Yet another reason to think that Super Nanny States are a bad idea
Protestant sect lays illegit claim to apostolic succession (Ugly Vestment Alert!)
Bishop D'Arcy spanks Fr. Jenkins for consulting with everyone but his own bishop
Faith on the Edge: GodSpy
The Civic Vices
My latest addiction
Book reviews, book reviews, book reviews
And even more book reviews
A George Weigel on-line archive
26 philosophical lectures on life, death, the soul, immortality
Eccentric words of wisdom
Funny philosophical one-liners (prepare to groan)
Jane Austen zombified
"A [preacher] who does not love art, poetry, music and nature can be dangerous. Blindness and deafness toward the beautiful are not incidental; they are necessarily reflected in his [preaching]." — BXVI
24 April 2009
23 April 2009
The Crescat: Cannonball Blog Awards 2009
Truly, I am honored!
HancAquam has been nominated for recognition by the 2009 Cannonball Blog Awards, "a blog award not dominated by the usual suspects," in the category: "Best Blog by a Religious Who's Not Fr. Z."
I'll keep you posted when voting starts. . .
HancAquam has been nominated for recognition by the 2009 Cannonball Blog Awards, "a blog award not dominated by the usual suspects," in the category: "Best Blog by a Religious Who's Not Fr. Z."
These awards are meant to recognize "minor bloggers," those of us who don't get Mark Shea's and Fr. Z.'s level of traffic (e.g., HancAquam is averaging about 360 hits daily).
Head over and suggest a couple of more categories. . .my fav so far: "Best Bat Sh*t Crazy Blog"!
I'll keep you posted when voting starts. . .
22 April 2009
Laptop of my future?
If and when (God forbid!) I need to get a new laptop, I've decided that it will be this one:
Toshiba Satellite P305-S8904 (link)
I've configured it for the max bang for my mini bucks. . .this configuration is $870.00:
Since most of this is complete gibberish to me, I would appreciate comments!
By comparison, what do we think of this one? (Satellite L355)
Toshiba Satellite P305-S8904 (link)
I've configured it for the max bang for my mini bucks. . .this configuration is $870.00:
|
By comparison, what do we think of this one? (Satellite L355)
21 April 2009
more Coffee Bowl Browsing. . .
Planned Parenthood: killing babies and abetting child rape since 1921 (video embedded)
Church of Global Warming extremists scaring kids into obedience
This would never happen to me. . .I barely fit in the in-flight outhouse
It worked! Doesn't matter. . .it's still wrong
Left-lib journalist calls The One's stand against charter schools a sin
A lesson in republican (not GOP) values
The (very) positive side of the long-awaited "biological solution"
Martyred on the gallows of Tolerant Leftist Harpies
Pultizer Prizes announced! One of my fav poets won: W.S. Merwin
The Myth/Reality of "green jobs". . .hint: H.U.G.E. failure in Spain
The nation's most liberal court upholds the Second Amendment
Church of Global Warming extremists scaring kids into obedience
This would never happen to me. . .I barely fit in the in-flight outhouse
It worked! Doesn't matter. . .it's still wrong
Left-lib journalist calls The One's stand against charter schools a sin
A lesson in republican (not GOP) values
The (very) positive side of the long-awaited "biological solution"
Martyred on the gallows of Tolerant Leftist Harpies
Pultizer Prizes announced! One of my fav poets won: W.S. Merwin
The Myth/Reality of "green jobs". . .hint: H.U.G.E. failure in Spain
The nation's most liberal court upholds the Second Amendment
Chunky Monkeys Skunking Climate, or Al Gore Wants You on a Diet!
OK. . .the Church of Global Warming is getting even more hysterical since recent polls show that their alarmist propaganda isn't working on the American public.
Case in point: Fatties are causing global warming. Apparently, idiocy in the service of ideology has no shame.
H/T: Drudge
H/T: Drudge
20 April 2009
The weight of convincing truth
Look! A homily! Remember those. . .?
