Category: Other Christians

Are YOU “Anathema”? How about Your Protestant Friend?

Laurens_excomunication_1875_orsayA reader writes:

Recently I came a cross a web site that claimed that an anathema applies to anyone who affirms an doctrine that is contrary to the kind of anathema issued by Vatican I (that is, the kind that says, “If anyone says X, let him be anathema”).

The same site said that one of the anathemas of Vatican I made a powerful argument against sedevacantists who say that Pius XII was the last valid pope because Vatican I said that St. Peter will have successors to the end of time.

What do you make of these claims?

The claim that anathemas apply to those who contradict the canons of an ecumenical council, whether Vatican I or one of the other councils, is a common and understandable misunderstanding. We haven’t done a very good job about educating people on what the term “anathema” means in this context, and an awful lot of people are under an innocent misimpression.

To put the matter concisely: The term “anathema,” as used in conciliar and canon law documents, refers to a type of excommunication. In particular (as in the 1917 Code of Canon Law), it referred to a type of excommunication that the bishop performed using a special ceremony. This ceremony involved (among other things) the ringing of a bell, the closing of a book, and the snuffing of a candle. Hence the phrase “bell, book, and candle” (that’s where it comes from; it has nothing to do with witchcraft). These collectively symbolized that the ecclesiastical court had made its ruling against the offender and would not reconsider until he repents. There was then another special ritual of reconciliation for the lifting of the anathema.

(BTW, the image is a painting of the excommunication of Robert the Pious of France. That’s not a giant, smoldering cigarette pointing accusingly at him on the floor but the snuffed candle that the bishop’s entourage—seen leaving by the door—has just yanked off its accompanying candle holder.)

Like other excommunications, anathemas didn’t do anything to a person’s soul. It didn’t make him “damned by God” or anything like that. The only man who can make a man damned by God is the man himself. The Church has no such power. An anathema was a formal way of signaling him that he had done something gravely wrong, that he had endangered his own soul, and that he needed to repent. Anathemas, like other excommunications, were thus medicinal penalties, designed to promote healing and reconciliation.

Also like (many) excommunications, anathemas were not automatic. Just because someone, somewhere, uttered a heresy, this did not cause the relevant bishop to drop whatever he was doing and automatically perform the ceremony like a puppet on strings. Instead, if someone committed an ecclesiastical crime that was potentially subject to an anathema the matter had to be reported, investigated, judged, and only after that would the ceremony happen—if it did.

Also also like other excommunications, they applied to people who were (or had been) in communion with the Catholic Church. There is no point excommunicating somebody from the Catholic Church who had never been part of the Catholic Church, and so people who had never been Catholics were not anathematized, no matter what they said or did. (This comes as quite a surprise to many in the Protestant community, where it is often—unfortunately—claimed that the Catholic Church anathematizes them for their beliefs. Not so. It may disagree with some of their beliefs; it may hope and pray that they adopt the fullness of the faith as found in the Catholic Church; but it does not anathematize them.)

Over time the penalty of anathema became administered only rarely, and eventually it was judged that the extra ceremony was no longer needed. As a result, the 1983 Code of Canon Law abolished the penalty of anathema, and so it no longer exists under Church law.

This means that nobody today is anathema in the sense that the term is used by councils and canon law documents. Excommunication still exists as a penalty, and some excommunications are even automatic, but the special, ceremonial form of excommunication known as anathema does not.

This does not mean that the canons of the ecumenical councils have lost doctrinal force. They haven’t. Whatever doctrinal force they had prior to the 1983 Code, they still have, and so if a particular canon defined something as a heresy then it still is.

Furthermore, heresy still carries a penalty of excommunication, but a number of conditions have to be fulfilled for the penalty to apply (especially if it is to apply automatically—but that’s a subject for another post).

MORE ON ANATHEMAS HERE.

AND HERE.

As to the Vatican I vs. sedevacantism (or a certain type of sedevacantism) argument, I’ll interact with that in my next post.

In the meantime . . .

What do you think?

Major Supernatural Event This Saturday!

Rapture

Yes! It’s true! A major supernatural event will be occurring *this* Saturday, May 21, 2011!

I’m *not* kidding!

Harold Camping—president of the Protestant radio outreach known as Family Radio—has been predicting for some time that the long-awaited Rapture will occur on May 21st of this year.

Of course, he’s made similar predictions before. He famously got his followers worked up back in 1994 about that being the year the world would end (or something) and, well … y’know.

But this time is different!

There really *is* a major supernatural event occurring this Saturday!

That doesn’t necessarily mean that the reasoning Camping uses to arrive at his conclusion is sound. In fact, it’s not.

If you go to Family Radio’s page explaining why the Rapture is supposed to happen this Saturday, the reasoning used is astronishingly weak. Even incoherent. Dig it:

God declared in 2 Peter 3:8:

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

God had written in the Holy Bible in Genesis 7:4:

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

God added in Genesis 7:10-11:

And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the Flood were upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

The ark that Noah had built was the only place of safety from the destruction of the Flood. Likewise, God’s gracious mercy is the only place of safety from the destruction that is coming on the Day of Judgment.

