The Power Of Myth

Bill Moyers is a recently-retired, long-time journalist who is perhaps best known for two things: His series on mythographer Joseph Campbell titled The Power of Myth and his hard-left bias in reporting.

In more than one way, Bill Moyers has been long acquainted with the power of myth.

Take recent events, for example.

In a recent column Moyers recently wrote the following:

Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan’s first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."

Trouble is . . . Watt never said it. He didn’t say it in front of Congress or anywhere else. In fact, he said things to Congress in direct contradiction of such views.

Moyers didn’t do his homework. He found a juicy quote in his "favorite onine environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist" and ran with it.

In so doing, he gave his opponents . . . well . . . grist for the mill.

James Watt, in particular, took offense and

HE WROTE THIS EDITORIAL DEFENDING HIMSELF.

The paper that printed the Moyers’ column (the Minneapolis Star-Tribune) has issued a non-apology apology in which it says it will "will report any further developments in the Grist inquity" to its readers, as if it is holding out hope of finding a basis for the quote now that they’ve been called on the carpet.

Similarly, Moyers has issued a non-apology apology, saying:

Despite [the] widespread currency [of such quotes attributed to Watt], I should have checked their accuracy before using them. Grist and the Washington Post have now published corrections concerning the quote attributed to Watt in 1981.

I talked to Mr. Watt on the phone and expressed my own regret at using a quote that I had not myself confirmed. I also told him that I continue to find his policies as secretary of the interior abysmally at odds with what I, as well as other Christians, understand to be our obligation to be stewards of the earth.

So Moyers can’t simply say a gentlemanly "I’m sorry for being delinquent in my duties" without simultaneously issuing an attack of the form "You were also delinquent in your duties." In other words, the pot can’t simply apologize. It also has to call the kettle black.

Ah, well. In the days before the blogosphere came around to popularize this story (via Powerline), Moyers might have gotten away from it.

That’s the power of myth.

Blogs, Politics, and the MSM

A couple of op/ed pieces worth reading.

First, there’s

THIS INSIGHTFUL PIECE ON THE IMPACT INTERNET HAD ON THE 2004 ELECTION.

Its conclusion?

So what hath the blogosphere wrought? The left blogosphere has moved the Democrats off to the left, and the right blogosphere has undermined the credibility of the Republicans’ adversaries in Old Media. Both changes help Bush and the Republicans.

Then, there’s

THIS PIECE OF INTERNET-SAVVY JACK KELLY ON HOW "OUT OF IT" THE MSM IS.

As an MSM (if blog-friendly) journalist himself, he concludes:

The earth rumbles, and we think it’s our big feet, stomping the Lilliputians. But what if it’s an earthquake about to swallow us up?

R.O.U.S.es: Rodents Of Unusual Size

Capybara_1A reader writes:

It turns out that in certain parts of Venezuela the Catholic populace is allowed to eat Capybara on Ash Wednesday and Lenten Fridays, due to a Vatican ruling centuries ago that the animal could be considered a fish.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capybara

Some of my friends want to know why this dispensation has not since been lifted. I recall reading that this is because of the economic situation of the country, something about how it would be placing an undue burden on these peoples to forbid the Capybara on Fridays.

To me this seems reasonable, but these friends don’t see it that way. They would like to know why the poor on Fridays can’t just forego meat for a single day of the week, and get their protein from some plant source, like beans.

Of course, they accuse the Church of just being hypocritical and wanting to justify a rediculous papal declaration.

I don’t have independent information on this, but it strikes me as plausible. We noted below that aquatic mammals such as beavers and otters have not traditionally been counted as prohibited on Fridays. Since capybaras spend a good bit of their lives in the water, like beavers and otters, the same would apply to them.

Mind you, I’m not in favor of that. I might let someone get away with counting dolphins and whales as sufficiently fish-like that they don’t count, but anything with four legs and fur, whether it lives in the water or not, I would want to count as carnis. That’s just me, though, and not how traditional moralists have regarded matters.

