2006 – Page 95 – Jimmy Akin

The Saints Go Marchin’ In Driven By Purpose

LarkNews.com, a Christian satirical news site, has released it latest issue. My favorite bit of "virtual news" was notice that Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life has bought the New Orleans Saints and will build for them a football stadium to be dubbed the Purpose-Driven Field.

"The centerpiece of Warren’s purchase will be Purpose-Driven Field, to be located just north of New Orleans. Stadium construction will create thousands of jobs for the local economy, and will give Warren’s ministry a foothold in the South, where he hopes to gain greater influence. During the week, Purpose-Driven Field will host conferences, outreaches and short-term missions groups stopping over on their way to Central America, or helping to rebuild New Orleans. Warren already refers to the New Orleans location as Saddleback South, friends say.

"The Saints will now operate differently than most NFL teams. Players will be required to go through the 40 Days of Purpose program. Alcohol will not be served in the stadium, and every attendee will receive a copy of the Purpose-Driven Life. Halftime shows will offer ‘edgy, cool’ evangelism and worship concerts, says a spokesman. Warren intends to be as visible as Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who often walks the sidelines during games.

"’We’re marching into New Orleans,’ Warren told partner churches recently to rousing applause."

GET THE STORY.

(Nod to Mark Shea for the link.)

For a St. Blog’s parody of The Purpose-Driven Life, check out The Porpoise-Driven Life by the Curt Jester.

How To Build Bridges?

The New York Times Magazine recently ran an interview with Saudi royal prince Alwaleed bin Talal that was remarkable in a number of respects (CHT: PowerLine). The interview concerned a $20 million donation that bin Talal has recently given to be used for Islamic studies at Harvard.

EXCERPTS:

Since you’re said to be worth more than $20 billion, with major holdings in Four Seasons Hotels, Saks Fifth Avenue and Murdoch’s News Corporation, why not give an unrestricted gift instead of such a narrowly focused one?

The gift is unrestricted!

No, it’s not. It has to be spent on Islamic studies. Georgetown is renaming a center after you, and Harvard is naming a program after you.

Well, sure! The studies that concern me and fit my overall global vision – they’re Islamic studies. As you know, ever since 9/11, we have been trying to bridge the gap between West and East.

Which has backfired at least once. You became notorious in New York when Mayor Giuliani declined to accept a $10 million donation from you to victims’ families after you suggested that the U.S. was too friendly with Israel.

By the way, my check was taken to the bank and cashed. The problem was with my statement. I accepted that. Subject closed.

Subject reopened. The money was returned to you. Have you told Harvard, as you told the City of New York, that the U.S. needs to "adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause"?

Let me tell you my position. We need to have good relations between the Arab world and Israel. When I sold my Plaza Hotel in New York, it was sold to Elad, which is an Israeli company.

Doing business with the citizens of a country is not the same thing as believing in that country’s right to exist.

We are doing so many things to bridge the gap between Christianity and Islam and Judaism. For example, at my hotel in Paris, George V, you are going to find the Christian Bible, the Jewish Bible and the Islamic Koran in each single room.

That’s a wonderful idea, but a luxury hotel in Paris is a long way from Saudi Arabia, where you could surely spend more money on Judeo-Christian studies.

Look. You have to understand that the population of Saudi Arabia has zero Christians.

That’s the point. Why shouldn’t you should spend your millions educating your own students before you educate kids at Harvard?

Obviously, it could be something we are contemplating.

[ . . . ]

You find the situation [in Iraq] very volatile still?

You have not done a very good job there. After 9/11, the U.S. needed to have a big revenge, and Saddam Hussein was a sitting duck. The U.S., with its huge ego, needed to have something big and dramatic.

That’s not what I would call a bridge-building sentiment.

You have to understand. I am a friend of the United States, and these days to be in the Arab world and to be a friend of the United States is a liability. But nevertheless I say it. I am a great friend.

READ THE INTERVIEW. (Registration requirement)

King Of The Box Office

King Kong may have thrashed Aslan in a Google Fight, but at the box office, where it really counts, Aslan proves that he remains the King of the Beasts:

"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe snatched the box office crown from King Kong during another fierce four-day holiday battle for the top spot.

