The Joys of Surfing the Blogosphere

has to include, for me at least, those pages that give summaries of multiple other pages. The first for me was Video meliora, proboque; Deteriora sequor. I always look forward to scanning his summaries and highlights of so many other blogs. There's another that I look forward to these days: Required Reading from <Campaign Standard. It's a Readers Digest way of surfing, I guess. Here's the posting that inspired this thoughtlet:

          H e can be...: "

'''''''''

He can be infuriating, at times, but Andrew Sullivan's blog without Andrew Sullivan reminds me of something David Letterman once said about decaf coffee: 'It's like non-alcoholic Scotch. What is the point?' - Dylan of 'More Last than First'

why I envy Augustine...He is so faithful to so many that he met, e.g. Cicero. He never forgets what each one did for him, even if it wasn't enough. With me, a pallor falls on those that I once loved - as if they're all used up. - FPK of 'Reconnaissance of the Western Tradition'

One of the old signs of saintliness was always a genuine love for animals coupled with the ability to give them orders, to which even wild animals responded with love and respectful obedience. This reversal of the Fall and return to something like Eden is part of what we are called to do, as co-workers with the New Adam...We can’t separate ourselves from Creation, or pretend that we can treat ourselves like crap, ripping away our own human dignity and oppressing ourselves, and still be able to treat everything else with love and respect. Mystically, too, we are connected to the world. - Suburban Banshee of 'Aliens of this World' via Enbrethiliel

Dogs' lives are short, too short, but you know that going in. You know the pain is coming, you're going to lose a dog, and there's going to be great anguish, so you live fully in the moment with her, never fail to share her joy or delight in her innocence, because you can't support the illusion that a dog can be your lifelong companion. There's such beauty in the hard honesty of that, in accepting and giving love, while always aware it comes with an unbearable price. Maybe loving dogs is a way we do penance for all the other illusions we allow ourselves and for the mistakes we make because of those illusions. - from a Dean Koontz novel via 'Sancta Sanctis'

As it is the nature of a seed to grow into a fruitful plant, so it is the nature of a human to grow into a perfect child of God, and forcefully uprooting the weeds in our nature -- weeds, let us not forget, that we ourselves have nurtured -- may also uproot the good plants through which we are to be perfected. - Tom of Disputations

One of my favorite bloggers, Cecily, just got back from the Blogher conference in California. In giving her impressions of the conference she wrote about blogging and about the popular blog writer Dooce: 'I've read her blog for almost five years, and I've watched her become more private over that time, less willing to do what they called at BlogHer 'naked' blogging. Sure, she's been compensated for her blog, but she's lost a great deal too.I am a 'naked' blogger; when Heather said that she doesn't blog about 95% of her life, I thought, wow: I am the total opposite. I don't blog about more like 5%. I really do put it all out here.' This was interesting for me to read. I have just been thoroughly chastized (again ) in other parts of the blogosphere for speaking up when other bloggers 'blogged naked' and put some of their more controversial stuff out there. I've even read from some mommy bloggers that they consider their blogs to be their personal little spaces on the web, like pretty front porches. - Elena of 'My Domestic Church'

A couple of weeks ago, I was listening to commentary on FOXNews about the [teenage] pregnancy pact…One expert in Gloucester truly connected some dots for me. She surmised that one of the big draws for these teenaged girls--young teenaged girls--was that maternity clothes had become so chic, so totally hip. Let me re-phrase that: high school freshmen and sophomores are eager to get pregnant because they know they'll look pretty darn cute in today's maternity fashions. - blogger at 'In the Heart of My Home'

all we need is hard work, fervent prayer, and rifles - Tagline of blogger at 'Zero Summer'

In 1987-88, Mary kept me Christian. Not Catholic, but Christian... I found myself drawn to the Basilica Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, where I saw such epithets as 'to Jesus through Mary' which puzzled me...I was wondering about Jesus and whether it all really happened. The one thing I couldn't get out of my head was the visit of Our Lady of Guadalupe. She appeared to Juan Diego to tell him: 'Am I not here, I who am your mother?'...The skeptic may dismiss a priori any miracles such as this one, but to one who is open and doesn't presume to turn away from anything that claims a reason beyond what can be observed in a laboratory - to one who doesn't set a limit on what can happen, then, Our Lady of Guadalupe doesn't easily reduce to formulas of power and shamanism. To me, it's clear that Our Lady of Guadalupe did appear to Juan Diego...Jesus suffers a thousand competing reductions in the common mentality: Jesus the revolutionary, Jesus the hippie, and the various Jesuses of South Park, the Simpsons, and Family Guy. With all these counterfeits, abstractions, and reductions jumping around, it can be difficult to see Jesus as a person. Mary changed that for me. Mary is the sign of Jesus's humanity. - Frederick of 'Deep Furrows'

