Jimmy Akin – Page 362

What If You Suddenly Remember in Confession?

Sorry for the lack of blogging. I've been having computer problems. So let's get things back on track with this Saturday post.

A reader writes:

As you know, if someone forgets to confess a mortal sin in confession, it is forgiven, but the penitent still must confess it the next time he goes to confession. My question is this: What if one remembers the sin after confessing his sins but before leaving the confessional? For example, what if one remembers it while the priest is saying the words of absolution? Does the penitent have the obligation to add it when the priest is done, or can/should he "save"it, so to speak, until the next time he goes to confession?

The answer depends on when the penitent remembers and how difficult it would be to make the additional confession.

Let's use the when question as our organizing principle. There are several different points at which the penitent might remember:

1) Immediately after naming all of the individual sins he intended to name. If the penitent remembers at this point then he should go on and name the additional sin.

2) Immediately after making a concluding general accusation (e.g., the "and for all my sins I am sorry" statement that most penitents make after naming the individual sins that they intended to confess). If the penitent remembers at this point then it usually will not be too difficult for the penitent to say, "Oh, and I forgot to confess this . . . " He should do so.

3) After he has finished the act of confessing but before the priest has begun the formula of absolution. The answer is least clear in this time period and will require a judgment call on the part of the penitent, depending on his presence of mind, composure, and the opportunities that present themselves.

For example, if the priest begins to offer advice to the penitent or ask questions about what has been confessed or otherwise starts engaging in a dialog of some sort then a clear-headed penitent may recognize an opportunity to slip in, "Oh, and I forgot to confess this just now . . . " without it being a problem. If so, he should do so.

On the other hand, the priest may not do that. He may be very businesslike and simply elicit an act of contrition if the penitent hasn't made one already (e.g., "Repeat after me: 'Lord have mercy on me'") or he might go straight to the formula of absolution, in which case we'd be at stage 4, below.

Assuming that we're still at stage 3, though, the penitent technically could stop the priest and make the additional confession, or slip it in before or after the act of contrition if the priest has elicited one, but there may be significant difficulties in doing this.

First, after the penitent has made his act of confession, the interpersonal dynamic shifts and he is no longer "in control" of the exchange. The priest is. Second, the fact that he's dealing with a priest (which many penitents may find intimidating) makes it harder to interrupt. Third, the matter he needs to confess may be particularly shameful or complex to explain, making it still harder to stop the proceedings and get it in.

Many penitents would not have the presence of mind, fortitude, or composure to slam on the breaks and insist the the priest stop and listen to one last sin.

I don't think that the Church expects them to. It also doesn't want them scrupling over the matter.

Therefore, I would say that once "control" of the exchange has been shifted back to the priest (i.e., when the penitent has finished his act of confession), the penitent is not obligated to slam on the breaks for a suddenly remembered sin. He is permitted to retain it until next time, and his intent to make a complete confession suffices, even though he suddenly realized afterwards that it wasn't complete.

On the other hand, if the penitent is clear-minded and composed enough to serenely say, "Wait. I forgot this . . . " then fine. He can go ahead and confess, but I don't think he's obligated to do so at that point–either by canon law, liturgical law, or moral/pastoral/sacramental theology.

4) During the formula of absolution. If the penitent remembers at this time then he should not stop the priest for the additional confession. He would be interrupting the form of the sacrament, and that shouldn't be done any more than interrupting the formula of baptism or the formula of consecration of the Eucharist. He should save it for next time.

5) After the formula of absolution but before he leaves the confessional. At this point the sacrament is over. It's finished and so the penitent should retain the unconfessed item until next time.

The above seems to me to be a sound pastoral approach to a subject on which the Church has not laid out detailed rules to guide us. The absence of such rules suggests that the Church wants us to apply common sense and not scruple beyond that.

Hope this helps!

