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."

Politics In Our Genes?

In the Gilbert & Sullivan operetta Iolanthe, a British Grenadier Guardsman named Sgt. Willis spends a lot of time on sentry duty thinking about the oddities of the universe. During the course of the opera he sings a song in which he shares some of his musings with us and remarks on how tickled he is by the fact

That Nature always does contrive
That every boy and every gal

That’s born into the world alive

Is either a little Liberal

Or else a little Conservative!

Politics is in our genes, Sgt. Willis suggests. It’s inborn.

But that’s just Gilbert being silly, right?

Maybe not.

A new study published in the American Political Science Review argues that, while party affiliation is more determined by the environment in which we are raised, our basic political instincts–conservative or liberal–are influenced by our genes.

The study relies on comparing the view of identical twins raised together to fraternal twins raised together. The results of such a study are suggestive, but not the gold standard of such research. The study was based on comparing twins raised together, but I’d like to see the study controlled by comparison to twins raised apart. If you’ve got two identical twins raised together, there may be additional forces at play that steer the twins toward sharing common opinions on thing besides just their genes. To remove these potential factors from the equation, one would want to look at the views of identical (and fraternal) twins not reared together.

Still, the evidence at hand is worth following up with further study.

The article concludes:

The researchers are not optimistic about the future of bipartisan cooperation or national unity. Because men and women tend to seek mates with a similar ideology, they say, the two gene pools are becoming, if anything, more concentrated, not less.

Okay, so we get culture wars . . . until the Roe effect runs its course and the anti-baby folks breed themselves into cultural obscurity.

GET THE STORY.

Geeking-Out Vs. Vegging-Out

The NYT has some interesting analysis of how movies have changed in the last number of years, using the Star Wars franchise as an example.

EXCERPTS:

[V]ery little of the new film [Episode III] makes sense, taken as a freestanding narrative. What’s interesting about this is how little it matters. Millions of people are happily spending their money to watch a movie they don’t understand. What gives?

Modern English has given us two terms we need to explain this phenomenon: "geeking out" and "vegging out." To geek out on something means to immerse yourself in its details to an extent that is distinctly abnormal – and to have a good time doing it. To veg out, by contrast, means to enter a passive state and allow sounds and images to wash over you without troubling yourself too much about what it all means.

The first "Star Wars" movie 28 years ago was distinguished by healthy interplay between veg and geek scenes. In the climactic sequence, where rebel fighters attacked the Death Star, we repeatedly cut away from the dogfights and strafing runs – the purest kind of vegging-out material – to hushed command bunkers where people stood around pondering computer displays, geeking out on the strategic progress of the battle.

All such content – as well as the long, beautiful, uncluttered shots of desert, sky, jungle and mountain that filled the early episodes – was banished in the first of the prequels ("Episode I: The Phantom Menace," 1999). In the 16 years that separated it from the initial trilogy, a new universe of ancillary media had come into existence. These had made it possible to take the geek material offline so that the movies could consist of pure, uncut veg-out content, steeped in day-care-center ambience. These newer films don’t even pretend to tell the whole story; they are akin to PowerPoint presentations that summarize the main bullet points from a much more comprehensive body of work developed by and for a geek subculture.

The author then suggests that America may be in danger because it’s national culture is becoming dominated by a veg-out attitude that wants to enjoy life rather than digging into the geek-oriented details needed to sustain the good life.

GET THE STORY.

(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

New B16 Book!

Why did Joseph Ratzinger come up with the name "Benedict" so quickly when he was asked what name he wanted to be called by following his election to the papacy? If reports are accurate, he said "Benedict" quite fast.

Of course, he’d had time to think about it as he saw which way the votes were trending over the four ballots of this conclave, and that gave him at least a little time to prepare mentally.

But was there anything rumbling in his mind in the background that set the stage for his choice?–something that he had already been thinking about when the conclave began?

It seems so.

B16 has a new book coming out:

Pope Benedict XVI rails against Europe in his first book published since becoming pope, chastising a culture that he says excludes God from life and allows innocent lives – the unborn – to be taken from God through legalized abortion.

“The Europe of Benedict: In the crisis of cultures” was written when the pope was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican’s guardian of doctrine, and serves as a strong indication of issues that will be priorities in his pontificate.

