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."

How POD Changes The Market

A way long time ago I pointed out that print-on-demand (POD) technology was not simply a replacement for traditional publishers that aspiring authors could use to get their works out and presented to an admiring public.

POD tech works on the same principle as computer tech: "Garbage In, Garbage Out."

Writers who are not yet ready for prime time can get their work out via POD publishers, but they will sell precious few copies because the work is . . . well, not yet ready for prime time.

But POD tech CAN serve as an important compliment to existing publishing houses for writers who ARE ready for prime time.

Enter JMS.

Earlier I mentioned his project of publishing all the scripts he wrote for B5. That’s something he (and his colleagues) are doing through Cafe Press, which is a POD publisher of books (and other things).

In a Usenet post, JMS explains how this technology is already changing the publishing industry:

Others have asked why I (and the B5 scripts team) are going through
Cafe Press rather than a major publisher. The answer is very simple:
over the years, I’ve had many publishers approach me about publising
the B5 scripts, but they take the same timid line WB has always taken
about the show. We had to push like hell to get the DVDs released, and
they still insisted on testing the water…putting out one disc first
(same with the VHSs) to "test the waters"….and of course now the DVDs
have grossed half a billion bucks for WB.

So when the publishers approached me, it was with the same, "Well,
let’s put out one book now, the ‘best of’ scripts, then we can think
about doing more down the road, so we can test the waters." When I
explained that i wante all of the scripts to go out, all 14 volumes,
nearly a hundred scripts…they couldn’t even fathom such a thing.
It’s never been done, not on this scale. But with Cafe Press, we CAN
do all 14 volumes.

This collection is really the Rosetta Stone of the Babylon 5
universe…and I wanted that to get out there in full, to kind of
finish the job properly. Here’s the scripts, here are the stories
behind the scripts, the arc, the production, here are the photos and
the memos, so that when it’s done…it’s really done. Again, we’re
talking here over 6,300 pages of material…14 volumes, each nearly an
inch thick…it’s just monumental.

A few other places came and said they could do it, but their plan was
to do even FEWER copies, limited edition stuff, hardcover, at a cost of
sixty to two HUNDRED bucks per copy, which I thought was just way, way
beyond the pale. The whole point of the exercise is to get this into
the hands of as many people who want it as possible. The way we’re
doing it now, for a bit over four hundred bucks, folks can get all 14
volumes, plus the 15th free, which is a heck of a lot more affordable,
given what scripts and the like sell for on Ebay.

For me, on a personal basis, it’s been an amazing process to go back in
time, through the memos, scripts and photos, and re-live those years.
Which is one of the reasons why the intros/essays have been ballooning
out in size…from 13,000 words to 15,000 to 18,000 words, not COUNTING
the other material. I’m putting it all in…all the stuff nobody ever
heard about…it’s all going in here.

And then, when it’s done, the tale will at last be told in its
entirety…the show, and the show *behind* the show.

Again, though, bear in mind that there is a ceiling on how long these
will be available at www.babylon5scripts.com so if there’s somebody who
doesn’t know about the site, you may want to let them know in time to
get in while the Cafe Press price breaks will give them maximum
benefit.

I have to be honest…I’m enjoying the hell out of this.

jms

SOURCE.

So: The major publishers aren’t on the verge of going out of business due to POD, but the dynamics of the marketplace are already changing because of it. Projects like the complete JMS B5 script series would NEVER have happened through a regular publisher, but now it is happening because the technological changes with the introduction of POD.

It’s apparently selling like crazy, too.

It’ll be interesting to see how this technology matures (and what impact it has on authors’ royalties since at that point all authors will need publishers for are things like copy editing, proofreading, and typesetting–services POD publishers are sure to offer for a fee–and marketing).

B5 Scripts

This is just a note for B5 fans who may want to know about this:

Over the next year JMS is releasing a 15-volume set of all the scripts that he wrote for the TV series Babylon 5 (which is the vast majority of the episodes of the show).

These are the productions scripts and include scenes and dialogue that were filmed but never broadcast.

There are generally seven scripts per volume, plus a lot of bonus materials. The bonus materials include newly written introductions by JMS to the scripts, talking about how they originated, what was going on with the show at the time, what production issues were encountered, etc. The bonus materials also include behind-the-scenes photos from the set and a lot of production memos that he sent out during filming talking about the design of various props, alien races, and characters who were meant to be on the show (some of whom never were–like the The Boss and mysterious Mr. Jones).

I’ve seen the first two volumes (which are out), and they’re actually a lot cooler than I thought from the bare description of them.

