Month: February 2005

Apostates?

Down yonder, a commenter (in dialogue with another commenter) writes:

The Church has traditionally distinguished between material apostasy and formal apostasy.

Jews who were never Christians are mateiral apostates. Jews who once were Christian are formal apostates.

"Based on that definition, any non-Christian of the Christian era could be considered a material apostate."

This is correct.

"Jews who sincerely believe that God requires them to follow the covenant established with Abraham and the Law given to Moses, and are therefore doing so to the best of their ability, can in no way be termed ‘apostates,’ materially or formally."

You obviously do not know the meaning of the phrase "material apostate" or "material sin" in general.

I’m sorry, but no.

The term "apostasy" is defined as follows:

[A]postasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith (Latin, apostasia, fidei christianae ex toto repudiatio) [CIC, Can. 751].

Regarding the material/formal distinction in moral theology, those who commit a sin "materially" are those who perform it through no fault of their own (i.e., without culpability), while those who commit it "formally" are those who perform it through their own fault (i.e., with culpability).

In regard to the sin of apostasy, a material apostate would be one who totally repudiates the Christian faith without being culpable for doing so (due to a defect of knowledge or intent), while a formal apostate would be one who totally repudiates the Christian faith with adequate knowledge and intent.

The problem with maintaining this in the case of Jews or other non-Christians in the present age is the meaning of the word repudiatio.

As you might suppose, repudiatio means "repudiation"–the rejection of something one has previously held.

One thus cannot be an apostate from Christianity unless one has previously been a Christian and then totally repudiated the Christian faith. Jews who have never been Christian and other never-been-Christians of the present age (or any age) are thus not apostates.

The correct term for never-been-Christian Jews and never-been-Christian others is "the incredulous" (i.e., those who do not believe), per the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Incredulity [Latin, incredulitas] is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it [CCC 2089].

Those never-been-Christians who are disbelieve through no fault of their own are the materially incredulous. Those never-been-Christians who disbelieve through their own fault are the formally incredulous.

"Give Me Immortality Or Give Me Death!"

A reader writes:

My following question stems from an article on CNN.com about a futurist who is trying keep healthy so that he can live long enough for science to be able to provide immortality:

LINK SHORTENED BY JIMMY

Hah! As if! Sorry. Ain’t gonna happen.

I know you’re a sci-fi lover so I figured you may have though about how this might rest with the Faith. Would it be sinful to try to achieve immortality? I get the feeling that the answer is "yes" because God intends us to eventually join him in Heaven but I’m guessing there is a lot of grey area.

I would disagree, at least with the grounds stated. Dying is not a necessary precondition for joining God in heaven. St. Paul writes that at the last day, when Christ returns, those who are still alive will be transformed in the twinkling of an eye and be united with Jesus (at which point heaven and earth will become one, Revelation tells us). So if someone (in a state of grace) extended his own life indefinitely then he’d still be here when Jesus comes back and be untied with God.

One could argue that death is a punishment God means us to have and that it would be wrong to throw off the yoke of this punishment, but God doesn’t seem to mind us working to undo other effects of the Fall (e.g., striving against our fallen natures by his grace), so I don’t think that one could prove that it would be wrong to indefinitely extend one’s life by those means. We already know it’s kosher for physicians to help us extend our lives (Sirach is explicit on this point). At that point, it’s hard to see how any "you must not let your life go beyond this point or it’s a sin" command could be derived from the deposit of faith or natural law.

For instance, the nanites, stem cells (non-embryonic, of course), and other medical treatments could be used just to fight disease and not repair cell aging. In this way, you might live 2 or 3 times as long as you normally would. Would it be wrong if you used the technology to keep you alive for an extra 10, 50 or even 100 years and then stop using it? Would that be immoral? If not, how do you draw the line?

From what I can see, it would not be immoral. It also would not be immortal. "Immortal" means "exempt from death" (lit., "not mortal," with "mortal" meaning "subject to death"). If all you’re doing is upping the human lifespan, but not exempting a person from ultimate death, it ain’t immortality, just a longer mortality.

I don’t know if this makes a difference but this "immortality", would only protect against natural death.

Yeah, like Lorien on B5, who wouldn’t die on his own but could die from illness or accident.

No matter how many nanites you have pumping through your body, if you fall into an incinerator you’ll die.

Yes, though you might survive if you fall into a lava pit during a light saber battle. You might then need life-sustaining technology. In fact, you might end up more machine than man.

I hope this isn’t too frivolous a question; I’m sure you have a many more pragmatic questions thrown at you every day. I just find the topic of technology and morality interesting in this day and age.

Not too frivolous at all! As I often say, "There are no bad questions, only bad answers."

