Month: January 2006

Neocatechetical Spin Update

A few days ago I published a post on an interview given to Zenit by Mr. Guiseppe Gennarini of the Neocatechumenal Way. The interview concerned a letter sent by Cardinal Arinze of the Congregation for DivineWorship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to the leaders of the Neocatechumenal Way.

In my blog post I stated that Mr. Gennarini was either grossly misinformed regarding what the letter said or that he was in denial, because the interview he gave ammounted to pure spin.

Since that time I have receive the following e-mail from Mr. Gennarini, who asked me to publish it. My response will be up soon.

Dear Mr. Akin

I have read your article and I was very surprise by your hostile attitude.

I do not know you and I do not know if you usually check out sources before printing, but you quote extensively an article of Sandro Magister which is full of lies, misrepresentation and innuendos :

1. He writes: In the Neocatechumenal Way, communion is taken while seated around a large square table, with a large loaf of bread that is divided among the participants and wine that is passes from hand to hand and is taken in large swallows.

John Paul II has presided a Eucharist with the Neocatechumenal communities twice, Benedict XVI, before becoming Pope, has also presided twice and many Cardinals have participated regularly, among them Pell from Sydney, Sandoval from Guadalajara, Schonborn from Wien and many many others. I do not know if this is of any relevance to you, but at least should make you doubt the misrepresentation of Magister. If you will have occasion to participate to a celebration of the Neocatechumenal Communities you will be able to witness the reverence and the dignity of it.

Then let us go to the details. We do not use a large loaf of bread: we use bread “made only from wheat, must be recently baked, and, according to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, must be unleavened” [1] .Wine is not passed “from hand to hand” but it is served only by the priests, deacons or extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist..

2. Magister continues in your quotation: “For example, the readings from the liturgy of the Word are commented upon by the catechists of the group, who make lengthy “admonitions” followed by “resonances” from many of those present. The priest’s homily is hardly distinguished, or not distinguished at all, from the rest of the comments.

Again, we are dealing here with a caricature. The “admonitions” before the reading – which the letter accepts and turns an extraordinary practice into a common one – are made according to article 105 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. Obviously we have to keep in mind that the Neocatechumenal Way is gradual initiation and that 70% of the  people are coming back to the Church . Regarding “Echos”: no layman in the communities has ever done the homily at the place of the priests and the letter accepts as valid this new practice of the Neocatechumenal Way.

3. Magister continues: The times and places for the Mass are also unusual. The Neocatechumenals do not celebrate their Masses on Sunday, but on Saturday evening, in small groups and separate from the parish communities to which they belong.

The ignorance of Magister reaches here its peak: does he not know that Saturday Night is already a Sunday celebration? How can it  be for him a ‘unusual time” when on Sat Eve  it is possible to attend Mass on in all the parishes of the World?

“Separate”? the celebrations of the communities are open to everybody; moreover  the unity of the thousands of masses in every diocese is guaranteed by the communion with the Holy Father and the local Bishop (not just by celebrating in the same room).

4. Here Magister gives his punch-line: Until recently, the founders and directors of the Way had shielded these practices by claiming they had received verbal authorization from John Paul II. But with Benedict XVI, playtime is over.

Sorry, but he is grossly mistaken. Benedict XVI has introduced the Neocatechumenal Way in Germany and in many of his books speak glowingly of the NW. Just a few examples:

a. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger with Vittorio Messori, The Ratzinger Report.  An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church.  San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985. What is hopeful at the level of the universal Church -and that is happening right in the heart of the crisis of the Church in the Western world-is the rise of new move­ments which nobody had planned and which nobody has called into being, but which have sprung spontaneously from the inner vitality of the faith itself.  What is manifested in them-albeit subdued-is something like a Pentecostal season in the Church.  I am thinking, say, of the charismatic movement, of the Cursillos, of the movement of the Focolare, of the neo-catechumenal communities, of Communion and Liberation, etc.

b. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth: The Church at the End of the Millennium.  An interview with Peter Seewald. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997.

On the other side, however, Christianity will offer models of life in new ways and will once again present itself in the wasteland of technological existence as a place of true humanity.  That is already happening now.  I mean, one can always raise objections to individual movements such as the Neo-catechumens or the Focolarini, but whatever else you may say, we can observe innovative things emerging there.  In these movements, Christianity is present as an experience of newness and is suddenly felt by people – who often come from very far outside – as a chance to live in this century.

c. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, God and the World.  A Conversation with Peter Seewald.  San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002.

