April 2005 – Page 3

Tidbits From Allen & George

John Allen, the Rome correspondent for <anathema>National Catholic Reporter</anathema>, is a surprisingly good journalist given the publication he writes for. He recently published a column with a number of insightful things to say and a number of interesting stories derived from Cardinal George.

EXCERPTS:

Two days before the opening of the conclave that elected Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago had a conversation with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, about the American sex abuse norms, arguing that the norms should be maintained more or less as is.

George asked if Ratzinger, whose office is charged with processing sex abuse cases, had any questions. Ratzinger, according to George on April 20, showed “a good grasp of the situation.”

Forty-eight hours later, Ratzinger was the pope. As George kissed his hand, Pope Benedict XVI told him in English that he remembered the conversation the two men had, and would attend to it.

The story is a telling example for those seeking to discern the subtleties that could mark potential contrasts between the pontificate of John Paul II and that of Benedict XVI, who was the late pope’s most loyal lieutenant and yet still very much his own man.

That episode captures an important contrast between the two. In a similar situation, John Paul II, whose passion for travel and dialogue and acting as a global moral authority sometimes meant a certain neglect of internal administration, would likely have passed such a detailed matter to an aide. Benedict XVI, on the other hand, said he’d take care of it himself.

* * *

“In 1978, when Karol Wojtyla was elected as Pope John Paul II, the primary challenge to the church came from the East, in the form of Soviet Communism,” George said. “Today the most difficult challenges come from the West, and Benedict XVI is a man who comes from the West, who understands the history and the culture of the West.”

Ratzinger’s clarion call to resist a Western “dictatorship of relativism” could be likened to John Paul II’s struggle against the Marxist dictatorships of Eastern Europe. If resistance to the Soviets was the defining feature of at least the early stages of the Wojtyla papacy, perhaps resistance to relativism will be the lodestar of Ratzinger’s.

“There was a fault line in the Soviet empire that brought it down, that the concern for social justice was corrupted by the suppression of freedom,” George said. “In the West, there’s also a fault line between concern for personal freedom and the abandonment of objective truth.” George said that both contradictions “are not sustainable in the long run.”

* * *

George said the new pope offered a kind of exegesis of his choice [of the name Benedict] to the cardinals inside the conclave.

“Benedict,” George recalled Ratzinger explaining, is in the first place a reference to St. Benedict, who founded European monasticism at a time when the Roman empire was collapsing, and the church helped preserve human culture and thought. Second, however, the name is also a reference to Benedict XV, the last pope to hold it, who strove for peace in a time of war.

GET THE STORY.

Tidbits From Allen & George

EXCERPTS:

Two days before the opening of the conclave that elected Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago had a conversation with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, about the American sex abuse norms, arguing that the norms should be maintained more or less as is.

George asked if Ratzinger, whose office is charged with processing sex abuse cases, had any questions. Ratzinger, according to George on April 20, showed “a good grasp of the situation.”

Forty-eight hours later, Ratzinger was the pope. As George kissed his hand, Pope Benedict XVI told him in English that he remembered the conversation the two men had, and would attend to it.

The story is a telling example for those seeking to discern the subtleties that could mark potential contrasts between the pontificate of John Paul II and that of Benedict XVI, who was the late pope’s most loyal lieutenant and yet still very much his own man.

That episode captures an important contrast between the two. In a similar situation, John Paul II, whose passion for travel and dialogue and acting as a global moral authority sometimes meant a certain neglect of internal administration, would likely have passed such a detailed matter to an aide. Benedict XVI, on the other hand, said he’d take care of it himself.

* * *

“In 1978, when Karol Wojtyla was elected as Pope John Paul II, the primary challenge to the church came from the East, in the form of Soviet Communism,” George said. “Today the most difficult challenges come from the West, and Benedict XVI is a man who comes from the West, who understands the history and the culture of the West.”