2nd Week of Easter (T): Acts 4.32-37; John 3.7-15
Fr. Philip N. Powell, OP
Convento SS. Domenico e Sisto, Roma
If I were to tell you that I witnessed the student protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989, while teaching English in China, you might want to know how I felt and what I was thinking. If I were to tell you that I witnessed the end of WWII, the surrender of the Axis Powers to the Allies in 1945, you might begin to wonder a bit about my age. If I were to tell you that I witnessed Pontus Pilate abandon Christ to the brutal mercies of the crowd in first-century Jerusalem, you would smile sympathetically, pat me on the shoulder, and then tell your friends, “That Fr. Philip is a really nice guy, but sometimes he lies.” If then, I were to bear witness to Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection from the dead, would you believe me? What is it that gives our witness the convincing weight of truth?
Nicodemus, Jewish political and religious leader, wealthy, upright citizen, approaches Jesus at night and poses several questions about the nature and necessity of being “born again.” In the dark of his night, Nicodemus seeks Christ’s light. Unfortunately, Jesus’ answers lead to more questions. Eventually, Jesus chastises Nicodemus, saying, “[…] we speak of what we know and we testify to what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony. If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?” Jesus is putting the burden of belief on Nicodemus, chastising him for not accepting his witness to the truth of earthly things. But let’s look at it from Nicodemus’ view. What reason has Jesus given him to believe his testimony? What gives Jesus’ witness the convincing weight of truth?
Let’s bring this question home: why should anyone who does not believe the Church’s witness to Christ take our testimony about Christ as evidence for the truth of the gospel? Why should the non-believer believe you when you say, “Alleluia! Christ is risen!”? We have a hint in Acts: “The community of believers was of one heart and mind […] With great power the Apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus[…].” How did they bear this witness: “[…] no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common […] There was no needy person among them […].” In other words, the apostles and those with them lived the death and resurrection of Christ with one heart and mind, dying to selfish want and rising to a new life in the Body. Did this public witness prove the truth of the faith? Not to everyone. But living the witness we proclaim, and not merely proclaiming it, tilts the scale of credibility heavily in our favor.
If our witness is to one faith, one baptism, one Lord, and we live as if there were many faiths, lots of baptisms, and multiple lords—a limitless diversity of opinion and unlimited options—then no one should believe us. If we proclaim a gospel of one heart and one mind in Christ, and then live as if there are countless hearts and numerous minds in many different Christs, no one should believe us. And no one will. We must lift up the Son of Man, Christ Jesus, not only with our tongues but with our hands as well. No other way will give our witness the weight of convincing truth.
2nd Week of Easter (T): Acts 4.32-37; John 3.7-15
Fr. Philip N. Powell, OP
Convento SS. Domenico e Sisto, Roma
If I were to tell you that I witnessed the student protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989, while teaching English in China, you might want to know how I felt and what I was thinking. If I were to tell you that I witnessed the end of WWII, the surrender of the Axis Powers to the Allies in 1945, you might begin to wonder a bit about my age. If I were to tell you that I witnessed Pontus Pilate abandon Christ to the brutal mercies of the crowd in first-century Jerusalem, you would smile sympathetically, pat me on the shoulder, and then tell your friends, “That Fr. Philip is a really nice guy, but sometimes he lies.” If then, I were to bear witness to Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection from the dead, would you believe me? What is it that gives our witness the convincing weight of truth?
Nicodemus, Jewish political and religious leader, wealthy, upright citizen, approaches Jesus at night and poses several questions about the nature and necessity of being “born again.” In the dark of his night, Nicodemus seeks Christ’s light. Unfortunately, Jesus’ answers lead to more questions. Eventually, Jesus chastises Nicodemus, saying, “[…] we speak of what we know and we testify to what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony. If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?” Jesus is putting the burden of belief on Nicodemus, chastising him for not accepting his witness to the truth of earthly things. But let’s look at it from Nicodemus’ view. What reason has Jesus given him to believe his testimony? What gives Jesus’ witness the convincing weight of truth?