Catholicism in fact can never be merely institutionally and academically planned and managed, but appears ever again as a gift, as a spiritual vitality.  And it in the process also has the gift of diversity.  There is no uniformity among Catholics.  There can be “Focolare” or Catechumenate piety, Schönstatt, Cursillo, and CL spirituality, and so on, as well as a Franciscan, Dominican, and Benedictine piety.  The treasury of faith provides many dwelling places within the one house.  And we should preserve this dynamic openness. Seen in this way, the Church always has a responsibility for society as a whole.  Missionary responsibility means in fact that, as the Pope says, we really have to try to re-evangelize.  We cannot just calmly allow everyone else to relapse into paganism, but have to find ways of bridging the gospel into the spheres of life of those who do not believe.  There are already models for this.  The Neo-Catechumenate has one model, and other groups are trying in their own various ways.  The Church will have to develop a great deal of imagination to help the gospel remain a force in public life.  So that it may shape the people and pervade their life and work among them like yeast.

d. Pope Benedict XVI Homily at the Mass at Marienfeld at the WYD: Form communities based on faith! In recent decades, movements and communities have come to birth in which the power of the Gospel is keenly felt. Seek communion in faith, like fellow travellers who continue together to follow the itinerary of the great pilgrimage that the Magi from the East first pointed out to us.

I suspect that you do not know that Sandro Magister is an italian journalist writing on "L’Espresso", the newspaper of the progressive and freethinking italian elite who embraces the ways of the world and like very much Brokeback Mountain,. but do not like Narnia. Magister has a guiding principle: to fight against every ecclesial reality that has strength to witness Christianity in today’s world. In his website you will see that he attacks the Focolarini, Communio and Liberazione, Sant’Egidio, the Charismatic renewal, etc… exactly the contrary of the vision of Benedict XVI which appears from the few excerpts quoted above. For them the Pope is good if he criticizes the war in Iraq, but not if he supports the new ecclesial realities. Magister is also close to Alberto Melloni, the Italian historian who bashed Pio XII for – supposedly- not having spoken against Nazism, and he is close to the Centro Documentazione di Bologna led by historian Giuseppe Alberigo:  Alberigo  interprets the II Vatican Council as a radical break with the past. Again, something radically opposite to the vision of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who see the Council not as a “break” with the past but as a necessary answer to modernity .

The Pope has another program of which he spoke at the WYD addressing  the German bishops:

“We have become a mission land". This is true for large parts of Germany. I therefore believe that throughout Europe, and likewise in France, Spain and elsewhere, we should give serious thought as to how to achieve a true evangelization in this day and age, not only a new evangelization, but often a true and proper first evangelization. People do not know God, they do not know Christ. There is a new form of paganism and it is not enough for us to strive to preserve the existing flock, although this is very important: we must ask the important question: what really is life? I believe we must all try together to find new ways of bringing the Gospel to the contemporary world, of proclaiming Christ anew and of implanting the faith.

Regarding “the spin” thing of which you accuse me rather too hastily :

  1. This is a private letter whose real contents are known only by Cardinal Arinze, Kiko Arguello, Carmen Hernandez and Father Mario Pezzi. Any use of a private document to enforce a public policy is completely illegitimate and improper.
  2. If someone of the above mentioned people should confirm that the contents of this letter are authentic, this does not change its nature of a confidential and internal instrumentum laboris (working instrument). To consider this letter as having the strength of a norm would be as if we considered the Instrumentum Laboris of the Synod on the Eucharist as the final Document of the Synod.
  3. The iter established by the Holy See regarding the Neocatechumenal Way foresees that every decision must be approved conjunctly by the Inter-Dicasterial Commisssion (Pontifical Institute for the Laity, faith, Liturgy, Clergy and Catechesis, Catholic Education). This letter is just a moment of the proceedings of the Interdicasterial.
  4. The only document approved conjunctly until now are the Statutes, which are much more explicit than the contents of the letter. At the end of the ad experimentum period all the Five Congregations will issue the official decisions. What is for now the actual norm is the confirmation by the Holy Father of the liturgical praxis of the Way.

