SOURCE.
STARTING CAPTIONS:
* "ALL THE BETTER TO SEE YOU WITH, MY DEAR."
* LATEST DR. WHO VILLAIN: QUEEN OF THE CYBERMEN!
* "IT REALLY HELPS MY VISION, BUT IT’S MURDER ON MY SKIN"
* PERFECT DATE FOR DOC OCK? NEW SPIDER WOMAN HAS EIGHT EYES!
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
“I am Optometrist of Borg. Refraction is futile.”
“Force Schmorce, I’m turning on MY tracking computer!”
Doesn’t the guy underneath look like the lizard alien from The Last Starfighter????
Actually, Tim J.’s previous comment in the other thread definitely applies here —
“Meanwhile, as Gold Five so famously stated while making the Death Star trench run…
Stay on target!!”
Yeah, I can see better, but now I can’t stand up straight.
“Here’s Looing at you, Kid!”
“Look into my eyes…”
“Excuse me big-boy! My eyes are up here!”
I had to wear this just to see your … … tiny bevel!
When I said “Supersize my glasses,” I didn’t mean…
Let’s see Elton John top these babies!”
Good! Now all I need are a pair of tweezers!”
The most advanced set of contact lenses ever! Now you can check your e-mail, talk on your cell phone, cut origami, play the violin, and make a cup of coffee — all at once! Of course, as the technology advances they eventually get smaller.
In his advanced age, Master Yoda has to resort to drastic measures…
To pair with Vince’s storyline:
I had to wear this just to see your … [cough] … tiny bevel! Now all I need are a pair of tweezers!
Sorry… I couldn’t help it!
{;^)
This isn’t what I expected when they said the winner would be in their own music video.
“The silver frames make your glasses barely noticable.”
“Wait’ll you see our contact lenses!”
The Healing of the Blind Man of Jericho….as retold by Realist.
Incan ceremonial beer goggles
Bifocals are so last year.
Very classy…using a photo from an international mission eye clinic depicting a poor Bolivian peasant receiving eye care in order to prompt “funny” or “clever” captions. Very classy and charitable, indeed, Jimmy. Next, let’s dig up some “funny” pictures from a San Diego soup kitchen showing a homeless man’s surprize at receiving a free meal! You know, I heard those dentistry photos from African orphanages are a real hoot!
Akin’s charitable move
I am a creature of God…why are you laughing at me?
“Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.”
And also what you do these least ones, you do to the Lord.
Shame on you and everyone here who contributes to such disrespect, lack of charity, and irreverence. How terrible it is to laugh at those who are in need and seldom receive aid.
What’s next Akin?
I wonder if a picture of yourself instead of this person from Bolivia would be as funny to you.
Of course not.
Micheal & Katrina:
I don’t believe that there was any intentional malovelent purpose on the part of those who have posted here.
In fact, most of us never actually seen the actual caption for this photo but only saw what seemed like a funny photo!
Let’s place this in better context, shall we???
Michael says, “Very classy…using a photo from an international mission eye clinic depicting a poor Bolivian peasant receiving eye care in order to prompt “funny” or “clever” captions.”
Katrina says, “How terrible it is to laugh at those who are in need and seldom receive aid.”
Would it, then, have made a difference if it weren’t a person in need? If it weren’t a poor person???
Yet, were was all this self-righteousness when there were similar photos that Jimmy Akin put up in the past depicting other folks???
Is it because they weren’t needy as this poor individual?
But, if it should make you both feel so triumphantly better than the rest of us to take up the seat of the Pharisees and cast these stones on us lowly scum-of-the-earth folks here, then so be it!
Katerina,
You know, some people with a personal allegiance to Jimmy Akin may retort: “Don’t take it so seriously, it’s not a big deal!” But as you said, I doubt very much that they would appreciate their own picture up on Catholic blogs as the subject of joke and humor. But perhaps even more importantly, the fact that the photo is of a vulnerable peasant receiving much needed medical/eye care and not of Jimmy Akin or even of you and me makes it an especially heinous and fundamentally debased post, whether or not Akin intended any malice. Jesus identified himself with the poor…I cannot imagine how Christian eyes would allow this fact to escape.
Esau,
It was the Pharisees who were notorious for defending their sins and miscarriages of justice when confronted by Jesus, just as you are defending your own actions now. As Katerina stated, it could have been a photo of anyone, poor or rich. But the fact that a poor person is being exploited for jest makes the problem more acute. If you cannot see the face of Jesus in the poor, then I have nothing more to tell you; you’ll have to remedy that problem on your own.
I’m so glad that Evangelical Catholics are just as well-versed as our Protestant Anti-Catholics in conjuring strawmen!
Brava!
Michael:
Did you not even read what I had written???
Or do you cling to your strawman???
In fact, most of us never actually seen the actual caption for this photo but only saw what seemed like a funny photo!
Esau,
The picture is obviously of an elderly person. Why make fun of them?
How can you even justify it?
Esau,
Is it OK for me to tell you that an elderly person looks like “Master Yoda” if we see them out at a restaurant or on the street? Not even an elderly person: anyone.
It’s never right. Even if you don’t know the caption.
The very fact that I had remarked “Doesn’t the guy underneath look like the lizard alien from The Last Starfighter????” would suggest that I originally thought it was a fictitious picture.
Unless, ofcourse, you actually believe that I would intentionally make fun of poor people.
By the way, did you not even know that there are a certain of my relatives who are, in fact, poor and who suffer various plights themselves???
But, of course, I am more than certain that you both are the best judges of the human heart and that I actually harbor such ill will toward like folks!
Esau,
If you want humor, I’ve seen that American Papist writes some captions for pictures of the Pope. He is not making fun of the Pope’s person directly (his wrinkles, his figure, etc.), but of a certain situation that appears funny. I don’t criticize that. My point is that I bet no one here likes the pictures of Benedict XVI out there where he is portrayed as the bad guy from Star Wars (I’m not a SW geek, so I dont’ know the name).
We also do similar captions of the pope’s pictures, but we don’t mock who he is or how he looks like. Just imagine when you do make fun of someone’s appearance and they happen to be one of the most vulnerable.
Sorry for all the repeated comments.
No, it is I who will see YOU!
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that these various relatives of mine actually live in disease-infested, poverty-stricken villages in a third world country; yet, hey, both of you are the better judge of the human heart than even our God Himself and actually know the fact that I genuinely hate such people!
Maybe that’s why I am often overjoyed with the final torments of some of my relatives who died in such an emaciated state at the end of their lives, for which I could not help but feel powerless in trying to ease the burdens of all my kin!
In fact, I have a number of their pictures and make fun of them on a daily basis!
Esau,
How am I supposed to read your mind and know about your relatives? I just go with your actions and what you write. Jimmy did have the “source” link for anyone who wanted to see the source.
If anyone wants to take out their anger,and I see a few of our bretheren do,just go to the gym and beat the heavy bag for 5 minutes or hit the weights.
You will feel better.
I am sure God can take it.[The captions that is]
In Hoc Signo
Just because someone is poor doesn’t mean that they can’t take a funny picture. Same goes for the well off. I imagine most of the people on this blog would be willing to submit an old high school picture of themselves for the sake of humor. At least I would! I’ve got some good ones of myself…let me know if you are looking for a good caption photo Jimmy!
Esau,
In logic, a strawman fallacy is committed whenever one party mischaracterizes another party’s argument and then attacks that mischaracterization. Now, I did not restate your argument but responded to certain points of your argument. That means, logically speaking, there was no strawman. If calling out “fallacy!” is the best you can do to obfuscate the real issue, then by all means be my guest. But please don’t presume to outwit someone in logical argumentation if you do not understand what certain logical terms actually mean.
Kris,
You wrote:
Just because someone is poor doesn’t mean that they can’t take a funny picture. Same goes for the well off. I imagine most of the people on this blog would be willing to submit an old high school picture of themselves for the sake of humor.
Since Esau attempted to point out phantom logical fallacies, I will point out that your comments here commit the logical fallacy of false analogy. For your coment to carry any weight, the Aymara man must have fulfilled the following conditions:
1. Taken a funny picture.
2. Was willing to submit that picture for the sake of humor.
Given that the man likely did not think to himself, “This is a funny picture of me,” and then decided to submit it to Jimmy Akin for the sake of humor, your analogy is not only false, it is down right irrational.
How am I supposed to read your mind and know about your relatives?
Katrina,
That’s the whole point! Only God alone can judge since it is He who sees the hearts of man!
1 Cor 4:5 Therefore, judge not before the time: until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. And then shall every man have praise from God.
However, you and Michael, without any regard for the very charity that you both speak so highly of, accused me of intentionally making fun of a poor person.
AGAIN:
Most of us never actually had seen the original caption for this photo but only saw what seemed like a funny photo!
The very fact that I had remarked “Doesn’t the guy underneath look like the lizard alien from The Last Starfighter????” would suggest that I originally thought it was a fictitious picture.
I mean, come on — the last photo that was shown by Jimmy were people in Stormtrooper costumes!
Do you really think that a person whose elderly was made fun of as looking like E.T. during the last years of her pitiful life would actually poke fun of another such person?
The very fact that I had remarked “Doesn’t the guy underneath look like the lizard alien from The Last Starfighter????” would suggest that I originally thought it was a fictitious picture.
I mean, come on — the last photo that was shown by Jimmy were people in Stormtrooper costumes!
Do you really think that a person whose elderly was made fun of as looking like E.T. during the last years of her pitiful life would actually poke fun of another such person?
Oh yeah, yes, Michael, given the above, I certainly make it a point to poke fun of such people whenever I can!
Well, Michael, I guess this is one way to create traffic for your blog.
Jimmy,
Needless to say, I’m very disappointed (furious at first) about your post, because I do have high standards of Catholic blogging. I’m pretty sure that a lot of people go through your blog, even other good-willed Christians considering the faith or fallen-away Catholics seeking answers and a post such as this one would disappoint them as well, given that they do have higher standards for our Church. And as representatives of the Church here on the Internet, we have the responsibility to represent Her in the most charitable way we can. I invite you to consider deleting this post or making a clarification.
In Him,
Katerina
“When you get older, and you need bifocals, make sure they put the line in the right place. Y’know, they’ll try to do a half-fast job and pass it off on you, like anyone else.”
(Actual quote from one of my college math profs.)
Michael, Katerina,
There are probably much bigger battles and more despicable enemies to be fought than Jimmy and everyone here.
Whether or not it is disrespectful to put a phony caption on a picture because the real picture is of a poor elderly woman receiving an eye exam perhaps depends on the caption itself. What seems like a blanket condemnation (“Shame on you and everyone here…”) may not be the best way to deliver your message so as to get people to have a change of heart.
Otherwise, if I put on my new hi-tech 3D glasses, I think I SEE what you’re saying. I said I think I SEE what you’re saying. Get it? Is this thing on?
Katerina, I invite you to look into your mirror, look into your Chesterton, and realize that all of us humans are funny-looking critters. God made us as beautiful and bizarre as the rest of Creation, and Jesus was not afraid to take on a body that could look silly.
There is a time to weep, and a time to laugh. And given that those who weep now will laugh last, there is no reason not to take the same amusement in a picture of a poor person (who is, after all, having a happy moment of gaining good vision!) as in one of a rich person. Indeed, we should laugh with great delight at such a wonderful and mysterious and funny sight as a nearsighted woman in a lens machine.
And I speak as an extremely nearsighted woman myself.
Unfortunately, I just watched the movie Arabesque over the weekend, and all I could think of was the very creepy murder of an elderly professor in an opthalmologist’s office.
I mean, come on — the last photo that was shown by Jimmy were people in Stormtrooper costumes!
But since you, Michael, have assumed the place of God in judging man, then so be it!
But, remember, the very same uncharitable measure by which you judge folks will, thus, be done unto you as well!
I just hope that God does not afflict your family with the same tragedies as those of my members so that you might come to realize personally just what atrocities actual poor folks endure vs that upper middle class lifestyle from which you comfortably cast down such judgments upon those who actually aren’t as fortunate!
I shall leave that all in God’s hands!
I usually enjoy reading your blog (although I may differ from some of our opinions), however I see no humor in playing photo caption with this particular picture. It’s not only insulting the poor but also an innocent indigenous Bolivian woman. I would kindly request that you change it in the spirit of Christ. Thank you.
My sincerest apologies to those here who had to endure my ramblings. This shall be the end of it (for this thread, at least). God bless.
A per the comment on the Blind Man from Jericho: 256±. Healing of Bartimaeus: (1a) Mark 10:46b-52 = Matt 20:29-34 = Luke 18:35-43, (1b) Matt 9:27-31
Item: 256
Stratum: II (60-80 CE)
Attestation: Single
Historicity: negative
Common Sayings Tradition: No
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb256.html
Maureen,
If you happen to fall in a kind of funny way and I see that you’re not hurt, I’ll probably laugh. We all do that. But, Maureen, if you and I are walking on the street and we see an elderly homeless person fall and even though he/she wouldn’t be hurt… Would it be right to laugh?? I’ll leave you with that one.
