June 2006 – Page 6

Dubium

A reader writes:

A friend is questioning why the ordination of women is not allowed in the Catholic Church, and I referred him to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis from 1994 and Cardinal Ratzinger’s response from 1995. In the Cardinal’s response, there is a reference to a “dubium,” which begins “Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority . . .”

My Latin isn’t very good. What is a “dubium”? Is it a “doubt” or something “doubtful”? And what does it mean in this particular context?

A lot of folks have this question, because a kind of shorthand ecclesiastical jargon is being used here. Normally these documents don’t make big headlines, and so most folks aren’t familiar with them or the terminology associated with them, but here’s the scoop:

The full name for this kind of document is a Responsum ad Dubium, which in Latin means "A Response to a Doubt" or, somewhat more freely, "An Answer to a Question." They’re a kind of Vatican Q & A that the Holy See uses to clarify certain issues.

Since Responsum ad Dubium is kind of a mouthful, though, one of them may colloquially be called a Responsum or a Dubium, even though the latter doesn’t make much sense when translated literally as "Doubt."

Incidentally, the plural forms of these would be Responsa and Dubia.

Hope this helps!

Why Philemon?

Arthur of The Ancient and Illuminated Seers of Bavaria writes:

What exactly is the purpose of the Epistle to Philemon? Or more appropriately, why is included in the New Testament canon?

Obviously the central message of "treat your slaves well" was far more important in the Roman Empire 2000 years ago than it is now, but even that doesn’t seem to be enough to include it in canon.

After all the rest of Paul’s epsitles are quite obviously teaching documents and were meant as such, whereas Philemon comes across more as a personal letter from Paul with some advice to a friend about a sticky household problem.

And the fact that it was simply written by Paul doesn’t strike me as sufficient reason to include it either. A man as prolific and erudite as Paul must have written hundreds of similar short notes to people he had met on his journeys, yet they were not saved let alone considered part of biblical canon.

I think there are at least three ways of answering this question. I’m sure there are more, but here are three:

1) The Patristic Answer: In the age of the Church Fathers, anything written by an apostle came to be regarded as an important document of the faith–as Scripture.

While Paul may have written other notes, his reputation in the apostolic age was not everywhere appreciated. Thus, he had a bunch of critics and opponents, even within the Church in his own lifetime. It also was easier to see him as a man when he was still living so that you could still . . . uh . . . see him as a man. Thus he wrote some documents whose value was not fully appreciated in his own day, and they were lost under the providence of God.

This is analogous to those works mentioned in the Old Testament–including prophetic works, like the History of Nathan the Prophet and the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite and the Visions of Iddo the Seer–that were endorsed in the Hebrew Scriptures but were nevertheless lost in the end (cf. 2 Chron. 9:29).

For some reason, in both Testaments, God allowed apparent Scripture to be written that was not destined to be included in the final canon. Presumably these works had "short term missions" and were not meant to have the long term mission of being in the canon.

Or maybe God just allowed us to misuse our free will by losing stuff that would otherwise have benefitted us. (Though I doubt that when it comes to Scripture.)

In any event, had Paul’s other missives not been lost in his own lifetime, they would have been included in Scripture by the Christians of a generation or two later. Anything that had minimal theological content–anything other than a shopping list, let’s say–would have gone in by the time the canon was finalized. Apostolic authorship (plus minimal theological content) was enough for that.

But why did this missive survive when others didn’t?

2) The Individual Answer: In Philemon Paul is basically ordering-without-ordering Philemon to send Paul a slave named Onesimus, who had apparently run away from Philemon and then encountered Paul and become a Christian. Paul writes the letter to try to reconcile Onesimus with his master, but he also orders-without-ordering Philemon to send Onesimus back to him. He may even be hoping that Philemon will give Onesimus to Paul, who oculd then free him.

According to some of early Church writings, Onesimus later went on to become the bishop of Ephesus, and according to others, Philemon was bishop of Colossae. If either one of those is true then, since the Churches of Ephesus and Colossae were involved in the passing on of Paul’s epistles to other churches such that we have both a Letter to the Ephesians and a Letter to the Colossians in the New Testament, we have a route by which Philemon would have been preserved. It would have been important to the bishop of Ephesus or the bishop of Colossae (or both) and thus been preserved and disseminated along with the letters that were sent to these churches, so we have a route of preservation for this missive on the human level.