I write I wrote all of all this in the hope that, if you were surprised by truth once, you may love truth and you will have the fairness to publish my answer.

Giuseppe T.Gennarini

—————————————————-

[1] GIRM 2003, the new General Instructions of  the Roman Missal

Art. 320: The bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be made only from wheat, must be recently baked, and, according to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, must be unleavened.

Art. 321. The meaning of the sign demands that the material for the Eucharistic celebration truly have the appearance of food. It is therefore expedient that the Eucharistic bread, even though  unleavened and baked in the traditional shape, be made in such a way that the priest at Mass with a congregation is able in practice to break it into parts for distribution to at least some of the faithful. Small hosts are, however, in no way ruled out when the number of those receiving Holy Communion or other pastoral needs require it. The action of the fraction or breaking of bread, which gave its name to the Eucharist in apostolic times, will bring out more clearly the force and  importance of the sign of unity of all in the one bread, and of the sign of charity by the fact that  the one bread is distributed among the brothers and sisters.

Judge Orders Priest: “Prove Jesus Existed!”

A reader writes:

Here is a link to a news article that I recently came across. Is there such evidence that will unequivically prove this? (not that I’m doubting)

<extreme exertion of self-control>MUST . . . RESTRAIN . . . SELF . . . FROM . . . MAKING . . . FLIPPANT . . . COMMENT . . . ABOUT . . . ITALIAN . . . LEGAL . . . SYSTEM!</extreme exertion of self-control>

There is certainly evidence that would prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth beyond reasonable doubt, which is the standard that (American) courts use in the toughest cases.

I don’t know what standard of proof the Italian court would expect, whether it is beyond reasonable doubt or something else. I suspect it might be something closer to the "preponderance of evidence"standard, which is much weaker than "beyond reasonable doubt."

However that may be, there’s evidence to prove it.

The question is whether one is willing to give proper weight to the evidence that exists.

For a start, the gospels themselves–and the other New Testament documents mentioning Christ–have a weight that cannot simply be written off just because they’re documents of faith as well as documents of history. You can’t write off the historical value of a document just because it was written by someone who is a believer.

I mean, I’m sure that Father Divine‘s immediate followers wrote about him (and if they didn’t, let’s suppose that they did). Just because they were believers in him doesn’t deprive their documents of all historical value. I mean, if I’m a detective trying to figure out if Father Divine existed and I’m looking at these documents, I’ll factor out the parts where they’re talking about Father Divine being God (something I don’t believe), but I’ll still give the documents weight when it comes to attesting to Father Divine’s historical existence.

Now some folks will concede that the New Testament documents would have similar weight if they were written by eye-witnesses or close associates of eye-witnesses, but they challenge the latter point.

Okay. We can fight that one out.

I think–and the VAST majority of Bible scholars (Christian AND non-Christian) agree with me–that the New Testament documents were (wholly or almost wholly) written in the first century. That means that they were written within seventy years of Jesus’ life, which was within the lifespans of many eye-witnesses and the associates of eye-witnesses.

Granting that, that means that they have historical weight that just can’t be written off. (Just as I couldn’t write off the weight of documents written by followers of Father Divine within seventy years of his life.)

I think that there is EXTREMELY good reason to date the books of Luke and Acts to c. A.D. 60, which is even closer (30 years) to Christ’s life, and if you buy the idea that Luke wrote based on Mark then that would put Mark even earlier.

But let’s suppose that you don’t buy these first century datings. Suppose that you think that the New Testament documents were written–say–in the second and third centuries.

Okay, even then the documents don’t seem to have all come out of one place. They seem to be responding to a widespread movement, and there’s significant evidence from secular sources that Christianity was a widespread movement in the second and third centuries.

For example, Pliny the Younger wrote a famous letter to the Emperor Trajan (reigned A.D. 98-117) about what he ought to do regarding the Christians in his provice of Bithynia. Commenting on the extent of Christianity in his province at this time, he writes that the emperor should pay attention to the Christian problem because:

[I]t appears to be a matter highly deserving your consideration, more especially as great numbers must be involved in the danger of these prosecutions, which have already extended, and are still likely to extend, to persons of all ranks and ages, and even of both sexes. In fact, this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread its infection among the neighbouring villages and country. Nevertheless, it still seems possible to restrain its progress. The temples, at least, which were once almost deserted, begin now to be frequented; and the sacred rites, after a long intermission, are again revived; while there is a general demand for the victims, which till lately found very few purchasers [SOURCE].

