Another Apologist Going On Alaska Cruise

Image012Yes! It’s true!

The apologist pictured here will be joining us on the upcoming Catholic Answers apologetics cruise to Alaska!

(No, not the one in white; the one holding the book.)

Catholic Answers is pleased to announce that our Alaska apologetics cruise will be joined by Fr. John Trigilio, well-known priest and apologist, frequent guest on EWTN, and author of a bunch of books (including the one he’s holding in the picture).

Fr. Trigilio will be serving as chaplain on the cruise and so will be saying daily Mass, hearing confessions, offering spiritual counseling, etc.

Also going on the cruise will be Tim Staples, Mark Shea, Jim Blackburn, and your humble bloghost.

So I hope you’ll consider joining us for a special, faith-building cruise to Alaska. It’ll be a wonderful opportunity to build your faith in a spiritually uplifting and relaxing environment that will give you the chance to experience the natural beauty that God endowed our northernmost state with.

MORE INFO HERE.

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."

75 thoughts on “Another Apologist Going On Alaska Cruise”

  3. You just couldn’t restrain your hate even to the tiny degree that would have been required to not come to this blog and express it? lol

  5. Insulting your fellow comboxers right off the bat is not the best way to converse.
    I suspect I know ‘stuff’ what you are referring to, but definite sentences are always welcome.
    If you are talking about the Faith, then hear this: One secure in one’s faith need not attack another’s faith, especially in a pathetic attempt to show how Christian, True and unlaughable one’s beliefs are.

  7. One thing is certain: It isn’t a computer program invented by Jack Chick, ’cause Jimmy’s got the spam-killer activated

  8. Bill912,
    Right on. I certainly don’t go on protestant blogs and attack them. And I wouldn’t attack them, anyway.

  9. Does anyone know if Father Trigilio will be offering the Tridentine Mass on the cruise?
    I know that he has learned how to say it recently and this would be a most holy and edifying Sacrifice for the good Rev. Father Trigilio to offer.
    Ut Prosim

  10. Yeah, you buffoons believe this stuff about Alaskan cruises with attacking zombies and cold-remedy-swigging apologists? Ha ha! And double ha ha!
    Just trying to get into the spirit of the thing… 😉

  11. This isn’t realy much of a Catholic apologist site anymore. It’s mostly about Battle Star Galactica and cold remedies & stuff. Sometimes there are weird pictures of a cat with giant ears or something.

  13. Gripers,
    You might look over to the side of the page and note that there’s this list entitled ‘Categories’. Apologetics is 1 of the 62 categories on the list.

  14. Gripers,
    You might look over to the side of the page and note that there’s this list entitled ‘Categories’. Apologetics is 1 of the 62 categories on the list.

  15. Doh. Double posted because it said it couldn’t load the page the first time, but maybe some folks need to read it twice anyhow.

  17. Yes, we have heard the complaint that this is not an apologetics site anymore for several entries now. Duly noted for the record. We heard it the first time. What mental illness compels repeating it?

  18. What mental illness compels repeating it?
    The same mental illness that impels others to pass themselves off as “Catholic”.

  20. Granted, posts have been few and generally not direct apologetics recently. Perhaps this has to do with Jimmy’s job or personal life, or perhaps he is just tired of this blog. In any case there is no point in criticism. This is a hobby or at most a minor side apostolate of Jimmy’s and he has every right to do what he wants with it. Get too harsh and he may drop it entirely, which I for one don’t want.
    That said, if Jimmy wants to inform us of what is going on to let us know or to ask for prayers if it is something bad that would be welcome. Not that he has to by any means.

  21. More on point, Fr. Trigilio’s presence makes me wish even more that I could go. But alas, no money. I didn’t know he wrote he wrote a John Paul II For Dummys book. I knew he cowrote Catholcism for Dummies, which a friend of mine used when he decided to get back into his faith and learn something about it.

  22. p.s. look at the list of JA.O bloggers. Tim J. is still one (granted the only one left besides Jimmy, though Steve Greydanus has done a lot of blogging. Don’t know why he’s not on the list.

  23. I wish I could come, but I can’t.
    I imagine going on the cruise and meeting all the people who regularly comment here and of seeing them in the flesh. Would I be impressed or disappointed? Would they? Would I be embarrassed by what I said or how I said it? Would they? Would it alter how we communicated – better or worse?
    This made me wonder if the prospect of meeting someone in the flesh, rather than online, might help me to communicate with more charity and courtesy.
    But then, we all hope to meet at some point.