"Old acquaintances met again: Less than $2 million has separated Kong and Narnia the past two weekends.

"’We edged out Kong. It’s been neck-and-neck,’" Buena Vista’s Dennis Rice said Monday. "’These are two great movies in the marketplace that are doing great business.’"

"Narnia took in an estimated $32.8 million during the Friday-through-Monday period, nudging Universal’s King Kong out of the No. 1 spot and into second with a New Year’s weekend take of $31.6 million."

GET THE STORY.

Neocatechumenal Spin

You may have heard rumblings in recent times about changes regarding an ecclesial movement known as The Neocatechumenal Way (a.k.a., the Neocatechumenate).

This is a movement that goes back several decades and that has a relationship with the Church that has been mixed. While Church leaders, including the previous and current popes, have said positive things about the NW, they have also insisted on changes in the way that the movement operates.

BASIC INFO ON THE MOVEMENT HERE.

Most recently B16 issued a series of decisions designed to pull back the NW from a number of liturgical abuses that have routinely characterized Masses celebrated under its auspices.

Journalist Sandro Magister gives a basic explanation (excerpts):

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.

But communion is not the only area in which there is a departure from the traditional liturgy. There are significant innovations in other parts of the Mass.

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.

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.

Each Neocatechumenal group corresponds to a different stage of the Way, so each group of 20-30 persons has its own Mass. If there are ten groups of Neocatechumenals in a parish, there will be ten different Masses on Saturday evening, in ten separate locations.

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.

In mid-December, the founders and directors of the Neocatechumenal Way – Spaniards Kiko Argüello and Carmen Hernandez, and the Italian priest Mario Pezzi – received a two-page letter from cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, with a list of “decisions of the Holy Father” which they must obey.

Of the six points detailing the pope’s directives, only one permits the Neocatechumenals to continue what they are doing. This regards placing the exchange of peace before the offertory, a traditional practice in the Christian liturgy which is still in use today, for example, in the Ambrosian Rite celebrated in the archdiocese of Milan.

All the other points require the Neocatechumenal Way to eliminate a large portion of its liturgical innovations.

In the wake of this, Zenit ran an interview with "Giuseppe Gennarini, a spokesman who is in charge of the Way in the United States."

I was interested to read the interview because I wanted to see what kind of response the NW was making regarding the changes the pope has mandated. (I’ve read the letter from Cardinal Arinze containing them. It’s linked below.)

I figured that Gennarini would most likely put a positive face on the matter and express the NW’s intent to comply with the mandates–the same way that Life Teen did following a similar letter mandating that they eliminate prominent liturgical abuses in their Masses.

But I had NO IDEA.

The interview was PURE SPIN on Gennarini’s part. I mean, it goes beyond putting a positive face on the matter. The man is either grossly misinformed about what the letter says or he is in denial.

He represent the letter as fully vindicating and approving multiple things that the NW does in its Masses (not just the one cited–correctly–by Magister) and totally ignores the numerous requirements and cautions expressed in the letter regarding how things are to be done. He conveys the impression that the Vatican has simply rubber stamped current practice when the tone taken in the letter is very different, often saying–in essence–"Look, if you want to do something like this then you can ONLY do it if you start observing the following conditions."

The height of misrepresentation occurs when Gennarini addresses the manner in which the NW distributes Communion:

Finally, the way of distributing Communion as it currently takes place, is allowed for a long period of time, if only "ad experimentum." Such a grant shows that this practice is not irreverent, but fully legitimate, as can be attested by anyone who participates in a Eucharist of the communities.

This concession is written within the context of the final approval of the statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way, which are right now approved also "ad experimentum." When this period "ad experimentum" ends, the interdicasterial commission of the five congregations which approved the statutes … will verify the necessary adaptations.

This not only states that the NW manner of distributing Communion is "fully legitimate" and allowed "ad experimentum" (i.e., for purposes of experiment to see if the arrangement should be made permanent), it also seems to suggest that at the end of the approval process for the NW’s statutes that the Vatican may permanently allow this manner of distributing Communion.

Now here’s what the letter from Cardinal Arinze actually says:

5. On the manner of receiving Holy Communion, a period of transition (not exceeding two years) is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to pass from the widespread manner of receiving Holy Communion in its communities (seated, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary) to the normal way in which the entire Church receives Holy Communion. This means that the Neocatechumenal Way must begin to adopt the manner of distributing the Body and Blood of Christ that is provided in the liturgical books.

