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."

Andrew Greeley's Modest Proposal

In a recent column, Andrew M. Greeley writes regarding the upcoming conclave:

What is there to hide? Should not the world know how the electors vote, just as in most other elections? Should not the cardinals be responsible for their votes? In the words of Pius XI, what does the Catholic Church have to fear from the truth? [SOURCE.]

I’m not sure whether Greeley is advocating that the final vote totals for particular individuals be announced (e.g., "Cardinal X got this many votes; Cardinal Y got that many votes") or whether the votes of individual cardinal electors be announced (e.g., "On the third ballot, Cardinal Y voted for Cardinal Z").

We will refer to the first interpretation (announcing vote totals) as "the less-stupid proposal" and the second interpretation as "the blithering idiot proposal."

That Greeley might be advocating the less-stupid proposal might be suggested by his appeal to how things are done in most other elections. In most other elections, the final vote totals do get announced.

And look at the results: The intensification of the political process and post-election grumbling and punditing over whether a particular candidate has a "mandate" or not and how that may affect his ability to govern.

Do we really want that for the papacy?

In order to win, an individual must have a two-thirds majority of the votes (rounding up in case the number of cardinals can’t be divided evenly by three). Now, that is already a supermajority that in secular politics (here in America, anyway) would be regarded as carrying a "mandate."

But imagine the case of a cardinal who gets a bare two-thirds vote after several ballots. Can you imagine what the pundits would say?

MEDIA IDIOT: Well, Cardinal X only got 78 of the 117 electors, Bob, and that was on the tenth ballot. It doesn’t sound to me like the conclave was really enthusiastic about him.

What’s more, his name didn’t even emerge until the sixth ballot. Prior to that it was a three-way competition between Cardinals Q, S, and W. Only after it became clear that none of them would be elected did the conclave turn ot Cardinal X, meaning that he’s a "compromise candidate" from the get go, and one that was only lukewarmly supported by 78 votes. I think that’s going to make it difficult for Cardinal X to take any really dramatic steps as the faithful will always look at him as a man who was only tepidly supported and who only got into office by the skin of his teeth.

Furthermore, the popular Cardinal Q got 76 votes on the very first ballot. He only missed the papacy by two votes! I’m sure his supporters among the faithful will be very disappointed and bitter by that and it will affect how they regard Cardinal X, who many may regard as having "stole" the papacy from the much-beloved Cardinal Q. No matter how much Cardinal Q tries to put a positive face on his defeat, there will always be many who think he had the papacy stolen from him by recalcitrant forces on the other wing of the conclave. What bitter fruit will be born from this stinging and unpopular defeat, only time will tell.

So you see, the less-stupid proposal is still stupid.

The Church is not a political organization. However much humans may have to struggle against politicizing their relationships, the Church is not about politics and only a buffoon (or an outright malefactor) would suggest that we should further politicize matters.

A person taking a jaundiced interpretation of Greeley’s proposal might suggest that he wants the politicization of the papacy precisely because it would serve to hamstring popes and hinder them from effectively wielding their authority.

A more charitable intretation would say that he’s sufficiently woolen-headed that he doesn’t understand that politics is not the paradigm for everything and that it doesn’t and shouldn’t apply to the Church.

That’s all assuming that we’re talking about the less-stupid proposal.

But Greeley’s remark "Should not the cardinals be responsible for their votes?" suggests that we might be talking about the blithering idiot proposal.

If Greeley is suggesting that the cardinals not even have a secret ballot and thus be forced to "be responsible for their votes" by having them publicly known then he opens himself to charges of blithering idiocy.

These guys have to work toghter. Few things will serve to poison relationships faster than a sure and certain knowledge of who did and didn’t vote for you (whether you won or lost). For that reason when religious orders elect new officers the ballot is secret. Universi Dominici Gregis even directs the cardinal electors to disguise their handwriting as much as possible so that even others in the conclave (much less the public) won’t know how they voted.

In a world filled with fallen human beings, secret ballots are essential to eliciting the true views of electors, as well as preventing favoritism and retribution after the election–which is why they are using in every free society in the world.

