JIMMY AKIN.ORG

Sunday Rest Special: What Can You Do on Sunday?

Can you spend money on Sunday? Can you mow the lawn? Can you cook dinner? Can you go out to a restaurant? Can you go to a sporting event? Do you have to sit in a chair and read the Bible?

Just what can and can't you do on Sunday?

And how can you have a positive rather than legalistic attitude toward Sunday?

How can Sunday help you grow closer to the Lord?

 These are among the questions we explore in this week's episode of the Jimmy Akin Podcast!

Click Play to listen . . .

or you can . . .

CLICK HERE!

. . . or subscribe another way (one of many ways!) at JimmyAkinPodcast.Com.

SHOW NOTES:

JIMMY AKIN PODCAST EPISODE 024 (12/10/11) 

* MARK FROM OREGON ASKS ABOUT SPENDING MONEY ON SUNDAY

Dies Domini:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_dies-domini_en.html

CCC 2184-2188:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7O.HTM


WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ASK?
Call me at 512-222-3389!
jimmyakinpodcast@gmail.com
www.JimmyAkinPodcast.com

Join Jimmy's Secret Information Club!
www.SecretInfoClub.com

Today’s Music: For Now For Tomorrow (JewelBeat.Com)
Copyright © 2011 by Jimmy Akin

 

Did Jesus Quote the Deuterocanonicals? Receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts. Should I Quit My Job at Hospital?

You often hear that Jesus and the apostles quoted from the deuterocanonical books of the Bible--those that aren't in the Protestant Old Testament. Did they? If not, what does the New Testament's use of the Old Testament tell us about the canonicity of those books?

In Acts 8 Luke describes a situation where a group of people have been baptized, but he says that the Holy Spirit hasn't fallen on them yet. If we receive the Holy Spirit in baptism, how can we explain this?

What if you work in a hospital that performs In Vitro Fertilization or other immoral procedures. If your own work is doesn't involve those, do you still have to quit your job?

These are among the questions we explore in this week's episode of the Jimmy Akin Podcast!

Click Play to listen . . .

or you can . . .

CLICK HERE!

. . . or subscribe another way (one of many ways!) at JimmyAkinPodcast.Com.

 

SHOW NOTES:
JIMMY AKIN PODCAST EPISODE 022 (11/26/11) 

* WHIT FROM FLORIDA ASKS ABOUT QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW

Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete SurveyBy Gleason Leonard, Jr. Archer and Gregory Chirichigno
http://astore.amazon.com/jimmyakincom-20/detail/1597520403

NOTE: "Septuagint" is abbreviated LXX

Categories:

A (straightforward LXX): 268
B (LXX where it slightly deviates from MT): 50
C (Masoretic Text): 33
D (LXX where it deviates more from the MT): 22
E (Other): 13
F (Allusions that aren't quotations): 32

Total using LXX as primary text: 340
Total using MT as primary text: 33

Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm

* WESLEY FROM BROOKLYN ASKS RECEIVING THE HOLY SPIRIT IN ACTS

CCC 1288-1290

* "CONFLICTED" ASKS ABOUT QUITTING HER JOB AT A HOSPITAL THAT DOES IMMORAL PROCEDURES

WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ASK?

Call me at 512-222-3389!
jimmyakinpodcast@gmail.com
www.JimmyAkinPodcast.com

Join Jimmy's Secret Information Club!
www.SecretInfoClub.com

Today’s Music: Groove It Now (JewelBeat.Com)
Copyright © 2011 by Jimmy Akin

How to Solve Moral Dilemmas (Plus: How to Recognize Hypocrisy)

There are many times in life where we're confronted with moral dilemmas. It seems like all of our options are bad--even sinful. But are they really? What are we supposed to do in these situations? How can we solve the dilemma? 

For example, suppose your child is desperately sick and the only cure is one that was derived from unborn babies who were killed for medical research. Can you use the vaccine to save your child's life? Does doing so mean you're cooperating with the culture of death?

And if you use the cure, does that make you a moral hypocrite? How can we assess charges of hypocrisy?

These are among the questions we explore in this week's episode of the Jimmy Akin Podcast!

Click Play to listen . . .

or you can . . .

CLICK HERE!

. . . or subscribe another way (one of many ways!) at JimmyAkinPodcast.Com.

 

SHOW NOTES:

JIMMY AKIN PODCAST EPISODE 021 (11/20/11) 

 

* DARRIN ASKS ABOUT MORAL DILEMMAS, EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH, & HYPOCRISY

1 Cor. 10:13: "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it."

 

Instruction Dignitas Personae (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), section 35.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html

 

"Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself" (Samuel Johnson, The Rambler No. 14). 

