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."

Selling One’s Soul?

A reader writes:

I suffer from OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder).
One of my most troubling obsessions is the thought
that I have (or will) sell my soul (e.g. to the
devil).  This thought generally occurs when there’s
something that I want (e.g. I want project X to go
well at work; I see an attractive woman), and is
generally accompanied by an urge to strongly resist
the thought.

I’m hoping you can address this from a theological
perspective.  That is, is it even possible to sell
one’s soul?  If not, I’ll have "ammunition" to ignore
these thoughts going forward, and be able to dispel
all fear that I may have ever given in to the thought
in the past.  If it is possible, how would I know if I
had done it?

It is not possible to sell one’s soul. Period.

The only things that can be sold are things that (1) you own and (2) are alienable (that is, capable of being transferred from one person to another).

It is questionable whether you even own your own soul. To the extent that ownership even applies to souls, it could be stated that God owns our souls. Thus St. Paul, alluding to the fact that Christ redeemed us on the Cross, states:

You are not your own;  you were bought  with a price (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

There is thus a significant argument to be made that we can’t sell our souls because we don’t own them.

Even if one were to quibble on that point, though, we most definitely cannot sell our souls because they are not alienable. They can’t be taken away from us and given to someone else. Why? Because the soul is the essence of who we are.

I can’t transfer my essence–my "me"-ness–to anybody else. He has his own "me"-ness (which to me is "him"-ness), and it is logically impossible for someone else to be both him and me. He’s him. I’m me. That’s all there is to it.

Therefore, a single individual cannot have two souls. This is obvious to see in the case of an embodied soul: Human souls are the substantial forms of our bodies (that’s been dogmatically defined), and a body cannot have two substantial forms. The same thing applies even when our souls are outside our bodies, though. They constitute the irreducible essence of our persons, and as such they cannot be transferred from one person to another, by definition.

The thing to do when these thoughts come to you is to resist them, as you are doing, and to resist them in such a way that they aren’t reinforced. Just do your best to relax and put them out of your mind.

20

Funding For “Baby AIDS” Program Blocked

Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost writes:

I don’t like to pitch stories to bloggers, but this is an issue that I think deserves our attention. My sources say that the funding of this program–which funds HIV testing for infants to prevent HIV related infections–was blocked by low-level staffers from the CDC. Why? Who knows? But all too often this is "how things get done" in D.C. Some unelected staffer sneaks in wording that circumvents the will of both the American people and our representatives.

Joe links to a story HERE, which states:

Every year thousands of babies, predominately from poor African-American families, are born at risk of developing HIV. Many of these children develop HIV related infections that could have easily been prevented by prenatal testing and treatment. States that have implemented HIV testing for infants have seen their infections rates drop dramatically. Such success even inspired Congress to pass the Ryan White Early Diagnosis Grant Program. The program authorized $30 million in funding to states with infant HIV testing in order to ensure that these vulnerable children are protected.

The program was created just two months ago yet someone has already included language in the appropriations bill to prohibit funding for the “Baby Aids” program. Section 20613(b) of H.J.Res. 20 states:

(b) None of the funds appropriated by this division may be used to: (1) implement section 2625 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-33; relating to the Ryan White early diagnosis grant program)…

This provision does not save any money but simply prohibits funds to help identify these toddlers. In fact, the funding was already included in President Bush’s FY08 budget request. So why would anyone insert this language into the bill?

Earlier this week, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) attempted to add an amendment to restore the funding. Unfortunately, Democratic Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) never allowed the amendment to be included before the bill reached the Senate floor for a vote.

One would think that protecting sick babies is an issue that both Democrats and Republicans would fully endorse. So who inserted this language? And why wasn’t Sen. Coburn’s amendment added? Every American who cares about children should be asking that question – and demanding that Congress give us an answer.

The Face Of Chick?

JackchickWhat you are looking at may be the first known, recent photo of Jack T. Chick (left) to emerge on the Internet.

It is found on the home page of Victory Baptist Church in Clarkston, Michigan and is captioned as "Jack Chick & Pastor Bob Nogalski, Summer 2006."

The figure alleged to be Chick is holding a copy of his tract Bad Bob! and pointing to Pastor Nogalski because of the similarity of Pastor Nogalski’s life story to that of the character Bad Bob.