Knowing this, one suspects Greeley was merely advocating the less-stupid proposal, despite the poor writing skills he displayed in suggesting that he might be advocating the blithering idiot proposal.

That being said, he is extremely wrapped up in trying to get politicizing democracy principles imposed on the Church–so much so that he misreports historical facts.

SEE HERE, FOR EXAMPLE.

(Cowboy hat tip to the readers who sent the links!)

Andrew Greeley’s Modest Proposal

In a recent column, Andrew M. Greeley writes regarding the upcoming conclave:

What is there to hide? Should not the world know how the electors vote, just as in most other elections? Should not the cardinals be responsible for their votes? In the words of Pius XI, what does the Catholic Church have to fear from the truth? [SOURCE.]

We will refer to the first interpretation (announcing vote totals) as "the less-stupid proposal" and the second interpretation as "the blithering idiot proposal."

Do we really want that for the papacy?

But imagine the case of a cardinal who gets a bare two-thirds vote after several ballots. Can you imagine what the pundits would say?

MEDIA IDIOT: Well, Cardinal X only got 78 of the 117 electors, Bob, and that was on the tenth ballot. It doesn’t sound to me like the conclave was really enthusiastic about him.

What’s more, his name didn’t even emerge until the sixth ballot. Prior to that it was a three-way competition between Cardinals Q, S, and W. Only after it became clear that none of them would be elected did the conclave turn ot Cardinal X, meaning that he’s a "compromise candidate" from the get go, and one that was only lukewarmly supported by 78 votes. I think that’s going to make it difficult for Cardinal X to take any really dramatic steps as the faithful will always look at him as a man who was only tepidly supported and who only got into office by the skin of his teeth.

Furthermore, the popular Cardinal Q got 76 votes on the very first ballot. He only missed the papacy by two votes! I’m sure his supporters among the faithful will be very disappointed and bitter by that and it will affect how they regard Cardinal X, who many may regard as having "stole" the papacy from the much-beloved Cardinal Q. No matter how much Cardinal Q tries to put a positive face on his defeat, there will always be many who think he had the papacy stolen from him by recalcitrant forces on the other wing of the conclave. What bitter fruit will be born from this stinging and unpopular defeat, only time will tell.

So you see, the less-stupid proposal is still stupid.

That’s all assuming that we’re talking about the less-stupid proposal.

But Greeley’s remark "Should not the cardinals be responsible for their votes?" suggests that we might be talking about the blithering idiot proposal.

That being said, he is extremely wrapped up in trying to get politicizing democracy principles imposed on the Church–so much so that he misreports historical facts.

SEE HERE, FOR EXAMPLE.

(Cowboy hat tip to the readers who sent the links!)

Sola Scriptura From A Jewish Point Of View

A reader writes:

Over on the CA fora I made the following argument against Sola Scriptura from a Jewish religious and historical point of view. Do you think it holds water from a Catholic apologetical PoV?

Okay. Let’s take a look!

Being Jewish, I have always had a problem with the concept of Sola Scriptura, and I have always thought that there is a very good religio-historical argument against it.

Now I think we can all agree that Judaism is the foundation upon which Christianity of all types is built.

Any Christian with an ounce of historical consciousness will grant this, yes.

After all the Christian bible contains both an Old (Jewish) Testament and a New (Christian) Testament.

True.

And Jesus and the Apostles and (especially) St Paul were all brought up as Jews and had a firm grasp of Jewish Tradition.

Ah. Here is where someone wishing to oppose your argument may begin his case. An unsophisticated Protestant might simply say "Yes, but Jesus had a lot of criticism of Jewish tradition (cf. Matthew 15:1-11)."

A more sophisticated Protestant might ask: "What do you mean by ‘Jewish tradition’? There were several schools of Jewish thought that differed significantly from each other–the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, etc.–each of which was possessed of a substantially different tradition that it identified as the correct one. While St. Paul may have been a Pharisee, it is not clear that the others all imbibed that tradition or any particular tradition. Indeed, as they were ‘unlearned’ men, they may have simply been ‘am ha-eretz and not formal disciples of any particular school of thought apart from Jesus’."

