Canadian-Americans, The Civil War, Hillary Clinton and a Strange New Respect for Religion: "It’s an odd thing about us transplanted Canadians. In truth, most of my siblings and I (there are eight children) were born in Canada of American citizens, which gives us dual citizenship. The odd thing is that we are among the relatively few Americans who regularly keep an eye on things Canadian. That attentiveness is [...]"
(Via FIRST THINGS: On the Square.)
Thanks, Rob, for bringing this interesting NYT article to our attention.' But, personally, I think you missed the most interesting finding -- the explanation for the growing gap in happiness between men and women:
Since the 1960s, men have gradually cut back on activities they find unpleasant. They now work less and relax more.
Over the same span, women have replaced housework with paid work — and, as a result, are spending almost as much time doing things they don’t enjoy as in the past. Forty years ago, a typical woman spent about 23 hours a week in an activity considered unpleasant, or 40 more minutes than a typical man. Today, with men working less, the gap is 90 minutes.
Ladies???
"(Via Mirror of Justice.)
What's In a Name?: "The not-so-great debate: Anand: world champion or tournament world champion?"
(Via The Daily Dirt Chess Blog.)
MacIntyre in a nutshell.
From The Philosophers' Magazine:
The main goal of After Virtue,...: "MacIntyre in a nutshell.
From The Philosophers' Magazine:
The main goal of After Virtue, and it is a goal motivated by Nietzsche's persuasive attack on morality (but pursued by MacIntyre with an Aristotelian detachment), is to provide us with a good reason for acting morally today. He does so by introducing his notion of a 'practice'. Practices, MacIntyre tells us, are found in some form or"
(Via Lex Communis.)
Cardinal Pell's Response to Parliamentary Inquiry [2007-09-22]: "'I Enjoy the Right to Comment on Proposed Laws'"
(Via New Advent World Watch.)
Today is a very important day on the calendar, the birthday of not one, but two important fellows, Bilbo and Frodo Baggins.
Happy birthday! Now, let’s go have a big party under the Party Tree and then light off some fireworks in the shape of dragon. Oh, those hobbits know how to party.
1939 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee: Adolf Hitler: "
Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1939: Adolf Hitler.
(Hat tip: Jack.)
"(Via Little Green Footballs.)
"I enter church to encounter God, and I leave it a theater critic.": "
Gerald Augustinus of 'The Cafeteria Is Closed,' has been reading Martin Mosebach's 
The Heresy of Formlessness: The Roman Liturgy and Its Enemy (Ignatius, 2006). He writes:
Reading Martin Mosebach's phenomenal book, Heresy of Formlessness, is no easy task. His language (I am reading the German original) is of the utmost quality, his imagery beautiful, his sentiment convincing. He makes the point I've been trying to make, only a thousand times more aptly. His arguments for the classic Roman rite are inaccessible to the bureaucratic of spirit. Whoever approaches liturgy with the logic of a laundry detergent ad ('Now with 30% more Scripture !') or the mindset of a Club Med animateur will never be open to the beauty of the rite before we all became Protestants, so to speak. (It is eerie to see how Protestant 'reformators' demands were fulfilled one by one in the 20th century, from Hus to Luther)
No true poet would ever choose Bugnini's product, just as no true musician would choose Haugen over Palestrina. Martin Mosebach is a poet, a novelist of the highest rank, the winner of the Georg Buechner Prize, the most important one for a novelist. His style is viewed as the non plus ultra by all the grand newspapers in the German tongue, be it the NZZ or Die Zeit.
The book Heresy of Formlessness is an unusual book for a novelist, of course. But what better than beautiful language to defend a beautiful rite.
I've never read anything like it. The title may sound a bit stern, but it's actually a labor of love. Of love and sadness. Together with Mosebach one mourns what was lost when the Church decided to do what before only Protestants had done - storm and smash the altars, smash the icons. Death by committee. Liturgy by accountant. Like letting a USCCB sub-committee compose a love letter to one's wife. Arrogance beyond imagination, to, like Mao, forsake what had been nurtured over the centuries and replace it with a potted plant. As Christopher Hitchens wrote, 'the Roman Catholic Church has never recovered from abandoning the mystifying Latin Rite'. Don't get me wrong, the 'ordinary' mass is valid, but it's like expressing one's love with the quality of a Shakespeare sonnet versus a Hallmark card
Read the entire post. Mosebach's opinions are indeed strong, but one doesn't need to agree with all of them to appreciate many or all of his points. Fr. Joseph Fessio, in his foreword to the book, wrote:
When I first read Martin Mosebach's book in German, I was extremely impressed and profoundly moved by his understanding and articulation of what has gone wrong with the postconciliar liturgical reform. After decades of the Church's establishment and even some official Church documents singing the praises of the wonderful benefits of the Novus Ordo as celebrated, here is someone who puts into words and images the malaise that is still felt by many, and most particularly by those who cherish the richness and beauty of the Church's liturgical, musical, and artistic past.
