Tag Archives: theology

Life, Death, and God’s Sovereignty

Theomorph, our resident atheist, has asked an astute question in a comment to yesterday’s post about Terri Schiavo.

"If suicide or murder are wrong because they contravene God’s alleged desires for the course of a life, how can you not apply the same reasoning to technological attempts to extend a life in the face of otherwise insurmountable difficulties? I.e., if a person would die without medical intervention, how is medical intervention also not a contravention of God’s apparent desires? If "rights come from God and God alone," then the right to live also comes from God and God alone, does it not? How does one ascertain when God has removed that right, beyond which point all human efforts to maintain life are in opposition to the will or desire of God?"

How do we reconcile God’s sovereignty with modern medicine? Are those who renounce medical and pharmaceutical technology in favor of healing by prayer actually right? How do we decide the will of God? When do life-saving techniques stop being appropriate efforts and start being contrary to God’s wishes?

What say you, Christian readers of my blog?

The Purpose Driven Catholic?

Does anyone know of any reviews of The
Purpose Driven Life
from a Catholic perspective? I haven’t read it,
but I know millions of people have. I tend to be skeptical of anything
that popular. That’s not to say I never jump on any bandwagons, but I
like to check things out first. Also, I’ve heard some folks dismuss it
as “fluff” and others denounce it as heterodox.

I anxiously await your responses. 🙂

Science and Christianity Showcase

Allthings2all is hosting the Science and Christianity Showcase. It’s a clearinghouse for

posts by Christians addressing the general theme of scientific reason as it relates to Christian faith. I

submitted Jerry Nora’s

primer on stem cells. The posts are diverse and many topics are covered. There is one topic, however,

which was forbidden: creationism vs. evolution. I was glad to hear of the topic’s exclusion since I see it as

a red herring and an albatross to the Body of Christ.

Since we’re on the topic of science and Christianity, here are some relevant articles.

Scientist With “Religious

Vision” Wins Templeton Prize

NEW YORK, MARCH 13, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Charles Townes, whose inventions include the maser and laser, and who

has spent decades as an advocate for the convergence of science and religion, has won the 2005 Templeton

Prize.

A life where science and faith

coexist
By Robert Tuttle | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor

NEW YORK ? When Nobel Prize-winning physicist Charles Hard Townes was a professor at Columbia University

during the 1950s, a colleague, Willis Lamb, asked him if God ever helps him in the lab. Dr. Townes gave the

question some thought. “Well,” he recalls telling Lamb. “I think so.”

Faith and Reason Aid Each Other, Says John

Paul II

VATICAN CITY, JAN. 13, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Faith and reason are necessary and complementary in the quest for

wisdom, John Paul II explained when receiving a delegation from a Polish university.

Psychology That Is True to Science, True to

God
Gladys Sweeney on What Therapy Can Do for Troubled Believers

WASHINGTON, D.C., JAN. 13, 2005 (Zenit.org).- A psychology rooted in the Catholic understanding of the human

person is not only true to science, but true to God.

Religion or Science?

The two laws at work under which we are limited and from which we seek answers to life’s questions are religion and science. Our conscience introduces us to the first, formal education introduces the second. Albert Einstein loved science, yet expressed humility upon finding himself buried beneath seas of data pointing to the existence of a mind behind the numbers. If he didn’t deny God, why should we?

Million Dollar Baby, Part II: Mo’ “Mo Cuishla”

Since my first post regarding Million Dollar Baby ("MDB"), I’ve had some discussions with Funky Dung and have seen some feedback from other bloggers. I’d like to add a few more points. I’d like to discuss this movie in the context of Eastwood’s other two biggest movies, Unforgiven and Mystic River, and talk about how I’d like to see pro-life and disability-rights advocates use this movie.

First, Eastwood’s best movies tend to focus on the themes of decay, death, and sin. Clint’s two other most critically-acclaimed films have been the Western "Unforgiven" and the crime drama "Mystic River". In Unforgiven, Clint plays Ed Munnie,a notorious hired killer who cleans up after marrying and becomes a farmer. Munnie, however, is no spring chicken (like Clint himself), and decides to go after two men who have a price on their heads for cutting up a prostitute rather than eke out a precarious existence as a hog farmer with two young kids.