The Chicken’s Questions

Here we go:

1. Is a validly baptized baby baptized into the Catholic Church or are they merely baptized as a Christian (whatever that means)? Is it better to say that they are baptized into Christ, but not necessarily the Church (although I do not see how that is possible)

All people who are baptized are placed in communion with Christ and his Church. This communion will be complete is nothing obstructs it. If something does obstruct it then the communion will be real but incomplete.

If someone baptizes a person intending that person to be Catholic then there is nothing obstructing on these grounds and the person's communion with the Church is full, the person counts juridically as a Catholic and is subject to canon law.

If someone baptizes a person intending that the person will not be Catholic then there is something obstructing the person's communion with the Church and so it is partial and the person is not juridically a Catholic and is not bound by canon law.

If someone baptizes a person and is unclear about whether the person is to be Catholic or not then the situation is legally unclear and we'd need further guidance from the Church on how to handle such cases juridically.

2. If they are baptized Catholic, is the relationship merely material or formal? If the relationship is merely material (whatever that means in this case, borrowing from a poster, above), when do they become a formal Catholic? At no time, unlike those entering the Church from a Protestant denomination, are cradle Catholics required to take an oath of allegiance.

The Church does not use the categories "formal" and "material" in this context, so far as I know, and I'm not sure what they would mean here.

A person becomes a Catholic by baptism at the moment they are baptized with the intention that they be Catholic. No further act is needed to make them Catholic, though their communion with the Church will grow through the other sacraments of initiation and their assimilation of the teachings of the faith.

If the relationship is formal, then since no formal defection is now possible, such baptized babies, if raised as a Protestant or worse, are really being spiritually abused since their natural heritage is being damaged.

I don't know that the Church would use the language of abuse, but there is a contradiction between what the child objectively, ontologically, and juridically is and the way it is being raised.

3. Since formal defection is not possible, once a Catholic, always a Catholic, so the old argument that Canon Law does not bind people outside of the Church is harder to apply to those cases where the baptism is in the Catholic Church and the person leaves for a Protestant denomination.

Correct, although it was only in the three marriage canons that there ever was an exception for formal defection. All other laws were still binding on a person who had been baptized or received into the Church. There was no automatic dispensation, e.g., from needing to observe holy days of obligation or days of fast and abstinence. Now it's (going to be) consistent across the board, marriage laws included.

They are no longer to be considered outside of the Church, since there is no process by which this may happen, except by excommunication.

Correct, except that excommunication does not place one outside the Church. Despite its name, excommunication's effects do not include making one not-a-Catholic (cf. CIC, can. 1331).

As such, unless there are exceptions provided for in the Canons (the in extremis exceptions of Can. 1116 have already been mentioned), such people must seek to be married in front of a priest or else their marriage will be invalid.

Yes.

4. I thought, however, that the marriage of any two baptized people was sacramental.

Yes. Any valid marriage between two baptized people is sacramental.

By law, the marriage can be blocked (rendered invalid) by a defect in form.

Yes.

However, simply exchanging vows without a priest (two witnesses are required), in extremis, must be the minimal form necessary for a valid marriage.

Under current canon law, yes. Before Trent, that wasn't the case. Witnesses were not needed for validity. Nor was a priest. This caused lots of problems, which is why form was established in the first place.

This implies that there must be something in addition to the minimum form required for a normal form Catholic marriage, just as in the case of baptism, where, ordinarily, it is to be done in a Church by a priest.

"Minimum form" is not the right way to phrase it, but essentially, yes. The conditions that are required for form are spelled out in canons 1108-1116.

5. Since baptism performed in a Protestant assembly, where considered valid by the Church, is not administered by a priest but a laymen, these baptism are considered not normal, but of an emergency variety.

I don't know that this is the best way to put it. Such baptism are valid. Applying additional categories like ordinary/extraordinary/normal/emergency/etc. may not add much, conceptually, outside of a Catholic context.

Are weddings performed in a Protestant assembly also to be considered of an emergency or in extremis variety?

