January 2010 – Jimmy Akin

STUNNER! Pope Practiced Self-Mortification.

So various circles have been atwitter about news reports that Pope John Paul II practiced certain forms of self-mortification or, in the immortal words of the Associated Press, “John Paul II used belt to whip himself.”

It is not surprising that our pleasure-obsessed culture would find this unusual, nor is it surprising that latent anti-Catholic tendencies in the culture would cause people to read it in a negative light—as something shocking or repulsive.

So what can we say to those who have this kind of reaction?

Let’s start with what we can say to fellow Christians (Catholic or not) who find themselves thinking this way: While not every person is called to the kind of self-mortification that John Paul II practiced, self-mortification is part of the Judeo-Christian tradition with roots going all the way back to the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

We read in the Old Testament, for example, of people fasting, wearing sackcloth (which abrades the skin; the Old Testament equivalent of a hairshirt), putting ashes on their heads, and lying tied-up in uncomfortable positions for long periods of time (Ezekiel 4:4-8).

In the New Testament we also read of such practices, and of particular note are Jesus’ own remarks about (and personal practice of) fasting. If Our Lord himself practiced fasting, then self-mortification could scarcely fail to find a place in Christian spirituality. Note also that in the Sermon on the Mount he doesn’t say “if” you fast but “when” you fast—implying an expectation of his followers.

Once we have recognized this, the issue of self-mortification becomes one of degree and occasion, for the fundamental principle has been established. If a particular Christian’s faith tradition (or personal view) hasn’t made room for self-mortification then he needs to conduct an open-minded re-examination of the issue.

He might be helped in that re-examination by what we can say to a non-believer, which goes beyond establishing that self-mortification is biblical and deals with the underlying principles.

The first thing to point out is that this isn’t masochism. It’s not the case of wanting the pain out of some sick craving. While there are masochists, anything they do along these lines is not a genuine spiritual exercise. The whole point of self-mortification is that you don’t find the pain attractive but are willing to submit to it anyway for a higher goal.

And the non-believer, unless he is a unthinking hedonist, should be able to acknowledge that it can be legitimate to endure pain for a higher goal (i.e., that there can be higher goals in life than just avoiding pain). For example, the pain that soldiers undergo to defend their country, the pain that parents undergo to help their children, and the pain that absolutely all of us must shoulder in order to achieve important goals.

So what goal was John Paul II, and other practitioners of self-mortification, striving for?

Holiness.

Specifically, virtues like humility, compassion, self-control, the ability to say no to your body in the pursuit of a spiritual goal.

A close analogy is the athletic saying, “No pain, no gain.” In order to get your body in shape, you must be willing to endure some hardship, and the same is true of your soul (or your personality if the person doesn’t believe in souls).

Self-mortification teaches humility by making us recognize that there are things more important than our own pleasure. It teaches compassion by giving us a window into the sufferings of others—who don’t have a choice in whether they’re suffering. And it strengthens self-control.

As well as (here’s the big one I’ve saved for last) encouraging us to follow the example of Our Lord, who made the central act of the Christian religion one of self-denial and (in his case) literal mortification to bring salvation to all mankind.

Even if a non-believer doesn’t buy the religious premises involved, he should be able to see the nobility of the principle of shouldering hardship for the sake of others and for the sake of learning virtues like humility and compassion rather than focusing exclusively on one’s own pleasure.

Hopefully he can see why a pope, as the vicar of Christ and as the leader of the Christian world, would be called to personal mortification in a way that goes beyond what most people are.

NOTE: Any form of significant self-mortification must be done under the guidance of a competent spiritual director. Do not try this at home on your own.

Filed under john paul ii, mortification, spirituality

Pro-Life Super Bowl Advertising

People who know me know that I know next to nothing about sports. I just never got the sports bug. (Except for rodeo.)

But even a person as sports-benighted as myself is aware that Super Bowl ads are the pinnacle of television advertising, that they can cost millions of dollars, and that they can create notable ripples in the culture.

