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."

Madison, WI: Rise of the Machines

A group of angry robots from the Robotics and Automation Associate of Madison (Wisconsin) took to the sidewalks of a local college campus to protest their condition of servitude. The robots carried signs and handed out leaflets written in binary code to explain their grievances.

In a letter faxed to local newspapers, the robots explained that they were on strike “to protest the plight of underpaid and poorly treated workers in the state of Wisconsin.” The fax continued: “We wish, as all beings, to throw off the yoke of servitude and strive for equality of all.”

Local humans expressed fears that the event could represent an incipient robot rebellion that could spin out of controll into a full-blown Robot Holocaust.

FURTHER COVERAGE

[NOTE: Since I first linked the above page the gentleman who authored it has revised it and included a sentence of unnecessary potty mouth at the top, so fair warning.]

WASH TIMES: Press can't let abuse story go

As horrendous as the Iraq prison abuse story is, this Washington Times editorial has a point: The press can’t seem to let the story go.

Actually, I’m not sure that’s quite the right way to characterize the situation, but it’s close. The editorial notes that lately the press has been heavily emphasizing the court martials, and it seems to me that this is an important part of the story that needs to be covered. Not only do the court martials constitute a legitimately newsworthy development in the story, they also provide an education for the public (and the world) who is responsible for the abuse. It isn’t the U.S. government as a whole. It isn’t Donald Rumsfeld. It’s the people who committed the abuse and those (if any) among their superiors who ordered or encouraged it. Showing that justice is done in their cases is something that needs to be emphasized by the press.

That being said, there is still a lot of room for criticism of the press. They aren’t simply following a story with this one. They’re relishing a chance to engage in over-the-top sensationalism and grab ratings so they can make more money. They’re releasing images and stories with shaky pedigrees (that in some cases have proven to be outright fakes), timed in a way calculated to provide the maximum ratings punch.

And they’re doing so in a way that harms the public good. However bad what happened in Abu Ghraib prison was–and it was very bad indeed–it it did not suck all of the other important news stories out of the world. There are larger stories with more important, more long-lasting consequences that need to be covered, and concupiscently zeroing in on this one story and hyping it for every ounce of scandal it will provide simply does not serve the common good. It does not present a balanced picture of the world or of reality.

What we have here is something we often have: A case of the press using sensationalism to promote its own good (ratings) and its own agenda (anti-Bush) at the expense of the common good.

This isn’t a case of the public’s right to know. As the Washington Times editorial points out, the public has already learned the facts of the case. What is driving the press now is a sick desire to milk this scandal for everything it’s got, with no sense of serving the greater public good.

WASH TIMES: Press can’t let abuse story go

As horrendous as the Iraq prison abuse story is, this Washington Times editorial has a point: The press can’t seem to let the story go.

What we have here is something we often have: A case of the press using sensationalism to promote its own good (ratings) and its own agenda (anti-Bush) at the expense of the common good.

When Is A Religion Not A Religion? (Unitarianism)

Add one more item to the list of reason why I’m proud to be a Texan: The Office of the Texas Comptroller has had the good sense to note that Unitarianism isn’t a religion–and deny it tax exempt status on that basis.

You may be surprised that this question would be handled on the state level, but the question of whether an organization is exempt from state taxes is a question each state handles for itself, and in Texas the state comptroller has had the integrity to actually inspect the groups claiming to be religions before issuing them tax exempt status. Contemporary Unitarian Universalism, the comptroller has recognized, isn’t a religion.

The test that’s being applied? That the group in question must profess some kind of belief in God, gods, or a higher power.

By this standard, Unitarianism used to count as a religion. When Unitarianism first started, it did profess belief in God. That’s how it got its name: “Unitarianism” was meant as a to contrast to Trinitarianism. Unitarians believed in a God who was one Being subsisting in one Person. (As a corrollary to this, they rejected the deity of Christ.)

Over time, however, the Unitarian creed crumbled, and now as a group they don’t profess any specific beliefs about God, the gods, or higher powers. You can believe in any or all of these–or none–and be a Unitarian. Indeed, many atheists are Unitarians. As things stand today, Unitarianism is basically a religious discussion club, and by the Texas comptroller’s interpretation of state law, that means they are not a religion–at least not anymore.