This is an important battle. It is good to demand responsibility from all of us who represent the Catholic Church on the internet.
I’m somewhat in between in my opinions on this matter (whether its is uncharitable or not for Jimmy to have this blog entry)…I thought I would post these:
Here
Here
Here
and Here
Not quite the same thing as the villager, but then again, upon seeing that picture of themselves, that particular villager may or maynot have a sense of humor about it themselves. We don’t know.
poking fun at a poor Aymara man because of his complexion
What a completely ludicrous accusation!
Sorry folks, but I’ve got to say, Michael, what a seriously sinister judge of man you are!
Did you even bother to consider that the last photo put up by Jimmy for photo caption were folks in stormtrooper costume??? Thus, did you even consider that combox commenters here did not actually read the original caption and thought the person in this photo was actually wearing a costume himself???
What charity! What Christian morals you seem to demonstrate — one that definitely invests in calumny, of all things so Christian!
I honestly have to say that, when I saw the picture, it was funny regardless of who’s behind it. I see no malevolent intent. Anyone behind that rig would look goofy. Particularly if you have had these kinds of tests done. I immediately saw myself in the rig. Jimmy, maybe you ought to photoshop yourself into it. Or better yet, Katerina or Michael (just kidding!).
This seems to have started quite a debate, but I just wanted to say that it does seem a little uncharitable to be making fun of the person in the picture. Obviously, I don’t think Mr. Akin intended that, but it still seems in poor taste.
I know we should all have a sense of humor and be able to laugh at ourselves and all of that, but if it was me in that picture, I’d be pretty upset with some of the comments being made.
Michael,
Re: your post of 2:14:54. Do you always answer your fellow blogger’s comments in comboxes? Seems to me you could say the same thing on your blog.
that’s better
Michael & Katrina, lay off the crack and stop attacking people as a means of advertising your own blog.
Jimmy, I can’t believe the forbearance you’ve shown here in allowing M & K to post. At the very least, if I were you, I would not allow them to use your combox as a venue for linking to their own blog any more.
Who let the trolls out?
And making a post in your widely-read blog attacking another Catholic blogger is so, so charitable, right? You did the same to AmericanPapist. This kind of thing will only hurt your blog, not theirs.
The Healing of the Blind Man of Jericho….as retold by Realist.
This one won the contest, in my opinion. *hands prize to John E*
“Ah, yes, my free 3-D glasses! Now if you will kindly bring my popcorn and start the feature presentation of Shark Boy and Lava Girl…”
As a (cheap) means of temporarily driving traffic to their blog, I suppose it temporarily worked. I just left them a note that they owe Jimmy an apology.
The optometry thingamajig was what was humorous. They had to be actively looking for a reason to kick up a fuss to click through to the source of the photo. Speaking for myself, and I would guess most of those making comments, no one was making fun of the poor because the it wasn’t the person who was the subject of the humor.
Good Grief!
So you see, Young Skywalker, it is not impossible for a Sith a survive falling into a generator pit, provided he has the right machinary to keep him alive!
I don’t see anything in the original post referencing that the woman was poor, receiving charity, or of any particular race or ethnicity. I see no reason to think that this woman is being “made fun of” on any of those counts,
It is somewhat credible to charge Jimmy with making fun of the woman’s skin, in the third caption he proposed. I’m sure that he didn’t mean anything by it, though I will admit that it wasn’t the best thing to say.
I do find the judgemental and fundamentalistic attitude of some of those objecting to this post to be objectionable. Making a post of reprimand on another blog was an especially poor decision, in my opinion. Even if it wasn’t meant to be, it seems to be a shallow and divisive attempt to get publicity for your blog. I’ll assume it wasn’t meant to be that way, but as a brother in Christ, I’m telling you that it does seem that way, and I suggest you consider removing it and replacing it with a simple statement indicating you thought better of it,
Michael and Katerina,
Jimmy has had charity on you (unfortunatly unreciprocated)and your endless posts.
Your rash condemnation of Jimmy’s intentions and of his character were the most unchristian and uncatholic thing I have seen posted on this thread.
And I think an apology is in order for Mr Akin.
Well, Michael, I guess this is one way to create traffic for your blog.
Michael & Katrina, lay off the crack and stop attacking people as a means of advertising your own blog.
As a (cheap) means of temporarily driving traffic to their blog, I suppose it temporarily worked.
Even if it wasn’t meant to be, it seems to be a shallow and divisive attempt to get publicity for your blog
See definition, link whore.
Hey, Michael–
People could turn this back on you, too.
E.G.:I notice that “Proof of Life” is on your list of favorite movies. I am sure you would be fine if someone came on your blog and repeatedly posted how this film, with its huge amount of profanity, is such a pathetic film choice for a supposedly Catholic blogger like you to approve of.
Sickly humorous comments by J Akins under the picture of the man having eye exam lead me to never bother with this blog again.
barnett, Thank you for sharing.
Of course, if you had actually read the comments, you’d know that it was not the person who was found humorous. But then that would take effort, rather than making superficial comment and flouncing out.
Come one people. No one is laughing at the woman. What’s funny is the gadget interposed on the woman’s face — on ANY face.
Anyone who has had to wear those optometrist contraptions and didn’t find it funny, cast the first stone.
I bet those Bolivian peasants were also all laughing at each other while they were wearing that thing. Peasants have a sense of humor too, often more robust than ours.
Exactly, Francis!
I noticed a lot of insults toward Katerina and me throughout this thread, ultimately diverting the real question of whether displaying a picture of a human person so that we can make fun of the way she looks both physically (her sun-worn skin and wrinkles) and procedurally (behind an opthomologic device) is, in fact, a just and charitable action. Is this the type of joyful laughter described in Ecclesiastes or the blind jest described in Wisdom? Definitely the latter. A simple question of whether our own Lord, who no doubt possessed much more wit and humor than any of us (perfect human, and all), would find anything redeemable in Jimmy Akin’s post. Those involved in the Jimmy Akin personality cult need to think long and hard about that one directly.
Katerina and I forgive all those who dished out the cheap shots and personal insults we received here. And for those who likewise detected something awful and deplorable in this post like us, we commend you for looking with the eyes of Christ.
Katerina and I do not maintain our blog for internet traffic. We are quite satisfied with our readership and high level of informed comments from our readers. So while many of you wildly accuse us of seeking more readers or of being sensationalists, we will continue our work of preaching Christ beyond apologetics and into our concrete social reality.
I think the caption referencing her skin was in very bad taste. I have very bad skin, and if after having gone to the doctor one day I noticed my photo on the Internet with such a caption I would be mortified, and then to find out it was being done by fellow Catholics, including especially someone as well known and respected as JA, would be crushing. Does the fact that the person in the photo is someone likely to never see this blog make any difference? She is still a person and doesn’t deserve to be treated merely as the butt of a joke. My two cents for what they are worth.
Michael, you are either unable or unwilling to read that many, many posts that said what was humorous was the optometry thingy.
Has it occurred to you that the many comments are because people see the situation differently than you?
How very noble of you and Katerina to “forgive” those who don’t kowtow to your dictatorial insistence that the world exists the way you see it.
“Those involved in the Jimmy Akin personality cult…”
How do you know about the Jimmy Akin Personality Cult? Dang! Now we’ll have to change the password again!
Everybody remember to wear your cowboy hats at the next super-secret meeting, or there will be NO Start Trek cartoon.
Sorry… ANIMATED Star Trek.
Katerina and I forgive all those who dished out the cheap shots and personal insults we received here.
MICHAEL:
Oh, thank you, My God, for thine mercy!
How gracious and Christian of you to grant us such forgiveness, in spite of the fact that you leveled against many innocent here such malicious intentions without even so much any charitable consideration whatsoever!
You have not only ferociously hurled such heinous charges against Jimmy and the rest of the innocent here but already condemned the lot of us without even so much as a trial since you are more content to play the role of God Himself and damn all of us regardless of innocence!
Could that very well be due to perhaps:
– a certain envy of Jimmy Akin’s popularity as a distinguished Catholic Apologist?
– a tremendous jealousy of JImmy’s level of knowledge as it concerns a variety of topics not only apologetics?
– the popularity of his blog amongst fellow Catholics and non-Catholics alike?
– his proficiency in skillful debating, apologetics and profound philosophical as well as theological thought?
Consider well the repercussions of the actions that you both are taking here by this calumny you both have conspired and are committing so unrighteously against those innocent here as well as God!
However, the worse crime that’s been committed here is the fact that due to the calumny you both have conspired against Jimmy himself, you’ve attacked the credibility of the very person (whose innocence is yet to be disproved in spite of your baseless, hostile accusations) from whom many non-Catholics (and Catholics for that matter) could very well have come to know the Fullness of Truth and be saved, as can only be learned from the already few out there who truly know of the Catholic Faith and have the reputation as his to help bring folks into the Church!
In other words, you have helped to destroy one of the finest Catholic Apologists we have and, in a sense, have furthered the cause of Anti-Catholics out there and, furthermore, have discouraged perhaps many of those who may very well had been open initially to hearing about the Catholic Faith from Jimmy due to his prominence (be it here, at Catholic Answers, etc.), but because of this unfounded accusation on both your parts, which, for all intents and purposes, you both conspired to accomplish for perhaps selfish reasons, and the actual malicious intention you both have demonstrated here in your attempts to bring down Jimmy by such cheap shots, you’ve helped to drive away folks who may very well have been open to coming into or knowing about the Catholic Church due to or through Jimmy, but with a fraud such as Jimmy, why should anyone trust him now if at all???
In these times of high natural gas prices it can get costly to heat your home. So it must be great to be able to keep warm in the glow of one’s own santimony.
OF COURSE this picture is funny. A very small person is stuck behind this gigantic contraption. It would be as though someone took a picture of me (6’3″ and, err, over 200 lbs.) walking my mother’s dog – a three pound Yorkie. It’s funny because it just seems odd.
And you know what? Isn’t that wonderful? Isn’t it a great example of how quirky life can be? As someone noted above, we all look a little funny. We’re all “odd” in our own mysterious ways, and it’s these charming quirks that makes life so great.
I am not going to claim that I know for sure that the person who is in the picture would necessarily laugh if they somehow came upon this post, but considering that most people have a cheerier dispostion than certain bloggers with nine foot polls crammed up their assuming posteriors, it’s a good bit she would.
I love the fire in Esau’s 8:59 post, but I couldn’t help but think of a certain movie line:
“And I’m not going to sit around here and let you bad mouth the United States of America.”
Paul Zummo:
You must be a mind-reader!
Actually, I originally was going to start off my post by saying:
“Tim J., I know you said that Jimmy is adult enough to defend himself, but I have to say the following.”
At some point, I believe Popeye says, “I’ve had all I can stand! I can’t stands no more!”
God bless!
Michael and Katerina have good points, though I can see how people wouldn’t realize that this was a real picture of a real human being if they hadn’t clicked on the ‘source’ link. But clearly Akin had clicked on the source link – that’s where he got it. You know, I guess I’d feel like we ought to cut Akin some slack if he wasn’t advocating things like torture (or advocating redefining torture as organ failure or whatever else lets us do horrible things to human beings).
Pictures like this might seem funny at first, if we don’t know where they come from, but once you know that its some poor old person in the third world, well then that’s got to make you think a little more. Or at least, we ought to be thinking about it in a way that isn’t focused on our own amusement. We live in luxury while much of the rest of the world lives without basic necessities. The universal destination of goods (sharing) means that “we are really responsible for everyone else.”
Michael and Katerina have a hard job – disturbing the comfortable and comforting the disturbed!
I’d propose this caption:
“I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind.”
Michael,
You can take this as an insult or as constructive criticism, although it is definitely meant as the latter.
Mary Kay was pretty much right on point when she suggested that there is more than one way to look at the picture and the post, and they are not all bad. As Paul Zummo noted, what many (and I would posit possibly most here) find funny is the equipment, not the peasant lady. There may, of course, be aspects of the post, and certainly the combox, that are more or less insensitive, or at least slightly so (and I would guess in the case of the post, at least, unintentionally so). John validly points out that someone could take the caption about the bad skin the wrong way, and that one is perhaps closer to making fun of a personal trait than the others. (Although, again, I don’t think even that one necessarily should be read that way. I’m just admitting that on second thought it appears more susceptible of that reading than some of the others.)
I am sympathetic to the point that we sometimes do things, unintentionally one would hope, that do not necessarily reflect well on the Body of Christ. Your posts seem to me to imply that no one who finds the picture or the post funny is able to see with the eyes of Christ as well as you, and that no one could have pure motives in posting the picture for comment. In other words, you have failed to give anyone here the benefit of the doubt, and have assumed the worst possible motives where they do not necessarily (or probably) exist. One could make the argument that that is more uncharitable than either the post or many of the comments.
