The Spirit, “No, no, it can’t be! Am I that man?! Am I the man who died who no one mourned? Say it isn’t so, Spirit! Say it isn’t so!” The Spirit points to the tombstone. Scrooge (crying now) says, “Spirit! Hear me! I am not the man I was. I will not be the man I must have been but for your intervention. Why show me this if I am past all hope?” The Ghost’s hand trembles. Scrooge continues, “Surely your nature intercedes for me, and pities me. Assure me that I may yet change these shadows you have shown me, by a changed life!” 

    The Ghost’s hand continues to tremble. Scrooge says, “I will honor Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will remember the lessons of the Past; I will live in the Present; I will live toward the Future. The Spirits of all three will strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach. Oh, tell me that I may sponge away the writing on this stone!” (The 3 Persons of the Blessed Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Ghost live within those who have been baptized and receive the sacraments that the Catholic Church dispenses to Her members. The 3 Persons live in the souls of those who possess sanctifying grace. The 3 Persons of the Trinity have a correlation here to the 3 Ghosts in the story.) Scrooge begs The Spirit to spare him this dreadful death. He knows that he is at death’s door, but even worse, Hell’s door. The next thing he experiences is he wakes up in his bed.

          Scrooge is overjoyed and dancing and happy to have come through this scary ordeal that the 3 Ghosts put him through, all in one night. He remarks how the 3 Spirits did it all in one night and how they can do anything they like (reminiscent again of the 3 Persons of The Blessed Trinity). He opens his bedroom window and sees a boy running in the snowy streets. He asks the boy if a large turkey is still in the poultry shop. The boy says it is. Scrooge tells him to bring it to him and he will pay the boy very handsomely for his efforts. Scrooge decides to send the turkey to Bob Cratchit’s house.

          Scrooge sees two men on the streets who always ask for money. He whispers into one man’s ear how much of a donation he will give him, and the man can hardly believe his ears and whispers the amount into the other man’s ears. Scrooge has changed and they can tell a transformation has taken place. (When we receive the sacraments, transformations occur in our souls).

          Scrooge next visits his nephew Fred’s home. Fred can hardly believe to see his Uncle Scrooge at the door. Scrooge asks if the invitation to dine with Fred and his family is still in force, to which Fred responds that it absolutely is. Fred introduces his uncle to his wife Janet. Scrooge says to Janet that he can see why Fred chose her from among all woman (this is very reminiscent of how God chose The Blessed Virgin Mary from all women). Janet is very happy that Uncle Scrooge has come to dine with them. Scrooge tells them, “I am sorry for the things I said about Christmas. And sorry for the poor reception I gave you yesterday, of which you were so undeserving. I see the image of my sister in your face. I loved her, you know. And she, you.” Fred replies, “I know it, Uncle Scrooge. She loved you very much, and wished until her dying day that we should always be close.” Scrooge replies, “And so we are, Fred, and so we shall be. So we shall be.” Scrooge’s transformation is very easy to see. He has one final visit to make.

          Scrooge is at his workplace when Bob Cratchit enters late. Scrooge says that he will no longer put up with Bob’s tardiness and that he will no longer stand for this anymore. He tells him, “ And therefore…I am going to double your salary!” Bob cannot believe what he just heard or saw. Scrooge tells him that he will assist Bob’s family from this point forward in any way that he can and he promises that Tiny Tim will walk again. Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more. And to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father.

                                        Conclusion                                             

There are several Christian themes that run all throughout Dickens story. There are strong references to the 3 Persons of The Blessed Trinity with the 3 Ghosts all throughout the story. The Ghost of Christmas Present in some ways strongly resembles Jesus Christ. Fan, Belle, and Janet display virtuous qualities, similar to The Blessed Virgin Mary as well as female saints. Bob Cratchit is a hardworking man who sacrifices much to provide a decent life for his family. He bears a resemblance to St. Joseph. Fred never gives up on his Uncle Scrooge and desires that they be a family. Tiny Tim embodies a very strong youthful innocence that gets to Scrooge, even before his complete conversion. Dickens uses his characters masterfully well with every stroke of his pen.           

          There are vices and virtues that run throughout Dickens story. Where we see greed, money, and power in Scrooge, we see that countered by kindness, innocence, and charity in characters such as Bob Cratchit, Tim Cratchit, and Fred.

          Perhaps the most endearing part of Dickens story is the overlying theme of redemption. Scrooge is visited by Jacob Marley, a man suffering the pains and torments of Purgatory. Jacob Marley warns Scrooge that if he does not change his ways, he will end up in an even worse state. Hell is strongly implied here.

