April 24, 2008
Meet the Next Doctor of the Church
(Jimmy Akin)
Probably.
I mean, it's not certain, but at this point it's probable.
Why do I say that?
And who am I talking about?
If you don't recognize his picture, it's John Henry Cardinal Newman.
As to why is it probable, well, he is to be beatified.
If he is beatified, it is likely that he will (at some point) be declared a saint.
(NOTE: There is already an investigation underway of a possible second miracle needed for sainthood.)
If that happens, it's a dead certain lock that he will be named a doctor of the Church.
Why?
Because Newman's writings made the kind of important theological contribution to Catholic teaching that doctors of the Church make.
In particular, his theory on the development of doctrine helped the Church in a very important way by allowing theologians to better articulate the manner in which doctrine progresses, how something can be implicit in one age and made more explicit and precise with the course of time. He also did important work on the doctrine of conscience and other subjects.
Newman's theological contributions are so substantial that if you look at the index of people cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and if you eliminate all the saints and popes, you're left with basically three names: Newman, Origen, and Tertullian.
At least those three get mentioned more than anybody else in the not-a-saint, not-a-pope category.
Tertullian will never be a saint, because he died a schismatic.
Origen is undergoing something of a rehabilitation, as can be seen from the kind of treatment B16 gave him in his series of Wednesday audiences on early Christian figures.
But Newman is the closest to being given the title "doctor."
It may even happen at the same time as his canonization, should that be forthcoming.
MORE ON NEWMAN.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in The Church | Permalink | Comments (78)
April 04, 2008
Calling Priests "Father" In Latin
(Jimmy Akin)
They don't.
Call priests "Father" in Latin, that is.
This is a fact that came to my attention recently when I was reading a volume of Roman Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions (a canon law journal that prints what its name indicates) that had a revision from the reign of John Paul II of the rescript of laicization that is given to priests who are returned to the lay state (in terms of how they function in the Church; they still remain priests ontologically).
The revision was notable in that it allowed bishops to do things like, after a period of time, allow the ex-priest to serve as a lector or an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.
What caught my attention, though, was the way the document refers to the priest.
In the English translation, it says something like "Father _____________ of the Diocese of ______________ is hereby . . . blah, blah, blah, etc."
But in the original Latin, it doesn't say the Latin equivalent of "Father _____________," which would be "Pater _____________."
Instead, it said, "D.nus _____________."
D.nus?
I recognized that as almost certainly an abbreviation for "Dominus" or "Lord," which is a title that is still used for clergy in Latin, as it is in some countries (like England) as a title for nobility.
Thus when B16 was elected, Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez announced:
« Fratelli e sorelle carissimi ! ¡ Queridísimos hermanos y hermanas ! Biens chers frères et sœurs ! Liebe Brüder und Schwestern ! Dear brothers and sisters ! Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum : Habemus papam ! Emminentissimum ac reverendissimum dominum, dominum Iosephum, sanctæ romanæ Ecclesiæ cardinalem Ratzinger, qui sibi nomen imposuit Benedicti decimi sexti. »
The blue part would be "Lord Joseph (Cardinal of the holy roman Church) Ratzinger."
(BTW, you can listen to that online HERE. I just love listening to it and recalling that day. I especially like the brief pause before he enthusiastically says "Ratzinger." WHEEEE! I love it. HERE ARE MORE HABEMUS PAPAM RECORDINGS OF OTHER POPES.)
Anyway, after looking at the rescript, I called a friend who is a Latinist and who is well acquainted with Church documents in Latin and asked two questions:
1) Is Dominus the normal honorific used for priests in Church documents.
Yes.
2) Do they use Pater or an synonym?
No.
So it seems that calling priests "Father" is something that happens in vernacular languages like English (Father) or Spanish (Padre) or Arabic (Abunah) but not (at least not typically) in the Church's official documents.
Interesting.
I said to my friend: "I bet there are a bunch of priests who don't know they are 'Lord So-and-So' in Latin."
My friend: "Let's not tell them."
Posted by Jimmy Akin in The Church | Permalink | Comments (51)
January 14, 2008
I've Been Saying This For Years
(Jimmy Akin)
It's shocking!
You know how only a third of Catholics believe in the Real Presence?
Well, they don't.
By which I mean: It isn't true that only a third of Catholics believe in the Real Presence.
