Jimmy Akin – Page 609

The Purity Tests

One of the most frustrating aspects of my work as an apologist is when I am asked to provide an inquirer with a resource on a particular subject that is "one hundred percent faithful to the magisterium of the Catholic Church" and by someone who is "absolutely orthodox." Oftentimes, I may know of a particular resource that would be helpful, but am reluctant to recommend it because it is not "pure" from an orthodox perspective or by someone who can be considered totally orthodox.

Take, for example, John Allen, who is a Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter. He is a very good resource for reasonably fair information on current Vatican affairs. As far as I am concerned, his book All the Pope’s Men should be on the required reading list of all aspiring apologists, particularly those seeking to explain why the Vatican takes certain actions that do not seem logical to the ordinary American Catholic. But, because of his credentials and his somewhat center-left approach to Catholicism, I either cannot recommend him much of the time or must load any such recommendation full of caveats. This is not because of a particular flaw in Allen or his work, but to explain to an inquirer exactly what can and cannot be recommended about Allen and his work.

What I have found is that many of the orthodox Catholic inquirers I deal with are very cautious about whom they will listen to or read. A particular author or speaker must offer a book or tape that is either one-hundred-percent orthodox — according, mind you, to this particular person’s perception of orthodoxy — or the resource is anathema. This is an understandable and even noble impulse because the Catholic in question is doing his best to avoid falling into error about the faith. Nevertheless, it is misguided. Let me explain why:

If one limits his exposure to the faith only to those individuals who one is certain largely conform to one’s own understanding of the faith, it is unlikely that such a person will ever grow beyond his own understanding of the faith. Applying "purity tests" to any and all resources that one will consider and automatically rejecting any that fail the exam means that one cannot benefit from the legitimate insights others may offer.

Rather than "purity tests," what orthodox Catholics should consider developing are "purity filters." Learn the faith well enough from orthodox sources to filter out the impurities while still accepting and benefiting from the good stuff an otherwise problematic resource can offer. If there is a question about whether a particular idea or claim is valid or should be trapped by the filter, then call on orthodox resources — such as Catholic Answers — to help figure out what the Church teaches or requires on the subject. A particular resource may end up entirely worthless and be thrown out. Some stuff, though, may be problematic but still useful.

For example, as a Catholic woman who hopes one day to marry and raise a family, I do a lot of personal reading on marriage and parenting. Believe it or not, one of my favorite parenting books is Becoming A Jewish Parent by Daniel Gordis, a Conservative Jewish rabbi. There is, naturally, some information that is either not helpful to me as a potential Catholic parent or follows a more liberal religious approach with which I do not agree. But, as one example of something helpful to Catholic parents in the book, Rabbi Gordis’s approach for teaching parents how to raise their children to marry Jews and raise Jewish families could very easily be adapted by Catholics seeking to raise children who will marry other Catholics and raise Catholic families. A Catholic using a "purity filter" can sort out what is unnecessary for Catholic parenting and take away Rabbi Gordis’s insights that are helpful to any religiously-committed parent.

“Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophesying, but test everything; hold fast what is good, abstain from every form of evil. May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:19-23).

My Respect For Bob Geldof Is Increasing

Not that I had much to begin with. To tell the truth, I don’t hold activist pop stars in especially high esteem–besides the basic dignity they need to be shown as human beings, of course.

But as I hear more about Geldof’s leadership of the upcoming Live8 event, I find myself holding him in significantly higher regard.

He may have been the frontman of the Boomtown Rats, but his behavior of late has been anything but rat-like.

Celebs doing charity work to puff their own reputations (free publicity!) are a dime a dozen, but Geldof has been going against the PC tide to try to do something special here.

Like what?

Well, how ’bout:

INVITING POPE BENEDICT TO TAKE PART.

CREDITING PRESIDENT BUSH FOR ALL THE HELP HE’S GIVEN AFRICA, AND NOW

INSISTING ON NO BUSH-BASHING, GLOBAL WARMING-RANTING, OR IRAQ WAR-POUTING ON STAGE FROM THE ARTISTS.

All these are decisions that have attracted criticism from within the pop music community.

He’s not playing the usual self-serving celeb game. He’s acting like he’s . . . y’know . . . actually trying to help the folks in Africa by making sure that th concert stays on message and has the braodest appeal possible.

If only more pop stars weren’t such tantrum-prone children.

Protestant Baptism Before Vatican II

A reader writes:

As a recent convert from the PCA, I have been placed on the parish’s Adult
Faith Formation Committee, where I hear enough half-truths and outright
rejections of Church teaching to keep five apologists working
overtime.

