Richard
Dawkins is desperately excited to have discovered some poll saying that many
Catholics in wherever do not believe in transubstantiation. Well, if such
things were ever taught in Catholic schools, then they might.
And
anyway, so what? What matters is that the Church teaches it. Catholics who
dissent from the Teaching of the Church are just wrong, objectively speaking.
That is all that there is to it. Only the Catholic Church provides such
objectivity, which is perfectly encapsulated in transubstantiation.
It was
only from Christianity in general, and from Catholicism in particular, that
science acquired the idea that some propositions were just plain true, so that
others were just plain false. And it was only from Christianity in general, and
from Catholicism in particular, that science acquired the idea that the idea
that there was an investigable order in the universe; even if that order is a
law of chaos, then the point still stands.
Faced
with a changed intellectual environment which denies those foundations rather
than simply presupposing them, science must return to the system that first
asserted them in the midst of a former such environment. That system is
Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular.
Thus, for
example, while and by affirming the objective existence of the substance distinct from
the accidents, transubstantiation also affirms the objective existence of the
accidents, which are the objects of scientific investigation.
Transubstantiation is the bulwark against the Postmodern assault on science.
Nothing else is.
I should
love to know what atheist philosophers such as A C Grayling really thought of
Richard Dawkins. The amount of time that they must have to spend undoing the
damage that he has done to the minds of those who arrive as their
undergraduates.
Well, if such things were ever taught in Catholic schools, then they might.
ReplyDeleteThe ultimate blame must be with the parents. It seems a reliable standby among Catholics to blame schools.
Why not say Catholic parents who raise their children into adulthood without explaining transubstantiation to them are at fault?
By they sent them to Catholic schools. Where they ought to have been taught these things by professionals. The duty to provide teaching is not necessarily, or even ordinarily, the duty to do the teaching itself, which would be far beyond the capability of most people. That is why the Catholic schools were set up.
ReplyDeleteIf Catholic parents are doing their job properly they will be taking their children to witness the transubstantiation on a weekly basis. This will afford them plenty of opportunity to explain the point of what they are witnessing. If the parents can't be bothered to bring their children to church then you can hardly blame school for failing to communicate the importance of transubstantiation, as the parents have implicitly explained that it isn't anything worth getting out of bed on a Sunday for.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the majority of Catholics throughout the 2000 year history of the Church managed to teach & be taught the faith without attending formal education. So ultimately, the fault is with the parents if their children don't understand the faith today.
In that case, we might as well abolish Catholic schools altogether. Is that what you want?
ReplyDeleteThe parents have a duty to see to it that their children are instructed in the Faith, instruction that has never, ever consisted solely in Mass attendance, although of course that has always been at the heart of it. (In point of fact, most Catholics through the ages have certainly not done without formal education.)
In addition, then, though taking up the great bulk of the time involved, the Church provides for parents to meet that responsibility by sending their children to Catholic schools, where, as ought also to happen in church, doctrine ought to be systematically presented so that each might understand according to the extent to which such understanding is his particular blessing.
When have most parents ever been able to tell their children what transubstantiation was, in the precise terms in which the dogma is defined, the only terms that make the slightest sense of it for anyone not content to leave it to a certain sense of mystery, an option which the Church does not permit in this case for those capable of a fuller understanding with the mind as well as with the heart? That is what primarily in principle priests, but primarily in practice teachers in Catholic schools, are for.
The parents ought to be leading decent Catholic lives & they should have plenty of time outside of school with their children to teach them a subject that is at the heart of the faith. By all means have Catholic schools, by all means teach the faith at those schools, but if a Catholic family produces an 18 year-old who is ignorant of the faith then the buck stops with the parents.
ReplyDeleteThey ought to be paying sufficient attention to their own childrens' development to be ensuring that any gaps in their children's spiritual lives are being addressed. All the Catholic parents at any school where teaching is lagging ought to be in the school bashing heads together because the spiritual welfare of their own children is on the line. I am not of the view that parents can send their children to a Catholic school & say that they have therefore discharged their responsibilities in that area.
Great post, Mr. Lindsay. I would be willing to bet that many of the folks who want to blame the parents first and foremost would end up complaining that the parents are producing heretics when they subsequently fail to present doctrine correctly, which is bound to happen given the reality that most Catholics, even devout ones, are not trained to teach theological doctrine.
ReplyDeleteThis, among other things, is why I am skeptical about the utility of homeschooling even though it is becoming quite popular, especially among Catholics. It might work well for some, but not for others.