|
|
|
KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER
TOPICS:
FROM THE ANCIENT HERESIES DRAWER
CATHOLIC NUMBERS: UPS AND DOWNS
PLEASE READ WHAT I WROTE, NOT WHAT YOU IMAGINE I WROTE
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
I won't be around next week. I'll be on that backpacking trip I
mentioned a while ago: six days in the wilderness of Kings Canyon
National Park. We will be a group of twenty. Only Erik Gustafson,
engineer of our radio programs, will join me from the Catholic Answers
staff. The other 18 participants are strangers to one another and to
Erik and me, but they are all acquainted with Catholics Answers.
Later this week I'll compose the E-Letter that will be sent to you on
August 19, which will be the first day we'll be on the 42-mile trail.
Inasmuch as it's in the 90s here, I'm looking forward to the temperate
reaches of the High Sierra.
ODD LITTLE HERESIES
The original Age of Aquarius? Not quite, though the obscure sect's name
might suggest the connection. The Aquarii, who were mentioned by
Irenaeus and other early Christian writers, held that wine was not
proper matter for the Eucharist. Instead of wine they used water.
They bring to mind those Baptists who use grape juice instead of wine at
their Lord's Supper memorials, on the theory that the "fruit of the
vine" was nothing more than the juice of crushed grapes (an example of
retrojecting into Scripture and ancient history the Baptists' bias
against things alcoholic).
If you think the Aquarii were odd, consider the Artotyritae. What little
we know about them comes from Augustine, who remarked that their most
peculiar doctrine--their variant of the Eucharist--was a sacrament in
bread and cheese. That's right, cheese. (I wonder whether this sect had
its origins in Wisconsin?)
MORE AND MORE CATHOLICS
"L'Osservatore Romano," the Vatican newspaper, reports that worldwide
the number of Catholics increased by 40 percent between 1978 and 2001.
That sounds impressive, but the population of the world increased by 46
percent, which means we are falling behind.
Europe was worst off, with Catholics increasing by only 5 percent.
Africa, with an increase of 148 percent, was best off. The Americas
(North and South America not being segregated in the enumeration) had a
more or less average increase: 44 percent.
What about priests? The worldwide total fell by 4 percent. The Americas
had virtually zero change, while the number of European priests fell by
17 percent. Again Africa was in the lead, with an increase of 65
percent, closely followed by Asia's 60 percent.
Percentages often are less meaningful than raw numbers. After all, an
increase from 1 to 3 is a 200 percent increase, but 3 is still a small
number. African priests totaled 28,000 in 2001, after that 65 percent
increase. After a 17 percent decline, European priests numbered 207,000.
(Imagine if the number of European priests increased by 65 percent!)
Another view: In 1978 European priests accounted for 60 percent of all
priests. By 2001 they accounted for only 50 percent. No doubt their
relative share will continue to decline.
Women religious were an even less happy story. Worldwide numbers fell by
20 percent. They were down by 34 percent in Europe and 23 percent in the
Americas. Africa and Asia again had the best percentage increases: 49
and 54 percent respectively. As with the priests, the percentages can be
misleading, since most women religious (74 percent) are in Europe or the
Americas.
Lastly, seminarian numbers are up universally: 28 percent worldwide, 31
percent in the Americas (no doubt mainly Latin America), as much as 75
percent in Africa. There are now 106 seminarians per one million
Catholics. A quarter of a century ago there were 84. This is a very good
sign.
GRAND CANYON FRUSTRATION
The July-August issue of "This Rock" included an article by me about a
solo hike I made in March along the Grand Canyon's South Bass trail. On
the seven-mile trail I descended 4,600 feet, ending on the banks of the
Colorado River.
During that long hike I had plenty of time to contemplate the immensity
of what surrounded me. I explained why it must have taken a long time
indeed for the rock to have been worn from a flat plain into the
gigantic, dendritic gorge that millions of visitors look out on each
year (and that tens of thousands descend into each year).
In the article I noted in passing that "there is ample justification to
doubt the factuality of Darwinism," but my theme was not Darwinism. It
was the age of the Grand Canyon, which I used to discuss an error taken
up by some Catholics.
They have adopted a theory popularized by Fundamentalist writers. Called
the "young earth" theory, it posits that the earth is as young as 6,000
years. Promoters of the theory think that if one allows for a much older
earth, evolution necessarily follows. They argue that evolution did not
occur, so the earth must be young.
This is poor logic. Evolution, as it commonly is presented, cannot have
occurred if the earth is as young as 6,000 years, since there would not
have been enough time for slow, incremental biological changes to
accumulate. That's clear. But the falsity of evolution would not
necessarily imply a young earth. The earth could be fantastically old,
and evolution still could be a chimera.
As I said in the article, "If evolution could not have occurred over the
last 6,000 years, is there some dynamic that insists it likely would
have occurred if the time in question were 60,000 years or six million
years or six billion years? Where is the dividing line? Even if one
works from the position that evolution is a false theory, there is no
evident reason to plump for the young earth hypothesis. One does not
need to posit a young earth to argue against evolution."
This logic seems simple and unremarkable to me, but some readers of the
article threw up their hands and declared that Keating has sided with
atheists and secularists and has gone over into the evolutionist camp.
What I want to know is: Why can't these people comprehend plain English?
One man who contacted me by e-mail went on at length about how much time
it would (or would not) have taken to deposit the many strata that make
up the Grand Canyon. His theory is that the strata were deposited in a
remarkably short time. Even if true, that was immaterial to my argument,
which was about how quickly the strata were worn away.
I made no mention of how the strata got there or over what length of
time. In his complaint, he made no mention about how the strata were
eroded. I wrote only about A, but he complained only about B. It made
for a frustrating exchange.
This same man complained about Jimmy Akin's January "This Rock" article
on Genesis 1-3, saying that Jimmy has "embrace[d] higher biblical
criticism of the most modernist variety."
Excuse me? I reread Jimmy's piece and found it clearly written and
correct in its explanation of what the Church teaches regarding the
opening chapters of the Bible. There was no hint of "higher biblical
criticism" and certainly no modernist tendency. But you're a modernist
if you don't agree with certain Catholics who take a good chunk of their
scriptural exegesis from Fundamentalists rather than from the Church.
I'll let Jimmy fight his own fight. He doesn't need an assist from me,
but he has my sympathy, as I no doubt have his. It's ironic, I suppose,
that he and I write and speak regularly against Fundamentalist errors
and get little flak from Fundamentalists, but we get lots of flak from
Catholics whose thinking is an admixture of Catholicism and
Fundamentalism. Go figure.
|
|
|
[TOP]
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
of
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up