Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Saturday, September 26, 2015
The Milgram Experiment & Its Implications to Sin


Background: For those unfamiliar with the Milgram Experiment, please watch the above video.  This experiment has been repeated many times since it was first performed over 40 years ago and the results are consistent each time it is performed. 

Implications to a Catholics: What insights can be gleaned from the Milgram experiment to understand why so many in our society contravene the laws of God and "go along" with the status quo of abortion on demand, contraception, death, and the violation of the laws of God and His established Church?

As seen in the Milgram experiment, there is a tendency to support unjust and evil actions and laws by the mere presence of a government "hovering over" us.  In the Milgram experiment, many of the participants wished to stop administering painful and ultimately legal electrical shocks to the test subject; however, the presence of the scientist in the room propelled them on.  So too do we see many in our world going along with abortion, the violation of the holiness of Sunday by shopping on it, the use of the Lord's name in vain, and so many other evils. 

Likewise, if the patient was in the room for the Milgram experiment and the one pulling the level could see the pain inflicted, researches believe far fewer individuals would go all the way and administer lethal electrical shock to the participant.  Planned Parenthood and the liberal agenda similarly remove us from the evils of abortion by calling it "reproductive rights," "women's choice," and the like.  There is no mention of the murder of a human life - in this way, we see great benefit from organizations that work to expose the evil that abortion is and how grotesque the procedure is. 

But for all sins, if we saw the pain it caused our Divine Savior and the way it marred our soul, so few of us would have the audacity to betray the simple commands of such a loving God.  By desensitizing the participants in the Milgram experiment and by doing likewise in our world, we see a proliferation of sin and a loss of true morality.

Two powerful take aways come for a Catholic from the Milgram Experiment.  First, we feel forced to go along with sin and injustice when it is the "law" or even "the status quo."  Second, we are desensitized to the evils of sin and grow accustomed to such heinous sins as abortion because we do not see its full effects.



The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa reminds us that an unjust law is no law at all - in fact, obeying such a "law" is a sin against God.  Such a statement was previously said by St. Augustine and other true philosophers. 

We must pray for the courage to at times stand up and declare the Truth, leading by our example, to increase in virtue and avoid sin.  And if we should suffer rebuke, ridicule, or even martyrdom at the extreme, let us have the courage to do what the Faith and the virtues of religion and of justice demand of us.

May God have mercy on our fallen world!

Read more >>
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
The Irony of Kim Davis & The Indissolubility of Marriage


The media has widely made known the case of Kim Davis, the County Clerk from Kentucky, who has opposed the legislation of "gay marriage" in the United States by refusing to issue marriage certificates to homosexuals under her authority.  Kim has repeatedly stated that to do so is in violation of her conscience and an offense against God.

But is Kim Davis someone worth imitating?  Is Kim right about marriage in the fullest of the sense?  Is Kim another St. Thomas More?

Firstly, it's worth repeating: Human Law is subordinate to Divine Law and Natural Law.

What is Natural Law?  
NATURAL law is that objective, eternal and immutable hierarchy of moral values, which are sources of obligation with regard to man because they have been so ordained by the Creator of nature. This law conforms to the essence of human nature which He has created. It is that aspect of the eternal law which directs the actions of men.' Although this law is divine in the sense that it does not depend on human will, nevertheless, it is distinguishable from divine positive law, which has been communicated directly from God to men through revelation, for natural law is discoverable by reason alone." Natural law has been promulgated in the intellect. At least as regards its more fundamental principles it is knowable proximately through the conscience

Source: The Natural Law, the Marriage bond, and Divorce by Brendan F. Brown, 1955, in Fordham Law Review
Natural law and its role is the pivotal issue underlying Kim's actions.  Despite his unjust conclusion, US District Judge David Bunning correctly saw natural law as the foundation of the issue when he said, “The idea of natural law superceding [sic] this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed."

