Question 9 - Is God Present in Hell?
R. Sungenis: God is everywhere, even in Hell, in his omnipresence. But he is only there in his divine being, not his divine care. When we speak about the "absence" of God we are speaking about the absence of his divine care. God does not care any longer for the souls in hell.
Ker Than
Staff Writer
SPACE.com
Wed Sep 12, 12:15 PM ET
A dead, spinning star has been found feeding on its stellar companion, whittling it down to an object smaller than some planets.
"This object is merely the skeleton of a star," says study team member Craig Markwardt of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. "The pulsar has eaten away the star's outer envelope, and all that remains is its helium-rich core."
Pulsars are the cores of burnt out "neutron" stars that spin hundreds of times per second, faster than a kitchen blender.
The system was discovered in early June when NASA's Swift and Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) satellites picked up an outburst of X-rays and gamma rays in the direction of the Milky Way galactic center in the constellation Sagittarius.
Not a planet
The smaller companion orbits its parasitic companion from a distance of only about 230,000 miles--slightly less than the distance between the Earth and moon. It has an estimated minimum mass of only 7 times that of Jupiter, but it could be much larger. Unlike three Earth-sized objects found around a pulsar in 1992, scientists do not consider the new object to be a planet because of how it formed.
"It's essentially a white dwarf that has been whittled down to a planetary mass," said study team member Christopher Deloye of Northwestern University.
Scientists think that several billion years ago, the system consisted of a very massive star and a smaller star about 1 to 3 times the mass of our sun. The bigger star evolved quickly and exploded as a supernova, leaving behind a spinning stellar corpse known as a neutron star. Meanwhile, the smaller star began to evolve as well, eventually puffing up into a red giant whose outer envelope encapsulated the neutron star.
This caused the two stars to draw closer together, while simultaneously ejecting the red giant's envelope into space.
Survival unclear
After billions of years, little remains of the companion star, and it's uncertain whether it will survive. "It's been taking a beating, but that's part of nature," said study team member Hans Krimm, also of NASA Goddard.
Today, the two objects are so close to each other that the neutron star's powerful gravity siphons gas from its companion to form a spinning disk around itself. The disk occasionally dumps large quantities of gas onto the neutron star, creating an outburst like the one detected in June.
The system will be detailed in two studies authored by Krimm's team and a team led by Deepto Chakrabarty of MIT, which reached the same conclusions, to be published in an upcoming issue of Astrophysical Journal Letters.
The system is only the eighth pulsar with a period of about one millisecond that is known to be accreting mass from its companion. Only one other such system has a pulsar companion with such a low mass. The companion in that system, XTE J1807-294, also has a minimum mass of about 7 Jupiters.
"Given that we don't know the exact mass of either companion, ours could be the smallest," Krimm said.
Darwinism is criticized by yet a third school of critics, one which includes philosophers such as Michael Polanyi, who build on the work of Henri Bergson and Teilhard de Chardin. Philosophers of this orientation, notwithstanding their mutual differences, agree that biological organisms cannot be understood by the laws of mechanics alone. The laws of biology, without in any way contradicting those of physics and chemistry, are more complex. The behavior of living organisms cannot be explained without taking into account their striving for life and growth. Plants, by reaching out for sunlight and nourishment, betray an intrinsic aspiration to live and grow. This internal finality makes them capable of success and failure in ways that stones and minerals are not. Because of the ontological gap that separates the living from the nonliving, the emergence of life cannot be accounted for on the basis of purely mechanical principles.
In tune with this school of thought, the English mathematical physicist John Polkinghorne holds that Darwinism is incapable of explaining why multicellular plants and animals arise when single cellular organisms seem to cope with the environment quite successfully. There must be in the universe a thrust toward higher and more-complex forms. The Georgetown professor John F. Haught, in a recent defense of the same point of view, notes that natural science achieves exact results by restricting itself to measurable phenomena, ignoring deeper questions about meaning and purpose. By its method, it filters out subjectivity, feeling, and striving, all of which are essential to a full theory of cognition. Materialistic Darwinism is incapable of explaining why the universe gives rise to subjectivity, feeling, and striving.
The Thomist philosopher Etienne Gilson vigorously contended in his 1971 book From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again that Francis Bacon and others perpetrated a philosophical error when they eliminated two of Aristotle’s four causes from the purview of science. They sought to explain everything in mechanistic terms, referring only to material and efficient causes and discarding formal and final causality.
Without the form, or the formal cause, it would be impossible to account for the unity and specific identity of any substance. In the human composite the form is the spiritual soul, which makes the organism a single entity and gives it its human character. Once the form is lost, the material elements decompose, and the body ceases to be human. It would be futile, therefore, to try to define human beings in terms of their bodily components alone.
Final causality is particularly important in the realm of living organisms. The organs of the animal or human body are not intelligible except in terms of their purpose or finality. The brain is not intelligible without reference to the faculty of thinking that is its purpose, nor is the eye intelligible without reference to the function of seeing.
These three schools of thought are all sustainable in a Christian philosophy of nature. Although I incline toward the third, I recognize that some well-qualified experts profess theistic Darwinism and Intelligent Design. All three of these Christian perspectives on evolution affirm that God plays an essential role in the process, but they conceive of God’s role in different ways. According to theistic Darwinism, God initiates the process by producing from the first instant of creation (the Big Bang) the matter and energies that will gradually develop into vegetable, animal, and eventually human life on this earth and perhaps elsewhere. According to Intelligent Design, the development does not occur without divine intervention at certain stages, producing irreducibly complex organs. According to the teleological view, the forward thrust of evolution and its breakthroughs into higher grades of being depend upon the dynamic presence of God to his creation. Many adherents of this school would say that the transition from physicochemical existence to biological life, and the further transitions to animal and human life, require an additional input of divine creative energy.
Rev’d. Dr. Laurence Paul Hemming
If a motu proprio is a ‘personal motion’ of the pope, it is important to understand that Benedict XVI has in the expanations around the motu proprio conceded a point long argued by those who love the traditional rites and that was rumoured (but never confirmed) to have been decided by the special commission of cardinals appointed to consider the matter in some secrecy by Pope John Paul II (of which the present pope was a member). The matter in question was the exact status of the traditional liturgical books. Benedict XVI’s explanatory letter tells us ‘as for the use of the 1962 Missal . . . I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted’. In this sense the motu proprio has not freed up the liturgical books at all, it has simply defined and clarified a freedom they already possessed in their own right. The importance of this cannot be understated: a future motu proprio could not therefore revoke the freedom of the traditional liturgical books – or put another way, strictly speaking the motu proprio has only defined the character of the freedom of the former liturgical books, it has not been the act whereby there are freed.
When the Pope speaks in the supporting letter of there being ‘no rupture’ between the two forms of the Roman Rite he asserts a truth which the whole Church has yet to discover – that when the 1970 missal and the other reformed rites are understood in the context of the former rites, then their orthodox interpretation is assured, and all ambiguity is removed. What the motu proprio does is make possible in the ordinary life of the Church that the ‘rupture’ proposed by adherents of the ‘spirit of the council’ can only be healed through the Church’s sacred activity of prayer and administration of the sacraments. What he announces as a ‘fact’ – that there is no rupture between the two forms of the rite will then become an actual truth, one which will have effects in every aspect of the Church’s life. In fact what he proposes is that the living presence of the former rites – as themselves active vehicles of the Holy Spirit and of divine grace – will ensure the freedom and health of the future Church. What he announces as a fact is really a task to be carried out over the next decades of the Church's life – in prayer (the liturgical life that is the life of the Church), in charity, and through the Church’s sacred actions.