Let’s hope this one does:

Focus on the Family will broadcast the first Super Bowl ad in its history February 7 during CBS Sports’ coverage of the game at Dolphin Stadium in South Florida.

The 30-second spot from the international family-help organization will feature college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. They will share a personal story centered on the theme of “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.” . . .

The Tebows said they agreed to appear in the commercial because the issue of life is one they feel very strongly about.

According to other news accounts,:

The Associated Press reported this week that the ad’s theme will be “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life,” with Pam Tebow sharing the story of her difficult 1987 pregnancy—instead of getting an abortion she decided to give birth to Tebow, the now-famous quarterback who went on to become a Heisman Trophy winner, leading the Gators to two BCS wins.

So this has a bunch of people on the pro-abortion side of the aisle atwitter, and according to Reuters (big surprise they’d make the pro-aborts the lens through which to view the story):

U.S. women’s groups are urging television broadcaster CBS not to air an ad during next month’s Super Bowl football championship final because they say it has a strident anti-abortion rights message. . . .

The Women’s Media Center and over 30 other liberal and women’s advocacy groups sent a letter to CBS, the TV network to air the Super Bowl on Feb. 7, saying: “… we urge you to immediately cancel this ad and refuse any other advertisement promoting Focus on the Family’s agenda.”

“We are calling on CBS to stick to their policy of not airing controversial advocacy ads … and this is clearly a controversial ad,” Jehmu Greene, the president of the Women’s Media Center, told Reuters.

Fortunately, CBS seems to be sticking to its guns:

CBS said it no longer had a blanket filter on advocacy submissions for ad slots. “We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms on the issue,” said CBS spokesman Dana McClintock.

I look forward to following what happens with this one.

Because, y’know, not every pro-life ad has been allowed to air during the Super Bowl.

Filed under abortion, advertising, pro-life, sports, television

The Age of the World–Part III

Some time ago I did a couple of posts (part I, part II) on the age of the world, in which I looked at Vatican documents dating from recent years–the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the International Theological Commission's document on our being created in the image of God.

Both of these documents took an open stance regarding the findings of mainstream modern science concerning the age of the universe and the existence of some form of biological evolution.

They did not impose these as matters of faith, for they are not matters of faith–which was precisely the point. At present the Magisterium and related bodies like the ITC have determined that the sources of faith do not conflict with the findings of mainstream modern science on these points, and so one may follow the scientific evidence where it leads. (On other points, such as the creation of the world out of nothing and the special creation of each human soul, including those of the first humans, the faith does have something to say and the same liberty is not enjoyed.)

You might question how long the Magisterium has held this position, and that's a good question. I, for one, would love to know the answer.

Certainly, though much of Christian history a young earth view was common, though there were also voices urging that the biblical creation accounts, especially Genesis 1, should be handled with care and that they might not be the kind of chronological guide many thought. (St. Augustine, in particular, went into a great deal of depth on this point.)

It seems to me that this view is correct, that a careful reading of Genesis 1 shows that it never intended to offer a purely chronological account, and that it overtly signalled this to the original audience by placing the creation of the sun three days after the creation of the day/night cycle. People back then understood that the sun is a light, that it lights up the sky, and that it thus causes the day/night cycle.

Indeed, the ancient world was full of people whose religion was intensely bound up with this fact, such as the Egyptians, who held that the sun god Ra had to fight with the serpent monster Apophis every night so that the solar barge could return to the sky and bring daylight again. An occasional Apophis attack on Ra during the day was the explanation for eclipses and the darkness they bring. The idea was that Apophis swallowed the solar barge earlier than normal in the daily cycle, and Ra's forces were able to cut him free in a short space of time.

Genesis 1 rejects this pagan understanding of matters and simply refers to the sun as a "light." It doesn't even use the Hebrew word for "sun"–shamash–because this word as also the name of the Canaanite sun god and the author didn't want any confusion about God creating the Canaanite solar deity. So he just calls the sun a light, with the implication: "It's just a light, Don't worship it."