But that is precisely the error!  The natural law does supercede mere human legal constructs.  The Natural Law is superior to the Constitution of the United States!  Sooner should the masonic inspired Constitution be undone than the natural law - and the Divine Law - be unjustly subjected to inferior laws made by fallible men.  Human laws error - divine laws are without error.  It should be common sense for us - men error and thus make imperfect laws.  God however is perfect and His laws are universally true for all peoples at all times.  No government on earth has lived forever and no earthly government will last forever.  The time will come for all governments to fail as ancient Rome fell and with it, earthly laws are shown to be fallible and short-lived. 

Pope Leo XIII affirmed this blatantly in Rerun Novarum: "No human law can abolish the natural and original right of marriage, nor in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage ordained by God's authority from the beginning: 'Increase and multiply.'"

Should someone who claims to be Catholic actually claim that human law supercedes natural law, that person would become a heretic outside of the Ark of Salvation and an enemy of God.
"Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence."  -- St Thomas Aquinas
Kim Davis is right to resist this unjust law as it distorts the Truth by affirming that which is contrary to the natural law.


But is Kim Davis a true example of Catholic marriage?  Far from it!

“What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Mt 19:6)

Kim Davis may have rejected homosexual "marriage," but she has fallen into the protestant heresy of accepting divorce. 
There are numerous amounts of people out there that are not married, in the true meaning of Holy Matrimony. This women possessed an Protestant idea of marriage. She herself has been "married" 4 times. If she is going to deny marriage contracts to homosexuals than she should also do the same for the divorced and remarried. Otherwise she becomes no more than a tyrant.  Source: Landon Chancey, Catholic Facebook User
In truth, many people in our society that the government identifies as married are in fact not married at all.  Divorce itself does not exist.  Our Blessed Lord forbid divorce completely.  Those who are legitimately married can never put aside their spouse for another one.  We have the example of Kim Davis and others who support the notion of divorce. 

Those who have entered into civilly accepted "marriages" including gay "marriage" and multiple marriages following divorces attack the truths of the Catholic Faith.

In the 1600s, our Blessed Mother appeared in South America under the title "Our Lady of Good Success," and the Church has fully approved the validly of these apparitions.  Our Lady of Good Success said back in the early 1600's that in our times: "The spirit of impurity will saturate the atmosphere . Like a filthy ocean, it will run through the streets, squares and public places with an astonishing liberty..."

She also said that the Sacrament of Matrimony, which symbolizes the union of Christ with His Church, will be "attacked and profaned in the fullest sense of the word." Iniquitous laws will work at doing away with this Sacrament, making it easy for everyone to live in sin, encouraging the procreation of illegitimate children born without the blessing of the Church.

These prophecies have been fulfilled. We are now reaping the rotten fruits. Man is so blinded by sin that he can no longer understand the Natural Law. Let us remain faithful to God's unchanging Laws, and we will understand and embrace Marriage as God has created it.

Rather that honoring Kim Davis, let us seek to defend marriage in the fullest sense against all attacks.  Let us pray not only for her to remain steadfast in her conviction against gay marriage, but also let us pray for her conversion to the True Faith and the acceptance of the truths of marriage and the impossibility of divorce. Marriage is indissoluble and whether the assaults on it are from atheistic liberals or protestants, we as Catholics must remain on the narrow road of Truth and defend that which Christ taught.
Read more >>
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Book Review: After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre


About a month ago, I started to read "After Virtue" by Alasdair MacIntyre.  Even after just the first chapter, I was quite immediately impressed by his imaginary world where science had been previously abandoned and its resurrected form was only a compartmentalized, poor reproduction of that which existed before.  It seemed to me that this is the way that Catholicism is.  The Church was struck down in Vatican II and now we see emerging in a slightly more mainstream way the forms of prior Catholicism, namely the Traditional Mass.  Yet, do you not also see in so called "Traditional Catholics" how they want a return to the Mass of All Times for merely nostalgic or aesthic reasons?  These Catholics are taking the Faith and stripping it of its social and moral implications that must be present in an authentic Catholic culture.

