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."

Mass Translation Update

CNS is carrying the following story:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — An international Vatican advisory board said the sooner new English translations of Mass prayers are ready the easier they will be for Catholics to accept. Members of the Vatican-appointed "Vox Clara" Committee, which advises the Vatican on English translations, said they share the concerns of bishops about how the new texts will be accepted by their faithful, but they also "expressed their conviction that this reception would be impeded by delays in a timely completion of the project." The committee met July 5-7 at the Vatican to review "various and recent draft translations" of the Latin edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 2002. The missal contains all the prayers and readings used for Mass in the Latin rite [SOURCE].

LAP-BAND Surgery & Fiber

A reader writes:

I was wondering if there is any problem with having LAP-BAND surgery.  It is a Laparoscopic Adjustable Silicon Banding and has been proven to be a safe bariatric surgical procedure.  It is minimally invasive, adjustable and reversible. 

‘Kay, lemme interrupt for a moment. For those who may not be aware, LAP-BAND surgery involves inserting a small, adjustable band to constrict part of the stomach so that only a small amount of food can be taken at one time. This form of surgery is not as radical as others since the band can be adjusted and even removed when it is no longer needed. INFO HERE.

Let’s resume. . . .

Is there a Cathlic stance on having a procedure like this done?  I have gained weight after every baby (4 live births and 2 stillborn) and I cannot lose it.  Even with Atkins, I gain it back any time I get sick and have to go on anitbiotics or something.  I weigh a lot (over 300 pounds) and I have done every thing possible to lose except starve myself and not eat any more at all. 

Interruption! Don’t do that! Your body needs nutrients to keep going. Starvation diets are not safe.

I walk an hour a day and I try to stick with mainly protein and vegetables.  I have dieted so much in my life that my body refuses to lose weight.  With the LAP-BAND procedure, I could just take vitamins and eat a tiny bit and not get so shaky from hunger that I can’t think straight.  Do you know the Church’s position on this?

Okay. First, it sounds that you’ve been trying a lot of good things, though you should not do anything so extreme that it causes you to get so shaky from hunger that you can’t think strait. That is not healthy.

That being said, the levels of obesity that you are talking about are serious and lead to long-term serious health problems. Getting the weight off is important.

The Church understands that and, while there is no specific Magisterial statement on this type of surgery, Catholic moral theology recognizes that surgery can be used to address serious health concerns, including obesity. As a result, any surgery for which the expected medical benefits are proportionate to the expected costs (medical, financial, psychological) is licit in principle. There are, however, a few caveats:

  1. The surgery can’t be predicated on anything intrinsically evil, like killing someone else to get an organ for transplant–but that isn’t what’s happening in this case. Implanting a silicone ring that can be adjusted and removed isn’t intrinsically evil.
  2. You should seek to form as realistic an understanding of what the

    surgery will mean as possible. I know that for folks who are obese, the

    idea of surgery can seem like a dream–a cure-all that will finally

    take care of the problem. But there are risks and possible side

    effects. You need to learn about these. For example, will artificially

    shrinking your stomach stop you from being hungry? Even if it stops

    hunger, will it leave you weak or suffering other side-effects? What’s the success rate of this surgery? What is the risk of infection? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but you need to find them out.

  3. There must be a real weighing of the costs and benefits here. At a minimum, you should both be in close consultation about these with your doctor and get a second opinion before having the surgery. You should also test what the doctors tell you and try to poke holes in what they say, whether they are positive or negative regarding the surgery.
  4. Prior to surgery, you should also seek alternatives that you may not have tried.For example: There may be a way to accomplish a similar effect without actual surgery.

It may be providential, but your query raises a topic that I’ve been thinking about posting on. Of late I’ve been modifying my own diet and trying out a few new techniques. One of them in particular shows rmarkable promise. It’s this: . . . Fiber.

Fiber is the part of our food that we can’t digest. It thus doesn’t add calories but it does take up space. It also absorbs toxins and helps purify the system generally. There are also different types of fiber, and different types do different things for us.

Most Americans get about 10-15 grams of fiber per day in their diet. It’s thought that we need 25-30, though many question whether that is enough. In some places, people eat much more fiber than this. It is reported, for example, that in some parts of China they manage to get 75 grams of fiber per day.

Fiber can be gotten both from eating foods that contain it (e.g., nuts) and in the form of nutritional supplements. The latter are often packaged as compressed tablets, capsules, or powder.

