Monday, August 11, 2025

The Nature And Institution Of Baptism And The Vice Of Gluttony

 

To My Readers: This week, John Gregory writes about the importance of Baptism, and the deadly sin of gluttony. Feel free to comment as usual. If you have  a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

The Nature And Institution Of Baptism And The Vice Of Gluttony
By John Gregory

Dogmatic Subject: Baptism: Its Nature and Institution.—And all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud and in the sea (1 Corinthians 10: 2).Go you also into my vineyard, and I will give you what shall be just (Matthew 20: 4).

 

Definition of Baptism

 

With regard to the definition of Baptism although many can be given from sacred writers, nevertheless that which may be gathered from the words of our Lord recorded in John, and of the Apostle to the Ephesians, appears the most appropriate and suitable. Unless, says our Lord, a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; (John 3: 5) and, speaking of the Church, the Apostle says, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. (Ephesians 5: 26) Thus it follows that Baptism may be rightly and accurately defined: The Sacrament of regeneration by water in the word.  By nature we are born from Adam children of wrath, but by Baptism we are regenerated in Christ, children of mercy. (Ephesians 2: 3) For He gave power to men to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name, who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1: 12, 13)

 

Constituent Elements of Baptism

 

But define Baptism as we may, the faithful are to be informed that this Sacrament consists of ablution, accompanied necessarily, according to the institution of our Lord, by certain solemn words.  This is the uniform doctrine of the holy Fathers, as is proved by the following most explicit testimony of Saint Augustine: The word is joined to the element, and it becomes a Sacrament.

 

It is all the more necessary to impress this on the minds of the faithful lest they fall into the common error of thinking that the baptismal water, preserved in the sacred font, constitutes the Sacrament.  The Sacrament of Baptism can be said to exist only when we actually apply the water to someone by way of ablution, while using the words appointed by our Lord.

 

Matter of Baptism

 

Now since we said above, when treating of the Sacraments in general, that every Sacrament consists of matter and form, it is therefore necessary that pastors point out what constitutes each of these in Baptism.  The matter, then, or element of this Sacrament, is any sort of natural water, which is simply and without qualification commonly called water, be it sea water, river water, water from a pond, well or fountain.

 

Form of Baptism

 

Pastors should teach, in clear, unambiguous language, intelligible to every capacity, that the true and essential form of Baptism is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  For so it was delivered by our Lord and Saviour when, as we read in Saint Matthew He gave to His Apostles the command: Going, . . . teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28: 19)

 

By the word baptizing, the Catholic Church, instructed from above, most justly understood that the form of the Sacrament should express the action of the minister; and this takes place when he pronounces the words, I baptize thee.

 

Besides the minister of the Sacrament, the person to be baptized and the principal efficient cause of Baptism should be mentioned.  The pronoun thee, and the distinctive names of the Divine Persons are therefore added.  Thus the complete form of the Sacrament is expressed in the words already mentioned: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

 

Baptism is the work not of the Son alone, of whom Saint John says, He it is that baptizeth (John 1: 33) but of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity together.  By saying, however, in the name, not in the names, we distinctly declare that in the Trinity there is but one Nature and Godhead.  The word name is here referred not to the Persons, but to the Divine Essence, virtue and power, which are one and the same in Three Persons.

 

ESSENTIAL AND NON-ESSENTIAL WORDS OF THE FORM

 

It is, however, to be observed that of the words contained in this form, which we have shown to be the complete and perfect one, some are absolutely necessary, so that the omission of them renders the valid administration of the Sacrament impossible; while others on the contrary, are not so essential as to affect its validity.

 

Of the latter kind is the word ego (I), the force of which is included in the word baptizo (I baptize).  Nay more, the Greek Church, adopting a different manner of expressing the form, and being of opinion that it is unnecessary to make mention of the minister, omits the pronoun altogether.  The form universally used in the Greek Church is: Let this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  It appears, however, from the decision and definition of the Council of Florence, that those who use this form administer the Sacraments validly, because the words sufficiently express what is essential to the validity of Baptism, that is, the ablution which then takes place.

 

BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF CHRIST

 

If at any time the Apostles baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ only, (Acts 2: 38; 8: 2) we can be sure they did so by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in order, in the infancy of the Church, to render their preaching more illustrious by the name of Jesus Christ, and to proclaim more effectually His divine and infinite power.  If, however, we examine the matter more closely, we shall find that such a form omits nothing which the Saviour Himself commands to be observed; for he who mentions Jesus Christ implies the Person of the Father, by whom, and that of the Holy Ghost, in whom, He was anointed.

 

And yet, the use of this form by the Apostles seems rather doubtful if we accept the opinions of Ambrose and Basil, holy Fathers eminent for sanctity and authority, who interpret baptism in the name of Jesus Christ to mean the Baptism instituted by Christ our Lord, as distinguished from that of John, and who say that the Apostles did not depart from the ordinary and usual form which comprises the distinct names of the Three Persons. [Justin Martyr (Apol. I. 61) says that Christians were baptized in the name of the entire Trinity] Paul also, in his Epistle to the Galatians, seems to have expressed himself in a similar manner, when he says: As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ, meaning that they were baptized in the faith of Christ, but with no other form than that which the same Saviour our Lord had commanded to be observed.

 

Administration of Baptism

 

What has been said on the matter and form, which are required for the essence of the Sacrament, will be found sufficient for the instruction of the faithful; but as in the administration of the Sacrament the legitimate manner of ablution should also be observed, pastors should teach the doctrine of this point also.

 

They should briefly explain that, according to the common custom and practice of the Church, Baptism may be administered in three ways,—by immersion, infusion or aspersion.