Joseph and John, as well, are bound to Mary in different ways. In her assent Mary was led by the angel immediately to the Lord, without the intervention of her husband's consent. Joseph, who is warned by the angel that he should not divorce Mary because she has conceived of the Holy Spirit, is bound directly to the human person, Mary, in order to become through this bond a servant of the incarnate Lord. John, however, is first claimed by the Lord for himself and only then brought together with Mary and given over to her. If Joseph attains to God and to holiness only through Mary, God draws John immediately into His friendship and binds him as the Lord's friend to the Mother of the Lord. - From 'The Handmaid of the Lord' via 'Deep Furrows'"

(Via Video meliora, proboque; Deteriora sequor.)

I know you think you understand what you heard me say … "I do not know, therefore I blog" William Vallicella explains why...

… but you don’t realize that what I said is not what I really meant. (lifted from Punctum Saliens)

Blogging is an interesting exercise. And part of it's potential benefit is that it can be therapeutic. The comparison can be made to something that happened at work. I had a conflict with a co-worker and was very angry afterwards. I decided to vent these feelings to the supervisor. In forcing myself to express my feelings and the facts in a reasonable, civil manner, I effectively changed the narrative that was raging in my head.

By the time I was done talking with the supervisor I saw the whole thing in a different light. I had handled the situation badly and then over-reacted to the resulting conflict. The act of changing the story to suit a neutral third-party helped me to see the bigger picture.

Blogging can serve that same purpose. We just have to remember that we are potentially addressing neutral third-parties who won't be favourably impressed with emotional ranting. The process of recasting our stories may help us to better understand the situations we are in.

But, why-oh-why, couldn't I have thought of this for a blog motto:

"Nescio ergo blogo"

"I do not know, therefore I blog"

William Vallicella explains why...: "'Nescio ergo blogo'

'I do not know, therefore I blog'

William Vallicella explains why he is not ready to pack it in:

Blogging is an excellent tool for the assembly, preliminary refinement, and presentation of one’s thoughts on any topic that turns one’s crank. One e-jaculates them into the 'sphere, and on an auspicious day one snags a worthwile comment or stimulating e-mail response. Fellow"

(Via Lex Communis.)

What is Scholarship?

And how should it treat the Bible?

Should we call for biblical studies to be reformed?:

Rather a lot of people mistrust biblical scholars.  Other scholars look at them sideways.  Christians treat them with suspicion, because they so often appear on TV in the UK bashing the Christians.  Since few outside of Christianity are much interested in biblical studies, the curious effect is that the discipline in general is brought under suspicion of being biased against its subject matter.

It is, perhaps, a sensitive subject.  Those who raise it often find themselves being screamed at.  Cynics may feel that the discipline might incur less odium if it made more of an effort to be objective, and to steer clear of religious and political controversy, and there is probably truth in that, at least in the UK.  I’m not sure whether that is entirely fair, however.

But quite by accident today I saw this post which advertises a historical Jesus seminar.  I’d like to look at the abstract of the first paper, as an example of the sort of thing that makes me quite uneasy about biblical studies.  I don’t know who wrote that abstract, and I certainly don’t want to pillory the author who doubtless reflects the college he comes from.  But I have seen the same sort of attitude, expressed or insinuated more subtly, on a number of occasions.  Here’s the start:

‘‘How did Jesus cure?’ … It has become common in NT studies to avoid such questions by either declaring them inadmissible or providing supernaturalist explanations which would be unacceptable in any other discipline and are not usually considered appropriate when looking at comparable figures with reputations as healers in antiquity.’

The author is plainly not a Christian; but that’s fine.  He appeals to objective standards, and so is that.  But somehow this distills the essence of much of my unease.  To the author, the only objective way to study Christianity is on the basis that it is untrue.

Now one might have various things to say about this.  But this is not a value-neutral position!  It is, in fact, the intrusion of a prejudice as an axiom.