That being said, I’m quite dubious about this guy’s plan to live on indefinitely. There are a number of problems with it:

  1. There is a very good chance that humans have a "death gene" that causes us to die. Evidence for this is found in the fact that, while the medicine of the 20th century has somewhat (not as much as people think) increased the average human lifespan, it hasn’t done anything to change the maximum human lifespan. Something seems to be impeding that, and that thing may be a gene. When you get to a certain age, the death gene reaches out its tiny microscopic hands to your brain’s lifeular lobe and does a Vulcan death grip on it, and that’s it. If we can find and turn off the death gene then we may get significantly more life out of life, but it still won’t go on forever, because . . .
  2. Even if there is no death gene, the body will simply wear out over time (i.e., as soon as it gets out from under the service warranty you bought when you first acquired it), and I’d doubtful that combinations of nanites and stem cells could be applied in such a way to forestall this indefinitely.
  3. Even if the body could be kept going indefinitely, the odds of getting into a fatal accident (e.g., on the freeway) or contracting an incurable, fatal illness go up as life gets longer. Eventually, something’s gonna get each of us.

There is absolutely no harm in trying to stave that off for as long as possible, though. After all, God built a survival instinct into us. So I say: Let’s go with our instincts! Bring on the (morally-developed) high tech!

Personally, I’m waiting for the Cellular Regeneration and Entertainment Chamber.

Oh yeah, and scientific immortality is one of those projects that has "Danger: May Cause Confusion of Tongues!" written on the box it comes in.

“Give Me Immortality Or Give Me Death!”

A reader writes:

My following question stems from an article on CNN.com about a futurist who is trying keep healthy so that he can live long enough for science to be able to provide immortality:

LINK SHORTENED BY JIMMY

Hah! As if! Sorry. Ain’t gonna happen.

I know you’re a sci-fi lover so I figured you may have though about how this might rest with the Faith. Would it be sinful to try to achieve immortality? I get the feeling that the answer is "yes" because God intends us to eventually join him in Heaven but I’m guessing there is a lot of grey area.

I would disagree, at least with the grounds stated. Dying is not a necessary precondition for joining God in heaven. St. Paul writes that at the last day, when Christ returns, those who are still alive will be transformed in the twinkling of an eye and be united with Jesus (at which point heaven and earth will become one, Revelation tells us). So if someone (in a state of grace) extended his own life indefinitely then he’d still be here when Jesus comes back and be untied with God.

One could argue that death is a punishment God means us to have and that it would be wrong to throw off the yoke of this punishment, but God doesn’t seem to mind us working to undo other effects of the Fall (e.g., striving against our fallen natures by his grace), so I don’t think that one could prove that it would be wrong to indefinitely extend one’s life by those means. We already know it’s kosher for physicians to help us extend our lives (Sirach is explicit on this point). At that point, it’s hard to see how any "you must not let your life go beyond this point or it’s a sin" command could be derived from the deposit of faith or natural law.

For instance, the nanites, stem cells (non-embryonic, of course), and other medical treatments could be used just to fight disease and not repair cell aging. In this way, you might live 2 or 3 times as long as you normally would. Would it be wrong if you used the technology to keep you alive for an extra 10, 50 or even 100 years and then stop using it? Would that be immoral? If not, how do you draw the line?

From what I can see, it would not be immoral. It also would not be immortal. "Immortal" means "exempt from death" (lit., "not mortal," with "mortal" meaning "subject to death"). If all you’re doing is upping the human lifespan, but not exempting a person from ultimate death, it ain’t immortality, just a longer mortality.

I don’t know if this makes a difference but this "immortality", would only protect against natural death.

Yeah, like Lorien on B5, who wouldn’t die on his own but could die from illness or accident.

No matter how many nanites you have pumping through your body, if you fall into an incinerator you’ll die.

Yes, though you might survive if you fall into a lava pit during a light saber battle. You might then need life-sustaining technology. In fact, you might end up more machine than man.

I hope this isn’t too frivolous a question; I’m sure you have a many more pragmatic questions thrown at you every day. I just find the topic of technology and morality interesting in this day and age.

Not too frivolous at all! As I often say, "There are no bad questions, only bad answers."

