God’s Will

We are all justly appalled at the remark of Indiana senatorial candidate Richard Mourdock declaring that if a pregnancy resulted from rape it was “intended by God.”  Our instantaneous sense of moral outrage quickly descends into something much worse, however, when we come to realize that this was not a private belief of fanatical religious fundamentalists, but is the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

The doctrine in question has to do with the official Catholic “belief” in the direct creation of the human soul and its infusion into the fertilized egg by God.  This “ensoulment” is not some gloss from a half-forgotten mediaeval disputation, it is current doctrine and actively taught.  It was publicly re-affirmed as recently as 1992 with great clarity by the Vatican itself in the “Catholic Catechism” designed to prepare converts for baptism and to teach the laity.

Here are the words of the Catechism, #366: “The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God — it is not produced by the parents — and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death.”  The reasoning behind this is straightforward.  According to the Church the soul is “spirit;” it is of a different order of being from matter.  The human sperm and ovum are only organic matter; they are incapable of producing a spiritual soul.  Therefore God himself “immediately” — without the mediation of the activity or the bodily material of the parents — creates and infuses each and every soul into its developing zygote.

Since “God” is all-powerful, if “he” does this, “he” must freely intend to do it, otherwise we would have to say that “God” was somehow coerced by sexual activity into infusing a soul.  Therefore if a pregnancy occurs it is because “God” intended that a human being should result from that act of rape.  The logic is ironclad and the conclusions inescapable.  What is absurd are the premises — the doctrines involved — the existence of a spiritual soul different and separable from the body, human genetic material incapable of producing a human being, and a “God” who personally creates and infuses souls.  It is all absurd.  False.  A lie.  Those that promote it are equally responsible for what people like Mourdock think and do.

I will keep my commentary within a Catholic frame of reference.  Mourdock’s remark was not only an insult to women, it was an insult to “God.”  Our initial outrage came from our sense of moral goodness and a reverence for the benevolence of “God.”  No “God” worthy of the name could ever intend any such thing, therefore the entire doctrinal construct adduced to support it is patently erroneous and must be discarded.  The logic here is also ironclad.  The goodness of “God” is the premise that unmasks and condemns the falsity.  There are even further implications that we would rather not deal with:  that the institution that claims such things, and even teaches them on the authority of “God,” by that very fact reveals itself to be if not intentionally fraudulent, then deceived, incredible and unreliable.

Even in the ancient Aristotelian terms in which the doctrine is expressed, there is no justification for saying there is a soul separable from the body.  Matter (the body) and form (the soul) were metaphysical principles each responsible for certain aspects of the one substance, the human organism; they were not thought of as separate substances.  The rationalizations devised by the mediaeval theologians to dodge that impasse were a gross capitulation to the requirements of the Inquisition.

The so-called “providence” that claims a person-God oversees and micro-manages all events and occurences is also erroneous.  Even the great Thomas Aquinas whose explanations have formed the basis of much of what the Church teaches, taught that divine providence is completely fulfilled in the natural order.  Miracles are always possible, he says, but they are not to be expected.  Everything in nature is accomplished by secondary (natural) causes and not by the direct action of “God.”  The Church teaching on ensoulment would contradict this.  It would take a perfectly natural function and insist that it was a miracle.

The genetic material of the parents — the male sperm and the female ovum — are fully capable of generating a complete human being directed by their DNA at work in embryonic development.  The reproduction of a human being is no more miraculous, requiring the direct “immediate” intervention of God, than the generation of a calf from a bull’s sperm and a cow’s egg.  These are equally natural events that are carried through by the living reproductive cells of the parent organisms.  The same is true of the almost uncountable number of living species of plants and animals on the planet.  To suggest that, even in the creationist terms used by the Church, the same provident “God” who made each species capable of reproducing its kind on its own, failed to accomplish that goal in the case of humankind alone, is ludicrous.

So we see that the problem runs deeper than the offhand remark of some opportunistic politician angling for votes.  There are ideological and institutional underpinnings that are revealed in all their absurdity in these events.  They always seem to escape notice, however, and so they always remain unchanged, poised and ready to contaminate the minds of the next generation of unsupecting believers who credit this Church with a unique access to the truth that it does not have.  It is time we allow our outrage to have its full reforming effect … not superficially, but all the way down to the root of the problem.  These “doctrines” must be exposed for the absurdities that they are.

As with so many things that need changing in our mediaeval Church, begging for reforms without recognizing the dogmatic bases that feed the offenses and protect the offenders, is whistling dixie.  If we want a changed Church we have to begin by changing the terms in which doctrines are understood and expressed.  The absurd doesn’t disappear when a Church calling itself infallible insists it is the truth — it becomes grotesque.