A logical reply to both of these individuals would be "While there is truth to what you are saying, hear me out. It seems past dispute that Jesus and the apostles were inheritors of Jewish tradition in some sense in their formative years, which is all that is being claimed at this point."

That said Judaism has always had written law, the Torah, i.e. the first five books of the Old Testament. And it has an oral law, Mishnah, that expounds on and explains Torah.

This is certainly the Rabbinic understanding, and it thus naturally seems to be reflective of the Pharisee understanding (Rabbinic Judaism being descended, in broad strokes, from the Pharisee movement).

One might argue that the Sadducee movement did not have this understanding, but such an argument would be open to significant challenges, not the least of which would be that Jesus and the apostles, whatever they were, clearly were not Sadducees and thus would not be expected to share their understanding. You also have on your side Jesus’ "Do whatever they tell you" statement (Matt. 23:1-4), which seems to reflect the existence of a legal authority and, by extension, a legal tradition not arising exclusively from the text of the Hebrew Scriptures.

By way of an example there is a verse in Leviticus (unfortunately I don’t have a Bible handy so I can’t give an exact verse cite) that says "Thou shalt not scald a kid [i.e a baby goat] in its mother’s milk." This is Torah. Mishnah expands on that verse to provide a great deal of the basics of the kashruth food laws, namely things like not cooking meat in milk, not eating dairy foods and meat at the same meal, keeping separate dishes and utensils for cooking and eating meat or dairy, etc.

"Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk" (Ex. 23:19) is indeed a good example of the phenomenon you mention. It may not, however, be pleasing to a person of Protestant background.

The unsophisticated may simply say, "Yeah! And that’s why I can’t get a cheeseburger in Jerusalem! McDonalds is a strictly BYOC affair over there!"

A more sophisticated individual might reply by saying, "While it’s true that this mitzvah is commonly interpreted to preclude any combination of milk and meat products, and thus is a good illustration of the kind of interpretation-by-tradition that you are seeking to document, it may not be the most persuasive example to me as there is significant question as to whether the mitzvah has been correctly interpreted in this case. On its face, not boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk is a very great distance away from forbidding any combination of milk and meat products in a meal. The latter seems not to be reasonably grounded in the former."

He might continue: "We don’t have to be legal positivists about this: We could grant that there is an element of propriety for the ancient Hebrews that made it seem ‘icky’ or otherwise perversely inappropriate to boil a young goat in its own mother’s milk, and we might grant that this rule of propriety should be applied in other contexts, such that one should not boil a calf or a lamb or any young animal in its mother’s milk. Those might be logical extensions of this mitzvah, but to forbid any combination of milk and meat products in a meal seems a sweeping generalization that is the kind of ‘heavy burden’ that Jesus faulted the scribes and Pharisees for creating via their interpretive tradition."

To which you might reply: "Yes, but I haven’t claimed that any particular item of tradition was or should be binding from a Christian point of view. I’m merely using the example to document the phenomenon historically so far."

So to recap, at the time of Jesus and the early Church there was a written law and and an oral law. And this is key, the oral law was not written down until around the 3rd or 4th century AD, where it became the basis for later Talmudic commentary.

The sophisticated Protestant may say at this point: "We need to be a little more nuanced here. The position you are representing is the classical Rabbinic view of matters, but it must be understod with some caution. The Rabbinic view is broadly reflective of the Pharisee point of view, as has been mentioned, not the view of all Jews prior to the dawn of the Rabbinic age. Further, it is not clear that all of the Talmudic traditions actually date back to the first century."

To which you might reply, "Perhaps, but the traditions recorded in the Mishna are sufficiently early that their broad outlines, plus many of their specific particulars, must date from that period and–further–were probably representative of a broad swath of Jewish practice and not simply representative of the Pharisee viewpoint."

Therefore since Jesus and the Apostles and St Paul were all Jews coming out of a Jewish tradition, it logically follows that the early Church would follow Jewish tradition and have it’s own written law (the Gospels and the Epistles) as well as it’s own oral law (Tradition).