 

Whichever of these rites be observed, we must believe that Baptism is rightly administered.  For in Baptism water is used to signify the spiritual ablution which it accomplishes, and on this account Baptism is called by the Apostle a laver. (Ephesians 5: 26)  Now this ablution is not more really accomplished by immersion, which was for a considerable time the practice in the early ages of the Church, than by infusion, which we now see in general use, or by aspersion, which there is reason to believe was the manner in which Peter baptized, when on one day he converted and gave Baptism to about three thousand souls. (Acts 2: 41)

 

It is a matter of indifference whether the ablution be performed once or thrice.  For it is evident from the Epistle of Saint Gregory the Great to Leander that Baptism was formerly and may still be validly administered in the Church in either way.  The faithful, however, should follow the practice of the particular Church to which they belong.

 

Pastors should be particularly careful to observe that the baptismal ablution is not to be applied indifferently to any part of the body, but principally to the head, which is the seat of all the internal and external senses; and also that he who baptizes is to pronounce the sacramental words which constitute the form, not before or after, but when performing the ablution.

 

Institution of Baptism

 

When these things have been explained, it will also be expedient to teach and remind the faithful that, in common with the other Sacraments, Baptism was instituted by Christ the Lord.  On this subject the pastor should frequently teach and point out that there are two different periods of time which relate to Baptism—one the period of its institution by the Redeemer; the other, the establishment of the law regarding its reception.

 

BAPTISM INSTITUTED AT CHRIST’S BAPTISM

 

With regard to the former, it is clear that this Sacrament was instituted by our Lord when, having been baptized by John, He gave to water the power of sanctifying.  Saint Gregory Nazianzen and Saint Augustine testify that to water was there imparted the power of regenerating to spiritual life.  In another place Saint Augustine says: From the moment that Christ is immersed in water, water washes away all sins.  And again: The Lord is baptized, not because He had need to be cleansed, but in order that, by the contact of His pure flesh, He might purify the waters and impart to them the power of cleansing.

 

A very strong argument to prove that Baptism was then instituted by our Lord might be afforded by the fact the most Holy Trinity, in whose name Baptism is conferred, manifested Its divine presence on that occasion.  The voice of the Father was heard, the Person of the Son was present, the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove; and the heavens, into which we are enabled to enter by Baptism, were thrown open.

 

Should anyone desire to know how our Lord has endowed water with a virtue so great, so divine, this indeed transcends the power of the human understanding.  Yet this we can know, that when our Lord was baptized, water, by contact with His most holy and pure body, was consecrated to the salutary use of Baptism, in such a way, however, that, although instituted before the Passion, we must believe that this Sacrament derives all its virtue and efficacy from the Passion, which is the consummation, as it were, of all the actions of Christ.

 

BAPTISM MADE OBLIGATORY AFTER CHRIST’S RESURRECTION

 

The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt.  Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, (Matthew 28: 19) the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

 

This is inferred from the authority of the Prince of the Apostles when he says: Who hath regenerated us into a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; (1 Peter 1: 3) and also from what Paul says of the Church: He delivered himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. (Ephesians 5: 25, 26) By both Apostles the obligation of Baptism seems to be referred to the time which followed the death of our Lord.  Hence we can have no doubt that the words of the Saviour: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, (John 3: 5) refer also to the same time which was to follow after His Passion.

 

The effects of the sacrament are remission of sin, remission of all punishment due to sin, grace of regeneration, infused virtues and incorporation with Christ, character of Christian, opening the gates of heaven. (Catechism of Trent – COT)

 

After Baptism we should like to keep our souls unspotted.  Sins of the flesh, the reason why most souls go to Hell, are the result, in no small part by:

 

THE VICE OF GLUTTONY

 

Everyone that striveth for the master, refraineth himself from all things: and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible one (1 Corinthians 9: 25)

 

Intemperance is carefully to be avoided. I fed them to the full, says the Prophet, and they committed adultery. (Jeremias 5: 7) An overloaded stomach begets impurity.  This our Lord intimates in these words: Take heed to yourselves, lest perhaps your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness. (Luke 21: 34) Be not drunk with wine, says the Apostle, wherein is luxury. (Ephesians 5: 18) (COT p. 437)

 

MORTIFICATION

 

The body is to be mortified and the sensual appetites to be repressed not only by fasting, and particularly, by the fasts instituted by the Church, but also by watching, pious pilgrimages, and other works of austerity.  By these and similar observances is the virtue of temperance chiefly manifested.  In connection with this subject Saint Paul, writing to the Corinthians says: I chastise my body and bring it into subjection, lest, perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.  And in another place he says: Make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscence. (1 Corinthians 5: 27; Romans 13: 14) (COT p. 439)

 

FASTING AND ALMSDEEDS SHOULD BE JOINED TO PRAYER

 

To prayer let us unite fasting and almsdeeds.  Fasting is most intimately connected with prayer.  For the mind of one who is filled with food and drink is so borne down as not to be able to raise itself to the contemplation of God, or even to understand what prayer means.

 

Almsdeeds have also an intimate connection with prayer.  For what claim has he to the virtue of charity, who, possessing the means of affording relief to those who depend on the assistance of others, refuses help to his neighbor and brother?  How can he, whose heart is devoid of charity, demand assistance from God unless, while imploring the pardon of his sins, he at the same time humbly beg of God to grant him the virtue of charity?

 

This triple remedy was, therefore, appointed by God to aid man in the attainment of salvation.  For by sin we offend God, wrong our neighbor, or injure ourselves.  The wrath of God we appease by pious prayer; our offences against man we redeem by almsdeeds; the stains of our own lives we wash away by fasting.  Each of these remedies, it is true, is applicable to every sort of sin; they are, however, peculiarly adapted to those three which we have specially mentioned.  (COT p. 500)

 

The COT teaches us that the Our Father is also a remedy against gluttony:

 

WE ASK THAT WE MAY NOT YIELD TO OUR OWN INORDINATE DESIRES

 

When we say, Thy will be done, we express our detestation of the works of the flesh, of which the Apostle writes: The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, lust, etc.; (Galatians 5: 19) if you live according to the flesh you shall die. (Romans 8: 13) We also beg of God not to suffer us to yield to the suggestions of sensual appetite, of our lusts, of our infirmities, but to govern our will by His will.