Indeed, I just read from part of the Roman Forum website today the following piece that is along the same line of reasoning: “For forty years, the Mass has been at the heart of the Traditional movement. This is because the Mass is a necessary but not sufficient condition to the restoration of Christendom. Without the Mass, any restoration of politics, education, culture, etc. will not endure. Nothing we do can survive without the Mass. Yet, there is more than the Mass that is necessary for a reestablishment of Christendom…”

I am a strong proponent for Catholics reading philosophical texts from time to time in order to more clearly see the world outside of our modern window.  We must see the world as a whole.  MacIntryre does a brilliant job presenting the world from a philosophical view.

At the very core of MacIntyre's book is the notion that the Enlightenment project of justifying the existence of morality outside of a teleological context (whether that be for the end of justice, for the end of observing God's revealed Law, etc) has failed.  His brilliant examples will allow all readers to see the errors of the Enlightenment.  The manner in which the book was written may even lead to the conversion of current Enlightenment proponents!

Just to share some of his reasoning (and style), here is a section from the text on MacIntyre's attack on the existence of "human rights."  In short, he does not believe any such rights existence for the mere fact that we are "humans" and he attacks that any such rights can truly be "self evident":
[T]he truth is plain: there are no such rights, [i.e., human rights, natural rights, rights of man,] and belief in them is one with belief in witches and in unicorns. The best reason for asserting so bluntly that there are no such rights is indeed of precisely the same type as the best reason which we possess for asserting that there are no witches and the best reason which we possess for asserting that there are no unicorns: every attempt to give good reasons for believing that there are such rights has failed. (p. 69)
I highly recommend this text for those of you wishing to read a work that is a bit more philosophical as opposed to purely theological or devotional.

Read more >>
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Euclid: Father of Catholic Mathematics



If any of you are homeschoolers, you may be familiar with Khan Academy, a website in which high quality and free video content from a wide variety of subjects (earth sciences, mathematics, physics, business taxation, art, etc) is distributed.  In the above video from the Khan Academy, you can listen to a basic overview of Euclid, the Father of Geometry.

Yet, I suggest that Euclid, who lived nearly 300 years before the advent of Christ, is to be considered the Father of Catholic Mathematics.

Some anti-Catholics may think that I am choosing a pagan mathematician to be the "Father of Catholic Mathematics" because there simply are no successful Catholic mathematicians. After all, don't all Catholics reject science and empirical study in order to blindly follow the teachings of the Pope and factual inaccuracies (e.g. orbit of the Earth)? To this group of depressed and ill-informed individuals, I'd like to direct you to "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization," in which Dr. Woods expounds upon the varied, significant, and priceless contributions of Catholics to mathematics, science, industrial production, art, charity, and a whole host of other worthy endeavors.

My choosing of Euclid to be the Father of Catholic Mathematics, albeit an informal title, is not in the least because there are few Catholic mathematicians. I believe that Euclid is the true precursor to the Catholic mathematician.

Euclid's systemic demonstrations of geometry - including planar geometry, three-dimensional geometry, and number theory - expressed in his Elements is one of the greatest collection of mathematics (if not the greatest) ever produced. By some estimates, Euclid's Elements is second only to the Sacred Scriptures as the most printed book in human history.

Lincoln himself toward the end of the video at the beginning of this post expressed his admiration for Euclid. In fact, it was held, up until the modern era, that a man was not educated if he had not read, studied, and memorized some of the proofs of Euclid!

But what is it that makes Euclid the "Father of Catholic Mathematics"?  It is a two-fold comparison that I would like to illustrate.  First, I wish to illustrate that the very foundations of Euclidean geometry parallel the foundations for Catholic theology. 

Now you might be surprised by this assertion.  After all, how does geometry compare to Theology?  Well, let's take a step back.  What is the underpinning of Theology?  Well for anyone that has studied it, we would recognize Philosophy as the underpinning of Theology.  One does not study Theology without first studying Philosophy. 

Axioms & First Principles

But how is geometry and philosophy both connected?  Euclidean geometry consists in assuming a small set of intuitively appealing axioms, and deducing many other propositions (theorems) from these.  In Euclid's method, the most basic of axioms include:
  1. Things that are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another.
  2. If equals are added to equals, then the wholes are equal.
  3. If equals are subtracted from equals, then the remainders are equal.
  4. Things that coincide with one another equal one another.
  5. The whole is greater than the part.
In a similar manner, philosophy is based upon "first principles."  What are "first principles"?   According to Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, first principles are "one of the fundamental assumptions on which a particular theory or procedure is thought to be based, also called axioms".