  24. or David B.’s/A Simple Sinner’s website (warning: may contain Adult Language):
    Major ARGH! moment. Please let me proclaim which blog is/isn’t mine. I. Am. Not. Simple. Sinner. Never met the person. At least, I’ve never met anyone calling himself ‘simple sinner.’

  25. Just a troll. Ignore it. Don’t feed it. Just pray for it. Maybe it’ll grow up some day.
    Point taken. I just don’t get why JA gets this peculiar kind of brickbat-hurler treatment. Did he run over someone’s dog?

  26. Maybe JA ticked Screwtape off. (Seen on a bumper sticker: “Have you tormented the devil today?”)

  27. David B.
    Major ARGH! moment. Please let me proclaim which blog is/isn’t mine. I. Am. Not. Simple. Sinner. Never met the person. At least, I’ve never met anyone calling himself ‘simple sinner.’
    Isn’t ‘A Simple Sinner’ and you a contributer at:
    http://blog.ancient-future.net/
    or is that another David B. and another ‘A Simple Sinner’?
    bill912 & Scott W.
    Point taken. I just don’t get why JA gets this peculiar kind of brickbat-hurler treatment. Did he run over someone’s dog?
    Learn the corporal and spiritual works of mercy prior to attacking folks you really don’t know.
    Although shades of protestantism has been allowed to seep into authentic Catholic Teaching; I should hope that some of it still remains in those who claim to be genuinely Catholic.

  28. Isn’t ‘A Simple Sinner’ and you a contributer at:
    http://blog.ancient-future.net/
    or is that another David B. and another ‘A Simple Sinner’?
    I can’t speak for Simple Sinner, but I can say that whoever the other “David B.” is, he and I are not one and the same. I don’t have a blog. Why do you think I blab and blab on Jimmy’s here blog? ’cause I ain’t got a blog 🙂

  29. Why do you think I blab and blab on Jimmy’s here blog? ’cause I ain’t got a blog 🙂

    So long as you blab, blab here; that’s fine.

  31. I guess there is bound to be more than one Catholic “David B.” on the web, lol.
    Well, what d’ya know!
    2 – David B.s
    Reminds me of that Star Trek episode where you had an evil/good Kirk!

  32. So he isn’t so conservative is he.
    He is encouraging a near occasion for sin, as surely the dress code on a cruise is far from the practice of the 6th and 9th commandments.

  33. Looking at JA.O may be a near occasion of sin for you. Look at how it tempts you to break the spirit of the 5th Commandment.

  34. Now if manage to raise a splinter of a problem of conscience, then I did my job.
    Now as for your argument, point a finger back is quite childish. Plus if you knew catholic morality you would know that some situations warant a defamation and sometimes it even becomes an obligation.

  35. “…some situations warant(sic) a defamation and sometimes it even becomes an obligation.”
    We’re all glad to know that there is sometimes an obligation to violate a commandment (and, therefore, an obligation to commit a sin).

  37. Duh,
    Well, what d’ya know!
    2 – David B.s
    Reminds me of that Star Trek episode where you had an evil/good Kirk!
    Except we’re both ‘good.’ 😉
    Catholic,
    He is encouraging a near occasion for sin, as surely the dress code on a cruise is far from the practice of the 6th and 9th commandments.
    “Surely.” How do you know? The Catholics on the cruise are likely not going to be immodest, as the point of the cruise is the strengthening of one’s faith. As far as the other passengers are concerned, you need not climb aboard a ship to see immodesty women. Going to the market is an occasion nowadays. Should we not step outside our own homes?

  39. David B,
    You make a point. But you are not obligated to go to a cruise. You are obligated to go to work, school, supermarket, etc.
    You have graces of state there.
    As for a cruise, not only is the immorality garanteed, but you have no obligation to go.
    And Catholics on the cruise could be dressed up from head to toe.
    But that is like telling me that you walk into a building where everyone has feathers to tickle you with except for one with a gun in his hand.
    Would you walk in?
    How much more important is your soul than your body?

  40. Catholic,
    Yes, you are obligated to work, go to school, etc. However, the are many places I may want to go to for a good purpose, where there are unwelcome occasions of sin.
    For example: I want to see “Into Great Silence,” but I don’t want to see the porno trailers that run before it. Am I guilty of sin? Not if I avoid viewing the crud. It is said that satan puts up a tent where God puts up a Church. I don’t think we should wonder “am I committing sin” whenever we try to enjoy the good things God created for us, such as the Alaska’s wilderness. Yes, there is danger. No, I’m not trying to dismiss common sense. I also don’t believe we have to surrender our freedom to enjoy the beautiful things God has made to the enemies of decency, morality, etc.