At the same time, I thank you and Katrina for at least raising the issue. You make many valid points, and it is often useful to step back and consider more carefully how our actions might be perceived by others.
God bless.
Esau,
That’s a pretty funny last post you had. You’re being sarcastic, right? 🙂 But let’s say that people stopped coming to Akin as a source of authentic teachings about the Church. This would be a good thing, in my opinion, because a lot of what he says and argues goes against what the Church teaches. I know you and others probably disagree, but that’s just how I see it, and how a lot of others see it. For example, I only have to make a few second search to find something un-Christian:
“The fact that the Iraqis are simply proposing to hang (Saddam) means that they are showing him considerable mercy”
If Akin is convincing men and women that hanging someone is a work of mercy, then he is causing a lot of damage. The funny/horrifying thing is that I’ve had people use very rational sounding arguments to show why torturing and killing a person is an act of mercy. It’s mind blowing. But when you’ve got people as smart as Akin justifying things as an apologist, a lot of people are going to follow his lead.
I don’t feel it’s my job to counter all the misinformation that comes through this blog, but there are those like Michael and Katerina who are going to point out the hard truths that cut into our fun and games. Someone said, I forget who, that evil can be so banal. That so many horrific things are done by so many good natured people in such a jolly way – it makes one cringe.
The fact is that the person behind that picture is not recognizable. Some have referred to this person as a man, others as a woman. It’s an elderly person mostly hidden behind a humongous machine. There are probably a lot of peasants in that part of the world who would look identical if perched behind that device. There is no reason for me to think that anything malicious was meant towards a particular person. Any tiny person would look funny behind the device. I’m not a huge fan of silly photo captions but I can’t agree that anything bad has occurred here.
“…a lot of what (Jimmy) says and argues goes against what the Church teaches.”
Care to enlighten us with a few *specific* examples?
Nate Wildermuth:
Your thoughtful comments, among those which are:
…though I can see how people wouldn’t realize that this was a real picture of a real human being if they hadn’t clicked on the ‘source’ link.
and
We live in luxury while much of the rest of the world lives without basic necessities.
are very much appreciated.
It’s a personal frustration of mine that though I am able to live my life in such a wonderful country as America where I am afforded many great opportunities for prosperity (thank God and, indeed, my Lord & Saviour, Jesus Christ!); yet, I cannot help but feel a daily frustration on my part that I cannot help all those who are part of my extended family who actually live in the third world, suffer tremendous adversities as poor shelter and lack of food, and actually die in poverty.
It’s easier for folks such as Michael or Katrina to simply look at pictures of poor people and feel such sympathy. However, it’s an entirely different matter altogether when the people in the picture is actually your relatives.
About Jimmy, as I’ve mentioned in the past, there is much that I disagree with him; yet, you cannot deny that amongst the Catholic apologists we have out there, in spite of his shortcomings, Jimmy defends the Church and brings those outside the Church (even Catholics) to a greater understanding of what the Catholic Church is all about.
Now, admittedly, he may not be perfect. But, you cannot deny that what he does, in spite of his personal failings, serves our Lord and the Church he founded.
Further, I still would have to see for certain if whether or not Jimmy indeed carried any actual malicious intention in this post of his.
You cannot condemn people with a mere accusation — you’ve got to make certain you have all the facts first.
God bless and thank you for your understanding — especially of the poor in the world.
Dang, there’s a Jimmy Akin personality cult and nobody ever invited me! I’m crushed. Is it because I don’t own a cowboy hat? Racists!
Is it just coincidence that I read that post by American Papist which alsocontains a comment by MichaelbeforeThisOne?
‘Jimmy Akin Personality Cult’? Why am I not a member? Am I not too Texan enough (Then again, I’m not actually Texan)? Do I have to wear sombreros? Do I have to dance Square Dancing? I demand membership NOW! I will gladly die for Mr. Jimmy our Lord,and Messiah!
…Just joking. Though I DO demand membership. Don’t lock the doors and change passwords yet!
P.S. Is there also a ‘Karl Keating Personality Cult’ and/or ‘American Papist Personality Cult’ around here?
Is it just coincidence that I read that post by American Papist which alsocontains a comment by MichaelbeforeThisOne?
‘Jimmy Akin Personality Cult’? Why am I not a member? Am I not too Texan enough (Then again, I’m not actually Texan)? Do I have to wear sombreros? Do I have to dance Square Dancing? I demand membership NOW! I will gladly die for Mr. Jimmy our Lord,and Messiah!
…Just joking. Though I DO demand membership. Don’t lock the doors and change passwords yet!
P.S. Is there also a ‘Karl Keating Personality Cult’ and/or ‘American Papist Personality Cult’ around here?
My my my. I thought I spent too much time on this board. Getting all up in a tizzy over silly photo caption post.
How sad that you would waste so much energy in attacking someone over this.
It is interesting to see how people defend this by saying the caption is to be about a common and useful instrument which is used to help heal people’s eyesight. This is what is supposed to be mocked, not the person.
Fine that would be better if that were the case. Why were the captions aimed at the person, however? In reality it was the person who was mocked and made less than human. In reality, it was the person who was shown less than Christianity charity. In reality it is Jesus you just mocked.
In reality, you’ve gotten your undies in a bundle over some silly, nonconsequential post.
See, here’s what I don’t get: this is a standard device used for checking people’s eyes. EVERYONE looks silly behind that blasted thing.
Seriously, don’t you guys think you’re being a bit over-scrupulous?
If everyone looks silly and it is all about the machine, then why are their all kinds of mockery of the person behind the machine, with comments which have nothing to do with the machine itself?
As Jesus said, what you do to the least of these… you do to me!
Consider what you say is actually a statement about Jesus. I can imagine all those who mocked him at the cross could and did argue the validity of their jokes, saying everyone with a crown of thorns looks funny, so why are you all so scrupulous?
You’re comparing a piece of medical aparatus (which I need to get behind myself every two years or so) to the CROWN OF THORNS?
If that weren’t border-line blasphemy, I’d laugh.
Jesus is the one who said — what you do to the least of these, you do with me.
I am comparing the two because it is a representation of how many humans show their base nature at laughing at the misfortune of others. The crown of thorns was the culmination of this, and Jesus becomes everyman in the persecution he suffered with that crown.
It is showing that your mockery of some poor person, trying to turn them into an object of ridicule instead of a person to be respected, is in reality something which Jesus has already suffered for, and is something Jesus said his sufferings united him with others who suffered such persecutions in solidarity with their persecution.
Remember well the story of Lazarus next…
Esau, thank you for your 10:09 post. You said what I was thinking, but didn’t feel to be in the position to say.
Michael, Katerina and now Henry with comparing a piece of optometry equipment with a crown of thorns (oh, puhl-leeease) – their comments indicate …
well, I’m not going to say this as eloquently as Esau. I know a few things about people who have known deep privation and/or pain and suffering. Their comments are very different than those who know ABOUT suffering but have not yet the depth of the experience.
Ask any parent. They’ll tell you that they thought they knew what love was – until they held that newborn for the first time.
Not said well, but I have to scoot out the door.
Come on, while the caption may be a bit in bad taste, lighten up people! You seem to be too serious over Jimmy and us here. While Jimmy might be wrong by starting this photo caption, you take them too seriously as if we actually mean to malign or bad mouth the person in the picture.
On a side note, Is it just coincidence that I firstwent to American Papist and saw that photo caption thread with Mr. Michael’s comment first before going here?
I’m very sorry at my above post. I’m only a worthless scum who lives in a matchbox sized home. I got broken teeth, dull eyes and never took a bath for a year. I ate garbage for breakfast and work as a beggar. I’m just a normal person and I guess I’m never allowed to have sense of humor. I’m really sorry for typing all this.
Your Honor, the Jury finds for the defendant. The prececution failed to prove their case.
I live with such poor folk here in Santo Domingo Dominican Republic. My mother-in-law is one of them..as are all of her friends. They have INCREDIBLE senses of humor!! Why? because they aren’t weighed down by excessive spiritual baggage. They don’t have huge ‘chips on their shoulders’,. caused from sin, idleness and more often than not, wealth. They are simple, but enjoy life tremendously!
I would bet that this poor woman would get a real kick at viewing this photo…and I bet she already has. I’m sure all of her family and friends were bowled over when they were presented their complimentary copy!
So, it’s probably a good thing for the very intellectual, very rich and very sophisticated, to spend some of their hard earned money and go and hang out in a poor Latin American barrio for a while. And moreover… play with some of the friendly, smiling and light hearted kids that can be abundantly found therein! And maybe they will find, that, even in the midst of the most extreme poverty, there’s something to smile and laugh about! Having so little money, this spiritual joy is what makes such lives sufficiently tolerable. Maybe its the fruit of true simplicity and humility of heart?. Then again: “Blessed are the poor!”.
From The Screwtape Letters, Letter XI:
“The real use of Jokes or Humour is in quite a different direction, and that is specially promising among the English, who take their ‘sense of humour’ so seriously that a deficiency in this sense is almost the only deficiency at which they feel shame. Humour is for them the all-consoling and (mark this) the all-excusing, grace of life. Hence it is invaluable as a means of destroying shame. If a man simply lets others pay for him, he is ‘mean’; if he boasts of it in a jocular manner and twits his fellows with having been scored off, he is no longer ‘mean’ but a comical fellow. Mere cowardnice is shameful; cowardnice boasted of with humorous exaggerations and grotesque gestures can be passed off as funny. Cruelty is shameful — unless the cruel man can represent it as a practical joke. A thousand bawdy, or even blasphemous, jokes do not help towards a man’s damnation so much as his dicovery that almost anything he wants to do can be done, not only without the disapproval but with the admiration of his fellows, if it only can get itself treated as a Joke. And this temptation can be almost entirely hidden from your patient by that English seriousness about Humour. Any suggestion that there might be too much of it can be represented to him as ‘Puritanical’ or as betraying a ‘lack of humour.'”
Sorry for the tangential rant, but A. Williams’ comment calls to mind De Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. DT observed that while a majority of Americans lived in far better conditions than a majority of Europeans (and this was during the 1830’s before America really took off economically), European peasants were cheerier. Perhaps becuase they knew they had poorer prospects of advancing they were thus more content, and simply happy with what they had. Americans, on the other hand, because we know we can improve our lot if we try, are always looking for more, more, more, and we’re not happy until we have more, more, more. I believe the chapter title was something like “Americans are restless in the midst of their prosperity.”
I guess this is not really a startling observation. Dickens noted it in a Christmas carol when he contrasted the miserly Scrooge and the cheery Cratchets. I don’t think money in and of itself causes such boorishness, nor are the poor always so cheerful and content. But there is something to be said for living life for it’s own sake and being able to prioritize what truly matters in life – God, family, personal relations.
Nice try, Henry, but your just wrong.
Chesterton, on laughing at foreigners and others;
“Travel ought to combine amusement with instruction; but most travelers are so much amused that they refuse to be instructed. I do not blame them for being amused; it is perfectly natural to be amused at a Dutchman for being Dutch or a Chinaman for being Chinese. Where they are wrong is that they take their own amusement seriously…
Hence in international relations there is far too little laughing, and far too much sneering. But I believe that there is a better way which largely consists of laughter; a form of friendship between nations which is actually founded on differences…
…The first principle is that nobody should be ashamed of thinking a thing funny because it is foreign; the second is that he should be ashamed of thinking it wrong because it is funny. The reaction of his senses and superficial habits of mind against something new, and to him abnormal, is a perfectly healthy reaction.”
Sorry. That last was me.
This was not laughing at the oddities of someone who is foreign, this was mocking someone at the core of their humanity and then saying “but it’s just a joke.”
There is a place for humor, but humor must contain respect for human dignity. More importantly, people are arguing, “She would find it funny, so it is good.” If you can find her making such a statement, that would be better, but I am not even sure if that is fully the moral response. It certainly is different if you are purposefully making yourself fit for ridicule, but I do not see anything which suggests this in the photograph nor its source. However, if you think it is ok to mock everyone because humanity and its dignity should be mocked then even if you allow yourself to be put up for such derision, you are wrong.
The comments offered were not out of respect for her, but contained enough barbs to show there was no understand that this who they look is Jesus as Jesus said — what you do to the least of these, you do to me.
So, I am sure, the soldiers who mocked Christ thought it’s ok, it’s after all a joke. Seems people here agree with the soldiers when his woman is mocked, because in her is that one humanity which unites us with Christ, making it clear that Christ is mocked in this woman.
Tim, you can only have a discussion when the other person is willing to engage in a discussion.
Henry has deemed mean, callous and hypocrite anyone who found humor in the discrepancy in that photo. He’s determined to prove everyone else wrong, which in itself voids any productive exchange.
That he doesn’t see that he’s playing peacock with his sense of moral superiority is his problem. Everyone else sees it.