In 2 Peter 3:8, which is quoted above, Holy God reminds us that one day is as 1,000 years. Therefore, with the correct understanding that the seven days referred to in Genesis 7:4 can be understood as 7,000 years, we learn that when God told Noah there were seven days to escape worldwide destruction, He was also telling the world there would be exactly 7,000 years (one day is as 1,000 years) to escape the wrath of God that would come when He destroys the world on Judgment Day. Because Holy Infinite God is all-knowing, He knows the end from the beginning. He knew how sinful the world would become.

Seven thousand years after 4990 B.C. (the year of the Flood) is the year 2011 A.D. (our calendar).

4990 + 2011 – 1 = 7,000
[One year must be subtracted in going from an Old Testament B.C. calendar date to a New Testament A.D. calendar date because the calendar does not have a year zero.]

Thus Holy God is showing us by the words of 2 Peter 3:8 that he wants us to know that exactly 7,000 years after he destroyed the world with water in Noah’s day, he plans to destroy the entire world forever. Because the year 2011 A.D. is exactly 7,000 years after 4990 B.C. when the flood began, the Bible has given us absolute proof that the year 2011 is the end of the world during the Day of Judgment, which will come on the last day of the Day of Judgment.

Got that?

Me neither.

So let’s employ a technique commonly used by philosophers when trying to analyze someone’s argument. Let’s try to put it in logical form. As near as I can tell, Camping’s argument has a form something like this:

1) Noah’s Flood occurred in 4990 B.C.
2) Noah was warned seven days before the Flood that it would occur, per Genesis 7.
3) A day with the Lord is like a thousand years, per 2 Peter 3.
4) Therefore, 7,000 years after Noah’s Flood some great, Flood-like judgment will occur.
5) 4990 B.C. + 7000 -1 = A.D. 2011.
6) Therefore, the end of the world will occur in 2011.

Camping has other arguments zeroing in on May 21st as the date for the Rapture and for October 21st for the final end of the world (if I understand correctly), but before messing with days, let’s first see if his argument concerning years holds water.

The first thing to be remarked about the argument as I’ve put it above is that it’s not in a logically valid form. The premises do not entail the conclusions. I could fix that by rephrasing and introducing some extra, hidden premises, but Camping’s logic is so obscure that I don’t want to go too far beyond what he explicitly says. So let’s simply look at the premises of the argument and see how likely they are to be true, remembering that if even one premise is false then the whole argument is unsound (and that’s if it had a valid form to begin).

Premise 1, that the Flood occurred in 4990 B.C. is an idiosyncratic claim on Camping’s part. You’ll note that this date is earlier than the conventional Protestant Ussher chronology, which had the world beginning in 4004 B.C. and had the Flood occurring around 2348 B.C. Camping rejects the Ussher dating, and I can’t fault him for that. I reject it myself, as do most Protestants these days, because it is based on unsound methodology and results in unlikely, unprovable, and over-precise dates.

Unfortunately, I have no more confidence in Camping’s dating, which also strikes me as unlikely, unprovable, and over-precise. I don’t know what house of cards he has supporting that date, but I view basing any argument regarding the end of the world on this date as extremely shaky.

Premise 2, that Genesis depicts Noah being told that the Flood was going to begin in seven days (this was after he’d been given an earlier warning and built the ark) is true.

Premise 3, that Peter states that a day with the Lord is like a thousand years is also true.

But can we infer from this that some Flood-like judgment would occur 7,000 years after the original Flood?

Not on your life.

For a start, why zero-in on the warning Noah got seven days before everything started happening? Why not focus instead on the earlier warning he got? Why not at some other time in this narrative? The proposed starting point is arbitrary.

For another thing, why suppose that there’s any kind of prophetic significance to this at all? There is nothing in the text telling us that these seven days, or any span of time mentioned in the narrative, is a scale-model prophecy of when the end of the world will take place relative to the Flood. This is sheer supposition.

What’s more, why should the scale be a thousand years to a day? This is a notorious bugaboo with predictions of the end of the world. Over and over different interpreters pick out some random mention of days in the Old Testament, multiply it by a thousand years, and then declare some prophesied even must occur on the corresponding date.

It’s true that 2 Peter says that a day is as a thousand years with the Lord, this doesn’t give us a license to take any mention of a day and interpret it as a thousand years. Quite the opposite! The exact same passage also says the reverse: That a thousand years is like a day with God (per Psalm 90:4). In other words, time is meaningless with God. He’s an eternal being who can find as much experience in a day as we would in a thousand years and who can encompass huge spans of time like a thousand years in what is only a moment for him. Rather than providing a license to multiply any reference to a day as code for a thousand year prophetic period, this verse is actually a warning against trying to determine God’s timetable for events. That timetable is unpredictable because we cannot know what temporal calculus God is applying to particular prophecies.

Camping’s use of this verse is thus not only over-precise but flatly contrary to the literal meaning of the verse!

And would be even if the seven days mentioned Genesis 7 were a prophetic scale model, which we have no reason to think.

And if those days were prophetic in some way, why treat them and only them in such a way? What God says is that in seven days he would start flooding for 40 days and 40 nights. Does that mean that once the judgment starts it will go on for 40,000 years?