Ratzinger’s clarion call to resist a Western “dictatorship of relativism” could be likened to John Paul II’s struggle against the Marxist dictatorships of Eastern Europe. If resistance to the Soviets was the defining feature of at least the early stages of the Wojtyla papacy, perhaps resistance to relativism will be the lodestar of Ratzinger’s.

“There was a fault line in the Soviet empire that brought it down, that the concern for social justice was corrupted by the suppression of freedom,” George said. “In the West, there’s also a fault line between concern for personal freedom and the abandonment of objective truth.” George said that both contradictions “are not sustainable in the long run.”

* * *

George said the new pope offered a kind of exegesis of his choice [of the name Benedict] to the cardinals inside the conclave.

“Benedict,” George recalled Ratzinger explaining, is in the first place a reference to St. Benedict, who founded European monasticism at a time when the Roman empire was collapsing, and the church helped preserve human culture and thought. Second, however, the name is also a reference to Benedict XV, the last pope to hold it, who strove for peace in a time of war.

GET THE STORY.

Inside The Conclave

Secrecy oaths, like rules in general, seem mean something different to Europeans than to Americans.

Take, f’rinstance the secrecy oaths taken by cardinals and others involved in the recent conclave.

Every time there’s a conclave, details invariably leak out afterwards. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the authentic from the bogus in the stories that are told, but this time I think we’re getting a pretty clear picture of what happened.

Time Magazine has a startlingly detailed account that appears to have multiple sources.

EXCERPTS:

[T]he second balloting saw Ratzinger reach 60 votes. By the third, he was just shy of the 77 required for the papacy. By the fourth, he had won 95 out of 115.

In the Sistine Chapel, as the tally went over the required two-thirds, "there was a gasp all around," Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor of Britain recalled in a press conference. Ratzinger, he said, "had his head down. He must have been saying a prayer." When Jorge Cardinal Arturo Medina Estevez—who would announce the election to the world from the balcony of St. Peter’s—asked Ratzinger what name he would assume, the Pontiff-elect did not hesitate. "In the past, there’s been a wait while the new Pope pondered the question for 10 minutes or so," says an informed source. "Not so this time. Ratzinger replied right away, ‘Benedict XVI.’ He was prepared."

GET THE STORY.

New Star Wars TV

For some time there has been talk that George Lucas was thinking about a live-action Star Wars program.

He is.

The series is still a ways off, but Lucas has confirmed that it’s being planned. The series would be set between episodes III and IV and, he says, be similar in tone to the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. Like the latter series, the scripts for the first season would all be written in advance. It also would focus on previously minor characters in the Star Wars universe, leaving the actions of the big dogs to the big screen. (Though we might get an occasional Darth Vader or emperor cameo, I s’ppose.)

Lucas is also planning an animated series, this time using computer-generated animation. It also would be set between Eps III and IV.

GET THE STORY.

(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

Righteous Non-Gentiles

Jewish tradition recognizes the category of "righteous gentiles"–that is, a person who are not Jewish but who nevertheless are doing good in the world.

Allow me to introduce you to a group of righteous non-gentiles. That is, they are Jewish and, while they do not share the Christian faith, they are definitely out to do good in the world.

The group is JAACD: Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation.

EXCERPTS:

"Members span the spectrum from Orthodox to secular, but are united in their determination to support our beleaguered brothers and sisters in the Christian community," a statement from the organization said.

"What I consider an epidemic of anti-Christian bigotry and persecution is something that has concerned me for a long time," Feder told WND.

Feder says about a year ago he decided there should be a distinctly Jewish organization dealing with anti-Christian prejudice, which he considers a "political pogrom."

"If a Jewish organization complains about these things," he explained, "no one can accuse us of self-interest, because we’re not Christians; we’re Jews."

Added Feder: "The fate of America hinges on whether or not Christians – I mean authentic Christians – succeed in the political arena."