He is further warned by the 3 Ghosts that he must amend his sinful ways before it is too late for him. He is slow to change. He does not want to hear what these Ghosts have to say to him. The Ghost of Christmas Past shows him painful scenes from his past. They stir up memories that he long hoped to forget. The Ghost of Christmas Present shows him how he currently is living and how his life’s actions are affecting all of those around him. Still, he refuses to complete the change that is needed. Finally, The Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come drives home the final part of Scrooge’s transformation from a life of greed to one of generosity, where he sees that in the end, he dies alone and no one cares that he is even dead. This Ghost who frightens him the most, pushes him over the edge to conversion.

In our own lives, we often fall prey to sin, including the 7 deadly sins of lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, anger, envy, and pride. Fortunately, there are virtues to help counteract these deadly sins. Lust is countered by chastity, gluttony by temperance, greed by charity, sloth by diligence, anger by patience, envy by kindness, and pride by humility. Our good Lord gives us chance after chance to make amends in our lives and to change our lives for good. Until we take our last breath, we always have a chance to achieve salvation if we only cooperate with God’s grace. It takes humility and love of God to want to change for the better. 

As Fr. Schouppe demonstrates in his books “Purgatory” and “Hell”, most souls do not make it to heaven when they die. Many will have to undergo a painful purgation in Purgatory; whereas, others will sadly be lost for all eternity in Hell. What a frightening thought! The Christmas season is one in which we reflect on all that God has done for us, most importantly, becoming one of us, so that we could be redeemed. Christ could have redeemed us in any way that He so chose, but He chose the best and most suitable way that He saw fit, entering into the world as a little baby, growing up, and finally dying for our sins on the cross. There is no greater love that what He demonstrated.  St. Anthony of Padua has a quote that is often referenced to him where he supposedly made reference to how only poverty was lacking in heaven. In order for Christ to truly be like us in all ways (except sin), He had to enter into this world and to embrace poverty.

Many saints have spoken on the Incarnation. St. John Vianney said, “Who could find it hard to persevere at the sight of a God who never commands us to do anything which he has not practiced himself?” St. Leo the Great remarked, “Invisible in his own nature he became visible in ours. Beyond our grasp, he chose to come within our grasp. Existing before time began, he began to exist at a moment in time. Incapable of suffering as God, he did not refuse to be a man, capable of suffering. Immortal, he chose to be subject to the laws of death.” St. Cyril of Alexandria said, “He undertook to help the descendants of Abraham, fashioning a body for himself from a woman and sharing our flesh and blood, to enable us to see in him not only God, but also, by reason of this union, a man like ourselves.”

The story “A Christmas Carol” is the story of a man’s redemption as God gives him a second chance. This is only possible because the Incarnation made this possible. We too all have a second chance, and indeed, many chances throughout our lives to make amends and to turn our lives around. We all struggle with vices and sins, the result of original sin. God’s grace is always there for the taking, if we just take advantage of it. He is always there to help us. No sin is greater than God’s love.

There have been many wonderful adaptations of Dickens “A Christmas Carol” that have been made throughout the years. The story has been told over and over and has gained new audiences over time. It has become a beloved classic in the hearts and minds of people around the globe.

As we celebrate this Christmas season, let us take time to seriously reflect on the Incarnation and what Our Lord has done for us. If we were the only person to have ever existed, He still would have been born as a baby in Bethlehem so that we could be redeemed one day by His blood on the cross. We are truly blessed and for this we should continuously show our gratitude and give thanksgiving to God for all that He has done for us and continues to do for us.

In the words of Tiny Tim, “God bless us, every one!”

A Very Merry Christmas to all!

Works Consulted

Dickens, Charles. A Christmas Carol: In Prose. Being a Ghost Story of Christmas. Chapman & Hall, 1843.

Schouppe S.J., Fr. F.X. Purgatory: Explained by the Lives and Legends of the Saints. Tan Books, 1926.

Schouppe S.J., Fr. F.X. The Dogma of Hell: Illustrated by Facts Taken From Profane and Sacred History. Tan Books, 1883. 

Scientific Confirmation Of Biblical Events

For Traditionalists, the miraculous events recorded in Scripture are true, proofs of the truth of the Catholic Faith, and are an effect wrought in nature by the direct intervention of God. There are those non-Christians, open to the claims of the Bible and the Church, but they seriously call into question the historicity of certain events/miracles. Finally, you have those unbelievers who use certain biblical accounts as "proof" that religion (in general) and the Bible (in particular) are "fairy tales" and openly mock said accounts incessantly. 

 One of the stories most ridiculed is that of Jonah. In the Old Testament, the Book of Jonah (chapters 1-4) tells us that Jonah was told by God to warn the people of Nineveh to turn from their evil ways. Jonah tried to flee from God in a ship. The prophet was thrown overboard where a big fish (sometimes called a whale) swallowed him. He remained alive inside the fish for three days, during which he prayed to God for deliverance. The fish vomits Jonah onto land, and he goes to Nineveh to preach, and the people repent. 