Camping doesn’t think so. He’s got the final end coming in October. This only underscores the arbitrary nature of the figure he has picked out and multiplied. If the seven days mentioned must be literally multiplied by 1,000 years, why should the 40 days also mentioned in the same passage not be similarly multiplied?

Camping does, at least, avoid the trap of thinking that there’s a “year zero” on our timeline. There’s not. It jumps from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1, so he gets points for that. Not all end-time speculators have been so fortunate on that one.

But even if we were to grant all of the foregoing, even if there were some big Flood-like event scheduled to occur 7,000 years after a 4,990 B.C. Flood, why would it have to be the end of the world? Why not just Another Big Judgment?

Even that is giving him too much credit, however. The fact is that this whole prediction is a house of cards. It’s based on over-precise, unknowable dates, arbitrary starting points, arbitrary parallelisms, invalid logic, and a multiplication factor that is wrenched out of context and used in a way flatly contrary to the clear meaning of the text.

Given that his overall year calculation is so shot through with holes, we need not be detained by his more precise datings of the Rapture or the final end. (I should also note that Catholics do not typically use the term “Rapture,” though they do acknowledge the reality of the event St. Paul mentions in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, though it is seen as occurring at the Second Coming of Christ at the end of the world, not before an earthly millennium.)

The whole thing is comic—but it is also tragic, because many people have been misled by Camping, and some have been misled into spending vast sums of money in support of his advertising campaign, telling their friends and co-workers that the world is about to end, and generally bringing scorn on the cause of Christ.

As St. Paul wrote: “It is written, ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you’” (Rom. 2:24).

You have to admire the courage of people like this gentleman who spent his life savings promoting these speculations, but not their wisdom.

God help everyone who bought into this come Sunday morning.

Of course, that’s not to say Christ couldn’t come back on Saturday. I don’t see the signs being right for that, but who am I to say it couldn’t happen?

Harold Camping is right, though, that a major supernatural event will be happening this Saturday.

One of my godsons is being confirmed!

Congratulations, James!

So … what do you think?

Are Catholics Chicken or Something?

Chicken27

Recently I was getting into my truck, and a gentleman I didn’t know came over to talk to me.

He was out front having a smoke and spotted me while I was getting into my vehicle, so he came over and introduced himself.

Turns out he’s my neighbor’s father-in-law.

He wanted to talk to me about Jesus and the end of the world.

Now, he wasn’t one of the Family Radio people who think that Judgment Day is going to occur May 21, 2011 (just watch; Harold Camping’s prediction will turn out to be wrong again), but he was—if I understood him correctly—a Calvary Chapel Evangelical who, like many in that community, think the end of the world is near, that people will be suddenly raptured away before a thousand year earthly reign of Christ, etc.

His primary interest in talking to me, though, wasn’t to swap views on the end of the world. Instead, he had something else in mind.

He didn’t actually use the following terms—our conversation took another path—but translating from Evangelicalese to Catholicese, he was concerned that I might not be saved (i.e., in a state of grace) and wanted to make sure that before I die I got to know Jesus (i.e., experienced a conversion to Christ), so he wanted to witness to me (i.e., evangelize me) so that I wouldn’t go to hell (i.e., hell).

That was right nice of him!

Turns out I was already full-up in the witnessing department—what with being an apologist and all that—but the sentiment was very much appreciated, he was a really nice guy, and we had a delightful conversation.

I hope we can chat again in the future!

I couldn’t help admiring about the gentleman the fact that he was bold enough to go up to a total stranger and start talking about sensitive personal things like whether the stranger has a properly configured relationship with God.

That’s one of the more sensitive and personal topics that can be broached, especially in a one-to-one conversation—as opposed to preaching to a big group of people and asking them individually to consider their relationship with God. The latter is peanuts. Any decent public speaker could do that. Going face-to-face with a single person and making the rectitude of his relationship with God the topic, that requires courage!

I could tell that the gentleman was nervous at the beginning of our conversation, so I did my best to set him at easy and signal that I wasn’t threatened or put off. While I didn’t have a lot of time (I was, after all, getting in my car to go somewhere), I engaged the subject with him happily and enthusiastically, and we had a great (if brief) truck-side conversation.

It brought back pleasant memories of my own time as an Evangelical.

And as I drove away, there was a prominent thought in my head: Catholics almost never do what he just did.

Why?

Why Catholics so seldom work up the courage to approach a total stranger with the message of Jesus.

One might think it’s because Catholics are chicken, that they’re afraid to do so. And of course they are. Evangelicals are, too! You have to screw up your nerve to do this kind of thing. That’s only human!

Yet Evangelicals do it and Catholics—for the most part—don’t.

Why is that?

In my next post I’ll discuss my own thoughts about why that is, but until then . . .

What are your thoughts?

Should You Read Non-Catholic Materials?

A correspondent writes:

I am presently attending a Bible study.  During our small group discussion, a question arose from someone in our group.We would like to know if it is wrong for us to read and examine other books and Bibles that are not Catholic-based to see what they have information-wise pertaining to spiritual matters.  For example, we both have Life Application Study Bibles and enjoy reading the associated study footnotes.

