Seems about time to delve into the Great Quotes file again:
"God himself, sir, does not propose to judge man until the end of his days." –Samuel Johnson
Who was Samuel Johnson?
If you like this quote and are eager for more Johnsonian wisdom, check out The Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page.
Browsing through the site, I found another gem of Johnson’s:
"A man of genius has been seldom ruined but by himself."
CHARLES FORT was a 19th century gentleman who published books cataloging all kinds of unusual phenomena. . . . X-Files kind of stuff, including strange things falling from the sky.
Like big balls of ice that clearly aren’t hailstones because they don’t come from storms and clearly aren’t ejecta from airplane toilets because . . . well, just because. Okay? (We don’t need to go into the details.)
LIKE THIS ONE THAT RECENTLY FELL IN SOUTH AFRICA.
Turns out these things have (recently acquired) a name and are established enough scientifically now that Charles Fort ought to be pleased.
They’re called
A reader writes:
My wife and I are committed practicing Catholics, and we are soon to be blessed with a baby.
We do not want to delay in baptizing our child, and therefore have put our thought to Godparents.
However, I have a somewhat unusual dilemma.
Whilst we have most probably fixed on a godmother who is close to us, an experienced parent, and practicing Catholic, there is someone I would very much like to have as a godfather who is a man of principles, integrity, honesty, and many virtues Catholics highly regard. He is in many ways someone I hope my child will look up to. He towers above other possibilities as an individual. However, he is neither Catholic nor Christian. He believes in God, and has respect for the Catholic faith (as an architect, he does a lot of work for the Church, including the recent design of a major Chapel), but is not Christian. His origins are in fact Jewish. I however, whilst a committed Catholic, believe at the end of the day that what is important is how we live our lives. That said, I understand the importance and significance of baptism – thus I am torn.
May I ask your advice in regards to where do I stand in terms of Canon Law, and practice, therefore, in considering him as a candidate for godfather (bearing in mind of course that the godmother would be a practicing catholic)?
While it sounds as though the gentleman in question has numerous positive qualities, the fact that he is not Catholic would prevent him from serving as godfather. The Code of Canon Law provides:
Can. 874 §1. To be permitted to take on the function of sponsor [i.e., godparent] a person must:
1/ be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this function;
2/ have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has granted an exception for a just cause;
3/ be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on;
4/ not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or declared;
5/ not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.
§2. A baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community is not to participate except together with a Catholic sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism.
The reason for the requirement in blue is that the function of a godparent is to serve an auxiliary role to the parents in seeing to the child’s religious education as a Catholic. That means helping the child understand and accept the teachings of the Catholic faith not just in a general way but, when called upon, in their details.
For example, at some point in his life the child may have questions about transubstantiation (or any other Catholic teaching), and it would be very difficult for a godfather who does not believe in transubstantiation–who thinks that it is false–to tell his godson that he should believe in it.
Most such godfathers would not send the kind of message that the godson needs to hear and thus would undermine their faith.
Those godfathers who did tell their godson to believe in transubstantiation (or whatever doctrine is in question) would be violating their own consciences by telling another to believe what they themselves believe to be false.
To prevent this kind of situation–where either the child’s faith will be undermined or the godfather will be forced to violate his conscience–the Church has determined that in order to be a godparent for a Catholic child one needs to be Catholic.
(At least in the vast majority of cases, though occasionally an exception is made for Eastern Orthodox because of their doctrinal closeness to the Catholic faith; SEE HERE.)
This practice says nothing at all about the personal quality of non-Catholics who would otherwise be considered for the role of godparent. They may be outstanding individuals and may in fact be better role models than other available people, but because they do not share the faith that they would be expected to foster in the child, they are not canonically permitted to play this role.
I would therefore urge you to look to other individuals to find candidates for the role of godfather, though the gentleman you have been considering could still potentially play an unofficial mentoring role for your child.
Incidentally, you should be aware that there is not a requirement that there even be a godfather. The Code provides:
Can. 873 There is to be only one male sponsor or one female sponsor or one of each.
So if you truly cannot find a suitable Catholic man to serve as godfather, the fact you already have a suitable Catholic godmother would be sufficient.
Hope this helps!
The Pirates of the Caribbean turned out to be the surprise summer hit of 2003 and left the newly-minted fans of the franchise wanting more.
They got a little more later that year when the pirates returned for a brief, cameo appearance to wipe out an orc army at the endmiddle (beginning? it’s hard to tell with a sixteen hour film) of Lord of the Rings: Return of the King.
They should have been in that film for longer than they were, but Aragorn foolishly released Captain Jack Sparrow from his oath before Sauron had been thoroughly defeated.
But now the pirates are back for another installment of their own franchise!
