Found Links
Oh so cringe-worthy!
Baseball and Faith
Are Liberals More Creative than Conservatives?
August 13, 2006
This Weak - a rantasaurus rex
Far more edible parts than "This Week".
So the 45 minute program (after commercials) is now down to about 35 minutes of actual content. Of the 35, George S. devotes about half to politicians saying what they've already said in the morning newspaper or which you could predict with near 90% certainty given the foreknowledge of their name and party. So now we're down to about 15 watchable minutes - the infamous "Roundtable", which features the sort of elite political opinion you can't find anywhere else - oh, other than on every other cable channel and in most newspapers. The fact that there are no social conservates on the panel is thus not surprising. And while panels vary, generally only a third of discussion is worth listening to.
The nice thing is I can watch this version of This Week in just about five minutes! :)
or "old fogey-ism" rears its ugly headThe differences between the ol' This Week with David Brinkley and the new This Week with George Stephanapolis are stark. The show now has more lard than a state fair winning hog. For example, if I wanted to watch another television show, I'd watch that other television show, yet every week there are recycled clips in the "Sunday Funnies" showing Jon Stewart or David Letterman cracking on the President. There's also always a celebrity interview - a singer or actor or athlete - and that's worth about what you'd expect it to be worth.
Far more edible parts than "This Week".
So the 45 minute program (after commercials) is now down to about 35 minutes of actual content. Of the 35, George S. devotes about half to politicians saying what they've already said in the morning newspaper or which you could predict with near 90% certainty given the foreknowledge of their name and party. So now we're down to about 15 watchable minutes - the infamous "Roundtable", which features the sort of elite political opinion you can't find anywhere else - oh, other than on every other cable channel and in most newspapers. The fact that there are no social conservates on the panel is thus not surprising. And while panels vary, generally only a third of discussion is worth listening to.
The nice thing is I can watch this version of This Week in just about five minutes! :)
August 12, 2006
The Sensualists
'Tis sometimes said that men need the “smells and bells” of the old-style Latin and Eastern Rite liturgies (which both drew, or draw, more men). And I was skeptical. I wondered why men should be different from women in this regard. I have difficulty imagining outside my experience which is surely why many women have trouble realizing the extent to which men are more prone to lust than they are. But in my imagination the “smells and bells” were a kind of materialism, and I figured men were less materialistic then women as evidenced by our lack of interest in “dust collectibles” or other visual stimuli such as clothes, shoes or a new dining room table (‘why don’t we wait till next year?’ I say) .
And yet…it occurs that there is a deep truth in the claim. It is men who are disproportionately led to sensualism, to seeking feelings of comfort in such worldly things as - but not limited to - sex, food, and alcohol. It is men who have the reputation of being not able to bear pain, for example. “The way to a man’s heart is through is stomach” wouldn’t have become a bromide if there wasn’t a kernel of truth. It also seems that alcoholics are disproportionately men and as far as the sex drive the difference is obvious. It seems men are sensualists but God can and does use the senses to get through to us. Therefore it’s no surprise that it seems predominately men who complain most bitterly about the lack of “sense” in the current liturgy, and that a publication like New Oxford Review would be published and written by men.
'Tis sometimes said that men need the “smells and bells” of the old-style Latin and Eastern Rite liturgies (which both drew, or draw, more men). And I was skeptical. I wondered why men should be different from women in this regard. I have difficulty imagining outside my experience which is surely why many women have trouble realizing the extent to which men are more prone to lust than they are. But in my imagination the “smells and bells” were a kind of materialism, and I figured men were less materialistic then women as evidenced by our lack of interest in “dust collectibles” or other visual stimuli such as clothes, shoes or a new dining room table (‘why don’t we wait till next year?’ I say) .
And yet…it occurs that there is a deep truth in the claim. It is men who are disproportionately led to sensualism, to seeking feelings of comfort in such worldly things as - but not limited to - sex, food, and alcohol. It is men who have the reputation of being not able to bear pain, for example. “The way to a man’s heart is through is stomach” wouldn’t have become a bromide if there wasn’t a kernel of truth. It also seems that alcoholics are disproportionately men and as far as the sex drive the difference is obvious. It seems men are sensualists but God can and does use the senses to get through to us. Therefore it’s no surprise that it seems predominately men who complain most bitterly about the lack of “sense” in the current liturgy, and that a publication like New Oxford Review would be published and written by men.
The Theology of Beer Labels
I love the classic Beck's Dark label but St. Pauli Girl's has much to recommend it too. It's sort of the yin and yang of beer labels. One is a clean, well-lighted place (masculine), the other baroque and beautiful (feminine). Beck's has clean lines and straightforwardness, while St. Pauli Girl has an attractive curvative and warmth.
