We Go Together (Like Rama Lama Lama)

Man and woman were made "for each other" - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be "helpmate" to the other, for they are equal as persons ("bone of my bones. . .") and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming "one flesh", they can transmit human life: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth." By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator's work. (CCC 372)

The key word in this Catechism reference is that man and woman are complimentary. The Catechism states in paragraph 370 that God is neither male or female. Considering that both sexes are "created in His image," I wonder if the true essence of God is not best seen when man and woman join together in marriage and become one flesh? Only at that point do we as created get to work with God to create.

Any intelligent life form, God-faring or not, can see that man and woman are designed to fit together. Without making this a class on sexuality, it should be obvious to anyone that our body design does not support the concept of same sex unions. The Church in its wisdom pointed out that the advent of birth control and abortion would spell the doom of modern society. Once you take away the procreative aspect of our sexuality, you lose appreciation for the sanctity of marriage. By putting our own selfish pleasures above all of God's creation we downplay the significance of God.

It is therefore critical, as people of faith, that we recognize the dignity of both male and female while also recognizing that we each have unique strengths that were designed to be used together in complimentary fashion. While it may be true that a woman is capable of fixing her own carburetor and a man is perfectly able to iron his own clothes, we should never downplay the fact that we are not asexual creatures. Only in recognizing the uniqueness of our sex can we hope to fulfill God's plan in our life.

Origin of Life Worth the Wait

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give Him thanks for all His works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is He who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements ... for Wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me." (CCC 283)

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). The first verse in Scripture is the whole of what we as Catholics must believe. As long as we recognize that God was the beginning and the end of all things (and that man alone has an eternal soul), the details in between those bookends is left up to ourselves.

To believe in anything contrary to pure Creationism flies in the face of many Christian evangelicals. But I do not believe (nor does the Catholic Church require me to) that the early chapters of Genesis were ever intended to be taken literally. Instead, I think it is much more likely that the Bible's explanation for the origins of the universe were being explained to man at a time when their minds could not possibly have grasped the truths we now take for granted today. Their scientists (or "magi" on this day after the Feast of the Epiphany) could not have had the technical aptitude to understand the difference between a star, a planet or some other heavenly body (and apparently we still can't today) so the origins would have to have been explained in such a way as they could make sense of it.

My personal belief is that of intelligent design, in which evolution may have played a part in the scientific sense, but that God guided the process of cosmic jelly to human being. To deny plausible scientific evidence that certain creatures evolved from other creatures is akin to claiming that the universe is not heliocentric despite concrete proof of modern science.

I was surprised to learn that it was initially the Protestants, not the Catholics, who were opposed to the belief that the sun was the center of our galaxy. Both groups however based their ignorance on sacred Scripture, citing that to believe in other than a geocentric universe was to deny the literal interpretation of the Bible, most notably that the "earth is firm in its foundation and can not be moved" (Psalms 93:1, Psalms 96:10, 1 Chronicles 16:30). The Church did denounce Galileo of heresy for promoting Copernicus' findings, and did not admit to her error officially until 1757 due to findings by Isaac Newton.

I, for one, can appreciate the Church's stance on taking time to accept new information quickly. The same Church that took almost 200 years to recognize the sun as center of our galaxy, also applies that same slow, methodical approach to her recognition of saints and her acceptance of apparitions, which I (admittedly) am skeptical of. As a wise ent, Treebeard, once said in the Lord of the Rings, "It takes a long time to say anything ..., and we never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say."

I'd rather take a long time to ensure something is correct before I accept it than to readily accept every claim I hear as truth only to find out later that I had been deceived. Thank God for a slow and thorough universal Church that does not give in so easily to the changes of a liberal society!