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/Joh1Ram.html

 

 

WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ASK?

Call me at 512-222-3389!

jimmyakinpodcast@gmail.com

www.JimmyAkinPodcast.com

 

Join Jimmy's Secret Information Club!

www.SecretInfoClub.com

 

Today’s Music: Active Cheerful (JewelBeat.Com)

Copyright © 2011 by Jimmy Akin 

 

"Darn Tootin'!" Obama Brags on His Thuggish Contraception Policy

You know that thuggish contraception policy that President Obama’s administration recently proposed as part of their implementation of ObamaCare?

The one whose public comment period ended last Friday?

The one that the U.S. bishops were frantically trying to get Catholics to contact Health and Human Services and oppose?

The one that the bishops’ attorneys said “represents an unprecedented attack on religious liberty”?

The one that they also said involves a mandate that is “unprecedented in federal law and more radical than any state contraceptive mandate enacted to date”?

The one that would require many Catholic agencies to stop offering insurance to their employees because it would require their insurance policies to cover contraception?

The one that would force countless Catholics to buy insurance plans that fund contraception?

Yeah, that’s the one.

You know what?

President Obama is really proud of it!

Here’s an exchange that took place at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in St. Louis on Tuesday, according to the official White House transcript:

KEEP READING.

Condom Zombies Hijack Pope Benedict!

No doubt you remember the firestorm that erupted when Pope Benedict’s appeared to express some form of openness to the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS in the case of prostitutes having sex with clients. We blogged about that a good bit.

The firestorm was caused by the fact that a lot of people either unwittingly or intentionally misrepresented this as some kind of blanket endorsement by the pope of condoms.

It was nothing of the kind. Responsible parties debated precisely what the pope’s meaning was, as there was some ambiguity to what he said, but it was clear that whatever he was saying was extremely limited in scope and certainly nothing like the broad aspirations of “safe sex” advocates.

At most, he was presenting the use of condoms by prostitutes as a way of limiting the evil done in the act of prostitution—because, y’know, prostitution is kinda like a soul-destroying mortal sin to begin with—so that in addition to destroying the soul through sin the act might not also destroy the body through a horrible disease.

Indeed, the pope spoke of this as being only a “first step” in taking responsibility for one’s actions, a step along a path that would lead one to cease the immoral sex altogether, making condoms unnecessary.

And then there was the fact that he also stressed that condoms are not the solution to the overall problem, which is a defective view of human sexuality.

It was really tough to get these point across—the limited nature of what Pope Benedict appeared to be expressing openness to—amid the throng of condom advocates mindlessly chanting that the pope had “approved condoms” much in the manner of a swarm of zombies mindlessly chanting “Brains . . . ! Brains . . . !”

Now the hordes of the spiritually undead have returned to their mindless chant with a new ad campaign designed to hijack Pope Benedict’s words and turn them to their own evil ends.

KEEP READING.

Who Would Jesus Whip?

A story caught my eye on Catholic News Agency, according to which:

Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans said that a local Catholic school must permanently ban corporal punishment for student misbehavior, even though many parents and alumni support the practice. ...

Since 1951 teachers and administrators at the historically black all-boys school have used an 18-inch-long wooden paddle, known as “the board of education,” to administer punishment to students for tardiness, sloppy dress or other minor infractions.

However, Archbishop Aymond and Josephite superior general Fr. Edward Chiffriller, who heads the school’s board of trustees, ordered an end to the practice.

A town hall meeting assembled to discuss the change attracted an audience that numbered over 600 and included current students from grades six to 12, current and former parents, grandparents, benefactors and friends of the school.

"Board of education." Heh. Definite points for that.

Personally, I do not have an opinion on whether corporal punishment should be administered at St. Augustine High School -- the school in question. My own conviction is that the issue of corporal punishment is one for parents to decide. I have known some parents who have successfully raised children using it seldom or never. I also know there are parents who feel it is has played an important and needed role in raising their children. The fact is that children are different, and some respond to different things. To one child a time out may be far more agonizing (and motivating) than a paddling. To others just the reverse will be the case. Whether corporal punishment is to be used in the case of their own children -- and how much and when -- is something that I view as within the natural law rights of the parents.