I must ask whether this is how we want to study any ancient text?  Do we define in advance that, in every important element, the text before us is wrong, and its authors mistaken, duped or dishonest?  I would feel deep unease at any study of any book that started on that foot.  We might draw that conclusion at the end of our studies; but hardly in advance.

There is genuine difference of opinion among the educated on questions such as whether miracles happen.  Is it the place of scholarship to answer that?  If it is — which seems doubtful — is it right to do it, not by debate, but by means of subterfuge and insinuation?  It seems to me that the above sentence does just this. For instance, are we not invited to acquiesce in the belief that either we must hold that every ancient superstition was genuine, or else we must reject Christianity? Likewise does it not insinuate that Jesus is no different from any other healer in antiquity? Both of these might be discussed, although not here, but they can hardly be assumed, or treated as ‘objective’.  I feel that this sort of thing is rather common.

It is certainly quite possible that Christianity is not true.  Let us frankly admit this.  But is it the job of biblical studies to take a position that it is not, before starting work?

The real issue is how we do scholarship.  On any subject, I want to see the data gathered, conclusions drawn cautiously from it, and a general refusal to speculate or introduce extraneous political or religious opinions, on which people may well have differing opinions.

Let’s look at that paper in this light.  What data exists on ‘how Jesus cured’?  Jesus heals a leper; but neither Jesus nor the leper is available for interview. No archaeological evidence exists or indeed is conceivable.  We’re reliant solely on the accounts in the New Testament, perhaps leavened with a bit of patristic quotation from Celsus.

And what do these say?  Well, it hardly matters: because we have already decided that any testimony they give to supernatural events must be rejected without discussion, and every last source suggests that supernatural means are involved.  But if that is the case, surely we have nothing further to discuss, not based on data and deductions from it!  All the data gives one answer.

Disentangling some core of truth from a book that is (on this hypothesis) a complete and persistent set of lies must be impossible without some further external data.  All that is left is silence.  But we’re not offered silence; so we must be looking at unevidenced speculation which is contradicted by the only literary source.  Is that scholarship?   If it is, then I would treat scholarship as a fraud on the taxpayer and on the public.

But I think better of scholarship than this, despite my scientific training and the contempt for the humanities that Oxford instills.  This is merely bad scholarship, where a theory takes the place of the data, and prejudice substitutes for evidence.  Haven’t we all seen this habit, in all sorts of fields of scholarship?

I tend to wonder whether biblical studies, as a discipline, needs to be reformed.  After all, to whom — outside of the few in the field — is it currently convincing?  There is much genuine scholarship around in biblical studies.  One has only to look at NA27, or at Metzger on the Text of the NT, to see that at once.  But then there is stuff like this.

But if biblical studies should be reformed, how should it be carried out?  What measures will restore the confidence of the public in the discipline?  What measures would convince the academy at large that biblical studies is a genuine, objective discipline, and not merely an excuse for peddling religion (or, in fear of that accusation, its reverse)?

Or is it easier to scream at anyone who asks whether the emperor has any clothes?

"

(Via Thoughts on Antiquity.)

Today We Celebrate

(1) "pornography and the objectification of women’s bodies"

(2) "divorce, abortion, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and venereal disease"

(3) "forced abortions in China to involuntary sterilizations in Peru"

(4) and plastic surgery and silicon breasts

All of which, at least indirectly, was predicted by Pope Paul VI on this day forty years in his notorious encyclical Humanae Vitae. We continue to ignore this prophet at our own peril:

The Anniversary of Humanae Vitae: "You know the story. Forty years ago —on July 25, 1968 a tired, grumpy, and celibate old man in Rome issued an encyclical called Humanae Vitae, solemnly declaring that birth control is bad, and half the world responded with a shrug. The other half responded with a sneer.
It’s hard to imagine a worse moment for Pope Paul [...]"

(Via FIRST THINGS: On the Square.)

Philosophy in Action

In my recent Intro to Philosophy course, I got the impression that the professor found anencephalic babies to be a crucial issue; a sort of philosophical crowbar to separate students from their unreflective pro-life sentiments. In particular, he argued that if these babies were in fact fully human then all measures to preserve their lives must be taken. On that reasoning, these sub-human creatures would take up space in hospitals needed by real babies.

