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."

Interview With Rector Of Pontifical Biblical Institute

John Allen (last John Allen-based piece this week, I promise) has an interesting interview with the rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Fr. Stephen Pisano.

The occasion of the interview is the release of the Gospel of Judas (with which Fr. Pisano isn’t as familiar as one might like) but it ranges considerably beyond that and includes a discussion of B16 and Scripture as well.

Ironically, I thought one of the most insightful things in the interview was actually a statement by Allen (in blue, below) which I thought captures something in a particularly crisp way.

EXCERPTS:

Hearing about these rival gospels, the average person may think, ‘My Gosh, the gospels [in the Bible] had it wrong.’ How should we understand claims like that?
They’re simply not true. That’s the short answer. These other Gnostic gospels haven’t really changed our view of things, and one more isn’t going to do that either. This is literature that came from a particular sect, a particular group, which followed this Gnostic philosophy. One of the things that is important to see, I think, is that we’re in the second century. This is really a very short time after the death and resurrection of Jesus. In this period of the early church, Christian theology as we know it today was really in its infancy. We shouldn’t have the idea that already in the second century we had something developed like the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That’s something that is the result of thousands of years of theological reflection. If we try to put ourselves back into the mentality of the second century, the early believers didn’t really know yet what to believe, what context to put their belief in, and I think there were a lot of attempts to express the faith and to find a philosophy that fit in with the resurrection faith. Some of these attempts bore fruit and became part of mainstream Christian theology, and some were dead ends. This is one that was a dead end. The proof of that, or the indication of it at least, is that you have Irenaeus writing around the year 180, and already then he is condemning this very approach to Christian theology. If it was condemned and seen as deviant already in the second century, I don’t think it’s something that is going to come back and be seen as relevant today.

Would it be fair to say that the ‘Gospel of Judas’ gives us new insight into second century Christianity, and the varieties of theological reflection that were going on, as opposed to any new insight into the historical Jesus or the historical Judas?
Very much so, certainly it would be the former. One of the things that is really a big lacuna is our knowledge of the second century. We do have these Gnostic gospels and some other writings from around that time, but really we don’t have all that much that tells us about the second century, so anything that comes to light pertaining to that period is all to the good from the point of view of our historical knowledge. It’s very helpful.

Bottom line: No one’s faith should feel threatened by the ‘Gospel of Judas’?
No, by no means.

The church’s traditional teaching that Judas’ betrayal of Jesus was a sinful act is not going to be challenged by this discovery?
I don’t think so. One interesting question, though, is whether Judas had full knowledge of what he was doing when he betrayed Jesus. From what we can gather from the gospel accounts, he had full knowledge that he was betraying Jesus. But did he have full knowledge that he was betraying the Son of God? That’s more difficult to say. If you look at the way all the apostles are portrayed in the gospels, during the earthly life of Jesus, they appear not to get it. They ran hot and cold … how they saw Jesus, and what they believed Jesus to be during his earthly life with them, is very difficult to discern. After the experience of the risen Lord, whatever that experience was, and after Pentecost, then the apostles seemed to be begin to really understand what was going on. We have to understand that the gospels themselves were written in light of that experience of the resurrected Jesus and the experience of the Spirit at Pentecost. So, did Judas know he was betraying the Son of God? I don’t know that we could say that. … Whether he saw Jesus basically as a political leader, a subversive leader who was going to lead the Jewish people against the Roman yoke, and then realized that wasn’t Jesus’ intention, is hard to say. We don’t really know what he thought about things.

But we do know he betrayed somebody for money, so that at least on the basis of the canonical gospels, it’s hard to make a hero out of him.
That’s right, yes, indeed.

[O]ne of the ways in which the Judas story has fueled anti-Jewish prejudice over the years is that he was the original traitor, and some feel that if you can rehabilitate Judas, you would reduce Christian anti-Semitism.
There is an extended debate about the responsibility, or the culpability, of the Jewish people in the death of the Jesus. I think that two things have to be noted there. One is simply a fact from the early expressions of faith, in both the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed, that in both of these texts it says Jesus suffered ‘under Pontius Pilate,’ and there’s no reference to the Jews at all. From a broader theological point of view, which has always been, I think, the point of view of Christian theology and Christian faith, the ultimate answer to the question, ‘Who is responsible for the death of Jesus?’ is, ‘Every person who is a sinner.’ No matter what their particular religious affiliation is, Jesus came to free all people from sin. One can say that the cause of Jesus’ death is really the sinfulness of the human race.