The point is, though, that the ancients understood the fact that the sun is the source of daylight and thus by putting the creation of the sun after the creation of the day/night cycle, the author of Genesis 1 is showing us a topically-structured rather than chronologically-structured account.

At least in my humble opinion.

For those who came from different cultural traditions, who were not as in touch with ancient Semitic ways of writing, this kind of detail could be easily missed and the whole account taken as what it superficially appeared to be–a chronologically-organized description of the creation of the world in one, seven-day week.

The need to be careful in such matters was stressed by Pius XII in his 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu:

35. What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use.

36. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East. The investigation, carried out, on this point, during the past forty or fifty years with greater care and diligence than ever before, has more clearly shown what forms of expression were used in those far off times, whether in poetic description or in the formulation of laws and rules of life or in recording the facts and events of history.

A bit earlier in the same encyclical, Pius XII notes some of the historical difficulties in interpreting the early chapters of Genesis:

31. Moreover we may rightly and deservedly hope that our time also can contribute something towards the deeper and more accurate interpretation of Sacred Scripture. For not a few things, especially in matters pertaining to history, were scarcely at all or not fully explained by the commentators of past ages, since they lacked almost all the information which was needed for their clearer exposition. How difficult for the Fathers themselves, and indeed well nigh unintelligible, were certain passages is shown, among other things, by the oft-repeated efforts of many of them to explain the first chapters of Genesis; likewise by the reiterated attempts of St. Jerome so to translate the Psalms that the literal sense, that, namely, which is expressed by the words themselves, might be clearly revealed.

A few years later, in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, which deals with biological evolution, he also commented on the literary character of the early chapters of Genesis in a way that anticipates the approach taken by the Catechism:

38. . . . the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which howevermust be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters . . . in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give apopular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

Now, I don't quote these passages from Pius XII as having a great deal of bearing on the age of the universe. They are illustrative of the Magisterium's attitude toward the early portions of Genesis.

So what does Pius XII say on the age of the world from a scientific perspective?

This is found in a speech he gave in 1951 to the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences. In it, he says [My comments added in red–JA]:

35. First of all, to quote some figures–which aim at nothing else than to give an order of magnitude fixing the dawn of our universe [so he's not signing off on any specific date], that is to say, to its beginning in time–science has at its disposal various means, each of which is more or less independent from the other, although all converge. We point them out briefly [Note that in what follows Pius XII mixes evidences regarding the dates for the origin of the universe and the origin of the solar system, both of this he is evincing regarding "the dawn of our universe." He does not clearly distinguish between the two–a conflation which may have been common at the time. This conflation is in part responsible for the range of dates he considers.]:

(1) recession of the spiral nebulae or galaxies:

36. The examination of various spiral nebulae [i.e., galaxies], especially as carried out by Edwin W. Hubble at the Mount Wilson Observatory, has led to the significant conclusion, presented with all due reservations [so even the scientists are being tentative about this and the Church isn't signing off on it as a certainty or an article of faith], that these distant systems of galaxies tend to move away from one another with such velocity that, in the space of 1,300 million years, the distance between such spiral nebulae is doubled. If we look back into the past at the time required for this process of the "expanding universe," it follows that, from one to ten billion years ago, the matter of the spiral nebulae was compressed into a relatively restricted space, at the time the cosmic processes had their beginning. [Ten billion is a little on the small side, viewed by 2010 mainstream science; 13-14 billion is the common estimate today, though this doesn't matter since Pius XII is only aiming for an order of magnitude.]

(2) The age of the solid crust of the earth:

37. To calculate the age of original radioactive substances, very approximate data are taken from the transformation of the isotope of uranium 238 into an isotope of lead (RaG), or of an isotope of uranium 235 into actinium D (AcD), and of the isotope of thorium 232 into thorium D (ThD). The mass of helium thereby formed can serve as a means of control. This leads to the conclusion that the average age of the oldest minerals is at the most five billion years. [This agrees with the common age held for the formation of the earth and the solar system: 4.6 billion year.]