  41. Well then you go with your conscience.
    But remember that the ends don’t justify the means.
    You have to give somethings up sometimes for a greater good.
    I sure hope your conscience is clear though…
    Sophisms are the easiest things to make.

  42. Catholic: Please stand down the rhetoric. If you want to hold forth on the evils of beachwear and summer attire, be my guest for now, in a spirit of Christian dialogue with an aim to persuade others without demeaning or impugning those who hold other views.

  43. Catholic,
    Well then you go with your conscience.
    But remember that the ends don’t justify the means.
    Where did I say that? Oh, that’s right, I didn’t.
    You have to give somethings up sometimes for a greater good.
    So you didn’t see Into Great Silence? Your funeral… 🙂
    I sure hope your conscience is clear though…
    Sophisms are the easiest things to make.
    Spoken like a man who doesn’t know how to answer a logical comment. I must confess, you’r calumnious, disrespectful, and UnCatholic rash judement of my character leads me to belive you are more interested in proclaiming morality than in actually living it. You clearly have fallen prey to that pernicious evil of “seeing” the speck in your brother eye, but ignoring the mote in your own (namely, Uncahritableness).
    Forgive me for thinking you were capable of discussing this without attacking me when your arguments fail.

  44. On the contrary David, I said I hope your conscience is clear because if it is, then there is not subjective sin. But I insist that I hope it is truly clear. Didn’t take a shot at you. Every other comment is a generic for all people.
    Our Holy Father has spoken much about relativism.
    And as for the uncharitable card…
    Fighting evil is more than promiting good.
    And that is theological.

  45. Obviously, in order to avoid misspelling, one shouldn’t post until one has recovered from being viciously maligned by the self-proclaimed “catholic”. As if naming oneself ‘catholic’ will shield one from any and all criticism.
    The problem with ‘catholic’ is not that he thinks Catholics should give some things up. The problem is that he, from his response regarding “Into Great Silence,” think Catholics should give everything up. That is directly contrary to Christ’s teachings about God’s Creation.

  47. And as for the uncharitable card…

    Charity is not a “card.”
    But I wasn’t (solely) appealing to charity — that’s ultimately between you and your conscience, at least in this life. I was noting blog house rules. Christ will judge your charity. Combox moderation must be done by someone here on earth.

  48. On the contrary David, I said I hope your conscience is clear because if it is, then there is not subjective sin.
    So you think I’m objectingly sinning?
    But I insist that I hope it is truly clear. Didn’t take a shot at you. Every other comment is a generic for all people.

    Your concern is truly wonderful. Anyone can see the dripping sarcasm of your words, directed toward me: I sure hope your conscience is clear though…
    Sophisms are the easiest things to make.
    Someone who truly did have concern for my soul wound not even mention “hoping” my conscience is clear, let alone adding “I sure hope.” Don’t pretend your sarcastic words have anything of Christian concern for me.
    Our Holy Father has spoken much about relativism.
    I challenge you to point out where I promoted relativism. If you aren’t referring to me, why bring it up?
    Fighting evil is more than promiting(sic) good.
    Precisely. It is also affirming the Good, and doing the Good, and not contradicting the good with evil. You are suggesting that my example (since it’s my only example you can address) of seeing “Into Great Silence is somehow “relativist or “sophism”. You stretch the limits of credulity.

  49. If you insist.
    It is sinful to knowingly put yourself in near occasion of sin without grave neccesity.
    Such as watching Into Great Silence.
    BTW, I saw it after someone censured it.

  50. One last thing, “Catholic.” Your lack of Christian charity, and your inability to maturely disagree with me, naively thinking you have ‘cornered’ or have the last word on the Church’s views regarding near occasions to sin, has been a temptation to the sin of anger. Something to ponder.

  54. “Prove the contrary to my argument.”
    If you are referring to the cruise, I already answered that. If you are saying that Into Great Silence is a near occasion of sin, I don’t see the need to disprove that any more than disproving that water is dry.

  55. It is sinful to knowingly put yourself in near occasion of sin without grave neccesity.

    Such as, perhaps, coming to this blog combox, for some people.