Pliny also mentions that some of the persons he interrogated said that they had been Christians at one time, but that was more than twenty years ago.

I don’t have a specific dating of this letter, but even if we assume that it was in the last year of Trajan’s reign (it may be posible to date it earlier, but for the sake of argument let’s go with that), it seems that Christianity was significantly widespread in Bithynia in the first quarter of the second century that it was seriously impacting pagan worship.

And Pliny is just ONE datapoint.

So I don’t see how one can reasonably claim that Christianity wasn’t a widespread movement in the second century.

But movements take time to grow, especially before the age of the Internet, and ESPECIALLY when there are costs of joining the movement, like getting in trouble with the state. (Trajan wrote back and said people are to be punished if they are found to be Christians.)

So how long did Christianity have to grow?

Here is where I think the New Testament (and other early Christian) documents can play a role, even from a skeptical perspective.

They are in agreement that the founder of their movement was Jesus of Nazareth, who was born no later than the last quarter of the first century B.C. (Really the last decade, but let’s leave that fuzzy.)

That’s important because if they had been able to plausibly claim that he had lived earlier then THEY WOULD HAVE DONE SO.

Antiquity counts in the religion business. People will take your religious movement a lot less seriously if it just started last week as opposed to being hundreds or thousands of years old. Youth puts religious movements at a tactical disadvantage, and so people want to claim as much antiquity for their movements as they can.

(Just look at the way some Baptists claim that their movement really went all the way to the first century instead of just to the 1600s.)

You can even see the early Christian apologists trying to do a variation of this by claiming that, even though–yes–Jesus HIMSELF was only born recently, Christianity is still really old because it’s the completion of Judaism and so it gets to claim Judaism’s antiquity for itself.

So even from a skeptical perspective we’re on pretty solid ground saying that the Christian movement did not exist–even in the person of its alleged founder–any earlier than the last quarter of the first century B.C.

So: Between the last quarter of the first century B.C. and the first quarter of the second century A.D. we have a movement that goes from NOTHING (no members) to being widespread enough to provoke serious imperial notice in different parts of the empire and, according to some accounts (Pliny’s), is big enough to make a sizable dent in pagan worship in some locations.

That’s not a lot of time.

Specifically: It’s not enough time for your movement to have retroactively created a mythical founder for itself and have belief in that founder spread throughout your movement.

That’s the kind of thing that can happen in hundreds of years, but not this kind of short timeframe.

Which is why the overwhelming majority of historians and biblical scholars–whatever their religious convictions–acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth at least existed.

There are a few people who don’t. In fact, I recently met a very nice fellow of the Jesus Seminar (I’m not kidding; he’s been REALLY nice to me personally) who isn’t sure whether Jesus of Nazareth existed–a position I find so hard to argue that I bought his book to see how he argues it.

But the bottom line, if I may put it this way, is that there is so much Christian "smoke" in the second and third centuries that I don’t see how it could be successfully argued that there was no first century "fire" in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, kicking off the movement.

Even if someone is not a Christian and doesn’t believe any of the Christian religious claims, I don’t see how that much can be reasonably denied.

So whether one uses "preponderance of evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt," I think the Italian priest should (if he does his homework) be on safe ground in provind the existence of Jesus for the court.

But then we’re talking about the Italian legal system, so who knows.

(Sorry. Momentary lapse of self-control.)

The Stage Is Set

We are now set for a major First Amendment showdown.

The problem?

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from making any laws that infringe on the free exercise of religion (and the Fourteenth Amendment is interpreted as meaning that state congresses from doing the same thing).

This means that Catholics are free to pursue the obligations of their religion.

Among the obligations of their religion are to obey canon law.

Canon law requies that parish assets cannot be alienated unless a number of requirements are met (such as Rome’s approval in case that the proposed alienation amounts to more than $3 million bucks).

The U.S. Constitution thus means that Catholics are free to honor their religious obligation under canon law of not handing over more than $3 million dollars of parish assets unless Rome okays it.

NOW . . .