That's a myth that got created due to thee things: (1) a pollster using a poorly worded questions that didn't correspond to Catholic teaching, meaning that Catholics responding to the question weren't sure how to answer it in a way that reflected their faith, and so the pro-Real Presence vote got split among several different categories. (2) Those reading the results of the poll didn't pay careful attention to how the question was worded and what the implications were for how the different categories had to be pieced back together to get an accurate indication of belief in the Real Presence. (3) The general desire to lament how bad things are these days led people to read the results in terms of a staggering crisis of faith.
And so for years the idea has been floating around out there that only a small number of Catholics actually believe in the Real Presence, despite the fact that it isn't true.
Now, I'm happy to concede that not enough Catholics believe in the Real Presence. 100% of them should. I'm also happy to concede that not enough Catholics understand the Real Presence in the manner articulated by the Church (transubstantiaion). Some have views that are fuzzy on that point, and bad catechesis is a key factor in that.
But the numbers are nowhere near as bleak as people make out.
And now there's a new study (by the National Catholic Reporter folks, of all people), that backs this up. Fr. Richard John Neuhaus writes:
81 percent say that “belief that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist” is essential in their understanding of the Catholic faith. Keep in mind that the survey is of a cross section of the 65 million Catholics in the U.S. (although Latinos are greatly underrepresented). Among the more highly committed Catholics, it is reasonable to assume that belief in the Real Presence is considerably higher than 81 percent. This is worth keeping in mind because some years ago a clumsily worded question in a survey came up with the conclusion that only one third of Catholics believed in the Real Presence, and that “finding” still crops up in discussions on the state of Catholicism. Among active Catholics, belief in the Real Presence, as also in the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection of Jesus, edges up toward unanimity.
GET THE STORY.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in The Church | Permalink | Comments (132)
November 12, 2007
November Bishops Meeting
(Jimmy Akin)
The U.S. bishops are meeting this week in the second of their two meetings that are held each year.
JOHN ALLEN HAS A PREVIEW HERE.
HE ALSO HAS UPDATED COVERAGE UNDERWAY HERE.
If I can, I'll offer some thoughts about what they're discussing this time, but I wanted to get links up first so that people could stay informed on the progress of the meeting.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in The Church | Permalink | Comments (41)
October 09, 2007
Interview with Cardinal George
(Jimmy Akin)
John Allen has an interesting interview with Cardinal George which, for some idiotic reason,the NCR folks decided to put online in pdf form.
FIRST, HERE'S A BACKGROUNDER ON THE INTERVIEW.
AND HERE'S THE INTERVIEW ITSELF.
In the interview, Cardinal George has a number of things to say that have a bearing on the thesis that a broader cultural shift among Catholics is significantly responsible for declining Mass attendance and other religious practice, yet he also faults the leadership of the Church for contributing to the problem out of a sense of sociological naivete.
Rodney Stark and William Bainbridge talk about the distinction between “high tension” and “low tension” religion, arguing that over time low tension groups tend to dissolve into secularism.
That’s right. In the 60s, it was very important to show you could be American and Catholic. Whole magazines were devoted to that. There was a collective sigh of relief at the Second Vatican Council, with human freedom being so much in the forefront of the conciliar concerns, that the tension wasn’t there anymore. I think some of the moves of the church in that period now seem sociologically naïve, in their long-term consequences.
What do you have in mind?
Catholicism as a distinctive way of life was defined by eating habits and fasting, and by days especially set aside that weren’t part of the general secular calendar. They were reminders that the church is our mediator in our relationship to God, and can enter into the horarium [calendar] that we keep, into the foods that we eat, into all the aspects of daily life, into sexual life. Once you say that all those things can be done individually, as you choose to do penance, for example, you reduce the collective presence of the church in somebody’s consciousness. At that point, the church as mediator becomes more an idea for many people. Even if they accept it, it’s not a practice. So then when the church turns around and says ‘You have to do this,’ then resistance is there to say, ‘How can you tell me that? I’m deciding on my life for myself, and you even told me I could!’
Cardinal George also comments on the situation with the new translation of the liturgy being prepared and notes that, while the new translations are better and the right thing is being done in preparing them, it's still going to be a significant adjustment for people:
Bishop Donald Trautman and others worry that when that Sunday comes and you have to explain to people that from now on they will be saying “and with your Spirit” rather than “and also with you,” there will be a negative reaction. Do you share those concerns?