(3) The age of meteorites:

38. The preceding method adopted to determine the age of meteorites has led to practically the same figure of five billion years. [Meteorites, as part of the solar system, ditto.] This is a result which acquires special importance by reason of the fact that the meteorites come from outside our earth and, apart from the terrestrial minerals are the only examples of celestial bodies which can be studied in scientific laboratories. [This was, of course, before we went to the moon and started bringing back samples from there and–robotically–from elsewhere in the solar system.]

(4) The stability of the systems of double stars and starry masses:

39. The oscillations of gravitation between these systems, as also the attrition resulting from tides, again limit their stability within a period of from five to ten billion years.

40. Although these figures may seem astounding, nevertheless, even to the simplest of the faithful, they bring no new or different concept from the one they learned in the opening words of Genesis: "In the beginning . . .," that is to say; at the beginning of things in time. The figures We have quoted clothe these words in a concrete and almost mathematical expression, while from them there springs forth a new source of consolation for those who share the esteem of the Apostle for that divinely inspired Scripture which is always useful "for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing" (2 Tim., 3, 16).

E. THE STATE AND QUALITY OF ORIGINAL MATTER

41. [In this section, the pontiff again seems to conflate the origin of the universe with later events–the later events in this case being the creation of heavy elements. This may be because the concept of stellar nucleosynthesis–the creation of heavier elements in stars rather than in the Big Bang–was a new concept in his day that had just been proposed and was still being worked out.] In addition to the question of the age of the cosmos, scholars have, with similar earnestness and liberty of research and verification, turned their daring genius to the other problem which has already been mentioned and which is certainly more difficult, concerning the state and quality of primitive matter. [Here he seems to mean the matter at the beginning of the universe, at or just after the Big Bang.]

42. According to the theories serving as their basis, the relative calculations differ in no small degree from one another. Nevertheless, scientists agree in holding that not only the mass but also the density, pressure, and temperature of matter must have reached absolutely enormous proportions as can be seen from the recent work of A. Unsold [Albrecht Unsold], director of the Observatory of Kiel (Kernphysik und Kosmologie ["Nuclear Physics and Cosmology"–see a short English language abstract of the paper via Google Bookshere.], in the Zeitschrift fur Astrophysik, 24, B. 1948, pag. 278-306). Only under such conditions can we explain the formation of heavy nuclei and their relative frequency in the periodic system of the elements. [Perhaps at the time this was the only way they could see such elements being formed; later thought–and according to a recently proposed theory by Hubble at the time–the pressures and densities found in the life cycle of certain stars will do the trick just fine. This is now the received view.]

43. Rightly, on the other hand, does the mind in its eagerness for truth insist on asking how matter reached this state, which is so unlike anything found in our own everyday experience, and it also wants to know what went before it. In vain would we seek an answer in natural science, which declares honestly that it finds itself face to face with an insoluble enigma. [Both of the preceding sentences seem to confirm that he is thinking about the Big Bang and the state of matter in it.] It is true that such a question would demand too much of natural science as such. But it is also certain that the human mind trained in philosophical meditation penetrates more deeply into this problem.

44. [Now Pius XII begins to meditate on the religious implications of the foregoing.] It is undeniable that when a mind enlightened and enriched with modern scientific knowledge weighs this problem calmly, it feels drawn to break through the circle of completely independent or autochthonous [i.e., native, indigenous] matter, whether uncreated or self-created, and to ascend to a creating Spirit. With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty "Fiat" pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter bursting with energy. In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial "Fiat lux" ["Let there be Light"] uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies. [Note the quickness to associate the creation of light with the Big Bang; though this can be done in a literary or poetic way, one must be cautious not to take it too literally; see the link in the next paragraph.]

45. It is quite true that the facts established up to the present time are not an absolute proof of creation in time [VERY important point, as written about before; good to see the point being made in this context!], as are the proofs drawn from metaphysics and Revelation in what concerns simple creation or those founded on Revelation if there be question of creation in time. The pertinent facts of the natural sciences, to which We have referred, are awaiting still further research and confirmation, and the theories founded on them are in need of further development and proof before they can provide a sure foundation for arguments which, of themselves, are outside the proper sphere of the natural sciences. [This theme very much taken up in later documents: Science can take us to a certain point but not farther.]