There is no "ad experimentum" approval given in there for how the NW distributes Communion. Quite the opposite. They’ve been given two years to clean up their act.

Gennarni is also exceptionally disingenuous when he says:

Without the intervention of the Holy Father, the approval of these liturgical variations would have never taken place. We feel fully confirmed by Peter. Those who are trying to oppose Benedict XVI and John Paul II are altering the reality.

Judge for yourself who is altering reality, here.

READ THE LETTER.

Brokeback Mountain Review Redone

The review of Brokeback Mountain at the U.S. bishops’ Office of Film and Broadcasting has been heavily edited.

THE REVISED REVIEW IS HERE.

Most of the edits are in a positive direction. Many of Harry Forbes’ over-the-top gushy raves about the gay cowboy love story have been removed. For example, his opening remark that the movie "arrives at last" has now been snipped.

The review still gives the moral aspects of the film a back seat (not even getting to them until late in the review), but some of the deficiencies previously noted have been fixed. For example, the review’s discussion of Catholic teaching on homosexual behavior now reads:

The Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality is unambiguous. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered" and the inclination itself is “objectively disordered.” At the same time, homosexually inclined persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” (#2357 and #2358).

That’s a dramatic improvement over the original, which read:

As the Catholic Church makes a distinction between homosexual orientation and activity, Ennis and Jack’s continuing physical relationship is morally problematic.

The bottom line moral assessment of the film is better, but still a bit perplexing. It reads:

Use of the film as an advocacy vehicle to promote a morally objectionable message that homosexuality is equivalent to and as acceptable as heterosexuality does a disservice to its genuine complexity. While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true. The film creates characters of flesh and blood – not just the protagonists, but the wives, girlfriends, parents, and children — who give the film its artful substance.

However, the physicality of the men’s relationship and the film’s inherent sanctioning of their affair necessitate an O rating.

The opening statement that "use of the film as an advocacy vehicle . . . does a disservice to its genuine complexity" is perplexing. Talking about "use of the film" in the passive voice makes it sounds
like homosexual activists will be "using it" contrary to the true
"complexity" of the film. This generates a "Huh?" reaction.

As noted previously, the film sounds eminently suited to be an advocacy vehicle–and an especially dangerous and destructive one because it is made by a talented director (Ang Lee) who has imbued it with artistic qualities that enable it to better deliver its morally offensive payload to the audience.

Also perplexing is the statement that "the physicality of the men’s relationship and the film’s inherent sanctioning of their affair" are what necessitate an O rating.

Earlier the review cited two morally offensive grounds: (1) the homosexual nature of their relationship and (2) the fact that they commit adultery with each other after having married women.

The review goes out of its way to assert that the adultery aspect is "just as offensive from a Catholic perspective" (an assertion that is quite open to question; St. Thomas Aquinas would not concur), and so it’s no surprise to see the adultery aspect showing up in the justification for the O rating. But notice what’s changed: Previously it was noted that both homosexual behavior and the homosexual orientation itself are problematic (as are any sinful behaviors and sinful orientations–regardless of what the sin in question may be).

This has been downgraded in the final assessment to just "the physicality of the men’s relationship" making the movie morally offensive. As if it wouldn’t be offensive if the film communicated the message that it’s okay for two men to have an intense, romatic relationship as long as it doesn’t get physical?

This sounds like whoever is editing the review is still foot-dragging.

It’s not the physicality of the relationship that is the source of the problem, it’s the homosexuality of it.

At least, though, we now have an unambiguous O assigned to the film, without the finger-pointing at the Catholic News Service audience and the hinting that the film really still deserves only an L and that the OFB is being forced to assign it a rating other than what it believes the film deserves.

As you can see, not all gushy remarks about the film have been deleted. For example, there’s still the sonorous remark that in the film "the universal themes of love and loss ring true."

There’s are also the remarks that "The performances are superb" and "Australian Ledger may be the one to beat at Oscar time." The former may be true, and the latter probably is true–given Hollywood’s current tendency to reward iconoclastically morally offensive films at Oscar time (Cider House Rules [abortion], Million Dollar Baby [euthanasia], Boys Don’t Cry [transsexualism]).