The Victory Baptist Church web site also includes Pastor Nogalski’s testimony regarding his life and how it intersects with Bad Bob’s.

VIEW THE PICTURE IN THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT.

READ PASTOR NOGALSKI’S TESTIMONY.

READ "BAD BOB!"

Now, the question on the minds of most JA.O readers will be: Is the photo of the reclusive Chick authentic?

In our day and age, photos certainly can lie, and so I’d be interested to know what PhotoChoppers can make of the picture’s authenticity. That’s a subject I can’t speak to, but perhaps we’ll hear from some of them in the combox.

What I can say is this: The man in the picture does look (apart from the comic expression on his face) much like I remember Jack Chick looking when I met him at the premier of his film, Light of the World.

YOU CAN READ ABOUT THAT HERE.

And here’s the picture I drew of Chick after the event:

Jackchick2_1

I can also say that the setting in which the picture was taken lends some credibility of the photo. It looks to me like the descriptions of the foyer of Chick Publications that I’ve read. I would guess that Pastor Nogalski visited Chick Publications in Summer 2006, met Chick, and (impressed by the pastor’s testimony regarding his connection with Bad Bob) Chick let the picture be taken, likely not realizing that it would find its way onto the Internet.

I’ve thought about driving up to visit Chick’s offices. They’re just a couple of hours up the road from me. But I’ve never done it.

Maybe after this picture, I will.

(BTW, a TEN GALLON CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

Who’s Holding Back Who’s Hand?

A reader writes:

I’m in RCIA right now, and I have a question that’s been bothering me for a while. I’m hoping you can shed some light. Someone on one of the combox threads posted the following:

“Our lady is holding back the hand of her beloved son from seeking retribution on those who wear the clerical cloth and those that are worshiping as humanists and not God himself.”

Now, the fellow in question may or may not be right, but I’m sure I’ve heard the first part of the quote before.

Here’s my question: I thought (as a Protestant) that it was Jesus who was staying the hand of God (out of love for His Son, God was withholding immediate judgment on the world). The quote makes it sound like it’s Mary who’s staying the hand of Jesus. I know the Church teaches that Mary intercedes for us with Christ, but this is starting to sound like a daisy chain. Help?

It’s understandable that this type of image would be a bit perplexing, especially if one is coming from a Protestant background, since many Protestants stress the idea of Jesus turning away God’s wrath from us.

Basically, the "holding back the hand" metaphor is just that: a metaphor. As such, it contains elements of truth, but it is also figurative. Mary is not literally holding back Jesus’ bodily hand to keep him from physically whacking erring clergymen. Neither is Jesus literally holding back God the Father’s hand to keep him from physically squashing us with it. That’s a metaphor.

The question is: What does the metaphor mean and what are its limits?

It would seem that the metaphor can refer to the fact that it is through Christ’s death (and his ongoing intercession at the "right hand" [another metaphor] of the Father) that we are treated more mercifully than we otherwise would be. In this sense we can say that Jesus restrains the "wrath" (bad consequences) that would otherwise come to us, for God has chosen to make his mercy toward us conditional on the work of his Son. Thus Jesus could be depicted as staying the Father’s wrath or holding back his hand.

But the metaphor also has limits. First, God doesn’t literally get angry. Anger is a passion, and God doesn’t have passions. When Scripture speaks of God’s anger, it’s using a metaphor to communicate the idea that he will allow bad consequences to occur to those on earth on account of their wrongdoing. He’s not literally seething with rage.

Quite the contrary! It is he who sent his Son to die for us on the Cross and thus provide salvation in spite of our sins! God sent his Son because he loves us and wants us to be saved. Thus he’s really on our side. It’s true that he will allow bad things to happen if we refuse his offer of grace (i.e., he will allow us to choose to reject him if we insist on it; he won’t force himself on us), but he wants to provide us with grace, and he sent his Son to make that possible.

Thus if we wish to view what is literally true, we must look past the metaphor of anger and of Jesus restraining his Father from squashing us in a fit of rage. That image is not literally true.

The content of the metaphor seems to consist in two points: (1) We deserve bad consequences for our sins but (2) we don’t receive these bad consequences because of Jesus’ work on our behalf.