Among other things, JMS explains things that weren’t necessarily clear on screen. F’rinstance: An early season 1 episode "Infection," which dealt with a piece of organic technology from the planet Ikara that grabbed a person and turned him into an "Ikaran war machine"–as Mr. Garibaldi once termed it. This episode was one of the first filmed and is generally regarded as one of the least successful of the show’s five year run (it’s basically a man in a rubber suit monster episode),

BUT

in volume 1 on the scripts, JMS explains something that could only have been obvious in hindsight (and wasn’t obvious to me even then until he pointed it out): the Ikaran device is (a) dark and scaly with lots of pointy, insect-like leg thingies, (b) organic technology, (c) that incorporates a living being into itself, (d) seizes control of his brain for its own purposes, and (e) turns him into a form of armament.

Does that sound like anything ELSE we encounter on Babylon 5?

It’s SHADOW TECH.

The Ikarans got ahold of some left over shadow tech from the last Great War and used it to try to impose genetic and ideological purity on their planet, leading to them all being wiped out (since nobody is ever pure enough).

The tech in question was one of the things that the Shadows used to create infantry units since, as JMS points out, an army needs to control the ground as well as the sky.

So. It’s still a man in a rubber suit monster episode, but at least it’s a man in a rubber suit monster episode that fits in to the overall shadow mythology that JMS created for his universe.

The volumes also contain alternate, unfilmed versions of some scripts. For example, volume 1 contains the original, unfilmed version of the series pilot, "The Gathering," which is significantly different from the one that finally got shot.

Volume 3 (coming out in January) is set to explain why actor Michael O’Hare (Cmdr. Sinclair) was forced out of the show by The Powers That Be and the introduction of Bruce Boxleitner (and who ALMOST got his role but at the last minute didn’t).

But the really COOL thing will be volume 15, which will be given FREE (including free shipping) ONLY to those who’ve gotten the rest of the set.

What will be in volume 15?

Take it away, JMS:

"It will also [in addition addition to a bunch of other stuff]contain the Babylon 5 writers bible…the production draft of "The Gathering" as a companion to the original draft offered in volume one…and something very special."

"For over ten years, fans have asked "What would Babylon 5 have been like had Sinclair stayed?" Well, that question will be answered in this volume."

"After we finished the movie, but before we got the series going, WB asked to see a breakdown on this five-year arc thingie. So I wrote a six or seven page, single spaced outline of the ENTIRE FIVE YEARS with Sinclair still in place. The document makes for fascinating reading when compared with the series as it developed. NOT ONLY THAT, but the same document has a brief outline for A POTENTIAL BABYLON 5 SEQUEL SERIES, which would have been entitled BABYLON PRIME."

"Finally, by popular request, the nearly-legendary alternate version of the script for “The Exercise of Vital Powers” containing the Londo/G’Kar seduction scene, written in as an elaborate practical joke on the actors, will also be included.

So, if you want

GET INFO ON THE B5 SCRIPTS.

Incarnation During Annunciation?

A reader writes:

Here’s a really quick one for you.  (I know your time is valuable!)  Father metioned something yesterday I don’t recall ever hearing before, namely, that Mary became pregnant immediately after "fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum [Latin, "May it be to me according to your word," Luke 1:38]."  Does the Church teach this definitively?

No, certainly not.

The Church has very very few Bible verses whose meaning it has addressed infallibly, and this one is not one of them.

I know that it’s customary for individuals to speak of Mary becoming pregnant during the Annunciation, as if the Holy Spirit were coming upon her that moment, but this is not what Scripture indicates, nor is it part of Church teaching.

In fact, that’s not what the Greek text here would suggest. In the Greek of Luke 1:35 ("The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you") the verbs are in the future tense, indicating that the Holy Spirit would come upon Mary at some point in the future.

Hypothetically, it could have been a few seconds later, but that’s not the natural sense of the text, and if it was then Mary showed no signs from what Luke records of being aware of the event when it happened.

It could have happened at any time up until shortly before Joseph and Mary began cohabiting (because Joseph already knew she was pregnant by this time; Matthew 1:20).

Personally, I tend to think the Incarnation of Our Savior was something that had phenomenal effects–i.e., that it was something Mary was aware of when she was overshadowed by God’s power–and this means that the exact moment of the Incarnation is likely one that is hidden from us–something not recorded in Scripture.

People tend to look at the Annunciation as if it were the moment of the Incarnation because it’s the closest thing we have in Scripture to a description of that moment, but if you read the text itself, it does not suggest that this is what was going on while Gabriel was talking to Mary.

But that’s just my opinion. If someone wants to hold the opinion that when Gabriel said "The Holy Spirit will come upon you" that he meant "in just a few seconds, during this very conversation" then that’s also permitted.