The conclusion is plausible, though I have two suggestions to make regarding how it’s phrase:

1) I wouldn’t say that "the earl Church would following Jewish tradition." This is a phrase that may sidetrack the discussion as it may cause a misunderstanding about what it being claimed. The reader may think that you are saying that the Church should follow particular items of Jewish traiditon, e.g., the kashrut laws, which will provoke disagreement.

This, however, is not what you are saying. To avoid the confusion, I’d avoid the word "tradition" at this point and say something like: "Coming from a Jewish background that did not have the principle of sola scriptura and that was willing to rely on extra-scriptural material, we should expect Jesus and the apostles to do the same. They would naturally interpret Scripture by their own interpretive tradition, just as other Jews would by theirs."

2) There’s another potential confusion that might arise: The reader might think that you are making a kind of scriptural-theological argument here (e.g., "The Hebrew Scriptures needed an oral tradition to complement them, so the Christian ones do too"). This would provoke disagreement as well as a Protestant likely would not concede (without argument) that there needed to be an oral tradition to complement the Hebrew Scriptures.

It seems to me, though, that this is not the argument you are making. It seems that you are making a historical argument rather than a scriptural-theological one. In other words: Jesus and the apostles came from a world in which people did rely on tradition to inform their understanding of sacred texts, so we should expect them to use this principle as well.

To make it clear that you are making a historical argument and avoid confusion, I’d go to extra lengths to point this out when presenting the argument to Protestants.

The rejoinder that you will likely encounter is the first one mentioned: Jesus had a lot to say that was critical of Jewish tradition. An unsophisticated person will simply assert this flatly, while a more sophisticated person might say, "Your historical argument is sufficient to establish a presumption that this is how Jesus and the apostles would approach Scripture, but then we have to look at how they actually did approach Scripture to see if the presumption holds up. When we look at Scripture, we see that Jesus had a lot to say that was critical of Jewish traditions."

To which you might reply: "Yes, but it is clear that the authors of the New Testament also had a healthy respect for tradition. Look at St. Paul’s positive statements regarding it (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:2). So it isn’t the case that we have a presumption that is then defeated by an examination of apostolic practice. What we have is a presumption that is confirmed by apostolic practice, with the apostles simply rejecting the traditions of other groups the way each group of Jews rejected the tradtions of other groups. That’s why there were different groups: They didn’t all adhere to identical traditions. It then becomes a question of which group had the correct tradition, but not of whether tradition should be used at all."

Which is a point that the most sophisticated Protestant individuals will concede. Many Protestants, particularly in the scholarly community, have significant appreciation for the importance of tradition. How they square that with sola scriptura is what gets dicey.

In any event, I would say that your argument is helpful in that it helps illustrate the background with which the New Testament’s positive statements regarding tradition are to be understood, so it does make a valuable contribution.

Hope this analysis helps!

A Question Of Cardinal Importance

A reader writes:

We were wondering… why can’t cardinals over the age of 80 vote for a new pope? Any answer would be most appreciated!

Well, howzabout the John Paul II’s answer to this question! It’s found in his apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, which is the document he wrote for what was to happen once he died. He writes:

In the present historical circumstances, the universality of the Church is sufficiently expressed by the College of one hundred and twenty electors, made up of Cardinals coming from all parts of the world and from very different cultures. I therefore confirm that this is to be the maximum number of Cardinal electors, while at the same time indicating that it is in no way meant as a sign of less respect that the provision laid down by my predecessor Pope Paul VI has been retained, namely, that those Cardinals who celebrate their eightieth birthday before the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant do not take part in the election. The reason for this provision is the desire not to add to the weight of such venerable age the further burden of responsibility for choosing the one who will have to lead Christ’s flock in ways adapted to the needs of the times.

He adds:

This does not however mean that the Cardinals over eighty years of age cannot take part in the preparatory meetings of the Conclave, in conformity with the norms set forth below. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, and especially during the election of the Supreme Pontiff, they in particular should lead the People of God assembled in the Patriarchal Basilicas of Rome and in other churches in the Dioceses throughout the world, supporting the work of the electors with fervent prayers and supplications to the Holy Spirit and imploring for them the light needed to make their choice before God alone and with concern only for the "salvation of souls, which in the Church must always be the supreme law."

