Thursday, Sept. 21
Joe Heschmeyer – Benedict XVI’s 5 Ways of Demonstrating the Existence of God
Dale Ahlquist – The Lost Art of Wonder
Friday, Sept. 22
Jimmy Akin – If God Exists, Why Do I Suffer?
Karlo Broussard – Why Doesn’t God Show His Face? Making Sense of Divine Hiddenness
Tim Staples – Seeing is Believing: How to Lead Souls to Belief in God
Francis Beckwith – Relativism, Morality, and the Existence of God
Saturday, Sept. 23
Dr. Scott Hahn – It is Right and Just; Why the Future of Civilization Depends on the Catholic Faith
Fr. Paul Check – Liturgy and Belief
Trent Horn – The New Case for God
Logan Gage – Beauty as a Path to God
Dinner Banquet with Keynote by Sr. Regina Marie Gorman and Music by Floriani
Looks like a good line-up. Dr. Frank Beckwith, a philosophy professor at Baylor, is excellent. He found his way back to the Catholic Church several years ago. Dale Ahlquist, a former Baptist, is head of the American Chesterton Society. The others seem good too, but Beckwith and Ahlquist may be lesser known in many Catholic circles. Those of you in southern California (and beyond) may want to check this out.
What happened to Michelle Arnold? She was my favorite apologist at CA.
She blogs on Patheos but she is not a Catholic apologist anymore.
She no longer goes to Mass but still considers herself a Catholic.
I erred. She stopped going to Mass because of COVID. That info is dated. This is interesting:
I’m no longer confined to the conservative American Catholic bubble. One of the things I’ve learned over the past few years is that 21st-century conservative American Catholicism is no more reflective of the whole of Catholicism than was 17th-century French Jansenism reflective of the whole of Catholicism of its time. The conservative American Catholic bubble is, in fact, rather like a soap bubble on bathwater. The larger it grows, the more likely it will be to eventually pop and disappear. Realizing that was very freeing
I had never heard of Michelle until this thread. Having read some articles from her website, I am beginning to understand the quote bubble has given us. She is saying that American conservative Catholicism has become ingrown and isolated, thus has not matured through contact with/listening to “the whole of Catholicism,” which she defines as people outside the conservative worldview; I am guessing that Pope Francis would be a leading representative of this group. As I see it, her new viewpoint is very much tied to the problems she felt existed at Catholic Answers — insulated, separate from real human needs, that is to say, not given to the only evangelism that means anything to her — bringing love/ joy to people in distress. Any apologetics void of comfort and sensitivity, as if it is all talk and no action, as I think she sees CA, would be an example of the expanding soap bubble which cannot sustain itself. I do not know much about Catholic Answers, but the program listed seems well-geared to meeting an important need in Catholicism today — the defense of its very beliefs. I may be wrong but there is not enough of this being done. There is plenty of room for giving love to the needy; I don’t think it is an either/or but a both/and. Without reading her further, I do not know how far afield she has gone from her conservative roots. I would think she champions P. Francis over P. John Paul II, or Amoris Laetitia over Veritatis Splendor.
There is no Pope Francis vs. Pope John Paul II.
Or Amoris Laetitia vs. Veritatis Splendor.
I am sure both Catholic Answers and Michele would tell you the same thing.
You seem to not really know the documents or the writings of both Popes.
“You seem to not really know the documents or the writings of both Popes.” Oh really? Justify your comments, please.
Amoris Laetitia is about Love in the Family.
Veritatis Splendor is about the moral teaching of the Church.
To documents: I don’t know if “Amoris Laetitia is about Love in the Family. Veritatis Splendor is about the moral teaching of the Church” is from you or someone else. If this is from you, please know that this superficial look at the documents does not in the least amount to a justification of your comments. The July 21, 2023 at 1:16 pm response to my post is a response illuminating nothing. If you mean what you say, you must explain in what sense there is no Pope Francis vs. Pope John Paul II, and what you mean when you say “Or Amoris Laetitia vs. Veritatis Splendor.” One might get the impression that there are no differences between the two men, or their writings. Let us consider Veritatis Splendor first. JP II gave 4 critiques of modern moral theory:
1. Consequentialist reasoning: He said they use “circumstances and the situation … (as) the basis of certain exceptions to the general rule” and so “permit one to do in practice and in good conscience what is qualified as intrinsically evil by the moral law” (56).