Beck's has no picture, only text -- the Aquinas of beers. St. Pauli Girl is personal, there's a picture, and the wandering swirl of the title suggests more of an Augustinian perspective given St. Augustine's more circuitous path to God.
I love the classic Beck's Dark label but St. Pauli Girl's has much to recommend it too. It's sort of the yin and yang of beer labels. One is a clean, well-lighted place (masculine), the other baroque and beautiful (feminine). Beck's has clean lines and straightforwardness, while St. Pauli Girl has an attractive curvative and warmth.
Beck's has no picture, only text -- the Aquinas of beers. St. Pauli Girl is personal, there's a picture, and the wandering swirl of the title suggests more of an Augustinian perspective given St. Augustine's more circuitous path to God.
Suspicious Superstitions
I wonder if superstition, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Or to paraphrase Tom of Disputations concerning religious fanaticism, a superstition is 'anything I wouldn’t do'. For secularists, all religion is a superstition. In their eyes all Christians are in the same group, so we can all enjoy a kind of solidarity and ecumenism in that. For many Protestants, the sacraments are superstitions, embarrassments to be discarded to the extent possible (though even Baptists hold on to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, humbly acknowledging what some of them might see as 'Christ’s superstitions’).
Catholics? Well, we naturally look back on past Catholics with condescension. In "Catholic Matters" Richard Neuhaus writes: ”In the thirteenth century, 'age of faith' peasants contrived to purloin the consecrated host to apply as a poultice on the sores of sick cattle. A gross superstition, no doubt, but at least it is interesting.” Since Neuhaus has forgotten more theology than I know, I am going where I ought not dare tread, but given that the consecrated host is Christ himself and given that one woman in the gospel according to Matthew dared touch his garment to be healed, it doesn’t seem too big a stretch to want to hope for the same healing of animals who were the family’s livelihood.
With superstition it appears that pattern itself is an anathema. The woman who touched the Lord’s garment was not superstitious, but if there was a second woman who did so later then we would assume she was obviously acting out of superstition. We moderns would assume the first lady acted out of a "purer" - a more "creative" - faith, even though in actuality both could've been acting out of a deep trust in God.
I’ve heard it said that superstitions are those things we do that we think will “tie God’s hand”, to “force” him to do our will. But I don’t know that the 13th century peasants were attempting to force God’s hand anymore than when we say a simple prayer we are attempting to force him to do our will. Or, in the case of sacraments, to merely expect what Jesus himself promised. It doesn’t hurt to ask and sometimes that asking might take a shape other than quickly said prayers, such as sacraments, pilgrimages, fasting, rosaries, novenas or what not. The Catechism says that God will condescend to help help us even in material matters:
I wonder if superstition, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Or to paraphrase Tom of Disputations concerning religious fanaticism, a superstition is 'anything I wouldn’t do'. For secularists, all religion is a superstition. In their eyes all Christians are in the same group, so we can all enjoy a kind of solidarity and ecumenism in that. For many Protestants, the sacraments are superstitions, embarrassments to be discarded to the extent possible (though even Baptists hold on to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, humbly acknowledging what some of them might see as 'Christ’s superstitions’).
Catholics? Well, we naturally look back on past Catholics with condescension. In "Catholic Matters" Richard Neuhaus writes: ”In the thirteenth century, 'age of faith' peasants contrived to purloin the consecrated host to apply as a poultice on the sores of sick cattle. A gross superstition, no doubt, but at least it is interesting.” Since Neuhaus has forgotten more theology than I know, I am going where I ought not dare tread, but given that the consecrated host is Christ himself and given that one woman in the gospel according to Matthew dared touch his garment to be healed, it doesn’t seem too big a stretch to want to hope for the same healing of animals who were the family’s livelihood.
With superstition it appears that pattern itself is an anathema. The woman who touched the Lord’s garment was not superstitious, but if there was a second woman who did so later then we would assume she was obviously acting out of superstition. We moderns would assume the first lady acted out of a "purer" - a more "creative" - faith, even though in actuality both could've been acting out of a deep trust in God.