Let’s bring this question home: why should anyone who does not believe the Church’s witness to Christ take our testimony about Christ as evidence for the truth of the gospel? Why should the non-believer believe you when you say, “Alleluia! Christ is risen!”? We have a hint in Acts: “The community of believers was of one heart and mind […] With great power the Apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus[…].” How did they bear this witness: “[…] no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common […] There was no needy person among them […].” In other words, the apostles and those with them lived the death and resurrection of Christ with one heart and mind, dying to selfish want and rising to a new life in the Body. Did this public witness prove the truth of the faith? Not to everyone. But living the witness we proclaim, and not merely proclaiming it, tilts the scale of credibility heavily in our favor.
If our witness is to one faith, one baptism, one Lord, and we live as if there were many faiths, lots of baptisms, and multiple lords—a limitless diversity of opinion and unlimited options—then no one should believe us. If we proclaim a gospel of one heart and one mind in Christ, and then live as if there are countless hearts and numerous minds in many different Christs, no one should believe us. And no one will. We must lift up the Son of Man, Christ Jesus, not only with our tongues but with our hands as well. No other way will give our witness the weight of convincing truth.
New Laptop. . .but which one? (UPDATED)
OK. . .spoke with The Boss recently and there's general agreement that if a new laptop becomes necessary. . .well, it's necessary.
So, here's the question: in the event that a new laptop is needed, which one do I get?
Keep in mind the following requirements:
1). $800-$900
2). 17" screen (my eyes can't see anything smaller w/o ramping up the font-size to 16pt!)So, here's the question: in the event that a new laptop is needed, which one do I get?
Keep in mind the following requirements:
1). $800-$900
3). I use my laptop for writing papers, blogging, general web browsing, and the occasional DVD.
4). No heavy graphics, music, chatting, gaming, web design, or anything much beyond basic academic work and blogging.
5). Nothing ugly. (OK--not really a requirement, but if it can be nice, why not?)
6). Right now I have a 4.5 year old Dell Inspiron 9300. Meets all of my requirements just fine. I have had no problems with this model until just recently. Foxfire has been crashing a lot lately, but that's not DELL's fault.
So. . .Geeks of the Catholic blogosphere: what say YOU!?
UPDATE: I'm reading every comment and taking notes! Keep 'em comin'. . .
18 April 2009
Cover and link to my Prayer Book!
Here's my book from Liguori Publications. . .Due out on Sept 15, 2009
Treasures Old and New: Traditional Prayers for Today's Catholic
Please link and spread the good news!
More Catholic stuff!
Here's some Good News! Orthodox Catholics are hopeful about the Church's future. "Progressive" Catholics are not. (This is not to be taken to mean that Progressive Catholics cannot also be Orthodox--they can.)
The Vatican fights back. . .calls Belgian parliamentary condemnation of the Holy Father's statement on condom use "an attempt at intimidation."
Virgin Mary, Ark of the Covenant?
Mater et Magistra. . .Archbishop Charles Chaput on the Church as Mother and Teacher (link fixed)
Fr. Nicanor Austriaco, OP on "Reading Genesis with Cardinal Ratzinger"
The 1962 Sancta Missa with text and audio!
Traditional Catholic books from Sophia Institute Press: $2.00!
Jimmy Akin's Internet Question Box: answers to all your Catholic questions
The MP3 Library: Gregorian Chant
Catholic radio, TV, and podcasts at Catholic Tuner
The Vatican fights back. . .calls Belgian parliamentary condemnation of the Holy Father's statement on condom use "an attempt at intimidation."
Virgin Mary, Ark of the Covenant?
Mater et Magistra. . .Archbishop Charles Chaput on the Church as Mother and Teacher (link fixed)
Fr. Nicanor Austriaco, OP on "Reading Genesis with Cardinal Ratzinger"
The 1962 Sancta Missa with text and audio!
Traditional Catholic books from Sophia Institute Press: $2.00!
Jimmy Akin's Internet Question Box: answers to all your Catholic questions
The MP3 Library: Gregorian Chant
Catholic radio, TV, and podcasts at Catholic Tuner
17 April 2009
LCWR: prophets of futility & New Age gnosticism
Again, waiting for my bowl of coffee to kick in, I did a little browsing on the website of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR). They have posted information about their annual assemblies, including the texts of the presidential addresses and keynote speeches.