 

The sensualist, whose every thought and care is absorbed in the transient things of this world, is estranged from the will of God.  Borne along by the tide of passion, he indulges his licentious appetites.  In this gratification he places all his happiness, and considers that man happy who obtains whatever he desires.  We, on the contrary, beseech God in the language of the Apostle that we make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscence, (Romans 13: 14) but that His will be done.

 

We are not easily induced to entreat God not to satisfy our inordinate desires.  This disposition of soul is difficult of attainment, and by offering such a prayer we seem in some sort to hate ourselves.  To those who are slaves to the flesh such conduct appears folly; but be it ours cheerfully to incur the imputation of folly for the sake of Christ who has said: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself. (Matthew 16: 24; Luke 9: 23) This is especially so since we know that it is much better to desire what is right and just, than to obtain what is opposed to reason and religion and to the laws of God.  Unquestionably the condition of the man who attains the gratification of his rash and inordinate desires is less enviable than that of him who does not obtain the object of his pious prayers. (COT p. 534 - 535)

 

To reinforce and expand up this I should like to quote from A Companion to the Summa, Volume 3, by Walter Farrell, O.P., S.T.D., S.T.M.:

 

Roots of freedom: Proximate and remote source

We have missed the intimate interrelation between purity and humanity.  In some mysterious way we have overlooked the obvious fact that since human life is a reasonable life and human activity is a rational activity, of course human passion is passion under reason.  The name of the supreme passion under reason is its defense in the name of purely physical considerations is itself an attack on the humanity and freedom of man. 

Internal and external

The key to the whole situation is spirituality.  The proximate sources of man’s freedom are his soul, his intellect and his will behind them stands the sole possible author of spiritual substance, the infinitely powerful God.  Because a man is spiritual he has liberty; because he is spiritual that liberty has eternal significance.  That is, the use or the abuse of liberty is for eternity, for the spiritual, as incorruptible, exists for eternal ends.

A man’s will or intellect cannot be handcuffed.  As long as he remains a spiritual being with reason in control, he can never be enslaved.  He possesses an internal liberty much more important than any external, civic freedom: an emperor, after all, can be a slave to himself, while a slave can be completely master of himself, can be most free.  External liberty is as perilous a thing as a heart worn on one’s sleeve; it can be lost, whereas internal liberty can only be surrendered.  No force, intrigue, trickery can take it away from us.  And this is precisely the liberty over which purity maintains such a jealous guard.

It is unfortunate that men and women today are inclined to look upon the fight for purity as a little abstract and academic.   Like so many moral questions, it apparently has no immediate pertinence to individual life.  A man instantly and vigorously resists an attack on his property, his children, his wife; but an attack on virtue is different.  Here he considers himself off to one side, to a spectator not greatly interested in the winner of the argument. The thing is important, for these questions have a profound personal significance for every individual.  The drastic consequences of modern attacks on the spiritual soul, the intellect and the will of man, the bitter attacks on God, are much more serious than any physical attack on a man himself, his family or his property.  This attack on the realm of the spiritual is not so much a matter of beating a man to the ground as of disemboweling him.

Surely what threatens the spiritual and rational in a man threatens his freedom, for it is precisely upon that spiritual foundation that he builds his claim to freedom.  When the body, the sense appetite, and the world of the present take precedence over the soul, the will and the world of eternity, man is no longer free. He is a slave; that is, he is no longer a man.

In this material of temperance there are three serious threats to the sovereignty of man’s reason.  The threats are extremely serious because the material is so extremely necessary that nature attaches to it the greatest sense rewards, lest its primary ends be overlooked or neglected.  To take care of the possible sorties against his reason from this material, man is equipped with a garrison of virtues specially equipped for this kind of enemy and this type of warfare.  There are only three in that garrison—abstinence, sobriety and chastity—but their fighting qualities more than make up for their numbers.

Still these three are not enemies of man’s nature, not even of his sensitive nature.  They can be rightly understood only when they are seen as guardians and protectors of man and his nature.  Their presence in a man has exactly the effect of a well-disciplined garrison in a stronghold of restless subjects.  They prevent mob-rule within a man and turn the violently restless energies of his passions to the common good of the man himself.  Understand, this is not a question of using these subjects as a tyrannous master might use slaves merely for his own end.  Reason is not working against the passions; it allows, indeed, insists upon their attainment of their own proper ends.  Those proper ends of the passions, with their rich contributions to the welfare of the whole man, are defeated and trampled underfoot by the rioting of the mob of undisciplined passions.

The garrison protecting freedom:

From the abuse of food—abstinence; Its nature

If it were a virtue merely to abstain from food, then by implication, the taking of food would be sinful.  It is this sort of absurdity that is somehow wrapped up in the defense and attack of the modern negative “protectors” of liberty.  A man can and does refuse food; perhaps because he has no appetite or is starving himself to death.  Neither case involves a question of abstinence; the whole point of the virtue is the note of reason it insists upon in the use of food.  The man who gives up coffee as a penance, even though it makes life miserable for his family, is not an abstinent man; neither is the ascetical tyro who stays up night after night praying only to fall asleep over his work during the day.  These things are unreasonable so they cannot be virtuous.  The virtue of abstinence is in operation only when the bounds of reason are carefully observed; its precise work is to restrain man’s use of food to reasonable limits.

Its act—fasting; Purposes

Abstinence holds a man back from abusing food.  Fasting, an act of abstinence, goes a step further and holds a man back from what might very well be eaten without any abuse whatever.  Again we must insist that this is not a condemnation of food.  Eating enough certainly cannot be anything but a cause of joy, except perhaps to a grateful beggar to whom the experience is astonishing in its novelty.  To refuse to eat what is no more than enough, if it is to be virtuous must be reasonable; and it can be reasonable only because it is aimed at ends higher than its immediate purpose.

