Open Theism

A reader writes:

I’m a Protestant who is seriously considering the Catholic faith.  I’ve enjoyed, very much, listening to you on the Catholic Answers Live podcast.

Are you familiar with the controversy over open theism within evangelicalism?  How does Roman Catholic theology square with the view of God as envisioned by open theists?

I am familiar with the controversy, and Catholic theology would have significant problems with the overall picture of God painted by open theists. Historically, Catholicism has been very firm on the classical theism model.

For those who aren’t familiar with this distinction,

HERE’S A BACKGROUNDER.

That being said, not all aspects of open theism are equally problematic. The open theist’s assertion that humans have libertarian free will is something that Catholics would have not a problem with. What would be problematic is the inference that because humans have this kind of free will the future must contain things that God doesn’t know.

It is not true that knowing what someone will choose to do next year means that their choice is not the product of libertarian free will. From his perspective outside of time, God sees your future free will choices next year the same way he sees your current choices right now. Both "now" and "next year" are equally present to God, so if his seeing what your current choices are does  not deprive you of free will now then his simultaneously seeing what you are choosing next year does not deprive free will then either.

While open theists have made some interesting arguments regarding God’s omniscience (e.g., omniscience doesn’t require God to know things that are logically impossible to know the way omnipotence doesn’t require God to be able to do things that are logically impossible to do, like make square circles or stones too heavy for him to lift), these arguments are only relevant if God is inside of time and if certain theories about time are true. From an atemporalist perspective, the concerns they are meant to address simply don’t arise because God’s knowledge of the future is equally possible as his knowledge of the present and the past.

Once one recognizes God’s atemporality his immutability immediately falls out of this as a logical consequence.

Open theists’ language about God voluntarily limiting his exercise of power in order to allow free will in the universe can be taken in an orthodox sense (though only if it is understood that his exercise of the power–not the power itself–is what is limited). Something like that might seem to be necessary for free will to exist, and there is nothing unorthodox about saying that God can choose how far he’s going to do something. If he chooses to make beings with libertarian free will so that he doesn’t determine all their choices for them then that’s God’s choice.

The best argument that open theists have is why God allows evil if he has the power to stop it, and here we run into a matter that is significantly mysterious, though classical theists have a framework for answering it even if it does not exhaust the mystery.

An orthodox Catholic theologian would thus tend to view open theism as, to a significant extent, an attempt to alleviate the cognitive tension caused when man is confronted by the divine mystery by positing a God small enough that the mystery doesn’t arise (i.e., God doesn’t stop all evil instantly because he doesn’t have the power to do so).

There are thus a few individual aspects of open theism that could be harmonized with Catholic thought but the system as a whole posits a view of God that would not at all be favorably received.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ articulation of classical theism has been the standard Catholic account for centuries, and the First Vatican Council taught:

The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.

Since he is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in himself and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined [Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, ch. 1].

Hope this helps!

Purgatory & The Sufficiency Of Christ’s Sacrifice

A reader writes:

I am currently trying to explain the Catholic position on purgatory to a co-worker.  I have given him some info I found on the internet. He looked it over and discussed with a fellow church member. He came back with, “if you believe in purgatory, then you are saying that Jesus dying on the cross was not good enough to save us!” How do I respond?

The purpose of purgatory is to purify us so that we are thoroughly holy and thus fit for heaven. It is part of the process by which we gain "the holiness without which no one will see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14).

But the process of purification doesn’t start in purgatory. It starts in this life, and in Protestant circles it’s known as sanctification. (Catholics also use this term, though not always in exactly the same fashion; the term justification is also used in both circles though not always in the same ways.)

Now, where does sanctification come from? Is it something God gives us by his grace or something that happens apart from his grace?

Protestants will agree with Catholics that it is the product of God’s grace in our lives.

But why is God giving us this grace? Is it because of what his Son did on the Cross or is it separate from that?

Once again, Protestants will agree with Catholics that it is because of what Christ did on the Cross that God sanctifies us.

So sanctification–the process of being made holy–is something that happens to us only because of Christ’s death on the Cross.

Sanctification–including the final stage of sanctification in purgatory–thus presupposes the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. It is so sufficient that it is not only enough to justify us but enough to sanctify us as well. The difference is that (to use language in a Protestant way) justification is something that happens at the beginning of the Christian life while sanctification is something that happens over the course of it.

So that’s what I’d tell him.

Secret Project #4 Update

I’ve had some folks request an update–even a vague one–on the status of Secret Project #4.

I can’t tell you much, but I can tell you that it is going well.

Currently there are around eleven people working full or part time on it.

The project has a technological side and an informational side, and we have the technology in place and now we are doing the informational side.

There are two different arms of the informational side. One is proceeding a bit slower than I had hoped, but the other is going much faster than I expected.

All that’s required for Secret Project #4 to be announced later this summer is for one of the two arms of the informational side to substantially achieve its goals, and we seem to be well on the way to that at the moment.