The latest: I was told by the head of the committee that, prior
to Vatican II, "the Church did not accept Protestant baptisms," and
therefore insisted on re-baptizing anyone who converted. After Vatican II,
I was told, the Church now "accepts Protestant baptisms and therefore
accepts Protestants as brothers and sisters in Christ." He stopped short
of place I think he was trying to go, namely: "Therefore there’s no
substantive difference between being a Protestant and a Catholic."

Now, this all sounds wrong to me. My understanding is that the Church has
long accepted the validity of any baptism, as long as the intent was to
baptize, the actions were correct, and the Trinitarian formula was
used. Further, I wasn’t aware that the Church, at Vatican II, had made any
new doctrinal teaching about the validity of Protestant baptisms (or any
new doctrinal teaching at all, for that matter). But before I begin to
scour Church documents and previous Catechisms looking for a refutation (or
at least a clarification), I wanted to ask you how to approach this question.

If he said what you report, the head of the committee is seriously in error. The Church dealt with the question of whether the baptism of heretics and schismatics were valid as early as the third century and concluded that they were.

What’s more, the matter was infallibly defined no later than the Council of Trent (earlier councils may have already taken care of this), whose Canons on Baptism contain the following:

Canon 4. If anyone says that the baptism which is given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema.

Consequently, the Church has always regarded Protestant baptism as valid in principle, and Vatican II made no changes in this respect.

There was a change in the Church’s common practice following the Council, however. (Which is not to say that the Council itself mandated the change.)

It had been customary to administer conditional baptism to Protestants converting to the Catholic faith in case there had been a defect in form, matter, or intention when baptism was administered to them in their original church. A conditional baptism is not the same as "re-baptizing" someone, however. Conditional baptisms respect the validity (if it was present) of a person’s original baptism by using formulas such as "If you are not baptized, I baptize you . . . "

After the revision of the rites that followed the Council (please note: not everything that has changed in recent years is to be attrbuted to Vatican II!), it became less common to administer conditional baptism to Protestants becoming Catholic, though it is still done (as it was in my own case).

The head of the committee therefore was wrong if he asserted:

That the Church did not recognize the validity of Protstant baptisms prior to Vatican II,
That Vatican II changed this, or
That prior to the Council converts from Protestantism were "re-baptized" (as opposed to being conditionally baptized).

If he said such things, the head of the committee really should study these matters more thoroughly before pronouncing upon them.

The Face Of Madness

This is Fr. Daniel (last name not reported), a 29 year old Romanian Orthodox priest and the superior of Holy Trinity monastery in northeast Romania.

He’s in trouble with the authorities for killing a 23 year old nun as part of an elaborate exorcism rite.

The nun, Maricica Irina Cornici, was tied and chained to a cross and left without food and water. A rag was stuffed in her mouth to muffle sounds she might make.

Preliminary reports suggest that she died of asphyxiation.

Fr. Daniel is unrepentant, claiming that God has done a miracle for Sr. Irina and delivered her from evil.

He also says he’s getting a good lawyer.

He’ll need one. Not only is he going before earthly authorities but also, as his name means in Hebew, "God is my judge."

GET THE STORY.

MORE.

NOTE: What the hell is a 29-year old man doing as the superior of a monastery? Shouldn’t superiors be known for their age and wisdom? This man would have been ordained a maximum of four years if he were Catholic (CIC 1031 §1). I don’t know what the requirements are for ordination are in the Romanian Orthodox church, but in any communion, 29 is still wet-behind-the-ears fors a spiritual father. It’s better than Mormons sending out 19 year old "elders" who don’t even need to shave regularly, but the age set-up in this monastery was positively inviting trouble.

Terri's Epitaph?

The autopsy results are in for Terri Schiavo now, showing that all the rumors that her husband had a hand in her "accident" were all bogus and consequently her being in a "persistent vegetative state" was not his fault and it was a morally compassionate act for him to stop using "artificial means" to sustain her life.

Right?

That’s the impression you’d get from reading certain anti-life press reports.

Even if it were established that Terri’s condition was not her husband’s fault, it in no way follows that he was able to licitly starve the poor woman to death.

As to the autopy results and what they do and do not show,

MICHELLE MALKIN HAS ANALYSIS.

Terri’s Epitaph?

Right?

That’s the impression you’d get from reading certain anti-life press reports.

Even if it were established that Terri’s condition was not her husband’s fault, it in no way follows that he was able to licitly starve the poor woman to death.

As to the autopy results and what they do and do not show,

MICHELLE MALKIN HAS ANALYSIS.

"They Just Whooped The Hell Out Of Him"–Parte Dieux

Today, June 18, in 1815, Napoleon Bonaparte went to his Waterloo.