I read through several of the keynote speeches, and I noticed a couple of themes (that's what we Old Lit Teachers do--look for themes). Here's just a few in no particular order:
1. "Mission": all of the addresses I read (four of them) exhort the sisters to mission. But never the mission of the Church that we would recognize as evangelization, that is, the preaching and teaching of the gospel that Christ gave to the apostles. The mission the sisters are exhorted to take up is always, always some form of left-liberal social engineering disguised as caring for Earth or insuring access to adequate health for women.
2). Insularity: despite the exhortations to "mission," all of the addresses I read include broad descriptions of the history of women religious as a way of "situating" the experience of these women within their own "mission," in other words, they spend a lot of page space on talking to one another about one another's grand innovations after the VC2 and how these innovations are radically different from anything that's come before. There's quite a bit of self-congratulation here, along with laundry lists of excuses why their missions have failed to produce global results. The villian in their failures, by the way, is always the hierarchy. Big surprise.
3). "Prophetic": as a corollary to their mission and insularity, the addresses harp on how "prophetic" women religious are in these innovations. As far as I can tell, "prophetic" means whatever they want it to mean. It clearly does not mean what the Church means by the term. If the examples used are typical, "prophetic" means something like "doing what we please and then accusing the Church of being too traditional, oppressive, and isolated from the world for not following our lead." Beware self-anointed prophets!
4). "We missed out": probably the most interesting theme is what I will call the We Missed Out theme. This theme arises in several discussions of the scientific and technological revolutions of the 20th century. Apparently, this theme is meant to demonstrate the superiority of a modernist worldview over and against a wholly Christian worldview. But what arises is a kind of lament that these women have somehow missed out on the revolutions and long to stir one of their own so as to feel somehow prophetic. I've found a similar theme in recent court opinions allowing same-sex "marriage"--judges too young to have participated in the heady days of near absolute judicial power during the civil rights era of the 60's invent a place for themselves in legal history by making what laws they can from the bench. We want to shine. . .but a light we ourselves generate.
5). Futility: without exception the addresses I read painted depressing portraits of women religious as a tiny rebel band fighting the Sheriff of Rome. As part of the insularity painted by these addresses is a tragic sense of loss and the futility of their "mission" in the face of overwhelming authoritarian oppression by men. Apparently, we are to believe that women religious in the U.S. are guerrilla-fighters engaged in a war of attrition against the Church. Unfortunately for them, the attrition is all on their side. Rhetorically, these portraits serve an important purpose: by painting themselves as righteous rebels fighting a losing battle agaist the Man, the sisters are able to both continue their rebellion and justify their material failures all the while claiming moral victory. Neat, uh?
6). Jesus ain't the Way: also without exception the addresses forthrightly deny Jesus' own claim that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. As a way of undermining the Church's legitimate mission of evangelization, Jesus becomes just another good guy with a really cool message of pacificism, egalitarian communal life, and a feminist concern for eco-politics. In one address, delivered by Joan Chittister, the arrival of mosques in historically Christian lands is celebrated as a great advance for liberty and the pursuit of religious diversity. She argues that worrying about the decline in numbers of women religious is a "capitalist question" and holds that the the decimation of covents and monasteries after VC2 is a good sign for the Church! Apparently, the complete loss of a discernible Christian identity among some women religious is to be celebrated as a movement of the Holy Spirit and a great advance in human-spiritual evolution.
7). Monotonality: the addresses are uniformly written and delivered by women religious who tell the gathered sisters only what they wanted to hear. There were no addresses that seriously challenged any of the preconceived notions held dear by these women. Without exception. the meme's of "We Are the Future and Our Agenda is of God" is heard in terms of ecclesial revolution and theological dissent. Not one address challenged the sisters to rethink their assumptions along orthodox lines. Not one address asserted a theme, idea, theology, or political notion that would upset or stir the secular feminist pot these women are stewing in. Despite the constant harping on the need for a variety of voices to be heard in the Church and the desperate need for new ideas among God's people, these addresses repeated in predictable loops one stale feminist cliche after another. Ironically, the obstinate refusal to listen to different voices is routinely described as a failing characteristic of the male-dominated Church hierarchy!