In other words, attempts to rehabilitate Judas are not going to have any particular impact?
I don’t think so, no. That’s in addition to it being an impossible task.

GET THE STORY.

Aside from Allen’s line that I put in blue, one of the things that I found interesting about this was the idea that some people have of rehabilitating Judas as a way of combatting anti-Semitism. That may play a role in explaining the attempts to rehabilitate Judas in the 20th century. In a surprising number of books and films–both fiction and non-fiction–people tried sympathetic portrayals of Judas (see, e.g., Franco Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth). Perhaps the desire to combat anti-Semitism in the wake of the Holocaust played a role in the sudden rash of pro-Judas sentiments in the media (alongside a general 20th century desire to be perverse).

The Da Vinci Files: An Unexpected Ally

Christians may have just gotten an unexpected ally against Ron Howard’s latest monsterpiece, The Da Vinci Code.

Oh, sure. Lots of Christian groups have been picking at the book’s and film’s inaccuracies–but they’re focused on matters of fact rather than style.

They may have just gotten an ally who would love to see the film fail at the boxoffice and who couldn’t care less about the fact and will go after the film on grounds of style–even at the pettiest level.

So who is the mysterious ally willing to take on Hollywood?

Hollywood itself.

GET THE STORY.

MEMO TO HOLLYWOOD:

A house divided itself cannot stand.

P.S. Burn, baby, burn!

Interview With Ambassador Rooney

John Allen (yes, I know this is kinda turning on to John Allen week, but he’s a good source and I’m doing a bunch of pre-blogging since I’m going to have to be offline for a few days and I don’t want to just leave the blog inactive) has an interesting interview with the U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, Francis Rooney (pictured).

EXCERPTS:

In the struggle against terrorism, most people are on board in terms of ends. The debate is over means. Have there been exchanges between you and the Holy See on that question?
Obviously, everybody hopes there won’t be any more wars. Like I said, the Holy See is supportive of our nation-building efforts in Iraq, and hopes that the seed of some kind of pluralistic, tolerant society, if possible, will be an example to other countries in that area.

Has there been any additional conversation between you and the Holy See about when the use of force is justified to try to curb terrorism?
No. The subject hasn’t come up. I haven’t seen any particular reason to raise that at this point. When we talk about Iran, the Holy See has been clearly supportive of all the nations working to avoid a nuclear armed Iran. There’s really nothing to talk about at this point. I think we all agree that a war in Iran would be a horrible thing. The fortunate thing is, the Holy See is willing to speak up about the right of Israel to exist. The Holy Father opposed President Ahmadinejad’s comments. We’ve encouraged them to be strong, to continue to speak up, because that shows Iran the whole world is united against them having nuclear weapons and threatening their neighbors.

You haven’t heard anything from the Holy See to the effect of, ‘Please don’t use force in Iran?’
No.

You mentioned religious liberty, another core theme of interest to the Holy See, especially these days in the context of the Islamic world. Benedict XVI seems a bit more outspoken on Islam than John Paul II. Some welcome that, others worry that it will heighten tensions. What’s your reading?
I think the evolving consensus that the church needs to be clear and strong that religious freedom is a two-way street is unimpeachable. I haven’t heard anything from my government to oppose that. We’re for religious freedom of all stripes. When you apply that principle, you have to say that for Saudi Arabia to say, ‘There can’t be any churches,’ is an issue. I believe even Secretary Rice is starting to address that, and I think the President’s comments that pluralism in Iraq should germinate pluralism elsewhere, is all playing into that same thing. You can’t have it two ways.

