Jimmy Akin's response to.open letter

  • Thread starter Thread starter tafan2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmmmm… interesting take. He makes zero effort trying to argue the subject matter of the accusations and focuses instead on the qualifications, processes, and definitions.

By choosing to rebut in this manner leaves room for the discussion to continue.
 
This is a serious question. I do not know this man but I hear him referred to quite frequently. Does Mr. Akins have a doctorate in the relevant fields of canon law or sacred theology? Is he someone that is more qualified than the signers of the letter? What is his job and why is he famous (don’t really know what term to use. Maybe we’ll known is better)?

I have not found anyone actually disputing or rebutting this letter. All I heard so far is criticism of their degrees. Is it really necessary to have a doctorate in order to know our faith well enough to recognize heresy? If it is necessary the vast majority of us don’t stand a chance

ETA: Hosier daddy I don’t know why that responded to you but I’m not sure how to fix that. It was supposed to be a general reply.
 
Last edited:
Akin is a prominent theologian and speaker who was actually instrumental in forming CA. On his website akin has added more. From what I gather his actual point is now that the Pope must clarify “any number of poorly phrased statements” akin’s point seems to be that until one can “corner the Pope’s position” no charge of heresy can stand. Honestly I think that is the point of the letter. Not to successfully charge heresy but to try to persuade the Pope to clarify. A more forceful challenge than the softer dubia…
We are living in a time where clarity may not happen but will happen in the future. Who knows. But Akin is also critical of some of the popes “phrasing” for lack of a better word. He just thinks its premature to throw the ole heresy word around. And I agree. But I do think there is a shift in theology that will have to be clarified by this Pope or it will be erased
 
Thanks. I will have to look at his site. I had never heard of him until just recently and now he seems to be popping up everywhere
 
I’m surprised! In the US he is a prominent catholic speaker. A wonderful southern accent. He is a convert from protestantism and has written many good books. His reputation is on the conservative side and it would probably be a stretch to say he is defending Francis at this point. He has many articles on this site.
 
Well, the subject matter is, at this time, an accusation of heresy. So we should understand precisely what that means before we start leveling at the Pope. The authors of the letter chose to make the definition of heresy a very key point.
 
Sure. Well I think the point is that many (including akin) thinks there should be a clarification. And unless and until either the current strategy of communication from the Pope changes or there is definitive clarification this type of “letter” will escalate and continue.

Also, akin is a speaker who benefits nicely from being in good Graces with bishops from every diocese possible. And being a vocal critic of the Pope is not a good way to earn those graces. I do find it interesting however, that he and Patrick coffin are quite close and coffin has been quite vocal even musing the Pope should resign after the vigano letters on a podcast I believe with Matt fradd? I could be mistaken about the podcast. I’d pay money to hear a conversation between those two “off the record”
 
Here’s Jimmy Akin’s issue as far as I understand it:

The authors of the letter don’t just accuse Pope Francis of maintaining a theologically heretical position. They accuse him of the specific crime of heresy. This is a canonical accusation and, as Akin points out, it requires an in-depth understanding of Canon Law in order to make such an accusation.

In terms of the theological positions that the authors point to as “proof” of the pope’s heresy, Akin points out that many sound theologians (including both the pope and the former head of the CDF) have explicitly said that those points and and must be interpreted in light of tradition and in a way that is consistent with tradition. The fact that the pope’s more ambiguous statements can be interpreted in a non-heretical way leaves no ground for accusing him of heresy. The fact that some of the more liberal-minded theologians interpret the pope’s teachings in a heterodox/heretical manner means that if anyone ought to be accused of heresy it’s those theologians, not the pope.

The other issues that Akin points out is that after the accusation of the crime of heresy, the authors point to the list of bishops and priests promoted by Pope Francis as “proof” of his heresy. But the fact that someone may not like the specific priest or bishop being promoted - even if that priest or bishop teaches heterodoxy - isn’t proof of a pope’s heresy.

Finally the authors attack some of the pope’s (more unfortunate) choices in… clothing. Ok. So perhaps it’s not quite that simple, but it’s basically what it boils down to. They claim that a crosier the pope used was a satanic staff (a heavy accusation that would require a great deal of proof and, as Akin points out, is very easily disproved) and that one of his pectoral crosses was a gay symbol (again, something that is quickly and easily disproved). To make an accusation of the canonical crime of heresy and then point to items of clothing one doesn’t like as “proof” of the heresy - while at the same time demonstrating that you don’t actually know the symbolism behind those articles of clothing (no matter how ugly the clothing actually is) - is irresponsible at best…
 
…(cont.) If the authors’ intention is to shake the pope awake and get him to respond, then charging him of heresy without sufficient proof is one of the most irresponsible and potentially scandalous actions that could possibly be taken.

Has the pope said and done things that have caused confusion, even division, among the faithful - things that warrant clarification? I think few would deny that he has. But has the pope explicitly and persistently taught heresy? Akin’s point is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that he has.

Of course, this is all just my understanding of what Jimmy Akin has had to say on the issue. I may have misunderstood him.
 
Last edited:
I find it curious that Mr. Akin critiques the qualifications of the authors of the open letter, when he himself has no academic qualifications in theology.
 
I dont think he is defending Francis in his positions or word choice. He is critical of those but sure. Here he had defended the man himself. Again. He and coffin in a room would be a very very interesting conversation. Akin is a man who was hurt immensely by protestant separation. So his immediate reaction is bent to unity… I’ll give him that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top