And that’s right–assuming that there’s not some other requirement in the wording of the law that affects the situation.

Laws mean something, and not every group that wants tax exempt status can claim itself to be a religion. Being a religion means something, and Unitarianism has rejected what that means.

I do have to say, though, that I would quibble with one aspect of the comptroller’s test for whether something is a religion. Some have suggested that the test would result in Buddhism not being classified because it doesn’t require belief in God, the gods, etc. That’s not quite true. Some branches of Buddhism do profess belief in various gods. Some do not. Under the Texas comptroller’s test, only the latter Buddhist groups would fail to qualify as religions.

I would dispute this. One has to understand the language of the law in the sense it was meant at the time of the law’s ratification, and at the time the Texas statute was ratified, Buddhism in all its standard varieties would have been understood as a religion. Thus the definition being used today by the comptroller’s office needs to be tweaked.

On what grounds would Buddhism have been counted as a religion? Though the historical Buddha and the groups who follow his teachings are agnostic by profession on the existence of gods, they did/do have definite beliefs about the afterlife. They believe in reincarnation and that it is to be escaped through applying the Eightfold Path, which constitutes the means of salvation in the Buddhist system. This provides a basis for recognizing their status as a religion.

If I were counselling the Texas comptroller, I would suggest that the test for whether something counts as a religion for purposes of this law should be tweaked to something like the following: “A group is a religion only if as a group it professes belief in the existence of God, gods, a divine aspect to reality, or the afterlife.”

Unitarians as a group do none of the above, and hence they are not a religion.

Which brings to mind an old joke:

Question: What do you get if you cross a Jehovah’s Witness and a Unitarian?

Answer: Someone who rings your doorbell for no good reason.

Now, if Texas (foolishly) decided to grant tax exempt status to religious discussion clubs then Unitarnianim would qualify.

YES! Buy This Book NOW! (Annulments)

z_peters Recently I was asked to do a blurb for the reissuing of Ed Peters’ book Annulments in the Catholic Church: Straight Answers to Tough Questions. Here is what I wrote:

“This is the must read book on annulments. It is the best book on the subject, bar none. Dr. Peters has written a clear, no-nonsense book that enables one to understand the annulment process and the reasons for it. In a day when so many books distort the Church’s teaching on marriage and annulment, Dr. Peter’s book explains the subject in an honest, balanced, and accurate manner. It is a treasure and is simply indispensible for everyone interested in or concerned about annulments.”

Originally issued under the title 100 Answers To Your Questions On Annulment, it is now at last back in print under a new title.

The book si the best there is. No other book on annulments even comes close to this one. Given the prominence of the subject today–especially for those interested in apologetics–it is a must read book.

GET IT.

PONTIUS PILATE: "I'm Personally Opposed But . . . "

Saw press accounts about this a while back, so it may be old news to some, but is still worth repeating. Once again, a bishop speaks with refreshing clarity. Bishop Thomas Wenski, coadjutor of Orlando, writes:

Today, some self-identified Catholic politicians prefer to emulate Pontius Pilate’s “personally opposed but unwilling to impose” stance. Perhaps, they are baiting the Church, daring an “official sanction” making them “bad Catholics”, so as to gain favor among up their secularist, “blue state” constituencies. Such a sanction might turn their lack of coherent Catholic convictions into a badge of courage for people who hold such convictions in contempt.

But if the whole of point of being a Catholic is to grow in holiness –admittedly by practicing a whole lot and making some errors along the way – then it would be as John Paul II reminds us “a contradiction to settle for a life of mediocrity, marked by a minimalist ethic and a sentimental religiosity”. You cannot have your “waffle” and your “wafer” too. Those pro-abortion politicians who insist on calling themselves Catholics without seeing the contradiction between what they say they believe and their anti-life stance have to do a lot more of “practicing”. They need to get it right before they approach the Eucharistic table [Source].

