Jimmy Akin's response to.open letter

[Maxirad]

If you’re on a desktop or laptop, click here to read Jimmy Akin’s commentary.

 

[Ender]

Really? I see nearly his entire focus as defending Francis at this point.

I took his response to be entirely legal: there are specific criteria that must be met for a charge of heresy to apply, and it does not appear that those criteria have been met.

This entirely sidesteps the issue and the real problem: a sitting pope is being charged with false teaching. Whether that rises to the level of heresy seems pretty much beside the point.

 

[gracepoole]

I think you misunderstood my comments. This is but one piece from Akin on Pope Francis. Review the entirety of his recent work and I think you’ll find that he spends an inordinate amount of time defending the pontiff.

 

[Feanor2]

Yes, for opponents of the Holy Father.

 

[tafan2]

I think the amount if criticism of Pope Francis is inordinate (and I have been critical at times). I do not think the defenses are by Akin or others.

 

[Feanor2]

Maybe but if one is cautious of NCR one should CERTAINLY be cautious of Crisis.

 

[angel12]

I think you’ll find that he spends an inordinate amount of time defending the pontiff.

Why “inordinate?”

 

[gracepoole]

gracepoole:

I think you’ll find that he spends an inordinate amount of time defending the pontiff.

Why “inordinate?”

Disclaimer: I’m not a fan of Akin in general. (But perhaps I should write that disclaimer in the form of “10 Things You Need to Know About Why I’m Not a Fan of Jimmy Akin.” )

At some point, I think you have to just accept what the pope says and stop trying to explain it in some fashion that makes it palatable to conservative Catholics. Akin has been part of the effort to meld evangelical Christian thinking, Republican party politics, and Catholicism – and that’s been disastrous on any number of fronts. His focus on repackaging whatever the pope says to make it “acceptable” is part of this effort. He isn’t wrong re: charging the pope with heresy. We can’t. Only his successors can. But this is only one part of Akin’s work to normalize the pope’s comments.

 

[tafan2]

Akin has been part of the effort to meld evangelical Christian thinking, Republican party politics, and Catholicism – and that’s been disastrous on any number of fronts.

I guess I don’t follow him that closely. I do listen to him m on the radio, and have not realized this. Certainly not to the extent that some, Raymond Arroyo come to mind, have done so. I agree with you on fact that the conservative merging of Catholicism and GOP politics (excluding the issue of abortion) drives me crazy.

 

[Weserthy]

angel12:

gracepoole:

I think you’ll find that he spends an inordinate amount of time defending the pontiff.

Why “inordinate?”

Disclaimer: I’m not a fan of Akin in general. (But perhaps I should write that disclaimer in the form of “10 Things You Need to Know About Why I’m Not a Fan of Jimmy Akin.” )

At some point, I think you have to just accept what the pope says and stop trying to explain it in some fashion that makes it palatable to conservative Catholics. Akin has been part of the effort to meld evangelical Christian thinking, Republican party politics, and Catholicism – and that’s been disastrous on any number of fronts. His focus on repackaging whatever the pope says to make it “acceptable” is part of this effort. He isn’t wrong re: charging the pope with heresy. We can’t. Only his successors can. But this is only one part of Akin’s work to normalize the pope’s comments.

Just as an amusing aside, I remember when Jimmy Akin tried to explain that when Pope Francis uses the word “parable”, he doesn’t really mean the word “parable”.

Pope Francis on the “parable” of the loaves and fishes: 11 things to know and share

Recently Pope Francis has said a few things about the miracle of the loaves and the fishes that have concerned a few people. They’ve thought he might be d...

www.ncregister.com

This specific example really wasn’t anything that bad in hindsight, but it’s just an example of the mental gymnastics that he often has to perform to make sense of the Pope’s statements. I don’t know if he still does these “11 things” articles now as he used to do them frequently back towards the beginning of this papacy. Maybe he realized that it was an exercise in futility.