We do not concur with every particular judgment Martin Mosebach makes or every conclusion he comes to. But we believe he has eloquently expressed a genuine and profound problem at the heart of the Church's life. We hope that this book will contribute to the new 'liturgical movement' that Cardinal Ratzinger called for in his own liturgical magna carta, The Spirit of the Liturgy.
• Read an excerpt from The Heresy of Formlessness: 'Does Christianity Need A Liturgy?'
"Michael Crichton on G.K. Chesterton: "
A friend passed along a note about the latest Michael Crichton novel, Next (2006). It is about genetics and the moral issues involved, and it has a bibliography that includes the following:
Chesterton, G. K.,
What's Wrong with the World, San Francisco,: Ignatius Press, 1910.Bon vivant, wit, and tireless author, Chesterton lost the debate about the future direction of society to his contemporaries H. G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and George Bernard Shaw. Chesterton saw the implications of their vision of twentieth century society, and he predicted exactly what would come of it.Chesterton is not a congenial stylist to the modern reader; his witticisms are formal, his references to contemporaries lost in time.But his essential points are chillingly clear.Chesterton, G. K.,
Eugenics and Other Evils: An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized Society. ... Originally published in 1922, this astonishingly prescient text has much to say about our understanding of genetics then (and now), and about the mass seduction of pseudoscience. Chesterton's was one of the few voices to oppose eugenics in the early twentieth century.He saw rightthrough it as fraudulent on every level, and he predicted where it would lead, with great accuracy.His critics were legion; they reviled him as a reactionary, ridiculous, ignorant, hysterical, incoherent, and blindly prejudiced, noting with dismay that 'his influence in leading people in the wrong way is considerable.'Yet Chesterton was right, and the consensus of scientists, political leaders, and the intelligentsia was wrong.Chesterton lived to see he horrors of Nazi Germany.This book is worth reading because, in retrospect, it is clear that Chesterton's arguments were perfectly sensible and deserving of an answer, and yet he was simply shouted down.And because the most repellent ideas of eugenics are being promoted again in the 21st century, under various guises.The editor of this edition has included many quotations from eugenicists of the 1920s, which read astonishingly like the words of contemporary prophets of doom. Some things never change -- including unfortunately, the gullibility of press and public.We human beings do not like to look back on our mistakes.But we should.
I've never read a Crichton novel and don't know how good Next is, but the novelist's take on Chesterton is excellent. As is often pointed out, Chesterton is arguably even more timely today than he was 80-100 years ago.
Related IgnatiusInsight.com Excerpts and Articles
• Ignatius Insight author page for Chesterton
• The Emancipation of Domesticity | G.K. Chesterton
• The God in the
Cave | G.K. Chesterton
• What Is America? |
G.K. Chesterton
• Mary and the Convert |
G.K. Chesterton
• Seeing With the Eyes of G.K. Chesterton | Dale Ahlquist
• Recovering The Lost Art of Common Sense | Dale Ahlquist
• Common Sense Apostle &
Cigar Smoking Mystic | Dale Ahlquist
• Chesterton
and Saint Francis | Joseph Pearce
• Chesterton and
the Delight of Truth | James V. Schall, S.J.
• The Life and
Theme of G.K. Chesterton | Randall Paine | An Introduction to The
Autobiography of G.K. Chesterton
• Hot Water and
Fresh Air: On Chesterton and His Foes | Janet E. Smith
• ChesterBelloc | Ralph McInerny
Science v. Scripture.
One of the classic secularist canards is that religion causes...: "Science v. Scripture.
One of the classic secularist canards is that religion causes religious minds to close down, oppose scientific advances in knowledge, and live in a state of perpetual cognitive dissonance.
But what is religion to do when an interpretation of sacred text is undermined by advances in knowledge of the material world?
It may be surprising to many that the answer, according to"
(Via Lex Communis.)
Just a reminder that today is his feast day:
Pope Benedict XVI on Saint Matthew: "
From the Holy Father's August 30, 2006, General Audience, which is one of 31 audience addresses compiled in 
Jesus, The Apostles, and the Early Church (Ignatius Press, 2007):
Thus, in the figure of Matthew, the Gospels present to us a true and proper paradox: those who seem to be the farthest from holiness can even become a model of the acceptance of God's mercy and offer a glimpse of its marvelous effects in their own lives.