You would agree that there’s a stronger line under Benedict XVI?
Absolutely. I think they’ve hardened up. I think they’ve gotten clearer. They’re focusing on this reciprocity doctrine. They’re also focusing on the possibilities of working together in non-doctrinal areas, which I think is smart. It’s kind of hard for people to hate each other who have worked together building a Habitat for Humanity house, that kind of team-building concept, which can be applied in pastoral care, in AIDS relief. There are also the life issues, where the Catholic Church has been on the same side with Islam before the U.N. Maybe there are some things like that they can work on together. I think that’s part of their thinking, and that’s all great.

I thought the interview overall was quite interesting and insightful. I’m not happy about everything I read–partly because Ambassador Rooney puts a political spin on a few points, which is what you’d expect from a political appointee–but it’s well worth reading.

GET THE STORY.

Warming Up For The Tridentine Mass

CHT to the commenter yesterday who pointed to the excellent analysis over at Rorate Caeli on the idea the B16 is likely to be deterred from giving broader permission for celebrating Mass according to the Tridentine Rite due to a lack of consensus.

New Catholic–the author of the post–provides an excellent look at the evidence and concludes that the bottom line is (in my words), "Yes, the there is no consensus in favor of broadening permission. In fact, the evidence is that there is a widespread consensus against broadening permission. Nevertheless, the evidence is also that this is what B16 intends to do, and his actions to date fit the a pattern one would expect of a shrewd manager warming up his apparatus for the change."

It’s an excellent piece, including a chronology of how events have played out, and I wanted to bring it broader attention than the combox would allow.

GET THE STORY.

The Apparitions Rumor Net

A number of years ago, when reported Marian apparitions were getting an enormous amount of attention, a rumor network built up around them that did a couple of things to foster the devotion of those who were regular readers of these reports.

The first thing that the rumor network did was to circulate claims that a particular apparition either had been approved by the Church or that it was on the verge of being approved–when in fact neither of these was true.

The second thing that the rumor network did–in the case of some reported apparitions–was to try to represent high churchmen (particularly John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger) as endorsers of their favored apparition.

"The Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger are really into the Divine Will," a supporter of Luisa Picaretta once told me.

Many similar claims were made regarding the two figures and Medjugorje.

At the time, I was quite skeptical of such claims but–even if they were true, I asserted–if the pope and Cardinal Ratzinger wished to lend their names to such apparitions then they would come out and say so.

Now the bishop of Mostar-Duvno (in whose territory Medjugorje lays) has published an interview in his own diocesan paper in which he discusses Pre-16’s attitude toward Medjugorje. I’m afraid that it may not sit well with some supporters of Medjugorje. Here is an excerpt provided by John Allen:

Some newspapers have written that this Pope visited Medjugorje incognito while he was a cardinal and that he is preparing to recognize Medjugorje as a shrine, etc. Did you touch upon this topic?

We did, and I wrote to and spoke with the Holy Father on it. He only laughed surprisingly. Regarding the events of Medjugorje our position is well known: not a single proof exists that these events concern supernatural apparitions and revelations. Therefore from the church’s perspective no pilgrimages are allowed which would attribute any authenticity to these alleged apparitions.

The Holy Father told me: "We at the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] always asked ourselves, how can any believer accept as authentic apparitions that occur every day and for so many years? Are they still occurring every day?"

I responded: "Every day, Holy Father, to one of the [visionaries] in Boston, to another near Milan and still another in Krehin Gradac (Herzegovina), and everything is done under the protocol of ‘apparitions of Medjugorje’. Up till now there have been about 35,000 ‘apparitions’ and there is no end in sight!"

… The numerous absurd messages, insincerities, falsehoods and disobedience associated with the events and "apparitions" of Medjugorje from the very outset, all disprove any claims of authenticity. Much pressure has been made to force the recognition of the authenticity of private revelations, yet not through convincing arguments based upon the truth, but through the self-praise of personal conversions and by statements such as one "feels good". How can this ever be taken as proof of the authenticity of apparitions?

… Finally the Holy Father said: "We at the congregation felt that priests should be of service to those faithful who seek Confession and Holy Communion, leaving out the question of the authenticity of the apparitions."

GET THE STORY.