That still leaves,

3) The Theological Anwswer: While the overt message of Philemon may seem not-that-relevant to us in the 21st century in the developed world, where slavery has been abolished, we shouldn’t read its immediate relevance to us as a test for how relevant it would have been to others.

Slavery–in one form or another, with or without the name being attached to it–has been much more the norm than the exception in world history. It still exists legally in some parts of the world today, and it still exists illegally in others (including the United States). So its message would resonate for many people historically (and even today) much more than it would for most of us.

It would have especially resonated in the early Christian centuries since slavery was still legal at the time and–in fact–Christianity spread notably among the slave class.

Part of the reason for that was that Christianity carried the message of God’s compassion for the slave, which is the central theme of the book of Philemon.

"Treat your slaves well" may seem to be the obvious message of the book from a master’s point of view, but if you think about it from the slaves’ point of view, you get something else: "God loves you and has compassion on you and has given this letter to the Church to give your master a model for how to treat you with compassion and Christian charity."

This kind of message was in marked contrast to the way the religion of slaves was dealt with outside Christian circles. In Roman households, for example, slaves were often encouraged not to worship the gods directly but to show a kind of religious veneration for their masters (presumably this was to keep the slaves from complaining to the gods about what their masters were doing).

The Christian God, by contrast, wanted slaves to have a direct relationship to him, to become his children, to become "the Lord’s freedmen," and to be equal in the Church to their masters. As Philemon shows, God also wants their masters to show them human compassion and mercy even when they have run away from and (apparently) stolen from their masters.

All of this is a very big deal for anyone who has been a slave–and even for many who aren’t, such as people who, while legally free, are economically locked in to their jobs in a way that they cannot reasonably get out of them and go elsewhere for work.

It’s true that Philemon is not a straightforward book of teaching the way many of Paul’s epistles are, which is why it is classed among the "pastoral" epistles. But it shows how to address a pastoral situation in a way that reveals important principles that are of use not just in this particular situation but in others as well.

In this respect it is like a number of books in the Old Testament that represent wisdom literature–particularly Proverbs–that convey advice that contains important principles but that do not deliver straight law or theology.

It seems to me that, despite its brevity and obliqueness, Philemon is a clearer candidate for inclusion in the canon than certain other works, such as Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon, both of which are so unusual compared to other books of Scripture that their canonicity was doubted in the ancient world.

Still, they contain elements that are the basis of fruitful reflection, and God apparently wants us to glorify him by using our intellects to wrestle with the questions posed by the material, including the question, "Why is this book here?"

New Mexico . . . Underwater!

A reader writes:

I have been trying to find something on line about New Mexico being underwater at one time. I recently visited N.M. and was told exactly that. When I came home I mentioned it to one of the teachers I work with and they didn’t believe me. I looked on line and can find nothing to support my claim…. feeling a little stupid. Help!

You’ll be happy to learn that what you were told in New Mexico is true . . . at least according to the common scientific understanding.

In fact, according to the standard account, this part of the country has been underwater more than once.

To document this, HERE’S A PAGE ON THE GEOLOGICAL HISTORY OF NEW MEXICO (EXCERPTS):

A picture of ancient New Mexico during the Precambrian is one of volcanic activity and mountain building, with periodic episodes of submersion under the sea. . . .

During the Paleozoic, most of the North America was part of a large landmass called Pangaea. The state was covered by a vast shallow sea, from which large deposits of limestone, sandstone and shale accumulated. These limestone beds can now be found in many areas of New Mexico, often containing small marine invertebrate fossils such as brachiopods, crinoids and trilobites. During the later part of the Paleozoic, the ancestral Rocky Mountains formed, uplifting the central and northern part of the state. Toward the southern part of New Mexico, a great barrier reef developed. As the reef was cut off from the sea, the evaporation of the water left deposits of salt, potash and gypsum that can be found today. . . .

In the Mesozoic era . . . the inland sea once again returned and New Mexico was on the western shore of a great shallow ocean covering most of the central United States. . . .

Hope this helps!

James White Responds

James White has responded to my response.

YOU CAN READ HIS RESPONSE HERE.