8). New Stories: as a result of the We Missed Out theme, the addresses pull on recent developments in cosmology to construct "new stories" about creation, space-time, human evolution, and the role of consciousness in our pursuit of holiness. Of course, none of these new stories read like anything found in scripture, tradition, science, or Church teaching. In fact, the purpose of the new stories is to lay a narrative foundation for a particularly gnostic-feminist view of the human person that "frees" us from the confines of patriarchal thinking by re-situating the human race as just another evolved species living and dying in a vast cosmos. Routinely, the addresses privilege "new cosmologies" over and against our biblical narratives of creation and the end of space-time, and undermine God's Self-revelation in scripture. Rhetorically, the new cosmologies give the sisters a means of defying our Judeo-Christian tradition with the authority of modernist science. Unfortunately, their grasp of the scientific details of cosmology is woefully inadequate, leaving them to play with a pathetic parody of actual cosmological theories.
Let me point out here that the LCWR is a leadership conference. By no means am I attributing these themes or attitudes to all women religious in the congregations that participate in the LCWR. I know sisters in LCWR congregations who fret about the feminist turn of their communities and lament the loss of their Christian identity to trendy New Age gnosticism. Younger women religious aren't buy this anti-Church junk food, choosing instead to nourish themselves on the vast variety of legit Catholic traditions well within the generous range of orthodoxy. My fisking here is directed at the addresses themselves and what they tell us about what the LCWR is hearing and/or wants to hear. As anyone who's a member of a large organization knows: leadership is often way, way out in front of those they lead. . .sometimes too far out. I think this is certainly the case with the LCWR.
I could go on. . .but it's time for another bowl of coffee!
2). Insularity: despite the exhortations to "mission," all of the addresses I read include broad descriptions of the history of women religious as a way of "situating" the experience of these women within their own "mission," in other words, they spend a lot of page space on talking to one another about one another's grand innovations after the VC2 and how these innovations are radically different from anything that's come before. There's quite a bit of self-congratulation here, along with laundry lists of excuses why their missions have failed to produce global results. The villian in their failures, by the way, is always the hierarchy. Big surprise.
3). "Prophetic": as a corollary to their mission and insularity, the addresses harp on how "prophetic" women religious are in these innovations. As far as I can tell, "prophetic" means whatever they want it to mean. It clearly does not mean what the Church means by the term. If the examples used are typical, "prophetic" means something like "doing what we please and then accusing the Church of being too traditional, oppressive, and isolated from the world for not following our lead." Beware self-anointed prophets!
4). "We missed out": probably the most interesting theme is what I will call the We Missed Out theme. This theme arises in several discussions of the scientific and technological revolutions of the 20th century. Apparently, this theme is meant to demonstrate the superiority of a modernist worldview over and against a wholly Christian worldview. But what arises is a kind of lament that these women have somehow missed out on the revolutions and long to stir one of their own so as to feel somehow prophetic. I've found a similar theme in recent court opinions allowing same-sex "marriage"--judges too young to have participated in the heady days of near absolute judicial power during the civil rights era of the 60's invent a place for themselves in legal history by making what laws they can from the bench. We want to shine. . .but a light we ourselves generate.
5). Futility: without exception the addresses I read painted depressing portraits of women religious as a tiny rebel band fighting the Sheriff of Rome. As part of the insularity painted by these addresses is a tragic sense of loss and the futility of their "mission" in the face of overwhelming authoritarian oppression by men. Apparently, we are to believe that women religious in the U.S. are guerrilla-fighters engaged in a war of attrition against the Church. Unfortunately for them, the attrition is all on their side. Rhetorically, these portraits serve an important purpose: by painting themselves as righteous rebels fighting a losing battle agaist the Man, the sisters are able to both continue their rebellion and justify their material failures all the while claiming moral victory. Neat, uh?