Because of that, I can see why a school might choose not to have corporal punishment on campus, simply in respect of the rights of parents who do not wish it administered to their children (quite apart from issues of lawsuits and such). I can also see a school having a policy of allowing corporal punishment for those children whose parents do not object to it (such a policy could be a little tricky, but doable). And I can see a school saying, "It is our policy to use corporal punishment in disciplinary cases. If you have a problem with that policy, feel free to place your children with another school that has a different policy."

So, I don't have a problem with schools taking different policy positions on this, just as I don't have a problem with parents doing so. I think reasonable people can have a legitimate diversity of opinion.

I also don't have a problem with Archbishop Aymond deciding not to have corporal punishment at St. Augustine. As the local bishop, that's within his purview.

I would, however, offer some thoughts on some of the claims made in the CNA story. I have to say that I wasn't at the town hall meeting, and so I don't know exactly what was said or in what context, but based on the coverage provided by CNA, several things leapt out at me:

KEEP READING.

The Morals of Killing bin Laden: Catholic Perspective

So it has been announced that Osama bin Laden is dead.

Good.

The twisted, evil mastermind responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent human beings has been shuffled off this mortal coil.

This provides a measure of justice. Not full justice. That’s in God’s hands. But some justice.

Of course, Our Lord’s command to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us still applies. We must hope that Osama bin Laden repented at the last second, or that he had been crazy for years and not responsible for his actions, or that God might provide for his salvation in some other way.

And we must remember that Christ himself died to make salvation possible for all men, Osama bin Laden included.

But possibility does not equal actuality. As Pope Benedict has reminded us in various works, evil is real and hell is a real choice. If anyone, judging by outward, human appearances, was ripe for going there, Osama bin Laden was a plausible candidate.

This may have even applied to his final moments. Reports are still sketchy, but it is reported that he died resisting the offensive against his compound, which may mean he was wielding a weapon. It is also reported that a woman who was one of the five people killed in the compound was used as a human shield. This may mean—and future reports may clarify this—that bin Laden himself grabbed the woman himself and tried to use her as a shield while he pointed a weapon at her or at others.

Not the kind of choices one wants to make just before one meets one’s Maker.

KEEP READING.

When You *Don't* Have to Say Something in Confession

Properly catechized Catholics know that, when we have committed mortal sins, we are obliged to confess them, how many times we committed them, and any circumstances that affect the moral species of the act (e.g., stealing from a church is different than ordinary stealing because of the element of sacrilege is involved, ditto for lying after having taken an oath before God as opposed to ordinary lying, adultery vs. fornication, etc. Note that these distinctions all involve the kind of sin being committed, not the degree of sinfulness; the Church has not required that we confess circumstances that affect the degree of sinfulness, only the kind).

Often times it is difficult for one reason or another to make this kind of confession, and if you read older moral and pastoral theology manuals they offer extensive discussions of the situations in which penitents are excused from making this type of confession.

Recently I received an email inquiry about how this fact relates to the 1983 Code of Canon Law's statement that:

Can. 960 Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the only ordinary means by which a member of the faithful conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and the Church. Only physical or moral impossibility excuses from confession of this type; in such a case reconciliation can be obtained by other means.

Individual confession and absolution is the kind of sacramental confession we normally make: One person (an individual) talking to a priest, who absolves him. This is opposed, for example, to a priest offering a general absolution to a bunch of people at once in a grave circumstance (e.g., they're all in an airplane that is about to crash and there is no time for individual confession). This latter is allowed in rare and grave circumstances. By nature it is an extraordinary situation, as opposed to individual confession and absolution being the "only ordinary means" of reconciliation.

The term "integral" confession is less familiar. What "integral" means is "complete." In other words, the kind of confession we talked about at the top of the post, where for all your mortal sins, you say what each sin was, how many times it was committed, and anything that affected the species or kind of sin it was.

Why my correspondent was wondering was--since Canon 960 says that "only physical or moral impossibility excuses from confession of this type," does the 1983 Code of Canon Law override all of the treatments given in older works of moral and pastoral theology about when one is excused from integral or "complete" confession.

KEEP READING.

POPE: Don't Evangelize Jews! Really?

Pope Benedict's remarks concerning Jewish individuals in his recent book Jesus of Nazareth (vol. 2) (GET IT HERE! GET IT HERE!) have attracted considerable attention.

For example, the book contains a passage which some have interpreted as saying that the Church should not seek to convert Jewish individuals. It is not at all clear to me that this is what the pope is saying. The passage is complex and bears more than one interpretation. So let's dive in and see what we can make of it.