More Brokeback Mountain

Steven Greydanus’s review of Brokeback Mountain IS UP.

As you might guess, he gives it significant marks for artistic merit (three and a half stars) but gives it a -4 moral/spirital rating (which is as bad as it can get on his scale), resulting in it having no appropriate audience and an overall recommendability of F.

He thus was able to separate the artistic craftsmanship of the film from its moral content, which is a very important distinction to make. Something can appear beautiful and even moving and still be gravely immorally.

"And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14).

That’s the thing about sin: If it wasn’t in some way attractive to people, they wouldn’t do it.

Steve also bring out a point that I had been thinking about: When a morally offensive movie has artistic merit, that makes it MORE dangerous, not less, because it is better able to draw the viewer into the immoral worldview of the film than a ham-fisted, low-quality film.

Steve also points out that there are NO sympathetic heterosexual male characters in the film. Homosexual males can get sympathy, and so can heterosexual females, but not heterosexual males. He writes:

The film allows its sexually omnivorous protagonists to be morally ambiguous, and its straight women can be likable or sympathetic. Yet essentially every straight male character in the film is not only unsympathetic, but unsympathetic precisely in his embodiment of masculinity.

In the end, in its easygoing, nonpolemical way, Brokeback Mountain is nothing less than a critique not just of heterosexism but of masculinity itself, and thereby of human nature as male and female. It’s a jaundiced portrait of maleness in crisis — a crisis extending not only to the sexual identities of the two central characters, but also to the validity of manhood as exemplified by every other male character in the film. It may be the most profoundly anti-western western ever made, not only post-modern and post-heroic, but post-Christian and post-human.

GET THE REVIEW.

More On The Non-Retraction Retraction

I wanted to touch back on something that I meant to mention regarding the non-retraction retraction issued by Catholic News Service regarding its erroneous ranking of Brokeback Mountain as an "L" film ("limited audiences") rather than an "O" film ("morally offensive").

Here is the text of what they wrote:

Editor’s Note: "Brokeback Mountain," originally rated L (limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling), has been reclassified O — morally offensive. This has been done because the serious weight of the L rating — which restricts films in that category to those who can assess, from a Catholic perspective, the moral issues raised by a movie — is, unfortunately, misunderstood by many. Because there are some in this instance who are using the L rating to make it appear the church’s — or the USCCB’s — position on homosexuality is ambiguous, the classification has been revised specifically to address its moral content.

The part in red is how the L rating is normally explained, and it’s fine. That’s what the L rating means.

But the part in blue is a misinterpretation of the L rating that reveals something interesting.

Note that in blue the editor says that L restricts films "to those who can assess, from a Catholic perspective, the moral issues raised by a movie."

If that’s what L means then y’know what? EVERY movie should be rated L.

NOBODY should be watching a movie if he is unable to correctly assess the moral issues raised by it. If you’re going to get suckered into thinking something immoral in a movie is really moral then you SHOULDN’T be watching that film.

I don’t care whether it’s The Incredibles or Silence of the Lambs. If you can’t accurately handle the moral issues a film raises–whatever those may be–then that film is not for you.

This reinterpretation of the L rating completely steamrollers the need for all other ratings–including O. I mean, if you’re a moral theologian and can correctly "assess, form a Catholic perspective, the moral issues raised by a movie" and that’s a sufficient reason NOT to give it an O then guess what: No films need to be given an O since SOMEBODY (at least the film critic who would have otherwise given them an O, and if not him then the pope) will be able to assess the moral issues they raise.

So ALL films really should have an L.

Clearly this is not what is meant by the ratings system or there would be no other ratings. No A-I, A-II, A-III, or O.

The conventional (in red) description of what L means is correct: These are films that have a limited audience because they contain material that many adults would find troubling.

"Many adults would find troubling" is a different criterion than "morally offensive according to the teaching of the Church." There are a lot of things that many adults would find troubling that aren’t in themselves morally offensive. Showing gruesome murders, for example, is troubling to many, but the mere showing of them isn’t morally offensive as long as the film contains a moral structure that doesn’t ENDORSE the gruesome murders.

Same goes for showing immoral heterosexual and homosexual relationships. That can be troubling for many adults, but it isn’t morally offensive if the film doesn’t ENDORSE these relationships.

So if a film shows evil but does not endorse it, that’s reason to go L.

But if it shows evil AND endorses it then that’s reason to go O.

One of the things presupposed by the distinction between the L and the O rating is that L films are NOT morally offensive. If they were then they should get an O.