I don’t see any grounds for charging hypocrisy here, though, especially in regard to a papal decision. I have no proof that the pope ever involved himself in the question, and the Church’s present law doesn’t address the subject, meaning that we have to fall back on the older moralists for tough cases. If the older moralists chose to adopt a "lives in water = okay on Fridays" rule for the sake of not confusing people, we might disagree, we might even think it’s dumb, but we can’t charge them with hypocrisy. It’s not like the pope invented "capybara" Fridays for the sake of cropping up the capybara industry.

I understand that a similar situation exists with Barnacle Geese (once thought to be a fish; to be grown-up barnacles) and also a certain type of Puffin in some parts of Ireland.

Basically, what could be so dire about one’s economic situation that could not possibly, for one day of the week, substitute meat for something else?

I think that someone may have misunderstood something somewhere. It ain’t that impoverished people get to eat meat-like things on Friday because they’re poor. It’s the other way around: The discipline was that everyone refrained from the meat of land animals on Fridays because it was a sign of rejoicing as most people couldn’t (usually) afford it very often.

That has persisted until very recent times. I remember once as a boy, growing up in the impoverished South, going over to a friend’s house and my friend was all excited since, as I was company, his parents were going to serve meat that night.

The reason that things like water-dwelling animals or costal birds that spend a lot of their time over the water were not regarded as counting was not that the people eating them were poor but that they were connected with the water and moralists decided that, lest people get confused and scrupulous, any kind of water animal was okay.

I don’t like that. I think it’s dumb. But that was the consensus on the issue.

The consensus has been changing somewhat. For example, Henry Davis is quite down on villages where seabirds are exempted and says this is likely bogus (he doesn’t use the word "bogus") and that it has more to do with villagers obstinately hanging on to traditional privileges. I can look up the quote if needed.

So, while some might not approve of eating Rodents Of Unusual Size, there’s no question that you can have a pie made with . . . shrieking eels, for example.

UPDATE: Welcome Amy Welborn readers! MORE LENT RESOURCES HERE.

"I Want Droidekas!!!"

Excerpts:

A large black ball, originally designed by Swedish scientists for use on Mars, could be the latest weapon in the war against burglars.

The device, developed at the University of Uppsala, acts as a high-tech security guard capable of detecting an intruder thanks to either radar or infra-red sensors. Once alerted, it can summon help, sound an alarm or pursue the intruders, taking pictures.

It is capable of travelling at 20mph, somewhat faster than a human being. Even worse for intruders, the robot ball can still give chase over mud, snow and water.

While the current version can only raise the alarm, it could be adapted to corner an intruder if the customer wanted, Mr Hulth added.

Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP who is campaigning to give people greater rights to defend their property against burglars, thought the robot ball could have potential: "It would be interesting to see whether the ball had used grossly disproportionate force or whether it would be deemed reasonable.

"But I would much rather a burglar be terrified of householders and shopkeepers, rather than some sort of futuristic device."

GET THE STORY.

“I Want Droidekas!!!”

Excerpts:

A large black ball, originally designed by Swedish scientists for use on Mars, could be the latest weapon in the war against burglars.

The device, developed at the University of Uppsala, acts as a high-tech security guard capable of detecting an intruder thanks to either radar or infra-red sensors. Once alerted, it can summon help, sound an alarm or pursue the intruders, taking pictures.

It is capable of travelling at 20mph, somewhat faster than a human being. Even worse for intruders, the robot ball can still give chase over mud, snow and water.

While the current version can only raise the alarm, it could be adapted to corner an intruder if the customer wanted, Mr Hulth added.

Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP who is campaigning to give people greater rights to defend their property against burglars, thought the robot ball could have potential: "It would be interesting to see whether the ball had used grossly disproportionate force or whether it would be deemed reasonable.

"But I would much rather a burglar be terrified of householders and shopkeepers, rather than some sort of futuristic device."

GET THE STORY.

Ciboria

A reader writes:

Dear Mr Akin,

Do you have a photographic memory? You have been a Catholic for only a short period of time, relatively speaking, yet your knowledge of Encyclicals and abstruse bits of Church teaching – including which number and page has me gob smacked.