My opinion is that the Holy Spirit guides us with discernment especially when we pray before reading or delving into other Christian denomination books and Bibles.  I guard myself (my heart, mind and spirit) so that I’m not influenced in any way that could conflict with Catholic beliefs.  If I’m not sure or confused about an issue (e.g., Why do we believe this and they that?”), I said I then will go to a religious authoritative person to have any questions or issues addressed or I check Internet sites like www.Catholic.com.  I believe I am exercising my ‘child-like faith’ with wanting to know and love more, which draws me closer to Him and to others, while using my adult judgment. I also believe that, when we know more about other religions and philosophies (Christian, Jewish, Eastern, scientific, etc.), it helps us to practice love, respect others, and establish a common ground for our relationship and possible future discussions for witnessing for Catholicism. If I didn’t understand or have knowledge of what they believe, I may not be able to convey my Catholic beliefs and doctrines as accurately.

The other person in our small discussion group is concerned that when we read, we can be swayed / influenced to turn from our Catholic beliefs and choose another path.  Are we able to guard ourselves enough (with the Holy Spirit’s assistance), spiritually and mentally, to protect our Catholic faith or is avoidance of other doctrines the answer?  Is it a matter where it differs per individual and how strong their faith is (figuratively, those who are nursing vs. those eating solid food)?

Please share your opinion and feel free to correct me where I’m wrong.  Thank you!

I think that you and the other person in your Bible study have valid points. There is not a one-size-fits-all answer on this one.

On the one hand, there is a great deal to be learned from non-Catholic sources, including non-Catholic religious and philosophical ones. St. Thomas Aquinas did an enormous service for the Church by showing how Christian faith can be related to the thought of non-Christian thinkers, such as (and especially) the pre-Christian philosopher Aristotle. Aquinas’s attitude was that all truth is God’s truth, and so if you find truth in a non-Christian source it not only will not contradict the Christian faith but it also will be of use to Christians. The more truth, the better!

His attitude was thus to exercise critical thinking in reading materials from non-Catholic sources (and from Catholic ones, for that matter!). Although St. Paul said it in a different context, the idea also applies here:

 

Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil. (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22)

This philosophy has also carried down to our day. In fact, in the books he is writing on the life of Jesus, Pope Benedict regularly interacts with the ideas of the American Rabbi Jacob Neusner, whose perspective on Jesus he finds to have value, even though he doesn’t agree with everything. (And he’s willing to reference Neusner in public—and thus implicitly encourage others to see what Neusner has to say.)

If you have a good grounding in your Catholic faith and can exercise critical thinking in what you read then there is nothing to fear in non-Catholic writings, and there is much to be learned from them! Though we have the fullness of religious truth, we do not have a monopoly on truth, and the perspectives of others can help bring out things that we as Catholics may not have known or may not have fully worked out yet.

In my own work, I use non-Catholic materials all the time. In fact, my favorite commentaries on the book of Genesis are by Jewish authors (Rashi and Nahum Sarna), there are Evangelical commentaries on certain books of the Bible that I learn a great deal from (the writings of N. T. Wright and James Dunn come to mind), and there are things to be learned even from folks who do not have any faith.

The key to being able to sift through this material and find what is good in it, though, involves more than praying to the Holy Spirit, and here is where I think your friend has a good point. One must also have a firm knowledge of your own faith in order to be able to think critically about material presented from other perspectives.

While one certainly should and must rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance, the Holy Spirit does not promise to protect us from coming to mistaken conclusions just because we pray to him. He also wants us to study, internalize, and thoroughly know our own faith. And then, with his guidance, we can approach materials from other perspectives profitably and with confidence.

Because everybody in our culture is taught to regard himself as an expert on religion from the time of birth, it is easy—often far too easy—for us to imagine that we have the kind of knowledge of our own faith that is needed to accurately identify beliefs that conflict with it. Indeed, we’d often feel insulted if someone suggested that we don’t! “What do you mean I don’t know my Catholic faith well enough to know what contradicts it!”

Yet there are a great many people who, in fact, don’t have a good grasp on the Church’s teaching even though they think they do.

And then there are people who, while they know the teaching of the Church well, may be experiencing an emotional crisis or a crisis of faith of some sort, and this would interfere with their ability to productively and serenely interact with materials from non-Catholic authors.

Certainly the safest course is to stick with Catholic materials, and as a general matter this is advisable, particularly for those who are less educated in their faith or who are going through difficult patches in their lives, but if you are well educated in your faith and able to exercise the critical thinking necessary to profitably sift what you are reading, there is nothing to fear from doing so.

There is thus no one-size-fits-all answer. It depends on each individual and where that person is in their intellectual, emotional, and spiritual journeys.

In terms of the group—since people may be at different stages of those journeys—I would recommend erring on the side of caution (a flock travels at the speed of its slowest member), and if you use non-Catholic materials (or less-reliable Catholic ones, which can even be more insidious since they may have been written by wolves in sheep’s clothing), point out their limitations and strongly caution people against using them uncritically.

I hope this helps, and best of luck!

What are your thoughts?

More News on the Anglican Situation

Well, we now have some more information about how the celibacy issue will be handled in regard to the Anglican ordinariates that will be the subject of Pope Benedict's new apostolic constitution–including word on when that will be out. 