As I’ve pointed out before, if the central theme of a movie is morally offensive (e.g., an endorsed-by-the-film homosexual relationship that is what the film is all about–or an endorsed-by-the-film extramarital heterosexual one that is what the film is all about) then the film is morally offensive. (And if the central theme of a movie being morally offensive doesn’t qualify it as a morally offensive picture then I’d like to know what on earth COULD.)

It doesn’t matter whatever aristic merits the film may have in presenting its central theme. If the central theme is morally offensive then those artistic merits simply serve to help the film in delivering an immoral payload to the audience. They’re sugar for the poison pill, and there is all the more reason to slap an O on it so that the faithful can be warned.

Note, incidentally, the elitist attitude of the non-retraction retraction: We who are the cognoscenti and are able to "assess" the moral issues raised by Brokeback Mountain are able to "handle it" and so it is only an L, but because of complaints from the masses, who are too ill-informed to "assess" the moral issues it raises, we’ve got to slap an O on it even though that’s not what it really deserves.

So the non-retraction retraction is not just resentful (blaming the audience) and disingenuous (appearing to classify something as morally offensive but indicating that it really isn’t) and hypocritical (giving something a  rating that one doesn’t believe it deserves), it’s also elitist (viewing the audience as too stupid to handle the truth).

Plenary Indulgence For Christmas?

A reader writes:

To be quite honest I am a pagan, my son, however is not.  I was hoping to give him an plenary ndulgence for his Winter Holiday gift.  It does seem a little more involved than I had thought it would be.  I had been told by someone who used to be a practicing Catholic that it was just a matter of money.  Well, I am not a wealthy person, but, still I thought this a better gift than a sweater or a pair of socks.

Okay, you may be thinking that I am not taking this at all seriously, however, while that may be true, my son, is not me, and therefore should not be confused with me.  His father is, or was, raised Catholic.  I was raised to believe that being a female didn’t matter in any way whatsoever and that religion was just something I had to deal with, and try to impart on any son I may have (whether that is really what the Jewish religion is all about I do not know, all I know is how I was raised).  So, that said, is there a way to purchase a plenary indulgence or am I being silly?  If so, please just say so and I will not bother you anymore.

No, ma’am, you’re not being silly. It is a good thing that you desire to do something to help your son in his Catholic faith at this time of year, and I hope I can help you in this regard.

Indulgences–plenary or otherwise–are not for sale. At one time the Church granted them in connection with people doing the spiritual act of giving alms (though even then they were never "sold"), but that time was long ago.

That does not mean that you can’t do something to help your son in his faith, though. You might consider doing something else for him, like buying him a crucifix or a rosary or a Bible or a Catechism or a book or something. Any of those would be very nice things to do, and I’m sure he’d appreciate it very much.

HERE’S A PLACE THAT YOU COULD LOOK FOR SUCH THINGS ONLINE.

Incidentally, if you ever have questions about the Catholic faith, that site’s a great one to get them answered at. They have lots of online resources, as well as online forums where you can ask questions and get them answered.

Hope this helps, and God bless! Thanks for reading the blog and taking the time to write!

A Christmas Invitation

Just before Thanksgiving, I suggested that if folks have benefitted from my blog that they consider volunteering for, donating to, or otherwise helping holiday relief programs at their local parishes or churches.

We’re now a little bit out from Christmas, and I’d like to renew my suggestion: If you feel that you have benefitted from the blog, and if you have the ability to do so, please consider doing something for the less fortunate this year for Christmas (or even afterwards if there’s not enough time).

Please constant your local parish, church, soup kitchen, homeless shelter, nursing home, or what have you, and do something for those who need help this Christmas. There are more of them than you know, and you can help make a real difference for them this year.

Whether you’re young or old, Christian or not, you can be a help and can an instrument of God’s love at a time when many are hurting.

There is nothing more bitter than feeling alone and afraid at Christmas.

Help show them Our Savior’s love on the feast of his Birth.

A Warning To The Pro-Life Community: This Stinks To High Heaven

Thetheorem_1Okay, so I’m surfing the web and I find

THIS ARTICLE ABOUT A NEW BOOK THAT’S SUPPOSED TO SHAKE UP THE ABORTION DEBATE.

Here’s what the article says:

An American scientist is set to publish a crucial new book on the pre-natal behavior of babies that is expected to have a profound impact on the issue of abortion.

“The Theorem: A Complete Answer to Human Behavior” by Douglas M. Arone is set for release in the United Kingdom by John Hunt Publishing Ltd.  The book has already provoked reaction among scientists, such as Dr. B. Abolade, psychiatrist for children and adolescents in Montgomery, Alabama, who calls the theory, "A discovery of great genius that will advance mankind’s march towards progress".