The beginning of the discussion (which is not usually quoted by people commenting on the text) is this. Starting on p. 44 of the book, Pope Benedict writes:

 

At this point we encounter once again the connection between the Gospel tradition and the basic elements of Pauline theology. If Jesus says in the eschatological discourse that the Gospel must first be proclaimed to the Gentiles and only then can the end come, we find exactly the same thing in Paul’s Letter to the Romans: “A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved” (11:25–26).

The full number of the Gentiles and all Israel: in this formula we see the universalism of the divine salvific will. For our purposes, though, the important point is that Paul, too, recognizes an age of the Gentiles, which is the present and which must be fulfilled if God’s plan is to attain its goal.

So Pope Benedict is contemplating the two-stages of phases of history that precede the end of the world. First, there are what Our Lord refers to as "the times of the gentiles," in which the gospel is preached to all nations and the gentiles are given the chance to convert, and then the second stage in which the partial hardness that has come upon Israel is removed and so "all Israel will be saved"--a reference to a corporate conversion of the Jewish people at the end of history.

Note how this viewpoint differs from two rival viewpoints: First, it differs from the "Jews don't need Jesus, they have their own covenant" perspective. This idea, which has been trendy is some Catholic circles of late, is manifestly contrary to the teaching of the New Testament and to the historic teaching of the Church's magisterium. It also is not what Pope Benedict is advocating here. He is not saying that Jews don't need Jesus or that they don't need to become Christians. He is saying that they will corporately convert to Christ, but not until the end of time. Prior to that point, individual Jews may become Christians--as with the apostles and the very first Christians and with other converts from Judaism down through history. But the full, corporate conversion of Israel (which even then might not involve every single individual without exception) is something to be found only at the end of the world.

Secondly, the viewpoint that the pope is articulating is different than the "Jews don't matter any more; they don't have any special relationship with God or mission; their role has been completely supplanted by the Church and they have no further special significance." Again, this position is contrary to the New Testament, which ascribes an ongoing special place for the Jewish people in God's plan (as illustrated by the end of the world being contingent on their corporate conversion), and it is not the viewpoint that Pope Benedict is articulating. He recognizes, as we will see him say even more explicitly in a moment, that the Jewish people has a special and ongoing mission.

KEEP READING.

Lent Fight Update!

In the years I have been maintaining this blog, I have uploaded something over 4700 posts (according to current statistics). This makes it a bit hard to remember everything I've put up.

Fortunately, I have the memories of readers to remind me, and one reader in particular has reminded me that there are some posts that I had forgotten to include in the Annual Lent Fight that I uploaded yesterday. 

These posts concern, in particular, the Church's laws concerning Ash Wednesday and its laws regarding fasting.

As a result, I've done some link updating.

Since Ash Wednesday is a day of both fast and abstinence, I have chosen to repeat here the relevant links, along with this introductory note citing the main differences.

I hope this helps, and I wish all a tranquil and spiritually productive season of Lent.

GENERAL

• BASIC INFO ON LENT
• LENTEN READER ROUNDUP
• Q & A ON LENT (THIS ROCK)

DURATION

• THE DURATION OF LENT
• LET'S COUNT THE DAYS OF LENT
• "FORTY" DAYS
• THE INFAMOUS SUNDAYS IN LENT CONTROVERSY: I, II, III, IV,V

PENANCE IN GENERAL

• THE GRAVITY OF PENANCE
• FOLLOWUP I
• FOLLOWUP II

FASTING

• THE LAW OF FAST: FOOD
• FASTING AND BEVERAGES
• FASTING AND "APPROVED LOCAL CUSTOM"
• FASTING AND "NO SECOND MEAL"
• FASTING AND "SOME FOOD IN MORNING AND EVENING"
• A SHORT PRIMER ON FASTING (BY SDG RATHER THAN JIMMY)
• MORE ON FASTING (BY SDG RATHER THAN JIMMY)

ABSTINENCE

• THE LAW OF ABSTINENCE
• FISHING INDUSTRY HOAX
• CAPYBARAS AND OTHER AQUATIC NON-FISH
• SOLEMNITIES THAT FALL ON FRIDAY DURING LENT
• SOUPS MADE WITH MEAT

ASH WEDNESDAY

• ASH WEDNESDAY (OVERVIEW OF THE CHURCH'S LAW)
• HOW LONG DO YOU KEEP THE ASHES ON?

HOLY THURSDAY

• SEVEN CHURCHES VISITATION

GOOD FRIDAY

• WHY IS IT CALLED "GOOD" FRIDAY?

FRIDAY PENANCE OUTSIDE OF LENT

• MORE ON FRIDAY PENANCE

What do you think?