On Divine Mercy Sunday, Richard Dawkins sent out a tweet attacking the Catholic belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Professor Dawkins stated:
“Roman Catholics are required to believe that communion wine actually is literally the blood of Christ, and the wafer literally is his body. Not symbolically but literally. Not a metaphor but literally. That way madness lies. At very least it’s a pernicious abuse of language.”
He sent out a subsequent tweet complete with a link to New Advent and the Catholic Encyclopedia, an article that I am not sure he read in it’s entirety. I’d like to explore in this article what Dawkins got right and what he got completely wrong.
First, what he got correct:
“That way madness lies” … This I give him credit for. The fact that Christ gave us his very body and blood to eat and drink, the fact that Jesus Christ was crucified and rose from the dead is indeed madness. (see 1 Cor 1:23)
Later he added the quote: “… the entire substance of the bread and the entire substance of the wine are converted respectively into the Body and Blood of Christ in such a way that ‘only the appearances of bread and wine remain’.”
This quote is taken from the Council of Trent and is also seen in the context of CCC 1376. He also stated that most Catholics: “Do not believe in this dogma.” Which, sadly, as polls have lately indicated, he is correct.
What Dawkins got wrong:
Yet, from the preceding tweet it seems he didn’t understand the use of the words substance and accidents. These are very basic Aristotelian philosophical categories that aren’t isolated to Catholic theology and actually serve for foundational building blocks of the scientific method. His failure to recognize this and make a misuse of the word “literal” is a surprising error for a man who claims to be a philosophical mind. (He also strikes a nerve with one of my biggest pet peeves, which is the misuse of the word literal.)
We do not believe in the literal change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. This has to do with the use of the categories of substance and accident. A literal change would mean taking words at their basic or usual sense. (Which clearly the subject of transubstantiation is not basic or usual). A literal change would be both the change of the substance and accident. What this would mean is that we believe that the bread and wine become both substantially and accidentally flesh and blood. (To be graphic, if we believed this I would be holding and the congregation would see me holding the heart of Jesus at the altar. )Yet, by quote Professor Dawkins provided us with from the Council of Trent, this is not true. Catholics believe that there is a substantial change of the bread and wine to flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, but the accidents of bread and wine remain. (To use the above example, I am holding the Sacred Heart of Jesus, but they have the appearance of bread and wine).
Dawkins is correct, in a purely scientific mindset, there is nothing experienced that can be compared with this. Thus, it is surely madness. And this is why we see the Eucharist as such a beautiful mystery.
Very good Fr Sund , It is truly the mystery and in it we re all strengthened as we believe in the truth of the mystery to receive in remembrance of His Divine Sacrifice for all of us.