The Apologetics Department has an opening for the position of Seminar Coordinator.
If you’d or someone you know would be interested in the position,
Thanks!
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."
The Sailing Monks
What do you do with a World War II Nazi landing ship? Uh, well, you could convert it to other shipping purposes…. You could create a WWII museum…. You could turn it into scrap metal….
Too tame. Let’s think outside the box (or the ship, as the case may be).
How about turning it into a floating monastery? Sort of.
"Croatia’s defense ministry has donated a World War II Nazi ship to a local Roman Catholic monastery, which will turn it into a sailing church, the Jutarnji List daily newspaper reported Tuesday.
"The landing ship DTM-219 was used by Nazi Germany to transport tanks and infantry. It was given to communist Yugoslavia after 1945 as part of war compensation, [the newspaper] said.
[…]
"It will be used as sailing church for the young, who will be able to sail the Adriatic, pray and meditate as part of church-sponsored religious cruises, the daily said."
Of course, I must warn the monks that, in Catholic Answers’ experience, not everyone will be keen on the idea of religious cruises.
How To Avoid Running Dry
A reader writes:
Given all you cover here (blog) and Catholic Answers, what works best to keep you keep from running dry?
Hm. I haven’t really thought of it in those terms. I assume that the reader is asking this to try to figure out what works for me so that he can apply similar techniques himself, so I’ll try to answer from that angle.
Usually the problem is not running out of things to say. I’m constantly on the lookout for new material on my own, and many folks write in with questions or send links. The problem is more like not having the time needed to say all of the things I could. I have to force myself not to blog more than I do because I need to spend time on other things (like having a life).
That said, there are some things that help keep me going. One is the feedback I get in the combox and via e-mail. That tells me that I’m making a connection with the readers and that they’re interested (whether they agree or not) with what I have to say. If nobody was interested in what I was saying, I’d get disappointed and quit.
The links that I get from other blogs and seeing my blog doing well in the rankings also show interest in the work I’m doing, and that’s positive reinforcement as well.
Beyond that, it’s just trying to maintain a healthy curiosity about all kinds of things and keeping an eye out for good material
If I had to summarize, I’d suggest these points:
1) Pace yourself. Figure out how much time one could afford to spend and then don’t exceed it.
2) Look for what kind of positive reinforcement you can get and take satisfaction in it.
3) Stay curious about things. Always try to be learning something new.
4) Keep on the lookout for good material. Always be pre-planning what you’re going to do next.
Hope these help!
Revamping JimmyAkin.Com
Since JimmyAkin.Org is my most active site these days, not much attention has been paid to JimmyAkin.Com of late. For time reasons and for technical reasons that I won’t go into, I haven’t been able to update it for some time. (Think: Years.)
I’ve left the files up there, warts and all, figuring that they’d do more good than harm, but I’m frankly embarrassed by the state of the site and would very much like to get the files moved to a location where I can more easily manage and update them.
But I need help.
I may need a little css help, but what I mainly need is assistance in getting the files transferred from the current JimmyAkin.Com site to the new site.
This will not involve doing real html coding. It will mostly just be copying and pasting text from the current files into a web form.
So I’m asking for volunteers!
If you’d be interested in helping out with the project, please e-mail me or let me know your interest and e-mail address in the combox.
I’m not asking for long-term commitments, just what time people feel they can affort to volunteer. I also don’t think it’ll take that long to get the site converted to the new location once we start.
Hopefully, a number of folks will be interested in helping out and we’ll be able to debut the new, revised, and updatable JimmyAkin.Com very soon!
Thanks much, folks!
Bryce Zabel Comments
Last week I did a post on the proposal to reboot the Star Trek universe that Bryce Zabel and Joe Straczynski wrote and sent to Paramount.
The post generated a number of comments in the combox, as well as a comment via e-mail from Bryce Zabel himself (who gave permission to use his name). He writes:
Thanks for the mention in your blog… you must have a very popular one because I got a lot of referrals. I also agree with the comments that a reboot, for those who freak out at the exact word, could simply be to tell the Star Trek story in an existing alt.universe. Anyway, all best to you, Jimmy…
I think that Bryce’s point (and that of other commenters) is a good one about presenting a rebooted Star Trek universe as an alternate timeline.
If a reboot ever goes forward, it might even be possible to deflect some concern by fans by showing the point of divergence for the two timelines or having them interact with each other in some way (via an interdimensional gateway or a timeline jumping means like in that great episode where Worf was jumping timelines accidentally). This would show the fans that all of their favorite, beloved stories were still "real" and still "existed out there"–just not in the timeline or universe that was in focus in the reboot.
As I mentioned in last week’s post, Mr. Zabel runs his own blog, and he frequently discusses matters of the television and movie industry, including science fiction and related genres, so be sure to
If you’d like to know more about the man himself,
HIS BIO ON IMDB IS ALSO QUITE INFORMATIVE
AND HERE’S INFO ON HIS SERIES DARK SKIES.
