Blogging for the Dark Side

This weekend I got a piece of e-mail that I thought was going to be an attempt at phishing, and I opened it expecting to quickly hit the "Report Phishing" doo-dad in Gmail.

But it didn’t contain a phishing appeal in the text of the e-mail itself. (You know, all those Nigeria/wherever variants on The Spanish Prisoner). Instead, it contained a link to a blog on Blogspot.

Ostensibly, the e-mail was from the pastor of a church in another country who had set up a blog and was inviting me to read it, but the e-mail still threw off phishing vibes to me even though there was no appeal for money in the e-mail itself.

So I clicked on the link and took a look at the blog.

I found what appeared to be the blog of a pastor in another country. Yet the way the thing was written and the way it re-used photographs kept my spider sense tingling and, sure enough, sandwiched in to various blog posts were appeals for financial support, and something in my brain said: "Two-step phishing routine; phishers may start sending out innocent-seeming e-mails as bait to get people to sites where traditional phishing is carried out."

Now, I don’t know for sure that this wasn’t legit. It may be that this really as the blog of a pastor in another country, who is innocently asking for donations.

Which is why I’m not naming the site. I don’t want to falsely accuse someone who is legitimate.

But just coincidentally, later that day, I happened to run into

THIS STORY ABOUT BLOGSPOT BEING INFECTED WITH PHISHING AND MALWARE-SPREADING BLOGS.

Be careful out there, folks.

CDF Sobrino Warning

A reader writes:

I am involved in our parish group and in one of the books we have to read was an extended article about Fr. Jon Sobrino, SJ. We though he was a hero until today.

In a Spanish newspaper I read the warning he has received from the Vatican for deny publicly Jesus divinity.

Can you clarify for me please?

I’ll do my best. The story you read is based on an actual event. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has published a warning about two books by Fr. Jon Sobrino, SJ. The warning, among other things, notes Fr. Sobrino’s failure to clearly affirm the divinity of Christ. That passages of the warning reads:

4. A number of Father Sobrino’s affirmations tend to diminish the breadth of the New Testament passages which affirm that Jesus is God: "[The New Testament] makes clear that he was intimately bound up with God, which meant that his reality had to be expressed in some way as a reality that is of God (cf. Jn 20:28)" (Christ the Liberator, 115). In reference to John 1:1, he affirms: "Strictly speaking, this logos is not yet said to be God (consubstantial with the Father), but something is claimed for him that will have great importance for reaching this conclusion: his preexistence. This does not signify something purely temporal but relates him to the creation and links the logos with action specific to the divinity" (Christ the Liberator, 257). According to the Author, the New Testament does not clearly affirm the divinity of Jesus, but merely establishes the presuppositions for it: "The New Testament…contains expressions that contain the seed of what will produce confession of the divinity of Christ in the strict sense" (Ibidem). "All this means that at the outset Jesus was not spoken of as God, nor was divinity a term applied to him; this happened only after a considerable interval of believing explication, almost certainly after the fall of Jerusalem" (Ibidem, 114).

To maintain that John 20:28 affirms that Jesus is "of God" is clearly erroneous, in as much as the passage itself refers to Jesus as "Lord" and "God." Similarly, John 1:1 says that the Word is God. Many other texts speak of Jesus as Son and as Lord.5 The divinity of Jesus has been the object of the Church’s faith from the beginning, long before his consubstantiality with the Father was proclaimed by the Council of Nicea. The fact that this term was not used does not mean that the divinity of Jesus was not affirmed in the strict sense, contrary to what the Author seems to imply.

Father Sobrino does not deny the divinity of Jesus when he proposes that it is found in the New Testament only "in seed" and was formulated dogmatically only after many years of believing reflection. Nevertheless he fails to affirm Jesus’ divinity with sufficient clarity. This reticence gives credence to the suspicion that the historical development of dogma, which Sobrino describes as ambiguous, has arrived at the formulation of Jesus’ divinity without a clear continuity with the New Testament.

But the divinity of Jesus is clearly attested to in the passages of the New Testament to which we have referred. The numerous Conciliar declarations in this regard6 are in continuity with that which the New Testament affirms explicitly and not only "in seed". The confession of the divinity of Jesus Christ has been an absolutely essential part of the faith of the Church since her origins. It is explicitly witnessed to since the New Testament.

HERE’S THE FULL TEXT OF THE WARNING.

AND AN EXPLANATORY NOTE ISSUED BY THE CDF.

AND SOME PERSPECTIVE BY JOHN ALLEN.

On a side note, I found it interesting that–though Sobrino has been active in Latin American liberation theology–he is of Basque origin.