It’s not easy to get significant amounts of fiber without adding calories just by eating food. Most foods don’t have enough fiber in them to make that easy. Tablets also aren’t great as they may not dissolve fully. Capsules can suffer from that, too. But powdered fiber works great.

Of late I’ve been incorpoating significant quantities of powdered fiber into my diet (about 45-55 grams per day, in addition to what fiber I get from food), and I have been very pleased with the results. The fiber generates a sensation of fullness, a notable desire to eat less, and I’ve been losing weight more rapidly and without hunger. The effect has been dramatic.

It also may be accomplishing the same thing as the LAP-BAND surgery (shrinking your effective stomach space), only without the surgery. You therefore might want to try this as an alternative before you try surgery.

If you do, a few important notes:

  1. Rule #1 of using fiber is to Drink Lots Of Water with it. If you drink too little, problems will result. I generally stir three heaping tablespoons of fiber (about 15 grams) into 12 ounces of water, drink that rapidly, and then follow it with another 12-20 ounces of water while the fiber expands.
  2. Rule #2 of using fiber is Build Up Slowly. It takes your system a bit to adjust to processing fiber, and if you add too much, too quick then you feel an uncomfortable bloating. Start with one tablespoon (not even a heaping one) and build up slowly from there.
  3. Rule #3 of using fiber is to recognize that it changes the absorption pattern of food, vitamins, and medicine. You therefore need to sequence fiber into your daily diet in places where it won’t interfere with any medicines you may be taking. If you need to take any medicines on an empty stomach, don’t take fiber for at least an hour before or after you take the medicine. If you need to take any medicines with food, don’t take the fiber too close to mealtime.

Personally, I try to take fiber immediately after eating (it kills any desire I have to eat further), but if you are taking medicines then you may not be able to do that. I’ve even been experimenting with adding moderately carb-laden food items (well, popcorn, anyway) and then taking fiber immediately afterward so that it slows the absorption of the carbs and doesn’t cause my blood sugar to spike. It’s worked well, and I’m still losing weight even though I’m allowing myself moderate portions of popcorn (one of my favorite foods that I haven’t been able to eat in years while doing low-carb).

If you want to get started with fiber, any health food or nutritional supplement store should have it. You can also order online. It’s best to use a mixed fiber supplement since (as noted) different types of fiber do differnt things. YerbaPrima has a couple of good mixed fiber supplements in powdered form that I’ve used.

If you can’t get a mixed fiber supplement, use powdered psyllium husks, which are readily available and one of the best individual kinds of fiber to use. Metamucil is psyllium, though be sure that you get a sugar-free version (Metamucil likes to add sugar and flavors to its fiber). If you add sugar at the same time as you add fiber, you’ll be working against the weight loss purpose for taking it.

Hope this helps, and good luck, whatever weight-loss path turns out to be best for you!

20 on the moral theology aspect.

SPECIAL NOTE: Every time I mention low-carb dieting, people come out of the woodwork to say how "unhealthy" such diets are supposed to be, which is simply not true. However, I don’t want low-carb dieting to be the issue here. Low-carb dieting is not the purpose of this post (talking about LAP-BAND surgery and fiber is), so please do not add any such comments to the combox this time.

LAP-BAND Surgery & Fiber

A reader writes:

I was wondering if there is any problem with having LAP-BAND surgery.  It is a Laparoscopic Adjustable Silicon Banding and has been proven to be a safe bariatric surgical procedure.  It is minimally invasive, adjustable and reversible. 

‘Kay, lemme interrupt for a moment. For those who may not be aware, LAP-BAND surgery involves inserting a small, adjustable band to constrict part of the stomach so that only a small amount of food can be taken at one time. This form of surgery is not as radical as others since the band can be adjusted and even removed when it is no longer needed. INFO HERE.

Let’s resume. . . .

Is there a Cathlic stance on having a procedure like this done?  I have gained weight after every baby (4 live births and 2 stillborn) and I cannot lose it.  Even with Atkins, I gain it back any time I get sick and have to go on anitbiotics or something.  I weigh a lot (over 300 pounds) and I have done every thing possible to lose except starve myself and not eat any more at all. 

Interruption! Don’t do that! Your body needs nutrients to keep going. Starvation diets are not safe.

I walk an hour a day and I try to stick with mainly protein and vegetables.  I have dieted so much in my life that my body refuses to lose weight.  With the LAP-BAND procedure, I could just take vitamins and eat a tiny bit and not get so shaky from hunger that I can’t think straight.  Do you know the Church’s position on this?

Okay. First, it sounds that you’ve been trying a lot of good things, though you should not do anything so extreme that it causes you to get so shaky from hunger that you can’t think strait. That is not healthy.