Others involved with the group include: David Horowitz (Center for the Study of Popular Culture), Morton Klein (Zionist Organization of America), Herb London (Hudson Institute), Bruce Herschensohn (professor, Pepperdine University), Rabbi Daniel Lapin (Toward Tradition), syndicated talk-show host Michael Medved, Rabbi Jacob Neusner (professor, Bard College) and comedian Jackie Mason.

Feder also makes a great point:

The organization’s founder ridiculed the notion that religious Americans want the nation ruled by a theocracy.

"It’s just absurd," Feder said. "If what the left is talking about constitutes a theocracy, then America was a theocracy in 1961.

"American had school prayer, in many states there was Bible reading in the schools, public display of religious symbols, abortion was outlawed except in rare instances, if anyone talked about same-sex marriage they would have been met with derisive laughter," he noted. "I was alive in 1961; if we were a theocracy then, somehow I missed it."

GET THE STORY.

(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

A Pope By Any Other Name?

Pope Benedict XVI has now publicly explained why he took the name he did. As many anticipated, it includes a reference to St. Benedict. This was something that came home to me listening to Salt of the Earth because it contains a passage in which then-Cardinal Ratzinger refers to St. Benedict as having done something small that nobody noticed at the time that then proved to be the ark that saved western civilization.

I said to myself: "That’s what he’s hoping his papacy will do: Set the stage for the survival of western civilization and the faith in Europe against the dictatorship of relativism."

EXCERPT:

"I wish to speak of the name I chose on becoming bishop of Rome and pastor of the universal Church. I chose to call myself Benedict XVI ideally as a link to the venerated Pontiff, Benedict XV, who guided the Church through the turbulent times of the First World War. He was a true and courageous prophet of peace who struggled strenuously and bravely, first to avoid the drama of war and then to limit its terrible consequences. In his footsteps I place my ministry, in the service of reconciliation and harmony between peoples, profoundly convinced that the great good of peace is above all a gift of God, a fragile and precious gift to be invoked, safeguarded and constructed, day after day and with everyone’s contribution.

"The name Benedict also evokes the extraordinary figure of the great ‘patriarch of western monasticism,’ St. Benedict of Norcia, co-patron of Europe with Cyril and Methodius. The progressive expansion of the Benedictine Order which he founded exercised an enormous influence on the spread of Christianity throughout the European continent. For this reason, St. Benedict is much venerated in Germany, and especially in Bavaria, my own land of origin; he constitutes a fundamental point of reference for the unity of Europe and a powerful call to the irrefutable Christian roots of European culture and civilization."

GET THE STORY.

Download Bleg

Folks,

I’m looking for a download manager that has the following characteristics:

It works with Windows XP.
It ain’t got spyware,
It’s preferably free (or just cheap, if necessary),
It will download a page and all the pages linked from that page in the same domain.

F’rinstance:

Suppose I want to download a particular page and all 1,564 links found on that page (there is such a page at present). What would I use?

Advice appreciated!

Ad Simplicium Circa Scripturas

Ed Peters writes:

Jimmy, I’m a simple man, talk to me as you would to a simpleton, and tell me, A) the basic canon of Scripture is closed (pace finding better versions of accepted texts) or B) the canon is NOT closed, or C) we don’t know.

Following which, Quasimodo writes:

The Jimmy of Akin,
The Quasimodo asks the same question as the Ed Peters. Quasimodo thought Trent (and Florence?) closed the canon. Infallibly. No?

Following which, Adam D writes:

Um, Ed Peters is a simpleton? Okay, I’m a downright babbling idiot. Don’t even bother trying to explain anything to me, Jimmy. I won’t understand it.

(I mean seriously, Ed P? A simpleton? 🙂

RESPONSES:

To Ed:

Since Aquinas wrote the Summa Theologiae with simplicity in mind, and since he included many distinctions in it, let me begin with a distinction.

First, we must distinguish between whether the canon has been closed by God and whether it has been closed by the Church.