Aw, shucks, ma’am. . . . T’ain’t nuthin.

In regard to my memory: I regard it as nothing but frustratingly inadequate. It forgets the things I want to remember and remembers the things I want to forget.

I am told, however, that others think it is a good one. Sometimes folks who have sat in on the radio show have remarked that they’re surprised I’m not looking up answers–not usually at least (unless I want to give an exact quotation as part of the answer).

I don’t really know, but I have been told that my memory is eidetic or "photographic." This does not mean that I remember everything I’m exposed to. (I’m not Lt. Cmdr. Data!) That kind of memory does not appear to occur in humans, despite a popular impression to the contrary. Our brains are designed to forget stuff.

I am told, however, that my memory is eidetic in that I remember things in an (apparently) more vividly visual way than some folks. For example, I will remember what part of the page a piece of information is on and have a mental image of it, even if I can’t remember the information itself. I assumed this was the way everyone remembers things until I was in my early thirties and someone told me that it ain’t. I haven’t asked enough folks to know if that’s true or not, though. It may be that my friend and his family have unusually non-visual memories and mine is only normal.

Now to the not so pleasant part! lol

On page 7 of your booklet, Mass Appeal (fantastic booklet for our undercatechised people) you wrote: ‘On the altar are vessels used during the eucharist, such as the ciborium, a plate or dish-like vessel…’ Should that not be ‘patern’ ? The ciborium is the large chalice like container which holds consecrated hosts from other Masses I think. I am not saying this to be a smarty pants but when/if another edition comes out if this is an error it can be corrected.

I remember when I was writing Mass Appeal that I had to do a good bit of research on the term "ciborium." It’s used in respect to liturgical vessels that have several different shapes. One, as you mention, is chalice-shaped. If that’s not in Mass Appeal then it should be. I’ll check it out and mention it to Publications and see about getting it added, though we’ll need to call the diocese to get in included as the booklet has an imprimatur.

My memory is also that my research turned up that "ciborium" is also applied to certain plate-shaped vessels, like a paten, though I don’t recall the sources I looked at that supported this. I’ll go back and verify them.

Finally, it is also applied to bowl-shaped vessels, like those in this picture:

Ciboria_1 [SOURCE.]

In any event, it seems that the term has a somewhat broad semantic range that can apply to a number of different shapes.

I will keep praying for the Catholic Answers apostolate.

Thanks! Please do!

Who Was There?

A reader writes:

Mr. Akin,

I have listened to you on EWTN’s Radio program ( when the reception is audible) and really enjoy your program and answers.

I have been struggling with some Faith questions for some time now re: Bible events and have tried not to think of them because of fear of the loss of my faith. However, especially lately when I listen to the Gospels, these questions have been insistently coming up.

ie; Who was there when?…….

The angel Gabriel spoke to Mary?

So far as we know, it was Gabriel and Mary. Others may have also been present, but even if so, we don’t know if they saw or heard Gabriel or if that was given only to Mary.

When the devil spoke to Jesus in the desert for 40 days?

So far as we know, Jesus and the devil during the actual moments of temptation (testing), though I’d suspect that other folks ran across Jesus during this period. Also, after the testing, angels came and ministered to Jesus.

When the ‘Babe lept’ in the womb of Elizabeth?

So far as we know, Mary, Elizabeth, and the two unborn babies. Zechariah and possibly others may also have been present.

Etc.

These are Gospel ‘stories’ and I assume they are to be taken as Truth. Today’s Gospel was of Jesus’ 40 days in the desert. St. Matthew wrote this Gospel. Or did he?

Despite the talk you hear, much of which is based on bias rather than evidence, I have no reason to think anyone other than Matthew wrote the gospel attributed to him. Indeed, the very fact that Matthew’s name is on it is evidence that he wrote it. Claims need to be taken at face value unless there is reason to doubt them. If you adopt a hermeneutic of suspicion regarding historical sources, whereby every source is "guilty until proven innocent," you’ll cause virtually all of our knowledge of the past to go out the window. That is simply unreasonable.