Hopefully, there will be a lot of good catechesis, which is already being prepared in all the English-speaking countries. That [a negative reaction] will happen if it’s not well prepared. It will be a lot harder, as we all know, to go from English to English than from Latin to English. The Latin was foreign anyway, and this was our language. Now we’ve got something that is our language, and we’ve got something new that is also our language with a slightly different cast. That’s going to be hard. Beyond that, we’ve memorized. I can say the canons by heart. We can enter into them and pray them. Even if they’re not great translations, they’re not bad, and in many ways they’re quite beautiful. I’ve made them my own. It’s good when you say “We believe,” and people go down the line through the Creed. We’re changing four lines in that thing. It’s going to be difficult. People will go back again to reading it, whereas for 20 years now we’ve just been able to remember it. That’s not going to easy, and nobody’s looking forward to it.
Is it worth it?
Oh yes. I think the translations are superior. There’s a lot of the richness of the Roman rite, and therefore our faith, because our liturgy reflects our faith, that we will have present in our hearts again. But it will take 20 years, maybe, before we have it memorized. I mean, I’ll probably go to my death fighting not to say, “and also with you,” because it’s so second nature by now. People know immediately what to do. That’s great, that’s a sign of unity. So we’re introducing a discordant note in our unity, for a good purpose. I think the reason is very adequate, but it’s going to be work.
GET THE STORY. (PDF WARNING)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in The Church | Permalink | Comments (43)
September 28, 2007
Sigh.
(Jimmy Akin)
So the Dutch Dominicans have put out a pamphlet calling for local churches to pick their own ministers, men or women, married or single, straight or homosexual, to celebrate the Eucharist, and hopefully these will be ordained by the local bishop and everyone will join hands and sing Kumbaya, blah, blah, blah.
Doesn't this stuff ever get old to them?
Actually, it's the people who are getting old, according to some.
EXCERPT:
Wim Houtman, religion editor for Nederlands Dagblad, a major Dutch newspaper, told NCR that the booklet reflects the views of an aging generation in Holland, many of whom are active in their local parishes, and disappointed by what they see as a conservative turn under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
Yet such debates, Houtman said, “mean nothing … to the people in their twenties and thirties who increasingly make the music in the Dutch Catholic Church.”
Yeah. Same graying of the dissident movement that's happening here. Dissidentism fails to reproduce itself effectively, leading to an aging of the dissident population.
It'll be interesting to see if the Vatican intervenes on this one or if they just leave it up to the Dutch bishops and the leadership of the Dominican order.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in The Church | Permalink | Comments (27)
July 31, 2007
Happy St. Ignatius of Loyola Day!
(Jimmy Akin)
That includes, especially, all of the members of the Society of Jesus!
Though it may be somewhat impolitic to say so, I've often remarked that Jesuits are like the "little girl with the little curl, right in the middle of her forhead." When they're good, they're very, very good, and when they're bad, their horrid.
But I just got an e-mail from some of the good ones.
He writes:
I visit your website and I just wanted to drop you a note and let you know about something:
July 31st is the feast of Saint Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus - a.k.a. the Jesuits. For his feast day, www.companionofjesus.com (my website) is launching Jesuit Review, a 10 installment set of internet videos focusing on Jesuit/Ignatian spirituality, Jesuit history and contemporary Jesuits. You can find the first installment by clicking the Jesuit Review link at www.companionofjesus.com.
Carlos Esparza, SJ and I have created the series of internet videos that hopefully will give some insight into Jesuit/Ignatian spirituality. I think you'll like them. Given all of the press that Jesuits get, we thought it would be important to offer some basic introductory material about what Saint Ignatius hoped would drive the Society of Jesus.
I have to admit, Carlos and I are amateurs. Neither of us had ever been in front or behind a camera before and we had certainly never played around with video editing software. But, in the 4 weeks we had to complete the project, I think we came a long way.
I'm writing you in hopes that you will help spread the word about the videos. If we are successful in getting people to learn more about Jesuit/Ignatian spirituality, I expect that the New Orleans Province of the Society of Jesus will encourage us to work on more projects of a similar kind.
Thanks in advance for any help you can give.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in The Church | Permalink | Comments (48)
July 20, 2007
Quo Vadis, Europa?
