A Special Note Of Thanks

I just wanted to put up a special note to thank those who have been e-mailing me and participating in the blog.

I especially want to thank those who are volunteering their time for the radio volunteer program. I’ve been getting lots of good highlight lists, and will be putting them up promptly.

I also want to thank those who have sent links to things I may want to blog. These are much appreciated, though I may not be able to use them all.

I also want to thank those who have e-mailed in questions. At the moment I have had a rush of these that it’s taking me a while to get to, so thanks for your patience. I’ll get to as many as I can.

I also want to thank the other bloggers who link me. It’s a vote of confidence that is much appreciated.

Finally, I want to thank everyone who comments. Your comments are the feedback I get on the blog and whether you like it and find it interesting. Reading them is the reward I get for investing the effort to write the blog.

Thanks again, and God bless, y’all!

What Is It With AP These Days?

Okay, a little lunchtime blogging due to a special situation going on today.

I don’t know what’s going on with the Associated Press these days. They seem congenitally unable to Get The Story Right.

TAKE THIS STORY, FOR INSTANCE.

It leads one to believe that Spain’s national conference of bishops has endorsed the idea that condoms should be used to help prevent the spread of AIDS. As a result, it has a lot of folks alarmed, wondering what’s up with that.

But here’s the deal: That article (on CNN’s web site) is an edited-down version of

THIS ARTICLE.

Or perhaps that one is an edited-up version of the one that CNN has.

Anyway . . .

The key sentence in the longer article is this:

Martinez Camino met the health minister as a representative of the church, though it was unclear whether he was expressing the official view of the church.

No, duh!!!

Listen: A person is Not Qualified To Be A Religion Reporter On Catholic Issues if he doesn’t know that something said by a single spokesman IS NOT AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE CHURCH. The only way policies get changed on the part of a national conference is if the conference as a whole takes a vote on it and issues a paper stating the policy change. Some offhand remark in front of the press by a spokesman of some kind does not a policy change make.

It doesn’t even matter if the spokesman is the president of the conference. The way Church law is structured, you have to have the whole conference take a vote or it isn’t policy. Think of it like Congress: It doesn’t matter what some senator’s aide says, or even what the president of the Senate says, unless Congress as a whole votes, it ain’t policy (or law).

Once again, the press gets it wrong.

Now, on a side note, if there really is an effort on the part of the Spanish bishops to change this then all I can say is los obispos son locos and we’ll have an interesting showdown with the Vatican.

UPDATE: THE VATICAN STRIKES BACK.

UPDATEUPDATE: SPAIN DENIES.

Gay Parents Redux

A reader writes:

Dear Mr. AikinAkin (spell it "Aikin" and you won’t be able to get to the blog 😉 –

With the greatest respect and appreciation for everything that you do for the Catholic Faith and evangelization,

Thanks! I appreciate the compliment!

I respectfully disagree with your opinion regarding the Orange County school that has children with homosexual "parents." 

Okay. I operate on the principle that not everybody has to agree with me.

Please keep in mind that I can’t remember a time where I have ever previously disagreed with you.  Also keep in mind that I am a "conservative" Catholic that attempts to follow the Magisterium teaching completely without exception.   I am in avid opposition to same-sex unions or marriage and I have been active in my diocese prodding pastors to speak out against such unions.

Good for you!

Here are my thoughts on what you posted on your blog:

I don’t believe you should  draw a line on the children because of the sins of their parents – ever. It is not right. It is not just. It sets terrible precedent. It appears exclusive and unwelcoming. It is in opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

For example, what if one of the children had a parent that had committed murder? That would certainly be number 20 or so on the scale. We could not visit the murderer in prison but refuse to  educate his child.  You can’t compromise the Gospel.

But – you can oppose the compromising of the Gospel by priests, sisters, and Bishops – that is where the problem is – go after the true problem.

I do understand that this situation is different in light of the promotion of the lifestyle by the homosexual couple and that they may be in teaching situations.  That is a problem – but it is a separate problem – it has to do with what is being taught, by whom, and how.  To me, it is the same problem that liberal, dissenting pastors provide.   In both cases, scandal is present and it must be remedied.  When I was faced with a severely dissenting pastor, I did not demand alll parishoners that agree with him vehemently leave.  I went to the Diocese and strongly made the case for truth being taught.

Once again, good for you.