This Saturday (!) the Holy See had a press conference which dealt with these matters. Here is the text of the English bulletin on it, plus commentary:

CLARIFICATION BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE HOLY SEE PRESS OFFICE, FR. FEDERICO LOMBARDI, S.I. [sic; he's a Jesuit], ON SPECULATIONS [ominous word at the Vatican; signals damage control is the motive of the briefing] ABOUT THE CELIBACY ISSUE IN THE ANNOUNCED APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION REGARDING PERSONAL ORDINARIATES FOR ANGLICAN ENTERING INTO FULL COMMUNION WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

There has been widespread speculation, based on supposedly knowledgeable [interesting phrase; attempting to be polite but can't help but being read as sarcastic] remarks by an Italian correspondent Andrea Tornielli [he's also highly respected; interesting that they're naming him and making him eat this one; he also rankled some in Vatican circles by reporting a little too freely on some possible liturgical reforms discussed by the Congregation on Divine Worship that they didn't want aired in public; depending on who you believe, he also may have overstated those], that the delay in publication of the Apostolic Constitution regarding Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church, announced on October 20, 2009, by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is due to more than "technical" reasons. According to this speculation, there is a serious substantial issue at the basis of the delay, namely, disagreement about whether celibacy will be the norm for the future clergy of the Provision.[Not that that's an unreasonable speculation, as the present text will soon make clear.]

Cardinal Levada offered the following comments on this speculation: "Had I been asked I would happily have clarified any doubt about my remarks at the press conference[Fr. Z's remark about such press conferences is apropos]. There is no substance to such speculation. No one at the Vatican has mentioned any such issue to me. [Under normal circumstances, this could be read as a non-denial denial.] The delay is purely technical in the sense of ensuring consistency in canonical language and references.[That I can believe; for all his virtues–which are many–Pope Benedict is not a canonist, nor are the folks at the CDF (at least as a body) and it makes sense to have the canonical folks go over it prior to publication.] The translation issues are secondary; the decision not to delay publication in order to wait for the ‘official’ Latin text to be published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis was made some time ago.

The drafts prepared by the working group,[nice; a glimpse into the drafting process of this constitution; an acknowledgement that it wasn't simply written by Benedict himself, though it undoubtedly was written at his direction and along the lines he indicated, then reviewed carefully in consultation with Cardinal Levada] and submitted for study and approval through the usual process followed by the Congregation, have all included the following statement, currently Article VI of the Constitution [kewl! advance text!]:

§1 Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary [the head of the ordinariate in this case] as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42 and in the Statement "In June" [not easy to find online; I'll put the text of it at the bottom of this post] are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1.[So, as expected, they won't be able to be ordained and then get married.]

§2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.[If I'm taking this right, section 2 seems to be referring only to those who have served previously as Anglican ministers; that is, it's stating more explicitly what could be inferred from section 1; ordinarily, only unmarried men can be ordained in the new ordinariates but, on a case by case basis, exceptions can be made for those who previously served as Anglican ministers; however see below.]

This article is to be understood as consistent with the current practice of the Church, in which married former Anglican ministers may be admitted to priestly ministry in the Catholic Church on a case by case basis. With regard to future seminarians, it was considered purely speculative whether there might be some cases in which a dispensation from the celibacy rule might be petitioned. For this reason, objective criteria about any such possibilities (e.g. married seminarians already in preparation) are to be developed jointly by the Personal Ordinariate and the Episcopal Conference, and submitted for approval of the Holy See."[So this is the big news: They haven't decided yet how to deal with the married seminarian question; they're planning to work it out in the future. Also note that the example given is for married seminarians already in preparation; they might decide not to allow future Anglican ordinariate seminaries to accept married seminarians–at least if they didn't convert from Anglicanism while in seminary; in this case the married status of Anglican ordinariate clergy would largely be a first-generation-only thing]

Cardinal Levada said he anticipates the technical work on the Constitution and Norms will be completed by the end of the first week of November.[Kewl! So coming up soon!–though they might not release it for a while.]

———————————————————–

Text of the "In June" statement referred to above (or what I have):

“In June 1980, the Holy See, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, agreed to the request presented by the bishops of the United States of America on behalf of some clergy and laity formerly or actually belonging to the Episcopal (Anglican) Church for full communion with the Catholic Church. The Holy See’s response to the initiative of these Episcopalians includes the possibility of a “pastoral provision” which will provide, for those who desire it, a common identity reflecting certain elements of their own heritage.

“The entrance of these persons into the Catholic Church should be understood as the ‘reconciliation of those individuals who wish for full Catholic communion,’ of which the Decree on Ecumenism (no. 4) of the Second Vatican Council speaks.

“In accepting former Episcopalian clergy who are married into the Catholic priesthood, the Holy See has specified that this exception to the rule of celibacy is granted in favor of these individual persons, and should not be understood as implying any change in the Church’s conviction of the value of priestly celibacy, which will remain the rule for future candidates for the priesthood from this group.