Tony Equale

2 comments on “God’s Will

  1. rjjwillis says:

    Over the years I have listened to apologists struggle with “the problem of evil.” It is indisputable that evil happens,if it is considered to be actions that diminish life. But why does God do nothing about this? If God is all good and if God is all powerful, then why doesn’t that “God” stop all this homicidal and fratricidal and patriarchal and matriarchal violence? The answer is usually couched in terms like “well, God wants us to be free and to be free we must be free to do evil things as well as virtuous ones.” Or “well, God wants us to love Him and love can only happen if we are free to hate.” These purported answers never satisfied me because they did not answer the question asked. Those answers talk about us; they don’t talk about “God.” But the questiojn that remains is about God–how can that “God” be good and stand by allowing evil, especially if that “God” with a flicker of His Almighty being could stop it all? I really don’t care about the rationalizations; anyone, including “God” who sees evil and doesn’t stop it when he can, shares in the evil, and I don’t wish to have any part with that person, including that “God.”

    And the above so-called answers don’t begin to answer what we call “natural evils.” These disasters don’t come from human decisions that are evil; rather, they come from our very existence as material beings living in a material planet, and faced with the inescapable demands of mortality. Think, for example,of the sufferings right now of flood victims up and down the East Coast. We could probably find some human contributing cause for it that flows out of stupidity, but it would be hard to pin the flood on the desire of someone or someones to hate Easterners. So the apologetic response now has to become something like, “well, suffering makes us stronger, or suffering fortifies our faith,or suffering makes us humble,” et cetera. That may or may not be true. It seems to depend on the person affected. But again, that talks about us; not about the all-powerful and detached divinity that does nothing to help those It could help. I still don’t want anything to do with that non-saving savior.

    By explaining evil as “God’s Will,” we simply give ourselves a copout, a way to avoid responsibility. We can be just as venal,stupid, sick, immoral, evil as we wish because we are only doing what “God” has worked out in “God’s plan” for humankind, including mutiple rapes and multiple resulting pregnancies. All I can say to that kind of justification is “Grow Up!”

    I had a theology professor who once gave a diatribe concerning superiors and God’s Will. “They go into the chapel to pray. They look at the crucifix. They spend quiet time discerning God’s Will. Then they get up, genuflect, and come out with the very same decision that they had determined was God’s Will because it agreed with Their Will before they went therough the obligatory ritual of praying!”

    I can’t blame God for either my life or my death. Both belong to me. It’s just a gift I have.

    • tonyequale says:


      Thanks for sharing your passionate feelings about “the problem of evil.” It’s amazing how long people have wrestled with this “dilemma” which stops being a dilemma the minute you accept the fact that the premises are impossible. My feeling toward this is, like yours, extremely passionate. When the conclusion of a syllogism is absurd, that is an indication that either the premises or the reasoning process is flawed. After thousands of years poring over it, I think we can assume that the reasoning process has no glaring gaps. Some young smart-ass would have found it by this time. That leaves ONLY the premises.

      What are the premises that create the dilemma? They are “two-horned” as always for dilemmas: “God” is all-powerful and all-knowing on the one hand … and on the other, “God” is a good “person” who loves us. These are supposed to be of equal weight, and that’s what creates the dilemma. You are supposed to be “impaled” as on the horns of a bull … you can’t get out of it one way or the other because neither attribute of “God” is more important or weightier than the other.

      But notice what has happened in practice. In the West the priority was given to “almightty power” and “goodness” was defined by the rubble left after the devastation. One can understand the thinking. An earthquake is an earthquake: concrete, obvious, not open to denial or mitigation … it happened on such a date with such a magnitude and killed “x” number of people. “Goodness,” on the other hand, is whatever you decide it should be. Since the earthquake was “divine power” in operation it had to be “God’s will.” So the two premises are really reduced to one, DIVINE POWER, fundamentally eliminating the dilemma. If the old stoic adage still holds: “if God is good he is not God, and if God is God, he is not good,” then the West has been willing to live with an evil “God” because under no circumstances would it opt for a powerless “God.” In effect, there is no dilemma, because we have turned “God” into a psychopath and, quiet as it’s kept, we have done the same to ourselves … made in “his” image and likeness.

      Now I claim Jesus had a different take on “God” altogether. In his view the priorities are reversed. “God” is “Our Father.” You start with the goodness and benevolence of “God” and then let the “power” chips fall whereever they may. If it turns out that by this reckoning it is simply not possible that “God” has any more power than an acorn or a snowflake, then if we decide to follow this man, Jesus. we have to live with this conceptual revolution, and try to figure out what being “God” really means. With that as a starting point, you’ve got some major re-thinking to do … I mean MAJOR. A powerless “God”? … A powerless “God”? … OMG!

      Where do we go from here?

      Tony Equale

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s