Unfortunately, Mr. White wrote his response without having seen the first of the two posts I wrote yesterday.

This is evident from two facts:

1) He makes no effort to modify his ad hominem/insult/jab style of apologetics.

For example, he writes:

How amazing! Does Mr. Akin truly believe his audience will either 1) completely trust him so that they will not even consider what I have written, or 2) blindly ignore the glaring misrepresentation he presents, which flies in the face once again of all my published works wherein I have discussed the relationship between Scripture and lesser authorities, again for over a decade? I am left wondering just who it is Mr. Akin is writing for. Surely it is not for anyone who is listening to both sides!

2) He repeatedly indicates that he is under the impression that the post that occasioned this exchange was responding to him.

For example, he writes:

Akin chose to attempt to address a question about my view of the Corban rule.

He also says that he is perplexed by things that he would have understood if he had seen the first post.

So he simply didn’t see it. I’d assumed he would, but he didn’t.

Now, I’m not going to kick a man when he’s down. This isn’t a situation of soldiers in mortal combat, where your duty is to exploit your opponent’s weaknesses in order to win. This is meant to be an intellectual exchange designed to get at the truth. It’s about truth, not winning.

So I’m not going to try to exploit the fact that White is missing some important information here and that partly shapes his response.

Instead, I want to do the most gentlemanly thing I can, which is to point out the existence of the first post and then give James a chance to modify his response before I interact with it.

He may wish to edit his existing post or he may wish to compose a new, supplementary post, or he may wish to do nothing. If he does the latter, though, I’d ask that he e-mail me so that I’ll know that he’d like to let his existing reply stand.

White also indicated–if I read him right–that he was perplexed by the structure of my argument, so I’ll provide a brief summary here in case that helps him reformulate his response. It’s in the below-the-fold section of this post.

One thing I want to ask is that the readers don’t make snarky comments in the combox about the fact that James missed the first post. No "James White hasn’t done his homework. Haw-haw," stuff, please. He simply didn’t see it. Let’s let him have a chance to read it and then reformulate his response in a dignified manner.

Thanks.

Continue reading “James White Responds”

Imposing Our Crosses On Others

In a recent post an issue arose in the combox over whether a particular term has a crass origin and what the implications should be for Christians who use this term.

I won’t link to this post for reasons which will promptly become obvious.

In fact, I won’t even use the term in question, though at least partly for a different reason than you might think.

There is a well-known phenomenon in languages of using euphemisms for tabooed words. Every language has tabooed words. When people of conscience feel the impulse to use these tabooed words, they often substitute a euphemism in their place.

Over time these euphemisms can become so established that they are viewed as independent words in their own right and they do not call to mind the original tabooed words on which they are based.

I’d give you examples, except to make the point effectively I’d have to enlighten (or try to enlighten) you about a word origin that you didn’t already know.

You’d then be burdened with the knowledge of where a particular word came from, and you’d have unpleasant, tabooed associations pop into your head when you heard or were tempted to use the word whose origin I had "outed."

To avoid this problem, let’s make up a new pair of words.

Suppose that schmelf used to be a taboo word. It doesn’t matter what the meaning of schmelf was. It could have been any of the usual suspects: something connected with the bedroom, something connected with the bathroom, something connected with religion. All that matters is that schmelf was a really, really tabooed word.

Let’s say it had the same kilotonnage as the F-bomb.

Naturally, polite people wouldn’t want to use it. But, being human, they’d be tempted to at least on occasion. And so a euphemism–smurf–comes into existence.

At first, the fact that smurf is being substituted for schmelf (pardon my language!) is painfully obvious to everyone. But with time, smurf takes on a life of its own, and people no longer realize how the word originated. It has its own, distinct meaning (let’s suppose that it refers to a tiny, blue imaginary creature), and it no longer calls to mind any of the unpleasant associations of the tabooed word from which it was derived.

In fact, let’s suppose that smurf becomes a very popular word, and people use it all the time, saying things like "Oh, Papa Smurf! He’s just the smurfiest smurfing smurf that ever smurfed!"