It is not clear who is making these revisions, whether it is Harry Forbes or someone else. The OFB reviews do not carry bylines and the edited version of the review does not seem to appear on Catholic News Service (where Forbes’s byline was removed when the rating was changed from L to kinda-maybe-sorta O).

What is clear is that whoever did the edits has seen the film. In fact, there is new information in the review about the content of the film, including some that should have been given to the audience the first time.

The review is still flawed and still retains elements of Harry Forbes’ initial gushy rave review, but it’s a lot better than it was.

Waiting For Benedict

George Weigel has an interesting short piece in the L.A. Times that summarizes what B16 has done in office so far and what many expected him to do that–so far–he has not yet chosen to do.

It’s a nice year-end summary that is worth reading and that may provide a guide to coming days.

GET THE STORY.

UPDATE: The link has been changed to a non-registration required version.

The Asian Pope

Who’s the #1 religious leader in the world?

The pope . . . of course.

Who’s the #2?

Well, probably the dalai lama.

There a bit of assymetry, though. The pope is the figurehead of Christianity, which is the world’s largest religion. The dalai lama is the most famous Buddhist leader, but depending on what you count as a religion, Buddhism is only the fourth to the sixth largest religion (after Islam and Hinduism, for example).

But the other major religions don’t have generally recognized figureheads, and so the dalai lama gets second billing alongside the pope, without comparable religious leaders in the picture.

The result is that the media treats the Dalai Lama as kind of "the Asian pope."

The assymetry goes a bit deeper than what I’ve indicated, though, since the position of the pope and the dalai lama are assymeterical within their respetive religions. The pope is the head of the Catholic Church, which the original Christian communion and by far the largest. The communion that the dalai lama heads, though, is neither the original nor the largest Buddhist communion. He is the most influential leader in the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism, though even then he is not its head (that would be the ganden tripa).

All of this assymetry encourages one to recognize the uniqueness of the pope as a religious leader, though that isn’t my point in writing.

I simply thought folks might be interested to read an interview (linked below) with the Dalai Lama and to know a little more about him since he makes such frequent appearances in the media.

The title "dalai lama" means something like "the ocean teacher" with the term "ocean" referring to the expansiveness of his teaching. The title is regarded as belonging to the successive reincarnations of a particular individual. The first dalai lama (though the title was not used in his day) was called Gedun Drub, who lived in the 1400s. The present dalai lama (Tenzin Gyatso) is the fourteenth dalai lama. (Dalai lamas have much longer reigns than popes since the office is a life-long one.)

When a dalai lama dies a search is conducted for his reincarnation, and this usually takes a few years. To help find the reincarnation, various children are shown personal belongings of the previous dalai lama, and if one of the children shows familiarity with these belongings, it is a sign that he may be the reincarnation.

To avoid disputes, the reincarnation of the dalai lama is officially recognized by another lama–known as the panchen lama. (Reciprocally, when the panchen lama dies, the dalai lama recognizes his reincarnation. The dalai lama also appoints the ganden tripa, which is a non-reincarnating office.)

At the moment there is a looming problem with the succession arrangements for the next dalai lama and that problem can be summed up in one word: China.

China took over Tibet when the current dalai lama was a teenager, and he has lived in exile in India for decades. It is probably this fact that accounts for much of the dalai lama’s recognition in the media. If China had never seized control of Tibet, he would just be the local major religious leader of Tibet, but the state of his country has projected him onto the world stage in a much more substantial way.

Now here’s the problem: The communist government of China has reserved to itself the approval of high-level reincarnations in Tibet (citing previous involvement by a Chinese emperor in the selection of the panchen lama).
After the takeover of Tibet, China put the previous panchen lama under house arrest for years and may have murdered him after he gave a speech critical of the communist government. His death led to a split in that the Chinese government now recognizes a different panchen lama than the dalai lama does.

Rather than be reincarnated in Chinese controlled territory, the dalai lama has also announced that he will be reborn in a free country, outside of Chinese control. He’s also suggested that he may not reincarnate at all.

