I don’t always see eye-to-eye with Abe Foxman of the Jewish Antidefamation League (ADL), but I want to give him his props on a recent statement issued by the ADL.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has called on the Chief Rabbinate of Israel to publicly denounce the repulsive decades-old practice by ultra-Orthodox Jews of spitting at Christian clergymen they encounter in the street.
“This repulsive practice is a hateful act of persecution against another faith group and a desecration of God’s name according to Jewish law,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “This display of hate and bigotry has no place in Israel and is inimical to Jewish values of treating all people with respect and kindness.”
In a letter to Chief Rabbis Shlomo Amar and Yona Metzger, ADL urged the rabbinical leaders to meet with Haredi leaders in an effort to end the practice and to join together to educate their community about having respect for coexistence with other faiths.
“The issue makes headlines every few years, and promises are made to combat it, but it continues every day,” said Rabbi Eric J. Greenberg, ADL Director of Interfaith Affairs. “We believe it is time for Israel’s religious leaders to stand up for the Jewish values of treating others with respect and kindness, and to put an end to this ugly phenomenon.”
Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court Judge Dov Pollock recently dismissed the indictment of a Greek Orthodox priest who punched a Haredi yeshiva student in the face after the student spat at him in Jerusalem’s Old City. Judge Pollock noted that this practice has been recurring for years, and that authorities have not been able to identify the perpetrators or to stop these acts.
What makes the ADL statement even more noteworthy is that there has been pushback (of a sort) and the ADL has remained firm. According to an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz (Hebrew, “The Land”),
The Anti-Defamation League has refused to accept the explanation by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate about its efforts to combat the phenomenon of Ultra-Orthodox Jews spitting at Christian clergymen in Jerusalem’s Old City. While the Rabbinate asserts the ADL is “misguided’ in publicly lashing out at the government institution for not doing enough to fight the phenomenon, the ADL is sticking to its assertions.
“We do not believe our statement was ‘misguided’ in the least. On the contrary, we believe the Rabbinate needed a wake-up call on this issue. We believe they have not done enough,” ADL chairman Abraham Foxman told Anglo File this week. “They’ve condemned it before, they’ve issued all of these statements, but nothing has changed.”
On the other hand,
Wiener called the ADL’s demands “misguided” and “particularly ironic” since “no Jewish institution has done more to fight the totally unacceptable phenomenon referred to than the Chief Rabbinate.” He asserted, “What the ADL calls on the Chief Rabbinate to denounce has been condemned by the Chief Rabbis publicly on more than one occasion.”
Chief Rabbis Yona Metzger and Shlomo Amar also invited the Christian leadership to meet with them to express their “abhorrence” at the spitting and issued “a forceful call to all yeshivot and congregations in the Old City to make sure that no errant members of their institutions misguidedly engage in such practices,” he wrote.
Metzger paid “a solidarity visit” to the Christian patriarchs and met with the police and municipal authorities to encourage greater law enforcement, he added. Wiener also wrote that the situation has improved “dramatically” over the last few months.
Indeed, several Armenian and Orthodox clergymen told Haaretz that while still prevalent, spitting incidents have decreased recently.
I don’t know who is right in this dispute. It’s always easy to say that not enough has been done, and it’s always easy to deny this.
I can say that I’ve been in the Old City when affronts like this were committed—not spitting, but undue jostling of Christians (though I don’t know the religion of the jostlers).
I also can firmly get behind a “Can’t we all just not spit on each other?” campaign.
That’s not only offensive. It’s gross and unsanitary.
A Secret Information Club member who I will codename Agent Great White North writes and says:
Do you have any info on soul sleep? One of my friends believes the body and soul sleep in the grave until Christ comes back. Some Scripture “appears” to support this. How do I refute this claim?
The idea of soul sleep has appeared in a number of different forms in Church history. For a pretty good discussion of some of the terms and variants, see this Wikipedia entry.
It is also true that there are a number of passages in Scripture that can appear to support this view, which is one reason it periodically crops up.
Many of these passages depict death as sleep, and there are two reasons for this:
1) Death is an unpleasant topic, and people naturally look for euphemisms to soften discussions of the subject. Thus in contemporary English, for example, we may talk about someone “passing” or “passing away” or “passing on” or having “departed” or similar things. In the biblical world they often used the euphemism “sleep” to refer to death, and the reason is pretty obvious . . .