That being said, the levels of obesity that you are talking about are serious and lead to long-term serious health problems. Getting the weight off is important.

The Church understands that and, while there is no specific Magisterial statement on this type of surgery, Catholic moral theology recognizes that surgery can be used to address serious health concerns, including obesity. As a result, any surgery for which the expected medical benefits are proportionate to the expected costs (medical, financial, psychological) is licit in principle. There are, however, a few caveats:

  1. The surgery can’t be predicated on anything intrinsically evil, like killing someone else to get an organ for transplant–but that isn’t what’s happening in this case. Implanting a silicone ring that can be adjusted and removed isn’t intrinsically evil.
  2. You should seek to form as realistic an understanding of what the
    surgery will mean as possible. I know that for folks who are obese, the
    idea of surgery can seem like a dream–a cure-all that will finally
    take care of the problem. But there are risks and possible side
    effects. You need to learn about these. For example, will artificially
    shrinking your stomach stop you from being hungry? Even if it stops
    hunger, will it leave you weak or suffering other side-effects? What’s the success rate of this surgery? What is the risk of infection? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but you need to find them out.
  3. There must be a real weighing of the costs and benefits here. At a minimum, you should both be in close consultation about these with your doctor and get a second opinion before having the surgery. You should also test what the doctors tell you and try to poke holes in what they say, whether they are positive or negative regarding the surgery.
  4. Prior to surgery, you should also seek alternatives that you may not have tried.For example: There may be a way to accomplish a similar effect without actual surgery.

It may be providential, but your query raises a topic that I’ve been thinking about posting on. Of late I’ve been modifying my own diet and trying out a few new techniques. One of them in particular shows rmarkable promise. It’s this: . . . Fiber.

Fiber is the part of our food that we can’t digest. It thus doesn’t add calories but it does take up space. It also absorbs toxins and helps purify the system generally. There are also different types of fiber, and different types do different things for us.

Most Americans get about 10-15 grams of fiber per day in their diet. It’s thought that we need 25-30, though many question whether that is enough. In some places, people eat much more fiber than this. It is reported, for example, that in some parts of China they manage to get 75 grams of fiber per day.

Fiber can be gotten both from eating foods that contain it (e.g., nuts) and in the form of nutritional supplements. The latter are often packaged as compressed tablets, capsules, or powder.

It’s not easy to get significant amounts of fiber without adding calories just by eating food. Most foods don’t have enough fiber in them to make that easy. Tablets also aren’t great as they may not dissolve fully. Capsules can suffer from that, too. But powdered fiber works great.

Of late I’ve been incorpoating significant quantities of powdered fiber into my diet (about 45-55 grams per day, in addition to what fiber I get from food), and I have been very pleased with the results. The fiber generates a sensation of fullness, a notable desire to eat less, and I’ve been losing weight more rapidly and without hunger. The effect has been dramatic.

It also may be accomplishing the same thing as the LAP-BAND surgery (shrinking your effective stomach space), only without the surgery. You therefore might want to try this as an alternative before you try surgery.

If you do, a few important notes:

  1. Rule #1 of using fiber is to Drink Lots Of Water with it. If you drink too little, problems will result. I generally stir three heaping tablespoons of fiber (about 15 grams) into 12 ounces of water, drink that rapidly, and then follow it with another 12-20 ounces of water while the fiber expands.
  2. Rule #2 of using fiber is Build Up Slowly. It takes your system a bit to adjust to processing fiber, and if you add too much, too quick then you feel an uncomfortable bloating. Start with one tablespoon (not even a heaping one) and build up slowly from there.
  3. Rule #3 of using fiber is to recognize that it changes the absorption pattern of food, vitamins, and medicine. You therefore need to sequence fiber into your daily diet in places where it won’t interfere with any medicines you may be taking. If you need to take any medicines on an empty stomach, don’t take fiber for at least an hour before or after you take the medicine. If you need to take any medicines with food, don’t take the fiber too close to mealtime.

Personally, I try to take fiber immediately after eating (it kills any desire I have to eat further), but if you are taking medicines then you may not be able to do that. I’ve even been experimenting with adding moderately carb-laden food items (well, popcorn, anyway) and then taking fiber immediately afterward so that it slows the absorption of the carbs and doesn’t cause my blood sugar to spike. It’s worked well, and I’m still losing weight even though I’m allowing myself moderate portions of popcorn (one of my favorite foods that I haven’t been able to eat in years while doing low-carb).