St John Chrysostom makes an important point in this regard: he notes that only in the account of certain calls is the work of those concerned mentioned. Peter, Andrew, James and John are called while they are fishing, while Matthew, while he is collecting tithes.
These are unimportant jobs, Chrysostom comments, 'because there is nothing more despicable than the tax collector, and nothing more common than fishing' (In Matth. Hom.: PL 57, 363). Jesus' call, therefore, also reaches people of a low social class while they go about their ordinary work.
Another reflection prompted by the Gospel narrative is that Matthew responds instantly to Jesus' call: 'he rose and followed him'. The brevity of the sentence clearly highlights Matthew's readiness in responding to the call. For him it meant leaving everything, especially what guaranteed him a reliable source of income, even if it was often unfair and dishonorable. Evidently, Matthew understood that familiarity with Jesus did not permit him to pursue activities of which God disapproved.
• Read further excerpts from Jesus, The Apostles, and the Early Church.
""Science suffers from an excess of significance" This article...: "'Science suffers from an excess of significance'
This article suffers from an excess of quotable lines:
...most published research findings are wrong.My take on the field of statistics is that it's an arithmetic discipline for making people feel comfortable. Just think about the term '95% confidence': it's a bait-and-switch trick, which works by giving the result of a convoluted and artificial computation the same name as a vaguely understood emotional or intellectual state favorable for decision-making.
'A new claim about a research finding is more likely to be false than true.'
...Dr. Ioannidis and his colleagues analyzed 432 published research claims concerning gender and genes. Upon closer scrutiny, almost none of them held up. Only one was replicated.
'People are messing around with the data to find anything that seems significant....'
'The correction isn't the ultimate truth either.'
(Via Disputations.)
Inspired by the Nazis: "[People in the West are usually not aware that many Muslims respect and love Adolf Hitler. Here is a little info on the historical ties between the National Socialists and Muslims of Jerusalem.--Abu Daoud]
Inspired by the Nazis
by Suzanne Fields for The Washington Times
A major figure connecting Nazi and Islamist ideologies was Amin al-Husseini, a self-styled 'grand mufti' of Jerusalem who fomented riots against the Jews in the 1920s and ordered the murder of any Muslim who traded with Jewish settlers. Adolf Eichmann visited him in Palestine in the 1930s; he was a friend of Heinrich Himmler. He was a guest of Hitler in Berlin from 1941 until the end of the war in 1945 and directed the Muslim SS in the Balkans. He was responsible for stopping the Bulgarian government from releasing thousands of Bulgarian Jewish children to travel to Palestine. 'It was he,' says historian Paul Johnson, 'who first recruited Wahabi fanatics from Saudi Arabia, transforming them into killers of Jews — another tradition that continues to this day.' What's important about the Nazi-Islamist connection is the way it inspires terrorists today. It's fashionable to say that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, but that's misleading. In its charter, the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, which has morphed into the terrorist organization Hamas, enshrines conspiracy theories which blame the Jews for everything from the French Revolution to the Communist revolution."
(Via New Advent World Watch.)
First Things editor scolds New York Times over Dawkins's review: "Apparently, in the most recent edition of First Things, Fr. Richard Neuhaus defends Mike Behe, author of Edge of Evolution. It's not on line yet, but Fr. Neuhaus says, among other things,
You usually know that somebody is losing the argument when he loses his cool and resorts to bluster, abuse, caricature, and the invocation of authorities who agree with him.He is referring, of course, to Richard Dawkins's attempt to trash Behe's book in The New York Times. He notes the curious fact that the Times should never have given the book to Dawkins to review anyway, without giving Behe the right of reply (which it would never dare to do):
It is hard to know what purpose is served by the Book Review in having Dawkins review Behe, except, possibly, to ostracize anyone who presumes to raise questions about prevailing Darwinist orthodoxies and, perhaps, to pander to the smug prejudices of the presumed readership of the Times. That does not instill confidence in the Darwinist materialism that they are so desperately defending.
(Via Post-Darwinist.)
Yo, Newsweek: "Read this:
I have quite an announcement to make. I am now a reporter for Newsweek magazine! I always felt a call to be a reporter for Newsweek magazine so this is something very important for me. I can’t tell you how thrilled I am at this news and the impact this has on my life [...]"
(Via Charlotte was Both.)
Cardinal Dulles on God, Schönborn, evolution: "
From an article, 'God and Evolution,' from the October 2007 issue of First Things (ht: Egberto, for sending me the link), written by Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J. (author of numerous books, including A History of Apologetics):
The pope was interpreted in some circles as
having accepted the neo-Darwinian view that evolution is sufficiently
explained by random mutations and natural selection (or ‘survival of
the fittest’) without any kind of governing purpose or finality.