This means that the stage is set for the coming of a false dalai lama–an Asian anti-pope, if you will. In the interview linked below, the present dalai lama states frankly:

As I’ve said earlier, whether this institution [of the dalai lama] will continue depends on the people. Under the best of circumstances, I think that the institution should continue. First, the maintenance of the institution is important. Then, there is the personal history. Both options should be kept open. If the Tibetan people want another reincarnation, then logically while we’re outside, the successor should be someone who can carry out this task, which has not yet been accomplished by the previous Dalai Lama. That means that he must come in a free country. But the Chinese government will also appoint a Dalai Lama. So there’ll be two Dalai Lamas. One Dalai Lama—the Chinese official Dalai Lama—the Tibetan people will have no faith in. Even the ordinary Chinese will have no faith in him. He’ll be a false Dalai Lama.

Another dimension of the problem is that the dalai lama is the head of the Tibetan government in exile, and China is deathly afraid that he or his successors could lead Tibet to attempt to separate from Chinese rule. In response the dalai lama has said that he is willing to renounce (including for his future incarnations) any political role in Tibet if it can have autonomy and freedom.

He is not shooting for independence, though. (That would send the Chinese government into orbit.) Instead, he is looking for something much more modest:

Meaningful autonomy. Autonomy is provided for in the Chinese constitution for minorities and special rights are guaranteed for Tibet. In communist states, sometimes the constitutions they write are not sincerely practiced. It’s a special sort of case with Tibet. It becomes possible to have one country, two systems. Why not? Let’s consider Tibet historically: Different language, different culture, different geographical location. So in order to get maximum satisfaction for the Tibetan people, I think a higher degree of autonomy should be given. Then Tibetan loyalty to the people of China will naturally come. Tibetans will enjoy true autonomy. That is the guarantee for preservation of our identity, our culture, our spirituality, our environment.

In Quebec in Canada, some politicians wanted independence, but when the people were asked, they saw that their greater interest, their greater benefit, was by staying within Canada. It’s similar with Scotland, also. Their high degree of autonomy within Great Britain gives them satisfaction. So giving a higher degree of autonomy brings no danger of separation.

It’s interesting reading the interview it the dalai lama, because on certain issues he seems to have a realistic understanding of the situation (e.g., the coming succession problem, the fact that some kind of autonomy but not full independence is all that can be hoped for at the moment). But on other issues he sounds completely unrealistic. (His suggestion that the U.S. should have had a non-violent response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, for example, was from outer space.)

One item that was of particular interest in the interview was an equivalent to the woment’s ordination issue. While women can theoretically attain the highest forms of ordination in the dalai lama’s sect, they have not yet achieved such ordinations in comparable numbers, and this is a source of discomfort.

In any event,

GET THE INTERVIEW.

FINALLY! Command Line Info For Windows Explorer

I was going to put up a bleg about this but I found the answer myself and thought I’d share it with others.

For those of y’all using Windows XP (that’s probably most of you), I recently found out how to correct an annoying feature of the OS that I first ran across when I switched to XP.

I use Windows Explorer (NOT Internet Explorer) a lot to find files on my hard drive, but I’ve been annoyed with the fact that whenever I open it in XP it wouldn’t show me a hierarchy of folders in the left hand column but instead would show me a bunch of options for what I might do with files (like make a new folder, upload a file to the web, share a folder, etc.). This was VERY annoying as I had to click the "Folders" icon at the top to get the nested folder hierarchy so I could navigate it.

I figured there was a command line switch that I could set to correct this, but I never knew what it was.

Now I do.

To fix the problem, all you have to do is:

Right click on the icon you use to bring up Windows Explorer (I use one that I put in my Quick Launch bar at the bottom of my screen).
Select "Properties."
Select "Shortcut" (if it isn’t already selected).
Go into the field marked "Target:" and scroll to the end of it.
At the end type " /e" (that’s SPACE-SLASH-little e).
Close it all up and you’re done.

This way Windows Explorer will open with something USEFUL (the left nav folder hierarchy) instead of all those stupid "File and Folder Tasks" that you never use.

MORE THINGS YOU CAN DO WITH COMMAND-LINE SWITCHES FOR WINDOWS EXPLORER.

Be sure to note that you can also use a "/root" switch to set it to open a particular favorite location of yours (e.g., "My Documents").