A federal judge has just ruled that federal bankruptcy law TRUMPS canon law and thus the First Amendment to the Constitution.

ED PETERS EXPLAINS IT ALL.

NARNIA: The EU And US Are Bullies!

Narniadelegation_1

So the official delegation of the State of Narnia to World Trade Organization have walked out of talks with the world powers and gone home.

"’The independent state of Narnia has walked out of trade negotiations here [Hong Kong], citing pressure from the EU and the US to enforce liberalisation of its garment-related sector,’ read the story.

"It went on to quote Narnia’s spokeswoman ‘Susan Aslan’ attacking ‘bullying by EU and US delegations,’ adding its representatives were returning to the capital Cair Parvel."

Once the mainstream media finally caught on that the "story" was a spoof planted by a jokester, it shamefacedly pulled it off such business sites as Forbes.com:

"A Day Today-style story claimed the state of Narnia had walked out of the World Trade Organisation talks in Hong Kong because it was fed up with being bullied by the US and Europe.

"The wind-up was posted on news wires on Sunday and stayed up for nearly an hour — long enough for it to be picked up by top business websites, including Forbes.com."

GET THE STORY.

(Nod to Mark Shea for the link.)

Next thing you know we’ll see stories on how Hogwarts has received accreditation and King Kong has been rescued by PETA.

Feel free to suggest more such spoofs in the combox.

Of Universes, Tables, and Toenails

A reader writes:

How can it be said that God created the universe if the universe already had an existence in the Mind of God before "creation?" Isn’t the universe therefore an emanation of God?

Let’s deal with the first question first.

The answer is that the universe DIDN’T exist prior to its creation by God. When we speak analogically of the universe "existing" in God’s mind apart from creation (I prefer "apart from" to "before" since God is outside of time) we are speaking analogically. We aren’t speaking of the same thing as existence but only something analogous to existence.

Specifically: There is a difference between something existing in the exterior world and a mind knowing that it could be created.

Consider: Suppose I think about building a table. Before I do so, there is an idea in my head of the table that I want to build. It has certain characteristics. Let’s say that it’s made of oak, is two feet high, five feet long, three feet wide, and has four legs.

Just to be unnecessarily mathematical, we’ll call these properties T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5 (figure out which correspond to which if you’re really interested).

So before I build the table, we can say that

There is an entity, J, who knows that he could build a table, T, with properties T1-T5.

Where J is your humble author.

Now at this point (before I build the table, you’ll remember) the table does not exist. I just happen to know that I COULD build it.

In fact, we’re at that moment RIGHT NOW, because I COULD build the table.

I just haven’t.

So right now the table does not exist. What does exist is ME, who has a particular piece of knowledge concerning my table-buliding abilities.

If you want to speak analogically of the table existing "in my mind," okay, but you’re using an analogy. What really exists is me. Not the table. To exist in the sense that counts (i.e., the sense in which I could stack coasters and coffetable books and assorted knicknacks on it) the table needs to exist OBJECTIVELY or OUTSIDE OF MY MIND. That kind of existence it AIN’T GOT as long as I haven’t built it.

In the same way, apart from creation (you’ll notice that I switched from "before" to "apart from" since I switched from talking about me–who exists IN time–to talking about God–who exists OUTSIDE OF time), God knows that he could create the universe. The difference he is omniscient and so can specify the universe he might create in infinite detail (whereas I got bored after only five characteristics). He also will come up with the universe ex nihilo (from nothing), where as I would have to go down to Dixieline to buy the lumber.

So, to be unnecessarily mathematical again, we can say that apart from creation,

There is an entity, G, who knows that he could create a universe, U, with characteristics U1-U(infinity).

Where G is God rather than me. (Please bear that last point in mind.)

Unless G chooses to act on his knowledge that he could create U and actually creates it then U does not exist.

You might be able to speak ANALOGICALLY of it existing "in God’s mind," but the universe doesn’t exist in the sense that counts (i.e., the sense in which God could stack coasters and coffetable books and assorted knicknacks on it). In other words, it doesn’t exist OBJECTIVELY or OUTSIDE GOD’S MIND.

If God doesn’t choose to create an objective universe then the only thing that exists (in the objective sense) is God himself, who happens to know that he could create the universe but didn’t do so.