If you want to get started with fiber, any health food or nutritional supplement store should have it. You can also order online. It’s best to use a mixed fiber supplement since (as noted) different types of fiber do differnt things. YerbaPrima has a couple of good mixed fiber supplements in powdered form that I’ve used.

If you can’t get a mixed fiber supplement, use powdered psyllium husks, which are readily available and one of the best individual kinds of fiber to use. Metamucil is psyllium, though be sure that you get a sugar-free version (Metamucil likes to add sugar and flavors to its fiber). If you add sugar at the same time as you add fiber, you’ll be working against the weight loss purpose for taking it.

Hope this helps, and good luck, whatever weight-loss path turns out to be best for you!

20 on the moral theology aspect.

SPECIAL NOTE: Every time I mention low-carb dieting, people come out of the woodwork to say how "unhealthy" such diets are supposed to be, which is simply not true. However, I don’t want low-carb dieting to be the issue here. Low-carb dieting is not the purpose of this post (talking about LAP-BAND surgery and fiber is), so please do not add any such comments to the combox this time.

The Catholic Church & Salvation

A reader writes:

I had heard a show where it was discussed that the

Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus established.

This is true.

That the Catholic Church is the only Church that can

be traced back to the succession of Bishops and St.

Peter.

This is also true.

But can the Catholic Church state that it is the only

Church that will provide a path to Heaven?

If one knows the truth about the Catholic Church, then yes. In the words of Vatican II:

This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved [Lumen Gentium 14].

If one knows that the Catholic Church is made necessary by Christ and one refuses to enter it then one is refusing to accept salvation on Christ’s terms and so is refusing to accept salvation. In this sense the Catholic Church is the only Church that provides a path to heaven.

This does not mean that the same standard applies to those who are innocently unaware of the necessity of the Catholic Church. For those who are innocently unaware of this fact, it is possible for them to be saved if they otherwise respond to God’s grace.

Is Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit not present in

Churches of other denominations?

Yes, they are, in the sense just mentioned. For those who are not aware of the necessity of being Catholic, God works with them where they are and graciously makes it possible for them to be saved. Because they are not in the Catholic Church, however, their salvation is more risky than finding salvation is when one has the full means of grace available in the Catholic Church.

I ask because it seems that the Apostles sent letters

to many churches in their time. Did they become

Catholic or did they remain Christian?

Catholics are the original kind of Christians. All other forms of Christians split off (directly or indirectly) from the Catholic Church. The original churches to which the apostles sent their letters were part of the Catholic Church, though this term may not have been in general use at the time the letters were sent. (It entered general use in the second half of the first century.)

In Revelations …

16 I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these

things in the churches. I am the root and stock of

David, the bright and morning star. This from the

Douay-Rheims Bible. This seems to imply that there is

more than one Church that this will be spread amongst.

Yes, it does. The verse you quote (Revelation 22:16) does refer to local churches (specifically, those in Asia Minor; see Revelation 1:4). Again, these were local churches that were part of the one, worldwide Catholic Church.

The word "Church" is used in Scripture in two different senses. On the one hand, it is used to refer to individual local congregations (the sense in which Revelatin 22:16 uses it). On the other hand, it is used to refer to the worldwide communion of these churches in union with St. Peter (or, today, his successor). This is the sense in which Jesus uses the term when he says:

You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church [singular] (Matthew 16:18).

 

There are many local churches that are part of the worldwide Catholic Church, but there is a single, worldwide communion of Churches that Jesus founded on St. Peter. That worldwide communion is the Catholic Church.

I was raised Catholic by adoption. I believe in the

foundation of the faith, lately I have struggled with

my faith in the Catholic Church. I do not think I need

to explain why.

I assume that you may be referring to the recent sex-abuse crisis in the American part of the Catholic Church. It is understandable that this posed challenges for the faith of many, but we must recognize that Christ’s teachings and promises remain true even when individual humans are untrue to them. . . . as we all are when we fall into sin.

I can point you to more resources on both the subject of the Catholic Church and the sex-abuse crisis if you wish.

I hope this helps!

 

The Catholic Church & Salvation

A reader writes:

I had heard a show where it was discussed that the
Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus established.

This is true.

That the Catholic Church is the only Church that can
be traced back to the succession of Bishops and St.
Peter.

This is also true.

But can the Catholic Church state that it is the only
Church that will provide a path to Heaven?

If one knows the truth about the Catholic Church, then yes. In the words of Vatican II:

This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved [Lumen Gentium 14].