Murderous Granddaughter Fails (For Now) In Murder Attempt On Would-Be Murder Victim

Mae Magouirk has been spared (for now) from her granddaughter’s attempt to murder her by starvation.

BlogsForTerri reports the following e-mail from Mae’s nephew:

THANKS TO THE SUPPORT OF ALL OF THE FRIENDS OF TERRI, MY AUNT MAE MAGOUIRK HAS BEEN AIR LIFTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA-BIRMINGHAM MEDICAL CENTER … and receiving IV fluids, nourishment and some of the finest medical care available in the United States! Praise be the name of the Lord GOD… Thanks to Terri’s friends… It would NEVER ever have been possible without bloggers who love life , and the truth!! I am racing from my home to UAB now and will type a detailed update after I see my Aunt Mae! Thanks guys, your calls, emails, blogs and prayers did it ALL!!! I so love you guys!!!!!!!!!! Ken Mullinax, nephew of Mae

But the story isn’t over! There’s something fishy going on, and Wizbang and BlogsForTerri have been trying to figure out what it is.

State of Smear

I have just finished Michael Crichton’s “novel” State of Fear and plan to review it. First a couple of disclaimers:

This is a contemporary thriller novel and as such contains a significant amount of cussing, non-described acts of sexual immorality, and a scene of particularly gory brutality towards the end of the book.
I happen to agree with Crichton that the theory that global warming is caused by “greenhouse gasses” is junk science, as are many other items of popular junk science that he brings up in the course of the novel. And I hope State of Fear manages to spark a real debate over global warming and enviro-nuttiness.

Now for the review:

Michael Crichton’s “novel” State of Fear is not actually a novel but instead is a piece of propaganda masquerading as a novel. A novel, of course, is a work of literature, a piece of art whereby words are used to evoke aspects of the human psyche and of human experience that transcend the merely ideological.

This transcendance of the ideological is what fails to happen in State of Fear.

According to the novel, there appear to be three kinds of people who believe in global warming:

Those who don’t really know much about the science involved and whose attachment to the environmental movement is so tenuous that they can and will be flipped to the other side by the end of the novel,
Those who don’t really know much about the science involved but whose attachment to the environmental movement is so strong that they remain shrieking harpies no matter what facts they are confronted with, and
Those who know that the science supporting global warming is junk but whose commitment to environmentalist ideology (or something) is so strong that they are willing to cause millions of casualties in order to fake scientific data supporting global warming.

If there are any other kinds of people who believe in global warming, they apparently occur sufficiently infrequently in nature that they do not merit having a recurring character in the book.

Also according to State of Fear, there apparently aren’t any evil big busines types willing to fake environmental data. Sure, many charactes appearing in the pages of the novel talk incessantly about this type of individual, but since no exemplars of this type appear in its pages, they appear to be a myth–like unicorns, centaurs, griffins, or global warmings.

With this ideologically one-sided cast of characters that inevitably results from the above, does Crichton at least succeed in delivering a well-made piece of propaganda, like Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will?

No.

Artistically, the “novel” is a disaster on every level above basic spelling and grammar.

On the top level, there is the plot, which involves a huge, sprawling mess of a story that is so poorly defined that much of the time the reader has a better sense of what is going on when watching The Big Sleep than reading this morass. There is no clearly defined central action, and poorly-drawn characters do preposterous things at the drop of a hat.

F’rinstance:

What should a young lawyer do when he checks his messages and discovers that he has several calls from the local police department telling him that he failed to show up for an appointment and they will issue a warrant for his arrest if he doesn’t contact them? Should he drop everything to get the matter taken care of? Make sure he doesn’t get distracted by anything else before he does? Nooooo! He should simply leave a message for the detective who called him and then zip off on global assignments he has no qualifications for whatsoever!
A preening Hollywood actor/activist who plays the president on TV (think: Martin Sheen) wants to tag along with the heroes on a mission of vital global importance in a place so dangerous that death, decapitation, and pre-death cannibalism are real possibilities. No problem! Just have him sign a waiver! Don’t worry that he might actually be a security risk to the mission since you already know he’s working for the other side. Perish the thought that he might simply a bumbling incompetent who would get in the way of your vital mission to save millions! You’ll need him along so you can constantly argue with him about the lack of evidence for global warming and other environmentalist fetishes and make a fool of him at every turn.
Suppose that you’re an eco-terrorist mastermind. What should you do with people who are getting too close to the truth? Shoot them and be done with it? No! You should send your goons to use a tiny poison critter that you keep in a plastic baggie filled with water to sting them with a poison that will make them paralyzed but not kill them and that will wear off in a few hours. What’s more, you can do this to several people in the same city without any fear that after the toxin has worn off that the victims will tell the police enough to figure out who you are. So confident can you be of this that you don’t even need a clearly defined REASON to do this to people. You can just do it as part of some vaguely-defined attempt to be intimidating or something, without even telling the victims what it is that they are supposed to do or avoid doing in the wake of your goons’ attacks.
Suppose that you are a rich man who has been supporting environmental causes and who has somehow (FOR NO REASON EVER EXPLAINED IN THE BOOK) come into possession of a set of coordinates of where major eco-terrorist events will be happening–what do you do? Turn the list over to the government? Put it in a safe deposit box which only you and your lawyer have access to? No! You <SPOILER SWIPE> hide it inside a remote control in your TV room, where there is a lot of Asian art including a Buddha statue, then fake your own death in an auto accident so you can go personally face eco-terrorists all by your lonesome on a south sea jungle island despite the fact you are an aging, overweight alcoholic, and just before doing so you cryptically tell your lawyer that it’s an old Buddhist philosophical saying that “Everything that matters is not remote from where the Buddha sits”–seeming to imply (if anything) that the TV remote is NOT where the hidden list will be found.</SPOILER SWIPE> See? It’s obvious, ain’t it?

Below the level of plot is the level of character. How are the characters? Thinly-drawn action adventure stereotypes, with one glaring exception. Unfortunatley, the one glaring exception is the pseudo-protagonist.

Y’see, this novel has an ensemble cast, but the omniscient narrator focuses on one character in particular–a young L.A. lawyer–to use as the lens through which to show us the vast majority of the story, making him the pseudo-protagonist.

Because of his status in the narration there is a need for the reader to at least be able to like him (ideally, you’d want the reader to be able to identify with him, but that’s too much to ask in a novel like this). Unfortunately, you can’t. While every one of his colleagues–whether they are personal assistants to rich men, rich men themselves, or other lawyers–are apparently action heroes, this character is the ultimate momma’s boy.

For the first chunk of the novel he does nothing but walk around, take orders from others, and ask simple questions so that the reader can be given load after load of exposition. He takes no personal initiative in doing anything.

Eventually, the action hero characters he’s surrounded by start noticing what a wuss he is and our glimpses into their internal monologues reveal words like “wimp” and “idiot” as descriptors of this character–who is, you will remember, the main character the omniscient narrator has chosen for us to follow.

In the second part of the novel the character is placed in a potentially life-threatening situation that causes him to experience a collapse into such a passive, sobbing, whimpering wreck that even the omniscient narrator seemingly turns away from him in disgust and temporarily starts following his action-wouldbe-girlfriend until she can rescue him from his predicament.

Just before this event occurs the character is wondering to himself why the action-wouldbe-girlfriend (i.e., the action hero woman who he would like to date) doesn’t “take him seriously as a man”–a moment bound to leave the reader going “Hey! Buddy! No one in the audience takes you seriously as a man either!”

Fortunately, getting his butt saved after his potentially life-threatening experience starts to awaken a glimmer of intestinal fortitude in him, and by the end of the novel he has learned to cuss (a little) and he gets a romantic hug from his action-wannabe-girlfriend, who is apparently transitioning into his action-actual-girlfriend for no good reason.

If the plot and the characters are disasters, how about the dialogue and narration?

They suck eggs on toast.

Some passages are so excruciating that I found myself wondering “Didn’t they give Crichton a copy editor?” One such instance occurred when a character says something to Momma’s Boy in a foreign language and we read (quotation from memory):

“He didn’t know what it meant. But it’s meaning was clear.”