In fact, since God is omniscient and knows everything, he also knows EVERY POSSIBLE universe that he could create–and in infinite detail.

We know (or seem to know) that he did create THIS universe. Whether he created any other universes, we don’t know. Maybe we’ll find out someday.

So, to sum up: Coffee tables don’t exist until you build them, and neither do universes.

(Also, in case you’re wondering, you can’t get what you need to build a universe at Dixieline, though they might be able to give you what you need to build a coffeetable.)

Now for the second question:

I’m afraid that the question is a little vague, but I’ll try to answer it as best I can.

Something would be an emanation from God if he took something out of himself and used that to fashion the thing that he made.

For example, suppose that I decided that I wanted to start a toenail clipping collection composed entirely out of MY toenails. (In point of fact, I DON’T want to start such a collection–my toenail clippings go into the trash as soon as they’re severed from my toes–but it’s a relevant example.)

If–instead of throwing my toenail clippings into the trash–I started collecting them then my toenail clipping collection might in some sense be said to be an emanation from me in some sense.

But notice how this is different than the case of the table.

For the table, characteristic T1 was that it be made out of oak, and since my body is not composed of oak (though some of it is composed of toenails), the table would NOT BE an emanation from me because it was not made from me.

In the same way, the universe was created ex nihilo (out of nothing–God didn’t go down to Dixieline, remember? I can’t stress that enough that they just don’t have what you need to build a universe down at Dixieline) and thus was NOT created out of God, meaning that it was not an emanation from him.

So: To sum up again: Toenail clipping collections might be emanations from you, but tables and universes are not.

(Also: Don’t expect Dixieline to have toenail clippings that you can buy, either.)

Hope this helps!

Feel free to e-mail Plotinus a link to all this if Gmail has added a temporal addressing function yet!

P.S.

Here’s another disproof of the idea that the universe is an emanation from God:

  1. The universe has rocks in it.
  2. God has never had rocks in his head.
  3. Therefore, the universe is not an emanation from God. QED.

Take it for what it’s worth.

In Search Of The Historical Mozart

Mozart_6

Catholicism is probably the only religion that so perfectly fits human nature. You might say that if God hadn’t given it to us, we might have had to invent it. I say this because so much of Catholic sensibilities and customs are mirrored in secular life, often by those who would be horrified to be considered crypto-Catholics.

For example, there are rumors that relic-hunting scientists in Austria have found the skull of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and will reveal the results of DNA testing in an Austrian television documentary commemorating Mozart’s 250th birthday:

"In a documentary entitled Mozart: The Search for Evidence, researchers will reveal the conclusions of tests carried out on the skull at the Institute for Forensic Medicine in Innsbruck last year. DNA from shavings from the skull was compared with genetic material from the thigh bones of Mozart’s maternal grandmother and niece.

"Until now, tests on the skull, which belongs to the International Mozarteum Foundation in Salzburg, have proved inconclusive, but today Dr. Walther Parson, the forensic pathologist who led the analysis said his team had ‘succeeded in getting a clear result.’

"Dr. Parson said the result had been ‘100 percent verified’ by a US Army laboratory but declined to elaborate."

GET THE STORY.

By the way, anyone planning a birthday party for Mozart should consider sending an invitation to Pope Benedict, who is known to be a great admirer of the composer and once said of Mozart’s music, "His music is by no means just entertainment; it contains the whole tragedy of human existence."

Bibles For People With Reading Disabilities

A reader writes:

I’m sorry to bug you.  I have been reading your blog for over a year now and have enjoyed it very much.  I know your busy but I have a problem I can’t seen to fix and you have that nice button on your site inviting people to email you.  😉   

My son who is 12 years old has a pretty severe learning disability.  He also has Asberger’s (a mild form of autism).  I am trying to find a very simple translation of the Bible he can use when he is at Sunday school.  Do you know any way to find out the reading level of different Bible translations or what would be a good translation for someone with learning disabilities.  Any help would be appreciated.

There are a number of guides to the reading difficulty of different Bible translations, but I’ve been out of that loop for a few years and can’t recommend such a guide of the top of my head.

What I can do is give you the names of a number of very easy to read translations, some of which were specifically done for children or people with restricted vocabularies (e.g., non-native English speakers).