Thanks for stopping by, Bryce! Hope to see you around the cyberspace!
Political Ad From The Twilight Zone?
The Republican candidate for congress in Winston-Salem, North Carolina is a gentleman named Vernon Robinson.
Whatever else one might say about the man (and I know basically nothing else about him), he’s got moxie. . . . or gumption . . . or chutzpah . . . or audacity . . . or whatever you want to call it.
Why do I say that?
Because he’s released one of the most provocative political ads in recent memory. (CHT to the reader who e-mailed.) It’s gotten noticed, gotten people stirred up, gotten talked about, and it’s going to get talked about more.
WATCH THE AD. (WARNING: Content may be disturbing/offensive.)
Whether Robinson wins this year with this kind of message will be interesting to see.
Adam, Eve, Dinosaurs, And Cavemen
A reader writes:
I have a daughter who will be in middle school next year. She asked me a question yesterday that I didn’t have an answer for.
Basically, she wanted to know this:
Assuming that the Bible story of Adam & Eve is true, then where do dinosaurs and cavemen fit in? What is the explanation for them?
There are basically two possibilities here, depending on whether the six days of creation are understood literally or figuratively.
If they are understood literally then the dinosaurs (I assume that you mean the land-living dinosaurs, not the aquatic or avian ones, who would have been created on the Fifth Day) would have been created on the Sixth Day, the same as mankind. They then died out at some point, the most commonly cited reason being the Great Flood.
(And who could blame Noah if he didn’t want to try to get Tyrannosaurs and Brontosaurs onto the Ark?)
Cavemen (or at least those cavemen who were truly humans), by contrast, would presumably be descendants of Adam and Eve who took to living in caves since they didn’t have the Garden of Eden to live in anymore.
Other, not-quite-human cavemen who later died out presumably were created on the Sixth Day, along with the land animals and mankind.
If one takes the Six Days figuratively–so that they tell us what God did without telling us precisely when God did it–then presumably the common evolutionary account is what happened: God created live and allowed and guided its development over millions of years until eventually the dinosaurs arose. Then they all died (except for those that fought in the Civil War–that’s a joke!) and new life forms developed, leading eventually to the primates, which included not only monkeys and apes but also some species that were quite simliar to humans physically.
Then God took one of these (perhaps at the time of conception, and perhaps with a few new genetic changes) and endowed it with a rational soul to produce the first human.
Some of the almost-humans who didn’t have rational souls may have been some of the cavemen, but also–after the Fall–some true humans also undoubtedly inhabited caves and thus were cavemen, too, before they started building cities to live in.
Hope this helps!
Happy 4th of July!
Today will be a blog day off, so go out and cook some burgers and dogs and set off some illegal fireworks or something.
Have fun!
Sorry to international readers, but I do need breaks from this stuff and may as well take them when everyone else (here) is.
Telegraph Sends Faulty Message
The British "newspaper" The Telegraph has run a story headlined "Vatican vows to expel stem cell scientists from Church" and illustrated yet again why the secular press is too incompetent to keep its job when it comes to reporting religion stories.
According to the story:
Scientists who carry out embryonic stem cell research
and politicians who pass laws permitting the practice will be
excommunicated, the Vatican said yesterday."Destroying
human embryos is equivalent to an abortion. It is the same thing," said
Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council for the
Family."Excommunication will be applied to the
women, doctors and researchers who eliminate embryos [and to the]
politicians that approve the law," he said in an interview with
Famiglia Christiana, an official Vatican magazine.
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!
The Telegraph needs to hold its horses on this one.
First, the fact that the head of a pontifical council said something in a magazine interview–even in a magazine published by the Vatican–does not ammount ot a statement of Vatican policy, so it is completely misrepresents the situation to take the cardinals interview remarks and pitch them as "Vatican vows" to do anything. The Vatican doesn’t make policy statements in magazine interviews.
Second, we’re talking about the head of the Pontifical Council on the Family, here. While he’s a great guy, it is not within his brief to make binding statements regarding the extent to which canonical matters like excommunication apply to particular situations. He’s certainly entitled to express his opinions on the matters (and ED PETERS THINKS HE’S RIGHT REGARDING EMBRYO DESTROYERS) but the good cardinal is not empowered to move beyond the realm of offering an opinion and into making binding interpretations of canon law. So one more reason why this ain’t a "Vatican vow."
Third, we’re not talking about all stem cell scientists–just those who destroy embryos. As JAMIE BEU POINTS OUT, only stem cell research involving embryos is in question, not adult stem cell research.
Fourth, even confining outselves to embryonic stem cell research, it ain’t all scientists who do this research that the cardinal was addressing–just those who destroy embryos. If a scientist is doing experiments on a cell line derived from embryos who were killed in the past, he’s not performing an abortion and thus he’s not whacked by the sentence of excommunication. Regardless of whether he’s engaging in a moral activity in doing such experiments, he’s not aborting embryos and thus does not incur excommunication for procuring or assisting in the procurement of an abortion.