Further, Matthew was a minor apostle apart from his gospel, so if you were going to make up an attribution to make a gospel sound impressive, you’d pick someone other than Matthew.

Similarly, Matthew was a former tax-collector, a group hated and despized by first century Palestinian Jews. Yet Matthew’s gospel is the most Jewish of all the gospels, written with a clearly Jewish audience in mind. If someone were going to write a gospel for a Jewish audience and then make up a name to slap on it, they’d pick someone other than a tax-collector like Matthew.

Consequently, I have no reason to doubt the traditional attribution of Matthew.

There is a lot of controversy about who wrote what Gospel. Despite that, someone had to be a witness to these events didn’t they? These events had to have an author.

The gospels and other books of Scripture have to have authors, but the author doesn’t have to be there for every event they record. As historians (even if not historians of the kind we have today), the authors of the gospels talked to people who were there for the events they describe. It has long been thought, because of his focus on Mary in the early chapters of his gospel, that Luke spoke to Mary as a source. If not her, then another member of the family who preserved the family’s knowledge of the events surrounding Jesus’ birth.

Similarly, though Jesus was (so far as we know) alone with the devil during the temptation, that didn’t stop Jesus from telling the disciples of the event or them writing it down afterwards.

In each of these cases, the witness from whom the knowledge of the event springs is likely the person who experienced the event.

In the Annunciation, I would think Mary’s modesty would prevent her from telling anyone about the Angel Gabriel.

I don’t think I by this. I think you are likely projecting your own (praiseworthy) modesty on to Mary. I think Mary (a) would want to glorify God by telling people what marvels he was doing and (b) would be forced to disclose what happened by her ensuing pregnancy. She couldn’t simply get pregnant with no explanation of how it happened.

My questions go on and on.

My question for you is: Without my having to spend an exorbitant amount of time looking up books and reading mega pages, could you possibly direct me to somewhere or someone where I could get some answers to these Faith questions???

I would really appreciate any help you could offer. Surely, you must have struggled with some of the same questions at some point in your faith journey?

I did. And I hope the above responses are helpful for the questions that you mentioned. You’re welcome to e-mail further questions for answers here on the blog. I’d also recommend visiting these two sites:

CATHOLIC ANSWERS FORUMS

CATHOLIC-CONVERT FORUMS

Hope this helps, and God bless!

Sr. Lucia, Dead At 97

Sr_lucia_and_jpii Based on Portugese press reports, the Scotsman is reporting that Sr. Lucia, the last surviving visionary of Fatima, has died at age 97.

Excerpts:

Sister Lucia Marto, the last of three children who claimed to have seen the Virgin Mary in a series of 1917 apparitions, has died, Portuguese media reported today. She was 97.

Sister Lucia, a Roman Catholic nun, had been ill for the past three months and died at the Convent of Carmelitas in Coimbra, north of Lisbon, TSF radio reported, citing family sources.

A funeral was scheduled for Tuesday, TSF reported.

GET THE (SAD) STORY.

READ MY ARTICLE ON THE THIRD SECRET OF FATIMA.

READ THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA (VATICAN DOC).

(Cowboy hat tip to the reader who sent this.)

UPDATE: Welcome Michelle Malkin readers. Sorry the occasion is such a sad one.

UPDATE: CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS HAS A GOOD PIECE ON SR. LUCIA AND HER PASSING.

Among other things, it mentions something I had been wondering about: the exact date of Sr. Lucia’s death. CWN is reporting that she passed on Feb. 13. The thirteenth of the month is significant for the Fatima apparitions. They first began on May 13 and recurred on the thirteenth of subsequent months. The assassination attempt on John Paul II also occurred on May 13.

Blog Business

Hokay! Got a few items of blog business to do:

1. I just got a new computer and just got it hooked up to the Internet after talking to three tech support individuals, at least one of whom was not a human being.