2) Dead people often look like they are sleeping. They are often encountered lying down and not moving, just like a sleeping person. In fact, as part of softening the blow of death, they are often deliberately made to look like they are asleep, and so it is customary to close their eyes if they have died with their eyes open. This happened in the biblical world also, and so the biblical patriarch Jacob is told:
And God spoke to Israel in visions of the night, and said, “Jacob, Jacob.” And he said, “Here am I.” 3 Then he said, “I am God, the God of your father; do not be afraid to go down to Egypt; for I will there make of you a great nation. 4 I will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also bring you up again; and Joseph’s hand shall close your eyes” [Genesis 46:2-4].
Given the human desire to euphemize about death and the way death often looks like sleep, it is natural for sleep to be used as a euphemism for death. Thus even today some parents may tell their very young children that “Granma has gone to sleep” or similar things.
To refer to something according to its appearances is known as “phenomenological language,” and both in the Bible and elsewhere death is often depicted as sleep as a form of phenomenological euphemism.
These facts are undeniable, and so when we read St. Paul talking about those who sleep in Christ or Daniel talking about those who sleep in the dust, we must be prepared to acknowledge that these passages may be just contain phenomenological euphemisms and are not making a fundamental statement about the condition of human consciousness between death and resurrection.
We must thus press on to ask the question: Do we have any evidence of human consciousness after death and before resurrection?
Indeed, we do.
There are a variety of passages in both the Old and New Testaments that suggest continued consciousness after death.
First, there is the story of the witch of Endor (which gave the Bewitched character Endora her name), in which the medium or “witch” summons the spirit of the dead prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 28; see also Sirach 46:20).
Next, there is the passage in 2 Maccabees where it is revealed that the prophet Jeremiah is dead but nevertheless “loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city” (2 Macc. 15:14).
Then there is Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31), in which Jesus depicts Lazarus, the rich man, and Abraham as conscious in the afterlife. One could object that this is a parable, but this does not affect the depiction of consciousness in the afterlife. Jesus’ parables are filled with commonplace, real things, like kings, sons, kingdom, talents, winepresses, mustard seeds, pearls, and all manner of things that actually exist. He doesn’t tell parables about wholly unreal or unfamiliar things. Thus the depiction of departed souls that are still conscious (and experiencing either torment or comfort) must be something we take seriously.
Finally, the book of Revelation depicts the souls of the departed as experiencing consciousness prior to resurrection. One of the most notable passages in which it does so is found in Revelation 6:
9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. 10 They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.
Moving past the biblical age, the Church continued to recognize the consciousness of souls after death, which is why the Church has always recognized the practice of asking departed Christians for their prayers. You can read about that in my book The Fathers Know Best or online here.
If Agent Great White North’s friend is Catholic, the matter has been infallibly settled. This was defined by Pope Benedict XII:
[From the edict “Benedictus Deus,” Jan. 29, 1336]
530 By this edict which will prevail forever, with apostolic authority we declare: that according to the common arrangement of God, souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ; also of the holy apostles, the martyrs, the confessors, virgins, and the other faithful who died after the holy baptism of Christ had been received by them, in whom nothing was to be purged, when they departed, nor will there be when they shall depart also in the future; or if then there was or there will be anything to be purged in these when after their death they have been purged; and the souls of children departing before the use of free will, reborn and baptized in that same baptism of Christ, when all have been baptized, immediately after their death and that aforesaid purgation in those who were in need of a purgation of this kind, even before the resumption of their bodies and the general judgment after the ascension of our Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, into heaven, have been, are, and will be in heaven, in the kingdom of heaven and in celestial paradise with Christ, united in the company of the holy angels, and after the passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ have seen and see the divine essence by intuitive vision, and even face to face, with no mediating creature, serving in the capacity of an object seen, but divine essence immediately revealing itself plainly, clearly, and openly, to them, and seeing thus they enjoy the same divine essence, and also that from such vision and enjoyment their souls, which now have departed, are truly blessed and they have eternal life and rest; and also [the souls] of those who afterwards will depart, will see that same divine essence, and will enjoy it before the general judgment; and that such vision of the divine essence and its enjoyment makes void the acts of faith and hope in them, inasmuch as faith and hope are proper theological virtues; and that after there has begun or will be such intuitive and face-to-face vision and enjoyment in these, the same vision and enjoyment without any interruption [intermission] or departure of the aforesaid vision and enjoyment exist continuously and will continue even up to the last judgment and from then even unto eternity.
