2004 – Page 32 – Jimmy Akin

More On The Balestrieri Affair

Responding to my post on How To Make Amends, a reader writes:

Once again, you’ve accepted the claims of Frs. DiNoia and Cole where they contradict Mr. Balestrieri, and not addressed the conflicts between the statements of Fr. DiNoia and Fr. Cole regarding the delegation to reply to Mr. Balestrieri, nor the harm done to the reputation of Mr. Balestrieri by unnamed sources within in the Vatican according to CNS, nor how the CDF decided to help this American student with his homework with a carefully crafted letter in less than 10 days of his visit there.

It would appear that you do not understand the nature of the post on which you are commenting.

This post recommends a fundamental change in strategy on Mr. Balestrieri’s part. Following his receipt of Fr. Cole’s letter, he engaged in a pattern of behavior guaranteed to tick off the Vatican and severely damage his canonical complaint’s prospects of success. Following this turn of events, I decided to

(1) point out this fact in a vivid manner so that it would have the twin effects of

(a) forcefully making the point for Mr. Balestrieri’s benefit and

(b) forcefully warning the public of the problems just created for Mr. Balestrieri’s case and then to

(2) recommend a course of action that stood the best chance of getting his case back on track.

(1) was the point of How To Tick Off the Vatican and (2) was the purpose of How To Make Amends. That is the nature of the post on which you are commenting: It is not meant to provide continuing analysis of the debacle. It is meant to point to the most promising way out of the debacle.

The approach I recommended means not continuing the tit-for-tat, “he said/she said” game that Mr. Balestrieri was playing. There comes a point that, no matter how strongly one believes that one has been wronged, prudence dictates that one turn the other cheek and not continue to alienate those who you need not to alienate. Mr. Balestieri has done incalculable damage to his canonical case and to his career by the approach he took. I tried to point to a way he could staunch the bleeding and try to salvage both of these.

The approach I was recommending meant precisely not continuing to analyze who said what when and thus the post does not include the kind of analysis that you seem to expect it to.

The “application” of the letter as you put it to the case of not a libelous leap by Mr. Balestrieri as you suggest here.

I have not suggested that Mr. Balestrieri has committed libel. What I have said is that in his News Release No. 2 he grossly misrepresented what the Vatican did. That is unquestionable, as can be demonstrated by looking only at material he has placed on his own web site, not relying on anything Fr.s DiNoia and Cole have said elsewhere. See How To Tick Off The Vatican and Tunc et Nunc.

Rather, the substance of letter itself makes it clear it applies to the case of John Kerry and any Catholic politician who advocates an abortion right in defiance of Church teaching. The letter speaks for itself without any “spin”.

No, this is precisely the problem. The letter does not make it clear that it applies to the case of John Kerry. No matter how much I want it to do so, it does not. No matter how much you want it to do so, it does not. No matter how much Mr. Balestrieri wants it to do so, it does not. Kerry is not mentioned in the letter, and Fr. Cole appears to be addressing two situations that are not clearly and unambiguously a match for Sen. Kerry’s horrendous and ambiguous statements regarding abortion.

“Well by all means use it, no restrictions whatsoever.” Permission was given to make Fr. Cole’s 9/11 letter public. The “confusion” as you put it in your mock apology commenced with the CNS interview of Fr. DiNoia.

Two points:

1) “No restrictions whatsoever” doesn’t mean that one is free to represent the reply as something it is not. Permission to publish an informal reply from an individual theologian at the Dominican House of Studies does not entail permission to represent this reply as “formal,” “official,” “binding,” “decisive,” and from “the Vatican.”

2) Your above remark also appears to involve the same misunderstanding of the post How To Make Amends. What I wrote was not a “mock apology” but a serious proposal for the kind of things Mr. Balestrieri could say to try to get out of the mess he got himself into.

Finally, Jimmy, where do you stand?

I want to see pro-abort Catholic politicians slapped with severe canonical sanctions.

Do you dispute the Fr. Cole’s letter communicates the teaching of the Church?

No, I don’t dispute it. I would say that the final brief treatment of the civil right to abortion that the letter provides that does not make it fully clear what kind of support for this right Fr. Cole has in mind. He appears to be thinking of supporting such a right simpliciter–i.e., thinking that the existence of a civil right to abortion is of itself a good thing as opposed to something required by extrinsic circumstances per Evangelium Vitae 73.

Do you dispute that “if I obstinately deny by teaching and preaching, or doubt that abortion is not intrinsically evil, I commit the mortal sin of heresy”?

I don’t deny that the obstinate post-baptismal doubt or denial of the truth that abortion is intrinsically evil is a heresy.

I don’t think Mr. Balestrieri was “unfair” to Frs. DiNoia or Cole.

I have confidence that this is your opinion.

