Ha! Our Argentinian friend takes us to task for our vulgar tastes (although the Babel translator definitely requires one to "look thru the glass darkly").
I'm actually not a whiskey fan at all, having a once-a-year shot of Jameson's on St. Patrick's Day to properly jump start the day.
Favorite Adult Beverages* ..in no particular order
St. Pauli Girl Dark
Guinness Stout
Warsteiner
* - please blog responsibly. Only one drink per post.
December 14, 2002
Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled. - Luke 1:45
***
-Blessed are you who believed: Luke portrays Mary as a believer whose faith stands in contrast to the disbelief of Zechariah (Luke 1:20). Mary's role as believer in the infancy narrative should be seen in connection with the explicit mention of her presence among "those who believed" after the resurrection at the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 1:14). - NAB notes
***
-Blessed are you who believed: Luke portrays Mary as a believer whose faith stands in contrast to the disbelief of Zechariah (Luke 1:20). Mary's role as believer in the infancy narrative should be seen in connection with the explicit mention of her presence among "those who believed" after the resurrection at the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 1:14). - NAB notes
Christmas Walk
dye light
in the nodding hours
dank wind Merlot chill’d,
brave lights curl pines
and whispering oaks--
a neighborhood aurora borealis.
Ranch houses wear the jewelry
of the ebulliently bulbous,
gems of blue and red raiments
recreating the plaintiveness
of youth’s last call.
Standing athwart the land of cold & dark
defiantly bright, incandescent strivers
strike the heart like carolers
of Whoville cheer.
dye light
in the nodding hours
dank wind Merlot chill’d,
brave lights curl pines
and whispering oaks--
a neighborhood aurora borealis.
Ranch houses wear the jewelry
of the ebulliently bulbous,
gems of blue and red raiments
recreating the plaintiveness
of youth’s last call.
Standing athwart the land of cold & dark
defiantly bright, incandescent strivers
strike the heart like carolers
of Whoville cheer.
December 13, 2002
Olde Travelogue, circa '99
I am passing thru the metropolis of Shade, Ohio, which thoughtfully erected a sign announcing themselves but I look in vain for a semblance of a town. I surmise that the other side of the sign said "Leaving Shade". I'll have to check on that on the way back. I kid the small towns. Country folk still have the capacity to surprise; at the local McDonald's there is an old guy dressed…for what I'm not sure, but he sure is dressed for a Monday morning. He is wearing a western suit, light beige in color, with matching piped pants and an expensive looking white cowboy hat. Does boredom lead people to these things? I pass Darwin, Ohio and then enter Minersville & spy a yard with fake deer. I go by houses with the Ohio River literally in their backyard, and on the other side of the bank a big nuclear power plant. These folks must be compartmentalizers on the scale of Clinton. I guess they can say, "I just look at the river, don't pay no mind to the Chernobyl towers". I enjoy the signs of small towns - saw one outside a restaurant that said, "Welcome. God food." Probably good too. In Racine, Ohio one said, "Free!!! Heart transplants from Jesus." Saw another small town announce "We now have soft-serve ice cream." Hey, congratulations! I also saw the occasional drive-by oxymoron, like, "West Virginia University". (Only kidding WVU!)
I am passing thru the metropolis of Shade, Ohio, which thoughtfully erected a sign announcing themselves but I look in vain for a semblance of a town. I surmise that the other side of the sign said "Leaving Shade". I'll have to check on that on the way back. I kid the small towns. Country folk still have the capacity to surprise; at the local McDonald's there is an old guy dressed…for what I'm not sure, but he sure is dressed for a Monday morning. He is wearing a western suit, light beige in color, with matching piped pants and an expensive looking white cowboy hat. Does boredom lead people to these things? I pass Darwin, Ohio and then enter Minersville & spy a yard with fake deer. I go by houses with the Ohio River literally in their backyard, and on the other side of the bank a big nuclear power plant. These folks must be compartmentalizers on the scale of Clinton. I guess they can say, "I just look at the river, don't pay no mind to the Chernobyl towers". I enjoy the signs of small towns - saw one outside a restaurant that said, "Welcome. God food." Probably good too. In Racine, Ohio one said, "Free!!! Heart transplants from Jesus." Saw another small town announce "We now have soft-serve ice cream." Hey, congratulations! I also saw the occasional drive-by oxymoron, like, "West Virginia University". (Only kidding WVU!)
Interesting Comment:
"Having lived through the fifties, and having read the other thoughtful comments, allow me a personal postscript. The Church was changing in the fifties, because the position of Catholics in society was changing rapidly. Until then, Catholics were a mental minority. A remark by FDR - as reported in Michael Beschloss's "The Conquerors' is revealing:
Just after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt lunched with Margenthau and Leo Crowley, a Catholic who was Custodian of Alien Property. As Morgenthau later recorded, the President told them, "You know this is a Protestant country, and the Catholics and Jews are here under sufferance." Roosevelt went on to say that it was therefore "up to you" to "go along with anything I want".