Munnie, however, is driven to drinking by the violence, apparently as some sort of self-medication. A young sidekick, despite his big mouth, turns out to be severely traumatized when he does kill a man. Morgan Freeman, playing another aging gun-for-hire, is killed. In Mystic River, an ex-con played by Sean Penn commits murder in the name of avenging his slain daughter, and as a result falls completely back into a life of crime. In the light of these movies, I think that we see a similar fall from grace, rather than an approval of what the characters did.

Diane Eastman wrote a piercing assessment of the movie as seen by a handicapped disabilities advocate. I have great respect for Attorney Eastman’s group, Not Dead Yet, and favorably reviewed a book to which she contributed,The Case Against Assisted Suicide. However, in the light of Eastwood’s common themes and my own take on the movies’ characters (see my last post), While I find her reservations quite understandable, I do not think that is what Eastwood intended. In fact, Funky Dung pointed me to an interview with Eastwood where he openly says that the priest in MDB spoke the truth when he said that if Eastwood helped kill her, he would loose something of himself forever.

I wish to now discuss how I would have wanted the pro-life movement to address this movie. First off: have you heard of or seen "Vera Drake" or "The Sea Within"? No? Well, "Vera Drake" canonizes an English abortionist, and "The Sea Within" is about a Spanish man’s crusade for the right to die. These movies are openly for abortion or euthanasia. Yet if we gave those openly anti-life movies half the flak we gave MDB, we’d give them plenty of notoriety and free PR. Ask Michael Moore or Mel Gibson about the virtues of notoriety, if they aren’t still busy counting their box office fortunes. Perhaps it is largely due to the McCarthy era, but Americans often romanticize artists who struggle against political opposition, and when we have diatribes against a movie made by powerful figures like the Archbishop of Denver (a man whom I quite admire), pro-lifers stand to shoot themselves in the foot by creating artistic martyrs, something that the press frequently adores. (Especially if said martyr advocates a liberal cause.)

We should address the movie in a constructive manner. As dlw noted in a comment on this blog’s previous post, the priest was not a model of pastoral care. He got angry, even swore, and didn’t do a hot job of helping Eastwood resist Swank’s plea to help her die. However, these imperfections are natural, especially since Eastwood’s character was a very difficult parishioner–I’m not sure how well I’d do in such a situation.

Therefore, what we should do is turn this movie into a teaching device. Get some people on EWTN or Priests for Life to go over the priests’ scenes and teach pastors or counselors how they can do better. Publish fact sheets on psychiatric help for newly-quadriplegic patients. We have a large array of resources and counseling for the disabled–let’s use this movie to get the word out!

Some of the most valuable lessons I received from my parents were when after I had seen things that upset me–like watching a cat kill a small animal–and they would explain how such things work in nature or how good people should handle such disturbing things. MDB, like good art, held a mirror up to our existence and reminded the public of some of the ugly things that can happen to people. Pro-lifers, church leaders and others who hold teaching ministries should take a page from mine (and others’) parents and use it to help us learn, and not to shoot the messenger.

In Defense of Million Dollar Baby

[I haven't seen Million Dollar Baby. The venom it generated from Christian critics has thus far been enough to keep me from forking over $8. A good friend of mine and occasional guest blogger, Jerry Nora, recently saw it and came away with a much different impression than the vast majority of those critics it seems. Jerry is a faithful, orthodox, and well-read Catholic. He's also a MD/PhD student who has a knack for bioethics. I don't take his opinions on such matters lightly. I give you his defense of Million Dollar Baby for your consideration. When preparing to comment, bear in mind that he gave up reading blogs for Lent and won't be able to respond in a timely fashion. If you'd like to respond directly to him, email him. – Funky]

Millon Dollar Baby did a solid job of sweeping up the Oscars last night, including Best Picture and Director, and all over the objections of many within pro-life life and conservative Christian circles for evidently being in favor of euthanasia or assisted suicide. Those objections nearly made me avoid the film, but I saw it last week, and was glad I made that decision. My conscience is clear because while suicide is in the movie, the movie does not glorify or abet suicide. The film is a modern-day tragedy, and it does not offer an easy out or proverbial "Hollywood Ending", which is why I think so many people misinterpreted it. Here is my brief take on the film.

Continue reading