MARY KAY:
Thanks for your kind comments.
This is what I know from experience.
As I’ve mentioned, I have several relatives who are actually poor and live in the 3rd world and, worse, had actually died due to extreme poverty.
Now, I know of some pretentious, unscrupulous and calculating folks (and, yes, I am judging in this case as those who have done so here with their arrogant self-righteousness) who with such false sentiments actually use the poor, such as my relatives, as mere chess pieces in order to give a show that they are “for the poor” though all the while, they personally would not have anything to do with them if they were to encounter them personally in their lives, but, rather, be disgusted by their putrid odor and undignified presence!
This can certainly be the case for those who doth protest so much here without even the charity to give fair consideration but instead would condemn folks like totalitarian tyrants.
Imagine — these folks would actually enjoy a world where all it takes is to accuse someone and they’re presumed guilty!
AGAIN:
– Did they even bother to consider that the last photo put up by Jimmy for photo caption were folks in stormtrooper costume??? Thus, did they even consider that the combox commenters here did not actually know of the original caption for the photo and perhaps thought that the person in this photo was actually wearing a costume himself???
– Did they even bother to consider that most of us never actually seen the actual caption for this photo but only saw what seemed like a funny photo, as Jared and others have clearly remarked and demonstrated???
At any rate, God Bless You, Mary Kay, and thanks again.
Esau:
I think Mary Kay was reffring to Henry.
Esau,
You are most correct in noting that the failure to ascribe the best possible motives (or, in some cases, ascribing the worst possible motive) to another is rooted in a lack of charity.
Objectively speaking, the refusal to acknowledge that much while simultaneously proclaiming to have Christ’s vision is ironic at best, if not a source of scandal.
Henry,
Thanks for the Screwtape post. I always find them funny. You do recognize that the point was not to condemn all humor, but the improper use of humor to cover up something that is otherwise improper. St. Francis de Sales makes a similar point when he notes that calumny disguised with humor and frivolity is particularly poisonous, and much worse than calumny without the “honey” that draws one in.
From your apparent condemnation of all posters who find any humor in the picture, it would appear that you assume that each such person has some malevolent intent. That, it would seem to me, is a most uncharitable (read unChristlike) assumption to make.
A. Williams:
My mother-in-law is one of them..as are all of her friends. They have INCREDIBLE senses of humor!! Why? because they aren’t weighed down by excessive spiritual baggage. They don’t have huge ‘chips on their shoulders’,. caused from sin, idleness and more often than not, wealth. They are simple, but enjoy life tremendously!
I think you’ve captured it on spot!
My elderly who lived the last moments of her life, being called “E.T.”, although I was often offended by those remarks, she would often say, from what I can translate, that with the way she currently looks, she did, in fact, according to her, look like a sort of “E.T.”.
I could never figure out why she acted so lovingly as she did but could only see that because of the simple life she lived in that part of the world with many others of my kin, in such an incredibly impoverished state, for them to actually waste the precious moments of life with something as trivial as this would seem so ridiculous to such folks who treasured every morsel of living that God had so graciously, in their mind, granted them!
Now, I also remember there was another fellow who came to visit her and how this guy, though presumably so ‘stately’ a person, had seen other folks poking fun at her, calling her “E.T.”, and actually scolded them, declaring just how wrong their actions were.
Yet, when at point blank, my elderly had asked him, “Why? Don’t you think I look like E.T. as well?”. His very first knee-jerk action was a sudden outburst of laughter; though, this was the very same person who had previously openly stated just how incredibly wrong it was for folks to think of such thoughts of a person suffering so aweful a plight!
Esau:
I think Mary Kay was reffring to Henry.
Paul Zummo:
I was thanking Mary Kay for her kind comments to me in her Post | Jan 5, 2007 5:11:17 AM where she said: “Esau, thank you for your 10:09 post. You said what I was thinking, but didn’t feel to be in the position to say.”
It is showing that your mockery of some poor person, trying to turn them into an object of ridicule instead of a person to be respected, is in reality something which Jesus has already suffered for, and is something Jesus said his sufferings united him with others who suffered such persecutions in solidarity with their persecution.
Persecution??? Are you serious? Do you even know what real persecution is like?
Some have stated that Jimmy’s initial “it’s murder on my skin” comment was mean-spirited. Those people have obviously never had the misfortune of being tested by this piece of equipment. THEY ARE HARD ON YOUR SKIN IF YOU SIT BEHIND THEM. Even if this comment could be taken as being in poor taste, do you really, actually, truly believe it rises to the level of persecution?
Which brings me to my question to those casting stones against those who think the photo is somewhat humorous: have any of you even had your eyes tested in this manner? If so, didn’t you think you might look a little silly behind it?
One last thing … C.S. Lewis also wrote that, “It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
To the one who uses the name of a character played by Sir Derek Jacobi,
As you will note, I have given humor is place and its due. I have, however, pointed out that humor must be placed within the proper context which includes human dignity. To poke fun and mock people just because of how they look is indeed to go beyond respect for the person and to turn them into an object, not a rightful and respectful human subject. Sadly that object is also an object of scorn, which makes the objectification even worse.
I also note that the responses given to me have shown Screwtape was more than a little correct in his analysis of those who defend such shameful actions.
“Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.” —Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2478
Esau:
My bad. It’s been a long day, so I missed that.
Paul Zummo:
No prob!
Given the various unjustified attacks, malicious character assasinations, intentional mischaracterizations and demonizing, the unscrupulous use of the poor as mere chess pieces for one’s hidden agenda and ulterior, not to mention, extremely unChristian motives, all these many injustices prevalent therein, it’s not at all surprising to find it all a bit so tiresome.
God bless.
Henry,
To poke fun and mock people just because of how they look is indeed to go beyond respect for the person…
That’s just the point. You are assuming that that –mocking people because of how they look — is what people here are doing, despite almost overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Is this still going on?
*sigh*
It is the juxtaposition of the simple, dignified peasant costume and the bizarre contraption that makes the photo humorous, but the bizarre contraption would be a stark contrast to any human being sitting behind it.
The assertion that those we might consider poor people – peasants – can not be counted on to take a joke is the ultimate in CONDESCENSION.
We all look funny behind those silly things, Henry, and if you can’t see that, you need more than your eyes examined.
From my perspective, I thought the photo was cute because I immediately thought how the overall effect looked like a SF version of the Aztec headdress. The way that the person (man? woman?) has the sarape wrapped also does look like a Buddhist monk’s wrap or a Jedi robe.
I did not read all of the rest of the commentary, but I do not understand the need to publicly chastize bloggers. I find it works better to e-mail them privately. Otherwise the overall effect is to put them in a defensive position – not very receptive to constructive criticism. And, if the bloggers DO take your message to heart, it appears that you wanted a public “score”. I am not implying that anyone was getting a thrill from publicly criticizing Mr. Akin on his own blog – okay, so maybe I am, but it’s subconscious, I tell you! 😉
MissJean
So you say people who make a public ridicule of others, dehumanizing them and calling them all kinds of monstrous names, should not be given open criticism for what wrong they did?
Really?
Sure, if it were in a situation where someone was VERBALLY assaulting a person in the heat of the moment. At that point, there is no time for a thoughtful measured response.
But if I saw something printed in a paper, for example, or on a blog, I would certainly be apt to approach the publisher, editor, and writer in a charitable fashion, along the lines of, “Maybe you thought you were being funny and didn’t mean to be cruel, but…”
I wouldn’t print up my own flyers and show up in front of the newspaper stand, telling everyone who cared (or didn’t) that the publisher, editor, writer, and most (if not all) of the readers were cruel unChristian people and this was just their latest deplorable sin writ large.
Brother Cadfael wrote:
You are assuming that that –mocking people because of how they look — is what people here are doing, despite almost overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Here’s overwhelming evidence to the contrary of Cadfael’s assertion:
Jimmy Akin referring to the woman’s dark, wrinkled skin: “BUT IT’S MURDER ON MY SKIN”
Esau referring to the woman’s dark, wrinkled skin: “Doesn’t the guy underneath look like the lizard alien from The Last Starfighter????”
Kris referring to the woman’s dark, wrinkled skin: “In his advanced age, Master Yoda has to resort to drastic measures…”
All three of these early captions pointed behind the opthomologic device and directly to the woman’s personal appearance. These comments used the woman’s appearance along with the device to construct their comments. No amount of defense can acquit the injustice here committed. End of story.
MJ:
AGAIN:
– Have you even bothered to consider that the last photo put up by Jimmy for photo caption were folks in stormtrooper costume??? Thus, did you even consider that the combox commenters here did not actually know of the original caption for the photo and perhaps thought that the person in this photo was actually wearing a costume himself???
– Have you even bothered to consider that most of us who hadn’t actually seen the actual caption for this photo but only saw what seemed like a funny photo, as Jared and others have clearly remarked and demonstrated???
Go on with your incessant unjustified attacks, malicious character assasinations, intentional mischaracterizations and demonizing, and, even far worse, the unscrupulous use of the poor as mere chess pieces for your hidden agendas and ulterior, not to mention, extremely unChristian motives, IGNORING all the many injustices prevalent therein. God will judge the hearts of men and surely will see into your own evil intentions and agenda!
“No amount of defense can acquit the injustice here committed.”
This is getting very humorous in itself!
That last comment reminds me of the Tragedian Actor in C.S. Lewis’s “The Great Divorce”, milking every scene for every last drop of melodrama.
But you folks obviously WANT to see it this way, so, whatever.
God loves the Poor, indeed, and will NOT have them utilized as CHESS PIECES by THOSE with such FALSE SENTIMENTS, CALCULATING MINDS, and the DARKEST OF HEARTS, who but hypocritically show an outwardly FALSE NOTION of care for the Poor when, in fact, in the very recesses of the hearts of these people, an even darker agenda lay, and the PRETENSE of such care for the Poor is but a move entirely predicated on the wiles of the most wicked of manipulators! WHERE is the RESPECT for the person of the Poor here, when all they are to you are PAWNS to be used for your own wretched means just to bring down THOSE WHOM YOU HATE, ENVY, AND DEMONIZE?!?!?!?
Esau,
I hope to find a picture of you and give it to someone else so they can post it on their website without your consent so the entire world wide web can join in our amusement caused by your appearance.
Please stop the bold lettering. Your points, if one can call them that, are already bad enough to have to read them in bold.
MJ,
You’re post must have gotten cut off before you got to the overwhelming evidence. Can you try again?
As for the first three, they do in fact comment on the woman’s appearance. The last time I checked, commenting on a person’s appearance was not, by itself, an “injustice.”
You will notice above that I agreed with John that these comments could be taken the wrong way, although there is no suggestion that the posters intended there comments to be taken that way. A little insensitive? Perhaps. A big deal? Nope.
So please let me know when you find the rest of the overwhelming evidence.
MJ, I find it odd that nowhere on the joke captions does anyone refer to the color of the woman’s skin. I myself never considered her skin dark. How very curious that you appear to be projecting racism onto others. End of story indeed.
Please stop the bold lettering. Your points, if one can call them that, are already bad enough to have to read them in bold.
Edward:
Clearly, you’ve not read ALL of my posts here. Of course, it’s what I’d expect from a racist!
MissJean, I do not think any racism was implied. The two primary qualities of the woman’s skin are darkness and wrinkles, both probably due to laboring outdoors in the sun. While the comments posted do not comment on the darkness of the skin, I do not think they would have been made had not the darkness of the skin accentuated the wrinkles.
Cadfael, those comments were not merely commenting on her skin (i.e. describing its quality). We have to ben honest here- Those comments used the appearance of her skin to liken the woman to lizardmen and Yoda. You definitely don’t have a case. And I think you would agree that any degree of insensitivity on the part of a Christian warrants a humble, heartfelt apology. Otherwise, charity and faith have not prevailed.
I missed it. And how of all the people here I am the racist one?
Jimmy, I’ve always enjoyed your photo captions posts. I’ve never been tempted to comment until now, but son, this was rather immature and uncalled for.
You definitely don’t have a case. And I think you would agree that any degree of insensitivity on the part of a Christian warrants a humble, heartfelt apology. Otherwise, charity and faith have not prevailed.
Hewson:
There was no charity to begin with when the accuser(s) immediately condemned the folks here with malicious intentions; that our actual purpose was to poke fun at a poor person.
As far as Jimmy’s comment is concerned, I would encourage you to read Jared’s post in reference to the remark Jimmy made about the object in question being murder on the skin.
As far as mine and Kris, for one thing, we did not even know it was a photo of a poor person (at least, I didn’t; but I could say the same for Kris given the reference in his comment and the usually altruistic nature of his past posts in various threads of this blog). In fact, as I’ve mentioned, the previous photo that Jimmy put up were people in storm trooper costume. The person in this photo appeared as if he was in a costume as well (at least, to me anyway; but, again, judging from the tenor in Kris’ comment, it appears likewise) and this is clearly attested to by Nate’s remark above: …though I can see how people wouldn’t realize that this was a real picture of a real human being if they hadn’t clicked on the ‘source’ link.