6). Jesus ain't the Way: also without exception the addresses forthrightly deny Jesus' own claim that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. As a way of undermining the Church's legitimate mission of evangelization, Jesus becomes just another good guy with a really cool message of pacificism, egalitarian communal life, and a feminist concern for eco-politics. In one address, delivered by Joan Chittister, the arrival of mosques in historically Christian lands is celebrated as a great advance for liberty and the pursuit of religious diversity. She argues that worrying about the decline in numbers of women religious is a "capitalist question" and holds that the the decimation of covents and monasteries after VC2 is a good sign for the Church! Apparently, the complete loss of a discernible Christian identity among some women religious is to be celebrated as a movement of the Holy Spirit and a great advance in human-spiritual evolution.
7). Monotonality: the addresses are uniformly written and delivered by women religious who tell the gathered sisters only what they wanted to hear. There were no addresses that seriously challenged any of the preconceived notions held dear by these women. Without exception. the meme's of "We Are the Future and Our Agenda is of God" is heard in terms of ecclesial revolution and theological dissent. Not one address challenged the sisters to rethink their assumptions along orthodox lines. Not one address asserted a theme, idea, theology, or political notion that would upset or stir the secular feminist pot these women are stewing in. Despite the constant harping on the need for a variety of voices to be heard in the Church and the desperate need for new ideas among God's people, these addresses repeated in predictable loops one stale feminist cliche after another. Ironically, the obstinate refusal to listen to different voices is routinely described as a failing characteristic of the male-dominated Church hierarchy!
8). New Stories: as a result of the We Missed Out theme, the addresses pull on recent developments in cosmology to construct "new stories" about creation, space-time, human evolution, and the role of consciousness in our pursuit of holiness. Of course, none of these new stories read like anything found in scripture, tradition, science, or Church teaching. In fact, the purpose of the new stories is to lay a narrative foundation for a particularly gnostic-feminist view of the human person that "frees" us from the confines of patriarchal thinking by re-situating the human race as just another evolved species living and dying in a vast cosmos. Routinely, the addresses privilege "new cosmologies" over and against our biblical narratives of creation and the end of space-time, and undermine God's Self-revelation in scripture. Rhetorically, the new cosmologies give the sisters a means of defying our Judeo-Christian tradition with the authority of modernist science. Unfortunately, their grasp of the scientific details of cosmology is woefully inadequate, leaving them to play with a pathetic parody of actual cosmological theories.
Let me point out here that the LCWR is a leadership conference. By no means am I attributing these themes or attitudes to all women religious in the congregations that participate in the LCWR. I know sisters in LCWR congregations who fret about the feminist turn of their communities and lament the loss of their Christian identity to trendy New Age gnosticism. Younger women religious aren't buy this anti-Church junk food, choosing instead to nourish themselves on the vast variety of legit Catholic traditions well within the generous range of orthodoxy. My fisking here is directed at the addresses themselves and what they tell us about what the LCWR is hearing and/or wants to hear. As anyone who's a member of a large organization knows: leadership is often way, way out in front of those they lead. . .sometimes too far out. I think this is certainly the case with the LCWR.
I could go on. . .but it's time for another bowl of coffee!
16 April 2009
Notre Dame prez will not "dialogue" with his own students
Apparently, Fr. Jenkins, president of Notre Dame, is prepared to "dialogue" with our Abortionist-in-Chief but not with his own students. Fr. Jenkins is prepared to subject this year's graduating class to a monologue from The One and call it dialogue, but he is not prepared to sit down with those he is charged with educating and assure them that N.D. is essentially Catholic.
. . .thus putting to death the excuse that The One's invitation to Notre Dame is all about "dialogue."
. . .thus putting to death the excuse that The One's invitation to Notre Dame is all about "dialogue."
Feminism + New Cosmology = Jesus Doesn't Save
This is why the Vatican is performing a "theological assessment" of women's religious congregations in the U.S. . .