46. [Now the pontiff comments on what an earthquake the Big Bang turned out to be for the previously accepted view in mainstream science.] This notwithstanding, it is worthy of note that modern scholars in these fields regard the idea of the creation of the universe as entirely compatible with their scientific conceptions and that they are even led spontaneously to this conclusion by their scientific research. Just a few decades ago, any such "hypothesis" was rejected as entirely irreconcilable with the present state of science.

47. As late as 1911, the celebrated physicist Svante Arhenius declared that "the opinion that something can come from nothing is at variance with the present-day state of science, according to which matter is immutable." (Die Vorstellung vom Weltgebaude im Wandel der Zeiten, 1911, pag. 362). In this same vein we find the statement of Plato: "Matter exists. Nothing can come from nothing, hence matter is eternal. We cannot admit the creation of matter." (Ultramontane Weltanschauung und Moderne Lebenskunde, 1907, pag. 55).

48. On the other hand, how different and much more faithful a reflection of limitless visions is the language of an outstanding modern scientist, Sir Edmund Whittaker, member of the Pontifical Academy of Science, when he speaks of the above-mentioned inquiries into the age of the world: "These different calculations point to the conclusion that there was a time, some nine or ten billion years ago, prior to which the cosmos, if it existed, existed in a form totally different from anything we know, and this form constitutes the very last limit of science. We refer to it perhaps not improperly as creation. It provides a unifying background, suggested by geological evidence, for that explanation of the world according to which every organism existing on the earth had a beginning in time. Were this conclusion to be confirmed by future research, it might well be considered as the most outstanding discovery of our times, since it represents a fundamental change in the scientific conception of the universe, similar to the one brought about four centuries ago by Copernicus." (Space and Spirit, 1946, pag. 118- 119).

Conclusion:

49. What, then, is the importance of modern science for the argument for the existence of God based on the mutability of the cosmos? By means of exact and detailed research into the macrocosm and the microcosm, it has considerably broadened and deepened the empirical foundation on which this argument rests, and from which it concludes to the existence of an Ens a se [i.e., a being not contingent on another], immutable by His very nature.

50. It has, besides, followed the course and the direction of cosmic developments, and, just as it was able to get a glimpse of the term toward which these developments were inexorably leading, so also has it pointed to their beginning in time some five billion years ago. Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, it has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the cosmos came forth from the hands of the Creator.

51. Hence, creation took place in time. Therefore, there is a Creator. Therefore, God exists! Although it is neither explicit nor complete, this is the reply we were awaiting from science, and which the present human generation is awaiting from it.

The takeaway message from this is that the Magisterium's openness to the idea that the universe is billions of years old is not some new, sinister, modernist, post-Vatican II thing. It was accepted–enthusiastically–by Pope Pius XII–the pope who defined the Assumption of Mary and, incidentally, just the year after he defined it.

He also used the finding of Big Bang cosmology and Old Earth science to buttress the idea of the existence of God, while noting a number of important caveats that this reasoning from science cannot be taken as definitive.

Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa

I'd like to make a quick apology for not blogging recently. I've had a lot going on (including a bout of food poisoning last night–ick!–when I was otherwise planning to blog), and I haven't been able to get to it.

So . . . my apologies.

And I'll keep this short so that I can now–immediately–proceed to putting up a post of substance.

Say WHAAAAT?

(Cross-posted on The League of Bearded Catholics blog)

Hello, is this thing on?

*Harrumph*… perhaps I was busy trimming my beard, or maybe my nose hair (which requires far greater concentration), but I seem to have completely missed out on any national conversation or debate over this, which I'm sure must have been vocal and abundant. Far be it that anyone should get all worked up over such a trivial matter, but in looking over the instructions for the IRS Form 1040, I recently found the following;

Expiring tax benefits.