Regarding whether the canon has been closed by God, I answer that it has. This seems evident from what would be meant by a divine "closing" of the canon–that is, a cessation of the writing of new books of public revelation to be collected by the Church in her Bibles. Since the Church has established (see the Catechism on this point) that the era of public revelation is over until the Second Coming, it would seem that there are to be no new books of public revelation written and thus no new books can be composed for inclusion by the Church in her Bibles. The canon is thus closed from God’s perspective.

This does not, however, guarantee that we currently have in our possession all books of public revelation that God has previously inspired.

In regard to whether the canon has been closed by the Church, this question would seem to resolve to whether the Church has defined a particular list of books for inclusion in its Bibles that is incapable of further admission, even if new books of apostolic origin and/or divine inspiration were to be discovered.

To answer this question, we must introduce a second distinction: Whether the matter has been infallibly decided by the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church and whether it has been decided infallibly by the ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

To answer the first question, we must look at the texts where the Church has infallibly addressed the question of the canon.

The first such text seems to be found in the Bull of Union with the Copts (Session 11) of the Council of Florence, which says:

It [the holy Roman church] professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

This establishes that certain books (the ones named) are accepted and venerated by the Church as Scripture at the books of the Old and New Testament. However, there are two difficulties with regarding this as an irreformably exclusive list:

The text is of debatable infallibility since it does not use terms like "define" or "anathema." (It is a decree of an ecumenical council imposed on a people as a condition for unity with the Roman church, but it does not use the language the Church has elsewhere used to trigger infallibility.)
Even granting that the text is infallibly, every infallible utterance must be interpreted strictly regarding what question is being decided, and in this case it would seem that the question would be "What books–of those currently known–belong to the Old Testament and the New Testament?" It does not appear that the questio was "What books–of those currently known or ever to be discovered in the future–belong to the Old and the New Testament?" Since the latter question was not addressed, it does not preclude a futurely-discovered book from belonging to the New Testament.

Thus this decree does not seem to represent a closing of the canon by the Church.

The second text is the Decree concerning the Canonical Scriptures by the Council of Trent, which states:

Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it [the Council of Trent] receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; . . .

It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.

They are the following:

<SNIP>

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

From this it is seen that the Council of Trent "accept[ed] as sacred and canonical" certain books without saying anything one way or the other regarding additional books. Thus it did not close the canon in the sense of excluding any future books from acceptance as sacred and canonical.

Since these seem to be the two instances on which one can argue (plausibly in the first case, certainly in the second case) the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church has dealt with the canon in an infallible manner, it would seem that the extraordianry Magisterium of the Church has not closed the canon.

This leaves us with the issue of whether the ordinary Magisterium of the Church has settled the question. In this regard, while it appears that there are enormous reasons why the Church would never add anything to the canon at this date, it nevertheless appears that the ordinary Magisterium of the Church has not entertained the question of what would happen if an unknown apostlic book were discovered.

Since no matters are infallibly defined that have not been entertained, it would seem that it has not been defined that a newly discovered apostolic book could not be included in the canon. Hypothetically, therefore, it could be included, despite the overwhelmingly unlikelihood of this.

It thus would seem that the canon remains theoretically open on the supposition of the discovery of an unknown apostolic book.

Since we do not have (and are overwhelmingly unlikely to ever have) a previously unknown book of demonstrably apostolic origin, we are unlikely to find ourselves in the above situation. In the absence of that circumstance, we must regard the canon as practically closed. The Church considered numerous works purporting apostolic origin and found them lacking. They are thus not to be considered canonical.

Thus all known extra-canonical works are to be regarded as non-canonical: Those that were known in antiquity are to be regarded as non-canonical on the grounds of rejection by the Magisterium, and those written after the apostolic age (e.g., Joseph Smith’s forgeries) are to be regarded as non-canonical on the grounds that public revelation is closed.

