Jimmy Akin – Page 363

Astonishing

President announces violent shooting of U.S. soldiers at Ft. Hood.

But first . . . !

He thanks his cabinet, gives "shout outs," talks his political agenda, and gets crowd whooping and hollering and clapping.

Then he announces the tragedy and says what his "immediate thoughts" are.

How tone deaf is that? What does that say about his priorities . . . and how seriously he takes the tragedy he was about to announce.

Calling this Obama's My Pet Goat moment is an understatement.

And it'll only look worse as the fact–which the president presumably knew (since it's one of the very first things he should have been told)–that the shooter was a disgruntled Muslim penetrates public consciousness.

(Presumably the president did not know that the disgruntled Muslim also got into arguments with fellow soldiers about how Muslims should stand up to American aggressors and that he posted apparent justifications for suicide bomber s on the Intern e t.)

Sometimes It Pays To Be An Optimist

I'm glad to be able to report some good news on the case of the abortion nun. (CHT to the person who e-mailed!)

While she hasn't repented (so far as I know), it appears that action is being taken regarding her case. The following statement appears on the Sinsinawa Dominican sisters' web site:

Public Statement of the Sinsinawa Dominican Congregation

11/2/09

Several months ago, the leadership of the Sinsinawa Dominicans was informed that Sister Donna Quinn, OP, acted as a volunteer escort at a Chicago area clinic that among other procedures, performs abortions. After investigating the allegation, Congregation leaders have informed Sr. Donna that her actions are in violation of her profession as a Dominican religious. They regret that her actions have created controversy and resulted in public scandal. They are working with Sr. Donna to resolve the matter appropriately.

Congregation leaders offer the following statement on behalf of members of the Congregation. We as Sinsinawa Dominican women are called to proclaim the Gospel through the ministry of preaching and teaching to participate in the building of a holy and just society. As Dominican religious, we fully support the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the dignity and value of every human life from conception to natural death. We believe that abortion is an act of violence that destroys the life of the unborn. We do not engage in activity that witnesses to support of abortion.

My guess is that "resolv[ing] the matter appropriately" will mean getting Sr. Quinn to resign from the order, but at least that's one way of ending the scandal of a nun ferrying frightened mothers into a child-killing facility.

Meanwhile, ED PETERS HAS SOME GOOD ADVICE FOR DIOCESAN SPOKESPEOPLE REGARDING SUCH MATTERS.

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.”

The Shame of the Abortion Nun

The woman on the left is a Dominican sister. She helps escort women into abortion clinics so that they can have their children killed.

As Ed Peters writes,

[S]uch are the times we live in: a Catholic religious can act for years as an abortion clinic escort and cause barely a ripple in her religious community, the local church, or in Rome. History won't believe it.

Indeed it won't.

Once this is all sorted out, history won't be able to understand how a situation like this could arise or continue.

Ed isn't very hopeful that anything will be done to rectify her situation, but I'm more optimistic. The Internet is a wonderful thing, and now that

LIFESITE NEWS HAS DONE A STORY ON HER

and

CANONIST EDWARD PETERS HAS POINTED OUT POSSIBLE LINES FOR CANONICAL ACTION

then someone, perhaps in Rome, will have the right sensibilities and the right position to address the situation.

AND THEN THERE'S THAT DOUBLE-REVIEW OF RELIGIOUS ORDERS THAT'S UNDERWAY.

So we'll have to see.

What Kind of Robot Do You Want?

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.

New Structures Announced for Reception of Anglicans into Full Communion

Things like this have been in the works behind the scenes for some time, but the Holy See has finally announced formal means for facilitating the reconciliation with the Catholic Church of Anglicans who are disaffected with the heterodox trajectory of the worldwide Anglican communion.

The plan will allow bishops' conferences to create "personal ordinariates"–basically nonterritorial diocese with its own bishop (although the former Anglican ordinariates will be able to have priests as their heads).

Further details are to be announced in an apostolic constitution by Pope Benedict. Initial details have been made available by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

CDF STATEMENT.

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER AND THE ANGLICAN ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.

As both statements point out, this move is in part a product of ecumenical dialog–even if it is rather a bank shot. It will be interesting to see how ecumenists receive the move. One has the impression that, for many, ecumenical dialog is an end in itself–not something that is supposed to produce concrete results, or at least not the result of bringing people into full communion with the Catholic Church in its current form.

Decent Films Doings: Where the Wild Things Are

My review

Ratzinger on the Virgin Birth

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.

Maya to Doomsayers: Feel Free to Shut Up

You know, I've always thought, even before I was a Catholic, that if
you want to find out what Christians believe and why, you ought to ask
Christians before you take too much to heart what is said about their
beliefs by critics or cranks or even professors.

I have come to
apply that same approach to the beliefs of other groups, as well. So,
for instance, if I want to know what Buddhists believe, I favor asking
Buddhists, rather than some expert in comparative religions who studies
Buddhists like insects pinned to a card.

The same courtesy ought
to be extended to the modern descendants of the Maya, who would like to
make it very clear that they – none of them – are lying awake nights
wondering if the world will end in 2012. Not according to this AP article from Yahoo News, anyway.

The
purveyors of this cash-conjuring nonsense, such as the folks at the
History Channel, are doing to the Maya what Dan Brown did for the
Catholic Church in his ham-fisted conspiracy fiction… spinning tales
out of whole cloth and embroidering them with totally unrelated bits of
archeological and historical "evidence" which are only evidence of their
colossal ignorance.

There's nothing wrong with ignorance, per se.
Ignorance with humility is harmless and curable, but ignorance combined
with pride blossoms into arrogance, and is most often incurable, the
patient being highly resistant to the only antidote.

The Maya
would like to invite us all to shut up about the "mysteries" of the
calendar of their ancestors, and take a moment to consider that no contemporary Mayan has ever considered that the calendar predicts anything like the end of the world in 2012.

I
do predict, however, that the loopy 2012 theories will generate a lot
of book and DVD sales. If you could pile all that bull**** into one
place, it might really shift the poles enough to usher in a new ice
age. The real disaster may be the denuding of forests to print all the
books, or the food shortages caused by hoarders who foolishly threw out
their stockpiles of supplies from the Y2K scare. Should have held onto
those powdered eggs…

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

Fair and balanced

Pro-life street protesters and global warming controversy — getting a fair shake in the MSM?

Don’t believe it? Check out this New York Times story on pro-life street protesters and this BBC story on global warming controversy. Hat tip: Wesly J. Smith (First Things blog).

From the Times story:

The most repeated anecdotes involve abortions averted. Ms. Anderson recalled what she said was her first triumph. It was the early ’80s. After becoming pregnant with a boyfriend while separated from her husband — and deciding to have the baby despite friends’ advice to abort, she said — she was a single mother with a bumper sticker on her Chrysler Fifth Avenue that said “the heart beats at 24 days for an unborn child.”

One day in a parking lot near her home, Ms. Anderson said, a woman came up to her and said she had been on her way to get an abortion when she saw that simple statement and changed her mind. “There was a 2-year-old in the back seat,” Ms. Anderson said.

At her home in Memphis, Mich., other examples followed: of two girls from Ohio who left an abortion clinic and, she said, told Ms. Anderson that her presence had persuaded them had not gone through with it; of a young man who knocked on her door in the dead of night, after seeing anti-abortion signs in her window. …

Ms. Anderson smiled. “I can’t tell you how many babies have been saved because of abortion protesters outside the abortion mills,” she said. “That’s what it’s all about.”

From the BBC story:

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth’s great heat stores.

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: “The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.”

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

Read the Times piece. Read the BBC piece.