I also believe in dealing with the problem where it is, but I think that in this case there is a problem not only with those in the Church who do not speak out against homosexuality but also a problem created in the classroom by the situation of having two homosexual "parents" putting a kid in a class of sexual innocents who shouldn’t be confronted with the existence of homosexuality at their age.

Let’s set the issue of homoexual parents aside and do a thought experiment involving a different and more extreme situation:

Suppose that there are two parents (male and female) who are nudists and who insist on walking around all day long–in public–buck nekkid. Suppose also that they live in Southern California and that the crazy laws of the state permit them to do so (as well as its warm climate). Is it their child’s fault that he has parents who are nudists? No. But, whenever he interacts with other children, he’s going to have a lot of them asking him about the fact that his parents are nudists.

As a result, he’s going to go back to his parents and ask them what to tell the other kids. They’ll tell him that being a nudist is an okay thing and that he should tell the other kids that. He thus, little by little, is going to become an apologist for public nudity, even though he may or may not be a nudist himself.

Now this family decides to put their kid in a Catholic school’s kindergarten class. What is the school to do? The other kids are going to become aware of the fact that the kid’s parents are nudists. They’re going to see it when they pick him up from school. They’re going to ask questions about his family and, kindergartners being terrible at keeping secrets, this fact is going to come out. The kid will then (a) be picked on and (b) be questioned and (c) respond by launching into nudism apologist mode.

Kids at this age level should not be faced with a knowledge of nudism, much less see people who insist on picking up kids from school while nude (or playing a role taking care of the class while nude). They should not have to deal with a nudist apologist in their midst at this age. They shouldn’t at this age even be aware of nudism.

It therefore seems to me that the school would not only be reasonable but required not to admit this kid under these circumstances. The basis for doing this is the fact that the school has to take into account the interests of all its students. It cannot allow the interest of a single student (having a Catholic education) to outweight the interests of all the other students (having a Catholic education and not being exposed to the reality of nudism and nudist apologists).

The thing to do would be to not admit the kid and to arrange for him to get instruction in the Catholic faith through some other means (e.g., private tutoring).

I think that if a school did make the mistake of admitting such a child then the parents who have kids there would be (a) entirely justified in protesting and (b) entirely justified in yanking their kids out of class to prevent them from being exposed to nudists and nudist apologists.

If you’re willing to go with me this far (leaving the above described conditions of the thought experiment in place) then it seems you should be willing to admit that there are at least some circumstances (and we can make the above conditions even more extreme  if needed; say, nudists who insist on engaging in the marital act in public when they are picking up their kid from school and who are allowed by the state to do this) in which the most prudent thing to do is to not admit the kid to school and to take care of his religious education in another way.

That’s not compromising the gospel. It’s upholding the gospel by not
allowing its message to be watered down for a whole class (or a whole
school) by the flagrant scandal of people living in open defiance of
basic gospel values.

If you agree to that principle it could be seen as a judgment call as to whether having two homosexual parents fall into that category.

In my opinion, it does.

Spectral Analysis

From John O’Sullivan of the Chicago Sun-Times:

What makes this internal paralysis so dangerous to the Democrats is that they are even more out of touch with ordinary Americans than they or the pundits realize. There are two political spectrums in America today — an elite spectrum and a popular spectrum.

The elite spectrum has the Democrats in the center, the voters on the center-right, and the Republicans on the far right. No one ever outlines this structure of opinion as clearly and explicitly as that. But it is regularly implied by the establishment media or centrist pundits in the course of their commentaries.

The popular spectrum of political opinion has the Democrats and liberal elites on the left, the Republicans in the middle, and the voters further out to their right.

Of course, not all issues fit into the popular spectrum comfortably. On some economic issues, for instance, the elite spectrum represents reality better. Thus, the voters are instinctively closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans on Social Security — which is why the congressional Republicans are distinctly nervous about the reform program proposed by the Bush administration.

What makes the Democrats’ task of recovery so difficult is that many of the issues that most concern voters — for instance, national security and gay marriage — fit into the popular spectrum better. But because the Democrats think in terms of the elite spectrum — and are encouraged to do so by elite institutions such as Hollywood and the media — they never realize their vulnerability.

READ MORE.

July 22, 2004

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW.