Works that were written in the first century (before the ban on public revelation) and that were lost before the Church began to pronounce on the canon could theoretically be included given what the Magisterium has thus far determined, but practically they could not.

To Quasimodo:

The Quadimodo has obviously been paying attention to the rules regarding the use of the definite article in the New Testament Greek. Therefore, the kudos to the Quasimodo regarding the use of "the"!

To Adam D:

We are all simpletons (Latin, simplicii) here. Now, if you can get the real Benedict XVI (and not a combox faker) to participate in the blog, we’ll have to revise that.

Till then, we’re all just folks.

Got it? ;-D

</RULE 15 SUSPENSION>

A Crown Of Thorns

A reader writes:

Dear Jimmy,

I was wondering if you could help me, im rather at my wits end and i dont know what to do. I read an article on your website dated March 08, 2004 and it was a real eye-opener.

For about 8 months now i have been really struggling with bad thoughts. I am a young christian, who by no means is perfect, but i love God and respect him. However the bad thoughts that i have are pure evil, often satanic in nature and anti-God.

They upset me so much, everyday i am often in tears asking for forgiveness. I then get scared that they are going to come true against me or my family and loved ones. I would never ever want them to come true, i would never do them and i hate them but i dont know what to do to get rid of them.

Your article stated that it is best to ignore them, but i feel i cant as these are so bad and so against God that i need to ask for forgiveness. How can i ignore something so evil?

I dont wish to burden you with my problems but i dont want to be this bad person anymore. I just want them to go away so that i can lead a good life, pleasing God not upsetting him.

I want to begin by saying that my heart goes out to you. You are carrying a very special cross that is close to Jesus’ heart. I will pray for you and I ask all who read this to pray for you, as well as for all who suffer from this condition.

I cannot make a medical diagnosis as I am not a doctor, but it sounds very much to me like you are suffering from an episode of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) that is manifesting itself as sinful thoughts. I am virtually certain from what you have said that this is what is happening in your case.

First, a little info on OCD:

One of the characteristics of OCD is that it generates obsessions, which are recurrent thoughts that one cannot get rid of, that one finds painful, and that are "ego-dystonic." That is, you feel like they just force their way into your mind unbidden, even though you don’t want them there.

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is an anxiety disorder where part of your mind tries to throw painful thoughts at you in order to increase your stress level. The reason you get recurrent thoughts about sin rather than thoughts about happy things is that these thoughts pain you. That’s what the condition tries to do: Give you painful thoughts.

It is obvious from what you write that you do not want these thoughts, that you hate having them and want desperately to be rid of them.

That’s good!

It shows that these thoughts are ego-dystonic and thus (THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART) they are NOT SINFUL.

Merely having a thought occur to you is not a sin, no matter how bad the thought it. At most, having the thought occur to you is just temptation. It only becomes sin if you endorse it with your will. But the fact that you clearly do not want these thoughts and that you oppose them means that you are not consenting with your will (CERTAINLY not in the fully human way needed to commit a mortal sin).

As a result, you are shouldering a particular kind of cross–or, to use a better analogy–you are wearing a particular crown of thorns. That means that you are especially close to Jesus’ heart, because that he looks with special compassion on those who suffer in this manner.

Now let me give you several pieces of good news, which I’ll follow up on below:

IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT THAT YOU HAVE THIS CONDITION!
THIS CONDITION IS TREATABLE!
YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
THESE THOUGHTS ARE NOT SINFUL!
GOD LOVES YOU!

In regard to the first piece of good news, it is not your fault that you have OCD. It is a condition that is rooted in the biology of the brain. In particular, it seems to be related to a deprivation of the neurotransmitter serotonin.

In regard to the second piece of good news, the condition in very responsive to treatment. You CAN get better. You DON’T have to feel this way. While you may or may not be able to completely eliminate the thoughts that you are having, you can get a grip on them so that they are not causing you the kind of torture that they are now. I’ll say more about treatment below.