My counter-argument was that even fully adult human beings are not always entitled to absolutely every treatment possible. My counter-example was triage in hospital emergency rooms. Where facilities are limited, the medical staff may rightly decide to focus on those who have the most immediate needs and to give comfort measures only to those who are deemed to be beyond hope. By my argument, anencephalic babies may well fill that role, those who are dying and are given comfort measures only.

But here is a different take on that experience:

Brazilian Anencephalic Baby: Shatters Pro-Abortion Myths

After a year and a half of life, smiles, cries when mother is away, responds to sounds.

Though he would still be the object of God's love if he couldn't do even that."

(Via Catholic and Enjoying It!.)

Reading the Tea Leaves

Parsing statements from foreign leaders can be a frustrating endeavour. Prime Minister Maliki's seeming endorsement of Obama's plan for withdrawal may be just such a case. Opponents of continued American and International troops continuing presence there have been quick to seize on these statements; even the redoubtable Mark Shea.

There are arguments to be made and considered. I will not endorse any particular conclusion. But please note an Iraqi's take on this. And note the following also:

Required Reading: "

4) From the Washington Post, ‘Behind Maliki’s Games’ by Max Boot

The always excellent Boot deconstructs Nouri al-Maliki’s series of statements from the last week. Long story short? If the left wants to be intellectually honest, it might not want to make too much of this momentary propaganda coup:

In May 2006, shortly after becoming prime minister, he claimed, 'Our forces are capable of taking over the security in all Iraqi provinces within a year and a half.'

In October 2006, when violence was spinning out of control, Maliki declared that it would be 'only a matter of months' before his security forces could 'take over the security portfolio entirely and keep some multinational forces only in a supporting role.'

President Bush wisely ignored Maliki. Instead of withdrawing U.S. troops, he sent more. The prime minister wasn't happy. On Dec. 15, 2006, the Wall Street Journal reported, 'Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has flatly told Gen. George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, that he doesn't want more U.S. personnel deployed to the country, according to U.S. military officials.' When the surge went ahead anyway, Maliki gave it an endorsement described in news accounts as 'lukewarm.'

In January 2007, with the surge just starting, Maliki predicted 'that within three to six months our need for the American troops will dramatically go down.' In April 2007, when most of Baghdad was still out of control, the prime minister said that Iraqi forces would assume control of security in every province by the end of the year.

Watching Anderson Cooper a couple of nights ago as he breathlessly reported on Maliki’s comments from Friday (and hilariously referred to them as ‘breaking news’ more than 72 hours after they were uttered), I couldn’t help but be struck how Cooper and his reporters treated Maliki as some sort of omniscient figure who always knows best. That clearly hasn’t been the case.

That said, I feel the need to reiterate what I wrote yesterday. Victory in Iraq is within reach, and John McCain has to show an appropriate eagerness for seizing the victory that he midwifed. To date, McCain hasn’t done so, although on a conference call yesterday his surrogates did belatedly show a more appropriate enthusiasm for ending the war. The American public wants this war won, and then it wants the war ended. The public does not want it fought endlessly. McCain’s resolve is admirable – his resolve made victory possible. But the campaign has to focus on what lies ahead, specifically the road to victory and then the road home. Promising an indefinite slog doesn’t square with the facts on the ground, and the McCain campaign has to be cognizant of that fact.

(Via Campaign Standard.)

Pet Peeves

We all have them, of course. One of mine is exercised every Sunday: clapping at Mass. In particular, the seemingly obligatory applause after the Recessional Hymn for the Choir. This is not entertainment, folks. They are supposed to be helping us to praise God and to experience God's Presence in the Eucharist more fully. Why does this generation feel comfortable clapping at Mass? Do the hardy hand-shakes at the Rite of Peace have anything to do with it?

Hold the Applause: Confessions of a Conflicted Clapper: "

Whenever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of the liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment.  

The above words were penned…

"

(Via Catholic Exchange.)

Toothpaste

Perhaps this isn't the subject you'd be looking for after a month-long break from blogging. But it has been a subject that has been on my mind since my visit with the family in June.

My oldest sister and I had several long talks, which we hadn't done since our childhood in the sixties. I reminisced about how Mom and Dad (Requiescant in Pacem) used to view solving conflicts.

This brought us to a childhood query I had made about brushing my teeth. I asked Mom if I should wet the toothbrush first and then apply the toothpaste or vice versa. She took one view, I don't remember which now. Since she didn't actually give me a reason why this was correct, I decided to ask Dad. He gave the opposite answer, again with no compelling reason for it.