Both in Euclidean geometry and philosophy are based on the notion of using a small set of axioms to come to knowledge of a larger body of knowledge!  In philosophy, we have the following axioms as first principles:
  • The principle of noncontradiction: the same thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. The same proposition cannot be both true and false.
  • The principle of excluded middle: Either a thing is or it is not, there is no third possibility. (Tertium non datur: a third is not provided.)
  • The principle of the reason of being (the principle of intelligibility): being is intelligible to the human intellect and as an object of intellection it can be explained ontically only through being, and so it cannot be identified with non-being. Every being has a reason of its existence either in itself or in something else.
  • The principle of finality: Every agent acts for an end.
  • The principle of causality: Every effect has a cause.
  • The principle of identity: Every being is that which it is. Each being is separated in its existence from other beings.
Both Euclid and St. Thomas can be said to use the same thought process in their respective disciplines to come to greater knowledge.  Yet, while this is certainly interesting, is it possible to observe Euclidean geometry actually affecting Catholic practices and thought, rather than merely sharing a common method?  Absolutely, and to that we now turn.

Euclidean Geometry in Cathedrals

Hugh McCague of York University in "A Mathematical Look at a Medieval Cathedral" explains the importance of geometry in the building of Cathedrals.  Rather than simply re-writing what has already been written, I'd like to direct you to that link.  In the article, you will note that Euclid's Elements is cited as the important precursor to the practical geometry that was of central importance in the building of some of the greatest Cathedrals ever made for the honor of God.

Simply put, every Catholic, whether he is a mathematician, artist, architect, student, or average layperson should be familiar with the works of Euclid.  Euclid's theories truly impacted the construction of Catholic architecture for centuries.

Conclusion

The website Much More About Math (Editor Note: website no longer exists) does a good job at summarizing the importance of Euclidean geometry:
Geometry holds great importance in the forever-expanding world of mathematics. It enables us to picture what is happening in problems we may encounter in the study of mathematics. The study of geometry helps us develop the ability to visualize shapes, volume, area, and so on. Geometric proofs play an important role in the expansion and understanding of many branches of mathematics, from Venn diagrams in set theory to area under the graph in calculus.

One must realize that probably the most important reason a mathematician and/or non-mathematician should understand geometry is the use of deductive thinking and logic. For the mathematician, the use of logic and deductive thinking is important especially in such courses as finite mathematics. For the non-mathematician, logic and deductive reasoning could play a role in doing such courses as Philosophy.

Geometry holds great importance in the forever-expanding world of mathematics. It enables us to picture what is happening in problems we may encounter in the study of mathematics. The study of geometry helps us develop the ability to visualize shapes, volume, area, and so on. Geometric proofs play an important role in the expansion and understanding of many branches of mathematics, from Venn diagrams in set theory to area under the graph in calculus.

One must realize that probably the most important reason a mathematician and/or non-mathematician should understand geometry is the use of deductive thinking and logic. For the mathematician, the use of logic and deductive thinking is important especially in such courses as finite mathematics. For the non-mathematician, logic and deductive reasoning could play a role in doing such courses as Philosophy.
Below you can find through Amazon.com all of the contents of the Elements in English.  This set of three books is also added to my Wishlist so if any reader would be so kind as to purchase these three for me, know that I would be extremely grateful.

Read more >>
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Whether St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument is Philosophically Sound?

This piece is written in the form of St. Thomas's Summa Theologica.  While I illustrate the problem with the Ontological Argument by St. Anselm, I do not disagree with his conclusion, namely the existence of Almighty God.  This is merely a philosophical exercise to illustrate that in the Catholic Life a Catholic must commit himself to philosophical study and discourse.

Whether St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument is Philosophically Sound?

Objection 1: It would seem that Anselm’s ontological argument is sound. Anselm was canonized in 1494 and given the distinction of Doctor of the Church in the 18th century. Therefore, since the Church only honors those individuals who promote orthodoxy and do not adhere to heresy, St. Anselm’s ontological argument must be considered by all Catholics as not only philosophically valid but also sound.