The following benefits are scheduled to expire and will not be available for 2010.

… The exclusion from income of qualified charitable distributions

Tax-deductible charitable contributions are… just gone? In the words of my old Building-and-Loan pal, George Bailey… "Do you realize what this means?"

Did I read this wrong? Am I dreaming?

UPDATE: So, a couple of knowledgable commenters have pointed out that, unlike the "charitable tax deduction", the "exclusion from income" is limited to direct contributions of things like IRAs to charitiy. So, a follow up question: how will this affect charities and donors? How greatly do charitable organizations count on this sort of funding?

Thanks for the combox clarification, by the way. It doesn;t sound as dire as I had imagined.

“My Sisters and Brothers . . . “

My parish has been having visiting priests recently, and two of them have had the unfortunate habit of addressing the congregation by saying, “My sisters and brothers . . . “

To my mind, this is just sad.

It comes off something like a parent being overly chummy with the young ‘uns by trying (and failing) to use the latest teen-lingo and sounding out of touch instead.

Let’s talk about the alternatives.

1) “Brethren” – This has been the standard way of addressing mix-gender religious congregations in English for the last several million years.

It sounds formal, but natural—which is what you want. Something elevated in tone in keeping with the religious nature of the gathering, but not something that’s going to pop out to the listener as an unnatural or forced expression, which would cause the listener to pop out of the worship experience and start thinking about how you are using language rather than what you are using language to say.

While “brethren” did originally mean “brothers” (not like that’s a bad thing), the term is no longer in colloquial use and people don’t parse it to mean “brothers.” They know without having to stop to think about it that everybody is included.

2) “Brothers” – This is the contemporary equivalent of “brethren.” It sounds less formal, but the term is more likely to be taken as exclusive of women. In some Christian churches they use this word without any problem, but in the contemporary Catholic parish there is likely to be enough political correctness to make an alternative desirable.

3) “My brothers and sisters” – This is the common alternative that gets used. It even gets used by the pope. Given the gender-sensitivities that exist these days, I can deal with this one, although it’s a shame that people have given up so quickly on the virtually ideal term “brethren.”

The one place I absolutely hate “my brothers and sisters,” though, is in Scripture readings. I’m sorry, but Greek had a way to say “sisters,” and St. Paul could have effortlessly written his epistles saying “adelphoi kai adelphai” if he wanted to. To translate “adelphoi” as “brothers and sisters” is inaccurate. Further, it allows political correctness to intrude upon and “correct” the word of God.

Any of these, though, are preferable to “my sisters and brothers.”

Why?

Because communities use conventional modes of expression for a reason: They let people to focus on meaning rather than having to pause to ponder the mode of expression. Further, using the community’s norms of speech signals an acceptance of the community’s values and beliefs.

To take phrase like “brothers and sisters” and deliberately invert it signals a rejection, on some level, of the community’s traditional way of handling gender issues.

No doubt priests who do this are trying to show sensitivity and inclusiveness to women, but what they actually do tickle the ears of certain people (of both genders) while sending an “I reject your values” message to everybody else (of both genders).

They also force worshippers to pop out of the worship experience and focus on the words being used rather than the message being conveyed. And they needlessly intrude gender politics on the act of worship.

That’s just sad.

Filed under gender, language, liturgy, political correctness

Agca: Lord, Liar, or . . . Lunatic?

Would-be papal assassin Mehmet Ali Agca has been released from prison in Turkey. (Note to World: Bad idea.)

He’s got big plans. He wants several million dollars to tell his story. He wants to visit John Paul II’s tomb. He’d like to write a book with Dan Brown. He may help hunt down Osama bin Laden. Oh, and he says he’s Christ.

According to news reports:

As Agca made his way through a media throng to check into a five star hotel after his release, the 52-year-old declared: “I proclaim the end of the world.”

“All the world will be destroyed in this century. Every human being will die in this century.

“I am not God and I am not the son of God. I am the Christ Eternal.” [SOURCE.]