This puzzled me no end, simpleton that I was. I tried to get one or both of them to give me reasons for their different answers. This only made each of them annoyed and all the more assertive about the correctness of their position.

And, I believe, this is because they were raised to see all conflicts as win/lose contests. This is also known as zero-sum games. The object of getting me to agree with them was to avoid a loss to the other parent. Reason was only a tool for rationalizing one's position. If it worked, great. If it didn't, ignore it. But winning was everything and the loser was a zero.

This is a seriously defective way to frame all conflict. I do admit some conflict is effectively a win/lose situation. But much of it isn't. We need to keep this is mind when our blood pressure and the decibels start rising.

And, by the way, ever since our childhood, we both wet the toothbrush before and after applying the toothpaste.

Thank You America

for having such a good sense of humour. I just returned from a whirl-wind visit with my kith and kin in the USA. A week to recover and back to work. In the meantime here is a reference to one of our family's favourite indie bands:

1812: "Pro Ecclesia reminds us how important this date in history is...

For a uniquely Canadian perspective we have the 'Arrogant Worms'






DISCLAIMER: OBNOXIOUS BUT HARMLESS"

(Via island breezes.)

PASWO?

PASWO blogging is a concept I just learned about from Joshua Claybourn at In The Agora. I've been doing something akin to this for the last few months.

I have had a daily routine of checking my blog aggregator, NewNewsWire, daily to catch up on the world. Most items would get only a cursory scan, but some would draw my attention. When I realized that I could directly blog from NetNewsWire via MarsEdit, I decided I would share some of those items I found interesting. This would help justify the existence of the blog I had started up some time ago, not to mention justifying the daily slog of scanning a select portion of the blogosphere for a hour or two each day.

This way of doing things largely devolved into "Gee, look at this" kinds of posts with little significant commentary from me; a line or two and then the citation being referred to. I'm not clear that this is necessarily a bad thing. But, it does look similar to joining a conversation, literal or electronic, and simply saying, "yeah, what he said", which is a waste of time for everyone concerned.

On the other hand, not everyone who might read my blog, a small but elite clientele, necessarily is connected to the same feeds that I am. So I might be providing a service to my anonymous readers by pointing them to interesting items or blogs. It is in that hope that I continue to do PASWO blogging

Whither the Human Rights Industry?

Are we slowly heading into an Orwellian nightmare for those who don't think correctly?

Catholicism - A Hate Crime in Canada?:

‘If one, because of one’s sincerely held moral beliefs, whether it be Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of same-sex marriage in Canada, is that considered ‘hate’?’

The question was not rhetorical. Nor was it theoretical. Fr. Alphonse de Valk,…

(Via Catholic Exchange.)

A Long Read

While recuperating. The ideas presented here are thought provoking and don't fall into the usual "good guy/bad guy" typology. The writer's hope that un-elected bodies can be set up (by the very politicians who are responsible for this current mess) to define truth disinterestedly seems naive to me. To attempt to define truth as an objective reality you must first believe it exists and then believe that we are at least theoretically capable of knowing it. The present generation trained in the same university system as the complainants may not be able to grasp those ideas.

But the post is worth a read for it's dispassionate take on the conflict being acted out in the basement of the Law Courts building:

Covenant Zone: "Thoughts on seeing a human rights tribunal in action
I have been reflecting on a little time spent at the British Columbia Human Rights tribunal on Monday, mostly spent listening to the testimony of Khurrum Awan, the young man largely responsible for starting the ball rolling on what became the Mohamed Elmasry/CIC complaint against Maclean's. "

(Via Andrew Coyne's Blog.)

This is Not Therapeutic

But several of the blogs I follow are ablaze with the Mark Steyn/Maclean's magazine prosecution in a B.C. Human Rights tribunal, now in it's second day. I've had some experience with quasi-judicial bodies, having been before the Labour Relations Board, once as a complainant.

What struck me then, in my callow youth, was how chummy all the lawyers on all sides (Union, Employer & LRB) were. This was conducted in a less formal version of court, but had well established procedures and precedents, all administered by or at least vetted by competent lawyers.