"I specifically wanted The Theorem to be published in the U.K. to avoid the focus on the abortion debate that seems to consume America. It was, and still is my hope that over here the work can be appreciated for the other equally important aspects such as; why we talk, the purpose of sleep and the identification to the possible origins of autism, and not just focused on identifying exactly when the fetus gains a limited consciousness", states Mr. Arone.

The publisher has prohibited any pre-release and review copies, which has fueled interest in the book on the part of both pro-life and pro-abortion groups.  The Theorem is scheduled to be released on December 26.

First, notice the hype in the opening sentence. It’s a "crucial new book" expected to have "a profound impact" on the issue of abortion. Really? How many individual books have been released in the last 32 years that had a "profound impact" on the abortion juggernaut? Not many. Now, this could just be the publicist’s hype and may not be reflective of the views of the scientist who wrote the book, so let’s keep reading.

The next graph gives us the name of the book: “The Theorem: A Complete Answer to Human Behavior.” Now, I work for a publisher, and I participate in product titleing meetings all the time, and while titles are the ultimate purview of publisher (they’re part of the marketing of a book), a significant degree of deference is shown to the author. At a minimum, you want the author to be "on board" with the title. If he hates it then it can hurt sales of the book (even if he never says so in public).

You don’t want to give a book a title that will cause the author to freak out, regret ever signing a contract with you, and refuse to promote the book with enthusiasm. So there’s a great degree of mutual agreement in coming to a title, and it is reasonable to assume that the author of this book–Douglas M. Arone–is on board with this title.

That’s a problem because any scientist worth his salt would FREAK OUT at having a book published with a title like that under his name. The pretentious title "The Theorem" is going to draw the ire of the scientific community. (Every scientist works with theorems. What makes Arone’s so special that it qualifies as THE theorem, compared to everyone else’s?)

And the subtitle will send other scientists INTO ORBIT. "The Complete Answer to Human Behavior"? What? Really? One guy has mastered all the manifold areas of psychology, neurology, embryology, pediatrics, medicine, anthropology, sociology, economics, and the host of other disciplines needed to provide THE COMPLETE answer to human behavior? Just how many doctorates does this guy have? Where is the research team that provided him with all this data? What billion-dollar fund is funding his research team?

Grand unified theories are extraordinarily hard to come by, and when someone tries one, it usually fails. Physics hasn’t come up with a settled Unified Field Theory after decades of trying, and the squishy sciences like psychology are lightyears behind in terms of being able to rigorously explain their subject matter.

What REAL scientists do is publish MODEST claims that offer TENTATIVE proposals to explain SMALL areas–usually in scientific journals–and then slowly, over the course of time, let these build up into big picture proposals.

The title of the book and its subtitle are screaming "AMATEUR PHONY!" to anyone with ears to hear and eyes to see.

Then we’ve got some (apparently clinical, not research) psychiatrist referring to this as a work of "great genius" and saying it will "advance mankind’s march toward progress." Huh? What kind of overblown 19th century progress rhetoric boat did THIS guy step off of?

Actually, what boat did he step off of, because it turns out that the guy’s from Nigeria, where he did his residency. Since then he’s practiced in a number of different FIELDS of medicine (can’t settle on a specialty for some reason? legal or ethical review board troubles in one or more maybe?). And, although his bio says he’s licensed to practice medicine on three continents, there are enough stories in the press about problems associated with doctors educated in the third world to raise suspicions about this guy’s qualifications with regard to recognizing theories of "great genius" that will "advance mankind’s march toward progress."

Then we’ve got a quote from the author saying that–for some reason–he’s hinky about publishing the book in America–his homeland–but hopes that "over here" in England "it can be appreciated" properly. As if truth isn’t truth regardless of which side of the Atlantic you’re on? As if Americans will be denied the benefit of all his stunning research? As if (upon checking his web site) you don’t see them advertising that it will be available IN EVERY MAJOR BOOK CHAIN IN AMERICA?

This smells.

And what it smells like this this: The guy COULDN’T FIND a reputable American publisher who was willing to do this book and now he’s spinning why he’s gone to an overseas publisher.

Now, just from this piece (which is essentially a press release
rewritten as a news story) there are multiple warning bells going off.
(NOTE: I have no idea if his British publisher, O Books, an imprint of
John Hunt Publishing Ltd. is respectable or not. I do know that I’ve
never heard of them.)

And then note the way the author "scientist" is referred to at the end of the graph: as MISTER Arone.

What? Not "Doctor"? This guy’s got no PhD? No MD? No nothing? Does he even have a masters degree?

Is this guy QUALIFIED to tell us ANYTHING regarding "The Complete Answer to Human Behavior"?