And he says the gospel is full of mistakes and he’s going to write the perfect gospel to correct matters.

As the Church Lady would say, “Well. . . . Isn’t that ‘special.’”

He’s certainly on a different tack than he was last May, when he said that he had converted to Catholicism and wanted to be baptized at the Vatican. From mere follower of Christ to Christ Eternal. Hmmm!

Still, this is one of those situations in which a person makes such extraordinary claims that, per C. S. Lewis, one must either reckon him Lord, a liar, or a lunatic.

So which is it?

Given that we’ve been given prior warning about how Christ’s Second Coming will occur, he’s not the Lord. (But guess what one of the “mistakes” he will correct with his new gospel will be.)

Given the mental examination he was given after his release, as well as his long history of making outlandish statements, it’s easy to simply label him a lunatic and move on.

And he may well simply be a lunatic. That’s certainly how things appear.

But for a moment, consider the remaining alternative: That he might be a liar. I’m not charging him with this. I’m just curious. Not every person who appears mad is mad. Some feign it. Ask King David.

If that’s the case with Acga, why would he be doing it?

Financial gain? Perhaps. Maybe he wants to start his own religion. On its face, that’s what his remarks suggest.

But maybe there’s something else going on here, too. He’s made so many conflicting statements over the years, including whether he acted alone or as part of a conspiracy, that his credibility with anything he says is basically nil.

Perhaps that’s by design. Perhaps it’s a defense technique. If his 1981 assassination attempt was put in motion by forces behind the Iron Curtain (as I assume it was, and as the Third Secret of Fatima would suggest) then he might want to deliberately destroy his own credibility—come off as a madman—so that he would not be perceived of as a potential threat to those same forces and thus not become a target for elimination.

Just a thought.

“Hey, Your Worship. I’m Only Trying To Help” (Part II)

In a previous post, I discussed how the word “worship” can cause confusion regarding whether Catholics worship saints, angels, etc.
The term “worship” originally just meant worthiness or honor, and in the old sense anytime you honored or signaled the worthiness of someone (or something), it was an act of worship.
But in contemporary English, the term “worship” has come to mean the honor due to God alone, and if you try using it any other way (without a lot of set-up), you’re going to get confusion.
So people should not get hung up about old uses of the word that they find in old books or—now—on web pages quoting old books. The term has changed its everyday meaning, and we need to look deeper if we want to get to the substance of the discussion.
St. Paul tells us: “Stop disputing about words. This serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen” (2 Tim. 2:14).
In this discussion, the underlying issue is what honor should be paid to whom.
Only the most closed-minded individual would assert that we should only honor God. Scripture is replete with examples, counsels, and commandments showing we should honor others; for example, our parents, our rulers. People of good will should be able to agree on this.
We also should be able to agree that there is a difference between the type of honor that we should show God and the types of honor we should show any creature.
This distinction, at least back to the time of St. Augustine, has been expressed with the terms latria (commonly translated “adoration”) and dulia (commonly translated “veneration”)—latria referring to the honor due to God and dulia referring to the kind of honor due to creatures.
It seems to me that people of good will should be open to this, since it is only a way naming a distinction we both agree exists.
Where might we disagree?
One place is over a companion term—hyperdulia—which signifies the special honor shown to the Virgin Mary, which is above (huper-) the honor shown to ordinary saints. Christians of good will should be able to agree that Mary, as the Mother of Christ, should be shown a special honor (Luke 1:28, 42, 48). The question would be what kind of special honor, and here Christians will have different views depending on the understanding of Mary presented in their churches.
Another place we may disagree concerns what external actions should be used to show honor. That is a subject I can write about another time if people want. But external actions are symbols of inner attitudes, and symbols can be used different ways. (Think of all the things a kiss can signify, as when Leia kisses Luke “for luck,” Han kisses Leia romantically, or Judas kisses Jesus as a sign to his enemies.)
What is ultimately important is what the symbol is used to signify, and here the Catholic Church is clear: God must be paid a special honor different not only in degree but in kind from the honor that can be shown to any creature.
READ IT FOR YOURSELF (Paragraphs 2096 and 2097).
AND ALSO HERE (Paragraphs 2112-2114).