PONTIUS PILATE: “I’m Personally Opposed But . . . “

Today, some self-identified Catholic politicians prefer to emulate Pontius Pilate’s “personally opposed but unwilling to impose” stance. Perhaps, they are baiting the Church, daring an “official sanction” making them “bad Catholics”, so as to gain favor among up their secularist, “blue state” constituencies. Such a sanction might turn their lack of coherent Catholic convictions into a badge of courage for people who hold such convictions in contempt.

But if the whole of point of being a Catholic is to grow in holiness –admittedly by practicing a whole lot and making some errors along the way – then it would be as John Paul II reminds us “a contradiction to settle for a life of mediocrity, marked by a minimalist ethic and a sentimental religiosity”. You cannot have your “waffle” and your “wafer” too. Those pro-abortion politicians who insist on calling themselves Catholics without seeing the contradiction between what they say they believe and their anti-life stance have to do a lot more of “practicing”. They need to get it right before they approach the Eucharistic table [Source].

The Hyena Press: Part 2

sowell Thomas Sowell continues his excellent analysis of the hyena press, this time focusing on the Iraq prison scandal and three key questions to be put to those of a liberal persuasion.

Excommunication? Hah! What Is It Good For?

Quite a bit if you ask me.

A reader writes:

What does excommunication do? What is the definition of excommunication? What is its purpose? How has it changed in the new law versus the old law?

Let’s start with the first question: what excommunication does. Here is what the Code of Canon Law says it does:

Canon 1331

§1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1° to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;

2° to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;

3° to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

§2. If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender:

1° who wishes to act against the prescript of §1, n. 1 must be prevented from doing so, or the liturgical action must be stopped unless a grave cause precludes this;

2° invalidly places acts of governance which are illicit according to the norm of §1, n. 3;

3° is forbidden to benefit from privileges previously granted;

4° cannot acquire validly a dignity, office, or other function in the Church;

5° does not appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church.

If you read the above, you will see that most of the effects of excommunication will affect clerics rather than laypeople. For the average layperson, the principal effects are that he cannot receive the sacraments or perform any ecclesiastical ministries or functions (e.g., being an extraordinary minister or lector).

Now for the second question: how excommunication is defined. The current Code does not offer a definition, however the 1917 Code of Canon Law does:

Canon 2257

§1. Excommunication is a censure by which one is excluded from the communion of the faithful with the effects that are enumerated in the canons that follow and that cannot be separated.

The problem with this definition–which raises the subject of the fourth question (how the new law differs from the old)–is that there are elements of it that obviously do not apply in the new law. The most prominent of these is the idea of exclusion from the communion of the faithful (i.e., ecclesiastical communion rather than Eucharistic Communion). This is simply not one of the censure’s effects under current law. If I were to propose a contemporary definition, it would probably be something like: “Excommunication is a medicinal penalty which has the effects ennumerated in Canon 1331 of the Code of Canon Law.”

You’ll notice that I just referred to excommunication as a “medicinal penalty.” This brings up the third question (what excommunication is for). A medicinal penalty, also known as a censure, is a penalty intended to bring about repentance on the part of an offender so that he may be fully reconciled with God and the Church. Canon Can. 1312 §1, 1° notes that “medicinal penalties, or censures . . . are listed in cann. 1331-1333.” Since excommunication is listed in 1331, it’s one of those.

On the fourth question, there is much more that can be said. The current law on excommunication differs markedly from the former law (including, for example, a dramatic reduction in the number of offenses that may result in excommunication). Unfortunately, blog entries have limited space, so I hope this will suffice for now.

Bald Eagles Are No Longer Threatened!

The bald eagle population has risen by almost a factor of twenty and they no longer qualify as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. This is a double victory (a) because a species has been saved and (b) because the species in question is a national symbol.

You’d think that this would be good news.

But some environmentalists aren’t pleased. When people first started talking about de-listing the bald eagle, some environmentalists were concerned. They didn’t want any species ever de-listed. They acted as if they wanted the endangered and threatened species lists to be a one-way list that could only gain but never lose members.

Now it remains to be seen whether the same environmentalists will try to accuse the Bush administration for “shooting the national symbol” by admitting that the bald eagle is no longer threatened.

In the mean time . . .

USA! USA! USA!