Objection 2: Unlike other substances, the Necessary Existent (i.e. God) has existence as its very essence. And, as such, existence must always be applied to God; it is impossible to imagine the Necessary Existent in a state of not existing. Therefore, Kant’s objection that existence is not a predicate is incorrect.


On the Contrary, Immanuel Kant states, “Time and labour therefore are lost on the famous ontological (Cartestian) proof of the existence of a Supreme Being from mere concepts; and a man might as well imagine that he could become richer in knowledge by mere ideas, as a merchant in capital, if, in order to improve his position, he were to add a few noughts to his cash account" (Beck 291).

I answer that, Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God is unsound in the first and third premises, which render the entirety of the argument unsound. Anselm’s argument utilizes a reduction-ad-absurdum approach, whereby Anselm affirms the fool’s claim that there is no God (cf. Psalms xiv. I). Assuming that the fool was correct, then God, that which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in understanding but not in reality. But, it is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in understanding. Therefore, God exists in reality. Anselm’s argument in a more enumerated form states the following:

1. God is that which nothing greater can be conceived
2. God exists in understanding (established in the Psalms)
3. It is greater to exist in reality than in understanding alone
4. If God does not exist in reality, then that which nothing greater can be conceived does not equal that which nothing greater can be conceived
5. Therefore, God exists in reality and not only in understanding

First, one must examine the notion that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived. While such a definition can be theologically orthodox, such a definition is not truly sufficient for the sake of Anselm’s argument. When a person attempts to conceive of this definition, it is impossible to deposit any sort of perceivable reality in his or her mind. No observable color, condition, or state is able to be deposited and as such, the one following the argument does not deposit any real substance in his or her mind.

Thomas Aquinas provides a sufficient objection to Anselm when he observes the distinction between the condition of being self-evident in itself and not to us and self-evident in itself and to us. Since Anselm argues that the existence of God can be known through reason alone and without any observation of the world, it seems that Anselm claims that the existence of God is self-evident in itself and to us. After all, he believes that through reason alone mankind can assent to God, and the existence of God is consequently self evident to all. Thomas argues, “If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all,” (I Q. 2, art. 1 responsio) yet, he further clarifies that if the predicate and subject are unknown to some then the proposition is not self-evident in itself and to us.

Furthermore, Aquinas observes the following observation in the proposition ‘God exists’: “Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us…” (I Q. 2, art. 1 responsio).

Therefore, by Aquinas’ logic, Anselm’s argument is insufficient because the initial premise is above the ability of a human being to adequately consider and thereby actually deposit a reality in one’s mind. God’s existence is not self-evident to us, and Anselm’s argument based in large part on definition alone is not sufficient to convert a non-believer. However, in his most blatant rebuttal to Anselm’s definition of God, Thomas states, “Perhaps not everyone who hears this word ‘God’ understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body” (I Q. 2, art. Ad 2) And, consequently, the soundness of Anselm’s first premise in the ontological argument is questionable.

Secondly, Anselm’s usage of a priori demonstration to arrive at the conclusion of God’s existence is lacking in comparison to a posteriori demonstration, thereby discrediting his argument. Similarly, according to Thomas, a thing may be demonstrated in one of two ways: through the causes (i.e. a priori) or through the effects (i.e. a posteriori). In particular, Thomas states, “When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause” (I Q. 2, art. 2 responsio). And, as generally accepted among Christian philosophers, God’s ways transcend the ways of average human beings, making not only God but His ways beyond our reasoning.

Consequently, in respect to God, we understand the effects of God far better than the causes, and through the effects one is still able to comprehend the thing in question. Therefore, Anselm’s method of a priori demonstration is unbefitting since the effects of God are better known, which means that a posteriori demonstration of God’s existence is the superior form of demonstration in this matter. Thomas not only discusses the two ways of demonstration but also utilizes them in order to create several arguments from a posteriori demonstration (e.g. First Mover, First Cause, et cetera).