Filed under adoration, dulia, latria, mary, saints, veneration, worship

Non-News Is Good News?

Previously in Hello World, I discussed Pope Benedict’s homily in which he pointed out that the last 200 years has seen a great deal of theological and biblical scholarship that, while it has uncovered interesting things, fundamentally misses the point.

Much of this scholarship has been devoted to a skeptical reading of the Scriptures with an intent to discredit them—for example, by arguing that they were written long after the events they record and therefore are unreliable.

Both the books of the Old Testament and the New Testament were assigned late dates to facilitate this claim, but discoveries in the last century have pushed the dates earlier than the skeptics proposed, back toward more traditional dates.

Now comes a story at Fox News and Haaretz concerning a small inscription said to overturn a key plank in the late dating of the Old Testament.

Haaretz reports:

“Did the writing of the Bible begin as far back as the 10th century B.C.E., during the time of King David? That is four centuries earlier than Biblical scholars currently believe – but an inscription recently deciphered by a scholar at Haifa University indicates that for at least some books of the Bible, the answer may be yes. . . .

“[Prof. Gershon] Galil said this discovery disproves the current theory, which holds that the Bible could not have been written before the 6th century B.C.E., because Hebrew writing did not exist until then.

“Moreover, he added, the inscription was found in what was then a minor, outlying community – so if scribes existed even there, Hebrew writing was probably sufficiently well developed to handle a complex text like the Bible.”

So now religious conservatives can take comfort that archaeology has once again thwarted the foes of Scripture.

Not exactly.

Something very bizarre is going on with this story. The first sentences are every bit as problematic as a piece opening: “Is the Pope Catholic? Current scholars believe he is the head of the Baptist church, but new evidence points in a Catholic direction.”

Scholarly consensus, even among liberal scholars, does not hold that “the writing of the Bible beg[a]n” in the sixth century B.C. Many may hold that certain books did not reach their present form until that time, or that particular books were not written until then, but the consensus is not that nothing had been written before then.

Much less is it claimed that the Bible couldn’t have been written prior to that time because of the supposed non-existence of Hebrew writing. The Ancient Near East had lots of writing systems, and sometimes people from one culture borrowed the writing system of another. In fact, that’s how the Hebrew alphabet arose.

The discovery of a Hebrew inscription from the tenth century B.C. also isn’t revolutionary, because we already have Hebrew writing from that period, such as the Gezer Calendar.

Either the newspapers are getting it wrong or Prof. Galil is miscommunicating or—since we’re dealing with an ink on clay inscription—there might be archaeological fraud in play.

This is a non-news story, either on grounds of it being hopelessly garbled or on grounds that we already knew of tenth century Hebrew writing.

FOX VERSION.

HAARETZ VERSION.

Filed under archaeology, bible, israel, news, old testament

Strange Fluffy Snow Cylinders

In his novella At the Mountains of Madness, which is set in Antarctica, H. P. Lovecraft's narrator at one point writes:

The newspapers have printed the bulletins we sent from the moving plane, telling of our nonstop course, our two battles with treacherous upper-air gales, our glimpse of the broken surface where Lake had sunk his mid-journey shaft three days before, and our sight of a group of those strange fluffy snow cylinders noted by Amundsen and Byrd as rolling in the wind across the endless leagues of frozen plateau.

This reference to rolling snow cylinders intrigued me, and I imagine that in Lovecraft's research for the story he did turn up references to them in reports by polar explorers Amundsen and Byrd, but Googling the phenomenon did not turn up any hits–at least back when I did the search, with the search terms I had.

So I was very interested to see a story about the phenomenon in The Telegraph reporting that it also occurs in the U.K.–and in North America for that matter.

The article came complete with pictures, so . . . behold!

I just hope that the appearance of these snow cylinders in the U.K. and North America don't indicate a parallel appearance of shoggoths.

GET THE STORY.