And then note the sensationalism and secrecy of the last graph: No review copies sent out, which is standard industry practice to build buzz for a book. Again, this stinks. Real scientists don’t go in for this kind of showmanship. And why wouldn’t the publisher send out review copies? It’s not like anybody’s been waiting with baited breath for this book by MISTER Arone to come out. This wasn’t the script for Episode III: Revenge of the Sith or anything (which at least had die-hard Star Wars fans waiting for it).

Is the real reason that the publisher didn’t send out review copies just to engage in cheap showmanship so they could CLAIM that interest was being "fueled" among pro-lifers and pro-aborts, when in fact nobody in the abortion debate even KNEW about the book until this press release was put on the PR wire?

The last line in the article says to go to the book’s website, www.thetheorem.com, for more info, so let’s do that.

What do we find when we get there?

Is there a bio of Mr. Arone telling us his qualifications as a "scientist"? Nope. Not that I could find.

Okay, is there a phone number for his publicists so you can call and ask for a bio? Nope. They want everything through snail mail, e-mail, or faxes. They seem to be averse to giving you a telephone number for some reason. (And the author publicist is listed as having a P.O. Box in Jackson, Wyoming of all places–apparently the new hotspot for New York and L.A. publicists wanting to get out of the city).

Now there’s a page of FORTY ONE "Endorsees" one can look at, and it’s basically a bunch of psychiatrists and sociologists and PhDs and MDs around the country, BUT WAIT! Down at the bottom of the page of "endorsees" we find THIS statement:

These individuals are currently reviewing The Theorem: The Complete Answers to Human Behavior for endorsement. We will post the specifics of the endorsements on this Website when received.

So these people aren’t endorsees AT ALL! The publisher has simply sent them review copies hoping for endorsements. I wonder how they feel about the fact that their names are being used as "endorsees" of a book that they’ve only just got in the mail and have, in fact, issued NO endorsement for.

I know I’d be hopping mad if one of the publishers I occasionally get books from looking for endorsements did that to me!

There’s also a Q & A page on the site where, no matter what the question(s) is (are) the answer is:

After reading The Theorem:
No More Questions – Only Answers!

And there’s NO CLUE what "The Theorem" itself actually is.

If you check Amazon’s US and UK websites, you find out that this is
the ONLY book Arone has ever authored, and if you Google his name and
start subtracting out references to "the theorem" then the number of
mentions of him on the web shrinks towards zero. In fact, I couldn’t
find ANY mentions of him on the web that weren’t connected with this
book. There are no research papers by him in scientific journals.
Nothing. His entire web footprint is this one thing.

The capstone of all this is a LONG LETTER in which MISTER Arone agonizes about how, like a parent, he birthed and raised The Theorem and is now, regretfully, letting his child leave the nest and go out into the world (all the while giving the reader NO CLUE what The Theorem is).

The freaky thing is that he sounds like a character in a Lovecraft story:

While the discovery was born unto me, I never really owned it, as I was not responsible for its greatness, for this grand design. No, all of the honors went to Nature herself. I was just a witness at an indescribable moment in time, seeing a part of her that I am convinced no man was ever meant to see.

No, this discovery never belonged to me, but I must confess that I treated it as though it was mine. I did everything I could to nurture and support it, for while I never owned it— Nature’s secret into mankind’s behavior— it certainly owned me. I surrendered entirely to the obsession it undoubtedly deserved, and then gave more. If it swallowed me whole, well, that mattered little, as it quenched any and all intellectual curiosity that I, any one man, could generate.

Then I went back through history, and the model answered all of those questions as well. Deeper and deeper, day upon day, I began breaking through levels of consciousness that no drug could provide, no religion could promise and no meditation could silence. This model simply possessed the answers. There were no more questions, only answers, some as complex as Nature herself seemed to be, others were more basic, but nonetheless important.

Yes, for the first time in my life I was free
from the intellectual chains that had bound not only me, but
had bound all men since the beginning of time.

Of course not all of the answers were a joyous discovery,
as a few I would rather not have known, for they challenged
my long held beliefs. The facts were the facts however, and
I was very grateful for the peace and the freedom.

The best
part of it all was that whenever I felt uneasy with my findings,
whenever I feared drifting into some abyss of consciousness
or any level that I was uncomfortable with, I could quickly
ground myself with the scientific evidence that proved the
validity of the original model. And ground me it did, for
unlike all theories that fear scientific evidence, (this of
course because they are incorrect and fear being exposed),
this model, on the contrary, embraced it.

Oh, man! This thing is TOO FUNNY! I’ve never read a real-life example of mad scientist/horror story scientific megalomania before!