Anselm’s argument with its a priori approach, forces the observer to posit knowledge of the Christian God to arrive at the conclusion sought by Anselm. Because the argument does not take into account the effects of God’s actions, one is unable to ascertain – through the argument alone – the traits of God such as His generosity, humility, et cetera. Yet, through an examination of God’s observable presence in the world, one may better understand God while at the same time observing the effects of humility, generosity, et cetera, which must be reciprocally applied to God.

Anselm’s argument as a purely a priori approach does not allow observers to conclude anything about God or even to conclude of the Christian God’s existence. Thomas further states that more than “philosophical science built up by human reason” is necessary for mankind’s salvation; namely sacred doctrine is necessary (I Q. 1, art. 1 responsio). Yet, Anselm’s ontological argument does not profess doctrinal matters but seeks to use only a philosophical approach. Boethius later affirms that God alone has true intelligence while humans only possess reason (Boethius 198). And because of man’s limitations, he is unable to understand theological truths and even arrive at the conclusion of God’s actual existence through a priori demonstration alone.

Thirdly, the third premise of Anselm’s ontological argument is called into question by the advent of Immanuel Kant, who stated that existence is not a property. One is unable to talk about something without presupposing its existence. In this way, existence is not like a color, shape, or characteristic, which can be applied to existing things. Simply put, without presupposing a substance’s existence, one is unable to discuss the substance at all. In this way, Kant’s argument that existence is not a property is supported. And, if existence is not a property, it is no greater to exist in reality than to exist in understanding alone. Therefore, assuming the truth of Kant’s initial claim, existing in reality is not greater than existing in understanding alone. And, if Kant’s argument is proven sound, the third premise of Anselm’s argument will be undoubtedly unsound. If Anselm is unable to prove that existing in reality is greater than existing in understanding, then his argument is ultimately unable to reach the conclusion that God exists in reality.

In summation, due to the questionability of Anselm’s definition of God, the less-than-adequate usage of a priori demonstration, and the notion that existence is not a property, Anselm’s ontological argument is revealed to be unsound.

Reply to Objection 1: While the Church confers the distinction of sainthood and Doctor of the Church only on non-heretics, the reception of these distinctions does not imply that the Church endorses the soundness of each of the philosopher’s premises. Unsound premises neither bar an individual from honors bestowed by the Church nor establish the individual as a heretic.

Reply to Objection 2: Objectors need to revise their arguments to consider theories such as the Atomist Theory. According to the theory, everything necessary consists of atoms, which can be neither created nor destroyed. As a result, atoms are by definition eternal, since they possess “…the simultaneous and complete possession of infinite life” (Boethius 199). Atoms necessarily exist. Therefore, something other than God can be considered as necessarily existing. And, if all physical things are composed of atoms, all physical things are in some sense eternal. Therefore, the Necessary Existent is not a special exception to the general rule, as Objection 2 would advocate.

Works Cited
Read more >>
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Are the Jews Responsible for Christ's Death?: The Four Causes of Christ's Death

It is a highly controversial claim that the Jews should be treated as if they were responsible for the death of our Divine Lord.  But are objections to this notion mere political in nature with an origin in religious indifferentism or must a Catholic honestly admit that no one race is to be held responsible?

The first overarching issue is to determine what we mean by "responsible."  How can one group say that the Jews are responsible for Christ's death and the other group says that the Jews are not responsible.  The difference is precisely a lack of continuity in terminology.

What we must first consider is the philosophical notion that has been part of Catholic theology for over 1,000 years - the four causes.  Aristotle was the first philosopher to identify all four kinds of causes which Aquinas would later incorporate in his Summa. Each cause is a different kind of answer to the question "why?

So, assume I am holding up a picture of the statue of David for you to admire.  I ask the question, "Why is this a statue?"  To answer this question, Aristotle can give four different answers: (1) This is a statue because it is made of marble; (2) because it is in the shape of David; (3) because Michelangelo sculpted it; (4) because Michelangelo wanted to depict the figure of David in marble (because he needed the money, perhaps). An account of each kind of cause is important for a full and accurate account of whatever a person is explaining.