(Jimmy Akin)
John Allen had an interesting piece today regarding how the Holy See's relationship with Europe is likely to change in coming years. There are a lot of interesting things in the piece, but I'll call attention to and comment on a few.
First, the growing secularization of Europe (resulting in an unwillingness to take into account or adhere to Catholic values) will result in the Holy See taking a less pragmatic and more principled stand in its dealings with the European Union. That's a good thing, because if you don't stand up for your principles, problems result. A singificant part of the problems we find ourselves in today are due to an excessive pragmatism in the past. If bishops had started excommunicating pro-abort Catholic politicians back when Catholic identity mattered to the politicians in a substantive way, there'd be a lot fewer pro-abort Catholic politicians than there are now.
It also seems to me that there's a sequence in which pragmatism and principle are likely to alternate as an entity's fortunes wane. If an entity (like the Church) is in the ascendancy in a culture--if it's substantially running the show culturally--then it's going to be very pragmatic in its approach because it's trying to hold a culture together and that involves countless difficulties of a pragmatic nature. But if it's lost that influence (as the Church in Europe has) then it's going to be much more principled in its approach since it (a) no longer needs to run the whole culture and (b) needs to shore up its own identity contra the culture. If the culture begins to actively persecute it, however, a shift back to pragmatism occurs, only this time the pragmatism isn't directed toward running a culture but toward survival. This is what we see in Christian communities in the Middle East, where Christians have to be extraordinarily diplomatic and careful in order to prevent Muslim reprisals. Ultimately, though, if persecution goes far enough, a return to principle will occur--or not. There is a point, known as martyrdom, where you have to decide whether you will ultimately stick with your core principles or not, and you either do or don't.
We have Christ's assurance that the Church as a whole will survive, but it may fare very ill in Europe and we might actually get martyr popes one day, which leads to one of Allen's points:
Vatican policy on Europe will be more uncompromising and less amenable to Realpolitk solutions which aim to make a separate peace with secularism. This will have consequences across the [board], but one area likely to be especially combustible is same-sex marriage and gay rights. A more identity-driven Catholicism may run up against the growing legal protection of homosexuality in Europe to produce legal action against the church under hate speech and anti-discrimination laws. One under-40 Catholic priest I know, in this case a Canadian though he might easily be European, tells me that among priests of his generation, it's taken for granted that some may go to jail for defending Catholic teaching on sexuality. It's reminiscent of the way Catholic priests in Eastern Europe used to realistically accept that some of them might end up in Soviet gulags.
Allen also makes the point that the Holy See's relations with Europe are likely to shift from supporting particular short-term policy outcomes to articulating matters of fundamental principle that will (hopefully) bear fruit in the longer term.
To my mind this is also a good thing. Bishops around the world, out of a commendable desire to help their flocks, have been tempted to engage the Church in supporting particular political projects that stray too far from matters of principle and too far into matters of application. It's one thing to say "No homosexual marriage!" It's another thing to say "This farm bill has it's subsidies misallocated!" The first is far more within the Church's brief than is the second.
As is illustrated by one of Allen's final points, which--although he doesn't say it this way--shows that Catholics have different perspectives on these matters, and the globalization of the Catholic Church is going to make these differences felt in Europe:
Not only does a multipolar Vatican diplomacy leave Europe a bit out in the cold, it also promises sharper conflicts with Europe, and this time not just on gay rights. Catholic leaders from the global south are often bitterly critical of Europe and the United States on matters of economic justice and militarism; for example, many southern bishops talk about the World Bank and the IMF the way American bishops do Planned Parenthood, that is, as the church's central bête noir. Perceptions of unfair trading practices in Europe, especially its massive agricultural subsidies, are a matter of deep southern Catholic resentment. Under the impress of multipolar diplomacy, we might anticipate a future in which the flashpoints of church/state relations in Europe could be expressed as "sex, secularism, and subsidies."
Posted by Jimmy Akin in The Church | Permalink | Comments (125)
July 06, 2007
Lay Ecclesial Ministry & the Feminization of the Church
(Jimmy Akin)
John Allen had some interesting commentary last Friday on lay ecclesial ministry and the feminization of the Church.
He describes the basic phenomenon of increased lay ministry well (for good or ill), and much of what he has to say is quite insightful.