  56. SDG,
    Reviewing my memories of “Into Great Silence,” I couldn’t think of anything remotely sinful. Then I remembered the repeated line “O Lord, you have seduced me, and I was seduced.” Do you think Catholic is referring to that? Catholic can’t be suggesting that the Church has a problem with a filmmaker who quotes Jeremiah 20:7 reverently.

  58. All the nastiness aside, I just don’t understand what Catholic’s problem with a cruise is. How can going on a cruise be sinful? (Aside from wasting money that could be better spent on other things, like feeding the hungry. But spending your money as you see fit to go on a cruise ship to hear Catholic teaching and enjoy God’s creation — how can that be sinful?) And isn’t Into Great Silence about life in a monastery? Or am I thinking of a different film? What could be horrible about that? If Catholic wouldn’t mind explaining clearly what he finds so awful about these two things, I’d appreciate it.

  59. The poster calling himself “catholic” sounds like a troll to me. A troll by any other name….

  60. Just to clarify,
    If I said anything which does not meet the standards of Catholic Christians, then I sincerely apologize. However, I believe (and hope) that my response, while strong, was justified considering the total disregard for Christian Charity that Catholic’s uncalled-for, calumnious attack was.
    P.S. (for Catholic): The monks profiled in “Into Great Silence” saw nothing problematic with Philip’s film. They even saw the uncensored version you didn’t see. Their order is one of the few, (if not the only) religious orders which has not needed reform since its founding, so no one can suggest that their consciences aren’t clear.

  61. Wait, you mean that when Catholic said he saw it “after someone censured it,” he meant he saw a censored copy?! I thought he really meant that he saw it in spite of someone condemning it (which is what censured means).
    Good grief. Wanting to put other stuff into the film, I could understand. But what could one possibly find it necessary to cut out???

  63. I just watched “Into Great Silence” Saturday night – have to say it was one of the best films I’ve seen in recent memory. Great imagery, scenery, editing – just wonderful. It impressed upon me the need for a deeper spirit of detachment – that we are in the world but not to be of the world – and that despite the hard life the monks are living, they are living Joyfully. Many many lessons can be learned from this film.
    One of my favorites scenes was towards the end when a number of them went sledding/snowshoeing on their “day out”. I could sense pure joy coming through the screen.
    Read your review after watching the film, SDG. Good job.

  64. SDG,
    Wait, you mean that when Catholic said he saw it “after someone censured it,” he meant he saw a censored copy?! I thought he really meant that he saw it in spite of someone condemning it (which is what censured means).
    Well, since he was questioning the ‘clearness’ of my conscience for viewing Into Great Silence, and since not one (non-SSPX) Churchman condemned the film, and since he said it this way: It is sinful to knowingly put yourself in near occasion of sin without grave neccesity. Such as watching Into Great Silence. , I can’t arrive at any other conclusion than that he viewed a censored , not censured, version of the film.

  65. “Wait, you mean that when Catholic said he saw it “after someone censured it,” he meant he saw a censored copy?! I thought he really meant that he saw it in spite of someone condemning it (which is what censured means).”
    Remember the part when the community had a Eucharistic procession through the monastery, and two monks were carrying the censers? Well…….perhaps the two tonsured incensers were censured for uncensored censers?

  66. The near occasion I am talking about is the cruise. Badly dressed people are garanteed to be on that ship. Now if that isn’t objectivly a near occasion for sin than what is it?
    An encouragement for virtue?
    Into Great Silence has no immorality (duh!)
    David said there was some immoral commercials before it.
    I didn’t see any of that, so I assume someone censored it.

  67. Every time Jimmy posts on one of these cruises someone or other comes along saying it’s immoral because people will be in bathing suites. But remember, there is nothing intrinsically immoral about bathing suits.
    According to the conventional interpretation anyway everyone would be walking around naked were it not for orignal sin. Of course, as things are modesty is needed, to prevent lust, protect the mystery of the person, that sort of thing. But exactly what is too much exposure varies between individuals. This, unlike many things in the moral law, is purely a matter of subjective mental states, not physical realities. For some, yes, this would be a near occasion of sin. They would do well to avoid it. But for many, I dare say most people in our society there would be no significant risk of falling into sin there and considerable opportunity for growth in holiness and knowledge of the faith. Since this is not a matter of intrinsic immorality why not let individuals discern for themselves whether they should go on the cruise?

  68. Badly dressed people are garanteed to be on that ship. Now if that isn’t objectivly a near occasion for sin than what is it?

