“Sometimes we know what we have to do, but we lack the courage to do it. Let us learn from Mary how to make decisions, trusting in the Lord.” @pontifex, 3 June 2013
“Christ leads us to go out from ourselves more and more, to give ourselves and to serve others.”@pontifex, 4 June 2013
“Care of creation is not just something God spoke of at the dawn of history: he entrusts it to each of us as part of his plan.” @pontifex, 5 June 2013
“Consumerism has accustomed us to waste. But throwing food away is like stealing it from the poor and hungry.” @pontifex, 7 June 2013
“With the “culture of waste”, human life is no longer considered the primary value to be respected and protected.” @pontifex, 9 June 2013
In 1992, actor Michael O’Hare was cast as Commander Jeffrey Sinclair, the lead character on the television program Babylon 5.
He remained with the show for its first season and then was suddenly written out.
When the second season began, Sinclair was replaced by Capt. John Sheridan, played by Bruce Boxleitner.
While I very much enjoyed Boxleitner’s performance, I–like all the existing fans–wondered what happened to O’Hare.
The truth is something I never guessed . . .
What People Did Guess
The leading theory in fandom was that the executives at Warner Brothers (or its subsidiary PTEN, which ran Babylon 5) had demanded that O’Hare be fired and replaced.
According to the common account, the show was struggling to get off the ground, and O’Hare’s performance was thought to be a drag on it.
A new, more likable main character needed to be brought in, and so the stoic Sinclair was replaced by the ebullient Sheridan.
It was thought that this was unfair to O’Hare, because he had been intentionally asked to play a character who was wounded.
The Battle of the Line
Sinclair had fought at the Battle of the Line, when the Minbari nearly destroyed Earth.
Something mysterious happened to him during this battle, and his memories of it had been erased.
The result left him one of the walking wounded.
During the first season of the show, cracks began to appear in the wall that had been built in his mind, and his memories began to resurface, bit by bit.
In one episode in particular, a covert group of agents from Earth put him through a kind of psychological torture in an attempt to force his memories to resurface.
Because he was mentally injured by the mysterious thing that happened to his character at the Battle of the Line, O’Hare was asked to initially play the part as solemn and reserved.
The idea was that he would open up as his character arc progressed and as he learned what had happened to him and he dealt with it.
By the end of the first season, he was less stiff and formal than he had been at the beginning. The loosening up was happening.
It seemed unfair that, just as the character was reaching this point in his personal story arc, he was written out by the executives’ demands.
Not the First Time
It wouldn’t have been the first time that this kind of thing happened in a television series–or even a science-fiction series.
In the long-running BBC Doctor Who franchise, the sixth actor to play the Doctor–Colin Baker–had been asked to play a deliberately abrasive Doctor in 1984.
When he was first introduced, he acted arrogant and erratic and physically attacked his uncomprehending companion.
He also declared: “I am the Doctor, whether you like it . . . or not!”
It seemed like a deliberate affront to the fans of the show, who immediately began to complain about the “unlikeable Doctor.”
The idea was that the arrogant, erratic Doctor would eventually be transformed into a likable one over the course of his character arc, but this wasn’t clear to the viewers, many of whom had a strongly negative reaction.
The show suffered as the result of this disastrous creative decision, and Colin Baker was fired in 1986 and the part went to Sylvester McCoy.
O’Hare’s Departure
Had the same thing happened on Babylon 5?
Had J. Michael Straczynski’s (JMS’s) creative decision to introduce Cmdr. Sinclair as an initially stiff, wounded character doomed him, just as he was starting to loosen up on the show?
This is what a lot of fans thought.
Their speculation seemed confirmed when, after O’Hare’s departure was announced, JMS took out an ad in the Hollywood newspaper Variety (if I recall correctly) endorsing Michael O’Hare, seeking to help his career as an actor.
It looked like JMS and O’Hare were on the same side against “the suits.”
Truth Is A Three-Edged Sword
But it turned out that the truth is something far stranger . . . and more tragic.
It can only be told now that O’Hare has passed away.