Highlights:

  • Could the perception of Purgatory for some people for some people involve a conscious experience of the disintegration of the body?
  • Did the original King James version of the Bible have 80 books?
  • If the priest does not believe that he is changing the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ are we still receiving the Eucharist from him?
  • The New Testament seems to imply both that accepting Grace is our choice and that only God decides who has an open heart… what is the explanation?  Does everyone on earth get actual Grace?
  • What is the official Catholic position on the gift of Tongues?
  • Is it true that on Judgement Day we will be judged with the same degree of forgiveness we show others?  Are we also to forgive persons who have committed truly evil acts?
  • How do we distinguish between worshipping God and honoring Mary and the Saints when we pray?
  • Where does the word "Sunday" come from?
  • When did the Church decide that it was okay for women to fulfill certain liturgical roles in the Church?  Does the Church nullify certain Scriptural passages in doing this?
  • How unusual was it for a young man of Jesus’ age to be "teaching" during the finding of Jesus in the Temple?
  • How do Seventh Day Adventists regard the change from the Julian to the Gregorian Calendar, i.e. did it change the day of the week?
  • Was Mary Magdalen a prostitute or an adultress?  What’s the difference between the two?
  • Is it a sin to go shopping on Sundays?  What if that shopping is entertainment?
  • Why does Jesus tell Mary Magdalen not to touch him after the Resurrection, but then encourage Thomas to touch him later?

God Hates That!

A reader writes:

Somebody’s been quoting this passage on a board I frequent often (www.bolt.com): Proverbs 6:16-19 "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: {17} A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, {18} An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, {19} A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."

Is it then proper to say that god Hates.

Also, What is youre take on the Hebrew notion of Hatred.  I am aware that it doesn’t have certain kinds of catagorically discriptive terms.  So if you have a first and a second choice, they may be discribed as "first and last" or if you like one option more than the other one may be "loved" and the other "hated".

Any thoughts.  Is it correct to say "God Hates,"?

Since Scripture uses the term in regard to God, it is possible to say that in some sense God hates. The question is: What sense? (Or senses.)

Since God is Love, and since he is very different from us, it is not to be expected that God hates in the same way we do. As Aquinas notes, God doesn’t have passions the way we do.

In an obvious sense, to say that God hates something (because it is evil, e.g., shedding innocent blood) may be taken to mean that it is inconsistent with his goodness.

In other cases, to say that God hates something (e.g., "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated") or that God wishes something to be hated (e.g., "If anyone comes to me but does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, and yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple") then it may be understood that he prefers something to it (Jacob rather than Esau) or that something else is to be preferred to it (having one’s first loyalty to Jesus rather than to any other).

It may also be possible to find places where divine justice is said to be administered in terms of God’s hatred of sin. In these cases, Aquinas would tell us (though I don’t have the reference handy) that God is willing a non-moral evil (e.g., pain) for purposes of a greater good (upholding justice, correcting behavior).

What cannot be said is that God commits the sin of hatred, i.e., willing evil against someone for its own sake.

As far as the Hebrews’ conception of hatred (which at times may have been expressed in Aramaic or even Greek rather than Hebrew), it may have been broader than ours, at least in the sense that the term could be used in senses that we today would never use it in English (e.g., Jesus’ statement about hating your family, though this may have been as shocking to its original audience as it is to us, so a broader understanding is not clear from that verse alone).

I am dubious of our ability at this late date to come up with a refined, carefully nuanced understanding of the meaning of the relevant Hebrew vocabulary. When you don’t have speakers of the dialect alive to question about what terms do and do not include (and biblical Hebrew is not identical to modern Hebrew, so the Israelis don’t count) it is difficult to reconstruct the exact parameters of words.

I suspect that the ancient Hebrews had a largely anthropomorphic understanding of God’s hatred, and the distinctions we would now draw are based on the revelation Christ gave us, as meditated upon throughout the centuries of Christian reflection.

X-Files Roundup–Or–The Agent Scully In Me

Down yonder, a reader writes:

Jimmy,

Out of curiosity, what do you think about the whole UFO phenomenon,
including reports of alien abductions, crop circles, etc.? It seems to
me that there are several possible explanations:

(1) Delusions
(2) Hoaxes
(3) Demonic activity
(4) Some combination of the above
(5) Genuine extra-terrestrial activity

My own opinion is that #4 is probably the most likely explanation. I
would be interested to hear your thoughts if you have time to comment.

Well, let’s see, these are just my suspicions rather than what I can prove, and I go back and forth on the percentages I’d ascribe to things, and anyone who wants is welcome to disagree with me as we’re outside the realm of Church teaching, but . . .