Ditto. They're valid. And there is even less basis for calling them extraordinary or emergency or anything like that since if you are not bound by canon law there is no requirement whatsoever to observe the Catholic form of marriage.

6. In any case, do Catholics incur any responsibility to inform other Christians of the requirements of the Church, since they cannot defect from it (probably not, under the usual rules for fraternal correction, I assume).

If someone has never been baptized into the Catholic Church or received into it then the person is not bound by canon law (CIC, can. 11) and there is no need for Catholic to inform them of the requirements of canon law because they don't apply to them . . . . unless the non-Catholic is doing something like trying to marry a Catholic outside the Church without a dispensation from form, in which case a Catholic is involved and the Catholic party is subject to canon law.

7. How can there be a dispensation from cult if a Protestant cannot defect from the Church?

Protestants do not need a dispensation for disparity of cult (e.g., to marry a Jew or a Muslim or whatever) because they are not subject to canon law and thus the impediment arising from disparity of cult does not apply to them.

These questions were all easier to answer when I thought the statement, "Those outside of the Church are not bound by her laws." Now, I am not sure who is outside and who is inside the Church. This is the fundamental question on which all of the other questions are based.

Divine and natural law binds everyone. Divine positive law (e.g., don't get baptized again if you've already been baptized) applies to all the baptized. Latin rite merely ecclesiastical law binds those who are members of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church, per canon 11:

Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

Hope this helps!

Once a Catholic . . .

Pope Benedict has released a new motu proprio titled Omnium in mentum which revises the Code of Canon Law on two points.

First, before getting into the changes, let me offer a high five to canonist Edward Peters for predicting, over ten years ago, that this would be the model followed in the future for changing canon law. Following the codification of canon law in 1917, the Code underwent a thorough revision in 1983. Rather than letting issues build up and then having another thorough revision at some point, John Paul II issued a motu proprio in 1998 that amended specific canons. Ed thereupon predicted that this would be the model for the foreseeable future–tweaking the text of the Code here and there as needed rather than leaving things sit until time for a massive revision.

So what's new in the motu proprio?

Two things: First, some language in the Code has been modified to describe the way that the office of deacon is understood. This brings the language of the Code in line with the language of the Catechism, which was itself brought in line with the language of Vatican II's decree Lumen Gentium (n. 29). I need to do further study on this point before commenting on it in any depth, though, so I'll pass on to the second change.

Second, the exemptions in the Code's marriage laws for those who have formally defected from the Church are now gone (or, rather, they will be when the motu proprio goes into force three months after its publication in Acta Apostolicae Sedis; CIC, can. 8).

This is quite interesting.

One of the things introduced in the 1983 Code was a set of exceptions in the Church's marriage law for those who had defected from the Church by a formal act. Specifically, if you had so defected then you were not obligated to

1) get a dispensation if you want to marry a non-baptized person (cf. can. 1086),

2) observe the Catholic form of marriage (i.e., "get married in the Church;" cf can. 1117), or

3) get permission to marry a non-Catholic Christian (cf. can. 1124).

The purpose of doing this was to allow people who had left the Church to validly enter into marriages of the kinds indicated.

Unfortunately, a lot of problems were generated by the law. For a start, it was unclear what constituted a formal act of defection. To try to rectify the problem, in 2006 the Holy See issued a clarification which set very specific requirements for the act, requirements which resulted in basically nobody committing acts of formal defection.

The clarification was, to my mind, bad law, and it raised a bunch of new headaches which have not subsequently been clarified, so far as I have been able to determine.

The Holy See also seems to have come to the conclusion that the formal defection law was not working as desired, and so it has now gotten rid of the whole thing.

As of the time the motu proprio goes into effect, therefore, anybody who has ever been a Catholic (even if they were baptized one as an infant and then raised something else) must follow the same marriage laws as those who consider themselves Catholic or their marriages will be invalid.