531 Moreover, we declare that according to the common arrangement of God, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin immediately after their death descend to hell where they are tortured by infernal punishments, and that nevertheless on the day of judgment all men with their bodies will make themselves ready to render an account of their own deeds before the tribunal of Christ, “so that everyone may receive the proper things of the body according as he has done whether it be good or evil” [2 Cor. 5:10]. [Taken from The Sources of Catholic Dogma in my edition of Logos Bible Software.]
If Great White North’s friend is not Catholic then some of these sources will not be considered authoritative, but hopefully this will provide a basic response.
Good luck, Agent Great White North!
(Not a member of Jimmy’s Secret Information Club? You should sign up now at www.SecretInfoClub.org or use the form in the right hand margin.)
At last! A concise, informative explanation of the Mass in just 32 pages. Revised For The New Mass Translation
In the new booklet from Catholic Answers, Mass Appeal: the ABC’s of Worship, Jimmy masterfully walks you through the Mass from beginning to end, explaining precisely what is happening and — more importantly — why. In the end you’ll see — perhaps for the first time — precisely how all the pieces of the Mass fit together to create a single, coherent whole.
“Jimmy Akin’s Mass Appeal demonstrates a two-fold love — a love of the Mass and a love of the newcomer to it. This booklet explains the liturgy in a clear, step-by-step manner. The author explores the Mass through the eyes of one drawn to help others participate more fully in the worship of God.” –Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, S.J., Eternal World Television Network
Perfect for RCIA and CCD classes and parish pamphlet racks. Call for volume discounts.
26. During this period [the fourth and fifth centuries], the formation of various liturgical families with their consequent differences, matured. The more important metropolitan Churches now celebrate the one worship of the Lord with their own cultural and popular forms which developed from differences of language, theological traditions, spiritual sensibilities, and social contexts. This process gave rise to the progressive development of liturgical systems with their own proper styles of celebration and agglomeration of texts and rites. It is not insignificant to note that even during this golden age for the formation of the liturgical rites, popular elements are also to be found in those rites.
On the other hand, bishops and regional synods began to establish norms for the organization of worship. They became vigilant with regard to the doctrinal correctness of the liturgical texts and to their formal beauty, as well as with regard to the ritual sequences. Such interventions established a liturgical order with fixed forms which inevitably extinguished the original liturgical creativity, which had not been completely arbitrary. Some scholars regard these developments as one of the source of the future proliferation of texts destined for private and popular piety.
Sunday is the first and original Christian feast day. According to the Holy See’s Directory on Popular Piety:
Sunday
95. Since the “Lord’s day” is the “primordial feast” and “basis and centre of the liturgical year”, it cannot be subordinated to popular piety. Hence, pious exercises whose main chronological reference point is Sunday, should not be encouraged.
For the pastoral good of the faithful, it is, however, licit to take up on the Sundays “per annum” those celebrations of the Lord, or in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary or the Saints which occur during the week and which are particularly significant in popular piety, provided that they have precedence over Sundays in the tables published with the Roman calendar.
Given that popular or cultural traditions can sometimes be invasive of the Sunday celebration and deprive it of its Christian character, “There is a need for special pastoral attention to the many situations where there is a risk that the popular and cultural traditions of a region may intrude upon the celebration of Sundays and other liturgical feast-days, mingling the spirit of genuine Christian faith with elements which are foreign to it and may distort it. In such cases, catechesis and well-chosen pastoral initiatives need to clarify these situations, eliminating all that is incompatible with the Gospel of Christ. At the same time, it should not be forgotten that these traditions C and, by analogy, some recent cultural initiatives in civil society C often embody values which are not difficult to integrate with the demands of faith. It rests with the discernment of Pastors to preserve the genuine values found in the culture of a particular social context and especially in popular piety, so that liturgical celebration C above all on Sundays and holy days C does not suffer but rather may actually benefit.”
There’s a new YouTube video out called “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus.” It was released January 10th, and as I write this on the morning of January 14th, it’s already racked up nearly 10 million hits, so it’s definitely gone viral.
I’ve had a bunch of requests for a response, so here goes.
The video is quite painful to watch. Check it out for yourself . . .
The video is painful to watch for a number of reasons. For one, the creator–Jefferson Bethke of Tacoma, Washington–is not that great a poet. He uses weak assonance when he should use rhyme. He has non sequiturs, so his thoughts don’t flow from one another. And he can be unclear in what he is trying to say.
I’m not so interested in critiquing what he has to say on an artistic level, however. The main thing is the painful content.
He starts by asking, dramatically, “What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion?”