That being said, I’m quite dubious about this guy’s plan to live on indefinitely. There are a number of problems with it:

  1. There is a very good chance that humans have a "death gene" that causes us to die. Evidence for this is found in the fact that, while the medicine of the 20th century has somewhat (not as much as people think) increased the average human lifespan, it hasn’t done anything to change the maximum human lifespan. Something seems to be impeding that, and that thing may be a gene. When you get to a certain age, the death gene reaches out its tiny microscopic hands to your brain’s lifeular lobe and does a Vulcan death grip on it, and that’s it. If we can find and turn off the death gene then we may get significantly more life out of life, but it still won’t go on forever, because . . .
  2. Even if there is no death gene, the body will simply wear out over time (i.e., as soon as it gets out from under the service warranty you bought when you first acquired it), and I’d doubtful that combinations of nanites and stem cells could be applied in such a way to forestall this indefinitely.
  3. Even if the body could be kept going indefinitely, the odds of getting into a fatal accident (e.g., on the freeway) or contracting an incurable, fatal illness go up as life gets longer. Eventually, something’s gonna get each of us.

There is absolutely no harm in trying to stave that off for as long as possible, though. After all, God built a survival instinct into us. So I say: Let’s go with our instincts! Bring on the (morally-developed) high tech!

Personally, I’m waiting for the Cellular Regeneration and Entertainment Chamber.

Oh yeah, and scientific immortality is one of those projects that has "Danger: May Cause Confusion of Tongues!" written on the box it comes in.

Language Recommends

A reader writes:

I am seriously considering pursuing a Ph.D. in Systematic Theology. I have a quick question. The programs I have looked at all have a language requirement. I have graduate degrees, in other fields; however, I have never taken any foreign languages. Now I am facing the task of becoming proficient enough to translate New Testament Greek, Latin and German (or French) with a dictionary. Do you have any recommendations of programs that I can begin preparing now? I am currently working on a MA in Theology and Christian Ministry (distance learning) from Franciscan University so I have some time to get ready. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions you might have.

For living langauges like French and German, definitely Pimsleur.

For the biblical ones, SEE HERE and ALSO HERE.

Old Testament History Recommends

A reader writes:

I have a question for you (who doesn’t). As a facilitator in the RCIA program at my parish I’ve realized that my biggest scriptural and historical weakness is the history of the Jewish people. I can tell you all about the Jewish people of the 1st century and the history of the Catholic Church but I fall surprisingly short when it comes to Old Testament history. I definitely need to learn more about this to be an effective evangelizer (is that a word? [yes, it is–Jimmy]) and teacher.

I plan to re-read Genesis and Exodus. I think that will be a good start to learn about the beginnings of our Jewish ancestors. Beyond that, I was curious if you know of any books (or anything else for that matter) that would help me in learning the history of the Jewish people. I’m also looking for something with as many references to scripture as possible. I was hoping that there is an equivalent to "Triumph" by H. W. Crocker III (which I thought was excelent by the way) but for the Old Testament Jewish people.

Of course I’m looking for something Orthodox, not something the Jesus Seminar would be happy with.

Do you know of anything that would help me in learning more in this area?

I’d recommend three things:

  1. Don’t stop at Genesis and Exodus. Read all of the historical books of the Old Testament. In fact, read the whole Old Testament. In fact, read the whole Bible. Four chapters a day will get it done in a year.
  2. If you’d like a book summarizing Old Testament history from a traditional perspective, I’d recommend A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age Through the Jewish Wars by the Evangelical scholar Walter Kaiser. (Though I see the one copy they have at Amazon at the moment is quite expensive. I’d check with other vendors to see if they have it.)
  3. I’d also recommend a book about the life and institutions of ancient Israel by the Dominican scholar Roland de Vaux. It will help you understand what’s going on in the history of Israel better. Since it’s about ancient Israel’s life and institutions, it’s called Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Good stuff!

Hope this helps, and God bless!

Bible Scholar Recommends

A reader writes:

The recent blog post about the Pentateuch brought something to mind I hope you can help me with. I know you are busy and I don’t want to take much of your time, but my difficulty is how to find scholars whose works I can trust and learn from. I have heard you recommend the Word Biblical Commentary series before (which I intend to look into), but I am thinking more of Catholic individuals like Joseph Fitzmyer and Raymond Brown and the like. Both of these men have been members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and one would think that means they have some good things to say, but I have also heard some reservations expressed about some of their work. Finding sources I can trust has been a serious stumbling block for my delving deeply into scripture. I am not trying to open a political can of worms but I don’t know of any objective source to learn about scripture scholars. Who to read and who to avoid? Any thoughts you may have would be appreciated.