In regard to the third piece of good news, OCD is a very common condition. About one in every 40 people has OCD. (Consequently, there are lots of OCD resources and support groups out there.)

In regard to the fourth piece of good news, I’ve already sketched the basis for it: These thoughts are not things you are endorsing with your will (certainly not in a human manner) and so they at most represent temptation (and really not even that since you aren’t attracted but rather horrified by them).

In regard to the fifth piece of good news: It’s true! GOD LOVES YOU! He will be with you while you deal with this condition, and he will never leave you nor forsake you.

Now let’s talk treatment. I have a significant amount of familiarity with this as I encounter a good number of OCD folks in my line of work. In fact, some of the other readers of the blog have OCD. Here’s what I can recommend regarding treatment:

Go to a doctor, preferably a psychiatrist, and get diagnosed.
With the doctor, explore getting on a medication known as a Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI), which is the class of drugs that has been shown to have a marked impact on OCD symptoms. Other medications may be helpful as well, but the SSRIs generally are the main ones used.
If your symptoms do not require medication, consider using the nutritional supplements like 5-HTP, which is a precursor of serotonin and thus has a similar effect to an SSRI: Increasing the amount of serotonin in the brain. (NOTE! DO NOT USE THIS NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENT AND THE DRUGS MENTIONED ABOVE AT THE SAME TIME WITHOUT A DOCTOR’S SUPERVISION!)
Get cognitive-behavioral therapy or counselling to help you work your way past the thoughts. This is important as medications alone don’t make all the thoughts go away. You can get this kind of therapy from a psychiatrist or psychologist.
Consider joining an online or face-to-face support group for OCD sufferers.
Watch the TV show Monk on USA Network. It’s about a detective who has OCD and who manages to be a productive member of society anyway. In fact, his OCD makes him a better detective as he notices (and obsesses about) details that nobody else spots. Many OCD folks really appreciate this show and say it helps them in that it offers a sympathetic portrait of someone with their conditions, lets them laugh about it, and lets them see their condition from an "outside" perspective.
When you are in confession, DO NOT attempt to laboriously explain all of the thoughts that you are having. Attempting to do this will reinforce and re-awaken the thoughts. This gives you an excusing cause from making a materially integral confession in regard to the thoughts–which you really don’t need to do anyway since they aren’t sinful since you don’t approve of them, but I know you’ll feel the need to confess them (if you’re Catholic). Here’s how to do that. Say this: "I have obsessive compulsive disorder, which causes me to have thoughts of a sinful nature that I do not want and do not approve of. I wish to confess any slight degree of cooperation of the will I may have given to these thoughts." And LEAVE IT AT THAT.
Talk to your doctor/counselor/spiritual director about the need not to dwell on these thoughts in confession. Once they tell you (as they will) that dwelling on these thoughts has a tendency to reinforce and re-awaken them and that it is better not to dwell on them in detail in confession you can say to any priest who asks, "I have been told by a medical professional/my spiritual director that I should not confess these in detail lest it make the problem worse." (If nothing else, you can say that "a professional" told you this since I have told you and I’m a professional.)
If you’re not Catholic, you should seriously investigate becoming Catholic (a) because Catholicism is true and (b) because the sacrament of confession will provide tremendous relief for you. There is nothing like having a priest authorized by God to absolve your sins (John 20:21-23) do so. When you can rely on the sacrament, you won’t have to worry about trying to do mental rituals in order to try to "feel" forgiven. Also, Catholics have long pastoral experience in dealing with folks who have conditions like this. In Protestant circles there are few established means for dealing with the condition known as scrupulosity (which correlates highly with OCD). Indeed, the term generally isn’t known in Protestant circles. But these are much better understood in Catholic circles.
Finally, to the extent you possibly can, simply ignore the thoughts. Relax and put them out of your head. You may find it helpful to say to yourself: "Sorry! But I’m not allowed to listen to that part of myself!"

Hope this helps, and God bless!