I'd like to write a longer commentary on what he has to say than I can at the moment (perhaps I can revisit the subject another time), but I'd call attention to at least a few points, briefly:
Allen notes (correctly) that in both the Catholic Church and in Protestant churches (even those that allow women ministers), the top level of leadership consists of men, but the level below this is largely women. That's to be expected for several reasons:
a) Women are--in all cultures and times--more religious than men, meaning that they're more likely to sign up/volunteer/whatever. However,
b) Men are not biologically equipped to bear and nurse children the way women are, which makes them the natural primary caregivers for children, which takes women out of the work/volunteer pool for a considerable length of time (at least until the children don't require constant supervision). In humans, bearing and raising young requires an intense personal investment (compared to some species, where the young are on their own from the moment they're hatched), which means--and this is especially true historically--that if a human family has to make a choice about who is the primary caregiver for the children and who is the primary breadwinner, the choices that most families will make, and have made historically, are obvious. This has an impact on human psychology, specifically:
c) Women are on average more psychologically oriented toward caregiving within the family and men are more psychologically oriented toward interacting with the outside world, which means things like pursuing a career (income for the family), fighting wars (protecting the family), and pursuing leadership (securing a place for the family in the broader social situation). Men have an innate leadership instinct that is stronger--on
average--than the same instinct is in women.
Because of factors (b) and (c), men disproportionately form the leadership of almost every institution: the family, the state, the business world, and the religious world. Men have a stronger drive to achieve in these areas, and because of their biological inability to bear and nurse children, they aren't taking time off to do those activities and can devote themselves more fully to their careers.
You might even expect men to be even more dominant in the religious world than they are except for factor (a): Women are more religious than men, which ensures them a prominent place in religious institutions.
What I have said thus far, of course, is based on the law of averages. It's not true of every individual. Some women are more driven to lead than some men and some men are more nurturing than some women in the same way that some women are taller than some men and some men live longer than some women (greater height being a male thing on average and greater longevity being a female thing on average). Similarly, some men are more religious than some women. It's all averages.
So the pattern that we actually see is to be expected: Men outnumber women in the top leadership roles in religious institutions, but women outnumber men in the next layer down.
In the Catholic Church, this reality has been reflected from the very beginning: Christ appointed apostles (leaders) who were all men, but we then read about there being a group of women (not men!) who ministered to their needs in turn.
Based on this defining, founding experience, the Church recognizes that the priesthood is something that can be held only by men, but it allows for a prominent place for women religious (think: priests and nuns).
In contemporary Protestant churches there have been some that have allowed women ministers, but the same pattern holds: Senior ministers are disproportionately male, while other church workers (including junior pastors) have a higher female representation, and sometimes are disproportionately female.
That's just the way the human species is. This pattern is straight out of human biology and psychology. It's part of our species' reproductive strategy. It's how God designed us.
But there can be fluctuations in how this gender dynamic plays out. Different religious bodies may have a more masculine or a more feminine orientation, and it's not hard to see how some churches have become so oriented toward one gender--by tilting toward a masculine spirituality or a feminine spirituality--that the environment becomes uncongenial to the other sex.
At one time there was much more of a stress on masculine spirituality in the Catholic Church than there is now. That's why we still speak of the Church militant as its earthly embodiment. But today the situation is changed, and it raises questions about how congenial an environment the Church is today for men.
Allen writes:
[S]ome recent writers have voiced concern that Christianity actually alienates men. David Murrow's Why Men Hate Going to Church (Nelson Books, 2004) and Leon J. Podles' The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity (Spence, 1999), illustrate the point. Murrow is a Presbyterian and Podles a Catholic, but both have noticed something similar about their respective denominations.
As Podles put it succinctly, "Women go to church, men go to football games."
Podles believes that Western Christianity has been feminizing itself for the better part of 1,000 years, beginning with medieval imagery about the church as the "Bride of Christ," which he associates with St. Bernard of Clairvaux and exhortations to "fall in love" with Jesus. While that kind of imagery has a powerful impact on women, Podles wrote, it's off-putting for men. Podles argued that Christian men have sublimated their religious instincts into sports, soldiering, fraternal organizations, and even fascism. When they do engage in religious activity, he wrote, it's more likely to be in a more masculine para-church organization such as the Knights of Columbus (note the martial imagery) or Promise-Keepers.
Even reviewers who didn't buy Podles' historical arguments generally conceded that he was onto something in terms of Christian sociology.