Michael O’Hare suffered a heart attack in September 2012 and died a few days later.
Just a couple of weeks ago, at a science-fiction convention in late May 2013, JMS revealed the truth that had been hidden all these years.
Between the Darkness and the Light
According to Wikipedia:
During the filming of the first season of Babylon 5, O’Hare began exhibiting symptoms of schizophrenia.
Halfway through filming, his hallucinations worsened and the stress of playing a character who was suffering from a similar mental illness was becoming overwhelming.
Remember that O’Hare was being asked to play the character of Sinclair, who had been psychologically wounded at the Battle of the Line and who now was suffering with breakthrough memories caused, in part, by the attempt of sinister, persecuting government agents to force his missing memories to the surface.
It became increasingly difficult for O’Hare to continue work, his behavior was becoming increasingly erratic and he was often at odds with his colleagues.
O’Hare sought treatment for his mental illness, but feared that, as the main character of Babylon 5, taking an extended medical leave of absence would destroy the show just as it was getting off the ground.
This brings us to the same point that many fans suspected: the future of the show was in question.
Only instead of it being O’Hare’s on-screen performance as judged by executives that was a threat to the show, it was O’Hare’s psychological health, as judged by O’Hare himself that was the threat.
Acts of Sacrifice
So what happened next?
J. Michael Straczynski, the show’s creator and main writer, offered to suspend the show for several months to accommodate O’Hare’s treatment; however O’Hare refused to put so many other people’s jobs at risk.
Straczinski agreed to keep his condition secret to protect O’Hare’s career.
O’Hare agreed to complete the first season but would be subsequently written out of the second season so that he could seek treatment.
The Long, Twilight Struggle
According to Wikipedia:
He reappeared in a cameo appearance early in season two and returned in season three for the double episode War Without End which closed his character’s story arc.
He made no further appearances in Babylon 5.
Although his treatments were somewhat successful, he was never fully cured.
On his return to Babylon 5, Straczinski promised again that he would keep his condition secret to his grave.
O’Hare told him to “keep the secret to MY grave” pointing out that fans deserved to eventually learn the real reason for his departure, and that his experience could raise awareness and understanding for people suffering from mental illness.
On May 25th 2013, Straczynski fulfilled his end of the promise and finally revealed the reasons behind O’Hare’s departure from Babylon 5.
Beyond the Rim
Here’s the video of JMS explaining what happened to Michael O’Hare and the other actors from the series who have passed, including Richard Biggs (Stephen Franklin), Jeff Conaway (Zack Allen), and Andreas Katsulas (G’Kar).
Discussion of Michael O’Hare’s departure begins at 9:40.
Is the Catholic Church the one, true Church? Here are 7 things to know and share with others . . .
In today’s brave new world of ecumenism, the Catholic Church no longer claims to be unique, right?
After all, Vatican II didn’t say that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.
It merely said that the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church.
So that means the Catholic Church no longer views itself as the “one true Church,” right?
Not so fast . . .
1. The Source of the Issue
The source of the issue is found in Vatican II’s dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, where we read:
8. This Church [the Church of Christ] constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.
These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.
2. “Subsists In”?
The matter would be much clearer if the Council had used the traditional language of saying that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.
Instead, they use the unfamiliar wording “subsists in” (Latin, subsistit in) instead of “is” (Latin, est).
This can make it appear that the Council was backing away from the claim that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, and many people–including Catholic theologians–took it in precisely this way.
Did Pope Francis intentionally poke Protestants in the eye?
Did Pope Francis intentionally poke Protestants in the eye?
In a recent column, Presbyterian Bill Tammeus appeared to accuse Pope Francis of “intentionally offering a poke in the eye to people outside your faith tradition.”
He asks if Pope Francis is “saying that I, as a Presbyterian, cannot follow Jesus outside of Catholicism? That’s what he appears to be claiming, and I think it’s a dicey position to highlight so early in his papacy.”
Did Pope Francis “intentionally“ poke Protestants in the eye? Did he say that Presbyterians cannot follow Jesus?
