Jimmy Akin

SDG here, belatedly responding to a number of requests I received a few months back when Jimmy mentioned on the air that I had once corresponded with anti-Catholic apologist James McCarthy.

Here’s the background: In 1992, James McCarthy’s video “Catholicism: Crisis of Faith” was first coming out under the banner of a group called Lumen Productions (read a short critique of the video from Catholic Answers).

In November 1992 I contacted McCarthy to express my objections to this project. (This was only a few months after I was received into the Church, though I had been researching and reading about the Faith for years, and had just begun my graduate work at St. Charles Borromeo.)

McCarthy sent me a free official transcript pamphlet based on the video, and we subsequently exchanged a series of letters. During the course of this exchange McCarthy sent me his pamphlet “The Mass: From Mystery to Meaning” as well as manuscript drafts from The Gospel According to Rome, which he asked me to critique from a Catholic perspective. (Just last night Jimmy mentioned to me that he had recently run across a text I wrote in those days in which I critiqued The Gospel According to Rome. I had forgotten all about writing that critique, so I’ll be looking over that in the (hopefully near) future, and perhaps posting here any points worth making public.)

In my first letter, I quoted the words of Martin Luther: “One thing I ask, that neither truth nor error be condemned unheard and unrefuted.” I wrote that I appreciated the research that went into the project, and commended them for turning to good Catholic apologetical and catechetical works as well as ecumenical councils as sources. On the other hand, I added, “precisely because your sources were so good, I fail to understand how this pamphlet could contain some of the simple factual errors that it does.” After pointing out numerous instances of misstatements and distortions of Catholic teaching in Lumen’s video project “Catholicism: Crisis of Faith,” I concluded in my closing paragraph:

In short, the video appears to be aimed at Catholics whose faith is shallow, ill-informed, and unstable, who will not realize that there is anything more to the issues than you have presented here. It seems to seek to make a case that will appear unanswerable and unarguable to those who have never heard the arguments and answers. It looks like its purpose is to prey on the weak and sick of the flock … with promises of greener pastures: but it seems unwilling to admit to its prey that their flock may have healthier sheep (not to mention shepherds) who might withstand the attack; or that there may be greener pastures within the very fold which they have never known.

McCarthy’s reply was courteous and irenic. He thanked me for the “loving tone” and reasonable approach of my letter (which he contrasted favorably with the “enraged” tone of a Lutheran woman who had also written that week to take exception of the film). In subsequent correspondence he expressed appreciation for my “good writing style and patient reasoning.” (Alas, looking back at those early letters, I cringe at some of my stylistic quirks in those days.)

The following is a summary of salient points of our exchange, organized topically and generally moving from shorter and less consequential exchanges to longer and more substantial ones.

A few notes: I have made minor typographical corrections and such both to McCarthy’s letters and to mine. At times I have expanded upon comments from my original emails with additional analysis (it should be fairly clear where this has been done). Third, while I believe I have the complete correspondence before me, and while I’ve tried to be as complete as possible, I can’t be sure I haven’t lost or missed something. Finally, this exchange took place over fifteen years ago; I expect that neither McCarthy nor I would necessarily approach all of the issues below exactly as we did at the time. That said, I offer the following highlights of our exchange for whatever light it may shed on works that are still offered by McCarthy.

Continue reading “Corresponding with James McCarthy”

My colleague at Catholic Answers Jim Blackburn was telling me about a stop-motion video made by his son Justin, with help from his brother James. The two boys appear in the film, which stars their cousin, Jackie Jo and also features her sister, Jamie Sue. (Notice anything about the letter J in this family?)

Here's the video. Enjoy! 

That's the question blogger and transhumanist economist Robin Hanson asked his class recently. He writes:

On Tuesday I asked my law & econ undergrads what sort of future robots (AIs computers etc.) they would want, if they could have any sort they wanted. Most seemed to want weak vulnerable robots that would stay lower in status, e.g., short, stupid, short-lived, easily killed, and without independent values.

Yes. That's exactly right. Especially the no independent values part. Robots should only exist to serve man (in the good sense, not the bad, Twilight Zone sense).

When I asked “what if I chose to become a robot?”, they said I should lose all human privileges, and be treated like the other robots. 

Yes, that is exactly what should happen.

Of course, you can't become a robot, but you could progressively cyborgize yourself to the point that the human being that you are dies and what is left is a robot that is creepily similar to you and that identifies itself as you, but that's not you. You died and left a particularly creepy robot in your place.

This robot should lose all human privileges and–at best–be treated like the other robots. 

Actually, it should be put in a special class of robots that are human-pretenders. There's a difference between a robot that claims to be the further incarnation (or inmetalization) of a human being and one that just roams around vacuuming your floor. The former is much more socially dangerous than the latter, as it leads to confusion about human identity (case in point: Robin Hanson thinking he could become a robot).

Human pretender robots should therefore be put in a special class by themselves and then crushed with one of those big machines that turns automobiles into cubes of scrap metal.

They should not be allowed.

I winced; seems anti-robot feelings are even stronger than anti-immigrant feelings, which bodes for a stormy robot transition.

Just whose side are you on, robo-traitor?

Oh, and I liked this from the comments:

You’ve heard this all before Robin, but I can’t resist. You can’t “become a robot,” any more than I can become a prime number. You might be able to make a robot that is very similar to yourself, but it still wouldn’t be you.

Admittedly, I would probably find a robot simulation of you very congenial. But I would never be able to forget that he wasn’t the real Robin.

My review

A reader writes:

I was told in a discussion I was having with a fallen away Catholic the following:

There was a respected Cardinal theologian of the Vatican that wrote that the "virgin birth" is an "ontological" story … Not an "historical" one. The church doesn't even believe it. Do you know which Cardinal wrote that tenet of the church? Ratzinger!!!

My questions is the obvious one, has Pope Benedict XVI ever said anything close to this, and if so, I need an explanation.

I've been subsequently told that he did talk on the ontological reality of the Virgin Birth but did not deny the historical fact. However, I was given nothing to reference.

If your friend said that Cardinal Ratzinger contrasted a historical with an ontological Virgin Birth, there has been a misunderstanding somewhere along the line.

In fact, I don't know what it would mean to contrast a historical event with an ontological event. Ontology refers to the study of that which exists (fundamental reality), and if something is an ontological event then it can't be ahistorical (something that never occurred). I suppose one might talk about ontological realities that are outside of time, but I don't know what it would mean to say that the Virgin Birth is one of those.

That being said, there was a statement that Cardinal Ratzinger made in his book Introduction to Christianity which was criticized by Hans urs von Balthasar (not the same person as Gaius Baltar), in which he discussed the conception of Christ and contrasted the biological (not historical) and ontological aspects of the event.

What he said, in essence, was that a virginal conception was not necessary for God to become man. If he wanted to, God could have chosen for Christ to have a human father as well as a heavenly Father.

The ontological reality of the Son of God taking on human nature thus did not require the biological event of a virginal conception. God also could have used the biological event of a nonvirginal conception. The biological aspect of the conception of Christ is thus independent of its ontological dimension (God becoming man).

However, God did choose to use a virginal conception as a way of underscoring the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. 

In a Messianic framework: If he has no earthly father, then whose Son is he?

Unfortunately, Cardinal Ratzinger was not–by his own admission–as clear as he meant to be, and some (like von Balthasar) took issue with him, while others outright misrepresented his view.

MORE HERE.

AND HERE'S THE THE FOOTNOTE IN WHICH CARDINAL RATZINGER CLARIFIED HIS VIEW.