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."

Some Changes

You may notice some subtle changes on JA.O today. Last night I finally bit the bullet and started monkeying with the templates that Typepad uses to frame the site’s content. This is not as easy as one might imagine, which is why I do it so infrequently, but it was time. In fact, at one point I had to circumvent Typepad’s proprietary code and just use a brute force HTML technique, but now it’s done.

Here’s the changes:

1) NEW AWARDS! I’ve added the Catholic Blog Awards I won in 2007 and 2006 to the site. This year I won Smartest Catholic Blog (a new category) and Best Apologetics Blog. Last year I won Most Informative and Best Blog by a Man (categories that weren’t awarded this year) and Best Apologetics.

The awards are now in the right hand sidebar (scroll down). The reason that the 2006es hadn’t been added before now is long and complex, and I won’t try your patience with it (though it has to do in part with the difficulty of revising the templates).

I want to say a big THANK YOU and CHT! to all who nominated JA.O and voted for it! I really appreciate it, and it means a lot to me that people would find the work I do here valuable enough to vote for it. That kind of support from readers really helps me keep going.

2) Correspondingly, I’ve removed the 2005 award from the banner at the top of the page. It’s now down with the other awards in the sidebar.

3) I’ve fixed the search feature that’s at the top of the right-hand sidebar. I used to use a search service that never was really spiffy and that for some time hasn’t worked at all (it seems). It had gotten to the point that I had given up using the search feature altogether and was just using Google when I needed to search my archives. So now that I was fixing the templates, I decided to chuck the old search feature and replace it with Google (customized so that it searches JA.O)! This should make it a lot easier on everyone (me included) wanting to search old entries!

4) I flipped the order of the "Recent Posts"and "Recent Comments" elements in the sidebar as well. Experience showed me that I spent more time looking down at the Recent Comments than I did looking up at the Recent Posts, since comments change more often than posts do, so I put Recent Comments on top. This should also avoid people with certain screen resolutions from having to scroll down to see the comments, again making it easier on all.

So those are the changes. Hope you like them, and thanks again!

Enjoy!

P.S. Apologies if blogging is slow today due to monkeying with the templates.

Cardinal Takes On Global Warming

Here’s what Cardinal Pell of Sydney had to say:

Global warming doomsdayers were out and about in a big way recently, but the rain came in Central Queensland and then here in Sydney.  January also was unusually cool.

We have been subjected to a lot of nonsense about climate disasters as some zealots have been painting extreme scenarios to frighten us.   They claim ocean levels are about to rise spectacularly, that there could be the occasional tsunami as high as an eight story building, the Amazon basin could be destroyed as the ice cap in the Arctic and in Greenland melts.

An overseas magazine called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics while a U.S.A. television correspondent compared skeptics to “holocaust deniers”.

A local newspaper editorial’s complaint about the doomsdayers’ religious enthusiasm is unfair to mainstream Christianity.  Christians don’t go against reason although we sometimes go beyond it in faith to embrace probabilities.  What we were seeing from the doomsdayers was an induced dose of mild hysteria, semi-religious if you like, but dangerously close to superstition.

I am deeply skeptical about man-made catastrophic global warming, but still open to further evidence.  I would be surprised if industrial pollution, and carbon emissions, had no ill effect at all.  But enough is enough.

A few fixed points might provide some light.  We know that enormous climate changes have occurred in world history, e.g. the Ice Ages and Noah’s flood, where human causation could only be negligible.   Neither should it be too surprising to learn that the media during the last 100 years has alternated between promoting fears of a coming Ice Age and fear of global warming!

Terrible droughts are not infrequent in Australian history, sometimes lasting seven or eight years, as with the Federation Drought and in the 1930s.  One drought lasted fourteen years.

We all know that a cool January does not mean much in the long run, but neither does evidence from a few years only.  Scaremongers have used temperature fluctuations in limited periods and places to misrepresent longer patterns.

The evidence on warming is mixed, often exaggerated, but often reassuring.  Global warming has been increasing constantly since 1975 at the rate of less than one fifth of a degree centigrade per decade.  The concentration of carbon dioxide increased surface temperatures more in winter than in summer and especially in mid and high latitudes over land, while there was a global cooling of the stratosphere.

The East Anglia university climate research unit found that global temperatures did not increase between 1998 – 2005 and a recent NASA satellite found that the Southern Hemisphere has not warmed in the past 25 years.  Is mild global warming a Northern phenomenon?

While we might have been alarmed by the sighting of an iceberg off Dunedin as large as an aircraft carrier we should be consoled by the news that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing there.

The science is more complicated than the propaganda!

SOURCE.

Ash Wednesday

Here’s the law from the Church’s official legal documents . . .

From the Code of Canon Law:

Can.  1249 The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons.

Can.  1250 The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

Can.  1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Can.  1252 The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.

Can.  1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

From the apostolic constitution Paenitemini by Pope Paul VI:

III. 1. The law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat.

2. The law of fasting allows only one full meal a day, but does not prohibit taking some food in the morning and evening, observing—as far as quantity and quality are concerned—approved local custom.