If I have a healthy appetite for a bit of steak, an entirely reasonable amount in entirely reasonable circumstances, yet I refuse to eat it, then I have some explaining to do.  If the refusal was for no reason whatever it would be an act of insanity; if it proceeded from a conviction that food itself is evil and to be avoided, then it would be vicious; but if it is for some higher end, like training the soul or satisfying for sins, it might well be virtuous.

We get a realistically concrete view of the higher ends of fasting by looking back to the first week of any Lent.  After a few days of highly successful mortification, we have a definite sense of satisfaction, of pride in ourselves, of highly human accomplishment.  You see, we have been fully in control.  That is the really solid basis of that sense of satisfaction and superiority over our old selves.  We are being super-eminently human and we know it.  We are experiencing something of the joy of being human.

To recognize those high ends in detail no more is necessary than to see them. By fasting we let our appetites know beyond any doubt that reason is the head of this household; and by that very fact, we give our appetites invaluable practice in subjection.  This practice is important, for it is always important for a man to be rational, to have his reason in control.  Going up a step higher, fasting is clearly a kind of restitution.  Every sin is a stolen pleasure, for every sin is at least an overindulgence of will; fasting surrenders a legitimate pleasure, thus both satisfying for the debt of sin and impressing us with the true nature of sin.  We cannot fast very long and not realize that no one ever gets anything out of sin, not even a pickpocket or a bank robber; everything that apparently comes out of it must be given back, even though that restitution take all of an eternity.

Looking at fasting on a still higher plane, it is not hard to see in it a disposition to contemplation.  In the old public school schedule, a singing class was held immediately after lunch.  The schedule was good, however bad the singing might be; for surely it would not be as bad as the thinking turned out on a full stomach.  Whatever the physical background may be, psychologically it is sure that full satisfaction of the appetite for food makes the mind dull; it is apt to act like a puppy, crawl off to some warm corner and go to sleep.  Thus monastic fasts are not idle gestures of melancholy or of distaste for the pleasures of sense.  The primary business of monastic life is always contemplation, and fasting is an excellent disposition for it.  The evening meal in a Dominican House of Studies is usually light; from September to Easter it is extraordinarily light.  It is not coincidence that the most fruitful periods of study are the morning (after a positively feather-weight breakfast) and the evening or, as far as that goes, the rest of the night.  There may be elements of discomfort; but, after all, a monastery does not exist for comfort but for contemplation.  The very discomfort becomes eminently reasonable as a means to the higher ends of truth.

Let us summarize the Angelic Doctor’s teaching on vice of gluttony with the help of our friend Monsignor Glenn in his “A Tour of the Summa”.

GLUTTONY

 

1. Gluttony is excess in eating and drinking.  It is an immoderate indulgence in the delights of the palate.  Gluttony is therefore inordinate, therefore unreasonable, therefore an evil.

 

2. Gluttony is usually not a serious sin, bit it could be such a sin.  It would be a mortal sin in a person so given to the delights of eating and drinking that he is ready to abandon, virtue, and God himself, to obtain this pleasure.

 

3. Gluttony is a sin of the flesh, a carnal sin.  Hence, in itself, it is not as great a sin as a spiritual sin or a sin of malice.

 

5. Gluttony denotes inordinate desire in eating and drinking. It shows itself in the avidity with which a person indulges his appetite; in his love of delicate and expensive foods; in the importance he attaches to the discerning of fine qualities in foods, vintages, cookery; in voraciousness or greediness; in eating or drinking too much. Saint Isidore says that a gluttonous person is excessive in what, when, how, and how much he eats and drinks.

A capital sin is a source-sin; a spring, large or small, from which flow many evil streams. Now gluttony leads readily to other sins, for it indulges pleasure of the flesh which is the most alluring of all pleasures.  Gluttony is, therefore, a capital sin.

 

6. Gluttony leads to inordinate fleshly delight, to dullness of mind injudiciousness of speech, to levity of conduct, and to uncleanness. (A Tour of the Summa by Monsignor Glenn)

 

Conclusion

Let us clear our minds, and dull our inclination to sin through prayer, fasting and almsdeeds.

Monday, August 4, 2025

Contending For The Faith---Part 42

 


In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:
  • The existence and attributes of God
  • The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
  • The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
  • The truth of Catholic moral teaching
  • The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 
In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.
Is Science The Enemy of Faith?
Atheists and Modernists will reject the supernatural based on the alleged "contradiction with science." (Atheists reject the supernatural in its entirety, whereas Modernists will reduce faith to "feelings" and deny Revelation and miracles). If you ever come up against such a person, they will say to you, "Faith is superstition. People needed it to explain natural phenomena they didn't understand. Now, science has done away with the need for God."

In this post, I will equip the reader on how to respond to this attack on the Faith. (Please note that this post is a compilation of all the resources, both online and print, which I used in my research. I take no credit for any of the information herein. Some material was from my post-graduate work in science for my Masters degree, when I was a science teacher. All I did was condense the information into a terse and readable post---Introibo).

What is Science?
Through the centuries, humanity has derived many benefits from the scientific enterprise and there is promise of even greater ones to come through its extension in medicine and technology. It is no wonder that science has been granted such a privileged place in many cultures. Modern science stands as one of the most impressive intellectual undertakings that humans have achieved.

However, while science has some roots in the ancient world, science in its present form is a relative latecomer on the scene of human intellectual history. Modern science emerged in full form in Christian Europe around the middle of the seventeenth century. In the ensuing 400 years, it has risen to such great heights that it now enjoys unprecedented societal esteem and generates great respect and expectations. For many of the world’s intelligentsia, modern science is the supreme mode of acquiring knowledge. Some even view science as humankind’s greatest achievement. It might rightly be said that science has been placed on an intellectual pedestal. So, what is science? 