This was the attitude and atmosphere of the times. Perhaps it's the reason that the Church WAS close-knit and defensive. A sea-change occured in the fifties: the JFK phenomenon was just a result of this change in American attitudes.
In any event, the Church - and its members - were effectively given first class citizenship. And so loyalties began to shift from religion to society. And the shift continues today."
-Charles on Amy's blog
"Having lived through the fifties, and having read the other thoughtful comments, allow me a personal postscript. The Church was changing in the fifties, because the position of Catholics in society was changing rapidly. Until then, Catholics were a mental minority. A remark by FDR - as reported in Michael Beschloss's "The Conquerors' is revealing:
Just after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt lunched with Margenthau and Leo Crowley, a Catholic who was Custodian of Alien Property. As Morgenthau later recorded, the President told them, "You know this is a Protestant country, and the Catholics and Jews are here under sufferance." Roosevelt went on to say that it was therefore "up to you" to "go along with anything I want".
This was the attitude and atmosphere of the times. Perhaps it's the reason that the Church WAS close-knit and defensive. A sea-change occured in the fifties: the JFK phenomenon was just a result of this change in American attitudes.
In any event, the Church - and its members - were effectively given first class citizenship. And so loyalties began to shift from religion to society. And the shift continues today."
-Charles on Amy's blog
On the Soul
No longer need we say, with Tertullian, credo quia absurdum est. For the science of quantum mechanics has undone nineteenth-century concepts of matter, and it becomes conceiveable that whatever power has assembled the negative and positive charges composing us may reassemble those electrical particles, if it chooses. What survives (if stained) this present existence is the anima, the animating soul transcending mind and body. -Russell Kirk
No longer need we say, with Tertullian, credo quia absurdum est. For the science of quantum mechanics has undone nineteenth-century concepts of matter, and it becomes conceiveable that whatever power has assembled the negative and positive charges composing us may reassemble those electrical particles, if it chooses. What survives (if stained) this present existence is the anima, the animating soul transcending mind and body. -Russell Kirk
December 12, 2002
Corrections
I may have to start a permanent corrections column. (We joke about our small home newspaper that runs a correction page. It was funny until they misspelled my wife's name in the marriage announcement.)
Reader James informs that it was Evelyn Waugh who suggested he would be worse if not a Christian. Mr. Greene could probably make a similar statement though, given his reputation.
I may have to start a permanent corrections column. (We joke about our small home newspaper that runs a correction page. It was funny until they misspelled my wife's name in the marriage announcement.)
Reader James informs that it was Evelyn Waugh who suggested he would be worse if not a Christian. Mr. Greene could probably make a similar statement though, given his reputation.
Mark Shea applies a hand to Mr. Hand's Backside
Right here
Sure, I've grown weary of the constant focus on the scandal on her blog and I was particularly upset by the comments made about my hero Cardinal Ratzinger, but Mr. Hand's comments were over the top and uncharitable, as is well-stated in the post above. I greatly value Amy's honesty and intellectual abilities. She unflinchingly asks the hard questions and addresses issues on a very practical level, which seems a valuable service.
Right here
Sure, I've grown weary of the constant focus on the scandal on her blog and I was particularly upset by the comments made about my hero Cardinal Ratzinger, but Mr. Hand's comments were over the top and uncharitable, as is well-stated in the post above. I greatly value Amy's honesty and intellectual abilities. She unflinchingly asks the hard questions and addresses issues on a very practical level, which seems a valuable service.
Looking thru the Glass Darkly
P.S. As a post-script to the vast post on the "Spiritual Classics" below...one can surely say the greater danger lies in too little scrupulosity than too much, especially in today's world. (Aquinas didn't agree, saying that one should error on the side of presumption rather than acedia. Of course tis better not to error at all.)
P.S. As a post-script to the vast post on the "Spiritual Classics" below...one can surely say the greater danger lies in too little scrupulosity than too much, especially in today's world. (Aquinas didn't agree, saying that one should error on the side of presumption rather than acedia. Of course tis better not to error at all.)
Concerning Pat Buchanan's article blaming everything on Vatican II...
We will never know, but it is possible the Church would now be in serious schism had it not had a Vat II. We might've split into Reform, Conservative and Orthodox wings like Judiasm did. If the Vatican had hard-lined it throughout the 60s & 70s it would've been completely irrelevant to the modern world, much as the Amish.
As it is the Church has bent, but did not break. That is a sign of strength. To have survived the 60s & 70s with all her doctrine intact, including Humane Vitae and the seamless moral dogmas is a good thing, one we can celebrate.