I myself don’t make any claims regarding whether the bishop is correct in his assessment of B16’s attitude toward Medjugorje. I know that Bishop Peric is viewed negatively and may not be trusted by many Medjugorje supporters, and as I am not a student of the situation, I don’t claim to know who is right. But it is noteworthy that a bishop would say "Pope Benedict told me this" and publish it in his own diocesan newspaper.

Invasion Of The Bird Snatchers

These are birds of paradise.

They’re a plant that looks like a bird. (No, really.)

They’re native to South Africa, but we’ve got ’em all over the place out here in California, where they’re used as a common ornamental plant.

The other night I was at a square dance and, between tips, I went outside for some cool air, since we’d been hot hashing really fast and I’d worked up a sweat. (Man, that was fun! My square got through the hot hash tip without any mistakes! Yee-haw!)

In the moonlight, I got to looking at the birds of paradise that were planted around the War Memorial Building (in Balboa Park, for those who know San Diego) where the dance was being held, and I got to thinking: These really do look like birds. I mean, amazingly so.

The fact that they’re not birds is obvious to human eyes if you get up close to them, but not all creatures have vision as good as humans, and not all see them up close.

So I thought: This can’t be a coincidence. There has to be some advantage to the plant if it looks like a bird. So what might that be?

Well, an obvious one is that if you’re a plant that looks like a pretty bird then humans will take a liking to you and plant you all over the place, thus furthering your survival/reproductive aims.

But I don’t know if humans have been doing this kind of horticulture for long enough to have tailored this plant breed to look like a bird (though we may have).

On the other hand, bugs eat plants and birds eat bugs, so maybe if you’re a plant that looks like a bird, it’ll scare off the bugs. Some bugs may have an avoidance instinct for anything that has a bird-like silhouette, so having one would again further the plant’s survival/reproductive aims.

And then what might birds think of this plant? If I were a bird that looked like this plant then I might want to hide among a bunch of them and thus mask my signature from potential predators. If these plants provided such birds with a really good hiding place then they’d hang out among them a lot and end up . . . uh . . . providing them with fertilizer, which will again further the plant’s survival/reproductive aims.

So this is getting kinda familiar: A plant that takes the form of an animal for purposes of furthering its own survival/reproductive aims? Possibly intermingling with the actual animals that it imitates?

You’re next!

MORE ABOUT BIRDS OF PARADISE.

(Oh, and before someone else says it: "No, it is I who will replace you!")

Kneeling & Pain

A reader writes:

I’ve really been enjoying your blog for the past
couple of months. I also recently got a used copy of
your book The Salvation Controversy from amazon.com,
and was happy to discover that it was autographed in
the front. The autograph is apparently from the
"James" years, so I wonder if it will be a limited
edition collectors’ item someday. 😉

Maybe. I was foolish enough for a few years to avoid my legal birthname–Jimmy–in quest of the "more dignified" James (during which time I also suppressed the native Southern elements of my speech), but I don’t know that it’ll have any economic impact on the value of my writings. Such foolishness can be part of growing up, but I don’ t know that it’ll make the stuff I write any more valuable. Maybe you could get an extra nickle. 😉

I’m writing you because I have a question, but let me
first give you a brief background. I am a (former
Methodist, current Southern Baptist) student who will
soon be graduating with a Master of Music degree from
a Baptist seminary, and (get this), largely because of
my studies at seminary, I do believe I may be on the
way to becoming a Catholic!

Congratulations!

I’ve been doing a lot of
research (much of it on the Catholic Answers website),
and I’m thinking that next fall I’ll probably start
RCIA. It’s kind of scary, but I’m definitely feeling
the pull in this direction.

My question is this, and on one level it’s kind of
silly.

Okay, but I don’t view there as being silly questions, only silly answers.

I’ve never been much of a kneeler, mainly
because it hurts if I do it for very long. I go to
mass a lot with my mother (who converted to
Catholicism three years ago), and sometimes I try to
kneel some (they do have kneelers, and no one else
seems to have much trouble with this except maybe an
older lady here or there who stays seated). But I
knelt for some of the Good Friday service the other
day, and I’ve hardly been able to walk all day today!
This happened once before too, though on that
occassion I intentionally stayed kneeling even though
I was in pain during a mass (I guess what I thought
was a Catholic notion of self-mortification or
something-I’m all new at this).