According to the National Academy of Sciences, science is “the use of evidence to construct testable explanation and prediction of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.”
(See nationalacademies.org).  

A more popular source (Wikipedia, which should not be used for serious research, but is commonly used by those seeking "quick answers") offers a very similar definition: "Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe." In other words, science as a basic practice is limited to obtaining knowledge about the natural world.

Why has such honor been bestowed upon the scientific venture? There appear to be two basic reasons. First, many people perceive science as intellectually neutral and independent from underlying belief systems. Second, science’s amazing achievements and beneficial results have imparted great credibility to the practice and practitioners. Let’s explore these two factors in some detail.

Is Science Intellectually Neutral?
Many people, scientists included, seem to think that the scientific method functions independently of any formal, underlying beliefs. I have even heard scientists say that as a scientist they have “no beliefs.” This alleged intellectual independence imbues scientific results with trustworthiness. 

People believe that the level of independence and objectivity that the scientific enterprise putatively enjoys leads to reliable knowledge. Meanwhile, knowledge rooted in religious and philosophical beliefs is more often regarded as supposed. However, science’s total independence from beliefs is clearly false. The scientific method depends deeply on critical underlying assumptions or beliefs that science itself alone cannot validate. If scientists are to go about their work with any confidence, they must, for instance, believe in such profound presuppositions as:

  • The objective reality of the cosmos 
  • The basic intelligibility of the cosmos 
  • The order, regularity, and uniformity of nature 
  • The reliable effectiveness of mathematics and logic to describe the cosmos 
  • The basic reliability of human cognitive faculties and sensory organs 
  • The congruence between the human mind and physical reality 
  • That acceptable criteria for an adequate hypothesis exist 
  • That what is observed in nature can provide clues and indicators of unobservable patterns and processes
(See John D. Barrow, The Universe That Discovered Itself  [2000], pgs. 26– 29).

These eight profound and amazing assumptions are just that— assumptions. That is, these preconditions for doing science are not first proven by science. Rather, scientists assume these ideas to be true before carrying out their work. The success of science somewhat serves to confirm the truth of these extraordinary preconditions of reality, but the scientific method itself did not establish or justify them. In a sense, scientists operate on faith in the necessary prerequisites of intelligibility.

Successful engagement in scientific research is deeply dependent upon belief and trust in foundational philosophical truths, yet these truths cannot wholly be derived from scientific experiments themselves. For science’s basic empirical (observational, experimental) venture to work and thrive, certain non-empirical assumptions about reality (including abstract ideas, the world, and humans) must be true. It takes a certain kind of world for science to even be possible. In fact, assumptions concomitant with the Catholic worldview are what initially allowed science to emerge and flourish in seventeenth-century Europe.

Thus, we see that, instead of functioning independently or neutrally of religious or philosophical beliefs, science has relied on such beliefs to nurture it at its foundation. The scientific method is not, and never has been, competent to stand alone as the only legitimate basis for believing something to be true. Hence, one reason for our culture’s high regard for science is really a misunderstanding of how science functions as an intellectual enterprise. Science isn’t a mere neutral practice that “just works.” It is an operation that has deep presuppositions about the very nature of reality and truth— and these presuppositions cry out for an adequate metaphysical explanation.

Believing in Science
Virtually all people have benefited from recent (in the last century or so) advancements in science, technology, and medicine. But this reality prompts the provocative question we considered before: Why does science work? That is, why is the scientific enterprise so effective in delivering critical and reliable information about the natural world that can inform and benefit humanity? 

I like to ask science teachers and scientists that question and have asked it of many I have met through the years. The answer is usually something along this line: “It just does. Science is unique. It works.” I think the reason that most scientists don’t venture to tell me exactly why science works is because the why of science has more to do with the philosophy of science than with the formal practice of science itself. While the general practice of the scientific enterprise focuses on the what and how of science, the philosophy of science has a lot to say about the whys of science.

A Science-Conducive World
What kind of universe that is conducive to science? Science's preconditions can be reduced into three networked factors.

  1. The Right Kind of World.  A world conducive to science is one that is real and has a mind-independent existence of its own. It is uniform, where the laws of nature reflect order, patterns, and regularity throughout. The world must also be intelligible and reflect an inherent rationality in the forms of logic and mathematics that can be studied.
  2. The Right Kind of Human Being. The humans who carry out the scientific pursuit must have keen intellectual faculties. Human cognitive abilities (brain-mind) and sensory organs (eyes, ears, etc.) must be basically reliable and trustworthy. Humans must be able to use their faculties to track the world’s intelligible qualities and achieve a depth of understanding. 
  3. The Right Kind of Congruence between the Two. The two previous requirements mean that there must be a basic congruence (compatibility, connectedness) between the world itself and the humans who study it. The world must carry an inherent intelligibility and humans must be able to track and apprehend, to some extent, that intelligibility.
For science to work, these three factors must be valid and operative in the universe and in humans. There must also be a consonance (harmony) between the universe and humans. In other words, for science to work, reality itself must be rational, predictable, and accessible to human reason. The intelligible world and the minds of humans must be networked together, so to speak. If they weren’t, then science wouldn’t be possible.

Is the Network the Result of Necessity, Chance, or Design?

So what is the best explanation that all three factors (the world, humans, and congruency) are just right to allow for science to be possible? 

First, our science-conducive universe (a fine-tuned cosmos) wasn’t necessitated by the laws of physics and could’ve been much different. Namely, the world could have been a disorderly chaos instead of an organized cosmos.

Second, mathematician Roger Penrose has said the statistical probability of arriving at a science-conducive universe (a fine-tuned cosmos) is wildly inconceivable if not impossible. (See Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics [1989], pgs. 339– 345).