Seeking to offset this misreading, Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, the
archbishop of Vienna, published on July 7, 2005, an op-ed in the New York Times,
in which he quoted a series of pronouncements of John Paul II to the
contrary. For example, the pope declared at a General Audience of July
19, 1985: ‘The evolution of human beings, of which science seeks to
determine the stages and discern the mechanism, presents an internal
finality which arouses admiration. This finality, which directs beings
in a direction for which they are not responsible, obliges one to
suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.’ In this connection,
the pope said that to ascribe human evolution to sheer chance would be
an abdication of human intelligence.Cardinal Schönborn was also able to cite Pope
Benedict XVI, who stated in his inauguration Mass as pope on April 24,
2005: ‘We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution.
Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed,
each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.’Cardinal Schönborn’s article was interpreted
by many readers as a rejection of evolution. Some letters to the editor
accused him of favoring a retrograde form of creationism and of
contradicting John Paul II. They seemed unable to grasp the fact that
he was speaking the language of classical philosophy and was not opting
for any particular scientific position. His critique was directed
against those neo-Darwinists who pronounced on philosophical and
theological questions by the methods of natural science.Several authorities on these questions, such
as Kenneth R. Miller and Stephen M. Barr, in their replies to
Schönborn, insisted that one could be a neo-Darwinist in science and an
orthodox Christian believer. Distinguishing different levels of
knowledge, they contended that what is random from a scientific point
of view is included in God’s eternal plan. God, so to speak, rolls the
dice but is able by his comprehensive knowledge to foresee the result
from all eternity.This combination of Darwinism in science and
theism in theology may be sustainable, but it is not the position
Schönborn intended to attack. As he made clear in a subsequent article
in FIRST THINGS (January 2006), he was taking exception only to those
neo-Darwinists—and they are many—who maintain that no valid
investigation of nature could be conducted except in the reductive mode
of mechanism, which seeks to explain everything in terms of quantity,
matter, and motion, excluding specific differences and purpose in
nature. He quoted one such neo-Darwinist as stating: ‘Modern science
directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance
with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive
principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing
forces rationally detectable.’Cardinal Schönborn shrewdly observes that
positivistic scientists begin by methodically excluding formal and
final causes. Having then described natural processes in terms of
merely efficient and material causality, they turn around and reject
every other kind of explanation. They simply disallow the questions
about why anything (including human life) exists, how we differ in
nature from irrational animals, and how we ought to conduct our lives.
Read the entire piece. Cardinal Schönborn's book,
Chance of Purpose: Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith, will soon be available from Ignatius Press. I've not yet seen it, but am looking forward to reading it. On a related note, see Cardinal Schönborn's article, 'Reasonable Science, Reasonable Faith' (First Things, April 2007); other articles on faith, science, and evolution can be found on the Intelligent Project website. And some Ignatius Insight interviews/articles of note:
"• The Mythological Conflict Between Christianity and Science | An interview with physicist Dr. Stephen Barr
• The Mystery of Human Origins | Mark Brumley
• Designed Beauty and Evolutionary Theory | Thomas Dubay, S.M.
• The Universe is Meaning-full : An interview with Dr. Benjamin Wiker
Iraq Sunni mourners vow revenge: "Sunni Arab tribesmen vow revenge for the killing of a leader who opposed al-Qaeda in Iraq."
(Via BBC News.)
Exaltation of the Cross: "On the feast:
This feast was observed in Rome before the end of the seventh century. It commemorates the recovery of the Holy Cross, which had been placed on Mt. Calvary by St. Helena and preserved in Jerusalem, but then had fallen into the hands of Chosroas, King of the Persians. The precious relic was recovered [...]"
(Via Charlotte was Both.)
On Wars...and Wars of Ideas: "
On Wars...and Wars of Ideas | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | September 14, 2007
' '' ''
All wars are first fought
out—or, better, argued about--in the mind. Because they are in minds and
not on battlefields these wars are not violent. They can even be friendly. Wars
are not caused by wars. They are caused by ideas. Ideas as such are good. We
could not eliminate ideas that cause wars if we wanted to, though we can
understand why they can be wrong. But we understand this wrongness only with
another idea. The adventure of the mind is to find out which ideas are true.
The adventure goes on all the time. The mind also needs to find what is true in
ideas that are false since no idea exists that does not contain some truth.
The ideas that cause wars
are not initially conceived as militant, but as an understanding of reality.