The Bible never expressly declares the story of Jonah to be miraculous, but people take it for such. A friend of mine recently pointed out to me some scientific literature which could be applied to Jonah and the big fish. To the consternation of non-believers, it actually makes an excellent case that, while directed by God, it may be scientifically possible to live inside a fish for three days.    

This post will demonstrate that what has been scoffed at for centuries actually has found scientific backing. That doesn't mean miracles aren't real or every event in the Bible can be explained scientifically, but rather that some events can be so explained and put the lie to the oft heard contention that science and the True Faith are incompatible. 

(N.B. The contents of this post were compiled from a multitude of sources both in print and online. I take no credit for any of it. All I did was condense the material into a terse and readable post.---Introibo). 

A Fishy Story?

For the atheist devoted to the belief that there is no God, one might search the depths of all the Earth’s oceans and find no empirical evidence of divine influence. Never mind that three-quarters of the global seafloor has not yet been mapped by high-resolution imaging technology. (See NOAA, “How Much of the Ocean Has Been Explored?,” oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/explored.html).  

The celebrity  atheist biologist Richard Dawkins pokes fun at the story of Jonah and other biblical miracles, calling them “nonsensical” or “just plain weird.” (See The God Delusion (2006), pg. 268). From the perspective of naturalism, which since Darwin has become the prevailing philosophy of science, the biblical text is implausible because it seems to defy what science teaches is possible. Naturalistic science supposedly has exposed the story of Jonah to the bright light of reason and rescued modern thought from "superstition and ignorance." 

New Testament scholar, textual critic, and Protestant turned atheist, Dr. Bart Ehrman, argues that Jonah is a story, not a biography.(See “The Bible’s Best Known Short Story: Jonah,” blog post, January 1, 2022, ehrmanblog.org/the-bibles-best-known-shortstory-jonah).  

Although not a biologist himself, Ehrman considers it self-evident that “back then…zoological knowledge was…undeveloped.”(See "The Bible’s Best Known Short Story: Jonah,” blog post, December 30, 2021, ehrmanblog.org/the-bibles-best-known-shortstory-jonah). Thus, the writer of Jonah simply did not know that whales’ mouths and bellies are just too small to accommodate a grown man, even if whales had been known to the pastoral people inhabiting the Ancient Near East.

The Catholic exegetes have always (rightly) considered the story of Jonah to be literal history and not some allegory told to convey a moral truth, as Modernists teach. Jesus Himself refers to Jonah having been “three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (St. Matthew 12:40). If Jesus were speaking allegorically, that would call into question His own historical death and bodily Resurrection, which He foreshadows by referring to Jonah. To call into doubt Our Lord's Resurrection is heretical. 

Science Sheds Some Light

Miracles are exceptions to common human experience and incompatible with what we understand about the world through science. Obviously, we do not see large fish (whales) going around swallowing swimmers, let alone those swimmers later emerging from their bellies to tell about it. We do not think of huge fish as inhabiting the waters of the Ancient Near East. On the face of it, it seems unreasonable to believe that an ancient writer on land would have specific knowledge about sea creatures, or that a man could fit inside the mouth of a fish, escape its teeth, breathe air, and survive its digestive secretions.  However, is what Jonah experienced (and non-believers mock) something that could also happen without miraculous intervention?  To the chagrin of Dawkins and company, the answer is YES.

1. What type of fish could Jonah have encountered?

The first question to address is what species of sea creature swallowed Jonah. In the Masoretic Text, the Hebrew phrase for the creature is dag gadol, meaning simply “big fish,” as it is rendered in all major English translations (Jonah 1:17). The Greek Septuagint also translates the Hebrew as “big fish.” Similarly, in the Greek New Testament, Jesus says that Jonah was in the belly of the "big fish." (St. Matthew 12:40), which can refer to any large sea creature. 

However, Jonah could have been swallowed by an actual whale. The most probable species encountered by Jonah was the fin whale. This is the second-largest whale species on the planet, measuring up to 22 meters in length and weighing 40–50 tons 

(See education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/big-fish-history-whaling)

It happens to be the most common whale to inhabit the Mediterranean Sea. (See “Are There Any Whales in the Mediterranean," musee.oceano.org/en/resources/are-there-any-whales-in-the-mediterranean).

Historical evidence shows that ancient mariners in the North Atlantic and North Pacific were familiar with whales, which were hunted as early as 4,000 years ago, although it is doubtful that Ancient Near Eastern seafarers would have had contact with North Atlantic mariners in pre-Roman times.(See op. cit.)