I’ve heard it said that superstitions are those things we do that we think will “tie God’s hand”, to “force” him to do our will. But I don’t know that the 13th century peasants were attempting to force God’s hand anymore than when we say a simple prayer we are attempting to force him to do our will. Or, in the case of sacraments, to merely expect what Jesus himself promised. It doesn’t hurt to ask and sometimes that asking might take a shape other than quickly said prayers, such as sacraments, pilgrimages, fasting, rosaries, novenas or what not. The Catechism says that God will condescend to help help us even in material matters:
Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer.Perhaps those goods might even include the healing of sick cattle, given that the health of 13th century peasants might've been dependent on the health of their cattle. Of course if the consecrated host was stolen or acquired illegally, expecting it be helpful would be a base superstition.
August 11, 2006
Just Discovered...
...CNS humorist Dan Morris, who had a funny column in the latest diocesan newspaper in which he imagines how various prominent Catholics would answer the question "why DID the chicken cross the road?" Some are predictable, such as John Kerry's "Although I personally reject the need for the chicken to cross the road, and have voted many times to support ways for it to stay on this side of the road, it is the chicken's constitutional and court-upheld right to cross the road." He pokes at George Weigel for intellectual WFBish pretentiousness. Fr. Ronald Rolheiser's was good: "We all feel vulnerable in an unspoken way when we think about the chicken crossing the road. We intuitively sense its inner fears, uncertainty and lack of clear direction - even though it might outwardly appear casual and confident."
But my favorite is Sister Joan Chittister's:
...CNS humorist Dan Morris, who had a funny column in the latest diocesan newspaper in which he imagines how various prominent Catholics would answer the question "why DID the chicken cross the road?" Some are predictable, such as John Kerry's "Although I personally reject the need for the chicken to cross the road, and have voted many times to support ways for it to stay on this side of the road, it is the chicken's constitutional and court-upheld right to cross the road." He pokes at George Weigel for intellectual WFBish pretentiousness. Fr. Ronald Rolheiser's was good: "We all feel vulnerable in an unspoken way when we think about the chicken crossing the road. We intuitively sense its inner fears, uncertainty and lack of clear direction - even though it might outwardly appear casual and confident."
But my favorite is Sister Joan Chittister's:
As I ponder the chicken crossing the road, I myself am crossing the North American continent in a jetliner headed to a remote retreat center in another country from which I will make observations about how dim are the lights of average American Catholics on international issues. I will no doubt encounter scraggly chickens and mud roads. I will write about them.
Why Study Theology? -this post goes out to SR
Came across the following yesterday from Dr. Leo Madden, professor at Ohio Dominican University, in the diocesan newspaper. He begins with a rather large caveat:
Came across the following yesterday from Dr. Leo Madden, professor at Ohio Dominican University, in the diocesan newspaper. He begins with a rather large caveat:
On its own, getting a degree in theology will not make you more generous or spiritual. In fact, there is a grave danger that the study of theology might lead a person to think that study alone is enough for the forgiveness of one's sins or the growth of the spiritual life in contact with God.Later:
What do we mean by "Theology?" The traditional definition...is "Faith Seeking Understanding." The starting point for the study of theology, then, is "Faith," taken in two meanings. "Faith" is the content of the Christian message and tradition, so theology is the study of that content. "Faith" is also the personal response of God's offer of salvation, so the study of theology assumes a personal engagement and commitment to the God who saves us.
By definition, then, theology is an effort of the mind to come to an understanding of the foundations and many component parts of the Christian faith.
__
What does this study of theology offer? It offers a fuller picture of the story of the Catholic Faith, so that we see that the Faith is not just something that we affirm but is a place where we live.
It offers explanations to the many questions about the Faith that naturally comes to our minds.
It explains why Catholics think a certain way, pray a certain way, view a moral issue a certain way, celebrate liturgies a certain way.
For those Catholics who are involved in religious dialogue with other Christians or with people of other faiths, it provides the means for explaining the whole of the Catholic Faith and how the separate parts of it connect.
All in all, the study of theology prepares a person for service in the Catholic community, so that the theologian can help other people to grow in their faith.
August 10, 2006
Well...
...as you can see my pledge to "drink & pray" instead of pontificating on the contentious issues of the day was short-lived. Ah well. But thank God for Britain's work in stopping today's terrorist plot. Scary. And while on the subject, I received this from Ann Coulter via email (sent to millions):
Personal Exhibits - admittedly anecdotal - but here you go. I received the following email - before the election - from a college student (October 2000):
...as you can see my pledge to "drink & pray" instead of pontificating on the contentious issues of the day was short-lived. Ah well. But thank God for Britain's work in stopping today's terrorist plot. Scary. And while on the subject, I received this from Ann Coulter via email (sent to millions):
As some of us have been trying to tell you, Democrats don't oppose the war on terrorism because they hate Bush: They hate Bush because he is fighting the war on terrorism. They would hate him for fighting terrorists even if he had a "D" after his name. They would hate Bernie Sanders if he were fighting a war on terrorism. In the past three decades, there have been more legitimate sightings of Big Foot than of "Scoop Jackson Democrats."Color me skeptical. Most of the BMMIS ('Bush Made Me Insane Syndrome') victims seem to have been Bush-haters long before 9/11. No doubt W's first "mistake" was not winning the 2000 election by a wider margin. It's hard to underestimate the anger of the Left for Bush after what they considered a "stolen" election.