NOTES:

1. In the U.S. the conference of bishops has removed the requirement to abstain outside of Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and the Fridays of Lent.

2. Having completed your fourteenth year means that you’ve had your fourteenth birthday (your first year is the year before your first birthday).

3. Having attained your majority means that you’ve turned 18.

4. The beginning of your sixtieth year is your fifty-ninth birthday.

5. The law of abstinence thus binds everyone who has turned 14 and hasn’t yet died and left the jurisdiction of the earthly church.

6. The law of fast binds those from 18 to 58 years old.

7. The laws of fast and abstinence do not bind those who have a medical condition that would materially interfere with their performance. Medical conditions that would interfere with fasting are fairly easy to think of (e.g., type 1 diabetes; people whose doctors have put them on a special diet that requires a certain number of calories or that requires ignoring calories). It is harder to think of conditions that would nullify the requirement to abstain, though, since protein is available from so many sources other than meat.

8. Beverages, even calorie-laden beverages (milk, OJ, coffee with cream, protein shakes) do not violate the law of fast. "Food" means solids food, not drinks (which count as "drink"), though disproportionate consumption of caloric beverages violates the spirit of the fast.

9. Non-nutritive or non-digestible things taken to curb hunger (e.g., water, dietary fiber) do not violate the law of fast. Medicine also does not violate the fast. The fast is from food (solid nourishment; technically, solid macronutrients), not other things (water, other beverages, fiber, medicine, vitamins).

10. You often hear the law of fast summarized this way: "You can have one full meal plus two smaller meals as long as they do not add up to a second meal." THIS IS FALSE. The law (from Paenitemini, quoted above) doesn’t say anything about what the two smaller portions of food add up to. What the law says that you can have "some food" twice, and "some food" is clearly less than a "full meal," but it doesn’t say anything about how much the two instances of "some food" add up to.

Obviously, the less the "some food" amounts to, the more in keeping with the spirit of fast it is, but the law does not require or encourage people to scruple over how much "two smaller meals" add up to. That’s dumb, anyway, since people do not generally eat three, equally large meals (in terms of calories or volume), making it impractical to try adding up the two lesser quantities of food.

A more helpful way of thinking of it (and a way more in keeping with the way the law is written) is to think of one full meal and two snacks, a snack being something less than a meal.

11. All the above applies to Catholics who are members of the Latin
Church. Members of other churches sui iuris (e.g., Maronites,
Chaldeans, etc.) have their own law in these areas (which is what "sui
iuris" means in Latin).

LET THE ANNUAL LENT FIGHT BEGIN!

She’s Baaaaa-aaaack!!!

Bunches of readers (CHTs all round) e-mailed me   

THIS ARTICLE ON ALLEGED ANGLICAN PLANS TO REUNITE WITH ROME IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

It’s by our favorite Times reporter, Ruth "I’m Too Dangerously Unqualified To Keep My Job" Gledhill.

EXCERPT:

Radical proposals to reunite Anglicans with the Roman Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope are to be published this year, The Times has learnt.

The proposals have been agreed by senior bishops of both churches.

In a 42-page statement prepared by an international commission of both churches, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are urged to explore how they might reunite under the Pope.

The statement, leaked to The Times, is being considered by the Vatican, where Catholic bishops are preparing a formal response.

It comes as the archbishops who lead the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion meet in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in an attempt to avoid schism over gay ordination and other liberal doctrines that have taken hold in parts of the Western Church.

Now, to anyone with a smidge of familiarity with the Catholic-Anglican dialogue, this just screams "Total nonsense! Gledhill, once again, hasn’t the faintest idea what she’s talking about!"

The idea that there is going to be an imminent reunion of the Anglican communion with Rome–or even a sizeable schism within it that then reunites with Rome in the near future–is preposterous. Instead, what we have here is Gledhill incompetently and sensationalistically getting the story wrong.

A specific dialogue body involving Anglicans and Catholics has prepared–not a practical plan for reunion–but a preliminary meditation on the state of dialogue and cooperation between the two Churches. Nothing more.

BTW, HERE’S THE DOCUMENT IN QUESTION.

 

If Gledhill had an ounce28 grams of knowledge about how these kinds of things work, she would know that.

Or maybe she does know it and is wilfully distorting the story in order to get a sensationalized "scoop."

Either way, it’s journalistic incompetence, so take your pick.

Needless to say, the body actually publishing the document was quick to fire back.

WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY IS WITHERING.

JOHN ALLEN GETS INTO THE ACT.

CHT?

Many readers ask what the CHT abbreviation that I use on the blog means.

Other blogs sometimes use HT for "hat tip" to readers or to other blogs that point things out.

I wear cowboy hats so . . . CHT.

NOTE: This will now be a permapost to try to help people find the answer quicker.

“Desires For Other Things”

A reader writes:

I have a quick question on the Parable of the Sower. It says, "The worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful."

My question is, are Christians allowed to have "desires for other things" besides God?  For example, if I strongely desire a wife, is it wrong?  I’ve been praying for a wife for years, but this parable convicted me.