“In consultation with the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has appointed the Most Reverend Bernard F. Law, bishop of Springfield-Cape Girardeau, as ecclesiastical delegate in this matter. It will be his question to be submitted for the approval of the Holy See, to oversee its implementation and to deal with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in questions pertaining to the admission of former Episcopalian clergy into the Catholic priesthood.”

Aesthetic Escalator

Hey, Tim Jones, here. The following is a post I just put up at my blog, but I thought Jimmy’s readers might find of interest;

St_joseph_rb_lg
I’m going to hurriedly try to respond to some recent art posts over at
The Aesthetic Elevator, even though I can’t give them the time and
thought they deserve, right now.

First, on the art of Guy Kemper
(pictured); Here’s the long and short, for me; this represents
precisely the problem with a lot of contemporary Catholic liturgical
art, and more broadly with non-representational art… the question is
this; where couldn’t this art function just as well as it does
here (the Catholic Memorial at Ground Zero)? It would be as much at
home in the entryway to a shopping mall, or a high school, or in one of
our new, featureless contemporary church buildings. It is art devoid of
communication. It’s called "Rise". It could be called anything.

It does do one thing admirably well; it breaks up the enervating
monotony of rectangles that make up the space. It beats looking out on
the parking lot. Let’s be honest, modern architecture doesn’t make use
of repeated rectangles because the rectangle is a shape the meaning of
which we just never get tired of exploring. Rectangles are cheap and
plentiful, and curves cost money. Look at the granite slab tub at the
left. A baptismal font, or a water feature with coi fish? Generic
acoustic ceiling tiles (how daring!) and floor tiles just like I have
in my bathroom. Look, I know the architect is dealing with a limited
budget, as well as building codes, so a lot of this is simply
fore-ordained and out of his/her control. Our culture just makes dull
buildings, that’s all. In this context, the artwork is a
welcome relief from the assembly-line blankness of the space. It is
aesthetically pleasing (competently composed and harmonious) and gives
the eye something to do for a few seconds. In that sense, it performs a
function. That’s setting the bar awfully low, but there you go. Kemper
doesn’t need me to like his art… he is successful and there are
plenty of people who love this sort of thing. It functions as a
placeholder for the idea of a piece of art, and it offends (could
offend) no one.

This is the kind of art that I hope the Vatican’s Council for
Catholic Culture studiously avoids in it’s search for new talent, which
TAE notes here.

Moving on…

TAE has some thoughts
on the Catholic League’s Bill Donahue having some thoughts about the
art of some college student, who further has some novel thoughts
regarding the proper use of rosaries and other devotional items…

"Whoa, lad! That crucifix doesn’t go there!" (think Robert Mapplethorpe).

TAE makes one good point; nine times out of ten, pounding the table
about stuff like this only draws attention to it. In that sense, I
would rather that "Shoutin’ Bill" would just let things be. His heart
is in the right place, but I look forward to seeing him on the news
probably about as much as thoughtful evangelicals look forward to
seeing Jerry Falwell.

That said, how anyone could mistake the art for anything but plain,
bigoted hate speech is beyond me. The paintings are calculated to
disgust and offend, and yet TAE manages only;

"I can’t help but think he could have approached his canvases in a more deft manner."

Deft manner? Does anyone really hold out the possibility that the
artist has some genuine, thoughtful critique of the Catholic Church,
but (poor boy) chose an unfortunate way to express it? Is anyone naive
enough to suppose that the artist seethes with loathing for Catholics,
but generally thinks highly of other Christians? Do you figure that he
quite approves of Pentecostals, for instance? Yeah, and rosaries might
fly out my butt.

Let’s imagine a college art exhibit critical of gay marriage that
made it’s point by pornographically lampooning Matthew Shepard and
Harvey Milk. How many hours would it be be open before someone was
fired? Yet, this art is no different. Some adolescent wanted attention,
and his fawning professors (with the help of the Catholic League) have
obliged.

Finally, in his post on Donahue, TAE says;

Referring back to Donahue’s criticisms, perhaps he believes his own
denomination to be Divine and infallible as an institution. I’ve known
of Catholics with this attitude, although I don’t sense it’s a
prevailing conviction. If I may be so bold, this would in fact be a
naive belief, and I don’t understand how anyone could presently think
so highly of the Catholic Church in light of the recent scandals that —
unfortunately — plagued this enduring institution. No part of the Body
of Christ can say with a straight face that they or their particular
congregation has not made certain gross missteps along the way…"

This
will require another post to address, but in brief, it (unsurprisingly)
reflects what seems to be an incomplete and overly simplistic view of
what the Catholic Church believes on the subject(s)…  very similar to
what I thought Catholics believed… before I became one!

James White Has Completely Lost It

And by "it," I mean two things: First, his mind, and second, the debate.

The reason I say that is that White has now posted pictures depicting those who have urged him to be more charitable with Frank Beckwith as radical Muslims protesting and urging beheading.

Here are the pictures.

To the first he gave the name "RCfatwa" (i.e., Roman Catholic fatwa):

Rcfatwa

To the second he gave the name "RCcharity" (i.e., "Roman Catholic charity"–depicting the attitude of the man in the picture as the kind of charity that Catholics display):

Rccharity

ORIGINAL SOURCE.