If one knows that the Catholic Church is made necessary by Christ and one refuses to enter it then one is refusing to accept salvation on Christ’s terms and so is refusing to accept salvation. In this sense the Catholic Church is the only Church that provides a path to heaven.

This does not mean that the same standard applies to those who are innocently unaware of the necessity of the Catholic Church. For those who are innocently unaware of this fact, it is possible for them to be saved if they otherwise respond to God’s grace.

Is Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit not present in
Churches of other denominations?

Yes, they are, in the sense just mentioned. For those who are not aware of the necessity of being Catholic, God works with them where they are and graciously makes it possible for them to be saved. Because they are not in the Catholic Church, however, their salvation is more risky than finding salvation is when one has the full means of grace available in the Catholic Church.

I ask because it seems that the Apostles sent letters
to many churches in their time. Did they become
Catholic or did they remain Christian?

Catholics are the original kind of Christians. All other forms of Christians split off (directly or indirectly) from the Catholic Church. The original churches to which the apostles sent their letters were part of the Catholic Church, though this term may not have been in general use at the time the letters were sent. (It entered general use in the second half of the first century.)

In Revelations …
16 I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these
things in the churches. I am the root and stock of
David, the bright and morning star. This from the
Douay-Rheims Bible. This seems to imply that there is
more than one Church that this will be spread amongst.

Yes, it does. The verse you quote (Revelation 22:16) does refer to local churches (specifically, those in Asia Minor; see Revelation 1:4). Again, these were local churches that were part of the one, worldwide Catholic Church.

The word "Church" is used in Scripture in two different senses. On the one hand, it is used to refer to individual local congregations (the sense in which Revelatin 22:16 uses it). On the other hand, it is used to refer to the worldwide communion of these churches in union with St. Peter (or, today, his successor). This is the sense in which Jesus uses the term when he says:

You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church [singular] (Matthew 16:18).

 

There are many local churches that are part of the worldwide Catholic Church, but there is a single, worldwide communion of Churches that Jesus founded on St. Peter. That worldwide communion is the Catholic Church.

I was raised Catholic by adoption. I believe in the
foundation of the faith, lately I have struggled with
my faith in the Catholic Church. I do not think I need
to explain why.

I assume that you may be referring to the recent sex-abuse crisis in the American part of the Catholic Church. It is understandable that this posed challenges for the faith of many, but we must recognize that Christ’s teachings and promises remain true even when individual humans are untrue to them. . . . as we all are when we fall into sin.

I can point you to more resources on both the subject of the Catholic Church and the sex-abuse crisis if you wish.

I hope this helps!

 

Fantastic Four: Movie of the summer?!

A few weeks back, when the best film of the summer, Batman Begins, opened, I posted expressing my hope that its opening weekend might end the worst U.S. weekend box-office year-over-year recession in 20 years.

Well, it didn’t… nor did any of a slew of other highly anticipated movies, including War of the Worlds, Revenge of the Sith, Cinderella Man, Kingdom of Heaven, and The Longest Yard.

According to studio estimates, though, the 20-week recession was finally broken… and to add insult to injury, the film credit with the achievement is another comic-book super-hero movie that’s as terrible as Batman Begins is great: Fantastic Four. (Get the story.)

So, what’s the lesson here? Why did Fantastic Four — an ensemble film with no star power from a fledging director based on a venerable but only moderately popular comic book — outperform Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise, Batman, Star Wars, Russell Crowe and Tom Howard, and Adam Sandler?

More pressingly, why did a lousy, badly reviewed film with only two tepid action sequences, one-note characterization, awful casting, mostly bad acting, dreadful dialogue, trashy humor, and lame special effects outperform an array of films that outshine it on almost every level imaginable?

Was I wrong to conclude in my earlier post that the message of the box-office recession was that moviegoers want better movies? Is the lesson here that quality doesn’t matter after all? That Marvel fans are a more reliable (or more forgiving) market than DC fans?

First of all, a plug: Jimmy and I will be discussing this and other movie-related topics today on Catholic Answers Live.

Second, a little perspective:

  • Fantastic Four’s opening domestic take of $56M is stronger than most of those other films — but not all of them. War of the Worlds actually opened much stronger, with a three-day opening weekend total of $64.5M — a figure that’s actually deceptively low, considering that much of its opening business wasn’t even in the Friday-to-Sunday period, since it opened on a Wednesday before the July 4 holiday (its six-day total was $112.7M).
  • Batman Begins likewise opened with a three-day take of $48.7M, somewhat lower than FF’s $56M — but here too Batman opened on a Wednesday, so its opening business wasn’t all concentrated into that three-day weekend total. Batman’s five-day opening take was $72.9M.
  • Fantastic Four isn’t single-handedly responsible for the end of the box-office recession. It was the convergence of FF plus continued strong performance from War of the Worlds and Batman, as well as other films. Had FF opened a month ago, likely it would not have broken the recession, and some other film would have.
  • It’s still too early to certify FF a hit. The figure that really matters now is the percentage of dropoff in the next week or two. Batman has been holding up well over the weeks, slipping a very modest 35% this past weekend to a $172.1M If FF tanks in its second or third weekend, as so many films do these days, it could still be a box-office turkey.