Ever since the start of the Protestant Reformation nearly 500 years ago, Protestants have been understandably dismissive of the idea that the Roman Catholic church is the only true Christian church.
I hope that Tammeus realizes that this is not what the Catholic Church claims. That’s too simplistic (see below).
And yet the leaders of the Catholic church have made that claim persistently over time in various ways.
Oops. Maybe not. Well, I certainly hope he at least understands that this is not the way the Magisterium articulates the issue.
The [way leaders of the Catholic Church have made that claim] that stirred up the most resentment under Pope John Paul II was contained in Dominus Iesus, issued in August 2000 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI.
The declaration said churches outside the Catholic church “are not Churches in the proper sense.”
Okay.
Mr. Tammeus: It is my great pleasure to inform you that your concerns are to a substantial degree misplaced.
“Dear young people, the Church expects great things of you and your generosity. Don’t be afraid to aim high.” @pontifex, 28 May 2013
“The Church is born from the supreme act of love on the Cross, from Jesus’ open side. The Church is a family where we love and are loved.” @pontifex, 29 May 2013
“The whole of salvation history is the story of God looking for us: he offers us love and welcomes us with tenderness.” @pontifex, 31 May 2013
“In this Year of Faith, we pray to the Lord that the Church may always be a true family that brings God’s love to everyone.” @pontifex, 1 June 2013
“The world tells us to seek success, power and money;
God tells us to seek humility, service and love.” @pontifex, 2 June 2013
An image from the recent worldwide Eucharistic exposition.
This Sunday I went out for breakfast after Mass, which is something I very rarely do.
I almost never eat out, but I decided to do so as a way of celebrating the Lord’s Day.
While I was waiting in the restaurant, I was reading Facebook and discovered that the planned worldwide, Eucharistic exposition was going on right then–a fact I had not previously known.
Here are a few thoughts on the event . . .
1) These are the days of miracle and wonder.
As I sat in the restaurant, I downloaded, for free, The Pope App from News.va (iOS version, Android version) to let me watch the event live and then was able to do so–to join countless people from all over the planet in a simultaneous act of worship.
To quote Paul Simon, “These are the days of miracle and wonder.
June 1 is a special day for me, and it has been for the last 20 years.
One reason is that it's the memorial day of St. Justin Martyr, who is one of the main patron saints of apologists.
As an apologist, that makes it special to me.
But there is another reason as well.
I didn't plan it this way, but my report-to-work day at Catholic Answers happened to be June 1.
It's a significant day to embark on a career of apologetics, and I've always regarded it as a gift of divine providence.
Since I started doing apologetics professionally on June 1, 1993, that makes June 1, 2013 my 20th anniversary in the field. (Professionally speaking, at least; I'd been doing apologetics informally before that or I wouldn't have got the job.)
So this June 1 is my platinum anniversary, and I'm celebrating.
The More Things Change . . .
Things have changed a lot in the field of apologetics in the last twenty years.
One of the biggest changes was the commercial availability of the Internet, which emerged from its shadowy origins as a DARPA research project to facilitate communication during a nuclear war and became the civilization-changing technology that it is today.
When I started in apologetics, it was uncommon for anybody to have an email address, and research was done exclusively though books and journals.
When I wanted to find something out, I think, "What book or journal should I look in to find the answer to this?"
I remember the moment in the mid-1990s when I realized that–via the Internet–I had the World's Greatest Research Library sitting on my desktop. A light went on in my head, and I said, "From now on, this is going to be the thing I turn to first to find research leads on a question." (Of course, that still means verifying the data, since not everything you read on the Internet is true.)
The advent of the Internet opened up new possibilities for apologetics as well. I've tried to be an early-adopter as web-based opportunities have come along, and in the mid-90s, I started a web site, which still exists today as JimmyAkin.com.
I've also done work in other media, including publishing books, booklets, and audio sets, appearing on Catholic radio (which has blossomed in recent years), and reaching out in every practical way I can think of.
My goal has been to reach as many people for Christ as I can, through the best means I have available to me, and to do so in a way that's fair, accurate, kind, and–when appropriate–playful.