2. Flawed notion of conscience: He said they wrongfully set in opposition “the precept(s) [of the moral law], which [are] valid in general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision about what is good and what is evil” (56).
3. Moral absolutes are merely ideals: He said that they propose the “very serious error” that “the Church’s [moral] teaching is essentially only an ‘ideal,’ which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man” (103).
4. Sets the pastoral against the doctrinal: And he said that in the name of “so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions,” they propose what is “contrary to the teaching of the magisterium” and “justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept” (56).
Amoris Laetitia, however, embraces all four errors enumerated in Veritatis Splendor. See https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/amoris-laetitia-vs-veritatis-splendor-you-say-you-want-a-revolution.
As for the claim that “there is no Pope Francis vs. Pope John Paul II,” if there writings are in conflict, how can you conclude otherwise than that the men themselves are in conflict? Why else would P. Francis work so hard to destroy the legacy of John Paul II with respect to his purging the faculty and leadership at the John Paul II Institute in Rome, as well as the Pontifical Academy for Life (and in both cases violated academic due process), and replaced all of them with thinkers who are on the proportionalist/progressive moral theological spectrum? I ask these questions so that you may carefully consider whether it is appropriate to assign ignorance to someone you don’t know.
Pope Francis is a successor to Pope John Paul II not an antagonist.
Pope John Paul II does not have a legacy. He is an instrument in the hand of God. As is Pope Francis.
You did not prove your point at all.
You would have to show where Pope Francis varied from Pope John Paul II (yes, his style) but in morals and faith he is the same.
The confusion of the JPII years is very reminiscent of now, however, this confusion is being caused intentionally by a cancer that is growing in the Church. It will be excised.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Catechism: “882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor,. ..” On paper, this is beautiful, and at the core of our faith. But what does this have to do with
“There is no Pope Francis vs. Pope John Paul II. Or Amoris Laetitia vs. Veritatis Splendor…You seem to not really know the documents or the writings of both Popes?”
Their writings really are not in conflict. I think you are pulling out a sentence here and there.
Divorced and remarried Catholics may not receive communion.
They may get an annulment. They may live chastely.
If the annulment is declined, there is a process of appeal.
A priest would accompany the couple through all this.
To Legacy: “You would have to show where Pope Francis varied from Pope John Paul II (yes, his style) but in morals and faith he is the same.” To be fair to you, this issue is much debated. I took 4 aspects of JP II’s thought and said that Amoris Laetitia violated all 4, but did not elaborate due to space. I gave a link, https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/amoris-laetitia-vs-veritatis-splendor-you-say-you-want-a-revolution. Herein you will find an elaboration showing how Amoris Laetitia undermines Veritatis Splendor. Perhaps this might summarize the 4 points:(from https://catholicstrength.com/tag/veritatis-splendor-supersedes-amoris-laetitia/)
” It is therefore quite clear that where Amoris Laetitia attempts to circumvent Veritatis Splendor, that is, where it attempts to provide a moral calculus which allows one to transform an intrinsically evil act into something good (and even willed by God) under particular circumstances (again see AL 301-303), such a formulation lacks fidelity to the clear limitations imposed by Veritatis Splendor and is, therefore, ipso facto, invalid.”
Another link: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/07/14/the-undermining-of-john-paul-ii-in-the-name-of-veritatis-splendor/
For a contrary view, that is, the two are not contradictory, see https://wherepeteris.com/harmony-of-amoris-and-veritatis-splendor/. The author, Brian Killian, says this:
“The fact is that there are two dimensions in the moral life of human beings, the subjective dimension and the objective dimension. The objective dimension describes universal moral truths that constitute an immutable measure of human actions. The subjective dimension looks at the state of mind of an individual, and the quality of their moral acts in light of any limitations to their knowledge or their ability to act freely.” His thesis is that Veritatis Splendor deals with the objective dimension while Amoris Laetitia deals with the subjective. Hence they are complimentary.