So, how can anybody here be accused of the malicious intention of deliberately making fun of a poor person because of their plight when there are those of us here who did not even know this was a poor person to begin with (and not a person in costume not unlike the folks in the previous photo caption who were in stormtrooper outfits) and, further, how can you claim Jimmy of the same when all you’ve done so far is to jump to the conclusion that this was the case? When did America start being a totalitarian state where all it takes to convict a person is merely to accuse them and they become instantly condemned to punishment???
Italy Off
I missed it. And how of all the people here I am the racist one?
EDWARD:
Well, you MUST be since I’ve ACCUSED you of being such, since of all the people posting here, I am the one who has relatives living in a third world country, the sum of which actually live and die in extreme poverty! I have their pictures. I can email them to you. Care to spew your HATRED on them as well???
“That last comment reminds me of the Tragedian Actor in C.S. Lewis’s “The Great Divorce”, milking every scene for tha last drop of melodrama.”
You nailed it, Tim. As Les Nessman cried, as the turkeys fell and hit the ground after being dropped from a small plane: “Oh, the humanity!”
“As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly”.
I think ‘Esau’ is doing one of those complicated real-time blog posting illustration thinggies by making overblown and obviously specious and self-contradicting ‘armwaving’ hystrionic rhetorical wordrants. In a sense it is a good lesson. But, IMHO, it mostly drags the level of charity down way to far.
oh… and the lesson we can learn from Esau and others? [“ya see what I’m doing here??? (waving literary-arms and flailing about with wild statements)Ya see it?? ok then. The lesson is obvious: Don’t Do What I’m Doing!!!
😀
(and cool! i figured out Bold!)
Wayne, no, hystrionic wordrants not the case with Esau. Nor is he the one who started the lack of charity in this discussion.
Esau is attempting to convey something that others could benefit hearing, but have closed their ears to. The repeated emphasis is apparently not working, but very understandable. I think all of us have had the experience of saying something more emphatically when not heard the first, third or fifth time.
The holier-than-thou contingent who are determined to make Jimmy and others wrong, have done so by trumpeting their self-described compassion for the poor.
You can imagine Esau’s frustration with that because they are telling him that they are more compassionate than he is to his own relatives.
The holier-than-thou contingent remind me of prosecuting trial lawyers in their determination to make others wrong.
Mary Kay:
Thanks, again, for your continued kindness, as always.
To put it more frankly, it’s like telling the son of an impoverished family that he has no notion of the poor and harbors malicious intentions toward them when, in fact, it’s not the case at all. But, then again, it’s so easy for folks who live the comfortable lifestyle, who’ve never experienced such circumstances first-hand to pontificate. In the end, it doesn’t really matter. As always, it is God who sees through men’s hearts. God bless.
Esau is speaking from experience. He voiced my thoughts, also gained from experience.
The self-righteous, single-minded way the holier-than-thou contingent are going for the jugular indicates that they are coming from a place of hard judgment and not from experience with the depth of suffering that they are claiming the higher moral road about. But you can’t be genuinely compassionate towards the poor then turn around and act like executioners to those who interpret a photo differently.
Esau, we cross posted. As usual, you said it in much plainer words than I did:
“it’s so easy for folks who live the comfortable lifestyle, who’ve never experienced such circumstances first-hand to pontificate”
You’re also right that it is God who reads hearts.
Mary Kay and Esau;
Thank you both for your clarifying responses. I used ‘histrionic wordrant’ not to judge/condemn Esau’s posts, but to judge/describe his technique. This whole debacle started when someone made an accusation and substantiated it by intensifying it and making it personal and emotional. Esau brilliantly demonstrated that by “Well, you MUST be since I’ve ACCUSED you of being such ” …which, effectively, is how this long thread started.
The interesting part is that this whole debate(and picture?) now should not be deleted because it illustrates how actions with innocent intentions can grow into a thicket of hurt, accusations, and even sin. To remove this woman’s picture would dehumanize her and actually be an pharisaical attempt to shove her away into ignored anonymitty. I am delighted she is receiving help. I would not have known of it save for this happy accident of seeing her on this blog. I thank God for her, her family, and those helping her.
Let’s blow the lid off the post count! Realist, sedevacantists, where are you when we need you?
My sincerest thanks to the both of you, Mary Kay (thanks for always being so kind to me!) & Wayne.
To the Rest:
I really do apologize with what seemed like my incessant posting here on this particular thread (granted, not that it’s not happened once before), but this, unfortunately, hit TOO close to home for me. I hope you can all understand. God bless all of you, of course, and PEACE in Our Lord & Saviour!
That mummy, indeed, was very observant.
“Let’s blow the lid off the post count”
Good luck. I think the post titled “The Situation in the Middle East” went over 500.
Actually, the title of the post was “What Is Happening In The Middle East”.
Guys, this is too much. If we could harness the drama, teenage-ish angst, vitriol, and self-deceiving hyperbole, we could power up all the microdermabrasion peel machines in Southern California.
Seriously, this makes no sense to me. I could be wrong but there seems to be something else afoot in this. Could it be that someone has a beef with Jimmy Akin and is simply looking for a “gotcha?” If not, why else were Akin’s statements on torture brought into this very early on. The two have NOTHING to do with each other.
whew, just got through reading all those posts and wondered one big thing….
Mike and Katrina have you ever lived for extended periods of time with the poor in third world countries…? Having done so, and been awfully poor in my life through my ‘communal’ raising with no toilets and electricity and at times with mice running over me in my sleep, I can say that because of those huge optometric devices in front of the womans face most anyone would find it funny. Now, of course, we don’t all have the same sense of humor. I am certainly not a member of the Jimmy Akin personality cult, but c’mon….
I am certainly not a member of the Jimmy Akin personality cult
[said in my best Yoda voice]–>Oh, you will be. You will be.
Hmmm. Rush sells “Members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” stuff. Maybe Jimmy can start selling “Proud Member of the Jimmy Akin Personality Cult” mugs and tee-shirts. And of course the picture from the following post would naturally fit underneath the inscription. It’s a goldmine, I tells ya.
“If we could harness the drama, teenage-ish angst, vitriol, and self-deceiving hyperbole, we could power up all the microdermabrasion peel machines in Southern California.”
On behalf of those suffering from sikn conditions, I condemn you!!!
BTW, where can I get a T-shirt with that on it?
I could totally hook you up with that t-shirt.
[going to work on that now]
Jared, your 4:58 post said that something else seemed afoot because of the mention, almost at the beginning, of Jimmy’s comments on torture.
On the MandK blog, a Dec. 26 post makes several barbed comments about Jimmy’s post on the execution of Saddam Hussein, including a disparaging supposition of Jimmy’s intentions (to make Cardinal Martino look foolish).
Who knows the cause of their hostility to Jimmy or when it first started. But I’d guess that’s what the torture comments referred to.
I tried to do this by email because so as to not re-kindle this, but fried brain got in the way.
http://jaredweber.com/Jimmy_Akin_shirt.jpg
Okay, I could put this on my cafepress.com site (www.cafepress.com/hyperkinetic) but it’s not my image (Jimmy Akin, SDG, and some photographers own its component parts) and it ain’t about me, so you’ll have to just settle for a virtual T-shirt. Look deeply into his eyes and you’ll feel as though you had it on … right … now.
Mary Kay: Yes, I saw the offending post. It’s … odd …. That’s really all I have to say on that for now.
ermmmmmmm . . . . “much ado about nothing”?
Hewson,
Cadfael, those comments were not merely commenting on her skin (i.e. describing its quality). We have to ben honest here- Those comments used the appearance of her skin to liken the woman to lizardmen and Yoda. You definitely don’t have a case. And I think you would agree that any degree of insensitivity on the part of a Christian warrants a humble, heartfelt apology. Otherwise, charity and faith have not prevailed.
While we’re being honest here, let’s acknowledge that you’re talking about two posts out of how many (?) that were potentially and unintentionally insensitve. Not unjust. Not mean-spirited. Two posts capable of being taken the wrong way.
And for that, everyone that finds the picture funny, however innocently, is characterized as unChristlike. Let me put it this way, read the 5th chapter of Matthew’s gospel, and tell me which is the greater sin: an insensitive comment, or the unjust destroying of a person’s reputation? (Hint: one of them sends you to Gehenna.)
You might be surprised.
I’ve lived in a Third-World country (Philippines)for the first thirteen years of my life (which is like 99.7% of my whole life). Does that qualify me to make a caption?
…I guess not.
I’ve lived in a Third-World country (Philippines)for the first thirteen years of my life (which is like 99.7% of my whole life). Does that qualify me to make a caption?
…I guess not.
I think we should just contact the woman and say people are arguing in the internet because of Jimmy (and everyone here) putting a caption on her picture. If she gets offended, okay. We’re wrong, and we would gladly offer ourselves up to be punished, for we are wrong, and it would serve us right to be punished for following Jimmy’s lead. For we were misled by Jimmy while in reality he is such a vile person.
I’m a pretty odd looking guy. I can send you a picture if you’ld like. I don’t care what caption you use.
I’ve lived in a Third-World country (Philippines)for the first thirteen years of my life (which is like 99.7% of my whole life). Does that qualify me to make a caption?
…I guess not.
Patrick:
Explain to me precisely who here exactly have argued they would have the right to caption on the photo in such a demeaning way if only they lived in a 3rd world country, of all things???
The fact of the matter is that people (with questionable intentions), without regard for innocence, have flat out accused Jimmy and others here that they were maliciously and purposely making fun of the person in the photo because she was poor and tried to poke fun at her deseparate situation, all the while, neglecting the very same charity that they were so wont to speak of in their posts!
Now, tell me who exactly is the worse here:
1) People who (a) were trying to make light of the predicament this person was in because of the Optometry DEVICE which many here have already alluded to could make ANYBODY BEHIND IT LOOK SILLY (b) those who WITHOUT ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE that this was a poor person in dire circumstances not having read the original caption for the photo in question as well as the fact that there may have been certain assumptions made about the photo itself as well as the person in the photo due to the previous photo caption where people were in stormtrooper costume; that this person may have actually been in a costume himself and, thus, was A PHOTO THAT SERVED FOR HUMOUR WITH SOMEONE IN COSTUME NOT UNLIKE THE PREVIOUS ONE THAT CAME BEFORE (as a commenter kindly pointed out: …though I can see how people wouldn’t realize that this was a real picture of a real human being if they hadn’t clicked on the ‘source’ link)
– OR –
2) People who ACTUALLY KNEW that this was a poor person in a particularly difficult situation but decided to EXPLOIT the poor person here in their own way AS PART OF A RUSE to advance what really was an UNCHRISTIAN PURPOSE to begin with which was to ATTACK Jimmy Akin, and anyone associated with him, regardless of anybody’s innocence in the matter due to some past grudge they have against Jimmy Akin himself
From what I’ve read in posts from the people making such accusations here and their posts on other blogs — not to mention, the ORIGINAL BLOG POST the original accusers had on their website, it seems more likely that the latter may have actually been the case with these folks.
Like JARED mentioned:
Seriously, this makes no sense to me. I could be wrong but there seems to be something else afoot in this. Could it be that someone has a beef with Jimmy Akin and is simply looking for a “gotcha?”
– AND –
On the MandK blog, a Dec. 26 post makes several barbed comments about Jimmy’s post on the execution of Saddam Hussein, including a disparaging supposition of Jimmy’s intentions (to make Cardinal Martino look foolish).
This is one of the points that I’d been attempting to drive at THAT WHAT SEEMS LIKE people trying to make it look like their purpose here was to defend the Poor was really a SINISTER ATTEMPT TO DESTROY A PERSON (i.e., Jimmy Akin) regardless of their innocence DUE TO SOMETHING THEY HAVE AGAINST THEM IN THE PAST.
Now, if you are to say to me that the malicious intention that I’ve ascribed to them is actually far from the truth, I would say that that’s exactly the very same point that I’ve been trying to make concerning the so-called malicious intention that they’ve ascribed to us folks here!
But, I would also say that if the latter was, in fact, true that I would also add:
As Catholics, we should aspire to that UNITY which we seek in the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church and NOT UNDERMINE that Unity (mind you, Christ’s prayer in John 17:22) and act like rabid dogs, attacking one another just to show off to folks how one is more virtuous than the next. Remember, ALL HAVE SINNED and that ONLY GOD CAN SEE INTO THE HEARTS OF MEN.
Just a quick note, when I said in the above “…if the latter was, in fact, true…”, I meant that if #2 was actually true regarding the accusers and what were really ulterior motives not at all Christian to begin with.
Easu, whoa, slow down friend and chill. I think Patrick was tweaking the original two who started this mess.
They’re not worth your getting aggravated about.
They don’t have a clue what they’ve done.