Even then, they do not cause conflict until put into effect and meet
resistance, ultimately from other ideas. The purpose of war is to establish the
truth or superiority of an idea. Ideas do not always win just because they are
true. One suspects that true ideas often lose. This is why, behind ideas and
their carrying out, lies divine providence, which can bring out the good that
is found in what is otherwise evil. Evil is ultimately to be rejected and punished
when chosen.
Read the entire article...
I'm talking about Harry Over at the First Things blog...: "I'm talking about Harry Over at the First Things blog
And the mail is starting to roll in already:
Just read your blog on FT. Brilliant. Very glad, also, to see that yourMary book has found a publisher.
How lovely to see your article in First Things this morning. I haven't read the Harry Potter series [haven't had to--my sons are grown] but I have followed the dispiriting controversy over it. Is it demonic or isn't it? It embarrasses me because it so trivializes the reality of evil.
The burden of your article is so welcome--that the knitted brow and foofaraw are ungenerous and unfounded.
[Rowling was a classical scholar. Her Latin phrases, I'm told on good authority, are moreaccurate, more grammatically correct than the ecclesiastical Latin we take for granted in the old rite.]
I participated in a radio discussion with you on WLCR in Louisville a
fewmonths ago. We had a spirited disagreement on the nature and/or definition of torture, which was not resolved - at least not during the show.
Anyway, it was an honor to have particpated in tha with you and I wanted to say THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU for the Harry Potter article in First Things.
My son read the first three or so and got bored. He does much prefer Tolkein and Lewis, but he did enjoy the Potter stuff.
I think this nonsense over Harry Potter, even among good Catholics istotally that - nonsense, and it troubles me that otherwise clear thinking, holy people can get it so wrong, and seemingly, from thin air.
I expect as much out of evangelical Protestants, whose intellectual veracity can at times be suspect, but never of more informed Catholics.
Thank you for putting us back on common sense and let us hope, at least for evangelization reasons, we put the Harry Potter worries behind us.
(Via Catholic and Enjoying It!.)
Note: When musicians are applauded at Mass, something bad is going on.: "A friend who is possibly more sarcastic than I am told me the following story. He was visiting the parish nearest his house, which is not his parish. The choir (music group, whatever you want to call it) was up front and elevated in a prominent place. At the end of Mass, the entire congregation gave them a rousing round of applause. Paul, on the other hand, had to fight back the urge to ask the priest, 'Father, the performance was great. When the heck is Mass?'
Just as the homily is not supposed to be a stand up act, so music at Mass is not a performance. It is an act of prayer and an offering to God. If musicians are applauded, the first question that should be asked is, 'What is being done that makes people believe that this is a performance?'"
(Via New Advent World Watch.)
:The Spiritual Brain: Introduction: "Because so many people have asked me what The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul addresses, I thought I would post the Introduction. It doesn't deal with everything the book addresses, but it gives you some idea.
In this book, we intend to show you that your mind does exist, that it is not merely your brain. Your thoughts and feelings cannot be dismissed or explained away by firing synapses and physical phenomena alone. In a solely material world, 'will power' or 'mind over matter' are illusions, there is no such thing as purpose or meaning, there is no room for God. Yet many people have experience of these things. We intend to argue that these experiences are real. In contrast, many materialists now argue that notions like meaning or purpose do not correspond to reality; they are merely adaptations for human survival. In other words, they have no existence beyond the evolution of circuits in our brains.
(Via Mindful Hack.)
Ten Beers I Go Back To Again and Again: "This list does not exactly comprise my top ten favorites, although it's close. If it did then certain really spectacular beers, like Fuller's 1845, Chimay Grande Reserve, Old Rasputin's Russian Imperial Stout, or several of the fabulous beers from the Founder's Brewery in Grand Rapids, MI would be on here. But those are too expensive or (for me) too inaccessible to be regulars. Rather, this list is of the ten beers that I find myself going back to time and again. They're consistently good and readily available, at least at my locale.
Guinness Extra Stout—A classic. This beer is black and very assertive with roasted grain, coffee, and molasses on the palate. It's rich, tangy, well balanced. Great. Like all ales, this should not be drunk too cold. This is the foreign export extra stout version, not the more watery draft version. I like the draft version with its nitrogen pour and creamy head, but it's just a totally different animal. To my tastes, this wins hands down.
Fuller's London Pride Pale Ale— An incredibly well balanced beer. I think that for me this represents the quintessential example of a British pale ale. Smooth, not overly hoppy or overpoweringly malty. Classic British flowerly hop presence. Perfectly balanced and every sip a pleasure. Incredibly good.