What I’ve run across on the Catholic Answers website
seems to indicate that during certain portions of the
mass, the faithful are supposed to kneel unless health
reasons indicate otherwise. I suppose this is some
kind of health reason, though I’ve never actually been
diagnosed with anything. (My mom has suggested that I
may be getting arthritis, which is of course always
welcome news at my young age!)

Do cradle Catholics build up
more knee strength over the years?

That’s an interesting question, and the only thing I can say is, "perhaps." I don’t think it takes years, though. Once you start using your muscles in a new way, they build up pretty quickly. I’d think that any added knee strength from kneeling would be built up in a matter of weeks, not years.

Does anyone else
have this problem?

Oh, sure. Lotsa folks have knee problems or back problems or what have you. I myself have a back problem and can’t always kneel. (Incidentally, you don’t need a diagnosis for a medical condition to be excused from kneeling, you just need the medical condition.)

If I do become Catholic, will
people think I’m some sort of unpious wimp because I’m
not kneeling?

No. Like I said, lotsa folks are unable to kneel–either temporarily or permanently–and just staying in your seat won’t really attract attention. When I’ve been unable to kneel, I’ve never had anybody wrinkle their nose at me (and I’m usually totally anonymous in church, so it’s not like I get any deference for being an apologist or having a blog or anything).

Besides, if anybody did wrinkle their nose at me for not kneeling, all that would mean is that they’re paying attention to me instead of to the Mass, so I could wrinkle my nose right back at them.

Are you supposed to feel pain when you
kneel?

A little discomfort, maybe, but actual pain, no–certainly not anything that make it hard for you to walk afterwards. That goes beyond pain to doing some kind of actual damage to the body, and that isn’t the goal of kneeling. If you’re having anything like that then you are unambiguously excused from kneeling.

I wouldn’t worry about the issue of kneeling. If you find it too difficult to do–temporarily or permanently–then you are excused from the requirement, and people will not notice or care if you just sit. Even if they did, the important thing is being in union with Christ’s Church and receiving Jesus in the Eucharist. That’s where one’s focus should be.

Thank you so much for all you do. It is obvious from
hearing you on the radio and reading your writings
that you both really understand the Catholic faith and
have a heart for people.

Thanks. You are too kind.

Latin Mass Speculation

This week’s The Word From Rome (which may have to get retitled "The Word From New York" given John Allen’s plans to relocate to the states) contains a piece about the speculations that Pope Benedict would announce a universal indult for celebrating the Tridentine Rite of Mass during Triduum.

Personally, I always thought this was a long shot, though I anticipate that there will be greater and possibly universal permission to celebrate the Tridentine Rite at some point. It was the timing of publicly announcing it during Holy Week that was the issue, since this would take the focus off of the Holy Week celebrations entirely, with a media firestorm errupting.

Allen has been talking to some Vatican sources about the kind of reactions B16 has been getting in his discussions with cardinals on the topic:

"Whenever there have been meetings about this among the cardinals, it’s not just that there’s division," he said. "The overwhelming majority is against it [universal permission to celebrate the old rite]. It’s not like it’s fifty-fifty."

This source pointed out that just two weeks ago, in Benedict’s closed-door meeting with cardinals, the bulk of cardinals who spoke were against such a move.

"If it were up to Castrillon Hoyos, it would already have happened," the source said, referring to Colombian Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission for traditionalist Catholics.

"But Benedict is trying to operate on the basis of consensus, and there’s just no consensus," he said.

Another senior Vatican official said simply, "It is not a theme that is yet mature."

Here’s Allen’s bottom-line assessment:

Given the way Benedict XVI has played his cards close to the chest on other matters, it’s possible that a document is in the works without most of his key advisors knowing about it. But so far, on this issue, what we have is a lot of smoke in search of a fire.

GET THE STORY.

I Disagree With The Cardinal Archbishop Of Guadalajara

First, let me note a point on which I agree with him, though.