READ THE WHOLE THING.

Oh yeah, and he explains that once he got hooked on his theory he realized that he didn’t want to be distracted by things like going to med school and becoming a doctor.

Shades of Charles Dexter Ward!–who "refused to qualify for college on the ground
that he had individual researches of much greater
importance to make."

Let’s hope he comes to a better end than young Mr. Ward did.

But in the meantime, pro-lifers should take warning: This guy is NOT a scientist, he is a quack. Do not WASTE your time and money reading his book. If you’ve pre-ordered it, go back and cancel the order. And, whatever you do, DO NOT give him positive publicity. Rely on stuff from this guy and pro-aborts will eat you alive.

Christ’s Unique Presence In The Eucharist

A reader writes:

Please help me.  I live in a parish where members are pushing for the emphasis on community during the Mass.  They are citing an article in St. Anthony’s Messenger by a Fr. Lawrence E. Mick entitled Finding Jesus in the Eucharist:  Four Ways He is Present.  Even the title does not make sense to me.  It seems as though he is only present one way in the Eucharist—and that’s by being in the Eucharist.  Hey, maybe I’m too concrete a thinker.

I respect you.  You are a lucid thinker and you have the integrity to back up your arguments with primary (vs. secondary) sources.  In short, I know that Jesus is present in the the Blessed Sacrament, the Priest, the Word, and the people—but isn’t He most ‘substantially’ present in the Eucharist—and doesn’t that mean something?  If it didn’t mean something, why mention it in Sacrosanctum Consilium, ect.

What is the best way to argue against an overemphasis on Jesus’ presence in the community during Mass; what is the best way to argue against the notion that Jesus is equally present all four ways?

Am I wrong in my thinking?  Even the head of our Archdiocesan Worship office told me "we need to get the emphasis on the community, make the mystery accessible to the people, ect."

Regarding the nonsensicalness of the title, I think that they’re using the term "Eucharist" as an overall term for the celebration of Mass, at which the Sacrament, the priest, the word, and the people are all present. (Admittedly, it’s a dumb title.)

This kind of effort to flatten the uniqueness of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist has been around since during the Second Vatican Council, when some theologians were going nuts and proposing a number of false ideas such as the idea that Christ is equally present in things besides the Eucharist. As a result, Paul VI rushed out an encyclical during the Council called Mysterium Fidei ("The Mystery of Faith") to set matters straight. It’s worth a rather lengthy quotation from the encyclical to show what authentic Catholic teaching on this matter is. The money quote is at the end. Here goes:

Various Ways in Which Christ is Present

35. All of us realize that there is more than one way in which Christ is present in His Church. We want to go into this very joyful subject, which the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy presented briefly, (30) at somewhat greater length. Christ is present in His Church when she prays, since He is the one who "prays for us and prays in us and to whom we pray: He prays for us as our priest, He prays in us as our head, He is prayed to by us as our God" (31); and He is the one who has promised, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there in the midst of them." (32) He is present in the Church as she performs her works of mercy, not just because whatever good we do to one of His least brethren we do to Christ Himself, (33)but also because Christ is the one who performs these works through the Church and who continually helps men with His divine love. He is present in the Church as she moves along on her pilgrimage with a longing to reach the portals of eternal life, for He is the one who dwells in our hearts through faith, (34) and who instills charity in them through the Holy Spirit whom He gives to us. (35)

36. In still another very genuine way, He is present in the Church as she preaches, since the Gospel which she proclaims is the word of God, and it is only in the name of Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, and by His authority and with His help that it is preached, so that there might be "one flock resting secure in one shepherd." (36)

37. He is present in His Church as she rules and governs the People of God, since her sacred power comes from Christ and since Christ, the "Shepherd of Shepherds," (37) is present in the bishops who exercise that power, in keeping with the promise He made to the Apostles.

38. Moreover, Christ is present in His Church in a still more sublime manner as she offers the Sacrifice of the Mass in His name; He is present in her as she administers the sacraments. On the matter of Christ’s presence in the offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass, We would like very much to call what St. John Chrysostom, overcome with awe, had to say in such accurate and eloquent words: "I wish to add something that is clearly awe-inspiring, but do not be surprised or upset. What is this? It is the same offering, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul. It is the same one that Christ gave to His disciples and the same one that priests now perform: the latter is in no way inferior to the former, for it is not men who sanctify the latter, but He who sanctified the former. For just as the words which God spoke are the same as those that the priest now pronounces, so too the offering is the same." (38) No one is unaware that the sacraments are the actions of Christ who administers them through men. And so the sacraments are holy in themselves and they pour grace into the soul by the power of Christ, when they touch the body.