But can the objective and subjective dimensions be in conflict? The issue of divorced and remarried Catholics receiving communion is presented as a case in point. But I will leave it to you to consider/read for yourself about this issue and whether Killian’s thesis is valid or not.
To Not in Conflict: “Their writings really are not in conflict. I think you are pulling out a sentence here and there.” Well, I have been at it for a few hours and there is a great deal of conflict among scholars as to whether Amoris Laetitia contradicts Veritatis Splendor. It is rather dizzying reading the back and forth for this retired math instructor. The crucial parts of A.L are sections 301-303, and of VS sections 56, 82 and 103, so far as I have been able to gather thus far. Suffice it to say that the matter is capable of question with staunch defenders on both sides. To someone doctrinaire on such matters, no debate is necessary due to the a priori assumption that no conflict is possible between popes. My point of view is to let the writings speak for themselves, and devote more time to studying the arguments.
Thank you for posting the links.
They have helped me to understand but they also can confuse.
Read what the Pope actually said.
Understand that the first marriage may not be annulled but the second marriage may be something that the person would be very willing to leave but there are children involved.
The marriage tribunal does not look at the second marriage, just the first.
Dan, a substantial number of marriages, like 15%, are sex free. Another 5% or so are once a year, maybe twice.
Catholics tend to associate marriage with sex because it is supposed to be one of the rights and pleasures of marriage but it does not always end up like that.
Maybe it is just the way you say it.
It seems like your issue is a paragraph or sentence in Amoris Laetitia.
It seems like your issue is communion for divorced and remarried.
With an annulment of a first marriage, the divorced and remarried can receive communion.
If they live as brother and sister they can receive communion.
No one seems to object to that (except maybe me but it’s the Church’s decision.)
The thing that seems to be freaking people out is the possibility that someone who is in a second marriage without annulment and are having some marital relations.
Pope Francis says that he is not changing anything in the Church and he is not.
It is the difference between grave sin and mortal sin.
People in mortal sin may not receive communion. A situation which is objectively sinful may not be because of a lack of consent of the will.
You are probably thinking in terms of men and thinking in terms of America.
Think of the human trafficked. Prostitution is a grave sin but they do not have full consent of the will, so it is not mortal sin.
I feel like a graduate looking at old course listings.
What grades did you get in the courses?
I don’t get graded til I die.
I won’t support anything that Jimmy Akin is associated with.
And why is that?
I’d agree and add that Akin is a blowhard who never admits when he’s wrong and has misled people about Catholicism. The problem with Catholic Answers is that the name of the organization compels its staff to believe they always have it right, that they always have the correct answer. They don’t. Besides, apologetics is on the wane. You don’t win people to the church in our current society by using cold logic. When Karl Keating founded the company in the 1980s, the situation was different. Nowadays, intellectual arguments are not going to win many people to Catholicism. Catholic Answers staff largely speak to themselves and to the bubble of already-convinced Catholics who tune in to their media. Augustine Institute is starting to become the same sort of thing with the same flaws, just with a bigger parish presence than the less commercially successful and floundering Catholic Answers.
Would you please provide examples of Mr. Akin misleading people? I’m not a fan of his, but that’s a serious allegation (and unsubstantiated from an anonymous source). Isn’t name calling (“a blowhard”) less than charitable and more likely to generate heat than light? I’m sincerely open to hearing “where” he is wrong. Facts and truth matter. Thank you.
This guy has tabulated a fairly extensive history of Akin’s errors:
https://ronconte.com/?s=jimmy+akin
They are both lay people.
Like so many on the Internet.
You cannot take their opinions as Gospel.
You have to educate yourself to know how to discern.