Now let us return to the question, "Are the Jews responsible for the death of our Lord?"  Let's rephrase that to "Are the Jews a cause of the death of Christ?"

Let's first consider the material cause of Christ's death.  The material cause of a thing is the matter - physical matter - causing it to be.  For our Divine Lord's death, it was the nails and the Cross which caused His ultimate Death.

Yet, what of the final cause of Christ's death?  The final cause is the end (i.e. telos) for which something is done.  We know from Sacred Scripture that our Divine Redeemer willing gave up His life on the Cross for the salvation of mankind.  In this sense, many people will rightfully say that all sinners - thus all mankind aside from the Redeemer Himself and the Blessed Virgin Mary - are the cause of our Lord's death.  After all, since our Lord died in order to save us, we are the cause of Christ's death.

This is where many people who say that the Jews are not to be held responsible stop in their argument.  But, let us go further and consider the efficient cause of Christ's death.  The efficient cause of a thing is “the source of the primary principle of change or stability,” e.g., the man who gives advice, the father (of the child) (source).  For our Divine Lord, it was the cruelty and infidelity of the Jewish people that forced Pilate to condemn Him to die.  It was their hardness of heart that brought about our Lord's death and they were the agents who beat our Lord, drove the nails into His hands, and ultimately crucified Him.

Thus, it is correct to say that the Jews are responsible for the death of Christ - if one means that they are the efficient cause of Christ's death.  Let us be specific in our discussions - especially about matters involving philosophy since precise language is so necessary to understand a situation completely.  And let us not shy away from the truth - while not politically "correct" - that the Jews in one sense are to be held responsible.

Let us conclude with a segment of His Excellency Bishop Williamson's Eleison Comments for this week on this very topic:
Firstly, the killing of Jesus was truly “deicide”, i.e. the killing of God, because Jesus was the one of the three divine Persons who in addition to his divine nature had taken a human nature. What was killed on the Cross ? Only the human nature. But who was killed on the Cross in his human nature ? None other than the second divine Person, i.e. God. So God was killed, deicide was committed.

Secondly, Jesus died on the Cross to save all of us sinful human beings from our sins, and in this sense all men were and are the purpose of his death. But only the Jews (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide because it is obvious from the Gospels that the Gentile most involved, Pontius Pilate, would never have condemned Jesus to death had not the Jewish leaders roused the Jewish people to clamour for his crucifixion (Mt. XXVII, 20). Certainly the learned leaders were more guilty than the unlearned people, says St Thomas Aquinas (Summa III, 47, 5), but they all cried together for Jesus’ blood to come down upon them and their children (Mt. XXVII, 25).

Thirdly, at least Pope Leo XIII considered there to be a real solidarity between the Jews clamouring then for Jesus to be killed and the collectivity of Jews of modern times. Did he not in his Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus have the entire Church, from the end of the 19th century onwards, pray to God that he turn his “eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once God’s chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Saviour; may it now descend upon them a laver (i.e. washing) of redemption and life” ?

But Leo XIII is by no means alone in observing such a continuity amongst Jews down the centuries. Do they themselves not lay claim today to the land of Palestine on the grounds that it is theirs by right from the God of the Old Testament ? Has there ever been a race-people-nation on the face of the earth more proudly self-identifying as identical down the ages ? Originally raised by God to cradle the Messiah, alas, when he came they refused, collectively, to recognize him. Collectively also, meaning there are always noble exceptions, they have remained faithful to that rejection, so that they changed their religion from that of Abraham and Moses and the Old Testament to that of Anas, Caiphas and the Talmud. Tragically, their very messianic training by God drives them to go on rejecting the one whom they hold to be a false messiah. Until they convert at the end of the world, as the Church has always taught they will do (cf. Rom. XI, 26-27), they seem bound to choose to go on acting, collectively, as enemies of the true Messiah.
Read more >>


Copyright Notice: Unless otherwise stated, all items are copyrighted under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. If you quote from this blog, cite a link to the post on this blog in your article.

Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links on this blog are “affiliate links.” This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate, for instance, I earn a small commission from qualifying purchases made by those who click on the Amazon affiliate links included on this website. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”