So here goes:

  • The New International Version. This is a fairly simple translation that you may wish to check out, though it is a bit above some of the others in reading level. There is an advantage with this one in that there is a Catholic youth version of the New Testament available in it.
  • The New International Readers Version is a simplified form of the previous translation. It is meant for people who have difficulty reading.
  • Today’s English Version A.K.A. The Good News Bible is one of the easiest to read that I have personal experience with. It also has a Catholic edition available. The deuterocanonicals are available in this translation.
  • The Living Bible is a paraphrase that was done specifically for children. There are also a Catholic edition of this. The deuterocanonicals are available. There is also a revision of this one known as The New Living Translation, though I haven’t read that one.
  • The EasyEnglish Bible has about a 1200 word vocabulary and is designed for those with trouble reading.
  • The Contemporary English Version is another meant for easy reading. It also has the deuterocanonicals available in this translation.
  • The Worldwide English New Testament was written for students in other countries whose grasp of English is limited.
  • The Bible in Basic English has about a 1000 word vocabulary.

MORE VERSION INFO HERE.

Having metioned these, I need to give a couple of caveats. First, these versions (even ones for which there are Catholic editions) are Protestant and have a number of limitations. Some do not have all the books of the Catholic Bible. Others have theological bias in some passages and may in some editions have problematic footnotes.

Second, the fact that these versions are dynamic equivalence or paraphrases–plus the fact that many have restricted vocabularies–mean that they often flatten out the theology of the text and risk introducing more of the biases of the translators.

I say that not to discourage you from using them with your son, but just to say that you should check them out first and are likely to need to help your son with troublesome aspects of the texts. (I’d get a version without footnotes if possible to help avoid problems.)

More information is available about all of them online, and the links above will help point you to it. The complete text of some of these versions is also available online (check out Bible Gateway among other sites).

I don’t know how significant the reading problem that your son has is, but these could help him learn more about the Bible. He may eventually be able to graduate to reading more advanced versions of the Bible that will help him learn even more.

I’d like to be encouraging in this regard because I have a reading disability. I’m dyslexic. I had a lot of trouble learning to read as a kid, and I had to have special training. Eventually, though, I was reading above my grade level, and today I’m interacting with Bible versions that aren’t even in English, so I’d like to encourage you about what can happen in situations like this.

To that end, let me give another suggestion: Consider using audio versions of the Bible with your son.

One of the ways that they helped me with reading when I was a boy is they sat me down with a machine called a Reader Hoffman, which played a record and a filmstrip at the same time and read to me as I read along with the text.

There are a lot of audio versions of the Bible out there already, and if you use computer tech like what I recommend here (and here) you can produce audio versions of any Bible for which you can get an electronic text.

At least it’s something to consider and maybe experiment with.

Hope this helps, and God bless!

Real Cowboys Steamed Over Brokeback Mountain

The fiasco over the "gay cowboy movie" Brokeback Mountain had me wondering what real cowboys thought about the film. As I suspected, the common answer is "Not much."

"Jim-Bob Zimmerschied is not a happy cowboy. ‘They’ve gone and killed John Wayne with this movie,’ he says angrily, beer in hand. ‘I’ve been doing this job all my life and I ain’t never met no gay cowboy. It wouldn’t be right.’

[…]

"But away from the bellicose posturing, a more subtle view emerged. Dave Miller, 48, a rancher in regulation black cowboy hat, leather waistcoat, blue jeans and boots, said: ‘It’s not the sort of movie that I’d go to see, but this is America and people can watch whatever they want.’ Nonetheless, he repeated the common refrain that he had never encountered a gay cowboy. ‘Well, not that I knew,’ he added. ‘I just don’t think our way of life is conducive to them.’ And like many others, his concern was that the film would give the wrong impression of life in the West."

My favorite reaction:

"Lee Hagel, 47, who was herding cattle there last week, had his own objections to the film. ‘They aren’t even cowboys — they’re sheep herders,’ he said witheringly. ‘You can’t just put a hat on someone and say they’re a cowboy.’"

GET THE STORY.

(NOTE: The article, although written for a mainstream newspaper, contains some crude language that may not be suitable for all readers.)

(JIMMY ADDS: JimmyAkin.Org rates the newspaper piece L for limited adult audience, articles whose problematic content many adults would find troubling.)