Still, with all that said, the question remains: Why did this film do so well?

Here is what I think is an important part of the answer:

Until FF, the big movies of summer have all — quite rightly — come with warnings not to bring the kids.

Even properties with built-in kid interest, such as Batman and Star Wars, have been the subjects of media and critical cautions that these films are too intense for young kids. And they are — and there’s nothing wrong with that.

As a result, though, the family market has been neglected. Yes, there have been traditional “family films” like Herbie: Fully Loaded and Madagascar. But families seem to crave films outside of the “family film” mold, i.e., cartoon-style comedies (whether live-action or animated) about children / families or anthropomorphic animals, cars, robots, etc, flatulence humor, kicks in the groin, etc.

Based on its marketing, FF, supposedly a “funny family action film,” seemed to fit the bill. Its initial success, like last year’s National Treasure (also not a great film, although much better than FF), may suggest that family audiences crave the same kind of thrills and action as teenagers and young adults, but without the heavy violence or sexual content. In fact, families may be so desperate for acceptable fare of this type that they will even embrace movies that are mediocre (National Treasure) or lousy (FF).

Unfortunately, it also seems, at least at the moment, that it may not be necessary that the movie be actually family-friendly — only that it be marketed and perceived that way. With FF, a running thread of trashy exploitative content, mostly in connection with the character of Johnny Storm, keeps it from being family-friendly, but it didn’t keep the studio from marketing the film to families.

And families, at least this weekend, seemed to buy it. Time will tell if word of mouth prevents the strategy from working in the long run… or whether family audiences really are the suckers some Hollywood studios think they are.

Listen today to Catholic Answers Live for more.

I've Been Paged!

… By Christopher over at Against the Grain in his page over the Harry Potter novels and Pope Benedict XVI’s alleged disapproval of them.

Since the Holy Father’s election, Potter naysayers have been having a field day with a German-language article that claimed that the then-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had denounced J. K. Rowling’s mega-popular children’s series.  As the release date for the latest installment draws near, the frenzy has become even more strident.  So, the question is, did the Pope disapprove of the series?  The answer:  No, because no such statement has been offered by Pope Benedict during his pontificate.  Well, what about the alleged disapproval of Cardinal Ratzinger?  Here’s my response:

  • As far as I know, the letter sent to the German critic Gabriele Kuby has not been published.  According to Lifesite.net (the site that offers an article that blares "Pope Benedict Opposes Harry Potter Novels"), Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter was quoted by Kuby in a German-language interview she gave to the Zenit news agency.  If the letter has been published, then I would have to read it in order to determine whether the Cardinal had been giving a private opinion or was speaking in his capacity as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
  • According to Kuby, as mediated through the Zenit report, Ratzinger said: "It is good that you shed light and inform us on the Harry Potter matter, for these are subtle seductions that are barely noticeable and precisely because of that deeply affect (children) and corrupt the Christian faith in souls even before it (the Faith) could properly grow."  Please note that the glosses in parentheses are probably not Cardinal Ratzinger’s.  One would have to see the letter itself to confirm the context of the glosses.  Even if accurate, there is still a lot of context missing.  What exactly does the "these" in the clause that starts "for these are subtle seductions" refer to?  As of yet, there is no way to know.
  • Cardinal Ratzinger may simply be giving a politely general response to the concerns of a correspondent, affirming that her concerns for the faith of children are valid without necessarily affirming that the series itself indeed causes such dangers.  If the intriguing "these" simply refers to the concerns she raised and not to alleged problems in the Potter series, then the quote says nothing of the Cardinal’s opinion of the series.  Analogously, if someone wrote to Catholic Answers asking me if such-and-so liturgical abuse was a legitimate concern, I could say yes without saying anything about the particular circumstances at the correspondent’s parish. 
  • Let’s say for the sake of argument that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has read the Harry Potter novels and agrees with the Potter critics that they are bad.  What does that prove?  If he was speaking privately as an independent literary critic, not much beyond the fact that they are not his cup of tea.  If he was speaking privately as a theologian troubled by theological issues in the series, then his opinion would carry the weight of the private analysis by an orthodox and well-respected Christian theologian.  Only if he had been writing as head of the CDF would magisterial authority begin to be a question.