2. There appears to be no way to conveniently transfer my e-mail from my old computer to my new one.

3. Consequently, this is going to make it harder for me to answer e-mail that has been sent to me in the past. I’ll still try, though, but it’ll be more difficult.

4. Consequently, if you’ve sent me e-mail in the past and are waiting on a reply, you may want to re-send it to make sure I get it on the new computer.

5. I’m also looking at an e-mail address change on the blog. Thus far I’ve been using jimmy01 @ cox.net, and if you check DA RULZ, you’ll note that I say I’ll change it once it gets severely spam-poisoned (see Rule #10). UPDATE: The new address is jimmyakin01@gmail.com. Thanks, guys!

6. It’s now severely spam poisoned. As a result of leaving the address out on the blog for folks to use, the overwhelming majority of e-mail that comes in to it is noxious, foul-smelling spam.

7. So I’m planning on switching it. The question is: To what? One possibility I’m considering is Google’s gmail, but I have a couple of questions:

8. First, how good is gmail’s anti-spam system?

9. Second, can I get a gmail invite from someone?

10. I also have another question. If you look at Rule #15 in DA RULZ, you’ll see that I don’t use names in the main blog area. The purpose of this is to make people feel more comfortable writing to me since they know I’ll anonymize whatever they send in. But there’s a cost, too: Sometimes people might want credit for what they send in, such as the recent readers I’ve cowboy hat tipped without giving their names. Consequently, I’d like folks thoughts on whether they think the current policy is the way to go or whether they think a revision of it might be in order.

Much obliged, y’all!

"If We Confess Our Sins . . . "

A correspondent writes:

I’m asking for answers to the following two questions because I’m

genuinely curious.  I believe the Lord wants His people, the body of

Christ, to be united.  And, I believe understanding is one of the first

steps toward unity.

 
Why do Roman Catholics confess to a priest instead of directly to

God?  1 John 1:9 seems to indicate to me I can confess directly to God,

and He’ll forgive me.

 

I have a friend who prays to Mary, the mother of Jesus.  I don’t find any biblical basis for praying to anyone other than God.

Thanks for writing and for seeking to understand these matters from a Catholic perspectie. I have a special appreciation for the as I am a former Evangelical, and I didn’t understand why Catholics hold the positions they do on these matters, either.

In regard to the first, 1 John 1:9 says:

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will  forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

You’ll note that this is an affirmation of the value of confession (i.e., God will forgive us if we confess our sins), but it does not address the mode of confession. That is, it does not say whether we should confess directly to God or Jesus or whether he will us to confess through the agency of a priest.

The latter matter is addressed in John 20:21-22 (also by St. John, it is worth noting), where we read the following:

Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As   the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when   he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive   the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they   are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."   

Jesus thus commissioned his ministers to forgive or retain sins. For a minister to know whether he should forgive or retain a particular sin, he must know about the sin and whether the person has repented of it. Only with such information could he know whether the sin should be forgiven or whether it should be retained. Since most priests are not telepathic and are not given knowledge of such matters directly by God, if follows that we must tell them about the sin and about the present state of our will toward it. Hence, we have to confess the sin and that we have repented.

Confession is thus indicated as the mode by which we are to confess, at least for those sins grave enough to require this.

Incidentally, it is worth noting that 1 John 1:9 indicates that we must continue to approach God via confession when we have sinned. This means that, contrary to a popular impression among many Protestants, it is not the case that all our sins past, present, and future are forgiven when we become Christian. Only our past sins are forgiven. If we commit new sins, we need to repent of these and be forgiven of them. This is why he established confession, so that we might have a visible and efficacious sign (i.e., a sacrament) of God’s forgiveness as an ongoing part of the Christian life.

The fact that he established it indicates that we should avail ourselves of it.

And thus the early Christians understood the matter.

SEE HERE FOR INFO ON THAT.

In regard to praying to the saints, I’d recommend that you check out THIS PAGE and also THIS ONE.

Thanks for your willingness to investigate these matters. Hope this helps, and God bless!