Can one even imagine, in this day of militant Islam, how ugly it would be for the Church if she had maintained her "error has no rights" pre-Vatican II stance on religious freedom? Is there any doubt how the Catholic Church would be compared to Islam, in their intolerance and desire to force their views on people? The Church moved sharply away from favoring theocracies during Vat II, a move that turned out to be prescient.
In short, the numbers might look even worse without Vatican II. When the writer Evelyn Waugh was asked why his being a Christian seemed not to make him one bit nicer, he said something like "you can't imagine how much worse I would be without Christianity".
We will never know, but it is possible the Church would now be in serious schism had it not had a Vat II. We might've split into Reform, Conservative and Orthodox wings like Judiasm did. If the Vatican had hard-lined it throughout the 60s & 70s it would've been completely irrelevant to the modern world, much as the Amish.
As it is the Church has bent, but did not break. That is a sign of strength. To have survived the 60s & 70s with all her doctrine intact, including Humane Vitae and the seamless moral dogmas is a good thing, one we can celebrate.
Can one even imagine, in this day of militant Islam, how ugly it would be for the Church if she had maintained her "error has no rights" pre-Vatican II stance on religious freedom? Is there any doubt how the Catholic Church would be compared to Islam, in their intolerance and desire to force their views on people? The Church moved sharply away from favoring theocracies during Vat II, a move that turned out to be prescient.
In short, the numbers might look even worse without Vatican II. When the writer Evelyn Waugh was asked why his being a Christian seemed not to make him one bit nicer, he said something like "you can't imagine how much worse I would be without Christianity".
Charismatically challenged
Not being especially demonstrative (except after imbibing), I find the prostrations of the Byzantine rite and the hand raising aspects of charismatic services off-putting. (I occasionally go to the latter for my wife's, and ecumenicism's, sake). But the discomfort is salutary: if I can't be embarrassed for Christ's sake, what good am I? Everything indeed is grace.
Not being especially demonstrative (except after imbibing), I find the prostrations of the Byzantine rite and the hand raising aspects of charismatic services off-putting. (I occasionally go to the latter for my wife's, and ecumenicism's, sake). But the discomfort is salutary: if I can't be embarrassed for Christ's sake, what good am I? Everything indeed is grace.
Disputations makes the interesting point that, "this is true, of course, yet though in a sense St. Francis of Assisi rebuilt the Church, the gilt of Thirteenth Century Christendom comes off pretty quickly once you start examining it. It's not the personal holiness of one or even several saints that revives the Church -- nor, for that matter is a revived Church free of crisis."
Amy recently questioned the strength of 50s Catholicism, given its swift collapse in the 60s, but if St. Francis couldn't hold the 13th century one can scarcely expect the leading lights of Catholicism in the 50s to hold the fort for long. Holiness is personal, and appears in some ways non-transferable. I think it was Chesterton who said that a new barbarian invasion occurs every generation - in the form of children.
Amy recently questioned the strength of 50s Catholicism, given its swift collapse in the 60s, but if St. Francis couldn't hold the 13th century one can scarcely expect the leading lights of Catholicism in the 50s to hold the fort for long. Holiness is personal, and appears in some ways non-transferable. I think it was Chesterton who said that a new barbarian invasion occurs every generation - in the form of children.
Regarding the Spiritual Classics
It perhaps wouldn't surprise y'all to say that Bill White's words resonate with me: the traditional spiritual works opaque to me; these "lower" works often help me to place building blocks on which to build a better spiritual life. Boy, he said that well didn't he?
By "traditional spiritual classics" I'm thinking along the lines of Francis de Sales' Introduction to the Devout Life, Dom Chautard's Soul of the Apostolate, Teresa of Avila's Way of Perfection. I've not read enough of St. John of the Cross to say, but I suspect he would be in the same group. The lack is within me I'm sure. I'm not speaking, by way of example, of Thérèse of Lisieux's marvelous The Story of a Soul. Although classics are by definition timeless, the relative popularity of St. Thérèse compared to, say, a St. John of the Cross, suggests that God providentially provides saints that speak to our times. St. Thérèse speaks to us moderns.
A Baptist pastor continually preaches the following thing on the radio (I don't have a specifically Catholic radio station in tuning distance so I listen to the local Christian one):
"Christians have to spend more time remembering their position in Christ, not their condition."