BTW, if I've helped you–in person or at a distance–in the last twenty years, I'd love to hear how I've done so. Just let me know in the comments box or by email.
It's been my honor to serve Christ and serve others these last twenty years.
If Jesus died on the cross in A.D. 33 and made forgiveness possible, how does that apply to people who lived before or after this event? (Like us!)
Jesus died on the Cross so that people could be forgiven their sins.
But if he died in A.D. 33, what about all the people who lived and died before that time? Were their sins forgiven?
And if their sins were forgiven, does that mean Jesus’ sacrifice applies to all of history?
If so, does that mean that we’ve been forgiven for all of our sins—past, present, and future—so that we don’t need to go to confession?
How does this all work?
Here’s the story . . .
The Bottom Line
It may seem unusual to put the bottom line at the top of a post, but I generally find it better to state things in a straightforward, literal manner and only then (if necessary) use analogies to help clarify them.
So here’s are the literal facts:
1) Jesus’ death on the Cross made it possible for all human beings to be forgiven of their sins, regardless of whether they lived before, during, or after his time.
2) In order to appropriate that forgiveness, people have to repent and turn to God. When they do so, God forgives them, regardless of when in history they lived.
3) During this life, people have free will, so if they un-repent (backslide, fall from grace, commit mortal sin) then they have committed new sins that are not (at that moment) forgiven.
4) In order to be forgiven of these new sins, they need to once more repent and turn to God. Then they will be forgiven of the new sins they committed.
Forgiveness B.C.
Suppose there is a person living in 800 B.C. Let’s call him King Bob.
One of the most common topics in discussion between Christians and atheists is the question of what atheism actually is.
For a long time, the word has been defined as the view that there is no God–i.e., the claim “God does not exist.”
More recently, some atheists have begun to define it differently.
According to them, atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of God. On this view, a person would be an atheist if he thought there was no God, thought it unlikely that there is a God, or didn’t know if there is a God.
Simply not agreeing with the claim “There is a God” would make you an atheist.
Some atheists have claimed that this is the natural state of humanity. On this view, we all start out as atheists and we have to learn belief in God.
In other words: Babies are atheists.
Are they right?
What’s the Attraction?
I understand why the atheists who make this claim would be attracted to it. At least, I understand why I would find it attractive if I were an atheist:
It can be plausibly claimed that babies do not have a belief in God, which makes one of the premises of the argument seem true.
If every position other than outright assertion of God’s existence falls under my banner, my position would seem larger and more popular.
I could claim atheism as mankind’s natural state, thus creating an implicit argument for it. Being in accord with human nature is good, right?
I could claim atheism as the default human belief, and thus relieve me of the burden of proof in arguing with others. I could then claim that the burden of proof is on those who want to believe in God. Until I’m satisfied by their arguments, I’m entitled to act on the assumption that God does not exist.
“I am close to the families of all who died in the Oklahoma tornado, especially those who lost young children. Join me in praying for them.” @pontifex, 21 May 2013
“To live according to the Gospel is to fight against selfishness. The Gospel is forgiveness and peace; it is love that comes from God.” @pontifex, 22 May 2013
“Do I take the Gospel message of reconciliation and love into the places where I live and work?” @pontifex, 23 May 2013
“On the feast of Mary Help of Christians I join the Catholics in China who trust in the protection of Our Lady of Sheshan and I pray for them” @pontifex, 23 May 2013
“Miracles happen. But prayer is needed! Prayer that is courageous, struggling and persevering, not prayer that is a mere formality.” @pontifex, 24 May 2013
“We all have in our hearts some areas of unbelief. Let us say to the Lord: I believe! Help my unbelief.” @pontifex, 25 May 2013
“Every time we give in to selfishness and say “No” to God, we spoil his loving plan for us.” @pontifex, 26 May 2013
This version of The Weekly Francis covers material released in the last week from 23 May 2013 – 9 June 2013 (subscribe here; get as an eBook version for your Kindle, iPod, iPad, Nook, or other eBook reader):