Third, a Divine Mind (design) behind the universe with the attributes descriptive of Christian theism could plausibly be the actual cause of our science-human-congruence world that makes science possible and successful. If so, science works because the Creator networked Himself (the All-Wise and Infinite Giver of Laws and Logic) with the intelligible world He created and with the humans He made in his image and endowed with great intellectual abilities. Therefore a science-conducive world appears to point to the Christian God as the most plausible explanation.

Science points to God. How could it be otherwise when He is the Creator of the universe we seek to understand. The problem lies with not science but scientism. 

Enter Scientism
Most atheists and Modernists have adopted a science-oriented philosophy known as scientism. According to scientism, science alone gives genuine knowledge to humanity. Scientism has two forms: (1) strong scientism says science is the only path to knowledge and (2) weak scientism says science is the best path, and really the only reliable path, to knowledge.

Strong scientism tends to depreciate the belief that knowledge can come from moral, aesthetic, and religious experience, and other sources. It also generally accepts two foundational affirmations— one metaphysical (relating to reality) and the other epistemological (relating to knowledge). First, metaphysically speaking, strong scientism asserts that the material, physical universe is, to quote astronomer and secularist Carl Sagan, “all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” ( These were the opening words of the television series Cosmos (1980) hosted by Carl Sagan, originally broadcast on PBS (US)---Introibo).

Scientists who adopt a more complex view of reality by affirming a multiverse or many-worlds hypothesis extend reality beyond the observable universe, but all reality is still material and physical in nature. Second, epistemologically speaking, strong strong scientism believes science is the only way of verifying truth claims about reality. Therefore, a belief that is not scientific or doesn’t pass scientific scrutiny is considered false or meaningless. The foundational question becomes, can you prove it scientifically? Given strong scientism, religious, moral, and aesthetic claims to knowledge are neither true nor justified. They can be items of belief existentially important to individuals, but have no bearing on reality.

The claims of strong scientism are both breathtaking and logically incoherent. For example, the assertion that the material, physical world is all that exists cannot be justified by science. Likewise, the claim that all truth claims must be scientifically verified cannot itself be empirically verified by science either. Many times an atheist will say, "There is no evidence for God." This is an example of scientism. If they mean, "There is no scientific demonstration that God exists," then we agree. However, not all we accept as fact can be scientifically demonstrated. Ask, "do you think your mother loves (loved) you?" If he says "yes," ask him what scientific demonstration proves it. There is no such demonstration, yet it doesn't mean you "have no evidence" or are irrational for believing your mother loves you.

Weak scientism’s claim of being the best path to knowledge also backfires for similar reasons. It depends upon preconditions that are not derived scientifically. Moreover, knowledge of the natural world, while valuable, has limited application to other critical areas of life as will be shown next.

Science’s Limitations
The scientific method involves a general inductive approach to obtaining knowledge about the world (involving weighing probabilities and moving logically from the particular to the general). Scientific data generally comes directly through observation and experimentation. Thus, science does a very good job of explaining the physical mechanisms of the material world. It relates well to the what and how questions of life. This practical aspect is what has made science so successful and a deeply valued endeavor on behalf of humanity. However, science falters when it comes to questions of meaning, purpose, and significance. These are the ultimate why questions that people naturally and necessarily ask. For example, revealing that something happened in the physical world doesn’t explain why it happened or what it ultimately means.

There are five key areas that illustrate the realistic operating limits of sciences. These realities can’t be proven scientifically, yet all people affirm them to be real and true:

Logic and Mathematical Truths. Logic and math reflect laws and principles necessary for scientific theorizing. These truths are foundational assumptions upon which science depends but cannot itself prove. Logic and math are conceptual (abstract) in nature rather than empirical (sensory). Science tends to provide a type of secondary confirmation of the truth of logic and math, but it can’t justify these foundational conceptual realities directly.

Metaphysical Truths. Metaphysical truths relate to reality or true being. These include ideas like the existence of a real external world (not a mere illusion or simulation) and the existence of sentient minds other than our own that are capable of understanding the natural world. These minds are able to utilize and access reason (math and logic). In other words, science depends on metaphysical reality (the world, mind, and abstract objects being arranged in a science-conducive way). Although science cannot verify metaphysical truths, it is totally dependent upon metaphysics as a foundation for the scientific practice.

Ethical Truths. Objective moral truths and values exist (right, wrong, good, bad). They even guide and shape standards of practice in science. For example, scientific experiments and the results they provide are only valid if they are conducted with exacting honesty, accuracy, competency, and fair-mindedness. The existence of morality is undisputed (though how it is to be grounded is a subject of debate between theists and nontheists). Science cannot operate safely or prudently without it— yet again, science cannot detect or ground morals through its mere observational and empirical means of operation.

Aesthetic Considerations. Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy that refers to the nature and appreciation of beauty, taste, and art. Yet, without doubt, beauty abounds in the natural world itself. However, pure value judgments concerning the meaning and appreciation of beauty, taste, and art cannot be addressed by the scientific method. Again, value considerations about either morality (something is good) or beauty (something is pleasing) are outside the operating lane of science.

The Scientific Venture Itself.  The scientific enterprise is based upon critical assumptions that can’t be derived by the scientific method as I stated above. 

Conclusion
The foundation of science rests on truths that cannot be discovered scientifically. Science has real limits and the scientific enterprise cannot stand alone in providing comprehensive answers to life’s ultimate issues. This isn’t criticizing science, but rather recognizing its proper place in society. Science remains a critical tool to understanding the natural world, but scientism overstates its appropriate role. Hence, the edifice of scientism proves to be a structure without an adequate foundation.

Science, therefore, has not and cannot "do away with the need for God." Science depends on preconditions which show design and point to a Creator. True science and true theology can never be in conflict, as they both come from the One True God.

Monday, July 28, 2025

An Occult Therapy

 


Earlier this year, the following was written on a flyer which had been placed in my mailbox:
Are you seeking a gentle yet powerful approach to pain relief, stress reduction, and overall well-being? Look no further than Bowenwork therapy, offered by [name and address/phone/website/email of practitioner redacted]. Bowenwork is helpful to all; it was developed by Thomas Bowen, a devout Christian. Come and feel the power of Bowenwork today! (Emphasis mine). 