It brings to mind the old saying, "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic." I'm not sure what people always had in mind by this saying–whether they were saying that Catholic culture runs deep in the soul, even if one joins another church; whether they were asserting that it is impossible to truly leave the Church; or whether they were asserting something else.

Whatever was meant, though, and whatever nuances have been introduced theologically about kinds or degrees of ecclesial communion, going forward everybody who has ever been Catholic will be juridically Catholic, attempts at formal defection or no. It was only in its marriage law that the Church made exceptions for formal defection, and now those exceptions are being retired.

This is one way of cutting the Gordian knot. It may or may not be the optimal one, but it's what the law is going to be for now.

As far as I can tell, this creates the following timeline for handling the above marital situations:

For marriages attempted prior to the promulgation of the 1983 Code, the old law was in force and there was no exception for formal defection.
From the promulgation of the 1983 Code to the 2006 clarification, the formal defection exception was in effect and was to be interpreted broadly, in keeping with the language of the law. (The 2006 clarification went beyond the language of the law and thus should not be retroactive in force; CIC, can. 16).
From the 2006 clarification to the effective date of the new motu proprio, the formal defection exception was in effect but formal defection was to be interpreted much more narrowly.
From the effective date of the motu proprio (should be some time in early 2010), the law reverts to the status quo ante the 1983 Code, so there will be no exception for cases of formal defection.

The potential validity of a marriage involving a case of formal defection will thus depend on which of these four time periods it was attempted in–so far as I can tell.

I Told You So! (Well, Maybe.)

The reliability of data used to document temperature trends is of great importance in this debate. We can’t know for sure if global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the data.
The official record of temperatures in the continental United States comes from a network of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, a department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Until now, no one had ever conducted a comprehensive review of the quality of the measurement environment of those stations. During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically document more than 860 of these temperature stations.
We were shocked by what we found. We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads,
on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/
reflecting heat source.
In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.
It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.
END EXCERPT
The above information has to at least give the average person doubts about the science behind supposed man-made global warming/climate change.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

In the combox down yonder, a reader writes:

I'm surprised you're not blogging about Climategate at all. I thought for sure, if anyone would be talking about it, it would be you.

Yeah, it's true. I've been following the Climategate with great interest, but as I mentioned in my previous post, my blogging time has been severely limited of late, though that is changing.

It is now clear that, as I've held all along (in private conversations if not on the blog), the man-made global warming claim is based on junk science.

Key researchers have now been exposed as having massaged data to get the desired result, destroyed original data, rigged the peer-review process to keep contrary studies from being published–and then turned around an tried to discredit the studies on the ground that they weren't published in peer-reviewed journals–used junk code to analyze data–which even years of trying by a programmer couldn't fix–and flat out broken the law regarding Freedom Of Information requests.

And it's not just this one group of rogue scientists in England and America. The same thing has popped up in other countries.

Unless the next nine decades are very unusual, this is the scientific scandal of the 21st century. This is what Piltdown Man was to the 20th–only vastly worse since unlike Piltdown Man the warm-mongers have embarked upon useless enterprises on a global scale that, if fully implemented, would drastically constrict the world economy and thus (like a government takeover of medical care) kill vast numbers of people due to the effects of economic underdevelopment both in the third world and in the so-called developed countries.

We can only hope that this proves to be a learning experience–for science, for the public, and for the political class–and that the devastations the warm-mongers want to foist on the human population will go by the wayside.

I know there are some who are calling for the hacker(s) or whistle-blower(s) who exposed the data to be prosecuted, but whoever did this is one of the great heroes of science. They should be awarded a Nobel Prize (if nothing else, the peace price for all the lives that stand to be saved). The Roman Senate should vote them a full triumph (not just triumphal ornaments). And they should be given a lifetime supply of carbon.

BRIDE OF STILL YET MORE.

SON OF STILL YET MORE.

HOUSE OF STILL YET MORE.

STILL YET MORE: THE REIMAGINED SERIES. (MUST READ)

MORE YET STILL: THE SPINOFF.