The HRC's, on the other hand, act as if quasi-judicial means "make it up as you go along". A less competent group to decide whose speech will be free cannot be imagined. And we owe this to politicians trying earn votes by sloppily crafting laws and handing over their administration to apparatchiks and grievance-mongers. This is isn't helping my recovery at all:

Steynianism 159: "~ AND JUST WHO ARE these three kangaroo court ‘judges’?; The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal: we have jurisdiction over all political discourse!; on B.C.’s quirk; looks like Triple jeopardy; Now Faisal Joseph wants to have the Tribunal discuss the TVO show; Now Awan is blaming TVO!; This isn’t a law suit; Memories of Khurrum; Awan can dish it out — but he can’t take it; Who died and made Elmasry the Muslim Pope? Like Mohammed Elmasry, I blame the Jews …. (ezralevant.com)"

(Via Free Mark Steyn!.)

Laughter is the Best Medicine

I'm under the weather today, so this post from Island Breezes is very therapeutic:

Jesterlicious: "The Curt Jester Reports :

'The Illinois senator said he and his wife Michelle were withdrawing from the 8,000-strong congregation of the Trinity United Church of Christ, following a new uproar over a priest's mocking attack on his rival Hillary Clinton...The Senator then went on to tell reporters that he is currently in the hunt for a new church to attend. 'I am currently leaning towards an"

(Via island breezes.)

Who Will Defend Homer?

Not Simpson, but the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey. We have a rich patrimony of literature, art, and thought in the last three millennia. Are we abandoning it for Grand Theft Auto? That most high school graduates need to learn skills to get a decent living seems fair enough. But what about the ten per cent or so who will go on to positions of leadership in our society: the lawyers, doctors and so on?

If our leaders are out of touch with our own history and the riches of our culture, then we are being led by amnesiacs. The will to power of our leaders might turn us all into hedonistic philistines, the easier to be led.

So I justify my old age search for knowledge of the humanities, so that I might be less easily bamboozled by our plausible, but ignorant leaders.

Steynianism 151: "~ REBUILDING THE FOUNDATION: ‘A pretty good summa of the humanities’ …. (worldontheweb)"

(Via Free Mark Steyn!.)

It's Good for You

Walking, that is. I've always enjoyed walking. I used to torture my poor family with Sunday walks, more like hikes up and down the North Shore mountains. Fresh air, exercise, and nature: there's no better combination. Even now I rejoice that, although I have to work for a few more years, at least I walk to and from work five days a week. So here's a BBC journalist arguing the benefits of walking in the country:

Spring in the step: "Why a brisk stroll could be just what the doctor ordered."

(Via BBC News.)

Things to Be Thankful For

I'm inspired by this:

FAMILY-FRIENDLY COMMENCEMENT SPEECH [Kevin Miller]
5/23/2008


A reader emailed yesterday (and I didn't get a chance to blog it, but want to do so before I start my break):

Courtesy of NRO: A former speechwriter to Pres. Bush addressed Benedictine College last week. In that speech he laid out "three propositions that are easily forgotten and only painfully re-learned" and that are very much congruent with HMS ideals:

First, who you marry is far more important than what career you choose. Over the course of a life that has taken me across three continents, I have met many accomplished men and women. And I have always been astonished by the number who give more thought to choosing the job they may hold for a couple of years than to choosing the spouse to whom they will pledge – before God and their friends – to remain with until death they do part.

Second, no professional achievement – no matter how extraordinary – can match the thrill of seeing the absolute love and confidence reflected in the trusting eyes of a child who calls you Mom or Dad.

Finally, you will not find lasting happiness by pursuing it. Happiness is the byproduct of a contented life. And the surest path to a contented life is to put the needs of others before your own.

And my reader added in a follow-up:

Of course, right after hitting send I came across a link to the whole speech. It's good. And he has a nice expression in there after drawing the distinction between romance and simple physical intimacy: "And so those of us who speak fluent Audrey Hepburn find it difficult to communicate in a Sarah Jessica Parker world."

Yes, that is a very good speech. Thomist that I am, I might have put the point about happiness in a somewhat different way (for Thomas, following Aristotle, there is such a thing as the legitimate pursuit of happiness - happiness is our end - and it's something more than a "byproduct"). But I nonetheless agree with McGurn's point.
E-Mail Author

via Heart, Mind & Strength

And Here I've Been Worried For No Reason

My brain is actually getting better:

Older brain really may be a wiser brain: "

From the New York Times: Older Brain Really May Be a Wiser Brain.