The Highest Kind of Presence.

These various ways in which Christ is present fill the mind with astonishment and offer the Church a mystery for her contemplation. But there is another way in which Christ is present in His Church, a way that surpasses all the others. It is His presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which is, for this reason, "a more consoling source of devotion, a lovelier object of contemplation and holier in what it contains" (39) than all the other sacraments; for it contains Christ Himself and it is "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments." (40)

39. This presence is called "real" not to exclude the idea that the others are "real" too, but rather to indicate presence par excellence, because it is substantial and through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man. (41) And so it would be wrong for anyone to try to explain this manner of presence by dreaming up a so-called "pneumatic" nature of the glorious body of Christ that would be present everywhere; or for anyone to limit it to symbolism, as if this most sacred Sacrament were to consist in nothing more than an efficacious sign "of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful, the members of His Mystical Body." (42) [SOURCE.]

Thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church also notes:

1373 "Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us," is present in many ways to his Church:195 in his word, in his Church’s prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name,"196 in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,197 in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species."198

1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."199 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."200 "This presence is called ‘real’ – by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."201 [SOURCE.]

Hope this helps!

Full-Body Transplants

Guest blogger Ron Belgau writes:

I read your blog post today on face transplants, and it provoked a tangential train of thought.  It’s not one I’d want to endorse, but thought I’d send it along for your enrichment (if that is the right term).

Two things caught my attention: first, the prohibition on brain transplants due to the fact that the brain is the seat of the personality, and second, the statement that brain death may be a legitimate criterion for death.

It seems to me that, based on those two considerations, one could make an argument for brain transplantation, with a twist.

Suppose that A receives a gunshot wound to the head which causes brain death (we will assume brain death of a sort that would be acceptable to the most pro-life physician, not just medical community vulture brain death), but leaves his body undamaged.  Meanwhile, B is in a very serious car accident in which his body is damaged beyond all repair, but his brain is undamaged.

It seems to me that within the framework you have offered, one *could* argue that, if it were technically feasible, it could be morally justifiable to transplant B’s brain into A’s body.

In any case, the proper description for this situation would be to say that A had died, and that B was alive in A’s body.  Although from the medical perspective, it probably makes sense to say that we transplanted B’s brain into A, from the moral perspective, what we would want to say is that we had transplanted A’s body to B.

I’m not sure what I want to say about a case like this.  It seems like it could be justified, on the grounds that if we don’t do it, both A and B will die (assuming brain death is a legitimate criterion for death, which *seems* legitimate if we say that the brain is the seat of the personality), while doing it will allow B’s personality to live on, and potentially live a long and productive life.

At the same time, the personal and social identity issues with this case are far more problematic than those involved in the face transplant issue.  One can also imagine a number of particularly ugly ways that this kind of technology could be abused: criminals seeking a new identity, aging Hollywood stars and starlettes looking for the ultimate makeover, etc.

No, you’re quite correct. IF "brain death" (suitably defined and verified) is an adequate criterion for death then you could do PRECISELY this kind of full-body transplant.

Under the scenario you describ you could also snip off both their heads and sew B’s head onto A’s body.

This is one of the things that causes me and others to have significant questions about whether "brain death" in an adequate criterion for somatic death. While the death of the brain may be a necessary condition for the death of the body, it isn’t clear to me that it’s a sufficient condition for the death of the body. I kinda want the rest of the body to die, too–as a whole. I’m not talking about fingernail beds and hair follicles and minor systems like that. I kinda want overall systemic failure before I say that the system of the body is dead, not just the technologically irreversible cessation of brain or higher brain function.

I also think that what counts as technologically irreversible cessation or brain or higher brain function is going to look VERY different once nanotechnology comes online over the next 20-30 years, making our present understandings of what counts as brain death JUST AS INVALID as the cessation of heartbeat definitions of death that were used a hundred years ago.

If you started cutting someone up back then just because their heart stopped beating 20 seconds ago then you would be cutting up someone who was really not yet dead.

People back then weren’t dead the moment their hearts stopped beating. More has to happen to the heart for death to occur than just a cessation of its activity. If it can be jumpstarted then the person simply was not at the point of death, even if his heart could not THEN have been brought back online due to lack of technology.

In the same way, just because a person’s brain has ceased functioning does not mean he’s dead if it turns out that there’s a technology 30 years from now that will jumpstart his brain.

If nanotechnology has the promise that it seems to at this point and we use brain death as a criterion then half a century from now we are LIKELY to find out that we’ve been cutting up people for parts who were STILL ALIVE, we just didn’t have the ability to bring their brains back online yet.