It instantly became THE BIGGEST OPENER IN BOX OFFICE HISTORY.
And STEVE GREYDANUS’S REVIEW has me anxious to see it!
Here’s a taste (EXCERPTS):
[L]ike Raiders of the Lost Ark, Dead Man’s Chest takes the kinds of things that others have done before, and then does them so inventively that it becomes the new standard.
The sequel takes the slapstick swashbuckling to a completely new level, evoking the ingenuity and physical comedy of a Buster Keaton or Jackie Chan set piece, crossed with the Rube Goldberg logic of a Chuck Jones cartoon.
A slight but distinct spiritual vibe runs through Dead Man’s Chest,
particularly in regard to an uneasy awareness of judgment after death.
“Do you fear death?” Jones asks the sailors of a ship he has taken as
he offers them a Faustian choice between death and eternal service on
his ship. “Life is cruel. Why should the afterlife be any different?
Why not postpone the judgment?” Most of the sailors accept this
Faustian bargain, though one sane soul demurs (“I’ll take my chances”)
and is quickly dispatched.In a comic variation on the theme, one of the formerly cursed
pirates from the first film has taken a new interest in spiritual
matters. “We’re not immortal any more — we got to take care of our
immortal souls,” he warns his companion while leafing intently through
his Bible.The other eyes him dubiously. “You know you can’t read…”
But the first is undeterred: “It’s the Bible — you get credit for trying!”
Many have been comparing Dead Man’s Chest to The Empire Strikes Back in that it is (a) reportedly really good and (b) has a cliffhanger ending meant to spring us into a third film.
That film–Pirates of the Carribean: At World’s End–is due out next summer.
I haven’t seen an actual in-theater movie in I don’t know how long (maybe a year or two), but I’m going to see this one.
See you at the movies!
A reader writes:
I’m a teenager that needs money for college, is it a sin to work on Sunday? I will fulfill my Sunday oligation to go to Mass. I’m involved in activities after school that might restrict the amont of hours I can work and will probably have to work on Sundays. I would appreciate any light that you can shed on this.
It is not a sin to work on Sunday if you are required to do so by your employer. If you need to make money and your employer requires you to work on Sunday then you work on Sunday. It is not a sin.
That said, one would want to try to find a job that doesn’t require one to work on Sunday. For most people–at least after their college years–this is achievable. But for many folks who are still in school or just starting out, it is not.
The Catechism states:
Family needs or important social service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest. the faithful should see to it that legitimate excuses do not lead to habits prejudicial to religion, family life, and health [CCC 2185].
It also says:
Traditional activities (sport, restaurants, etc.), and social necessities (public services, etc.), require some people to work on Sundays, but everyone should still take care to set aside sufficient time for leisure [CCC 2187].
Now, getting money for college is an important need and would clearly allow for Sunday work. Getting a college degree will open innumerable doors that would otherwise be closed to you in later life, so the gravity necessary for Sunday work is clearly present.
Assuming that there isn’t another possibility.
And here’s where we get to a judgment call: You mention that you are participating in activities after school that may be pushing you toward working on Sundays.
I don’t know what these activities are. They may be things that are themselves important to making your school record look good (so as to get into a better college) or they may be things that will look good on future job resumes (e.g., social service things) or they may just be personally psychologically important to you. So you may have reason to keep doing them on weekdays and then going to work on Sunday.
But I’d at least ask the question of whether the afterschool activities are of sufficient value that they should be done instead of Sunday work. If it were possible to get an afterschool job on weekdays and then rest and do leisure activities on Sunday, that would be preferable.
What the right thing to do in this situation is a judgment call, and I can’t make that for you. I’d therefore advise you to talk it over with your parents and see what they think.
Just make the best judgment call you can and act on it, entrusting the situation to the Lord.
Those three things–using our reason to make judgment calls, acting on them, and trusting God with the results–bring glory to the Lord for they show the attitude of faith coupled with the exercise of the gifts that God gave us to employ.
20
Everything seems to be working fine now. Turned out it was a DNS problem.
BTW, the reason for the DNS change (which is now working fine, though it may take 24-48 hours for it to propagate to you) was to make it easier to get to the blog.
Up to now, you’ve had to type www. in order to get here. Otherwise you got a blank page.
Now you don’t.
TRY IT: jimmyakin.org
Typepad seems to be having a bug that is preventing the comments pages from working right. I’ve created a help ticket, and hopefully they’ll have it resolved soon. I’ll let y’all know. Sorry for the inconvenience.
A reader writes:
I’m a Protestant who is seriously considering the Catholic faith. I’ve enjoyed, very much, listening to you on the Catholic Answers Live podcast.