Incidentally (sorry, but the linguist in me can’t resist), Basque is one of the few language isolates that exists in Europe (or anywhere else). That is, it is a language that is not clearly part of a larger language family, like the Indo-European family, to which virtually all of the European languages belong. Basque, apparently, is a survival of a language that was already in place before the expansion of Indo-European into Europe. Almost everywhere else got swallowed up by speakers of Indo-European langauges, but the Basques held on to theirs.

Consequently, I’d really like to study their language some time.

MORE.

Michiganders, What’s On Your Menu Friday?

Muskrat
I was glad to see Catholic News Service run

THIS STORY

about a practice that I’ve heard about before, and that I believe has shown up here on the blog about before, but which I haven’t seen the paper trail on: the local practice of eating muskrat on Fridays during Lent.

I’m always a little cautious about reports of local exceptions like this and whether they are still allowed. I want to be able to see the documentation rather than just taking someone’s word or taking the word of an old written source that may not reflect current Church law.

The article linked above doesn’t provide what I’d like in the ideal–a quotation from a legal document issued by one or more dioceses in Michigan. It doesn’t do that because–apparently–there isn’t such a document. That’s okay (legally), though, because canon law recognizes the possibility of custom attaining the force of law, and it seems to me that in this case that’s the current basis for the Michigan muskrat exception. In other words, unless someone produces a legal document that we don’t currently know about, it looks like the faithful in some areas of Michigan are allowed to eat muskrat on days of abstinence, according to legitimate local custom.

A Pound of Flesh

Whatever happened to making license plates? In a scenario that seems to take the Chinese model as an inspiration,

Apparently, South Carolina is considering allowing prisoners to trade body parts for time off their sentences.

Being that the political and ethical problems with this are smell-able from a couple of furlongs, the only question in my mind is how an idea this grisly and morally tone-deaf could get this far along. Who the heck thought this is a good idea? I’m speaking as someone who’s niece underwent a heart transplant yesterday!

"Mary Jo Cagle, chief medical officer of Bon Secours St. Francis Health
System in Greenville, urged senators to find an allowable incentive.
"We have a huge need for organs and bone marrow," Cagle said."

Oh. I see. Well, that makes it okay, then. It’s a market-driven thing, I guess. To be fair, the legislative committee that has worked on the proposal is not sold on the idea of an incentive program to encourage inmates to cut their incarceration by donating organs or tissue. They are not even sure it’s legal (obviously some outdated legal aberration, like in Hartford, Connecticut, where it’s illegal to kiss your wife on Sunday).

In an advanced society such as ours, we understand that it is WRONG to ask an inmate to trade his/her very flesh for a reduced prison sentence (this could give a whole new dimension to the Plea Bargain), or to be so crass as to just write a check for someone’s internal organs. We prefer to steal valuable tissue from anonymous, microscopic people. Far fewer entanglements.

GET THE STORY.

Does God Feel Pain?

A reader writes:

A friend just sent me the following question and I’m not sure how to answer. I’m almost certain Aquinas or one of the Church fathers must have addressed this, but for various reasons I can’t find it right now. Can you help? Thanks.

Does God the Father feel pain?   If pain is a consequence of the fall, then is it possible for God to feel pain?  Did God the Father experience pain of a father watching his son be tortured and killed, or is the Creator immune from pain?  Pain exists because it it a component of the punishment He pronounced on a fallen creation.  Pain therefore is part of creation.  As the Creator is not creature, does he feel pain?  God the Son most certainly did.  Can God the Holy Spirit feel the pain of rejection?  I assume the Holy Spirit knows the pain of Christ’s suffering since He was within Christ at the time.  The Holy Spirit is also in us, and therefore one could assume that He can experience our pain as well.  But does God the Father – God the Creator – feel pain?

Pain can be understood in two ways: The sensation we experience when certain parts of our nervous system are stimulated and the physiological sensation of pain is produced–as when a person accidentally slams his hand in a door. We may call this physical pain.

This kind of pain is possible only for being that beings with nervous systems. Since the divine essence does not include a nervous system, this kind of pain is impossible for God apart from the acquisition of a second nature, as in the Incarnation. Thus only God the Son can experience physical pain, and then not in his divine nature.

Being omniscient, the other two Persons of the Trinity know about the Son’s experience of physical pain, but it does not cause them physical pain any more than my slamming my hand in a door causes you physical pain. You recognize that I am in physical pain, but that doesn’t put you in physical pain.

The second way in which pain may be conceived is as mental pain. For example, when a person experiences  painful emotions, such as sadness or anger. In living humans this is closely tied to the operation of the nervous system, and particularly the central nervous system (especially the brain), but it seems that it is also possible for humans to feel it without physical form–as in the case of damned souls that have not yet been resurrected.

This also seems to be possible for fallen angels, who are completely free of physical form. At least, Scripture speaks of their being tormended following the last day, and this torment must consist of something at least analogous to the mental anguish that we experience in this life.