When older people can no longer remember names at a cocktail party, they tend to think that their brainpower is declining. But a growing number of studies suggest that this assumption is often wrong.

Instead, the research finds, the aging brain is simply taking in more data and trying to sift through a clutter of information, often to its long-term benefit.

The studies are analyzed in a new edition of a neurology book, 'Progress in Brain Research.'

Some brains do deteriorate with age. Alzheimer’s disease, for example, strikes 13 percent of Americans 65 and older. But for most aging adults, the authors say, much of what occurs is a gradually widening focus of attention that makes it more difficult to latch onto just one fact, like a name or a telephone number. Although that can be frustrating, it is often useful. [continue]

Share This

"

(Via Mirabilis.ca.)

A Cultural Divide

sometimes rears it's head inside the Catholic Church. Given the reputation for lockstep unity that the Church at least used to have, this is more than a little odd. The most striking point of divergence in my experience is the attitudes toward catechisms, in particular the Baltimore Catechism.

My own memories of that Catechism aren't quite as negative as most of my generation. But then, I'm a little too quick to like structure and simplicity. The obvious deficiency (from a perspective fifty-years later) in that training program was it's failure to focus on our relationship with Christ as central to our experience and beliefs as Catholics. Thus, those to whom the memorized answers meant little or nothing became the same generation that left the Catholic Church for a bewildering variety of substitutes, but mostly for nothing organized at all. There was no living, vibrant love of Jesus to anchor them.

In any case, even the word "catechist" is avoided by many "teaching' the Catholic religion, especially to adults. The post-Vatican II mentality assumes that religion isn't something we can share at an intellectual level, with definite answers to specific questions. Rather, it is an almost completely anti-intellectual experience that can only be shared non-judgmentally. Hence, "facilitator" is the preferred title for adult religion courses, such as RCIA. Avoiding hard questions that suggest definite answers becomes a priority in systems of this sort.

Has this generation, the one that thought the Second Vatican Council meant a complete re-tooling of Catholic Teaching and Worship, succeeded in teaching it's disciples that Catholicism, indeed organized religion of any sort, are completely unnecessary? To what degree are they responsible for the one-third of cradle Catholics who have left the Church? And is there a new generation that is ready to re-unite the intellectual and spiritual elements of Catholic Teaching?

Why we're different: "The latest issue of Commonweal contains a reflection by a 'Young Fogey'/JPII priest. The most interesting section concerns the four years he spent living with a baby-boomer pastor during his first assignment. Here's a key excerpt:

Our best conversations took place at the dinner table. My pastor recalled memorizing the Baltimore Catechism in grade school. I told him that I made collages about my feelings in religious-ed class. When he complained that his seminary formation had been too militaristic, I told him of my frustrations with a seminary formation that seemed too lax. When he spoke of the years he spent studying Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, I expressed embarrassment at not knowing how to chant the Pater Noster as I concelebrated Mass with Benedict XVI at World Youth Day a few years ago in Cologne. When my pastor expressed gratitude that the clerical dress code had been relaxed over the years, I said I thought it was important that the priest be a visible sign of the church, to remind the world that God is not dead. But when it came to the abuse scandals, we were on the same page-or at least in the same book. The scandals hit us both hard, though in different ways.

There's a similar dynamic at work among the laity of course. The bulk of the participants in my Monday morning group are post-boomers with no memory of the Council or the 'Old Church.' Another group whose members are about a generation older meets later in the week to study the Sunday readings. I had the pleasure of meeting this 'Wednesday group's' leader after our wonderful May crowning yesterday. He told me I sometimes served as their 'conservative Catholic point of reference,' which I took as a compliment. The conservative qualifier struck me as a nod to a post-boomer outlook that tends to be a bit more Magisterium-friendly. That's reflected by the educational philosophy of the Monday group itself: cognition first, reflection second. You won't find participants debating clerical celibacy, railing against the Church's 'feudal structure,' or using the word 'pharisaical' to describe a point of doctrine. Indeed, doctrine and dogma are seen as 'helps' not hindrances. I'd like to think we take the best of the old -- content, memorization, rigor -- and enhance it with what is good about the new -- discussion, fellowship, apostolate. Let's hope it bears fruit."

(Via Ten Reasons.)

May

is Mary's month, I'm reminded in a comment from Santiago. I wonder if he came across my blog while googling "paella"? Anyway, he gives a link to a lovely youtube video. Have a look.