Fuller's London Porter—This beer blows me away; I can hardly believe how good this is. This very dark brown (not black) beer starts with slightly thick mouthfeel that leads to a creamy, slightly roasted, slightly bitter but perfectly balanced follow-through of porter perfection. Bittersweet chocolate, coffee, and I catch a touch of licorice. The first time I tried this, I had a Fuller's London Pride and the London Porter in the same evening (12 Aug 2002) and I have never tasted two such great beers together, ever.
are. It's brewed here in Wisconsin and I love it. A very complex malt palate (the brewery lists 2-row, Vienna, Carapils, Wheat, Caramel malts in the grain bill) is supported by a very assertive but absolutely clean bittering. Citrus and pine notes prevail on the nose and the palate. An outstanding American IPA (India Pale Ale). Get it if you can!
J.W. Dundee's Honey Brown Lager—Mildly sweet, distinctive honey finish, mildly malty, and fairly low hop bitterness. Nice rich brown color. Smooth and infinitely quaffable. I have drunk a lot of this and I keep coming back for more. It is reasonably priced to boot. 
Sleeman Original Dark—To my taste this is a dead ringer for Newcastle. In fact, it more often tastes the way Newcastle should taste, since it seems nigh unto impossible to get a fresh bottle of Newcastle. Sleeman, on the other hand, is brewed on contract right here at the La Crosse City Brewery, so I have an easy time getting it fresh. It's a brown ale, slightly nutty with nice caramel and a hint of molasses. Great.
Young's Double Chocolate Stout—Made with cocoa and chocolate malt (hence the double chocolate in the title) this is a silky, smooth, dessert-style beer. Very low hop bittering. It should not be consumed too cold—if you start it on the cold side it will get much better as it warms up. This beer should not, repeat NOT, be drunk with a meal. It's totally ruined by food. Drink it by itself or with a rich dessert.
Samuel Adams Boston Ale—Note this is the Boston Ale, not the Boston Lager. The Boston Lager is okay—the Boston Ale is really yummy! This ale stands in the British style; it is decidedly malty, with the hop presence perfectly balanced. This beer is slightly fruity, but only mildly estery so it is more tame than some British ales. A rich mahogany in the glass with a nice stable head. This is hard for me to find locally, but when I travel I try to grab a six pack. I come back to it again and again, which is why it's on this list.
Goose Island India Pale Ale—I have not generally been a fan of the Goose Island products. Neither the Honker's Ale nor the Hexnut Ale from this Chicago microbrewery do a thing for me. Some years ago I somewhat reluctantly bought a six-pack of the India Pale Ale because it was on sale and I had never tried it. Wow! This medium bodied beer has a slightly thick mouth feel. The first sip shouts, Hops! The strong grapefruit notes indicate that there are almost certainly Cascade hops here, but probably at least two other varieties as well bringing a pleasing complexity. The finish is markedly bitter, but with a nice balance of malt and a very slight sweetness. Great!(Via New Advent World Watch.)
Global Warming Consensus Alert: Could This Be The End of Science?: "
If there’s one thing that I’ve learned from supporters of climate change alarmism, it’s this: Science = consensus, and consensus = TRUTH.
Well, it appears that science and truth have taken another hit:
A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance.
(Via Acton Institute PowerBlog.)
Chrétien was Minister of Justice when the text of the Charter was written, just a few short years before the discovery occurred. The politicians made a prudential decision to leave sexual orientation out of the text, and, lo and behold, a few short years later their appointees find it there. Humph!
Rising Popularity of the Legalization of Polygamy: "
In Canada, polygamy is oozing onto the public square as a result of same-sex marriage lending legitimacy to some of it’s argument. What’s different in this case is that a majority of the anti-polygamy lobby is being fueled by opressive feminists who, because of their ideology, find polygamy repugnant. Now that Pandora’s box has been opened, on what grounds can the Canadian government ‘fairly’ prevent voluntary plural marriage?
(Via COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX.)
Mark Shea and Pete Vere Defend Harry Potter (and I Agree): "Harry Potter: sinister, evil figure, while Tolkien's Frodo is Christlike?
I've had posted links about Harry Potter, both pro, con, and 'neutral' for a few years now, on my Romantic and Imaginative Theology: Inklings of the World Beyond web page (bottom section). See Mark's posts (I've listed them in chronological order) and the usual 14,532 comments also:
Friend of the Blog John Granger"
(Via Cor ad cor loquitur.)
Every Once in a While Godless Editors Look Up from Their Monitors...: "Every Once in a While Godless Editors Look Up from Their Monitors and Are Astonished to Find Religion is Still There
Then the announce it is 'back'--as though it had left."