Nor do they have a clue what you’re talking about.
Again, they’re not worth it.
One person offended is one too many. I’m surprised Jimmy has not deleted this post.
“One person offended is one too many.”
Some people are offended by crosses or nativity scenes.
“I’m surprised Jimmy has not deleted this post.”
I’m not. I’m offended at their taking offense.
My wife did. She could not believe the arguments some lay Catholics had here. At first, she thought I was joking when I told her this was posted in a Catholic blog. Perhaps because she does not know any of the “clicks” in Catholic blogs.
Edward: It’s so extraordinarily easy to offend someone that your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
For example: A bunch of us (most of us?) who post here are Catholic. Do you know how many people are offended solely by virtue of the fact that we hold the faith that we do?
Let go even more basic than that. I happen to be the youngest of 10 children. I’ve offended people (and they’ve let me know it) BY MY VERY EXISTANCE. “How dare your parents continue to overpopulate Mother Gaia?”
Jason: Not just lay Catholics. I’ve no idea what you mean by “clicks” in Catholic blogdom. Did you wanna elaborate?
Jared, I was intially puzzled by Jason’s use of “clicks” but now realize that he probably meant cliques.
If that’s what he means, then it would indeed be helpful for him to explain what he is talking about.
Mary Kay: Ah. I see. Well, really, I don’t. Explanation would be helpful.
The original objectors to Jimmy Akin have removed the comment section on their blog which pertained to this post. I don’t think they should have done that.
I asked them to respond to Brother Cadfael’s argument, which Michael did, and then he promptly deleted it. In any case, I remember him doing one of those ad hominem attacks on Br. Cadfael, in which he stated that Br. Cadfael was schizophrenic.
Their personal attacks do nothing to support their argument.
They also seemed to have removed the link to Jimmy Akin’s blog from their blog, just as they did AmericanPapist.
I asked them to respond to Brother Cadfael’s argument, which Michael did, and then he promptly deleted it. In any case, I remember him doing one of those ad hominem attacks on Br. Cadfael, in which he stated that Br. Cadfael was schizophrenic.
Thanks, Anon, for the Info!
From what I remember, the original blog post had said far more dispicable things about Jimmy Akin (i.e., to the tune of: how can such a Top Catholic apologist like Akin actually purposely and maliciously demean a poor person like this and, far worse than that, ask others to do the same?) than the more politically-correct one presently advertised at their blog.
Anyone know of any caching websites that might have the original blog posting? Not necessarily to perpetuate these ill sentiments but to make the point of what’s actually behind all this?
Michael seems to be the one who has some issues with Jimmy. He mentioned recently on their blog that Jimmy didn’t respond to his e-mails. Michael also disagrees with Jimmy about building a wall on the border and executing Saddam.
Michael was also the one who first objected to the photo captions.
Michael seems to be the one who has some issues with Jimmy. He mentioned recently on their blog that Jimmy didn’t respond to his e-mails. Michael also disagrees with Jimmy about building a wall on the border and executing Saddam.
Michael was also the one who first objected to the photo captions.
David B.:
What’s interesting to note is that it was a concerted effort by him and folks associated with their website.
What’s sad is the fact that it seems they’ve exploited the whole situation and used this poor person in their own way to bring down somebody they have something against under the guise of Christian Goodness.
That’s even worse, as I’ve pointed out in my Jan 8, 2007 9:50:44 AM post.
What makes it even more tragic (as I’ve said in my Jan 4, 2007 8:59:02 PM post) is the fact that Jimmy’s reputation may have been stained to the extent where those he could have potentially helped and influenced, now and in the future, as far as those who may have looked to him for coming into the Church and the Catholic Faith, will no longer care about the Catholic Faith or have even lost interest about becoming Catholic in the first place all due to this scandal and, what’s worse, the calumny that such folks had conspired to devise under the guise of Christian virtue.
As expressed in my Jan 4, 2007 10:09:40 PM post, it’s actually the service to God and His Church brought about by Jimmy’s work that has suffered here and how, really, it is God’s work through Jimmy (regardless of what one thinks, you cannot deny the fact that there have been those saved and brought into the Catholic Church due to Jimmy’s efforts) that has been ultimately destroyed because of what really may be people’s hidden agendas and ulterior motives.
Anon, thank you indeed for that information.
Esau, you are correct that the people harmed by this are those who come to Jimmy’s blog for an answer to whatever quandry they find themselves in. But it’s also good to remember that God allows stuff like this to happen in order to bring about a greater good.
But it’s also good to remember that God allows stuff like this to happen in order to bring about a greater good.
Mary Kay:
You always bring out the sunshine in things!
God bless!
I read Evangelical Catholicism and this blog as well and I have not had any problem with either one. Jimmy Akin is very knowledgeable, but at the same time, he can benefit himself from others’ point of views. I don’t agree with Jimmy in regards to the death penalty and other issues and I didn’t find Michael Joseph’s post on the death penalty offensive at all. I think that is the beauty of blogs that we can get a wide range of opinions. If you truly think that Michael and Katrina are trying to bring Jimmy’s reputation down, then you should be better than that and not do the same thing with them.
I don’t agree with Jimmy in regards to the death penalty and other issues…
There you go.
More confirmation here that there is more to this than what meets the eye.
I didn’t find Michael Joseph’s post on the death penalty offensive at all.
It wasn’t their post on the death penalty that was offensive, but the ORIGINAL post they had on Jimmy as regards this photo caption.
…then you should be better than that and not do the same thing with them.
When a brother is being harmed in a particularly nasty and viscious way, you don’t just sit back and allow the injustice occur.
You defend that person. That is what’s being done here.
Mind you, you cannot cover the truth with a lie anymore than you can cover the Sun with your finger!
Michael seems to be the one who has some issues with Jimmy. He mentioned recently on their blog that Jimmy didn’t respond to his e-mails.
Where did Michael say this?
Jimmy, when Michael deleted all the comments on that thread, he posted an update saying that you had not responded to his emails.
OTOH, while I have no idea if or when he sent you email(s), some place on this site you have a caveat that between Catholic Answers and everything else, your time for answering emails is very limited. (not phrased that way)
Jimmy:
That was from David B.’s Jan 8, 2007 3:53:25 PM post. He might have precise details on this.
David’s entire post read:
Michael seems to be the one who has some issues with Jimmy. He mentioned recently on their blog that Jimmy didn’t respond to his e-mails. Michael also disagrees with Jimmy about building a wall on the border and executing Saddam.
Michael was also the one who first objected to the photo captions.
Jimmy,
If you click on Michael’s first combox post on this thread and scroll down to where it says “update” or “note”, you will find the comment I was referencing.
Sorry, I meant to say that if you click on the link from Michael’s first post, you will find the comment.
Steve, for as long as I’ve read this blog, Jimmy has showed a huge tolerance for tothers’ views. All you have to do is read the hobby horse posts. There have been occasions when I dd not agree with Jimmy, as have others, but they were discussed with the personal attacks.
For it’s not the difference views on content that is the problem. If you are referring to the Dec. 26 post by Michael on their blog, Michael attacks Jimmy’s character when he says that Jimmy “typically” and other words meaning habitually provides substandard responses.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense would realize that Jimmy would not have achieved his stature in Catholic apologetics if he “typically” and habitually gave substandard answers.
Michael went so far as to malign Jimmy’s character by saying, with nothing to substantiate it, that alleging that it was important to Jimmy to make a cardinal look foolish.
Note that EC initiated the personal attacks. Jimmy had graciously mentioned their blog at a conference and Michael posted a thank you. Quite a difference between that and saying that Jimmy “typically” falls down on the job. I have no idea when the hostility to Jimmy started.
That sort of competitive statements and/or attacks are commonly seen with political rivals prior to Election Day or in business rivals. It is unfortunate to see them by Catholic bloggers.
While you say that Jimmy could “benefit himself from others’ point of views,” I hope you sent that same comment to Michael and Katerina. Both of them have show that they could “benefit from others’ point of views.” Despite much discussion that people viewed the photo differently, Katerina’s response was a pique that Jimmy had not taken down the original photograph. That was in the comments that were deleted.
Your last statement to Esau about the possiblity all around of bringing down bloggers’ reputation – well, first no one is trying to take MandK down (although looking through the comments, I found others who also asked if they were jealous). It is not “bringing them down” to hold them accountable for their words and actions.
Your last statement probably reflects not having access to the deleted comments at EC and perhaps missing some of this thread. Besides the unjust accusations of deliberate scorn, this topic hit very close to home for Esau (and for myself) and speaking for myself, that’s why I’ll go to the mat over this.
For what it’s worth, I’d advise all who may potentially attack Mary Kay on her latest post above to first inspect all her comments here and on other threads on this as well as on other blogs.
If anybody has been charitable, it has been she!
She has been very, very patient and charitable out of all us here and elsewhere.
In fact, one former hostile opponent on this very blog was honest enough to admit that Mary Kay has, indeed, a very big heart.
Many of her posts would corroborate this fact.
To add to what she’s mentioned:
– Not all of us here who admire Jimmy Akin necessarily agree with all he says and that we would actually follow him to the Gates of Hell as had been insinuated by some folks
It is Jimmy’s service to God & His Church and the actual saving of souls that is the point here
– Much of the VILE COMMENTS originally made by the Accusers regarding Jimmy Akin HAVE BEEN VIRTUALLY WIPED CLEAN off their website (although, should this injustice continue, I would appreciate anyone’s assistance who may have actually cached the original webpage off their site that contained these to provide these for public inspection if possible)
As mentioned previously:
As Catholics, we should aspire to that UNITY which we seek in the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church and NOT UNDERMINE that Unity (mind you, Christ’s prayer in John 17:22) and act like rabid dogs, attacking one another just to show off to folks how one is more virtuous than the next. Remember, ALL HAVE SINNED and that ONLY GOD CAN SEE INTO THE HEARTS OF MEN.
Tim J.: Apologies for the bold — couldn’t help it in this case.
Mary Kay: God bless you always — you’re in my prayers
Ironically, K&M have shut down all criticism of their post at their own blog by disabling the comments feature for this post. I think it’s pretty clear who is better able to put up with disagreement and even hostile criticism.
Ironically, in explaining this move, K&M write:
Of course, when K&M not only inexplicably characterize Jimmy’s citation of the Catechism with the adjectives “typically,” “predictably” and “dogmatically” (all in one sentence!),* but also accuse him of “attempt[ing] to make Cardinal Martino look foolish” (whereas in fact Jimmy was very careful to criticize Martino’s comments, not the Cardinal himself), that’s not in any way impugning Jimmy’s character.
Interestingly, K&M’s earlier post seems to indicate a failure to grasp the very distinction that they cite in shutting down the comments in their later post, i.e., the distinction between attacking the person and attacking what he has said or done.
K&M write: “Akin has no problem declaring that a member of the Roman Curia is misleading and sloppy, then I do no think Akin would have a problem with my criticizing his own lack of clarity and responsibility in doctrinal hermeneutics.”
But that is precisely the opposite of what both parties actually did. Jimmy’s critique was restricted to Martino’s comments, not Martino himself, whereas K&M did not restrict their critique to Jimmy’s comments, but attacked Jimmy himself.
Of course, I have to point that out here, because K&M aren’t accepting comments on this subject at their blog.
* FWIW, note the difference between the adjectives K&M chose (“typically,” “predictably” and “dogmatically”) and the ones I chose to describe their actions (“ironically” and “inexplicably”). My adjectives describe their actions, not them; their actions cast aspersions at Jimmy himself.
“Tim J.: Apologies for the bold — couldn’t help it in this case.”
Ha! Don’t sweat it, Esau. I need new glasses, as it is.
You made it for a few posts, anyway! I hope your passion for the teaching of the Church never wanes.
SDG…
Your last FWIW note doesn’t make sense. How is your use of the adverbs “ironically” and “inexplicably” with regard to K&M’s comments any different than their use of “typically”, “predictably” and “dogmatically” with regard to Jimmy’s comments? It seems to me that you are confused as to how adverbs function–they modify either verbs (actions) or adjectives. Since K&M are using adverbs to express a recurring trend in Jimmy’s posts (i.e. quoting the CCC), how can you justify your jump to claiming that they are casting aspersions at Jimmy himself? You seem to recognize the weakness of your judgment and attempted nuance, which could be why you had to add your FWIW to defend yourself. There’s nothing wrong with questioning the way someone uses the CCC, especially if that person doesn’t use the CCC like the Church does.
Based on the comment thread here and the one over at K&M’s blog, I see that there is a lot of division and that K&M were not the only Catholics to object to Jimmy’s post. This suggests to me and to any reasonable person that it was no small matter and that Jimmy probably should have either clarified himself personally or removed the post. With the number of people who voiced their concern over this post, one would imagine that we should all take a step back and consider carefully if the post was in poor taste. I counted at least 11 people in this thread who objected to Jimmy’s post, and there were a number over at K@M’s blog. This tells me that something just wasn’t quite right about Jimmy’s post.