In the keynote address to the Leadership Conference of Religious Women, Sr. Laurie Brink, OP lays out four options for the future of religious women in the U.S. In one of these options, she reports (in part):
The dynamic option for Religious Life, which I am calling, Sojourning, is much more difficult to discuss, since it involves moving beyond the Church, even beyond Jesus. A sojourning congregation is no longer ecclesiastical. It has grown beyond the bounds of institutional religion. Its search for the Holy may have begun rooted in Jesus as the Christ, but deep reflection, study and prayer have opened it up to the spirit of the Holy in all of creation. Religious titles, institutional limitations, ecclesiastical authorities no longer fit this congregation, which in most respects is Post-Christian.
When religious communities embraced the spirit of renewal in the 1970s, they took seriously that the world was no longer the enemy, that a sense of ecumenism required encountering the holy “other,” and that the God of Jesus might well be the God of Moses and the God of Mohammed. The works of Thomas Merton encouraged an exploration of the nexus between Eastern and Western religious practices. The emergence of the women’s movement with is concomitant critique of religion invited women everywhere to use a hermeneutical lens of suspicion when reading the androcentric Scriptures and the texts of the Tradition. With a new lens, women also began to see the divine within nature, the value and importance of the cosmos, and that the emerging new cosmology encouraged their spirituality and fed their souls.
As one sister described it, “I was rooted in the story of Jesus, and it remains at my core, but I’ve also moved beyond Jesus.” The Jesus narrative is not the only or the most important narrative for these women. They still hold up and reverence the values of the Gospel, but they also recognize that these same values are not solely the property of Christianity. Buddhism, Native American spirituality, Judaism, Islam and others hold similar tenets for right behavior within the community, right relationship with the earth and right relationship with the Divine. With these insights come a shattering or freeing realization—depending on where you stand. Jesus is not the only son of God. Salvation is not limited to Christians. Wisdom is found in the traditions of the Church as well as beyond it.
[. . .]
There you have it, brothers and sisters, the rotted core of "Post-Christian" theology among the detritus of religious feminism in the U.S.
It's not entirely clear from the address which of the four options Sr. Laurie prefers. The address is difficult to read b/c of its overall tone and protest-rally placard sloganeering. Sr. Laurie can't seem to decide if the Church spends most of its time and energy oppressing women or ignoring them. Or perhaps the Church is oppressing them by ignoring them? This indecision is revealed, for the most part, in the pervasive rhetoric of victimization and her choice to the repeat anti-Catholic stereotypes most often found on the pages of the NYT.
Sad.
UPDATE: For those wondering why the so-called "Sojourning Sisters" refuse to do the obvious and honest thing and just leave the Church that has allegedly made their spiritual lives so unbearable, here's my semi-professional diagnosis: "Rebels Without a Clue."
H/T to Mark Shea
In the keynote address to the Leadership Conference of Religious Women, Sr. Laurie Brink, OP lays out four options for the future of religious women in the U.S. In one of these options, she reports (in part):
The dynamic option for Religious Life, which I am calling, Sojourning, is much more difficult to discuss, since it involves moving beyond the Church, even beyond Jesus. A sojourning congregation is no longer ecclesiastical. It has grown beyond the bounds of institutional religion. Its search for the Holy may have begun rooted in Jesus as the Christ, but deep reflection, study and prayer have opened it up to the spirit of the Holy in all of creation. Religious titles, institutional limitations, ecclesiastical authorities no longer fit this congregation, which in most respects is Post-Christian.
When religious communities embraced the spirit of renewal in the 1970s, they took seriously that the world was no longer the enemy, that a sense of ecumenism required encountering the holy “other,” and that the God of Jesus might well be the God of Moses and the God of Mohammed. The works of Thomas Merton encouraged an exploration of the nexus between Eastern and Western religious practices. The emergence of the women’s movement with is concomitant critique of religion invited women everywhere to use a hermeneutical lens of suspicion when reading the androcentric Scriptures and the texts of the Tradition. With a new lens, women also began to see the divine within nature, the value and importance of the cosmos, and that the emerging new cosmology encouraged their spirituality and fed their souls.