Going beyond the metaphor, we also recognize (3) the Father loves us and (4) it is he himself who sent his Son so that we might receive mercy.

The same exact thing applies if we speak of Mary (or anyone else) restraining divine wrath. That’s a metaphor as well, and it communicates basically the same content, with the necessary changes folded in.

God wants to give us benefits, but he has willed that these benefits sometimes be contingent on the prayer of others. Thus he encourages the Christian community to be built up in love and concern for each other by giving it additional benefits when we are drawn out of ourselves to be concerned for and to pray for other people. It’s his reward system for turning our thoughts to him and to others, instead of focusing exclusively on our selves.

Based on this fact, it would be possible to modify the metaphor of restraining divine anger such that the intercession of Mary (or anyone else who prays) is pictured as what averts the bad consequences that would otherwise come. As the Mother of Christ, Mary is a particularly powerful intercessor, and so this metaphor is sometimes applied to her, but it could also be applied any time anyone’s prayers help us out.

Yet the content of the metaphor is basically the same: (1) We deserve bad consequences on account of our wrongdoings but (2) we don’t receive these bad consequences (at least in some cases) because of the intercession of another (Mary, in the case we are considering).

Looking beyond the metaphor, we also realize (3) that God (Father and Son and Holy Spirit) loves us and (4) it was God himself (Father and Son and Holy Spirit) who allows us to be blessed through the intercession of others, based on the work of Christ.

Hope this helps!

Job Assistance For A Former Priest

A reader writes:

I live in Philadelphia, where I left the presbyterate a few years ago….

I am currently employed but am not making enough money to survive.  I feel like I am at a dead end.

Is their a former priest’s network support group that can help find former priest’s find employment?  Or would you happen to know someone who could help me?

Please advise.

I don’t know of such an organization–or one that is faithful to the Church, anyway–but my knowledge on such matters is very limited, but perhaps readers can help with suggestsions in the combox. I’ll make sure that the person who wrote gets the suggestions that come up.

The reader who wrote is to be commended for trying to find help without resorting to some of the illegitimate ways that former priests can try to make money (e.g., serving as a "rent-a-priest" and selling sacraments–or claimed sacraments [several would be invalid without proper faculties]–for money).

Incidentally, I know that I’ve got some cantankerous readers who are concerned about the number of departures from the priesthood, but this combox is not the place for finding fault or discussing those issues. We don’t know what may have led to the gentleman’s departure from the priesthood, and there can be perfectly legitimate reasons for doing so, just as there can be perfectly legitimate reasons for ending a marriage.

As it is, the reader is in a tough spot, and he’s sincerely reaching out for help and asking for ideas. Let’s do the Christian think and try to help, following the example that St. James tells us is set by God himself:

"If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives to all men
generously and without reproaching, and it will be given him" (James 1:5).

If that’s how God gives information to those who need it, let’s make sure we follow his example.

20

Gattica! Gattica!

If a House bill goes through in its current form and becomes law, we’ll be one step closer to the genetic dystopia of GATTACA.

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins writes:

A bill with serious ramifications for the disabled and others medically at risk is scheduled for mark-up in the House Education and Labor Committee on Wednesday. As I previously mentioned, H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), was introduced to prevent insurance companies and employers from refusing to cover individuals or families based on the results of genetic tests. Unfortunately, due to a large loophole in the bill’s language, the definition of "family member" does not include children who are "to be born" or those who are in the process of being placed for adoption. Without an amendment to expand the definition, an insurance company could, on the grounds of a prenatal test, cancel a woman’s insurance–or encourage her to have an abortion because it doesn’t want to pay for the costs of a special needs child with an illness or disability such as Down Syndrome. When the bill was first introduced in 2005, sponsors said the language would be clarified. However, with the House now poised to act on the legislation, this has not been done. In our conversations with House members, we’ve learned that an amendment will likely be offered in committee to favorably change the bill. We encourage all representatives to vote for this equitable pro-family clarification.

MORE.

Blog Week Lite?

Just a note to let folks know that I’m currently having to devote a significant amount of time to a writing project (the Mormonism booklet for the publisher outside the U.S.), and blogging may be light this week.

I’ll do my best to at least throw up some interesting links, though.