I think it was the right move for K@M to shut down the comments on their post. I saw some really terrible things said about Jimmy and K@M equally. I don’t think you should attack that move of theirs. On the other hand, Jimmy has allowed some pretty rude things to be said to K@M and others here. I am left wondering why he allowed these terrible things to be said in his defense. I also marvel at how terrible so many of you are at argumentation and how good you are at reaction.
I couldn’t help noticing that the more educated, that is, the one’s with real academic background in theology, took issue with Jimmy. To me at least their arguments made sense and I think many of them were more qualified to talk about things like the death penalty than even Jimmy. I don’t know, their arguments just sounded much smarter.
Anyhow, those are just my thoughts. I do not think anyone here should be proud of what they said, including Jimmy and K@M. Christ was not present in this post, and he wasn’t present in most of these comments.
I couldn’t help noticing that the more educated, that is, the one’s with real academic background in theology, took issue with Jimmy.
Ahem … firstly, you have no idea of the level of education achieved (or not) by the commenters here (and elsewhere). The nature of the internet precludes that (given the ability to post anonymously) and, even if you did know who the individual posters actually were, you’d still have not the faintest clue as their education level. (Of course, this doesn’t even begin to mention the fact that, given the way that many “Catholic” colleges and universities teach “theology” et al … well, let’s just say that a Doctorate of Divinity ain’t what it used to be.)
To me at least their arguments made sense and I think many of them were more qualified to talk about things like the death penalty than even Jimmy. I don’t know, their arguments just sounded much smarter.
But this thread isn’t about the death penalty. It’s about the photo captions, remember? Whether their arguments “sounded much smarter” to you or not is irrelevant. Talk of Akin’s death penalty beliefs is simply muddying the water.
Or, alternatively, it shows that the motivations behind criticism of Akin’s photo caption post have nothing to do with the photo caption post. This is very dishonest. This is the definition of argumentum ad hominem since it goes after Akin’s position by saying (in effect) “Well, of course he’s wrong on the death penalty; look at how mean he is to the poor.”
Christ was not present in this post, and he wasn’t present in most of these comments.
What? More judgmentalism. On what basis are you judging that?
Jared…
I have many shortcomings. Thank you for assuming the role of arbitor and announcing these shortcomings.
It was Mary Kay and others who brought up the death penalty, not me, so your warning of muddy waters belongs to them. But K&M were right on both the death penalty and this post, and I noticed that Jimmy did not respond to them.
Where there is love, there is Christ. There was no love in this post or in these comments. What Christian could be proud of any of this? The absence of love shows the absence of Christ. And as a good spiritual director would say without being judgmental, some of you are in need of that love in your heart in order to understand what K@M were trying to say.
Why beat a dead horse? There’s nothing more to say. The goats are with Jimmy Akin.
Esau, thank you for your kind words.
SDG, thank you for saying it so clearly.
Hewson, the only thing I can thank you for is keeping this alive as some apparently need to have it spelled out in capital letters. (And n Esau, no, that was NOT an invite. 🙂 Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Hewson, in light of how educated you say you all are, how ironic that you say SDG’s postscript doesn’t make sense. And how utterly supercilious of you to imply that that SDG is so “confused” about how adverbs function that you have to give him a third grade lecture.
This same tactic was used in the deleted comments. Pretty much the same wording, actually. Lacking a strong counter-argument, Michael said I was “confused” about what a strawman argument is, then offered to “teach” me. I used the definition that he gave to show how he had indeed used a strawman argument and mischaracterized Jimmy. But I digress.
Hewson, SDG’s comments are very clear. I noticed that you didn’t really answer them, but simply put out “spin” in defense of K&M. There’s an obtuseness and either inability and/or unwillingness to address specific points.
I said I would go to the mat about this and I will, because the dynamic happening is too important to fluff off.
The lines are clearly drawn and this seems to be no longer a discussion of attempting to engage the other side in a discussion.
Because of that and the fact of your snipe about people here being less educated, I will use this opportunity as a “teaching moment.” You see, Hewson, I also have a Master’s degree.
Okay class, I’ll get the ball rolling and either come back or trust that others will pick up on this as I have to be out the door in ten minutes.
Today’s class will focus on techniques used communication, propaganda and persuasion, a subcategory of social psychology. The dissonance between content and process are also noted in linguistics and clinical work, but we’ll leave those for another time. It has also been noted in the third chapter of the Gospel of John, but again, that’s for another time.
Let’s start with Hewson’s most recent post. In what can only be described as obtuseness, Hewson ignores the meaning that words like “typically,” “predictably” and “dogmatically” convey, that those words are used to describe a person’s pattern of behavior. He ignore’s SDG’s contrast that SDG’s adverbs describing K&M’s actions rather than their adverbs ascribing attributes to Jimmy as a person.
Because of an inability or (more likely) unwillingness to acknowledge SDG’s observation that “K&M did not restrict their critique to Jimmy’s comments, but attacked Jimmy himself,” Hewson shifts to the function of adverbs in sentence structure. Since he is unable to offer a counter-argument, he simply changes the topic to the irrelevant explanation of the role of adverbs in sentence structure. This is a good illustration of the use of distraction.
That’s all for this morning’s class. Next time, we’ll pick up on how adverbs are not “one size fits all.”
Hewson, read a little more carefully. Just skimming now, I believe Steve brought up the death penalty not me.
I don’t know, their arguments just sounded much smarter.
If feats of lexical prestidigitation are of the essence, the production of texts predicated on this desideratum would be entirely facile.
But that’s the opposite of what I normally try to do.
I noticed that Jimmy did not respond to them.
For reasons that had nothing to do with an inability to answer.
The goats are with Jimmy Akin.
To an ear sensitive to the realm of biblical allusion, you’ve just insinuated an extremely harsh judgment regarding the safety of others’ souls.
I’m sure you didn’t intend this.
Thanks for putting it so succinctly, Mary.
For those who might not follow the logical implications, “ironically” and “inexplicably” have no larger implications for K&M as individuals, only their actions in one particular case. The same cannot be said for their use of “typically” and “predictably.”
Thus endeth the refutation of the third-grade grammar lesson.
For those wondering who “hewson” is, I refer to American Papist’s December 20th “Papist Picture of the Day” post, in which “hewson” (with the link to the EC blog) said this:
Do we really imagine that after your assault on members of the Holy See and other bishops that any cardinal would be interested in your next post? That’s how we know this is a fake caption.
Why do I refer to this? Because it shows who “hewson” really is….
Evangelical-Catholicism reopened their comments box on that specific post.
Hewson:
1. …how can you justify your jump to claiming that they are casting aspersions at Jimmy himself?
Had you only seen the ORIGINAL blog post as well as M&K’s other comments that without a doubt demonstrate this.
Of course, these parties can now assume the high moral ground since most of the incriminating evidence that would say otherwise and clearly demonstrate this clear animosity of theirs toward Jimmy Akin (which all seems to stem from a past disagreement) and their ulterior motive in all this have now been done away with.
Yet, we still have the following comment from theirs on this thread that would speak to this and indications of a deliberate intention to mischaracterize Jimmy’s actions, without any regard to innocence, in order to advance a more sinister agenda:
Very classy…using a photo from an international mission eye clinic depicting a poor Bolivian peasant receiving eye care in order to prompt “funny” or “clever” captions. Very classy and charitable, indeed, Jimmy. Next, let’s dig up some “funny” pictures from a San Diego soup kitchen showing a homeless man’s surprize at receiving a free meal! You know, I heard those dentistry photos from African orphanages are a real hoot!
Akin’s charitable move
Posted by: Michael | Jan 4, 2007 1:47:56 PM
Interesting to note that on their website, they’ve once more used the cover of Christian virtue to mask their deception once again???
My proposal to those concerned: Produce for public inspection ALL the materials that were originally put forth from these parties regarding this matter forthwith and, then, let us see just what lay before us here!
2. Based on the comment thread here and the one over at K&M’s blog, I see that there is a lot of division and that K&M were not the only Catholics to object to Jimmy’s post.
Noticed how those who carried such objections were, for the most part, associates of MandK’s website as well as affiliates?
3. I couldn’t help noticing that the more educated, that is, the one’s with real academic background in theology, took issue with Jimmy. To me at least their arguments made sense and I think many of them were more qualified to talk about things like the death penalty than even Jimmy. I don’t know, their arguments just sounded much smarter.
You actually know the education level of each and every individual posting here???
Or is it that just due to the mere fact that they agree with your particular view on the matter, you have judged these folks as being more educated, the ones with real academic background in theology??? Is that also the reason why they sound much smarter to you for the mere fact they agree with you on this???
4. I also marvel at how terrible so many of you are at argumentation and how good you are at reaction.
And you, on the other hand, have demonstrated such proficiency at argumentation in light of the preceding evidence that would speak to the contrary. What remarkable skills you have, indeed!
Not to mention the fact that if you should find that a certain of us had wrongly characterized MandK with such malicious intention, isn’t it mind-boggling that you did not find the same with them, being that they were the ones who actually done so to begin with?
SDG got it right above.
I have many shortcomings. Thank you for assuming the role of arbitor and announcing these shortcomings.
Um, can anybody tell me when I did this? All I stated was that you could not (A)know another’s education level and (B)that even if you could, given the state of much of Catholic academia, it’s holds no DIRECT bearing on whether their reasoning is correct.
Oh, yeah, and I’m a goat now, too, I see. If that ain’t an ad hominem attack–and hyper-judgmental, to boot–I don’t know what is. Congratulations; you’ve proved some points … not your own, mind you, but for the side with which you disagree.
One would almost think you were a shill.
I just ran a search in this combox and the first instance of the death penalty is this:
————————————–
I read Evangelical Catholicism and this blog as well and I have not had any problem with either one. Jimmy Akin is very knowledgeable, but at the same time, he can benefit himself from others’ point of views. I don’t agree with Jimmy in regards to the death penalty and other issues and I didn’t find Michael Joseph’s post on the death penalty offensive at all. I think that is the beauty of blogs that we can get a wide range of opinions. If you truly think that Michael and Katrina are trying to bring Jimmy’s reputation down, then you should be better than that and not do the same thing with them.
Posted by: Steve K. | Jan 9, 2007 10:10:38 AM
Just for the record.
Wow! I thought this thread was ‘done with’ a while back, but after reading some of the recent comments, the whole thread has turned out to be one of the most interesting I’ve read so far! And all because of the “Hypercrittigoggles”! This needs to be the name of them if this thread ever makes it to any sort of Jimmy Akin ‘Thread of Fame’, due to the number of posts. Why? Because the whole gist of these arguements revolves around one of the greatest, most difficult, and nagging problem, the world has ever experienced: Unwarrented Hypercriticism.
Now, I think how and when we apply criticism, or when it is ‘Hyper’ or undeserved, or not, deserves a few threads of its own. And I’ll also admit that those interested in apologetics in any way are probably experts both, in giving, and hopefully accepting, criticism, lest they be hippocrits, that is. And since this is such a huge topic, that even deals with items such as, for instance, –how your wife thinks you need to fold and stack you’re underwear, and –whether you leave too much water on the dishes when you place them in the ‘drying rack’?..I’ll just make one short comment…not to unduely elongate this thread even further:
Criticism is often bad. And Hyper criticism can ruin even the best of relationships and even marraiges. There are usually those who are expert at giving, and those who are expert at receiving. It depends on your personality type for the most part, and possibly, your history…whether, for instance, you have recieved much hypercriticism in the past? abusive parents, unwarrented prejudices, etc.. .That kind of thing.
But, of most interest on this subject is this: Jesus, the Lord and Master of the Universe, was NOT HYPER CRITICAL…and more over..He was hardly critical at all! Just count the times he was critical of his apostles?? Did he make them march the goosestep while traveling the roads of Palestine, destination to destination? Did He condemn the Adulterous woman, or kick St. Mary Magdeline, when she started weeping at His feet, because he was at a fancy dinner party and this type of behavior is unbecoming?? Did He think logically about how much the Myrrh cost when being anointed to His head, as the other Apostles did, and especially Judas? No, in Jesus we find a wealth of understanding and patience..and especially for all the trivial little things in life that drive others crazy.
I don’t have enough time to elaborate on this, at least in this thread, but I hope Jimmy does something big on Hypercriticism some day! Why? Because it effects the normal person, one way or another, almost every day of this life, usually at work, but also at home and school.A study of the justifications of criticism, and possibly, where is the drawing line or point at which being scrupulous or ‘hyper’ is to be drawn?
The best part, though, is what is mentioned above. Jesus WASN’T hyper critical, ie..a nagger! ..and, to the contrary, He was extremely patient in recieving such hyper criticisms..yes, even “unto death”.