However, the facts say otherwise. He grossly misrepresented the letter from Fr. Cole.

I think somewhere Frances Kissling must be delighted that Catholics see fit to mock Marc Balestrieri in this week before the election.

I suspect that she doesn’t even know my blog exists.

I’m also not going to write off the use of irony as a way of making a point. Jesus was rather big on it.

Sometimes irony is even the kinder way to explain what a person has done compared to offering a blunt and flatly analytical dissection of it.

Favorite Current Bumper-Stickers

One says:

“MAKE LOVE, NOT CLONES”

Another says:

“MY SUV ♥ IRAQI OIL”

(If only I drove an SUV instead of a pickup.)

Are Ya Ready, Kids???

SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS SEASON 2 IS OUT!!!

YEE-HAW!!!

BUY IT WITH SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS SEASON 1!!!

Ahh . . . can nautical nonsense be more sublime?

Can Devout Non-Catholics Be As Devout As Devout Catholics?

A reader writes:

My wife is going through RCIA right now, and she asked me a question tonight that I thought I’d pick your brain on. Here’s the gist of it:

The Catholic Church teaches that although there is no salvation outside of the Church, the Church acknowledges that it does not know where the boundaries of the invisible Church are (i.e., visible v. invisible Church). That having been said, does the Catholic Church believe that a devout Baptist can lead as devout of a Christian life as a devout Catholic (lots of “devouts” in there I know)?

This was my tentative answer (based on everything I’ve read):

I think what the Church would say is that it is much harder to live a devout Christian life outside of Church; not because Catholics are naturally more holy than protestants, but because we have access to all of the sacraments, the teaching of the Church, etc. I also analogized the situation to two people each building a house. One has all of the possible tools he could ever need or want to complete the job, and the other one has enough to get it done but may have to work a little harder to finish the task. Of course, for some Catholics (like Kerry) having access to these “tools” is meaningless because he is unwilling to use them.

I am not sure that is the “right” answer, but it strikes me as correct based on all that I’ve read thus far.

Thoughts?

It seems to me that the answer you gave is essentially correct, though I would add some nuances depending on what one means by “devout.”

First, though, I’d issue a caution about contrasting the “visible Church” with the “invisible Church.” This language is not used in ecclesiastical documents. The way Vatican II presents the matter, there is one Church, in which Catholics who are in a state of grace are “fully incorporated” and with which non-Catholic Christians are “associated” (which may be a synonym for “partially incorporated”).

Now, on to the question of devotion:

1) If one takes a subjective definition of “devout,” by which it would mean “sincere” or “fervent in practice,” then it would seem that non-Catholic Christians can be just as sincere and fervent in their practice of religion as Catholics. Catholics do not have an intrinsic subjective advantage in terms of sincerity or fervor.

They do, however, have an extrinsic advantage–as you point out–in that they have means of grace available to them that can foster greater fervor. These include not only the sacraments but also sacramentals, Catholic art, etc.

Yet these extrinsic advantages can be overcome by other extrinsic factors. The pitiful preaching and catechesis that has existed in many Catholic churches for the last forty years is an extrinsic factor that mitigates against fervor, and the fervor of many Catholics has been depressed by this compared to the fervor of those in many Evangelical and Fundamentalist churches.

2) Historically the word “devout” may be taken in another, more objectivist sense–i.e., religious practice that makes an objective connection with God. This might be taken as something Paul has in mind when he says that “it is good to be zealous in a good thing always” (Gal. 4:18). If the term “devout” is taken in this sense (i.e., devotion that objectively makes a connection with God rather than simply being subjectively fervent without this connection necessarily being made) then the Catholic has more of an advantage.

The chief reason is the sacraments. They guarantee a connection with God as long as we do not put a barrier in the way. Therefore, our own subjective fervor is not required for the connection to take place. The subjective fervor of Catholics may be no different than the subjective fervor of non-Catholic Christians, but the fact that Catholics operate in an environment in which they have greater access to sacraments through which God has promised to make a connection with us means that they have a greater advantage in terms of devotion that makes an objective connection to God.

Even this advantage can be neutralized, however. If a Catholic fails to take advantage of the sacraments, this advantage vanishes. Worse, if he commits sacrilege with the sacraments (e.g., by taking Communion when in a state of mortal sin) then he has sinned against God in an objectively greater way than someone without access to the sacraments.

Thus, while there are advantages to being Catholic in terms of devotion, they are not a guarantee of subjective or objective devotion. As always, God is no respecter of men. Of whom more is given, more is required.

Now, perhaps you can answer this question for me: How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Please answer the question in terms of an objective measure (pounds, ricks, cords, etc.). The answer “As much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood” is a cop out.

Much obliged!