(Via Catholic and Enjoying It!.)
Fr. Benedict Groeschel responds to critics of Mother Teresa: "
Not only is Fr. Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R. (Ignatius Insight author page) a priest and noted author, he is a psychologist and a spiritual director who knew Mother Teresa personally. So who better to respond to some of the silly pseudo-psychoanalysis (emphasis on psycho in some cases) being performed on Mother Teresa by folks who likely know less about her, psychology, and Catholic spirituality than I do about the mating rituals of the Queen Alexandra's birdwing butterfly? From the First Things blog:
The unfortunate publicity and distortions to the point of calumny that have surrounded the publication of the book Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light
,
edited by Fr. Brian Kolodiejchuk, M.C., the postulator of her cause,
have caused confusion to many and much pain to the Missionaries of
Charity and their close friends. One leading newsmagazine even
published a long article by Mother Teresa’s most severe and profane
critic without any other commentary. The author attempted to
psychoanalyze Mother Teresa’s experiences, which is both insulting and
absurd. He never knew Mother, never had the chance to observe her
behavior or life, and he has no serious training in psychology. As a
psychologist who knew Mother Teresa for thirty years, I feel I must
make some response to this absurdity and offer some helpful
explanations for those who were surprised by the darkness revealed in
Mother Teresa’s personal letters.Although I was not privy to her spiritual darkness, and I never
received the kind of letters from her that her spiritual directors
received, I was well aware that there was a seriousness, even a
somberness, about her. I assumed that this sorrow was occasioned by
what happens every day in the world. When there were tragedies, she
would talk about them and encourage us to turn trustingly to God to
bring good out of evil.During the thirty years when I knew Mother Teresa well, I never observed anything other than a tremendous faith and charity.
Read the entire article.
Related pages from IgnatiusInsight.com:
• Interview with Fr. Groeschel (June 2004)
• Excerpts from The Rosary: Chain of Hope
• The Church of Latter Day Sinners from
Arise From Darkness
Fr. Groeschel's books published by Ignatius Press:
' '' ''
• The Drama of Reform
• Arise From Darkness: What to Do When Life Doesn't Make Sense
• The Reform of Renewal
• Rosary: The Chain of Hope
• Still Small Voice: A Practical Guide on Reported Revelations
• Praying To Our Lord Jesus Christ: Prayers and Meditations Through the Centuries'
 | ''''''''' |
Nine/Eleven: A Remarkable Story: "About four years ago, I was visiting with Father Benedict Groeschel for a week, working closely with him daily to finish up the book that he was co-authoring with the now Bishop of Birmingham, Bishop Baker entitled When Did We See You Lord? On about the third day of my visit, while waiting for Father Benedict [...]"
(Via New Advent World Watch.)
Hans Küng needs to write less and read more: "
To say that Hans Küng's September 10th interview with Deutsche Welle is embarrassing might be an insult to embarrassment. Let's play the 'How Many Facts Can Hans Distort and Misrepresent Game,' shall we? Here goes (Küng's comments in bold):
• 'When we have a pope, who claims that -- as theological Lord of the
world -- only those who are with him are true Christians and that only
his Roman-Catholic Church is the true church, it gets on many people's
nerves.' The Pope said that 'only those who are with him are true Christians'? Really? C'mon, Hans, read the document!
• 'Europeans look at it from the view of Islam's advancement from northern
Africa to Spain, between the eighth and 15th century and the leadership
of the Ottomans on the Balkan. They don't see that Christians not only
had the crusades, but until the 19th century they colonized the entire
Islamic area from Morocco to the Indonesian islands. That leads to
tensions.' Um, if Islam was 'advancing' (translation: conquering by brute force and bloodshed) to Spain and western Europe (by the year 730), that strongly suggests the Crusades, which began in 1095—over 300 years later!—might have been in response to said 'advancements,' no? Hans, read this article, please.
• 'Unlike in previous times, it's no longer easy to get churches excited
about war. Of course more could be done, especially when it comes to
enlightenment.' Sure 'nuf. More could be done. For one thing, Küng could start reading more, writing less.
• 'When the pope in [a much-publicized 2006 speech in the Bavarian town
of] Regensburg tried to define Islam as a religion of violence, he
noticed himself that he took the wrong path. You have to remember the
kind of trails of blood Christians left in history.' Pope Benedict tried to define Islam as a religion of violence? And then he realized that he'd made a mistake? I must have missed all of that; could we please have a citation? Küng should stop reading the media reports and read the actual address given by the Pope.