I do not wish to re-engage the issue, but I would like to clarify something. “Hewson” has posted on our blog in past, too, and he often links to our blog from his posts on others’ blogs. Whether that is flattering or insulting, I’m not sure. It’s not the first time that people have named our blog their homepage in their comments on other blogs (we recently had someone do this on a Protestant blog on sexuality). I just wanted to clarify this before any more accusations or misunderstandings arise over our blog and Hewson’s relation to it.
A. Williams:
A fine post!! — as opposed to the others you’ve posted on other threads ;^)!
God bless you, brother!
A. Williams: Jesus WASN’T hyper critical, He was hardly critical at all!
I’m afraid that a closer read of the Gospels would show the contrary. It is a common Protestant understanding that Jesus loved sinners and that he was not critical of his time. This contradicts the essential message of Christianity, especially Catholicism, because it diminishes the importance of works. I think Jimmy should post something on this quoting Scripture where Jesus was the most critical and challenged sinners.
Matthew is my favorite Gospel, so here are some samples:
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Matthew 4:17
“So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Mt 5:48
“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them.” (Mt 6:5)
“You hypocrite, 3 remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.” (Mt 7:5)
“The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few;” (Mt 9:37)
“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me” (Mt 10:37)
“You brood of vipers, how can you say good things when you are evil? For from the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks.” (Mt 12:34)
“Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” (Mt 16:23)
And Mark
“You faithless generation, how much longer must I be among you? How much longer must I put up with you?” (Mark 9:19)
Steve K:
Remember the following passage in the bible:
1 Cor 4:5:
Therefore, judge not before the time: until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. And then shall every man have praise from God.
“Mt 7:5”, huh? What about the 4 verses in front of it?
Another Translation goes:
Therefore, do not make any judgment before the appointed time, until the Lord comes, for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will manifest the MOTIVES of our hearts, and then everyone will receive praise from God.
Steve, you are still trying to justify M&K’s posts. I know that because I just came from reading your most recent post over there.
You are, of course, free to think whatever you want. At this point, one of Esau’s comments probably says it best, that God alone knows what is in the hearts of men.
btw, I hope you apply those verses to yourself.
Especially take the plank out of your own eye before the speck in your brother’s.
And Luke 18:10-14, the Pharisee and the publican.
Wow, I just looked at the number of posts. Maybe it won’t be tops in volume, but it’s certainly in the running for second.
If we’re going to consider Scripture, I think Matthew 5:22 is relevant: “But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.
is highly relevant.”
Brother Cadfael, yes that verse also. Thanks.
btw, I thought your post on the EC blog quoting St. Francis de Sales was awesome.
Now, wait a minute; this just took off in a totally different direction. I believe Akin’s actions have been judged unjustly, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t judge actions at all.
Examples (all emphasis is mine):
John 7:24
Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.
1 Corinthians 5:1-3, 12
It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans–a man living with his father’s wife.
And you are inflated with pride. Should you not rather have been sorrowful? The one who did this deed should be expelled from your midst. I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed … For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within?
Mary Kay,
Thanks.
Jared,
Yes, we must judge justly.
Jared, yes, the back and forth started with the question of whether Jimmy’s actions were judged justly or unjustly.
That’s why I said that Steve is still trying to justify the M&K posts.
I think much of it is due to confusion about being critical and all the hoopla about judgment. You are absolutely correct about judging justly. Most people forget there is also a verse that says “Do not criticize at all.”
And toss into that vast morass the fact that there’s been anger on both sides and of course anger is another one of those large and little understood topics. So it’s not surprising that people dig their toes into the ground thinking that they are right and justified in both their judgment and their anger.
Steve K,
Everything must be considered in context.
When Jesus justly criticizes, He is at the same time making an appeal, or act of love, in trying to turn the hearts of His listeners towards the Good God. Moreover, His most stern criticisms are aimed most intensely at those who are usually the most unjustly, or overly critical of others..ie. the Scribes, the Pharisees and the Lawyers. In all of His admonitions there are no worthless or petty criticisms about otherwise inconsequential aspects of life..like the hyper and nit-picky criticisms aimed at the photo and captions above. The Lord criticized BIG things, because they are important. The Little things, like this photo, are at most,only little ‘gnats’.
Now if anyone spends an extraordinary amount of time straining out the millions of these little ‘knats’, found in the living of our common mortal lives,(with the countless imperfections that each of us have) they probably won’t have much time left over to examine real problems, such as works of Justice, True Brotherly Love, True Correction, True Adoration of God,etc.. These are big things….camels, so to say.
So as so much good can be drawn out of evil, even with this innocent photo, all the innocent and humorous comments can bring some good, and really has brought out some good! Nothing here was a ‘Big Deal’, a grave moral concern or serious sin. So the extensive and hyper negative criticism, about, at the most, a single little ‘gnat’, in no way merits the scrupulous moral discernment and condemnation that it has received. If we want to imitate the Lord, its best to follow His advise in these regards..lest we end up, as He says ‘swallowing a Camel’.
And Esau,
Thanks for the blessing and calling me a Brother! I’m not sure if I can be highly skilled in writing, debate, apologetics, or even humor, but I think I have always been a good brother to those fellow Catholics, Christians, saints, family members and sinners, who have known, or still, know me. Thanks be to God and Our Lord Jesus Christ! And God bless you also, Brother!
And Esau,
Thanks for the blessing and calling me a Brother! I’m not sure if I can be highly skilled in writing, debate, apologetics, or even humor, but I think I have always been a good brother to those fellow Catholics, Christians, saints, family members and sinners, who have known, or still, know me. Thanks be to God and Our Lord Jesus Christ! And God bless you also, Brother!
Whoever does the Will of Our Heavenly Father, A. Williams, is my Brother!!!
Continued blessings to you, brother, in all you do!
…Or Sister, that is! =^)
Uh…bruthur, tis. 😉
My last critigoggle caption:
I’m very oold…but I can see every single knat flyin’ around your head with my new, supermoral brand critigoggles! And I’m a gonna git’em ALL!
..an..wit these..
I can also see awl those weeds over yonder ..in that nice field of wheat, and I’m a gonna pick’em ALL!!
……HEY MAAAAM!! Take off that CRAZYTHING! You got a CAMEL!! comin’ your way!!
Uh…bruthur, tis. 😉
Actually, I meant to correct my comment:
“Whoever does the Will of Our Heavenly Father is my Brother/Sister!!!”
As before, God bless, brother!
I Knneww you were ….’one of them’!!
“Nuestro Padre/Madre o otro nombre que no es offensivo, que estas in el Cielo..” ; )
Esau,
As you mentioned before, you said you think you are a bit like Conan O’Brien, having to explain yourself very frequently. But, really, in the presense of good Catholics/Christians I don’t think this is really so necessary. You can count on understanding, patience, prayers and brotherly love, even when you think you make mistakes. And really I think you don’t make too many of them!(Like me…that is.) But, I don’t worry too much, because if the folks here are true Christians they will correct me according to the Charity of God, with good arguments. And if I am wrong, I’ll listen carefully and accept that correction, that is, if it makes real sense. If they don’t want to do anything…they’re just basically normal, for the most part.
However, if they want to scorn me, then they aren’t true Christians, and I don’t care much for them, except to pray for their conversion to Christ, having lived with some sort of persecution or opposition almost all of my life. So, it isn’t a big deal to be persecuted and misunderstood! Even as St. Francis teaches. Rather, it’s more or less Normal!
So, really I think every good Catholic should understand your humor and literary expressions and except the wheat and understand the chaff. Everyone here makes errors and mis-expressions in one way or other…even Jimmy! And most, like my self, just blow right over them, (as long as I don’t consider them very sinful, that is)…trusting in the Charity of the devout listeners.
Rather, we should rejoice that God has put us in the presense of other like minded Christians, and not in the community of complete pagans and athiests who can do not much else but scorn and complain!
So, really we have the best environment to express ourselves, and even practice our literary skills, in the midst of the Friends of Christ… the like community you cannot find any better in this world! And we can have the more confidence because as the Lord said, of his TRUE followers:
“..You will know them by their Love”
And, furthermore, you can correct me if you think that I am wrong!! 🙂
A. Williams:
I appreciate your post, but you must understand that aside from any personal slight in the matter, there is also the pressing issue that we are all, indeed, Members of the Body of Christ.
What distresses me moreover is, as I had expressed many times before here in this thread, that we, as Catholics, who strive for that Unity in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, can sometimes fall short of this vision of Our Lord & Saviour himself (i.e., to remain One as He & the Father are One), and end up actually attacking one another needlessly; sometimes for vainglorious reasons such as to flaunt how one is more virtuous than the next, which St. Francis of Assisi was ever so careful to avoid in his faithfully living out the Gospels & the Christian Faith; not to mention, the fact that this is something clearly expressed by Christ as unChristian behaviour in Luke 18:10-14, the Pharisee and the publican, as someone had previously cited.
Further, it is for the very fact that I consider those in question as fellow brothers and sisters, as they are members in the One Body of Christ, that I am offended and hurt by their actions to the degree conveyed in my remarks, as well as the fact that I have actually raised such issue with them in this manner.
If I had considered them otherwise; if I did not hold them in such regard and they were actually other folks who merely served to mock the Faith or surreptitiously undermine it, as in the case of the atheists and pagans you spoke of; although I would still consider them Children of God, I would not so much pay attention to their actions to the very degree that I have to these folks here.
1 Cor 10:17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread.
And as 1 Cor 12 says:
But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.
If one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.
Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.
I ask, then, if there was anything I have said in Jimmy’s, Kris’ and, particularly, in my defense; that is, these comments of mine that may have seemed harsh to some, that these may forgive me; for the tone in which it was delivered only describes the level of injury that was experienced by what can be said, at best, the thoughtless actions of some for the very reasons already discussed in this thread and the manner in which the initial comments (e.g., accusations/insinuations) by the concerned parties were expressed.
God bless.
Esau,
In my opinion almost all debate is good,especially if those who are debating are being as spiritually honest as possible. I really see no reason why some people might not be offended in one way or another, about anything you, I, Jimmy, or any of the others are saying. Free speech is an awesome thing…and isn’t this how we really learn? By listening to others opinions, both true and false, just and un just, loving and hateful?
The communication of this free speech is another thing altogeter, because some have the gift of communicating more effectively than others. However, in the midst of all we have the Holy Spirit working, both to instruct and encourage, and using all the various gifts which God gives to each in His own way. Moreover, everyone is on a different level of spirituality, and there are varying life experiences that make for the diversity of the communion of believers. And in all of this we can thank God.
My own opinion, is that we all have many varying opinions, and are all struggling to see the light of Gods’ truth in this life, as best we can. What I wrote about above was in no way a criticism of anything you’ve written, but rather, just a comment on the fact that getting our ideas across to others isn’t always an easy thing. And sometimes we have to accept the fact that others may or may not understand us.
Just think of Jesus, how often He was misunderstood! So too, He often said incredible things, such as calling a woman a “dog”.
“Is it right to throw the food of the children to the dogs?”
If this isn’t offensive..for the hyper sensitive..I don’t know what is!! Moreover, the others around this woman didn’t cry out…”How can you say something like this! You’re not very “Christian”.
Jesus remained unfazed, and the humble women understood his context. She even agreed, but made the beautiful addition that merited her the miracle:
“yes, Lord, but even the little dog’s eat the crumbs of bread that fall from the table.”
Anyway, the point is, that Jesus didn’t worry about being politically correct. He had sufficient love in His heart..and waited for people to catch on to it.
“I have come to spread Fire to the earth, and Oh, How I wish it were enkindled.”
So please don’t think I was criticizing you in any way, but rather, appreciating, not only you, but all the others that take the time to blog honest comments. Yes, even those we don’t agree with. I realize that we are all learning with the varying opinions, and maybe even helping eachother towards the salvation that I think we all desire!
For my own part, I live in a 3rd world country, the Dominican Republic, with only a very few English speaking Catholics to communicate with..and these are not very knowledgeable about current Catholic affairs. So the Internet is a Godsend for me, making my life here much more tolerable and even very happy! Having almost no one to communicate with effectively here, due to my poor Spanish, I can find some companionship on these Catholic Blogs. In all of this I can thank our Father and Creator, who put me here unexpectedly in His Divine Providence, and praise Him for the gift of the Internet through which I can communicate with others of like mind, who have some knoweledge of our Holy and Loving Faith! Amen.
A. Williams, just to let you know that I have very much enjoyed your post (not least your humor!).
Esau, two thoughts have come to me as I’ve read your posts. One is that it is good to remember that others are at different stages of the spiritual journey. The second is as A. Williams said above, that Jesus was sometimes, frequently misunderstood. And it’s also common in the lives in the saints. If you could let go of the expectation of others’ understanding, you’d make things easier on yourself. God knows the situation.
+J.M.J+
Man, am I glad I ignored this thread and didn’t post anything! I guess it sometimes pays to be wit-challenged. 🙂
In Jesu et Maria,