The trouble with articles like the one on Lifesite is that they cause a lot of controversy without much substance.  The same was true a couple of years ago when Roman exorcist Fr. Gabriele Amorth nixed the Potter series.  Naysayers pounced on this and trumpeted it to fans of the series while failing to mention that Fr. Amorth was only speaking on his own authority and not the Church’s.  Now that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has become Pope Benedict XVI, naysayers are hoping to stir the cauldron again.  Granted, the remarks should be discussed, even investigated, to ascertain what was said and the context in which it was said.  But misleading headlines and sensationalistic articles are not the way to foster calm and reasoned inquiry.

Mary's Marriage

A reader writes:

I was sitting at a wedding this weekend and the Deacon was talking

about how we get married just as God had ordained with Adam and Eve,

Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Mary and Joseph.

Mary and Joseph immediately struck me as odd because, unlike everyone

else, their marriage is distinct from all others in our Catholic

Tradition in that they did NOT have sex.

And then your discussions of impotence and sex (HERE and HERE) came screaming

back to me in that they left the impression with me that in order for

a marriage to be valid, then the husband and wife must be able to as

well as actually share in the marrital act together.

So, I was left wondering… since Mary and Joseph did not share in the

marrital act, is their marriage valid? 

Yes. A valid marriage comes into existence upon the valid exchange of matrimonial consent between two parties that are free to marry each other and not otherwise impeded.

If the parties are not both baptized (as was the case with Mary and Joseph) then the marriage is a non-sacramental one, but nonetheless valid.

If both parties are baptized then the marriage is a sacramental one.

If the marriage is sacramental and the parties then consummate it, it becomes indissoluble by anything except death. Otherwise, it is at least potentially dissoluble.

Consummation thus changes the status of certain marriages (sacramental ones) but it is not necessary for marriage to be valid. Consequently, it was not necessary for Mary and Joseph’s marriage to be valid.

Could a couple get married

today, always abstain from the marrital act, and still have a valid

marriage? 

Yes. This is known in Church history. It is referred to as "Josephite marriage" after St. Joseph. With a billion Catholics in the world, there are likely a number of such couples out there right now.

If so, then why does impotence really matter? 

Impotence is the inability to perform the marital act. Perpetual and incurable impotence is an impediment to marriage because marriage involves exchanging the right to conjugal relations. Giving valid matrimonial consent means binding oneself to pay the marriage debt if the other party reasonably requests it.

Therefore, if you don’t have the ability to pay the marriage debt then you cannot truthfully promise to render it to another. Consueqently, you cannot give another the right to conjugal relations with you, and thus you cannot exchange valid matrimonial consent.

It is possible, however, to exchange the right to conjugal relations even if neither party plans to exercise that right. To parties can plan never to have conjugal relations and yet exchange the right to do so should one or the other (or both) change their minds.

If Mary and Joseph entered marriage planning on not having conjugal relations then they still granted each other a right even though neither intended to use it.

On the other hand, it may be the case that they planned on having conjugal relations but the intervention of the Holy Spirit in conceiving Jesus before they came together caused them to change their plans.

Couldn’t an

impotent couple marry in the hope – like Abraham and Sarah – that God

will provide in some way?

A couple in which one or both parties was perpetually and incurably impotent cannot marry. However, a couple in which one or both parties are not perpetually impotent (i.e., are sometimes able to pay the marriage debt) or are curably impotent (e.g., via pharmaseuticals or surgery or counselling) can marry.

The case of Abraham and Sarah was different. Abraham and Sarah, though their union was infertile for much of their

marriage, could and did have marital relations. Impotence thus was not

the issue.

Their issue was not impotence (the inability to have sex) but infertility (the inability to have children). The latter is not an impediment to marriage since the parties are still able to pay the marriage debt to each other and so are able to validly exchange consent to marriage.

Mary’s Marriage

A reader writes:

I was sitting at a wedding this weekend and the Deacon was talking
about how we get married just as God had ordained with Adam and Eve,
Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Mary and Joseph.

Mary and Joseph immediately struck me as odd because, unlike everyone
else, their marriage is distinct from all others in our Catholic
Tradition in that they did NOT have sex.

And then your discussions of impotence and sex (HERE and HERE) came screaming
back to me in that they left the impression with me that in order for
a marriage to be valid, then the husband and wife must be able to as
well as actually share in the marrital act together.

