He may have been acquitted of child abuse charges, but Michael Jackson is now toast. Literally!
EXCERPT:
Slices of toast with the star’s likeness and slogans such as "not guilty" have appeared on internet auction site eBay.
Vendors claimed the slices were not faked – but popped out of their toasters before or during the verdicts.
I’ve noticed that fewer folks are calling me "James" these days. Even some of the holdouts are finally switching over.
So on a whim I decided to see whether this is true of the Internet (where a lotta folks encounter my name) by going to GoogleFight.Com and squaring off "Jimmy Akin" vs. "James Akin" (putting the terms in quotes so that the names are single search terms).
And the winner is . . .
Jimmy Akin! By a landslide!
YEE-HAW!!!
Things are as they should be!
In case you may not be familiar with GoogleFight, it’s a service that lets you square off two search terms against each other and see which is indexed more times by Google.
For example, when George W. Bush fights Bin Laden on GoogleFight, he whips his butt with 23 million hits to the terrorist rat’s 7 million hits.
Similarly, God whips Satan. Burger King whips McDonalds. America whips Iraq. The United States whips France. The pen is mightier than the sword. And all is right in the world. (Mostly. Darth Vader does whip Luke Skywalker.)
Report your own Googlefights in the combox!
Having just returned from summer Boy Scout camp, I have found the story of Brennan Hawkins (the missing Utah scout who was found yesterday) especially touching. Another scout who went missing from the same area last year has never been found. The experience of briefly losing my son in a theme park gave me some small inkling what it must have been like to find the boy whole and unharmed.
The thoughts that go through a parent’s head, even in the short space of forty-five minutes, probably make the episode more traumatic for the parents than the lost child. I was, of course, flooded with emotions when I finally came upon my son
(then eight years old) wandering in the crowd. I was joyful, relieved,
thankful… all the good things – but I was also a little irritated
with him for having wandered off. I’m sure it was less than a minute
before I said something like "You had us all worried sick!".
Which, naturally enough, brings me to the Rosary.
I have sometimes felt that the Finding of Jesus in the Temple was somewhat out of place among the Joyful Mysteries. While the other four mysteries strike me a s naturally joyful, the Finding has always made me reach a little. There is joy there, but there are so many other emotions involved (dread, relief) that joy seems a bit crowded out. Even sinless Mary felt compelled to say "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.". Joy simply is not the first thing that leaps out at me from that verse.
But the accumulated Catholic wisdom of the centuries has placed the event alongside the Annunciation and the Nativity as a Joyful Mystery, so I find myself compelled to explore it more deeply. The recent finding of Brennan Hawkins has helped me, I think. While there is a torrent of conflicting emotions surrounding a lost child, the one that should remain at the end is Joy. C.S. Lewis wrote a great deal about joy, making it clear that it should not be confused with mere happiness. Real joy can even be a frightening thing at times, a mysterious thing. Jesus talked a good deal about the joy of finding what was lost; a sheep, a coin, a repentant sinner.
Brennan Hawkins was lost for four days, my son for less than an hour. Finding Brennan alive and uninjured after all that time alone in the wilderness was almost too much to hope for. I had not yet reached that point with my son, even though horrid thoughts had entered my mind. Perhaps the Finding of Jesus in the Temple is a fitting way to remind us of all that we should be joyful about. We can be an ungrateful bunch, at times.
I think maybe Brennan’s parents now have a perspective on life that we should all try to grasp, even if we never have to go through a similar experience.
GET BRENNAN’S STORY.
A recent thread, now closed, on the Catholic Answers Forums caught the eye of Protestant apologist James White. One of the Catholic posters said:
"I have a lot of missionaries who come to ‘save me’ from Romanism."
Puzzled, James White responds on his blog:
“Please note: Roman Catholics can refer to ‘Romanism’ all they want. Scott Hahn has done a tape series called ‘Romanism in Romans,’ for example. No one will blink an eye. But, if I use the term ‘Romanism,’ Dave Armstrong will write a 24 page article about it.”