Crop circles (of the modern, complex variety): Total hoaxes. (Though I did like the Invader Zim episode where they found a crop circle being formed by a cow rolling around on its back in a field.)

UFO activity (meaning unidentified flying objects of extraterrestrial, extradimensional, or extratemporal origin): Some outright hoaxes, but usually the product of wishful thinking or misidentification of mundane phenomena, including experimental and classified aircraft that we (or other nations on Earth) have made. For example, I’m virtually certain that the famous "black triangles" that UFO enthusiasts were so hot up about a few years ago are just some kind of stealth technology we’ve got.

Sometimes plausible UFOs are not anything that exotic, though. Here in San Diego, the company Sanyo has (or had) a blimp that was white, had a company logo on it, and lit-up from the inside at night. I saw it one night and, in the distance you couldn’t see the company logo (certianly not as anything but indistinct "markings"). It looked like a floating white oval of light, clearly far too big to be a star, but not shaped like an airplane or helicopter. If I hadn’t seen the Sanyo blimp in the day before (and if I were a passionate UFO believer and if it hadn’t come close enough to identify the logo), I might have interpreted it as a UFO.

Alien abductions: A mix of hoaxes, psychosis and something that I would call "belief-influenced misinterpretation of experience." Lemme ‘splain:

As I am using the term, a psychosis is where a person is deprived of rationality on a particular point due to a pathological condition (e.g., they have a mental illness that leads them to have visions of being abducted by aliens, or they passionately believe that they have been adbducted even though there is nothing in their experience that could plausibly be interpreted as evidence of abduction).

Belief-influced misinterpretation of experience (BIME) is something less than that, and I suspect it is far more common than full-blown psychosis.

BIME does not involve a pathological condition. It involves interpreting an actual event (or events) in one’s experience, based on a (faulty) set of beliefs about how this event should be interpreted, and then coming to an erroneous conclusion.

Consider: Many people have trouble at times telling whether they’re lying awake in bed or whether they’re dreaming about lying awake in bed. (This happened to me yesterday morning, in fact. I had woken up and was trying to get back to sleep and wasn’t sure at certain points if I was still awake or asleep again yet.)

When this happens, the person may in fact be asleep and dreaming about lying in bed. When that happens, they may be unable to move because the brain’s sleep module has turned off voluntary motion of the body (so that we don’t physicalize what’s going on in our dreams, e.g., by sleepwalking). The person may thus dream about trying to move but being unable to do so. This is especially likely if he is in the twilight zone between true sleep and true wakefulness.

Since the dream module in his brain is still partially engaged he may, for example, dream about sinister people moving about in the other room or–if he is a passionate UFO enthusiast–he may dream about aliens in his own bedroom.

I’ve never had the latter dream (not being a passionate UFO enthusiast), but I have dreamed about lying awake in bed, being unable to move, and thinking there were sinister people moving in the other room.

Not being a passionate UFO enthusiast, when I woke up later on, I interpreted this experience as what it was: Just a dream. There never were any sinister people in the other room. It was just my dream module giving me a low-grade nightmare.

But if I had been a passionate UFO enthusiast, my alien abduction lore would have told me to interpret nighttime paralysis with sensing a presence of some kind as evidence of alien abduction.

Upon waking, I might conclude that I had been abducted by aliens. I might further examine my body and turn up little scars and "scoop marks" that I had never noticed before (or had forgotten) and see this as confirmatory evidence. I might then go to a hypnotist to do regression hypnosis on me and, since regression hypnosis is (in my opinion) nothing but a guided fantasizing experience that consists almost entirely of confabulation, I might come away with recovered "memories" of an abduction experience.

I would be wrong but, given my pre-existing passionate UFO beliefs (and belief in regression hypnosis), this would be a reasonable (in the sense of non-psychotic) interpretation of my experience.

I think many people who think they’ve been abducted by aliens are the victims of belief-influenced misinterpretation of experience. Some are psychotic. Some are liars.

The above represent my best guesses (based on some familiarity with the field). I can’t rule out demonic activity in some cases, but I tend to think that physical/visible manifestations of the demonic are rare (tricking people into BIME is another matter, however).

Not being omniscient or infallible, I can’t say actual extraterrestrial visitation is impossible, but I am deeply, deeply skeptical of it.