Wish I could tell y’all more, but that’ll have to do for now.

1978 CDF Document On Apparitions

In 1978 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an instruction containing norms for the evaluation of reported apparitions.

This document has generally not been circulated publicly, but it seems that someone in France got a copy of it, and I found an unofficial English translation online.

Reading the document, it struck me as having the ring of authenticity. This is written the way that the CDF would have done such a document, and I assume that it’s genuine.

I’ve placed the translation in the below-the-fold section of this post and may be able to interact with it some in future posts. For now, I’d like to see what kinds of questions it raises in folks’ minds.

Continue reading “1978 CDF Document On Apparitions”

That’s About The Size Of It

I normally don’t read Jeff Rense’s site because . . . well, because he’s a nut. I used to find his show interesting because of all the crazy people he would talk to (like on Art Bell’s show, only crazier), but after 9/11 he went off of a deep end that soured me on the whole thing.

I was therefore quite surprised when I was reading Jerry Pournelle’s blog Chaos Manor and saw him make this recommendation:

Go see
http://www.rense.com/general72/size.htm. You’ll be glad you did.

I clicked the link and discovered Jerry was right.

Cool presentation!

BTW, be sure to check out Chaos Manor. Jerry Pournelle’s been blogging since before there were blogs and has a bunch of interesting stuff to say.

Medjugorje

I normally don’t write much about apparitions–particularly ones that have not been either approved by the Church or specifically condemned as incompatible with the faith, but there is currently going around the blogosphere a statement by Bishop Peric of Mostar-Duvno regarding the apparitions reported at Medjugorje, which is in his diocese.

I’m not going to address the question of whether the apparitions reported at Medjugorje are real or not. I haven’t yet done the kind of research I would need to in order to satisfy myself on that question. But it’s worth noting the way that the topic is presently being handled on the official level.

DIANE OVER AT TE DEUM HAS THE FULL TEXT OF A HOMILY THE BISHOP GAVE ON THE SUBJECT, ALONG WITH HER OWN COMMENTARY.
(CHT to those who e-mailed.)

YOU CAN ALSO READ IT DIRECTLY ON THE DIOCESE OF MOSTAR WEBSITE.

Poking around the Mostar website, I also discovered

THIS BACKGROUNDER AND STATEMENT ON MEDJUGORJE BY THE BISHOP.

NOTE: Both the homily and the backgrounder are translations and so it should not be assumed that everything they say has the same force in the original language as it does in English. Things in the original may be stronger or weaker than they come across in translation.

Here is the nut of what the bishop said in the homily:

The judgements of the bishops, after all the canonical investigations made thus far, can be summarized in these following points:

1 – Medjugorje is a catholic parish in which liturgical and pastoral activities are carried out, just as in all the other parishes of this diocese of Mostar-Duvno. No-one except the official Church authorities is then authorized to attribute the formal title of “shrine” to this place.

2 – On the basis of Church investigations of the events of Medjugorje, it cannot be determined that these events involve supernatural apparitions or revelations. This means that till now the Church has not accepted, neither as supernatural nor as Marian, any of the apparitions. 

3 – Priests who canonically administer this parish of Medjugorje or those who come as visitors, are not authorised to express their private views contrary to the official position of the Church on the so-called “apparitions” and “messages”, during celebrations of the sacraments, neither during other common acts of piety, nor in the Catholic media.

4 – The Catholic faithful are not only free from any obligation to believe in the authenticity of the “apparitions” but they must also know that church pilgrimages are not allowed, whether official or private, individual or group, or from other parishes, if they presuppose the authenticity of the “apparitions” or if by undertaking them attempt to certify these “apparitions”. 

5 – As the local Bishop, I maintain that regarding the events of Medjugorje, on the basis of the investigations and experience gained thus far, throughout these last 25 years, the Church has not confirmed a single “apparition” as authentically being the Madonna.

He then makes the following dramatic appeal:

Therefore I responsibly call upon those who claim themselves to be “seers”, as well as those persons behind the “messages”, to demonstrate ecclesiastical obedience and to cease with these public manifestations and messages in this parish. In this fashion they shall show their necessary adherence to the Church, by neither placing private “apparitions” nor private sayings before the official position of the Church.

I can’t help wondering if that’s also tied to something else he said:

The fact that during these 25 years there has been talk of tens of thousands of “apparitions” does not contribute any authenticity to these events, which according to the words of our current Pope, who I encountered during an audience on 24 February this year, commented that at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith they always questioned how all these “apparitions” could be considered authentic for the Catholic faithful.

This sets off my spider sense a little bit. I’m thinking that there may be a connection between these two events.

In his pontificate, B16 has been quietly (or not so quietly) dealing with issues that appeared to drift during the pontificate of John Paul II. He reined in the Franciscans in Assisi; he reined in the Neocatechumenal Way; he dealt with the Fr. Maciel matter. I’m wondering if the discussion he had with Bishop Peric included an initiative to clarify where the Church is regarding the subject of Medjugorje.