This is preposterous, of course. It creates an immediate reaction of incredulity, and it causes anyone who is religious to wince. Here we go with another self-righteous, religion-bashing session.
You often hear religion dissed by people who say they are “spiritual” rather than “religious,” which implies that they are on a higher plane. Being “spiritual” is set up as a good thing, in contrast to being “religious” which is either bad or inferior by comparison. For those of us who are religious, that comes off as an insult.
This kind of claim is often made by people who don’t explicitly identify as Christians. It’s something that the unchurched or people in the New Age movement say.
Mr. Bethke does not fall into either of those categories. He’s working the “religion = bad” concept from a different angle. I don’t know that Mr. Brethke identifies himself with the “Emerging Church” movement, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he does. His whole manner of presentation suggests it, and within that context, it wouldn’t be surprising to find this kind of “Jesus vs. religion” schtick. There have been elements of that before in certain Protestant circles.
Mr. Bethke’s poem goes down a number of rabbit trails that we won’t dwell on in detail. The first occurs in the second two lines of his poem, where he takes swipes at Christians who are also Republicans. He repeats the politically liberal cliche that they identify Christianity with Republicanism. While it’s certainly true that people have a tendency to identify their political affiliation with their religious affiliation (that’s a human temptation that has been around since the days of Pharaoh or Caesar, to name just two recent god-kings), his poem really isn’t the place to go into that.
A couple of sneer-filled lines doesn’t do the subject justice, but that’s all he gives it since he immediately ditches the political discussion in favor of his anti-religion rant.
He repeats the cliche that religion starts lots of wars, which is nonsense. Religion is a powerful motivator, and thus is often invoked in wartime, but the real reasons most wars have been fought have nothing to do with it. Instead, they have to do with political control–either allowing certain political leaders to gain or remain in power (e.g., who is the rightful heir to the throne) or they have to do with gaining political control of resources (e.g., land, money, food supplies, transportation and trade routes) or they have to do with a particular leader’s ambitions (i.e., being remembered as a great man, or not being remembered as a weak man). When leaders aren’t being totally naked about those things, they dress them up with national pride or religion, but ultimately they are not at the root.
The reason political leaders invoke religion when going to war is that religion is a powerful motivator that is built into human nature, which is why religion appears in all human societies. It’s a human universal, and religion in that sense is not something Jesus came to abolish. He didn’t come to root the religious impulse out of mankind but to shape it and channel it properly (e.g., “Blessed are the peacemakers”).
Bethke’s slam on religion as the cause of war is thus a shallow, sneering cliche that fails to get to the root of the issue.
He then asks why religion builds great churches but doesn’t feed the poor.
Excuse me?
Historically speaking, the Christian Church has been the greatest, most effective charitable institution in world history! It has fed more hungry, clothed more naked, and cared for more sick than any other institution!
And if you know your Bible, as Mr. Bethke seems to, given that his speech (including in other videos) is littered with insider Christian lingo, including numerous terms and phrases from the Bible, then you know that honoring God through architecture is important as well. God has some rather particular instructions regarding the construction of the Tabernacle and the Temple. Honoring God in this way is also built in to human nature.
It reflects the love of God, just as helping the poor reflects love of man. These two goals are not at odds with one another. The Church must pursue both.
Then Bethke says “religion” tells single mothers that God doesn’t love them if they’ve ever had a divorce.
HUH???
I’d like to hear Mr. Bethke name one person who has done that. I bet he can’t. And I’m quite sure that he can’t show the existence of enough people to warrant making this a general slam on the religious community, which–to the contrary–has been instrumental in setting up crisis pregnancy centers, creating homes for unwed mothers, providing assistance to single mothers, and extending care and compassion to countless individuals who have had broken marriages–and reassuring them of God’s love!
It is unfortunate, but Mr. Bethke has chosen to repeat uninformed cliches as a way of adopting the pose of a prophet. He comes across as a spiritual poser who does not know what he is talking about as he sneers and looks down on others.
There are simply too many things in Bethke’s rant that call for a response to give them each an individual treatment, so let us look at the big picture.
What we have here is a rap-battle-inspired slam on the concept of religion in favor of what Bethke considers to be the truth, the authentic cause of Jesus.
Unfortunately, the sneering, self-important, self-righteous tone of a rap battle does not lend itself well to this purpose (not that he’s actually rapping, but that’s what he’s aping).
It’s true that Jesus did have some stinging things to say about the hypocrites of his day. St. Paul was similarly harsh with his opponents. But it’s all too easy to justify our own self-righteousness and arrogance by appealing to these passages. One is playing with fire when one goes in this direction.