    There’s a great joke here waiting to be made about “badly dressed people” and fashion police, but alas, my wit fails me this morning.
    How many ways is the above reasoning wrong?
    It has already been pointed out that immodest and inappropriate dress confronts us everywhere. To answer “But we must go to work and the supermarket but we need not go on a cruise” is facile. The hidden premise is “Go only where you are obliged; otherwise hide in your house.” Catholic moral theology will not support such reasoning.
    Are you obliged to take your children to the playground, the zoo, the diner? It is not a necessity of life, like eking a living and buying groceries. But perhaps you will see immodesty at the playground/zoo/etc., or on the way. Yet few Catholic parents would conclude that they should keep their children at home all the time because they might encounter immodesty.
    Even going to work and the supermarket may not actually be obligatory. You could buy your groceries online or otherwise have them delivered. And unless one has made a concerted effort to arrange one’s life to work at home, one has effectively chosen to work outside the home.
    The correct reasoning is this. There are good reasons for going to work and to the supermarket — important and useful goods to be realized. The hazards, such as they are, are merely part of living in the world, and (in most working environments) far from prohibitively extreme, well within the capacity of even modestly ingrained virtues of any reasonably mature and functional Catholic. And if they aren’t, they need to be.
    Likewise, there are good reasons for going on an apologetics cruise with sound Catholic speakers like Father Trigilio and Jimmy, important and useful goods to be realized. The hazards, such as they are, are likely no more prohibitive than going to the beach, which any reasonably mature Catholic ought to be more than capable of.
    “If that isn’t a near occasion of sin, what is?” Going to blogs where you are tempted to judge other people, for one thing. Right about now, that includes me being here, so I guess it’s time for me to leave.

  71. Good point, Tim. I went on the Alaska cruise in 2003. The temperature never got above the low 60s. Jeans, sweaters, and windbreakers were the uniform of the day.

  72. Catholic:
    The near occasion I am talking about is the cruise. Badly dressed people are garanteed to be on that ship. Now if that isn’t objectivly a near occasion for sin than what is it?
    Do you have a wife or a girlfriend?
    Does she expose her belly-button?
    Does she wear skirts that are above the knees?
    Does your wife/girlfriend wear panties instead of nylon hoisery?
    Does she ever wear anything other than a dress?
    Does she ever wear anything other than heels 3-4 inches high?
    Don’t you know that such are a near occasions of sin?
    “Or how canst thou say to thy brother: Brother, let me pull the mote out of thy eye, when thou thyself seest not the beam in thy own eye? Hypocrite, cast first the beam out of thy own eye: and then shalt thou see clearly to take out the mote from thy brother’s eye.” Luke 6:42

  73. Into Great Silence has no immorality (duh!)
    I’m glad to read you say that. I still don’t know why you think my taking a cruise, with other catholics, for the benefit of one’s soul, into a cold climate where no (sane) person will be prancing around unclothed.
    I still don’t know why you think that my statement:
    I don’t think we should wonder “am I committing sin” whenever we try to enjoy the good things God created for us, such as the Alaska’s wilderness. Yes, there is danger. No, I’m not trying to dismiss common sense. I also don’t believe we have to surrender our freedom to enjoy the beautiful things God has made to the enemies of decency, morality, etc.
    is “relativist,” or deserved your accusing me of “the ends justify the means” argument, when enjoying nature in order to grow closer to God is something Saint Francis regarded well. You appear to think nature is a near occasion of sin and should “sometimes” be given up. I’m sure would St. Francis would not agree.
    Your statements:
    I sure hope your conscience is clear though…
    Sophisms are the easiest things to make.
    And: Our Holy Father has spoken much about relativism.
    Still haven’t been addressed to my satisfaction or apologized for.
    David said there was some immoral commercials before it.
    I didn’t see any of that, so I assume someone censored it.
    I said I saw it in a theater, yes. The example of being exposed to trailers for immoral movies before seeing into Great Silence was just a hypothetical situation. It didn’t actually happen to me (though even if it did, I wouldn’t have been planning to see the trailers, and there is no sin in accidentally exposing oneself to cruddy trailers).

  75. Catholic,
    Thanks for your clarification on Into Great Silence. That makes more sense. I still don’t agree with your assessment of going on a Catholic cruise to Alaska, though.
    Everyone,
    All things considered, in spite of the anger generated throughout these posts, I think that thinking through the issue of what does and does not constitute a near occasion of sin is a worthwhile thing. Thank you everyone for your insights – they helped this new Catholic (this Easter will be two years in the Church for me) to think.

Comments are closed.