Significantly, Jonah writes that “The waters closed in over me” and “weeds were wrapped about my head” (Jonah 2:5), but he mentions no lacerations or bleeding, which would be consistent with entering the mouth of a fin whale, as it lacks teeth.

2. Is it really possible for a fin whale to swallow an adult human being?

Whereas skeptics assume that a man would not fit within the mouth or belly of a whale, field measurements indicate otherwise. The cross-sectional area of a fin whale’s mouth is determined by the dimensions of its skull and jaw which, when open, reaches 8 meters squared, which compares gapingly to the 2.2 meters squared of a standard residential door. (See Jeremy A. Goldbogen, Nicholas D. Pyenson, and Robert E. Shadwick, “Big Gulps Require High Drag for Fin Whale Lunge Feeding,” Marine Ecology Progress Series 349 (2007): 289–301, doi.org/10.3354/meps07066).

Further, the pleated walls of its buccal cavity are highly distensible, so that when the whale lunges to feed, it takes in an enormous volume of sea water. This lunge-feeding behavior was not well-studied until the 1980s. (See Jeremy A. Goldbogen, “The Ultimate Mouthful: Lunge Feeding in Rorqual Whales,” American Scientist 98, no. 2 (March–April 2010): 124–131, doi.org/10.1511/2010.83.124). 

3. How could a person survive three days with the digestive juices in the stomach and with no oxygen?

Jonah could not get through the fin whale's esophagus.  Jonah would have been confined in the whale’s voluminous oropharynx. The oropharynx is the middle part of the throat.  During feeding its distension enlarges the whale’s underside, corresponding to the biblical word “belly” (Jonah 1:17, 2:1–2). Therefore, there would be no digestive juices.

By far the greatest threat to Jonah’s life would have been an inadequate air supply to sustain him for three days and three nights and avoid asphyxiation. An air pocket might provide enough oxygen to sustain Jonah for a few hours, but the buildup of exhaled carbon dioxide would have overtaken him before he ran out of oxygen. Notably, as the fin whale is an aquatic mammal, it also requires air and surfaces every 5 to 15 minutes to take air in through its blowhole. (See  A. W. Vogl, H. Petersen, K. N. Gil, R. L. Cieri, and R. E. Shadwick, “The Soft Palate Enables Extreme Feeding and Explosive Breathing in the Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus),” Integrative Organismal Biology 6, no. 1 (July 9, 2024): obae026, doi.org/10.1093/iob/obae026). 

As fin whales’ observed feeding behavior can include skimming at the surface, intake of air along with water could have periodically refreshed Jonah’s air supply. (See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Fin Whale,” last modified November 22, 2024, fisheries.noaa.gov/species/fin-whale).

The fascinating case of  Harrison Okene is instructive as to survival in pockets of air. Okene was the lone survivor of a tugboat that encountered a rogue wave off the coast of Nigeria in 2013. He was locked in a tiny bathroom the morning the boat capsized. The boat then sank, upside down, landing 30 meters below the surface on the sea floor. Okene found himself trapped in the four-foot room, where for nearly three days he survived by breathing from a pocket of air. (See Paula Cocozza, “I Survived Three Days in a Capsized Boat on the Ocean Floor — Praying in My Air Bubble,” The Guardian, September 26, 2023, theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/sep/26/i-survived-three-days-in-a-capsized-boat-on-the-ocean-floor-praying-in-my-air-bubble; “Divers Find Man Alive in Sunken Tugboat,” Associated Press, December 3, 2013, youtu.be/ArWGILmKCqE). 

A diving medicine expert estimated that the 13.5 meters cubed volume of Okene’s air bubble would have allowed him about 56 hours of life. 

(See “The Science Behind Man Surviving Underwater for Three Days,” National Geographic, December 5, 2013, nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/131204-nigerian-air-bubble-survival-shipwreck-viral-video-science). 

Summary: It is possible for a man to live inside a whale for three days.

Conclusion

I am not claiming that the story of Jonah wasn't a miracle. This information merely demonstrates the ignorance of those who deride this Biblical story as "nonsensical," and "just plain weird."  Not all divinely ordained events that appear to us to be miracles require the suspension or violation of natural laws. Jonah's watery adventure can (possibly but improbably) occur outside the miraculous as well.

As Traditionalists we must affirm miracles:

From the Oath Against Modernism promulgated by Pope St. Pius X for all clerics on September 1, 1910:

Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. (Emphasis mine)

From the Vatican Council (1870):

If anyone shall say that miracles are impossible, and therefore that all the accounts regarding them, even those contained in Holy Scripture, are to be dismissed as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, and that the divine origin of Christianity cannot be proved by them; let him be anathema.

It's nice to know that a Biblical event skeptics have laughed at for years, can be vindicated by the very science they claim disproves God. "For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:22).