Not to mention that the subtitle of Karl Keating’s first book Catholicism and Fundamentalism is The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians."
So. Does James White have a valid point? Are Catholics guilty of a double standard?
No, not really.
In both the quotation of the person White quotes and in the subtitle to Karl’s book, the word Romanism is used in acknowledgment of the manner in which Catholicism is perceived by anti-Catholics. Indeed, Karl’s subtitle makes this acknowledgment explicit with the scare quotes. The Catholic poster is using the word in the same fashion but without the scare quotes.
In the case of Scott Hahn’s tape set, it can be argued that the word Romanism is used in the exact same fashion: As a play on words that is intended to demonstrate that those anti-Catholic Protestants who think the letter to the Romans is exclusively Protestant in its theology would be surprised by how much "Romanism" the apostle Paul spouts. Given Dr. Hahn’s affection for puns, as demonstrated in his many books, it is unsurprising that he would choose to give his tape set on Romans such a title.
The word Romanism can also be used by Catholics in another way: It can sometimes be used as an inside joke between Catholics who know that it is often used in a derogatory fashion by anti-Catholics. Much as some African Americans have adopted for each other (sometimes even as a term of affection!) a certain word that is highly-offensive when non-African Americans use it to refer to African Americans, so some Catholics occasionally use words such as Romanist and Romanism to affectionately tease each other.
But the fact that some Catholics occasionally use otherwise anti-Catholic words to refer to themselves or to their religion does not give license to non-Catholics to presume that the words are any less offensive or anti-Catholic when non-Catholics use such words to refer to Catholics and/or Catholicism. Just as it is common sense that a white person using the "n-word" for a black person is committing a gravely-insulting racial slur, so it should be a no-brainer that a non-Catholic using the word Romanism as a substitute for the word Catholicism is adopting a religious slur.
Language can be a very tricky thing. A sign of the mature use of language is the recognition that certain words or phrases are sometimes appropriate and sometimes inappropriate and that the duty of a polite person is to learn the distinctions and observe them — however puzzling he may personally find such distinctions to be.
A recent thread, now closed, on the Catholic Answers Forums caught the eye of Protestant apologist James White. One of the Catholic posters said:
"I have a lot of missionaries who come to ‘save me’ from Romanism."
Puzzled, James White responds on his blog:
“Please note: Roman Catholics can refer to ‘Romanism’ all they want. Scott Hahn has done a tape series called ‘Romanism in Romans,’ for example. No one will blink an eye. But, if I use the term ‘Romanism,’ Dave Armstrong will write a 24 page article about it.”
Not to mention that the subtitle of Karl Keating’s first book Catholicism and Fundamentalism is The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians."
So. Does James White have a valid point? Are Catholics guilty of a double standard?
No, not really.
In both the quotation of the person White quotes and in the subtitle to Karl’s book, the word Romanism is used in acknowledgment of the manner in which Catholicism is perceived by anti-Catholics. Indeed, Karl’s subtitle makes this acknowledgment explicit with the scare quotes. The Catholic poster is using the word in the same fashion but without the scare quotes.
In the case of Scott Hahn’s tape set, it can be argued that the word Romanism is used in the exact same fashion: As a play on words that is intended to demonstrate that those anti-Catholic Protestants who think the letter to the Romans is exclusively Protestant in its theology would be surprised by how much "Romanism" the apostle Paul spouts. Given Dr. Hahn’s affection for puns, as demonstrated in his many books, it is unsurprising that he would choose to give his tape set on Romans such a title.
The word Romanism can also be used by Catholics in another way: It can sometimes be used as an inside joke between Catholics who know that it is often used in a derogatory fashion by anti-Catholics. Much as some African Americans have adopted for each other (sometimes even as a term of affection!) a certain word that is highly-offensive when non-African Americans use it to refer to African Americans, so some Catholics occasionally use words such as Romanist and Romanism to affectionately tease each other.