The "desires for other things" phrase may be unfamiliar to some because it is found in Mark’s version of the Parable of the Sower, but not in Matthew or Luke’s version, which are better-known.

This phrase need not be an occasion for scrupling, however. It does not mean that desires for things other than God are bad. God himself designed us so that we would desire various things: food, human companionship, respect, love, sex, etc. All of those are goods, and God designed us to desire goods. It’s what motivates us to seek them and thus seek good.

The problem is when we allow desires for temporal goods to crowd out eternal goods. It is not sinful to desire a particular temporal good–such as a wife–but it becomes sinful if one is willing to mortally sin (turn one’s back on God) in order to gain a wife. The same is true of any other temporal good. If we are willing to mortally sin in order to get it then we have fixed our will on it rather than God. The situation is similar if we’re willing to venially sin in order to get it. In that case we’re letting it impede our relationship with God, but we’re not turning away from God to pursue it.

There is nothing wrong with desiring temporal things in addition to God; there is nothing wrong with strongly desiring them. What we have to make sure is that our desires for these things do not lead us into sin. As long as that is the case, there is no problem and the hierarchy of goods is as it should be, with us recognizing the transcendant value of eternal goods over temporal ones.

The balance is struck by Jesus in Matthew 6, where he tells us:

[D]o not be anxious,  saying, `What shall we eat?’ or `What shall we drink?’ or `What  shall we wear?’   For the Gentiles seek all these things;  and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.  But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all  these things shall be yours as well. Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be
anxious for itself. Let the day’s own trouble be sufficient for the
day [Matt. 6:31-34].

   

20

Selling Your Soul–Part II

The reader with obsessive-compulsive disorder who wrote before about the possibility of selling one’s soul writes:

Thank you very much for the prompt and logical
response.

My pleasure.

Unfortunately, I also read some of the combox, and the
doubting disease kicked in.

Yes, I was aghast when I discovered that–despite the fact this was a Rule 20 post–not only had the rule been violated in the combox but it had been immediately violated by the very first commenter. By the point I discovered it, there was an extensive (over 20 posts) discussion underway, and I couldn’t untangle it all and thus had to simply shut off the combox.

Rule 20 exists precisely in order to not have pastoral answers I’m giving undermined and add to the burden of the people I’m trying to help. I was livid when I discovered this blatant violation of the rule because of the pain it could inflict on the original reader, and I would have banned the commenter who did it immediately except that I don’t think he did it intentionally.

I also have to share some blame myself in that I should have better foreseen that this would happen and not have left the combox open on that post in the first place. At least one can argue that this was a case which was too sensitive to risk handling it under Rule 20.

So my apologies for all that.

One person mentions the
possibility of a pact with the devil — i.e. if I get
the thing that I want, I agree to go to hell.  I think
that’s pretty close to my conception of "selling my
soul" — more as a metaphor: I’d still be "me", but
I’ve agreed to spend eternity in hell.

I don’t want to take much more of your time on this
subject, but could you address the question from this
perspective?

Sure. The above is a metaphorical (not literal) understanding of "selling one’s soul" that is not subject to it being ontologically impossible (the way literally transferring your soul to someone else is). It would be at least possible to agree to go to hell in order to obtain some temporal good, and doing so would be gravely sinful because it is placing some temporal good above one’s eternal destiny.

So what if one did mentally choose this, giving it the full and deliberate cooperation needed to make it a fully human act?

Well, the devil isn’t omniscient, and merely thinking about striking a bargain with him doesn’t mean that you did.

Further, no such bargain would be binding.

You can’t morally obligate yourself to do something immoral, and willfully going to hell is immoral. Any "contract" of this nature would be automatically invalid. It would have no binding force before God. Therefore, all someone would need to do to get right with God–supposing he had done such a thing as a fully human act and thus been responsible for it–would be to turn to God and repent.

However, merely having a thought along these lines would not be the
same as committing this sin. Having the thought is just a temptation.
It isn’t a sin. You’ve got to engage the will in order for sin to take
place. Thus if a person with OCD has thoughts along these lines, he
should remember that they are not sins and put them out of his mind.

But what if the person with OCD feels that he has given some sort of
cooperation of the will to the thoughts (i.e., endorsed them). Here he
is to remember two things:

1) In order to actually commit a mortal sin
one must give deliberate consent to the thought. You haven’t committed
a mortal sin if you just feel some kind of partial cooperation of the
will, so don’t worry about it and think of something else.

2) The goal of obsessive-compulsive disorder is to try to inflict pain
on people by throwing thoughts and feelings at them that they don’t
want. It will try to trick them into thinking they are sinning mortally when they are either sinning venially or not sinning at all but just having a temptation. Therefore, an OCD-sufferer needs to follow the advice given to scrupulous people by sound pastoral theology
and assume that they have not given deliberate cooperation to the thoughts and thus have not mortally sinned.

The fact that the reader mentioned in his original e-mail
that he has a strong urge to resist these thoughts shows that he is in
this category and should ignore them.

20