GET THE STORY.

(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

We Can’t Take The Risk Of Being Risk-Free

There’s a nice commentary piece over yonder at RealClearPolitics about the costs associated with trying to eliminate risk from life.

The author notes that Tony Blair recently grasped the nettle and brought it onboard by declaring:

"We cannot guarantee a risk-free life."

True enough! Life involves risk, and the attempt to utterly eliminate it causes more problems than it solves.

"Like what?" you ask.

The author of the piece turns his eyes homeward for examples, noting:

We in the United States are well aware of the dangers of being over-regulated. Businesses labor under unnecessary federal regulations, and litigious attorneys compel them to slap silly warnings on virtually every product.

That’s the summary, but the examples he provides are just the tip of the iceberg. America is suffering huge burdens as a result of the attempt to live (or impose on society) a risk-free life.

Blair, though, has the chutzpah to say something that few American politicians would be willing to voice:

"We also need a far more rational, balanced and intelligent debate as to how ‘risk’ is debated. Not every ‘scandal’ requires a regulatory response," he says, sensibly. Unfortunately, that approach hasn’t yet reached across the pond.

GET THE STORY.

We Can't Take The Risk Of Being Risk-Free

There’s a nice commentary piece over yonder at RealClearPolitics about the costs associated with trying to eliminate risk from life.

The author notes that Tony Blair recently grasped the nettle and brought it onboard by declaring:

"We cannot guarantee a risk-free life."

True enough! Life involves risk, and the attempt to utterly eliminate it causes more problems than it solves.

"Like what?" you ask.

The author of the piece turns his eyes homeward for examples, noting:

We in the United States are well aware of the dangers of being over-regulated. Businesses labor under unnecessary federal regulations, and litigious attorneys compel them to slap silly warnings on virtually every product.

That’s the summary, but the examples he provides are just the tip of the iceberg. America is suffering huge burdens as a result of the attempt to live (or impose on society) a risk-free life.

Blair, though, has the chutzpah to say something that few American politicians would be willing to voice:

"We also need a far more rational, balanced and intelligent debate as to how ‘risk’ is debated. Not every ‘scandal’ requires a regulatory response," he says, sensibly. Unfortunately, that approach hasn’t yet reached across the pond.

GET THE STORY.

MP3 Bleg

I don’t normally blog from work (all my blogging is done from home during the evening), but a work-related question just came up.

We just had a meeting to see about how we can push forward making Catholic Answers Live available in .mp3 format and a couple of questions came up that I thought pitching to y’all on the blog might be good given folks’ experience of different players and how they behave.

So here goes:

1) We have a decision to make on the calendar pages at Catholic.Com having three or four links per show. If we have four the links would be:

(a) Listen RealAudio,
(b) Download RealAudio,
(c) Listen MP3,
(d) Download MP3.

We’re wondering whether link (c) is really needed. Whaddya y’all think?

2) Is anyone aware of compression rates that could cause problems for us if we use them? Alternately, are any compression rates especially desirable?

Thanks, folks!

“And With Your Spirit”

A reader writes:

I have heard it mentioned that in the Latin Mass the
response to the priest’s statement "The Lord be with
you" was actually "and with your spirit". It seems to
me that "and also with you" makes more sense, but I
think I’m missing something. What does "and with your
spirit" really mean?

Not only does it say "And with your spirit" (Latin, Et cum spiritu tuo) in the Latin version of the Mass, it’s going to say this in the forthcoming new English translation of the Mass as well, if things go as currently planned. This was one of the items that the Vatican wanted fixed in the new translation.

To answer your question, the meaning of "And with your spirit" would depend on the context in which its used. Since there is no express subject for the phrase, that has to be filled in by context. In the liturgy (the only place one encounters this phrase typically) the context is, as you note, as response to "The Lord be with you." "And with your spirit" is thus an abbreviated way of saying "And [the Lord be] with your spirit." It’s a way of wishing the priest the same thing that he just wished us: that the Lord would be with us.

If one were to give a dynamic equivalence rendering of this–one that seeks to preserve meaning without worrying about giving a literal translation–"And also with you"would be an acceptable rendering of the phrase. They mean the same thing.