 

[Ender]

At some point, I think you have to just accept what the pope says and stop trying to explain it in some fashion that makes it palatable to conservative Catholics.

It seems to me the effort has been to understand what the pope has said in ways that conform to traditional Catholic doctrines. Asserting that this effort is simply putting political spin on it is a characterization. It is not an argument and does nothing to rebut whatever points are being made.

Akin has been part of the effort to meld evangelical Christian thinking, Republican party politics, and Catholicism – and that’s been disastrous on any number of fronts.

Again with the characterization. Where is the argument? Make a case that something Akin has said is in error.

 

[tafan2]

Actually, he was spot on. The Holy Father described it as an miracle first and foremost, and then in one place used the word parable, and everyone pounced. Akin gave two or three possible explanations, but overall was saying, “get a grip people, you criticism is absurd”.

 

[pnewton]

That was a point he made, not the critique of the letter. He presented more that just an ad hominem, but an argument based on logic, to which the person making it is not relevant. His point about their lack of knowledge in this field is a way of saying they did not deliberately deceive.

 

[rightness]

Not to derail Jimmy’s response, but I can’t even find the complete list of 19 persons who signed the list.

Edit: Actually, I want to add that what I think Pope Francis is doing could be more Christ-like if what I’m thinking is correct. If there is repentance on the part of the offending clerics, especially through confession, handling the matter in a private way is what all clerics are bound to do. The Catholic church has always taught to help lost sheep to rehabilitate and come back, and that’s not possible if they are simply thrown into jail. This is just my take because it’s better to pray for the strength of our Pope than to pray for him to be ousted.

Our Father forgives all sins, even sexual abuses of children. The thing is, can society have the forgiveness like our Father.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Like Hoosier said he is a prominent apologist and is deeply involved with Catholic Answers and has been for a long time. He writes articles for the website all the time and is frequently on the radio program to answer questions.

 

[c1949]

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

Al Kresta had probably a pre-recorded interview with Jimmy Akin on 5/7/2019. Akin did not claim having a doctorate in any of the subject areas he thinks are appropriate, but he said that he had studied the relevant subjects to justify his rejection of the claims of papal heresy. I don’t think the letter was even attempting to make a formal argument, but to suggest to the bishops that THEY should investigate.

 

[irenaeus1]

At some point, I think you have to just accept what the pope says and stop trying to explain it in some fashion that makes it palatable to conservative Catholics.

I think it’s more that faithful Catholics are trying to explain what the pope says in some fashion that makes it palatable to orthodox Catholics.

 

[irenaeus1]

Our Father forgives all sins, even sexual abuses of children. The thing is, can society have the forgiveness like our Father.

What you are forgetting is that even our Catholic faith rightly teaches that, even when sin is forgiven, there still exists temporal punishment (whether in the form of natural consequences or structured chastisement willed by God) for those sins. Yes, our Father in heaven can and will forgive a sexual child abuser who sincerely repents, but that does not mean that there should not be severe consequences for those who have sinned gravely in this area. Even King David found this out the hard way in regard to punishment following forgiveness.

 

[gracepoole]

gracepoole:

At some point, I think you have to just accept what the pope says and stop trying to explain it in some fashion that makes it palatable to conservative Catholics.

I think it’s more that faithful Catholics are trying to explain what the pope says in some fashion that makes it palatable to orthodox Catholics.

I can go with that. I do, however, think there’s a difference between conservative Catholics and traditional Catholics. Both can be orthodox but I think the latter struggles more to be massaged into accepting the pope’s statements.

 

[gracepoole]

It seems to me the effort has been to understand what the pope has said in ways that conform to traditional Catholic doctrines.

And what if it doesn’t legitimately conform?

Asserting that this effort is simply putting political spin on it is a characterization. It is not an argument and does nothing to rebut whatever points are being made.

Again, not sure you’re understanding my comments or their focus.

Again with the characterization. Where is the argument? Make a case that something Akin has said is in error.

Is you claim, then, that everyone criticizing the pope is in error while Akin is correct?