In other words, focus on who you are - God's - and not your condition, which is often disconcertingly poor. It is interesting to this cradle Catholic that even Protestants have problems with legalism and "position vs. condition". This is stereotyped as a Catholic "works" problem. I've sometimes wondered if the best way to go about becoming a Christian is to start out as an evangelical and really nail the "grace uber alles" into your heart and then become Catholic and experience the fullness of it. For the gratuitousness of grace is the bedrock upon which everything draws. It was enlightening to me that even a Protestant minister must remind people to remember their position and not condition. Most of the Christian music I hear actually defines the word "schlock", but the thing that the evangelicals do well is to pound the simple message home that one is given a gift and that one should be grateful for that. All sense of duty must flow out of gratefulness, it seems to me. Or as is found in Cantalamessa's Reflections for Advent:
The gift comes before the commandment. It is the gift that gives rise to duty and not vice versa. The law does not generate grace, but grace generates the law. This is such a simple and clear truth that we tend to forget it. - Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M. Cap.
I'm quite allergic to sentiment in religion. The idea of creating our own religion is an anathemna as is using religion as a crutch, or as a way of dealing with death. I trust not my feelings and I recoil at the thought of presuming on God. And yet...one must internalize the great gift. And one must error on the side of presumption, rather than discouragement.
By the way, that ol' hard-ass'd curmugeon Derbyshire discussed sentiment relative to animals in NRO yesterday:
I myself am more philosophical, with a quiet faith that the large natural order of things is reasonable at some level inaccessible to mere human minds. I am also temperamentally opposed to sentimentality about animals, and in fact to sentimentality in general. It was Dostoyevsky, I think, who described one of his characters as "evil and sentimental." Just so.
This is all a long-winded way of saying that I find most of the classic spiritual works tend to make me focus on my condition, rather than position, although that is an unfair generalization. (This is not to infer that this in any way is Bill White's issue with the spiritual works, I am speaking only for myself.) But after reading parts of some of them, I'm not sure they have the benefit of improving my behavior... Try constantly not thinking about a pink elephant and my guess is that it'll be something you think about.
It perhaps wouldn't surprise y'all to say that Bill White's words resonate with me: the traditional spiritual works opaque to me; these "lower" works often help me to place building blocks on which to build a better spiritual life. Boy, he said that well didn't he?
By "traditional spiritual classics" I'm thinking along the lines of Francis de Sales' Introduction to the Devout Life, Dom Chautard's Soul of the Apostolate, Teresa of Avila's Way of Perfection. I've not read enough of St. John of the Cross to say, but I suspect he would be in the same group. The lack is within me I'm sure. I'm not speaking, by way of example, of Thérèse of Lisieux's marvelous The Story of a Soul. Although classics are by definition timeless, the relative popularity of St. Thérèse compared to, say, a St. John of the Cross, suggests that God providentially provides saints that speak to our times. St. Thérèse speaks to us moderns.
A Baptist pastor continually preaches the following thing on the radio (I don't have a specifically Catholic radio station in tuning distance so I listen to the local Christian one):
"Christians have to spend more time remembering their position in Christ, not their condition."
In other words, focus on who you are - God's - and not your condition, which is often disconcertingly poor. It is interesting to this cradle Catholic that even Protestants have problems with legalism and "position vs. condition". This is stereotyped as a Catholic "works" problem. I've sometimes wondered if the best way to go about becoming a Christian is to start out as an evangelical and really nail the "grace uber alles" into your heart and then become Catholic and experience the fullness of it. For the gratuitousness of grace is the bedrock upon which everything draws. It was enlightening to me that even a Protestant minister must remind people to remember their position and not condition. Most of the Christian music I hear actually defines the word "schlock", but the thing that the evangelicals do well is to pound the simple message home that one is given a gift and that one should be grateful for that. All sense of duty must flow out of gratefulness, it seems to me. Or as is found in Cantalamessa's Reflections for Advent:
The gift comes before the commandment. It is the gift that gives rise to duty and not vice versa. The law does not generate grace, but grace generates the law. This is such a simple and clear truth that we tend to forget it. - Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M. Cap.
I'm quite allergic to sentiment in religion. The idea of creating our own religion is an anathemna as is using religion as a crutch, or as a way of dealing with death. I trust not my feelings and I recoil at the thought of presuming on God. And yet...one must internalize the great gift. And one must error on the side of presumption, rather than discouragement.
By the way, that ol' hard-ass'd curmugeon Derbyshire discussed sentiment relative to animals in NRO yesterday:
I myself am more philosophical, with a quiet faith that the large natural order of things is reasonable at some level inaccessible to mere human minds. I am also temperamentally opposed to sentimentality about animals, and in fact to sentimentality in general. It was Dostoyevsky, I think, who described one of his characters as "evil and sentimental." Just so.
This is all a long-winded way of saying that I find most of the classic spiritual works tend to make me focus on my condition, rather than position, although that is an unfair generalization. (This is not to infer that this in any way is Bill White's issue with the spiritual works, I am speaking only for myself.) But after reading parts of some of them, I'm not sure they have the benefit of improving my behavior... Try constantly not thinking about a pink elephant and my guess is that it'll be something you think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)