The problem is that the translators of the current rite of Mass went crazy with dynamic equivalence and totally steamrollered the sacred style of the Mass, making it seem far more banal and blasé than it is in the original Latin. Even if it requires a bit of education to help folks understand what is being said when the Mass is translated in a way that better reflects what the original says, the Holy See has judged that this will be offset by the gain in reverence and appreciation of the richness of the language of the Mass–it’s poetry and art, if you will.

What the previous translators did was the equivalent of taking Shakespeare and paraphrasing it so that ten year olds can understand it without effort. That flattens the art and dignity of the text.

Ultimately, it’s better to teach people to understand and appreciate the elevated style rather than dumbing down the text so they don’t have to learn anything new. The former, educational strategy ennobles the people; the latter, style-squashing strategy dishonors the text.

"And With Your Spirit"

A reader writes:

I have heard it mentioned that in the Latin Mass the

response to the priest’s statement "The Lord be with

you" was actually "and with your spirit". It seems to

me that "and also with you" makes more sense, but I

think I’m missing something. What does "and with your

spirit" really mean?

What the previous translators did was the equivalent of taking Shakespeare and paraphrasing it so that ten year olds can understand it without effort. That flattens the art and dignity of the text.

Convalidation Questions

A reader writes:

I am a Catholic was married in a civil ceremony several years ago. I have
since realized that I needed to be married in the
Catholic Church in order to receive Communion. My wife agreed that we
would get our marriage blessed even though she is not Catholic.

We asked the priest about having
sexual relations and he told us that since we weren’t going to get it
blessed for another year (gave ourselves plenty of time to plan) that
it is not expeced that we hold off for that long.

Okay, what the priest told you on this point is wrong. He was trying to make things easier on the two of you, but he was wrong. If two people are not validly married then they should not be having sexual relations until such time as they are.

My wife and I agreed
on several months but overstepped it ….on the last time
however she has gotten pregnant.

At the wedding she will probably
not be showing yet.
Is there any issues with going ahead with the wedding. Do we tell the
priest that she is pregnant?

You should go to confession about this, but I’m not seeing any other issues. I also don’t see any need to tell the priest about the pregnancy at this time since it is not relevant to the wedding. You will want at some point talk to the parish about making arrangements for the child’s baptism, though.

I want to be able to receive our Lord in Communion but I want to do it
the right way and not be in mortal sin.

The way to do this is to resolve to live continently until the wedding and go to confession. Then you’ll be able to receive Communion immediately, even before the wedding.

Just a curious question…..is masturbation or contraception still a
mortal sin when ones wife is already pregnant??

Masturbation is always gravely sinful, and the fact that one has a pregnant wife does not change this. I don’t understand why one would want to use contraception with a pregnant spouse since the purpose of contraception is to prevent conception, and this is not at issue while she is pregnant. Some forms of contraception (e.g., condoms) also damage the unitive aspect of the sexual act and so couldn’t be used for that reason. Others might pose a danger to the child.

In your case, though, since the two of you are not yet validly married, you shouldn’t be engaging in sexual relations until the wedding. Once that happens, though, you’d be able to engage in them the same as any other married couple during pregnancy, provided it isn’t posing a danger to the child.

MORE INFO HERE.

I know that this may not all be what you were hoping to hear, but you deserve the truth, and I want to be straight with you. You also should be commended for your willingness to do what is needed to follow Christ and rectify your marital situation. You wife also is to be commended for her willingness to help you follow your conscience even though she is not Catholic. God will bless you both for your efforts.

Hope this helps!

Happy Summer Solstice Day

Today, June 21, is the summer solstice, which in the northern hemisphere means a really, really long day (and, in the southern hemisphere, a really, really short one)–your latitude may vary.

Pagans often make a big, sacrilegious deal out of the summer solstice, but I don’t think that ought to stop Christians from taking note of the day. After all, God set up the Earth to have a summer solstice, and it’s a day of note in the planet’s annual cycle. We just don’t have to attribute any magical significance to the day.

The day is also known as Midsummer, which is totally kitty-corner to the way we in the U.S. commonly reckon summer as beginning on the day.

Maybe I’ll listen to an audio book of Shakespeare’s A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM tonight.

Pleasant dreams.