So, I was left wondering… since Mary and Joseph did not share in the
marrital act, is their marriage valid? 

Yes. A valid marriage comes into existence upon the valid exchange of matrimonial consent between two parties that are free to marry each other and not otherwise impeded.

If the parties are not both baptized (as was the case with Mary and Joseph) then the marriage is a non-sacramental one, but nonetheless valid.

If both parties are baptized then the marriage is a sacramental one.

If the marriage is sacramental and the parties then consummate it, it becomes indissoluble by anything except death. Otherwise, it is at least potentially dissoluble.

Consummation thus changes the status of certain marriages (sacramental ones) but it is not necessary for marriage to be valid. Consequently, it was not necessary for Mary and Joseph’s marriage to be valid.

Could a couple get married
today, always abstain from the marrital act, and still have a valid
marriage? 

Yes. This is known in Church history. It is referred to as "Josephite marriage" after St. Joseph. With a billion Catholics in the world, there are likely a number of such couples out there right now.

If so, then why does impotence really matter? 

Impotence is the inability to perform the marital act. Perpetual and incurable impotence is an impediment to marriage because marriage involves exchanging the right to conjugal relations. Giving valid matrimonial consent means binding oneself to pay the marriage debt if the other party reasonably requests it.

Therefore, if you don’t have the ability to pay the marriage debt then you cannot truthfully promise to render it to another. Consueqently, you cannot give another the right to conjugal relations with you, and thus you cannot exchange valid matrimonial consent.

It is possible, however, to exchange the right to conjugal relations even if neither party plans to exercise that right. To parties can plan never to have conjugal relations and yet exchange the right to do so should one or the other (or both) change their minds.

If Mary and Joseph entered marriage planning on not having conjugal relations then they still granted each other a right even though neither intended to use it.

On the other hand, it may be the case that they planned on having conjugal relations but the intervention of the Holy Spirit in conceiving Jesus before they came together caused them to change their plans.

Couldn’t an
impotent couple marry in the hope – like Abraham and Sarah – that God
will provide in some way?

A couple in which one or both parties was perpetually and incurably impotent cannot marry. However, a couple in which one or both parties are not perpetually impotent (i.e., are sometimes able to pay the marriage debt) or are curably impotent (e.g., via pharmaseuticals or surgery or counselling) can marry.

The case of Abraham and Sarah was different. Abraham and Sarah, though their union was infertile for much of their
marriage, could and did have marital relations. Impotence thus was not
the issue.

Their issue was not impotence (the inability to have sex) but infertility (the inability to have children). The latter is not an impediment to marriage since the parties are still able to pay the marriage debt to each other and so are able to validly exchange consent to marriage.

George Is Wrong. . . . Robert Is Right

GEORGE WILL HAS A BRAIN-DEAD PIECE ON WHO SHOULD BE NOMINATED TO THE SUPREME COURT.

I don’t get it. Will is a smart guy. How can he fall for such a ridiculous position, which amounts to a rejection of a principled judicial philosophy and that has a demonstrably poor track record when past presidents have tried to follow it.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch . . .

ROBERT BORK HAS A STELLAR PIECE ON THE NEED TO APPOINT ORIGINALISTS TO THE COURT.

OconnorIt also has a judicious judicial takedown of Justice O’Connor as a way of making his point.

EXCERPT:

Consider just a few of the court’s accomplishments: The justices have weakened the authority of other institutions, public and private, such as schools, businesses and churches; assisted in sapping the vitality of religion through a transparently false interpretation of the establishment clause; denigrated marriage and family; destroyed taboos about vile language in public; protected as free speech the basest pornography, including computer-simulated child pornography; weakened political parties and permitted prior restraints on political speech, violating the core of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech; created a right to abortion virtually on demand, invalidating the laws of all 50 states; whittled down capital punishment, on the path, apparently, to abolishing it entirely; mounted a campaign to normalize homosexuality, culminating soon, it seems obvious, in a right to homosexual marriage; permitted discrimination on the basis of race and sex at the expense of white males; and made the criminal justice system needlessly slow and complex, tipping the balance in favor of criminals.


Justice O’Connor, a warm, down-to-earth, and very likeable person, joined many, though not all, of these bold attempts to remake America. Whatever one may think of these outcomes as matters of policy, not one is authorized by the Constitution, and some are directly contrary to it. All of them, however, are consistent with the left-liberal liberationist impulse that advances moral anarchy.

GET THE STORY.