Well, Darn

I've been busy with a home improvement project of late and haven't been able to blog (that's now getting toward being done; yay!).

I was going to blog this morning about the apparent discovery of magnetic monopoles that was recently announced.

Monopoles, for those who may not be aware, are magnets that effectively have only one pole. They are a staples in science fiction as, if we found them, they could be used to create a number of new technologies.

So I was delighted when it was announced that scientists had finally found them.

Unfortunately, a lot of science–or science announcements–turn out to be wrong (about 1/3 if memory serves), and that seems to have happened in this case.

Wikipedia is claiming that the publications announcing the discovery got it wrong by confusing a different phenomenon with true magnetic monopoles.

So now I can't blog on this.

Darn.

Decent Films Doings: MSM notices my 2-star reviews!

So I was pleased to see last week that the Washington Post's "Under God" blog picked up on my 2012 review at Christianity Today in a post on the film — and that they specifically called out a "Catholic" coda at the end of the review, in which I expressed my difficulty with the depiction (and non-depiction) of Catholic clergy at key points in the film:

A Tibetan monk is among the survivors, but "the only Christian clergy shown are the Catholic prelates who die at St. Peter's . . . If Emmerich is going to specifically show the Vatican leadership going down with St. Peter's, I want to see Catholic (and/or Orthodox) bishops among the survivors–somewhere on the planet."

Apparently Canada's CBC took note, and this morning I did a half-hour segment on the CBC's morning show "The Current." While I always walk away from a broadcast appearance thinking about all the things I wished I had said, I thought that it went pretty well, all things considered.

Now this morning I see that NYTimes.com's Arts Beat blog picked up on my New Moon review for Christianity Today in their round-up of reviews! This time, there's not a specific faith angle; the CT.com review is quoted alongside Salon.com's Stephanie Zacharek and Slate.com's Dana Stevens — and they note, amusingly, that mine is probably "the only 'New Moon' review to invoke C. S. Lewis." Heh!

They also quote what is really the heart of my critique of the whole Twilight saga:

Twilight and New Moon are essentially uncritical celebrations of that overwrought, obsessive passion that is the hallmark of immaturity — passion that wholly subordinates all sense of one's own identity and elevates the beloved to summum bonum, or even the sole good; passion that leaps as readily to suicidal impulses and fantasies as to longing for union.

Pretty cool. (My editor at CT.com says he's going to have to keep me on all the two-star cheese-fests from now on…)

Incidentally, the WaPo blogger, David Waters, comments on my 2012 reservations, "Personally, I think that expecting to find any theological sensitivity from a Hollywood blockbuster is like expecting to find nutritional value in a jelly donut."

Maybe. First, though, how plausible is it that an enormous international project to save a remnant of thousands of people from all over the world, including many of the powerful and connected, would not include bishops? Certainly among those thousands would be some Catholics and Orthodox who would want to make provision for their faith life aprés le deluge, and would arrange for the inclusion of clergy.

Second, it's more the contrast of Catholic bishops explicitly being killed onscreen but not shown among the survivors that bothers me.

And third, I wouldn't say I had any "expectations" of "theological sensitivity" … I was merely commenting on something that's a problem for me watching the film. I might have similar reservations about a jelly donut.

Opus Dei Movie On The Way

Hey, Tim Jones here, again. Hoping JA.O's resident film critic par excellence, Steven D. Greydanus, might have some more information or thoughts on this project;

It looks like Jose Maria Escriva, founder of the Catholic organization Opus Dei, is the subject of a movie soon to be out in theaters.

The movie has finished shooting and is in post-production under the watchful eye of director Roland Joffe, who also directed The Killing Fields and The Mission.

I haven't seen The Killing Fields, but The Mission
I thought was a great film, and in one particular sequence gave one of
the most powerful demonstrations of the value of penance I've ever
seen. Not so much the value of penance in what they call the Economy of
Salvation, but the deep human need for meaningful penance… the longing all spiritually healthy people have to do something to make up for our selfish acts.