Maybe instead of calling themselves “Catholic Answers” it should be rebranded as “Catholic Opinions… Your Mileage May Vary.”
Catholic Answers has priests that they check with.
Jimmy Akin does things outside of Catholic Answers.
Ron Conte has a bachelor’s degree from Boston College. BC is a Jesuit disaster, not a truly Catholic college. I’m not taking sides here, but two guys dueling on the internet shouldn’t surprise anyone. Any example of Mr. Akin being doctrinally wrong (not just a reference to Conte’s website)?
If a reader here goes to the conference, to hear other good speakers, maybe they could report back specifics on anything contrary to Catholic faith. Catholic Answers, like any organization, isn’t perfect. But, I’d be surprised if they tolerated dissent or heresy at one of their conferences.
I worked for 17 years as a staff apologist for Catholic Answers, a Catholic apologetics and media apostolate in El Cajon, California (Diocese of San Diego). Before that, I worked for Catholic Answers as a customer service representative and jill-of-all-trades, both as a volunteer and staff member, since 1997. For the record, I was officially hired in 2000, promoted to staff apologist in 2003. I left Catholic Answers at the end of June 2020.
What does an “apologist” do, you might be wondering? In addition to engaging clients in conversations about the Catholic faith by phone, email, and online, I wrote for Catholic Answers’ online and print magazines, contributed four booklets to their “20 Answers” series (on Judaism, witchcraft and the occult, the New Age, and the Church’s liturgical year—which gives you some idea of my interests), and I contributed to Catholic Answers’ product development by editing, proofreading, and holding people back from committing heresy.
Now I’m a freelance writer and editor. My opinions are my own. And if I commit heresy, no one is holding me back.
From her website. Link not given because of the last line.
She has a quote on her social media which I disagree with.
Heresy is to schism as bend is to break.
They are both breaks.
Heretics are those who obstinately refuse to accept an infallible teaching of the Church. Eventually they may join another church that is not called Catholic.
Schismatics usually accept all the teachings of the Church except the ones about the Church and the Pope. When they leave, they usually join another church that still refers to itself as Catholic.
They usually highlight to their members the faults (usually misrepresented) of the clergy of the real Catholic Church or say there was a change after a certain meeting of the Church or even that the Pope is a heretic or not even the real Pope.
If your chapel is not in union with the Pope, has not been established by the local ordinary (even if you don’t like him) it is not really Catholic.
Things in the Catholic scene in San Diego change too. Heck, go up and talk to the monks up at Prince of Peace Abbey. They’ve embraced all that “woke” crap recently.
This morning I have to provide music for a funeral Mass for a deceased 38 year-old. His divorced and remarried parents are burying him; lots of family drama in that situation. These are people and families who don’t participate in parish life and don’t attend Mass. They will all be strangers performing a ritual that they barely understand for a religion they don’t practice and don’t understand. It’s like that at practically every funeral nowadays: lapsed and ignorant baptized-as-infant-Catholics burying their relative. After the funeral they remain lapsed Catholics. I’m so sick of it. The church is dying. This apologetics conference is well-intended, but I think it misses the point that on the ground in parish life, it’s clear that the Catholic church is languishing and losing young people all the way through up to 50 years old. About 60% of Catholics under age 50 have stopped practicing Catholicism. This article explains it well:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/07/20/the-world-youth-day-2023-controversy-problem-or-symptom/
The church is hemorrhaging people. Logical arguments aren’t going to bring them back. Catholic Answers is turned in on itself.
That article’s statement about Confirmation being the de facto sacrament of ecclesial exodus for the young is true but heartbreaking. Bishops don’t know what to do about it. 80% of the kids who make their profession of faith and get anointed by these bishops on confirmation day don’t return to Mass nor parish catechesis once they “got their sacrament”; nor do their families. It’s a joke. Parish sacramental formation is a joke. Parish catechesis is a joke. In many places Mass is a joke. Why are we going through with this farce year after year like everything’s okay? The church is on life support.