But the fact that some Catholics occasionally use otherwise anti-Catholic words to refer to themselves or to their religion does not give license to non-Catholics to presume that the words are any less offensive or anti-Catholic when non-Catholics use such words to refer to Catholics and/or Catholicism. Just as it is common sense that a white person using the "n-word" for a black person is committing a gravely-insulting racial slur, so it should be a no-brainer that a non-Catholic using the word Romanism as a substitute for the word Catholicism is adopting a religious slur.
Language can be a very tricky thing. A sign of the mature use of language is the recognition that certain words or phrases are sometimes appropriate and sometimes inappropriate and that the duty of a polite person is to learn the distinctions and observe them — however puzzling he may personally find such distinctions to be.
HIGHLIGHTS:
HIGHLIGHTS:
Howdy, folks!
The .mp3 tests from yesterday seemed to lead to a consensus that folks wanted higher quality encodings of the show, and also mono recordings. Y’all’s wish is our command! Here’s a new batch to check out, plus Link 3 from yesterday for comparison.
Whadda y’all think?
UPDATE: BTW, it occurred to me that some folks might not know that Windows Media Player (at least recent version of it) are able to play .mp3 files. If any Windows users have been thinking that they’re left out of the .mp3 revolution because they don’t have a specialized .mp3 player, don’t worry. Windows Media Player will play these files automatically, so almost anybody with a recent version of Windows should be able to join in the testing (and, later, the listening).
A reader writes:
Is it a mortal sin to attend the rehersal party and reception but not
the actual wedding ceremony of a catholic who is getting married
without a priest present? If the catholic is not going to practice
their faith what is the right thing to do?
For a sin to be mortal, it must have grave matter and you must have adequate knowledge of this fact and deliberately consent to doing it anyway.
As to whether attending the rehersal and reception in question, whether this will have grave matter depends on the damage done (to the couple and to others) by your attendance. To the extent they are confirmed in the idea that what they are doing is okay or to the extent they are confused on this point, they are damaged.
A clearer message would be sent by simply not attending any of these and explaining that you care about the party (or parties) but can’t imply by your presence that a genuine marriage is or will come into existence by their actions.
If the party obtains a dispensation for having a non-Catholic wedding then the marriage will be valid and there is no problem attending. I assume that’s not happening in this case based on your question, though.
The mere fact that a Catholic has given up the practice of the faith, though, is not enough to solve the situation. If the Catholic party or parties have defected from the Church by a formal act (e.g., joining another church as an adult with the intent of no longer being a Catholic) then the marriage will be presumed valid and there would not be an instrinsic problem attending, but merely ceasing to practice the faith is not a formal defection.
As long as the marriage is going to be invalid, I cannot recommend involvement in it. At best, involvement sends a confusing signal to the couple. At worse, it can lead them and others in attendance to think that what is happening is okay.
20
A reader writes:
Is it a mortal sin to attend the rehersal party and reception but not
the actual wedding ceremony of a catholic who is getting married
without a priest present? If the catholic is not going to practice
their faith what is the right thing to do?
For a sin to be mortal, it must have grave matter and you must have adequate knowledge of this fact and deliberately consent to doing it anyway.
As to whether attending the rehersal and reception in question, whether this will have grave matter depends on the damage done (to the couple and to others) by your attendance. To the extent they are confirmed in the idea that what they are doing is okay or to the extent they are confused on this point, they are damaged.
A clearer message would be sent by simply not attending any of these and explaining that you care about the party (or parties) but can’t imply by your presence that a genuine marriage is or will come into existence by their actions.
If the party obtains a dispensation for having a non-Catholic wedding then the marriage will be valid and there is no problem attending. I assume that’s not happening in this case based on your question, though.
The mere fact that a Catholic has given up the practice of the faith, though, is not enough to solve the situation. If the Catholic party or parties have defected from the Church by a formal act (e.g., joining another church as an adult with the intent of no longer being a Catholic) then the marriage will be presumed valid and there would not be an instrinsic problem attending, but merely ceasing to practice the faith is not a formal defection.
As long as the marriage is going to be invalid, I cannot recommend involvement in it. At best, involvement sends a confusing signal to the couple. At worse, it can lead them and others in attendance to think that what is happening is okay.
20