• 'Then you become modest, and you won't say that we have the religion of
love and they have the religion of hate. Just like you and me, the
majority of Muslims in Egypt, Morocco, Afghanistan or Pakistan want to
have peace.' Where, oh where did Pope Benedict ever say that Islam is a religion of hate? Where? I'm waiting....tick...tock...
• 'He [Benedict XVI] did notice that it [the Regensburg Address] was a mistake, and he had to take in quite a bit of criticism. He corrected his speech many times.' No, actually, he didn't. He said:
'At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought. Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words. I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect. This is the meaning of the discourse.'
• 'The Romans, the Roman bishop, i.e. the pope, have a hard time admitting
mistakes. When you have an ideology of infallibility, then infallible
mistakes will be made, and those cannot be corrected.' Wow. You would think that a guy who wrote an entire book on papal infallibility might actually understand what papal infallibility is. Which means that either he doesn't (embarrassing) or he is being misleading (worse than embarrassing). But, to point out the obvious, the Regensburg Address, while certainly a serious and important pronouncement, was not 'infallible,' nor did anyone with any commonsense or knowledge of Catholic teaching act as though it was. Well, take heart, Hans Küng: at least your many mistakes aren't infallible. Just embarrassing.
• 'Desperate young people resorted to terrorism. Of course we have to
judge suicide assassins and assaults. But we have to think about why so
many young people became so desperate to make themselves available for
such assassinations.' Yes, we sure do. And we need to consider strongly the possibility—which does have evidence on its side—that poverty and 'desperation' are not the primary motives of Islamic terrorists. But, of course, you are so busy blaming everything on America and George Bush, you haven't time to read about other perspectives on the matter.
• 'Religion can co-exist with democracy. The leading architects of Europe,
from Charles de Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer to Robert Schuman and Alcide
De Gasperi, were all pious Christians. The reason why Islam has more
problems with democracy than Christianity is that Islam, in contrast to
Christianity and Judaism, had no Reformation and Enlightenment, leaving
out a few special circles.' I take that to mean that if it weren't for Protestantism and secularism, many Catholics would be just as violent and murderous as some radical Islamists are today? Is this guy serious?
• 'You could certainly negotiate with the Taliban. They aren't just crazy
people. There are some extremists, and there are, on the other hand,
those that warned the Bush administration about Sept. 11. But it wasn't
taken seriously.' Yeah, once you got past the violent oppression, beatings, killings, executions, genocide, and the burqas, the Taliban were just swell. Go on, ask 'em. I'm sure they'll agree.
• 'Were you hurt that Pope Benedict XVI never accepted your idea of the World Ethic? He
accepted the idea as such. He realizes that there have to be common
ethical standards. During our conversation he conceded that those
standards need to be valid for believers and non-believers. One could
only have expected that he would personally advocate this. But that
might still happen.' I recommend reading The Dialectics of Secularization. Or Deus Caritas Est. And stop trying to be pope. It's over. I'm fairly certain you're not eligible to be pontiff. At least not of a real Church.
• The interviewer asked: 'A personal question: On Sept. 12 you will introduce your autobiography 'Controversial Truth.'' What? Another biography? Is this different from My Struggle for Freedom: Memoirs (Eerdmans, 2003) and Disputed Truth: Memoirs, Volume 2 (Continuum, 2008), which together add up to about 820 pages!? Please, if only for the sake of the poor trees, stop writing and start reading.
• For more on Hans Küng and his 'world ethic', see Donna Steichen's 2005 article for Catholic World Report, 'A Religion The New York Times Can Love.'
Finally, much of this is summarized quite well by Fr. D. Vincent Twomey, author of Pope Benedict XVI: The Conscience of Our Age (Ignatius Press, 2007), when he said, in my June 2007 interview with him: 'Unlike Küng, who is always in tune with the latest fashion, Ratzinger is not afraid to be unfashionable.' Here's to being out of tune with the latest fashion!
And for the enquiring minds, here are the Wiki articles on Buridan and Oresme.
Jerry Lewis and the History of Science: "
In reality, science as a discipline was stillborn in Greece after Aristotle’s death, long before Christianity came on the scene. If any discipline has been ‘flawed’ due to religious reasons, it’s the history of science. You see, the information about Buridan and Oresme was suppressed for years at the behest of certain elements of the French government, because it indicated a Christian origin of science. The case was notorious in France in the 50’s, (when the info was finally released) and my philosophy advisor (an atheist and Marxist scholar) told me that it was used in French universities of the time as a prime example of government censorship (after I brought it up in class). Here’s the story …
Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.
"
Posts
All Comments
"Thinking with the Church begins with thinking"
Father Richard Neuhaus