And one day a Catholic blogger who does not know the origin of the word smurf (a blogger who happens not to be me, though easily could have been since I had never heard its claimed origin either) is writing a blog post in which he uses it, and someone in the combox says:

I am SICK TO DEATH at seeing the vulgar slang words, "smurf" and "trolling," beginning to appear even on Catholic blogs. How in the world could people not be aware of the following:

(1) "trolling" is so obviously a euphemism for "troll king" (which word comes to mind every time the milder version is spoken/written).

(2) "smurf" (as I well recall from my childhood) was coined as a variant of "schmelf" (slang term that sounds as bad as the F-bomb), and then took on an extended meaning of "small blue imaginary creature."

Anyway, folks, DON’T USE THESE BAD WORDS, please.

What would happen next?

Probably, a lot of people would point out that it doesn’t matter where smurf came from. Regardless of whether this word was originally a euphemism for schmelf, it simply doesn’t mean that anymore and does not call up that association in the minds of most people. Now–for the great majority of people–it refers to a small blue imaginary creature, and that’s all.

Not meeting with the success he wanted, the commenter might then reply:

I should have realized that no one here is truly Catholic, but will
do/say anything to justify their use of euphemisms (that call to mind
the vile words behind them), rather than resolve to amend their lives
and pursue the universal vocation to sanctity. I guess that’s one of
the reasons for Purgatory, to burn away the love for the vulgar that is
found in so many people who responded to me.

The lack of humility among almost all commenters here — and the
penchant for kneejerk self-justification and rationalization –are
mind-boggling. It breaks my heart to see NOT EVEN ONE person write a
message saying, "Thanks, dude. I was not aware of what you told us. I
will avoid saying ‘smurf’ and ‘trolling’ in the future."

As always, we can ask the question, "What Would Jesus Do?" You can
be sure that he would not use foul language or even any euphemisms
derived from it it. He would also not use His Father’s name improperly.
Ditto for His vicar on earth, Pope Benedict XVI. Let’s follow these
role models, instead of making bad role models of ourselves.

PS to another commenter: It doesn’t matter what "Jimmy" says on this, because I
have noticed that he too has rationalized some of his own (and others’)
improper behavior. Although "Jimmy" knows lots of facts, he is
definitely no guru for Catholics’ behavior.

Setting aside the attempt at poisoning the well there at the end (and the strange quotation marks around my name, and noting that I’m a sinner in need of Christ’s mercy and do not aspire to be a guru for others’ behavior), I would raise the following concern.

To the great majority of people today, the word "smurf" is not associated with its alleged term of origin. (And word origins for slang terms are really tricky matters. Slang terms–especially tabooed ones–don’t get well documented in dictionaries, meaning that it’s hard for etymologists to trace their pedigree, so a lot of what you read is just conjecture. As someone who spends a lot of time looking up word etymologies, I know what I’m talking about. Sources regularly disagree and admit ignorance over where terms came from, and there are popular myths about word origins that simply aren’t true. Most of the origins that you hear for the F-bomb are false.)

Since most people today are not burdened by the knowledge of where the term smurf (may have) originated, they do not have to wince when they hear it or wonder whether they should correct others who use it or feel bad when they are tempted to use it themselves, because for them it has no crass associations.

If for you it does have crass associations, that is a cross you must bear (either that or decide that at some point it’s not worth fretting over what the origin of a word was and just go with the way it’s being used now).

It is one thing to shoulder this cross yourself, but it is another thing entirely to impose it on others by forcing upon them knowledge that will now be the occasion for scrupulosity on their part.

Now, many people will not scruple over this–or scruple much–but some will. (Particularly the scrupulous ones.)

The meritorious thing to do in such a situation would be not to disturb the consciences of others and to shoulder one’s own cross, without causing others to suffer as well.

Incidentally, I’ve been restrained in discussing this subject in the past because I didn’t want to burden people by revealing the origins of words they didn’t know. Now that I’ve come up with smurf and schmelf, I’ll be able to talk about it more freely.

I’d also recommend that people not "out" euphemisms in the combox. (That was kind of the point of this post.)

Anyone who does so is a smurfitty smurf who’s just out trolling!

(NOTE FOR LINGUISTS KEEPING SCORE: The use of smurf as a way of avoiding using an actual euphemism makes it a meta-euphemism. Schmelf, as a replacement for a non-specific taboo word, would be a generic euphemism.)