Toward the end of his post, White seeks to blunt criticism of these pictures (or appears to do so) by saying:

Now, I have obviously attempted to insert a bit of levity, and a bit of humorous sarcasm here, for the simple reason that I’m to the point where you either have to laugh or cry.

I’m sorry, but no. This kind of excuse will not do. Not in the slightest.

You do not compare your interlocutors to Islamists or portray those who urge charity on your part as if they were advocates of beheading those who disagree with them. Whether you feel they are right or wrong, annoying or not, or even reasonable or not, the actions of people engaged in this discussion with White are simply incommensurate with the kind of actions undertaken by radical Muslims.

What White has done here is not humor.

It is vile. It is reprehensible. It is despicable. It is outrageous. If White were thinking rationally, he would see this.

Hence, White has lost his mind when it comes to this. He is not functioning as a rational agent on this topic.

He also loses any debate on this point via special application of Godwin’s Law.

Godwin’s Law holds that the longer an online discussion goes, the greater the odds of someone making a comparison to Hitler. It is standard practice in many Internet circles–because of the inflammatory nature of this comparison and its tendency to start flame wars and shut down rational discussion–to regard anyone who makes such a comparison (unless you are talking about real-life Nazis or mass murderers) as having automatically lost the debate in question.

Islamists are the Nazis of the post-9/11 world, and thus anyone who depicts his debate opponents as Islamists automatically loses whatever debate was underway due to forfeiture.

He has crossed a fundamental line that shows himself to be incapable of holding a rational discussion. Excuses like "it was just a little levity" count for nothing. Those are the remarks of a troll. The individual has shown that he is not willing to make a good faith effort to abide by the terms of Internet discussions, and there is no point in discussing anything with him–either ever or at least until he seriously and sincerely acknowledges just how far over the line he was.

Discussion over.

James, you lose.

If you were Catholic, I’d tell you to go to confession.

What you did was vile, unacceptable, and childish. You have reduced yourself to the status of a troll.

If you can’t immediately see that and make amends then no one, knowing that you are capable of this, should engage you in debate or discussions of any kind.

UPDATE: The above pictures are so vile, particularly in light of 9/11 and the ensuing history and those who have been threatened or killed by radical Muslims, that this should be a matter upon which individuals of all confessional affiliations should be able to agree, including Evangelicals. I would like to invite Evangelicals, including those who have been close to White, to both publicly and privately distance themselves from the actions of Mr. White in posting these pictures as an act fundamentally incompatible with Christian charity. Evangelicals, in particular, can play a spiritual service to White by making this clear to him, since as the pictures themselves illustrate, he is deaf to appeals to charity from Catholics.

Amazing. Simply Amazing.

James White has been active in the combox over at Stand To Reason–despite his dislike of comboxes (I guess he uses them when it suits him)–in connection with Frank Beckwith’s recent appearance on that organization’s radio program.

HERE’S A LINK.

I was told he had reposted some of the material from there on his own blog, and I was thinking about responding to something he said, but then I ran into

THIS ITEM (CURRENTLY) AT THE TOP OF HIS BLOG.

It’s amazing. Simply amazing.

The topic concerns a statement Frank made on Stand To Reason that he had read documents from the Council of Trent back when he was in his twenties and then recently re-read them and was surprised by what he read. They did not say what he understood them to say based on his prior reading and what he had been told about them by others subsequently.

No big deal, right? People read something when they’re young and green and then read it again years later and realize it didn’t say what they thought it said or means something else. Happens all the time, right?

Not, apparently, to the mind of James White.

First, here’s the quotation from Frank, transcribed from the broadcast, that White picks on:

If you read the Council of Trent…which, by the way, really shocked
me. I expected to read this sort of horrible document, you know,
requiring people to stick pins in their eyes, you know, and flagellate
themselves, you know, and it turns out that there are things in there
that are quite amazing, that the initial grace is given to us by God,
in fact, there’s a condemnation in there for anyone who says that our
works, apart from grace…I mean, I thought to myself, I had not been
told…I had been misinformed!

On his blog White poses the following questions:

1) How can a person be shocked by re-reading something they read twenty
years ago. Is it your claim that you had completely forgotten
everything you had read then? Or is it your claim that you were so
completely prejudiced in your twenties that you could not even read the
document in a meaningful fashion?
2) How can someone speak of "expecting to read" something in a document
that they have already read? Are you claiming that your prejudices were
do deep that you had actually made up in your mind things like
"sticking pins in your eyes" and "flagellation"?
3) How can you find "amazing" things in a document you read twenty
years ago? Did you simply not read it well enough to understand it then?
4)  If you read this document, how is it relevant to claim that you had not been "told" the truth about it? 
5)  If you read the document, how could you be misinformed about its contents? 


Finally, would not a perfectly fair minded reading of these statements
lead any rational person to the conclusion that this was, in fact, your
first reading of the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent? [emphasis added]

HUH???

White is actually insinuating that Beckwith did not previously read the documents, despite his claim to have done so!

What possible reason would he have to lie about this? Or if the claim isn’t that he’s lying, why suppose that his memory has gone so wrong on this?