I had never heard of Bowenwork before (aka "Bowen Therapy" and "Bowen Technique"--hereinafter BT). In my experience, when someone emphasizes how "Christian" something is, it usually is not the case. I began to research and, sure enough, far from being "Christian," it is actually occult. As many practitioners of BT claim to be "Christian" (mostly Protestant and Vatican II sect), I will expose BT for what it really is in this post so no one will be fooled. (Please note that this post is a compilation of all the resources, both online and print, which I used in my research. I take no credit for any of the information herein. All I did was condense the information into a terse and readable post---Introibo).  

What BT Claims to Be
According to The American Bowen AcademyBowenwork is a gentle form of bodywork where very subtle moves performed over muscles and connective tissue send messages deep into the body through multiple layers of fascia, impacting nerves, lymphatics, organ function, muscles, joints, as well as the autonomic nervous system - an innovative approach to chronic and acute pain management. 
(See americanbowen.academy). 

There are many definitions I found besides the one above. No matter how defined, it is an alternative medicine technique that combines massage with what some describe as "vibrational energy healing."  It was developed by an Australian engineer with no medical training named Thomas Bowen (1916-1982) and was introduced into the U.S. in 1990. Thomas Bowen professed himself to be a devout Protestant.

However, BT is not consistent with a Christian view of the body or of health. According to one BT source: Tom Bowen believed in the universal energy called Chi. This energy circulates within the body along 14 channels, called meridians and it was identified by Chinese medicine.

The meridians contain acupuncture points which influence internal organs and their function. According to Chinese medicine the free circulation of Chi throughout the human body is essential for good health.

Most moves of the Bowen technique are practiced on particular meridians and some on specific acupuncture points. It is not known whether Tom Bowen had sufficient knowledge of Chinese medicine on which he based his procedures.  Nonetheless, acupuncturists practicing the Bowen technique claim that the Chi is modified during and after each Bowen treatment. 
(See bowtech.si/en/the-mechanism-of-bowen-technique; Emphasis mine). 

When there's talk of "vital energy" and "chi" (sometimes spelled "ki") you're dealing with pagan and occult teachings. 

BT and Science
There are many medical claims made by BT therapists, but what does the medical research have to say?
According to therapists who practice Bowenwork, this type of therapy acts on the autonomic nervous system. They believe it inhibits the sympathetic nervous system (your fight-or-flight stress response) and activates the parasympathetic nervous system (your rest-and-digest response).

However, no research has yet confirmed this or other mechanisms of action. (Emphasis mine),

Furthermore, Some people refer to Bowen therapy as a type of therapeutic massage. It isn’t a medical treatment, though. There’s minimal scientific research on its effectiveness, and its purported benefits are mainly anecdotal. (Emphasis mine).

Despite all this, BT is considered by some to be a veritable panacea. 
Conditions commonly addressed by Bowen therapy include:

  • frozen shoulder
  • headaches
  • migraine
  • back pain
  • neck pain
  • knee injuries
Some people may use Bowen therapy to manage pain due to:

  • respiratory conditions, like asthma
  • gastrointestinal disorders, like irritable bowel syndrome
  • cancer treatment side effects
Additionally, some people may also seek Bowen therapy for managing:

  • stress
  • fatigue
  • depression
  • anxiety
  • high blood pressure
  • stiffness and reduced range of motion

That's quite a list for a therapy whose exact mechanism for working is unknown, and benefits are mostly anecdotal. Limited research exists on the benefits, long-term effects, and risks of Bowen therapy. Some research suggests that it may help with pain and mobility, but more studies are needed to generalize results to all age groups and populations.

If you decide to have a session of Bowen therapy, it’s important to seek a licensed therapist and ask about potential side effects of the treatment. 
(All Information from this section, See healthline.com/health/bowen-therapy#bottom-line; all emphasis mine). 


Pagan and Occult Roots of BT
During a typical BT treatment, which lasts about 30-45 minutes, the practitioner uses his/her fingers to make a gentle rolling type of motion on different muscles in the body. The practitioner then pauses, sometimes even leaving the room for a few minutes, to allow the body to “make its own adjustments” or, in a sense, to heal itself. How is this possible?

According to one practitioner:
His (Thomas Bowen's) main principle and belief was that the body is able to heal itself, he believed that good medicine was to assist the body's natural ability to repair and regulate itself and that bodily dysfunction were the result of disturbances in the tissues. His underlying assumption was that structure governs function, and that disturbances of structure in whatever tissue within the body will lead to disturbances of functioning in that structure and, in turn, of the function of the body as a whole. His goal was to restore the structural integrity in the body in order to restore its optimum function.

He also believed in the universal life energy called Chi. In traditional Chinese medicine, this energy must flow freely throughout the body in order to assure a state of maximum health. Bowen's gift was to discover a system of mobilization to rebalance the natural flow of energy
(See bowentherapytechnique.com/page3/page3.html; All Emphasis in original). 

The idea of chi or ki is purely pagan/occult. A key to understanding pagan approaches to health and views of the body is in the knowledge of what is taught about the "subtle body." It is integrated from Hinduism, and Taoism, then appropriated by occultists. Here is one description of an occult book on the subtle body by an “intuitive healer” or "psychic healer:"

All healers are “energetic” healers, whether they know it or not. Because every health issue has a physical and an energetic component, even a simple physical treatment like bandaging a cut also impacts the body’s spiritual, mental, and emotional welfare.