On a less theoretical note, Murrow, a media and advertising specialist, said he looked around after attending weekly church services for almost 30 years, and drew what to him seemed an obvious conclusion: "It's not too hard to discern the target audience of the modern church," he wrote. "It's a middle-aged to elderly woman."
This was never anyone's intention, Murrow said, but it's the inevitable result of the fact that these women have two things every church needs: time and money. In that light, he said, it's no surprise that "church culture has subtly evolved to meet women's needs." Murrow agreed with Podles that "contemporary churches are heavily tilted toward feminine themes in the preaching, the music and the sentiments expressed in worship."
"If our definition of a 'good Christian' is someone who's nurturing, tender, gentle, receptive and guilt-driven, it's going to be a lot easier to find women who will sign up," Murrow wrote.
I don't agree with everything Allen says in the piece. In particular, I have some qualifications that I'd make in his final section regarding salaries and gender, but the dominance of feminine spirituality today in the Catholic Church is a concern to me. As a former Evangelical, I have an experience of what it's like to be in a church that has a more masculine spirituality, and the Catholic Church's early zeal to evangelize was driven by a masculine impulse ("Convert those heathen!"). I have a concern that the Catholic Church today is in danger of--and, indeed, has already become--too oriented towards a feminine mode of spirituality.
Both modes are essential for the Church to function optimally, just as both a man and a woman are essential for a family to function optimally.
It's how God designed us.
After all, in the beginning there was Adam and Eve. It was "not good" that man should be alone, and it also is not good that woman should be alone. God meant for mankind to exist with the two sexes working together--bringing both of their viewpoints to the experiences they encounter--and when one viewpoint begins to crowd out the other, it's not a good thing.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in The Church | Permalink | Comments (188)
May 18, 2007
A New Corollary of Godwin's Law?
(Jimmy Akin)
Recently there was a story in the Catholic press about a speech in which an Italian churchman apparently referred to things like abortion and euthanasia as "terrorism with a human face."
Now there's this story about L'Osservatore Romano referring to an Italian commedian's jibes at B16 and the Church as "terrorism."
The paper is quoted as saying:
"This, too, is terrorism. It's terrorism to launch attacks on the Church," it said. "It's terrorism to stoke blind and irrational rage against someone who always speaks in the name of love, love for life and love for man."
I don't know what all the commedian said, but the story refers to him saying:
"The Pope says he doesn't believe in evolution. I agree, in fact the Church has never evolved," he said.
He also criticized the Church for refusing to give a Catholic funeral to Piergiorgio Welby, a man who campaigned for euthanasia as he lay paralyzed with muscular dystrophy. He died in December after a doctor agreed to unplug his respirator.
"I can't stand the fact that the Vatican refused a funeral for Welby but that wasn't the case for (Chilean dictator Augusto) Pinochet or (Spanish dictator Francisco) Franco," he said between musical acts at the open-air concert.
This kind of thing leaves me scratching my head.
I'm one of the biggest B16 fans there is, but I don't see how this kind of stuff amounts to "terrorism." Either there's something missing from the new story that the commendian said that would qualify in this regard or there is something in Italian culture that would allow these statements to be taken as incitements to violence or the word "terrorism" means something different in Italian . . . or I don't know what.
While people regularly talk about how hard it is to give a rigorous definition to the term, it seems to me that at the core of the idea of terrorism is using either violence or threats of violence to cause fear in order to get someone to do what you want.
If there isn't at least the threat of violence, it isn't terrorism. It's something else. For example, if someone threatens to release damaging information to get someone to do what he wants, it's blackmail.
If violence or the threat of violence isn't being used as some kind of coercion (either on the social policy level or on the personal level) then it isn't terrorism. Violence without the purpose of coercision is just violence. Thus murder--even mass murder--is not terrorism.
So I don't see how abortion or euthanasia or joking (even joking badly or offensively or mean-spiritedly) about the pope is terrorism.
But like I said, maybe the press reports have left stuff out, or maybe "terrorism" means something different in Italian.
I just hope we aren't approaching an ecclesiastical equivalent of Godwin's Law--something to the effect of "The more sharply felt the subject matter of a dispute is, the more likely a churchman is to call it 'terrorism.'"
That would only rob the word of its meaning.
Would that count as lexical terrorism?
Posted by Jimmy Akin in The Church | Permalink | Comments (60)