Are you familiar with the controversy over open theism within evangelicalism? How does Roman Catholic theology square with the view of God as envisioned by open theists?
I am familiar with the controversy, and Catholic theology would have significant problems with the overall picture of God painted by open theists. Historically, Catholicism has been very firm on the classical theism model.
For those who aren’t familiar with this distinction,
That being said, not all aspects of open theism are equally problematic. The open theist’s assertion that humans have libertarian free will is something that Catholics would have not a problem with. What would be problematic is the inference that because humans have this kind of free will the future must contain things that God doesn’t know.
It is not true that knowing what someone will choose to do next year means that their choice is not the product of libertarian free will. From his perspective outside of time, God sees your future free will choices next year the same way he sees your current choices right now. Both "now" and "next year" are equally present to God, so if his seeing what your current choices are does not deprive you of free will now then his simultaneously seeing what you are choosing next year does not deprive free will then either.
While open theists have made some interesting arguments regarding God’s omniscience (e.g., omniscience doesn’t require God to know things that are logically impossible to know the way omnipotence doesn’t require God to be able to do things that are logically impossible to do, like make square circles or stones too heavy for him to lift), these arguments are only relevant if God is inside of time and if certain theories about time are true. From an atemporalist perspective, the concerns they are meant to address simply don’t arise because God’s knowledge of the future is equally possible as his knowledge of the present and the past.
Once one recognizes God’s atemporality his immutability immediately falls out of this as a logical consequence.
Open theists’ language about God voluntarily limiting his exercise of power in order to allow free will in the universe can be taken in an orthodox sense (though only if it is understood that his exercise of the power–not the power itself–is what is limited). Something like that might seem to be necessary for free will to exist, and there is nothing unorthodox about saying that God can choose how far he’s going to do something. If he chooses to make beings with libertarian free will so that he doesn’t determine all their choices for them then that’s God’s choice.
The best argument that open theists have is why God allows evil if he has the power to stop it, and here we run into a matter that is significantly mysterious, though classical theists have a framework for answering it even if it does not exhaust the mystery.
An orthodox Catholic theologian would thus tend to view open theism as, to a significant extent, an attempt to alleviate the cognitive tension caused when man is confronted by the divine mystery by positing a God small enough that the mystery doesn’t arise (i.e., God doesn’t stop all evil instantly because he doesn’t have the power to do so).
There are thus a few individual aspects of open theism that could be harmonized with Catholic thought but the system as a whole posits a view of God that would not at all be favorably received.
St. Thomas Aquinas’ articulation of classical theism has been the standard Catholic account for centuries, and the First Vatican Council taught:
The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.
Since he is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in himself and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined [Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, ch. 1].
Hope this helps!
A reader writes:
I am currently trying to explain the Catholic position on purgatory to a co-worker. I have given him some info I found on the internet. He looked it over and discussed with a fellow church member. He came back with, “if you believe in purgatory, then you are saying that Jesus dying on the cross was not good enough to save us!” How do I respond?
The purpose of purgatory is to purify us so that we are thoroughly holy and thus fit for heaven. It is part of the process by which we gain "the holiness without which no one will see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14).
But the process of purification doesn’t start in purgatory. It starts in this life, and in Protestant circles it’s known as sanctification. (Catholics also use this term, though not always in exactly the same fashion; the term justification is also used in both circles though not always in the same ways.)
Now, where does sanctification come from? Is it something God gives us by his grace or something that happens apart from his grace?
Protestants will agree with Catholics that it is the product of God’s grace in our lives.
But why is God giving us this grace? Is it because of what his Son did on the Cross or is it separate from that?
Once again, Protestants will agree with Catholics that it is because of what Christ did on the Cross that God sanctifies us.
So sanctification–the process of being made holy–is something that happens to us only because of Christ’s death on the Cross.
Sanctification–including the final stage of sanctification in purgatory–thus presupposes the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. It is so sufficient that it is not only enough to justify us but enough to sanctify us as well. The difference is that (to use language in a Protestant way) justification is something that happens at the beginning of the Christian life while sanctification is something that happens over the course of it.
So that’s what I’d tell him.
I’ve had some folks request an update–even a vague one–on the status of Secret Project #4.
I can’t tell you much, but I can tell you that it is going well.
Currently there are around eleven people working full or part time on it.
The project has a technological side and an informational side, and we have the technology in place and now we are doing the informational side.
There are two different arms of the informational side. One is proceeding a bit slower than I had hoped, but the other is going much faster than I expected.
All that’s required for Secret Project #4 to be announced later this summer is for one of the two arms of the informational side to substantially achieve its goals, and we seem to be well on the way to that at the moment.
Wish I could tell y’all more, but that’ll have to do for now.