I think what "a perfectly fair minded reading" of Frank’s statements would lead "any rational person" to the conclusion that he read the documents–or some of them–back when he was young and inexperienced in matters of theology and then, with a couple of decades of additional learning under his belt, he went back and realized that they were saying something different than he thought. In the meantime, what he had read about them from other sources had colored his understanding of them, and so reading what they really have to say–and now having the background to understand them properly–was an enlightening experience for him.

That kind of thing happens all the time with human beings. It’s no big deal and nothing out of the ordinary.

If this, then, is what "any rational person" would be led to conclude by giving "a perfectly fair minded reading" to Frank’s statements, I can only conclude that James White is either not a rational person or that he is not giving a fair reading to them (or both).

The way I see it, there are three options (in order of ascending probability):

1) James White is such a supergenius that he always reads every document correctly the first time and remembers it perfectly for decades, without allowing his view of it to be colored by what others have told him about the document (though if he’s this kind of supergenius, why hasn’t he noticed that other people don’t work that way?)

2) James White is not a supergenius but assumes that he is, so that he thinks his first reading of any document is correct and he is so closed minded and incapable of admitting–even to himself–that he has been wrong that he never re-evaluates what a document says and thus has never had the experience of finding out that the document didn’t say what he thought.

3) James White is irrationally going after Frank’s claim out of a overweening desire to score points that prevents him from seeing what is blindingly obvious to "any rational person" and thus renders him incapable of giving "a perfectly fair minded reading" to the statements of someone whom he has chosen to controversially engage.

Dr. Francis Beckwith Returns To Full Communion With The Church

Dr. Francis Beckwith, the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, as become Catholic. Dr. Beckwith was raised Catholic but became an Evangelical Protestant in youth. After a review of Catholic theology and its basis, however, he has been reconciled with the Church.

I recently learned of Dr. Beckwith’s intention to pursue reconciliation. Apparently my own humble writings were of use to him in his journey, and he was kind enough to say so. In view of the sensitivity of the situation, however, I of course agreed to refrain from making the matter publicly known. He also was kind enough to let me know just before he went to the sacrament of reconciliation.

Last night I received a note from Dr. Beckwith indicating that the matter had become public, and so I would like to offer warm felicitations regarding his return to full communion with the Church.

The source through which the matter was made public happened to be James White’s blog, and as you can imagine, Mr. White is not happy.

In particular Mr. White raises the question of what Dr. Beckwith will do given his present status as head of the Evangelical Theological Society.

Prior to his reconciliation, Dr. Beckwith shared his thoughts on that matter with me, and though I will let him speak for himself on the subject, I will say that he intends to handle the matter in a gracious and frank manner and has already taken steps in that direction.

On his blog, Mr. White questions whether Dr. Beckwith could remain a member of the Evangelical Theological Society, writing as follows:

Let’s ponder the hypothetical situation of a President of the Evangelical Theological Society converting to Roman Catholicism in the midst of his tenure. In 1998 I attended the national meeting of the ETS in Orlando, Florida. At one of the sessions some of the founding members were being asked questions about why they did certain things, why they wrote the statement of faith as they did, etc. A woman asked a question of the panel. "Why did you write ‘the Bible alone’ in the statement of faith?" The ETS statement of faith is very, very short. It reads:

"The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory."

Roger Nicole rose, slowly, and made his way to the podium. He looked out at the lady and said, "Because we didn’t want any Roman Catholics in the group." He then turned around and went back to his seat. While most sat in stunned silence, I and a friend with me broke into wild applause. The brevity of the response, and Nicole’s dead-pan look, was classic. Most looked at us like we were nuts, but we appreciated what he said. Here, one of the founding members made it clear that the ETS was founded as a Protestant organization and that primary to their own self-understanding was a belief in sola scriptura.

Mr. White is correct about the text of the ETS statement of faith or "doctrinal foundation." It’s found online here.

While the ultimate interpretation of this statement is up to the ETS itself, I would point out two things:

1) The statement of a single founder, such as Dr. Nicole, regarding the interpretation of such a statement is analogous to that of a single founding father regarding the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, it is not of itself conclusive, however enthusiastically Mr. White and his friend might receive it.

2) If the founders of the ETS intended to exclude Catholics from the organization, they did not frame their doctrinal foundation in a way that would, in fact, block Catholics from being able to agree to it.

The Bible and the Bible alone is the word of God written (as opposed to the Word of God Incarnate, the word of God in nature, or the word of God handed on through the Church in parallel to Scripture). Only Scripture is divinely inspired such that every assertion of the sacred authors is asserted by the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the Bible is inerrant in the autographs. And, of course, God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.

There is thus nothing in the ETS doctrinal foundation that a Catholic could not agree to in good conscience and it is not an effective instrument for excluding Catholics from membership.

This situation will, of course, be very sensitive for members of the Evangelical Theological Society and its leadership, as well as for Dr. Beckwith and his family, and I ask readers to keep the matter in prayer.

At the hour I write, Dr. Beckwith has not posted on Right Reason, a blog in which he participates, regarding his return to full communion, and I do not know if he will do so, but I invite my readers to watch that blog for possible updates and to offer their felicitations to Dr. Beckwith in the combox below.

VISIT RIGHT REASON.

DR. BECKWITH’S HOME PAGE.