According to Catholic News Agency,

The archbishop of Guadalajara, Mexico, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez expressed his support this week for protests by Hispanics in the United States, saying the “undocumented” are persons who also possess the dignity of the children of God.

That much is true. The protesters are largely baptized people, and the baptized possess the dignity of the children of God. And even the unbaptized possess the dignity of human persons created in God’s image. At the same time, that is a dignity that can be abused, as when people, baptized or otherwise, break the law.

Here’s where the disagreement comes in:

During the inauguration of the Diocesan Museum of the Mexican Martyrs, the cardinal said the undocumented should not be called “illegal” because they are not criminals, but rather people who out of necessity or “ignorance left without their papers.” He said the country to which they travel should treat them with justice and grant them a status that “respects first and foremost their human dignity.”

The U.S. should indeed treat illegal aliens with human dignity, but treating them with justice means acknowledging that they have broken the law, making their presence in this country "illegal."

It may be morally legitimate at times to do illegal things out of moral necessity, but this does not automatically make the act legal under civil law (though in some cases civil law may honor a necessity defense).

The Cardinal Archbishop is not dealing straight here. The number of illegal immigrants from Mexico who out of "ignorance left without their papers" is diminimously small. Children may have been dragged along by their parents in that condition, but the number of adults who did so is extremely low or non-existent. They knew darn well that they needed the appropriate papers to cross into the United States. Otherwise they wouldn’t be using obscure desert trails and paying coyotes sums of money to smuggle them across crammed into the backs of vans and semi-trucks.

I’m sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts, and the truth is that non-citizens who have come into this country illegally are illegal aliens by definition.

We do neither them nor the American people a favor if we try to paper over this reality with terminology that would seek to mask this fact.

To do so only distracts from the core moral questions of whether their presence in this country can be morally justified or not (that’s where the necessity defense plays a role) and what is to be done about the situation.

Hell In A Nutshell

If Uncle Screwtape had thumbs, he’d be giving The DaVinci Code two thumbs up.

"Now, Wormwood, before you object to my calling this book ‘non-fiction’ — since it is technically classified as ‘fiction’ — let me say that it is essentially non-fiction, at least as far as our purposes are concerned. That’s because it’s principle delight for our side is that in the tacky plastic shell of some below-average ‘fiction’ the book parades as ‘fact’ a veritable phalanx of practical propaganda and disinformation that would make our dear Herr Goebbels (Circle Eight, third spiderhole on the right) jade green with envy! Souls by the boatload are blithely believing almost all of the deliciously corrosive non-facts that are congealed everywhere in it, like flies in bad aspic, and it is that precisely which most recommends this glorious effort as worthy of our dedicated and especial study.

"But where to begin in describing to you its myriad delights? First, a brief synopsis of the plot: a museum curator is murdered by a fanatical albino Christian bigot (nice opening, no?); the curator’s granddaughter and an American ‘symbologist’ (don’t ask me, I haven’t the time) try to find the real killer and are launched on a wildly implausible and fantastically cryptical search for the proverbial Holy Grail, all the while chased by angry gendarmes and the aforementioned unhinged albino. In the process they (and the lucky reader) discover that: the Church is murderous and evil; the Bible is a hoax; Jesus is not divine, but merely a married mortal and an earnest proto-feminist (!); there is no such thing as Truth; and oh, yes… is the truest kind of prayer. Can you stand it? A virtuoso performance, no? It’s as if the author’s somehow squeezed all of hell into a walnut shell. And oh, yes, one more historical ‘fact’: Leonardo DaVinci’s homosexuality was ‘flamboyant’! Do tell."

GET THE STORY. (Warning: Put down the coffee mug and clear the throat first. JimmyAkin.org takes no responsibility for the state of your keyboard, monitor, or respiratory system if you read this while drinking or eating.)

(Nod to Mark Shea for the link.)

I’ve read a number of Screwtapian musings by writers attempting to channel C. S. Lewis, but this is the first one I’ve read of which I think even Lewis himself would approve. Eric Metaxas nails Screwtape. Read the whole thing.