As one sister described it, “I was rooted in the story of Jesus, and it remains at my core, but I’ve also moved beyond Jesus.” The Jesus narrative is not the only or the most important narrative for these women. They still hold up and reverence the values of the Gospel, but they also recognize that these same values are not solely the property of Christianity. Buddhism, Native American spirituality, Judaism, Islam and others hold similar tenets for right behavior within the community, right relationship with the earth and right relationship with the Divine. With these insights come a shattering or freeing realization—depending on where you stand. Jesus is not the only son of God. Salvation is not limited to Christians. Wisdom is found in the traditions of the Church as well as beyond it.
[. . .]
There you have it, brothers and sisters, the rotted core of "Post-Christian" theology among the detritus of religious feminism in the U.S.
It's not entirely clear from the address which of the four options Sr. Laurie prefers. The address is difficult to read b/c of its overall tone and protest-rally placard sloganeering. Sr. Laurie can't seem to decide if the Church spends most of its time and energy oppressing women or ignoring them. Or perhaps the Church is oppressing them by ignoring them? This indecision is revealed, for the most part, in the pervasive rhetoric of victimization and her choice to the repeat anti-Catholic stereotypes most often found on the pages of the NYT.
Sad.
UPDATE: For those wondering why the so-called "Sojourning Sisters" refuse to do the obvious and honest thing and just leave the Church that has allegedly made their spiritual lives so unbearable, here's my semi-professional diagnosis: "Rebels Without a Clue."
H/T to Mark Shea
15 April 2009
Obama's torture loophole
For those who (mistakenly) believe that The One has ended or intents to end the Bush policy of using torture on enemy combatants:
Obama ready to ban harsh interrogations
Jan 16, 2009
[...]
However, Obama's changes [to the Bush policy] may not be absolute. His advisers are considering adding a classified loophole to the rules that could allow the CIA to use some interrogation methods not specifically authorized by the Pentagon, the officials said. They said the intent is not to use that as an opening for possible use of waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.
[...]
For Obama, who repeatedly insisted during the 2008 presidential campaign and the transition period that "America doesn't torture," a classified loophole would allow him to follow through on his promise to end harsh interrogations while retaining a full range of presidential options in conducting the war against terrorism.
The proposed loophole, which could come in the form of a classified annex to the manual, is designed to satisfy intelligence experts who fear that an outright ban of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques would limit the government in obtaining threat information that could save American lives. It would also preserve Obama's flexibility to authorize any interrogation tactics he might deem necessary for national security.
However, such a move would frustrate Senate Democrats and human rights, retired military and religious groups that have pressed for a government-wide prohibition on methods they describe as torture. . .
[...]
Of course, The Loophole has to be classified.
Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.
Obama ready to ban harsh interrogations
Jan 16, 2009
[...]
However, Obama's changes [to the Bush policy] may not be absolute. His advisers are considering adding a classified loophole to the rules that could allow the CIA to use some interrogation methods not specifically authorized by the Pentagon, the officials said. They said the intent is not to use that as an opening for possible use of waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.
[...]
For Obama, who repeatedly insisted during the 2008 presidential campaign and the transition period that "America doesn't torture," a classified loophole would allow him to follow through on his promise to end harsh interrogations while retaining a full range of presidential options in conducting the war against terrorism.
The proposed loophole, which could come in the form of a classified annex to the manual, is designed to satisfy intelligence experts who fear that an outright ban of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques would limit the government in obtaining threat information that could save American lives. It would also preserve Obama's flexibility to authorize any interrogation tactics he might deem necessary for national security.
However, such a move would frustrate Senate Democrats and human rights, retired military and religious groups that have pressed for a government-wide prohibition on methods they describe as torture. . .
[...]
Of course, The Loophole has to be classified.
Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.
Obama does some good
Probably the only good thing to come out of The One's election. . .
Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.
Update: Lord! Even the French think B.O. is a wimp. Next thing you know The One will be getting spanked by Luxembourg!
Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.
14 April 2009
The Devil is after my DELL!
AAARRRGGGHHHHH!!!
Another yellow line has appeared on my monitor. . .
I think the Devil is trying to prevent me from finishing this manuscript!
Pray H.A.R.D.!
Another yellow line has appeared on my monitor. . .
I think the Devil is trying to prevent me from finishing this manuscript!
Pray H.A.R.D.!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)