This is not at all
to say that we can earn our salvation through acts of penance apart
from the grace of God. Without his grace, we could not even begin to
repent, and our actions would be worthless.

Repentance and the desire
to do penance is one of the surest indications of the working of God's
grace, so the idea that acts of penance – actions we take to help make
up for our sins – are somehow opposed to faith is self contradictory.
Our sins can be forgiven only through the shed blood of Christ, but
that does not relieve us of the responsibility to do all we can to contribute to the process of our own salvation (which is also called "sanctification" – they are two names for the same process).

Anyway,
I'm sure members of Opus Dei will be looking forward to the film, as I
will be. It sounds pretty highly fictionalized, but Joffe is reportedly
sympathetic to the teachings of Jose Maria Escriva. I hope the movie
provides some cultural balance to counter the loony speculation that
followed in the wake of The Da Vinci Code.

Get The Story!

(This was cross-posted at Tim Jones' blog Old World Swine)

The League of Bearded Catholics

Hey, Tim Jones, here.

For those who like their Catholic Culture full and neatly brushed, The League of Bearded Catholics is here to provide a convenient excuse constructive outlet for testosterone-infused merry making.

A hearty and hirsute celebration of the literary tradition of Tolkien, Lewis, Belloc and Chesterton.

"Break the conventions. Keep the commandments."

– G.K. Chesterton

Not What The Mikado Expected

I'm sure most folks have seen the picture of President Obama bowing to the Emperor of Japan.

We'll it's not the first time he's done that with a foreign head of state, though this time it's even more impossible to argue (as some of his defenders, including his own press secretary, Spokesbot Robert Gibbs, did when he bowed to King Abdullah) that he was just bending over to shake the hand of a short foreign leader.

No, this was a bow–captured unmistakably in the photo from the side.

No doubt, he did it out of a belief that this is a polite way to greet people in Japan.

But one has to be careful about imitating the customs of people from other cultures, lest one send unintended messages.

For example: Does bowing to the Mikado convey politeness or subservience?

Knowing that kind of nuance is not part of a president's job requirements–but it is the reason he has a protocol office that is supposed to advise him about such things, and as Allahpundit points out, Obama's protocol office is "famously run by imbeciles."

I'm not instantly enraged at the idea of a president bowing to someone. Actually, I'm more disturbed by seeing American leaders dressing up in foreign garb at diplomatic events. But then presidents of both parties do that. I understand that it can be construed as conveying honor to another culture to adopt its dress, but clothing is so personal–and so much more perduring than a simple bow–that my preferred solution would be to have everybody show up in his own native garb (business suits for American presidents; plus formal attire for formal events).

There's always a question of how much to defer to local custom when in a foreign land, and a bow–like every gesture–has the meaning that is invested in it. It need not always convey subservience, and if there were a land where not bowing was insulting and in which their leader would reciprocally bow to our leader then I could understand.

But look at who's not bowing in the picture above.

And look at who's not bowing in the following video:

So. President Obama is made to look like a fool by what is clearly another protocol office mistake.

That raises a disturbing question: Why hasn't Obama learned his lesson from the protocol office's previous mistakes and replaced the appropriate individuals with more knowledgeable ones?

Thomas Sowell wonders what the real-world consequences will be of Obama making himself–and by the extension the United States–look weak in foreign eyes. And it does seem inevitable that this event would be read in light of Obama's tendency to apologize (in the "I'm sorry" sense) for the United States when on foreign soil.

Which brings up something else Allahpundit notes:

For another thing, and somewhat notably, Japan isn’t a stop on The One’s world apology tour. It could have been, but he declined the opportunity to turn it into one.

And he's right. Here's a case where–because of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki–the United States really does have something to apologize to Japan for. Defending ourselves in World War II was morally justifiable, but nuking cities to put pressure on the Japanese government was not.

Corresponding with James McCarthy

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”