I wish I was able to offer more encouraging thoughts than what I am able to, but here is what I can tell you:

  1. The state of Catholic biblical scholarship today is such that I can only recommend individual commentaries by individual authors here and there.
  2. The biggest names (e.g., Ray Brown) cannot be recommended to a general audience. They do have good things to say, but they frequently are far too uncritical of higher critical ideas and they present their material in a way that is often faith-challenging rather than faith affirming. A lot of the time it comes down to how you say things, and these guys don’t have the knack of saying things in a way that communicates the concept in a way that makes it clear to the average reader how this is to be harmonized with the faith.
  3. A lot of the problem goes to the hermeneutic of suspicion that is possessed of contemporary critical scholarship. Rome has been growing increasingly concerned about this problem and has been making noise about it but hasn’t yet acted decisively on it.
  4. From what I can tell, it seems to me that the different biblical scholarship communities–Catholic, Protestant, Jewish–go through cycles in which the commentaries they are cranking out are flourishing or moribund. Currently, the Catholic community is in a largely moribund phase, though with some bright spots here and there.
  5. What I would suggest is that you start by getting a copy of the 1950s edition of Bernard Orchard’s A Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, which is out of print but can be ordered from used book services like Loome Theological Booksellers. The scholarship is somewhat out of date, but at least it’s faith-affirming and will give you a baseline, traditional Catholic take on Scripture.
  6. Once you have that, branch out by comparing what it says to more recent commentaries. Don’t limit yourself to Catholic ones, either. The Word Biblical Commentary is a good set, and it’s Protestant (broadly Evangelical, specifically). The Navarre Bible (a Catholic set that doesn’t cover the whole Bible yet) is orthodox and more contemporary but is more devotional than scholarly.
  7. Some of the best commentaries I’ve read of late have actually been Jewish (they seem to be going through a flourishing phase). The Jewish Publication Society’s JPS Torah Commentary (edited by Nahum Sarna) is particularly good. Also, reading some Medieval Jewish commentaries like Rashi on Genesis is good.
  8. There are some volumes of the Sacra Pagina set that are good, but I haven’t read them all, so I can’t give a general recommend.

Wish I could give better news, but that’s what I would recommend at present.

NOTE: I’d ask folks not to recommend this and that scholar or commentary in the comments box as I likely have not read and would not feel comfortabl letting a recommendation of this nature stand without having done so. If you want to suggest one, e-mail me and if I have read it and agree, I may include it in an update to this post. Thanks!

(Other comments are fair game.)

Yee-Haw!!! Blog Award!!!

I just want to give a big holler to all who voted for JimmyAkin.Org in the CyberCatholics 2005 Blog Awards! As you can see from the award up top of the page, we won the best apologetics category. Thanks, y’all!

Some folks remarked that they were surprised that I was only nominated in the one category of Best Apologetics Blog. To tell you the truth, I thought there were a number of additional categories in which I could have been a contender ("I couldda been a contender!"–Marlon Brando), but I wasn’t aware of it this year during the nominating process, and so I’m just thankful for whoever nominated me for this category or I wouldn’t have even been eligible to win.

(By contrast, some blogs seemed to show up in an anomalously large number of categories, including one blog that I’d never even heard of and whose hit counter says it has had less than 6,000 hits in the ten months it has existed, so I’m wondering what’s up with that.)

I’m also grateful for having won something. I put in an awful lot of work on the blog, and it’s meaningful to me to see that others value the work enough for it to win an award. So thanks again to all y’all!

Thanks also to the folks at CyberCatholics for putting on the awards and all their hard work.

I’ve put the award in the top margin for the moment because, well, for the moment that’s the best place for it. It’s too wide to fit in my margins without shrinking it. I need to do that and see if the result is acceptable. That’s not the main problem, though: My templates require an extraordinary amount of effort to change. (You have no idea.) It’s much more cumbersome changing them around than it was when I was self-designing the blog, but then that’s the price you pay for automation, I guess. So I parked the image up top until I get sick of it being there, at which point I’ll be motivated to plunge in and edit the templates.

God bless, folks!

CHECK OUT THE OTHER WINNERS!

The Mob Justice That Wasn't

FrankJ has an interesting take on the alleged "mob justice" wrought by bloggers in the Eason Jordan affair:

In 1869 in Arizona, Daniel Dempsey was thought by many to be a cattle rustler. Law enforcement at the time made no moves to do anything about this. Finally brought to the breaking point by another theft of cattle, a mob of a few dozen people – rifles and shotguns in hand – went to the ranch of the theft and demanded security videos to find out what had actually happened. Dempsey and his employer stalled the efforts, and then Dempsey hanged himself.

Without hyperbole, I can say this was the worst incident of mob "justice" in the history of mankind and perhaps the universe.

And, that’s exactly what played out with Eason Jordan.

BLOGGERS: We heard that Eason Jordan had accused our troops of targeting journalists. We would like to see the Davos tapes to get to the truth in the matter.

EASON JORDAN: I resign.

MSM: LYNCH MOB!

[SOURCE.]