Mr. Bethke’s rant against the judgmental who put on an artificial show of piety is filled with both judgment and affected piety. There’s a moment in the video where he says, “Now I ain’t judging, I’m just saying quit putting on a fake look.”
Bethke, let’s be honest. You are so totally judging.
Your whole video is filled with scorn and sneer. Each line drips venom on other people.
And as for “putting on a fake look” (a clumsy set-up for a rhyme on the word “Facebook”), your whole schtick–the rap-battle insults, the disjointed poetry, the awkward assonance, the attitude of the earnest, hip nonconformist–the whole thing is as artificial or “put on” as one could wish.
This isn’t who you really are. Not at your core. This is you giving a performance.
And it’s a performance that, just coincidentally, shows how pious and “real” you are compared to your religious peers.
Who is putting on pious show here? You’ve got some mighty wide phylacteries, Mr. Bethke.
But let’s move past that and get to what really sets people off about your video: The dissing of religion.
What is religion?
Bottom line: Religion is a set of beliefs about the divine and/or the afterlife. All religions (atheism included) make some kind of claim about one of those two subjects. Most make claims about both.
But Jesus didn’t come to abolish beliefs regarding the divine and the afterlife. He came to proclaim them.
In another sense, religion is the life and the actions that flow from those beliefs. So what did Jesus think of religion in that sense?
Well, according to the Bible (James 1:26-27),
26 If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
Notice that here religion is spoken of as something positive, as something to aspire to, and something that can be pure and undefiled before God.
And it requires things of us. Bridling our tongues. Visiting orphans and widows. Keeping ourselves unstained from the world.
We needn’t quibble about these points, and we all fail in all of them, but they are things we are supposed to undertake, by God’s grace, in order to please God.
Jesus did not come to abolish these things.
And because he didn’t, the word “religion” has become part of the Christian heritage. It is something that has become part of how we as Christians identify ourselves–something that goes to the core of who we are.
We Christians have a religion. We Christians are a religion. We Christians practice religion.
So if you are a Christian, Mr. Bethke, if you love the Bible and the Church the way you say you do in your video, then who are you to overturn 2,000 years of Christian history and start ranting about how Jesus came to abolish religion and that religion and Jesus are contrary to one another.
What arrogance!
And what ignorance of the Christian heritage that has been bequeathed to you!
Now, I can’t blame you for some of that. If your YouTube username–bball1989–is any indication, you are 22 or at most 23 years old.
You haven’t been alive long enough to get a broad perspective on history, and you may well not have been exposed to or encouraged to read broadly in the history of Christianity.
Being angsty and wanting to rant against the religious hypocrisy you perceive around you is also often part of being 22. I mean, a lot of us have been there.
And many of us look back on that time in our lives with a bit of embarrassment. I know I do. As I’ve gotten older, I continually realize all the more just how much I don’t know, and how I need to be more careful in what I say and what I claim.
You are also likely to look back with embarrassment on this, only on a larger scale since you now have almost 10,000,000 hits–and undoubtedly will have far more than that by the time your video’s popularity is played out.
Things may seem awesome now. For example, you have a recent Facebook post saying:
My buddy just called me and said he was driving 60mph down the freeway and a car came up along side him and on the entire back window in shoe polish was written “YouTube the video ‘Why I Hate Religion, but Love Jesus” LOL God is good! Man. It’s a craze right now but He is faithful and He is my judge! It’s all Grace!
But already you are seeing some of the harm that your video can result in, as you quickly followed up with a post saying:
If you are using my video to bash “the church” be careful. I was in no way intending to do that. My heart came from trying to highlight and expose legalism and hypocrisy. The Church is Jesus’ bride so be careful how you speak of His wife. If a normal dude has right to get pissed when you bash His wife, it makes me tremble to think how great the weight is when we do it to Jesus’ wife. The church is His vehicle to reach a lost word. A hospital for sinners. Saying you love Jesus but hate the Church, is like a fiancé saying he loves his future bride, but hates her kids. We are all under grace. Look to Him.
Just as you can’t separate the Church from Jesus, you can’t separate religion from Christ and his Church.
It can’t be done, and it’s foolish to try.
If you want to rant against legalism and hypocrisy then call them by their names. Don’t go on a futile quest to get people to start using the term “religion” in an unfamiliar way that is, frankly, contrary to the way it’s used in the Bible.