Fifth, excommunication does not "expel [one] from [the] Church"! It just doesn’t! Not under current canon law. The canonical effects of excommunication are enumerated in CANON 1331 and being expelled from the Church ain’t one of ’em.
So any way you slice it, The Telegraph staff responsible for this story have done a flatly incompetent job–at that before we even get past the headline!
It’s not even clear from the way the story is written how far its incompetence goes.
For example, note this statement:
"Excommunication will be applied to the women, doctors and researchers who eliminate embryos [and to the] politicians that approve the law," he said in an interview with Famiglia Christiana, an official Vatican magazine.
Since I don’t have a copy of Famiglia Christiana (or a translation of it), I have to rely on The Telegraph that the material from the cardinal is being quoted accurately and in context, but there is a question in my mind about that because of the inserted "[and to the]" which bridges an elipsis in the cardinal’s remarks.
There is a question in my mind about whether this insertion and elipsis distorts what the cardinal said because there would be notable canonical problems with the assertion that politicians would be excommunicated.
Penal laws are subject to narrow interpretation (Canon 18), and the Church has not historically interpreted the abortion excommunication politicians who vote in favor of laws that allow abortion as being excommunicated. Those directly involved in the abortion are, but not those who established the legal framework allowing abortion to take place.
Further, John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae 73 that in certain situations Catholic politicians can vote for laws that allow abortion if there is no practical way to get the abortion-allowing provisions out of the laws.
If Cardinal Trujillo did say that the abortion excommunication applies to politicians (and I don’t know what is meant by "approve"–whether it is morally approve or approve in the sense of voting, either one of which would have canonical hurdles for such excommunications to take effect) then that is his opinion, but it is once again not an authentic (i.e., authoritative) interpretation of canon law.
Unfortunately, I can’t even be sure what the cardinal said or meant from the incompetent way that The Telegraph’s staff has handled this story.
Forgotten Sins & General Confession
A reader writes:
Through the work of the Holy Spirit a couple of years
ago, I was able to really turn my spiritual life
around and fully embrace my Catholicism. I’ll spare
you all the gory details, but Catholic Answers Live
played a big part.I made some important confessions back then to really
bring me back into full communion with the Church, and
I continue to go every month or so. But I occasionally
will remember some stuff I did in my past life, either
a long time ago, or even just before my "reversion".
Sometimes really bad stuff, like Darth Vader stuff.
Unless you are a mass murderer or a Satanist, I very much doubt that you’ve got real Darth Vader-like stuff. You may be being scrupulous.
I tend to be scrupulous at times, although it comes
and goes.
Ahh. See?
I know I’m not supposed to reconfess things
(which I don’t)
It is possible to reconfess sins that have already been confessed and forgiven, but according to standard moral and pastoral theology this is something that a scrupulous person should not do because it fosters further scrupulosity.
and I’m not supposed to worry about
past sins (which I do). The sacrament takes care of
that.
True.
However, I have heard on EWTN and elsewhere that
it’s a good idea to mention unconfessed (forgotten)
serious sins the next time I go, even though the
sacrament took care of them.
It’s actually a bit stronger than that. If you remember a mortal sin that your forgot to confess then you have an obligation to confess it, even though it has already been forgiven.
In the case of scrupulous individuals, though, standard moral and pastoral theology holds that they should only confess such sins if the following conditions obtain: (1) they know for a fact it was a mortal sin and (2) they know for a fact that they have not already confessed it. If they aren’t sure about either of these two conditions then a person with a scrupulous conscience should not confess the sin because it will foster further scrupulosity if they get in the habit of confessing sins that they aren’t sure were mortal or aren’t sure if they haven’t already been confessed.
Would it be a good idea
for me to make a general confession, mentioning the
things I can think of, as a way to move on?
I continue to receive communion almost every day. My
head tells me to keep receiving, but my heart wants to
rid myself of the old baggage. I do realize the danger
of always remembering more and more past sins, as well
as the danger of not trusting the sacrament. I’ve
really enjoyed the posts you’ve made in the past
regarding scrupulosity. I’ve also read Fr. Santa’s
book. I’m not a "hard case", but like I said, it comes
and goes.
Whether you should make a general confession is difficult to say and is ultimately a decision that you will have to make based on your own knowledge of yourself and how successful it would be in helping you get past the present issue. It’s not an unreasonable idea, though, as long as you don’t find yourself wanting to do it again and again.
If you do make a general confession, then do it in such a way that will maximize your chance of getting past the scrupulosity: Sit down with a really thorough examination of conscience and make a list of everything mortally sinful that you think you may have done. Write it by hand; don’t use a computer. Then take this list with you into the confessional and read it or, if it is too painful, give it to the priest and say "I confess this." Then get the list back and DESTROY it (e.g., burn it and then flush the ashes).
You can, of course, omit from the list things that you’re sure that you have confessed.
And if you do decide on making a general confession, be sure to set up a special appointment time with the priest. Don’t show up to do it right before Mass or when there are other people waiting in line.
Hope this helps!
20