Literally!

And I don’t mean a waterslide theme park!

The Battle of Waterloo took place today in Waterloo, Belgium, where the ornery French dictator (is there any other kind?) was defeated by a valiant alliance of non-French persons, bringing his reign of obnoxiousness and tyranny to an end forever.

No word on whether the victors celebrated their victory by victoriously eating Freedom Fries afterward.

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BATTLE.

HEREZA PICTURE OF THE WATERLOO MEMORIAL.

“They Just Whooped The Hell Out Of Him”–Parte Dieux

Today, June 18, in 1815, Napoleon Bonaparte went to his Waterloo.

Literally!

And I don’t mean a waterslide theme park!

No word on whether the victors celebrated their victory by victoriously eating Freedom Fries afterward.

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BATTLE.

HEREZA PICTURE OF THE WATERLOO MEMORIAL.

The Church Teachings That Aren't

A reader writes:

I was recently told by my sister that the father where she attends mass, had said that tattoos were bad because catholic doctrine says they’re bad. I have read your March 2004 response on the subject of tattoos and confirmed that there is NOT a catholic doctrine on this. My question would then be, what gives a deacon, father, or bishop the right to say these things? My sister believes her deacon, father, and bishop on this subject. My sister is also a catechism teacher that is teaching her students that the religion condemns tattoos and any kind of body piercings (including earrings). How can a father say this, if in fact, it’s not part of the catholic teachings. I believe in the Catholic Church and it’s teachings, but I’m reluctant to accept anybodys personal opinion on any subject. Please help me clear this up.

To answer your first question as posed: Nothing gives the a deacon, priest, or bishop the right to say that things are Church teachings when they aren’t. Doing so is misrepresenting the Church, and nobody has a right ot misrepresent the Church.

That being said, there are many people–and the priest may be one of them, as is your sister–who are simply misinformed about what constitutes Church teaching and who are not intentionally misrepresenting it. In such circumstances, they are not likely culpable for their misrepresentation and are even attempting to do a spiritual service to others by trying to communicate what they perceive to be Church teaching.

On the other hand, anyone who seeks to convey Church teaching to others has a responsibility to do due diligence in verifying that what they are telling others is, in fact, something taught by the Church. Regrettably, many fall down on this duty and are responsible for the damage they do to others’ belief systems by leading them to think that the Church teaches something when it doesn’t.

Sometimes they are even aware that they are stretching Church teaching because they want the Church to support something even though they know that this isn’t quite what the Church’s documents say.

I would talk to your sister, if you are able, and encourage her to go back and examine the Church’s official documents–things written by the popes or ecumenical councils or Vatican congregations–and try to back up her statements regarding tattoos and her even more extreme statements regarding ear piercings (which the Church clearly will not support). She will not be able to back these up, of course.

She may find certain passages that she may wish to use in this regard–like the Mosaic Law’s prohibition on tattoos or the Catechism’s statement regarding mutilating our bodies–but Christians are not bound by the Mosaic Law, and the Catechism has in mind things like cutting off your fingers–things that actually impede bodily function, not just making minor, harmless pricks in one’s skin or flesh. (Clearly not all such actions are illicit or one could never have surgery or sand off callouses or cut a hangnail or snip excess skin around your finger and toenails to prevent getting an ingrown nail–nor could one circumcize a baby as was required under the Mosaic Law!)

The only way to get these passages to support your sister’s position would thus be to stretch them beyond their proper meaning, which cannot be done legitimately. Once your sister realizes this, she needs to go back and tell her class that she was wrong about this and use the instance as an illustration about how important it is to distinguish personal opinion from Church teaching.

Even before then she needs to stop telling the kids this until she can undertake a careful study of the relevant Church documents. If she needs assistance with that, I’d be happy to help.

The Church Teachings That Aren’t

A reader writes:

I was recently told by my sister that the father where she attends mass, had said that tattoos were bad because catholic doctrine says they’re bad. I have read your March 2004 response on the subject of tattoos and confirmed that there is NOT a catholic doctrine on this. My question would then be, what gives a deacon, father, or bishop the right to say these things? My sister believes her deacon, father, and bishop on this subject. My sister is also a catechism teacher that is teaching her students that the religion condemns tattoos and any kind of body piercings (including earrings). How can a father say this, if in fact, it’s not part of the catholic teachings. I believe in the Catholic Church and it’s teachings, but I’m reluctant to accept anybodys personal opinion on any subject. Please help me clear this up.

Even before then she needs to stop telling the kids this until she can undertake a careful study of the relevant Church documents. If she needs assistance with that, I’d be happy to help.