If it didn’t then I’d say that Bishop Peric made a big mistake repeating what B16 told him in private. This is a sensitive matter, and if the pope hasn’t authorized you to disclose his private views on a matter then it is a big mistake to do so.

He also would be making a mistake to call on the seers to cease their public activities in the parish unless he had reasonable assurances that he would be backed up on this point if he were challenged on it.

I don’t have any proof here–I’m just speculating–but I’m wondering if his discussion with B16 didn’t involve the subject of a new iniative to more forcefully clarify the Medjugorje situation and seek greater pastoral control over it since, as the bishop reports:

[I]n this local Church of Mostar-Duvno, there exists something similar to a schism. A number of priests that have been expelled from the Franciscan OFM Order by the Generalate of the Order, due to their disobedience to the Holy Father, for years now have been forcefully keeping a few parish churches and rectories along with church inventory. They have not only been illegally active in these parishes, but they have also administered the sacraments profanely, while others invalidly, such as Confession and Confirmation, or they have assisted at invalid marriages. This type of anti-ecclesial behaviour is shocking to all of us. At the same time, this scandal of sacrilegiously administering the sacraments, especially of the Most Holy Body of Christ, must shock all the faithful as well who invalidly confess their sins to these priests and participate in sacrilegious liturgies. We pray to the Lord that this scandal and schism be uprooted as soon as possible from our midst. 

If I were B16, that’s the kind of situation I would want to get sorted out.

The Sailing Monks

Landingship

What do you do with a World War II Nazi landing ship? Uh, well, you could convert it to other shipping purposes…. You could create a WWII museum…. You could turn it into scrap metal….

Too tame.  Let’s think outside the box (or the ship, as the case may be).

How about turning it into a floating monastery?  Sort of.

"Croatia’s defense ministry has donated a World War II Nazi ship to a local Roman Catholic monastery, which will turn it into a sailing church, the Jutarnji List daily newspaper reported Tuesday.

"The landing ship DTM-219 was used by Nazi Germany to transport tanks and infantry. It was given to communist Yugoslavia after 1945 as part of war compensation, [the newspaper] said.

[…]

"It will be used as sailing church for the young, who will be able to sail the Adriatic, pray and meditate as part of church-sponsored religious cruises, the daily said."

GET THE STORY.

Of course, I must warn the monks that, in Catholic Answers’ experience, not everyone will be keen on the idea of religious cruises.

How To Avoid Running Dry

A reader writes:

Given all you cover here (blog) and Catholic Answers, what works best to keep you keep from running dry?

Hm. I haven’t really thought of it in those terms. I assume that the reader is asking this to try to figure out what works for me so that he can apply similar techniques himself, so I’ll try to answer from that angle.

Usually the problem is not running out of things to say. I’m constantly on the lookout for new material on my own, and many folks write in with questions or send links. The problem is more like not having the time needed to say all of the things I could. I have to force myself not to blog more than I do because I need to spend time on other things (like having a life).

That said, there are some things that help keep me going. One is the feedback I get in the combox and via e-mail. That tells me that I’m making a connection with the readers and that they’re interested (whether they agree or not) with what I have to say. If nobody was interested in what I was saying, I’d get disappointed and quit.

The links that I get from other blogs and seeing my blog doing well in the rankings also show interest in the work I’m doing, and that’s positive reinforcement as well.

Beyond that, it’s just trying to maintain a healthy curiosity about all kinds of things and keeping an eye out for good material

If I had to summarize, I’d suggest these points:

1) Pace yourself. Figure out how much time one could afford to spend and then don’t exceed it.

2) Look for what kind of positive reinforcement you can get and take satisfaction in it.

3) Stay curious about things. Always try to be learning something new.

4) Keep on the lookout for good material. Always be pre-planning what you’re going to do next.

Hope these help!

Revamping JimmyAkin.Com

Since JimmyAkin.Org is my most active site these days, not much attention has been paid to JimmyAkin.Com of late. For time reasons and for technical reasons that I won’t go into, I haven’t been able to update it for some time. (Think: Years.)

I’ve left the files up there, warts and all, figuring that they’d do more good than harm, but I’m frankly embarrassed by the state of the site and would very much like to get the files moved to a location where I can more easily manage and update them.

But I need help.

I may need a little css help, but what I mainly need is assistance in getting the files transferred from the current JimmyAkin.Com site to the new site.

This will not involve doing real html coding. It will mostly just be copying and pasting text from the current files into a web form.

So I’m asking for volunteers!

If you’d be interested in helping out with the project, please e-mail me or let me know your interest and e-mail address in the combox.

I’m not asking for long-term commitments, just what time people feel they can affort to volunteer. I also don’t think it’ll take that long to get the site converted to the new location once we start.

Hopefully, a number of folks will be interested in helping out and we’ll be able to debut the new, revised, and updatable JimmyAkin.Com very soon!

Thanks much, folks!