Other pasages contain monstrosities of dialogue that no copy editor could fix. F’rinstance: Toward the very end of the book one triumphant good guy character is expositing on his grand vision for the future, of how to save environmentalism from itself, save science from its current predicament, and generally improve society. (This speech is sometimes so general that certain points remind one of the Monty Python sketch “How To Do It,” in which we are told that the way to cure all disease is to invent a cure for something so that other doctors will take note of you and then you can jolly well make sure they do everything right and end all disease forever.)

This manifesto would go on for several pages without break except for the fact that Momma’s Boy gets to interrupt it with scintilating interlocutions like:

“Okay.”
“It sounds difficult.”
“Okay. What else?”
“Why hasn’t anyone else done it?”
“Really?”
“How?”
“And?”
“Anything else?”
and (a second time) “Anything else?”
and (a third time) “Anything else?”

I’m sorry, but no copy editor could fix a multi-page speech with such transparent attempts to disguise it as dialogue. At that point it’s the editor’s job to call the author and demand a re-write.

If the publishing house is interested in producing quality works, that is–as opposed to simply making money.

Oh, and lest I forget, there are numerous dropped threads in this story. Like: Whatever happened about that arrest warrant that Momma’s Boy got threatened with? And: How about other established characters who left him messages and needed to talk to him? And: What did the other critter-victims tell the police after the toxin wore off? And: Where did that body come from that got washed up on the beach and how did someone else’s clothes and watch get on it? And: Why didn’t the heroes ever use the incriminating DVD to incriminate anybody?

And most importantly: What actually, y’know, happened to the bad guys in the end? Did they go to jail? Were there congressional hearings? Did they flee to countries with non-extradition treaties? Did they manage to keep their cushy jobs? Did they just go out for sushi? What???

Crichton is interested in telling us none of these things.

But then, his “novel” was never about the story to begin with.

It’s a political tract that fails to rise above the level of those theological “novels” (both Protestant and Catholic) in which one side is always right and in which characters of opposing points of view exist only to serve as conversational foils to help illustrate the rightness of the protagonists–time after time after time.

It’s enough to make you scream.

What's This?

It’s a wake-up droid!

But it’s not an ordinary wake-up droid, like the one already sitting on your nightstand.

This one is designed to run away from you!

Specifically: When you hit the snooze button the first time, it rolls off your nightstand of its own volution and bounces softly on the floor (courtesy of its soft covering) and then rolls a random distance away (courtesy of ~~Fred’s two feet~~it’s two wheels) and then sounds off again when the snooze period is up, forcing you to get out of bed and find it to shut it off.

GET THE STORY.

What’s This?

It’s a wake-up droid!

But it’s not an ordinary wake-up droid, like the one already sitting on your nightstand.

This one is designed to run away from you!

GET THE STORY.

Rosary in Latin Question

A reader writes:

Hello Jimmy, I have recently started praying the Rosary in Latin. (only the Hail Mary) I have found with great joy this "method" is extremely awesome for me. I just need your personal opinion. THink that it is ok to say this prayer this way? I find that it add a liturgical sence to the devotion. Thanks in advance.

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying the Rosary with the Hail Mary in Latin and the other prayers in English, so it’s a bi-lingual Rosary.

There’s nothing wrong with that! There is no requirement that the Rosary all be said in one language. It’s a private devotion, and there is no single way in which it is to be said–a point John Paul II made in his apostolic letter on the Rosary. If it adds extra meaning to the prayer for you to say part of it in Latin, by all means do so!

Over time, you may even want to learn the other prayers of the Rosary in Latin so that you can say the whole thing in Latin if you wish.

One tweak in the language I suggest you use, though: Since the Rosary is a private devotion, it is not liturgical. Therefore, I’d describe saying part of it in Latin as adding a sense of "solemnity" or "ceremoniality" or "devotion" to your saying of the Rosary rather than a "liturgical" sense.

Hope this helps!

EVANGELICAL HISTORIAN: JPII–The Evangelical Pope

GET THE STORY.