Scripture also speaks of God experiencing sadness and anger, but Christian theology has historically understood this to be non-literal language.

God in his divine essence experiences infinite beatitude, and this beatitude would be marred if he experienced anguish in his divine essence. This is analogous to the way in which, once we are glorified in heaven, we will be aware of the fact that not all humans are saved, but it will not "ruin heaven for us."

Further, Catholic theologically has historically understood God as not containing passions. There are things in God that may be said to correspond to the passions, but he doesn’t experience them the same way that we do.

HERE’S AQUINAS ON THAT POINT.

God does have DELIGHT AND JOY and LOVE, but he doesn’t HATE anything. He is HAPPY, is HIS OWN HAPPINESS, and has the SUPREME FORM OF HAPPINESS.

In understanding these realities in God, we must recognize the vast difference between him and us and that these things aren’t the same in him as they are in us. For example, in the case of love, we love things by recognizing the good qualities someone has and being attracted to those good qualities. In God’s case, Aquinas would say, God’s love is not attracted to the good qualities someone already possesses. Instead, it is manifest in bestowing those good qualities on the person. His love is active, whereas our is reactive.

When it comes to things like sadness or anger on the part of God, these have been historically understood as signifying things in a different manner as well, not as things that are literally painful to God, marring his beatitude. Thus when Scripture speaks of God being grieved by men’s sins, it is understood that he recognizes the reality and severity of their sins, and when it speaks of him being angry, it is understood that bad consequences are visited on those who are sinning or that bad consequences would be visited on them or they are liable for bad consequences, even if something happens to stop those bad consequences from happening (e.g., someone making atonement or intercession that shields the sinner, as with Job and his sons and daughters or Moses and Israel or Jesus and the whole human race).

Ludwig Ott has more on this in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma if you have a copy of that.

Allison Update

Tim Jones, here. My niece, Allison, about whom I posted recently, has just headed into surgery to receive a heart transplant.

Your prayers are coveted by her family.

This news will not be reflected on her web page for some time, probably, but here it is for those who might like to find out a little more about her.

ALLISON’S PAGE

Humble thanks to all in advance.

Apostolic Exhortation!

One big clue to the pope’s thinking came in his 1997 book, titled “Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977” and written when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in which he sharply criticized the drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969.
…
But the picture is not so clear-cut. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said he considered the new missal a “real improvement” in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.
In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old “low Mass,” with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, “was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people” when it disappeared.
The most important thing, he said at that time, was to make sure that the liturgy does not divide the Catholic community.
With that in mind, knowledgeable Vatican sources say the pope’s new document will no doubt aim to lessen pastoral tension between the Tridentine rite and the new Mass, rather than hand out a victory to traditionalists.
CNS on the Motu Proprio: a link and commentary
What came to my mind here was there is also a need for those who have rejected our tradition and traditional forms to likewise demonstrate their own good will and a hermeneutic of continuity. Let’s be clear and fair, there has been a hermeneutic of rupture which has banished most anything deemed “pre-conciliar” and this is as problematic as the sort of traditionalist who has rejected anything and everything “post-conciliar.”
Further, not all “traditionalists” take on this approach of rupture. If they are simply attached to the treasures of the classical liturgy, desirous of true liturgical reform in the light of both the Council and our tradition of organic development, all the while never questioning the validity of the modern Roman rite, but calling for a reform of the reform with regard to it, then it seems to me that they have nothing to justify and join the ranks of our Holy Father as a Cardinal in this set of ideas. In that regard, I would propose they form a part of the true liturgical centre and mainstream —- just as do those who focus upon the reform of the reform, but who are supportive of the availability of the classical liturgy, provided we do not take an immobiliistic and triumphalistic approach to it, or one which rejects the Council — not as popular opinion may go of course, but as the mind of the Church may go, as seen in the light of the Conciliar documents and our tradition.
As for the extremes, the road to a change of heart and mind is not a one way street as this article might make one think; it is rather and precisely a two-way street.

READ SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS.

Catholic News Service reports.

Catholic News Agency reports.

CWNews reports. (Warning! Subscriber access requirement!)

Diogenes reports on reports.

What An Evangelical Appreciates About Catholics

I was delighted yesterday to receive the following e-mail from blogger extraordinare Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost:

Hey Jimmy,

Since I don’t have any Catholic readers of my own I thought I’d share this with you. ; )

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003497.html

What’s found at the link is a post Joe wrote in which, though he doesn’t feel able to cross the Tiber, expresses sincere and thoughtful appreciation for Catholics. Specifically, he appreciates their emphasis on the sanctity of life, ecumenism, and Mary.

CHECK IT OUT.

And be sure to leave him comments in the same spirit of thoughtful respect and appreciation.