The Subtle Body is a comprehensive encyclopedia devoted to the critical world of our invisible anatomy, where so much of healing actually occurs. Compiled by intuitive healer and scholar Cyndi Dale, this 500-page full color illustrated reference book covers: * What is the “subtle body”? New scientific understanding of our quantum-state existence and the unseen fields that determine our physical condition * True integrative care: how combining Eastern energetic modalities with Western scientific rigor yields optimum results * The meridians, fields, and chakras: detailed information and diagrams about the role of these energetic structures in our overall health * Energy-based therapy principles from the world’s healing traditions–including Ayurveda, Qigong, Reiki, Quabalah, and many more. (See cyndidale.com/product/the-subtle-body). 

The chi/ki belief makes BT a form of energy healing like Reiki  just mentioned in the book description. Here is the pagan mumbo-jumbo regarding chi/ki: "The source or cause of health comes from the Ki that flows through and around the individual rather than from the functional condition of the physical organs and tissues. It is Ki that animates the physical organs and tissues as it flows through them and therefore is responsible for creating a healthy condition. If the flow of Ki is disrupted, the physical organs and tissues will be adversely affected. Therefore, it is a disruption in the flow of Ki that is the main cause of illness.

An important attribute of Ki is that it responds to ones thoughts and feelings. Ki will flow more strongly or be weakened in its action depending on the quality of ones thoughts and feelings. It is our negative thoughts and feelings that are the main cause of restriction in the flow of Ki. All negative or dis-harmonious thoughts or feelings will cause a disruption in the flow of Ki. Even Western medicine recognizes the role played by the mind in creating illness and some Western doctors state that as much as 98% of illness is caused directly or indirectly by the mind.

It must be understood that the mind exists not only in the brain, but also through-out the body. The nervous system extends to every organ and tissue in the body and so the mind exists here also. It is also known that the mind even extends outside the body in a subtle energy field 2 to 3 feet thick called the aura. Because of this, it is more appropriate to call our mind a mind/body as the mind and body are so closely linked."  (See Reiki.org; Emphasis mine).

Here's what's wrong with this doctrine:
1. There is no soul as the animating principle of the body, but some impersonal "Ki energy."

2. Ki nevertheless can respond and be manipulated by thoughts and feelings, yet there is no explanation as to how or why this is known/proven.

3. The claim that "some Western doctors" (not even naming one) state "98% of illness is caused directly or indirectly by the mind" is not only completely unsubstantiated, but terms are not even defined. What does it mean that an illness is caused "indirectly by the mind"?

4. It states the existence of some "aura" which is "known" to exist without any citations to a single relevant medical or scientific source.

What if it Really Works?
The objection may be raised: What if there's some truth to Bowen Therapy? Maybe science just hasn't discovered everything we know about the workings of the body; a  bodily energy might be at work. Many people claim health benefits. Besides, I don't believe in the pagan/occult stuff. As long as I see it as an "energetic massage" that may help me, what's wrong with using BT? 

There's much wrong with it. It is a form of Reiki, and it was correctly condemned by (wait for it)...The Vatican II Sect! (Hey, even a broken clock is right twice every 24 hours, right?). Since the sect actually got something right (even if not well known and never enforced), I cite it here; just substitute "Bowen Therapy" for Reiki as both have the same worldview based on "energy healing." 

The Vatican II sect document entitled Guidelines for Evaluating Reiki as an Alternative Therapy, has this to say in paragraph #9:

The difference between what Christians recognize as healing by divine grace and Reiki therapy is also evident in the basic terms used by Reiki proponents to describe what happens in Reiki therapy, particularly that of "universal life energy." Neither the Scriptures nor the Christian tradition as a whole speak of the natural world as based on "universal life energy" that is subject to manipulation by the natural human power of thought and will. In fact, this worldview has its origins in eastern religions and has a certain monist and pantheistic character, in that distinctions among self, world, and God tend to fall away. (Emphasis mine)

Their conclusion:
Reiki therapy finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief. For a Catholic to believe in Reiki therapy presents insoluble problems...In terms of caring for one's spiritual health, there are important dangers. To use Reiki one would have to accept at least in an implicit way central elements of the worldview that undergirds Reiki theory, elements that belong neither to Christian faith nor to natural science.
Without justification either from Christian faith or natural science, however, a Catholic who puts his or her trust in Reiki would be operating in the realm of superstition, the no-man's-land that is neither faith nor science. Superstition corrupts one's worship of God by turning one's religious feeling and practice in a false direction.(See paragraphs 10 and 11; Emphasis mine. The term "Catholic" is meant to denote a member of the Vatican II sect).

Therefore, to submit oneself to any pagan "energy healing" like BT or Reiki becomes an implicit denial of dogma, as the basis of these practices rests upon the heresy of pantheism.

From the Vatican Council (1870), Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Dei Filius, it states:

The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, Almighty, Eternal, Immense, Incomprehensible, Infinite in intelligence, in will, and in all perfection, who, as being one, sole, absolutely simple and immutable spiritual substance, is to be declared as really and essentially distinct from the world, of supreme beatitude in and from Himself, and ineffably exalted above all things which exist, or are conceivable, except Himself. 

3. If anyone shall say that the substance and essence of God and of all things is one and the same; let him be anathema. 

4. If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the Divine substance; or that the Divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself, becomes all things; or, lastly, that God is a universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universality of things, distinct according to genera, species and individuals; let him be anathema. 

5. If anyone does not confess that the world, and all things that are contained in it, both spiritual and material, have been, in their whole substance, produced by God out of nothing; or shall say that God created, not by His will, free from all necessity, but by a necessity equal to the necessity whereby He loves Himself; or shall deny that the world was made for the glory of God; let him be anathema. 

You also open yourself up to possible demonic obsession/possession whenever you involve yourself in anything occult or pagan. 

Conclusion
Bowen Therapy is based on the occult/pagan worldview of pantheism and replaces the One True Personal God with an impersonal "life force" called chi or ki. It may have some benefit from the placebo effect, among other explanations, but do you really want physical improvement at any cost? 
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?" (St. Matthew 16:26).