Religion is something very, very important to people, and telling them that Jesus opposed religion is not only preposterous, it’s offensive–particularly the way the claim is presented in your video.
So ditch the sneer, ditch the mocking, self-righteous attitude toward your fellow believers, and show some consideration for them and for their feelings regarding the word “religion”–feelings which are, frankly, more attuned to the way Scripture uses the word than yours apparently are.
Today is Saturday of the 1st week in Ordinary Time. The liturgical color is green.
In the Extraordinary Form, this is the season after Epiphany, and the liturgical color for today is white.
Saints & Celebrations:
Today, January 14, there is no special fixed liturgical day in the Ordinary Form.
In the Extraordinary Form, we celebrate St. Felix of Nola, priest and martyr, who died in A.D. 312. This celebration is a commemoration.
In the Extraordinary Form, we celebrate St. Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, confessor, and doctor of the Church, who died in A.D. 368. It is a Class III day.
25. In the fourth and fifth centuries, a greater sense of the sacredness of times and places begins to emerge. Many of the local Churches, in addition to their recollection of the New Testament data concerning the dies Domini, the Easter festival and fasting (cf. Mark 2,18-22), began to reserve particular days for the celebration of Christ’s salvific mysteries (Epiphany, Christmas and Ascension), or to honor the memory of the martyrs on their dies natalis or to commemorate the passing of their Pastors on the anniversary of their dies depositionis, or to celebrate the sacraments, or to make a solemn undertaking in life. With regard to the socialization of the place in which the community is called to celebrate the divine mysteries and give praise to the Lord, it must be noted that many of these had been transformed from places of pagan worship or profane use and dedicated exclusively to divine worship. They became, often simply by their architectural arrangements, a reflection of the mystery of Christ and an image of the celebrating Church.
Welcome to JimmyAkin.com, the new home of JimmyAkin.org!
For some time I’ve been working on this upgrade of my site, and–in fact–I’m still putting some of the final pieces in place, but I am at a point where it makes sense to publicly launch it. Think of this as the shakedown cruise phase, before the grand opening (if I may mix metaphors).
I hope you like the new site! It contains all the back content from my blog, JimmyAkin.org (although I still have to get the most recent comments imported). When finished,it will have all the content of my former web site, (the original, 1990s version of JimmyAkin.com), which you can still reach by clicking here.
I’m also planning on adding new functionality, which the new, WordPress environment will allow me to do in a way that my former, TypePad site would not.
Thanks to all who have suggested moving to WordPress. I’m glad that I have, and I see lots of potential with WordPress.
BTW, if you haven’t yet joined, let me give a plug for the Secret Information Club. The form to join with is in the right hand margin, or you can go to www.SecretInfoClub.com.
Now Catholic New Agency is reporting that an effort is underway to fix it:
“I made a design for the sculpture that wasn’t executed well in the foundry,” explained the creator of the artwork, Italian sculptor Oliviero Rainaldi.
“It is not that we have come up with a new statue,” he told CNA on Jan. 10. “We’re correcting those details that weren’t executed well” so that “it will be more faithful to my original idea.”
The redesign will involve replacing the head, modifying the Pope’s cape and touching up the outer coating of paint, since the bronze has oxidized to a light shade of green. The statue will also be raised 15 inches on a new platform, and its lighting will be improved.
. . .
Rainaldi told CNA in a June 2011 interview that his avant garde design is intended to manifest the inner-life of Pope John Paul II, instead of presenting a life-like photographic image.
“The man within was more interesting to me than the man outside,” he said, describing a man who was “lacerated” inside “not only by his infirmity but also by his mission,” the sculptor said. Rainaldi added, “this man showed he was beautiful for others reasons beyond his appearance.”
Color me skeptical, but it doesn’t sound to me like Rainaldi “gets it.”
If you want to make a John Paul II memorial homeless person shelter then make a homeless person shelter and slap a sign on it. Don’t make something that positively invites an internet caption contest.
Speaking of which . . . how would you caption this monstrosity?
I don’t always see eye-to-eye with Abe Foxman of the Jewish Antidefamation League (ADL), but I want to give him his props on a recent statement issued by the ADL.
A 
At last! A concise, informative explanation of the Mass in just 32 pages. Revised For The New Mass Translation
Today is Monday of the 2nd week in Ordinary Time. The liturgical color is green.
Today is the 2nd Sunday of Ordinary Time. The liturgical color is green.
Here are this week’s items for 
Today is Saturday of the 1st week in Ordinary Time. The liturgical color is green.