Rat "Brain" Flies "Plane"

Excerpts:

Somewhere in Florida, 25,000 disembodied rat neurons are thinking about flying an F-22.

These neurons are growing on top of a multi-electrode array and form a living “brain” that’s hooked up to a flight simulator on a desktop computer. When information on the simulated aircraft’s horizontal and vertical movements are fed into the brain by stimulating the electrodes, the neurons fire away in patterns that are then used to control its “body” — the simulated aircraft.

Currently the brain has learned enough to be able to control the pitch and roll of the simulated F-22 fighter jet in weather conditions ranging from blue skies to hurricane-force winds. Initially the aircraft drifted, because the brain hadn’t figured out how to control its “body,” but over time the neurons learned to stabilize the aircraft to a straight, level flight.

“Right now the process it’s learning is very simplistic,” said DeMarse. “It’s basically making a decision about whether to move the stick to the left or to the right or forwards and backwards and it learns how much to push the stick depending upon how badly the aircraft is flying.”

The bigger goal is to figure out how neurons talk to each other. MRI scans, for example, show millions of neurons firing together. At that resolution, it is impossible to see what’s happening between individual neurons. While scientists can study neural activities from groups of cells in a dish, they can’t watch them learn and grow as they would within a living body unless the neurons have some kind of body to interact with.

By taking these cells and giving them back a “body,” the researchers hope to uncover how the neurons communicate with each other and eventually translate that knowledge to develop novel computing architecture.

GET THE STORY FROM WIRED.

Rat “Brain” Flies “Plane”

Excerpts:

Somewhere in Florida, 25,000 disembodied rat neurons are thinking about flying an F-22.

GET THE STORY FROM WIRED.

Scientists Make Monkey Zombies

Monkey

Say same technique will allow making human zombies.

YOU’RE NEXT!!!

GET THE STORY.

Media Updates

A friendly reader posted a link to where my appearances on Family News In Focus responding to Sen. Kerry’s speech involving religion can be found:

IT’S HERE. (.wax format; works with Windows Media Player; my segment starts a little after 3:30 minutes into the broadcast)

I also was able to find a link to my appearance on California NRP talking about stem cells:

IT’S HERE. (.asx format; works with Windows Media Player; my segment starts about 20 minutes into the hour)

This morning I’m sheduled to appear on XETV FOX channel 6 (the local San Diego FOX station) to talk about stem cells again. I should be on about 7:15 a.m., though the segment should be short.

MORE INFO ON CALIFORNIA’S PRO-STEM CELL PROP 71 HERE.

If it gets passed in this state, it will create competition among other states to fund similar initiatives, lest they get left behind in a “stem cell race.”

Escatology Update

A reader points out to me that . . . .

ANDREW SULLIVAN PRINTS AN E-MAIL CALLING INTO QUESTION THE LITERALNESS OF LUTHER’S STATEMENT THAT HE HAD HIS PROFOUND, REFORMATIONAL INSIGHT IN CLOACA.

(POTTY-MOUTH WARNING!)

Don’t know whether this is true or not, but it might be.

I also should point out something I forgot to mention the other day: The stories you read about Luther posting the 95 Theses on a church door may well be false.

More On Mentalese

Regarding our recent discussion of deafness and mentalese, a reader writes:

But what about deaf people who don’t know sign language? I recently read an article that claimed a surprising number of deaf people don’t know sign language, or at least don’t know it very well, especially deaf children who grow up with parents who have normal hearing. So how do they think? Or what about deaf people in remote areas who never encounter sign language? They are obviously thinking somehow but what form do the thoughts take?

If a person were totally deprived of language–both spoken, gestural, and anything else one might propose–then the person would have no option but to think in pure mentalese.

That being said, it isn’t clear to me how common completely language-less people are. I question whether they even exist. The language instinct is so strong in humans that the accounts I have read indicate that even deaf people not exposed to a formal sign languages come up with informal signs.

Recently I was reading an account of a deaf man from Mexico who was never exposed to formal signing. This gentleman not only was able to get across the border with the United States, he was able to survive in the Los Angeles area. When he was discovered, he did not know any established language, including sign languages. An effort was made to teach him a sign language, and soon he “made the breakthrough.” Afterwards, he not only was able to describe his prior experience, he also was able to lead those working with him to other non-signing deaf individuals, who were more common than had been known.

These individuals had a network amongst themselves that had previously escaped notice. Despite their lack of conventional language, they had found ways to communicate with each other and often entertained each others with elaborate pantomimes describing their experiences.

This suggests that the language instinct in humans is so strong that even in the absence of exposure to a formal language, they will come up with an informal one.

This suggests that even these individuals may not think in pure mentalese but might have an accompanying “translation” of their thoughts into the informal gestural methods of communication they invent.

It would be fascinating to have better data on this, however.