White On Korban & Sola Scriptura

James White has now supplied a current description of his thought on the korban passage and sola scriptura, so let’s look at what he says.

His basic assertion seems clear. Referring to the korban passage, Mr. White refers to

Jesus’ plain teaching that we are to examine all traditions by the higher standard of God’s Word, even those that claim to be divine in origin.

By "God’s Word," Mr. White means "Scripture," and "even those that claim to be divine in origin" is subsumed by "all," so his claim is that

Jesus’ plain teaching [is] that we are to examine all traditions by the higher standard of [Scripture].

If Mr. White’s claim is not that we are to examine all traditions by the higher standard of Scripture, I am open to correction on this point.

Now, claiming that the above principle is Jesus’ "plain teaching" is a pretty strong claim. In order for a teaching to be plain, there must be (a) an act of teaching and (b) this act must have the quality of plainness–meaning that its meaning is easily ascertained.

A common way that teaching a principle is done is by stating a principle forthrightly. When Jesus gives the great commission he states forthrightly that the apostles are to baptize the nations (Matt. 28:19).

This is not the only way that teaching can occur. One can, for example, teach by stating a principle in a veiled manner. Jesus did this when he used parables, such as the Parable of the Sower and the other kingdom parables (Matt. 13).

By stating matters in a veiled manner, however, the teaching no longer enjoys the quality of plainness, since the veiled nature of the teaching prevents its meaning from being so easily ascertained.

It is also possible to teach without stating a principle at all. This happens when one "teaches by example," as when Jesus himself is baptized even though he has no intrinsic need of it himself (Matt. 3:13-14).

A difficulty for obtaining "plain teachings" from situations that involve "teaching by example" is that there is no explicit statement of principle, meaning that–while it is possible to determine something from the example, the precise extent to which the example is to be followed (or avoided) is often unclear.

This constitutes a difficulty for Mr. White since in Mark 7’s passage on the korban custom, Jesus does not state forthrightly that we are to examine all traditions by the higher standard of Scripture. Neither does he state this in a veiled manner such as with a parable. Instead, the most that can be said is that he is teaching a principle without a statement of principle, simply by his example.

Since it is very difficult to obtain "plain teaching" from instances of teaching by example, Mr. White will have a difficult time establishing the idea that "we are to examine all traditions by the higher standard of [Scripture]" from this passage.

So what kind of argument does he use to support his claim?

Continue reading “White On Korban & Sola Scriptura”

You’re So Vain; I Bet You Thought That Post Was About You

James White has periodically complained about certain Catholic apologists not wanting to interact with him, and this week I was reminded of why.

AS ILLUSTRATED BY THIS POST,

he just can’t resist ad
hominems, insults, and little jabs, and he has a constant assumption that he is of such
unique importance that people in the field must be intimately
familiar with whatever he writes or says or they reveal their own
inadequacy.

This makes it difficult to interact with his arguments because of the obnoxious way he presents them.

So here’s what I’m going to do.

First–in this post–I’m simply going to document how the way that James conducts himself makes it hard for others to interact with him and then–in a second post–I’ll lift the arguments he makes out of the matrix of snottiness in which he embeds them and interact with them directly.

The reason I’m taking this two-post approach is that James’s ungentlemanly style has nothing to do with the merits of the arguments he makes, and I don’t want the two subjects to be entangled.

Since the manner in which White conducts himself toward other apologists is more of a matter between apologists, you may not be as interested in this subject.

Fair enough. If this isn’t your cup of
tea, I totally understand.

So I’ll place it below the fold in this post
so that it doesn’t take up further home page real estate.

Continue reading “You’re So Vain; I Bet You Thought That Post Was About You”

Zarqawi An Ex-Terrorist!

I blog in the evenings, so I’m a day behind the news cycle, but in case you haven’t heard, our forces got "Abu Musab" al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qa’eda in Iraq and so he can’t kill any more innocents anymore!

WOO-HOO!!!

Now, I must say that I’m sorry that the chief head-hacker of Iraq didn’t repent of his ways and cease his head-hacking, terrorist actions, but given that he didn’t, I’m glad that he is no longer able to hack off people’s heads.

I don’t wish death on anyone–death is a grave physical evil–and I’d rather see them repent and live. I even hope for the salvation of his soul, despite the abominable actions he undertook (which is to say, I hope that he either repented at the last second or that he was so mentally scarred by previous life traumas that he was not sufficiently rational to be responsible for his horriffic actions). But killing people is such a serious matter that there are times when a person refuses to repent of their own death-dealing actions and they must be removed from the ranks of the breathing.

This is the basis of the Church’s just war doctrine. You can’t say that any war in history has been just unless you are willing to say that removing certain individuals from the ranks of the breathing is just. And if (regardless of what you think of the Iraq War as a whole) you don’t agree that a head-hacker like Zarqawi was such an individual then God bless you.

It is to be appreciated that Zarqawi can no longer harm anyone and that the forces that supported his campaign of terror have been dealt a major blow.

It may be an even larger blow than is apparent, since in a letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri (bin Laden’s #2 man) to Zarqawi last year revealed the senior al-Qa’eda leader asking for a donation of money from al-Qa’eda in Iraq to the parent organization, which was hard up for cash.

Depending on how well Zarqawi’s group is able to re-group in the wake of his demise, the decapitation of al-Qa’eda in Iraq thus may translate into a significant blow (by loss of revenues and further esteem in the Muslim world) to al-Qa’eda in general.

And that’s good news.

Fortunately, most individuals–Democrat or Republican or independent–can acknowledge this.

It is simply inexplicable–and despicable–that certain individuals in Congress would claim that this is a stunt or otherwise seek to portray it as anything but good news.

EXCERPTS:

"This is just to cover Bush’s [rear] so he doesn’t have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess — get out."

I have a difficult time regarding as anything other than the actions of asini those politicians who would be so focused on their own agenda that–regardless of what one thinks we should do at this point in the war–one could not agree with Democratic senate leader Harry Reid and say,

"This is a good day for the Iraqi people, the U.S. military and our intelligence community."

Indeed.

The chief head-hacker of Iraq can’t hack heads off anymore.

GET THE STORY.

and

GET THE LARGER STORY.

Remember Byron?

Kathleen Parker has a nice piece on abortion and some of the absurd reasons that people are using to justify having them.

For example: having a clubbed foot.

She writes:

The week before, in what could have been a prequel to the child-actor story, Britain’s Sunday Times reported that more than 20 babies had been aborted in advanced stages of gestation between 1996 and 2004 in England because scans showed they had clubfeet.

She goes on to point out that, had such abortions been performed in the past, a number of very prominent individuals would have been aborted and that having a clubfoot did not stop these individuals from going on to notable successes in life.

Among them were the poet Byron, the commedian Dudley Moore, and the figure skater Kristi Yamaguchi–in fact the latter not only won her fame with her feet, but she began figure skating as treatment for her clubbed feet.

What makes the abortion of such individuals even more appalling is that having clubfoot is a treatable and often fixable disorder.

Parker writes:

While it may be intellectually easier to justify aborting a fetus in cases of severe abnormalities, terminating a pregnancy because of easily corrected imperfections should disturb our sleep.

GET THE STORY.

What’s This?

You may be tempted to say, "It’s a rainbow." But it’s not an ordinary ranbow. For one thing, it’s not shaped like a bow.

It’s also not a rainbow because it’s not caused by light refracting through moisture droplets. It’s caused by light interacting with ice crystals, and so is a type of ice halo.

In fact, it’s a type of ice halo known as a circumhorizon arc (so named because it’s an arc that appears near the horizon). This type of phenomenon can only occur under certain conditions:

It occurs when sunlight passes through ice crystals in high cirrus clouds. It is one of 15 types of ice halos formed only when the most specific of factors dovetail precisely together.

[The] clouds must be at least 20,000ft high and the ice crystals within them align horizontally instead of their usual vertical position. The sun also needs to be at least 58 degrees above the horizon.

This particular circumhorizon arc appeared Saturday over the Washington-Idaho border and lasted about an hour.

From what I can tell, it also seems to be one of the more spectacular circumhorizon arcs. There are pictures of other ones on the web, but this one was particularly beautiful.

GET THE STORY.
cht to the readre who emailed.

MORE ON ICE HALOS, INCLUDING RARE ONES (WITH PICTURES!)