Personal Exhibits - admittedly anecdotal - but here you go. I received the following email - before the election - from a college student (October 2000):
Let me just say that I can't sleep at night b cause people like you live in this country. I shake in fear because I know that you are going to elect that pleasantly disposed Simpleton-George W. Bush- as President.In June of 2001 a co-worker sent me this Joe Conason piece:
Knocking the wind out of a self-righteous windbag is always healthy fun, especially when the windbag happens to be an authority figure like the president of the United States. Sometimes, however, the impulse to deflate also injures innocent bystanders such as Jenna and Barbara Bush -- whose moralizing pappy must be mortified by their recent booze busts. Unfortunately for the Bushes, their fellow citizens have a right to know that the first family will be held to the same rules imposed on the rest of us. The necessity for a single standard is greater still when those rules were imposed by the president himself. Yet conservative commentators, in a sudden display of tender concern for victims of tabloid journalism, are urging reporters to stop picking on the Bush twins.Can you feel the love? Two weeks after 9/11 another co-worker was already greatly disturbed at Bush's security measures:
If we're really at war (which I still find inherently debatable since we don't even really know who we're at war with yet), then why wouldn't we immediately revoke all student visas and work visas for all non-Americans (or maybe just those from the country/group that we're at war against)? Doesn't it seem odd that our government's first desire is to increase its ability to spy on its citizens (and visitors) ... e.g., more than it wants to get potential terrorists out of the country?In late September 2001, Mark Stehl in the UK Telegraph wrote this (which was obviously well before Iraq):
So, as bipartisan "unity" begins to fray and the peace vigils multiply, Bush will need the support of the uncomplicatedly patriotic types you find in towns such as Warren, New Hampshire...Which suggests the post 9/11 "honeymoon" that Bush experienced lasted about as long as most actual honeymoons - a week or two - and which also suggests that most had an animus against him long before Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Thoughtful Steven Riddle
Apparently Krzysztof Kieslowski (say five times fast!) did a series of ten films for Polish Television in 1987. Twelve people in the United States have seen these films, and Steven Riddle is one of them. But what is excellent is that he took great pains to execute a "SPOILER ALERT" before and after the said spoiler. That is admirably conscientious.
I mean it's one thing to warn people haphazardly that you're going to give the ending away to Pirates of the Dead Man's Pearl or whatever it's called. But to so painstakingly and thoroughly mark the spoiler passage on a film that will be seen by as many people as there are ACLU Christians? That's thoughtful.
Apparently Krzysztof Kieslowski (say five times fast!) did a series of ten films for Polish Television in 1987. Twelve people in the United States have seen these films, and Steven Riddle is one of them. But what is excellent is that he took great pains to execute a "SPOILER ALERT" before and after the said spoiler. That is admirably conscientious.
I mean it's one thing to warn people haphazardly that you're going to give the ending away to Pirates of the Dead Man's Pearl or whatever it's called. But to so painstakingly and thoroughly mark the spoiler passage on a film that will be seen by as many people as there are ACLU Christians? That's thoughtful.
Sex & War Redux
This ties in with the previous post regarding how we allow those who started down the path of error a free pass. I suppose the blame game is the height of irrevelancy, but fairness prompts it. To be honest, I have mixed emotions. Was Nixon or Johnson more culpable for the Vietnam War given that Nixon sacrificed 20,000 soliders even though Johnson had already proved the war was unwinnable (given war with China was unthinkable)? With LBJ you can always say "he didn't know how it would turn out".
Although it's not a great analogy, the Church sort of recognizes the principle that it's the initial perpetrator that is most culpable. The anathemnas of Trent concerned Martin Luther and the heretics, not the local Lutheran living next door today. They simply followed the errors of their spiritual father.
Meanwhile George H.W. Bush seems to have become a secular saint while his son is seen as the demonic spawn -- but I say that's unfair. Historians will have a clearer eye on the ball. The abrupt coitus interruptus of the Gulf War, leaving Hussein in power, set the stage. What do I know? Little. But I've never been convinced that anyone should have "known" Hussein was essentially harmless, given that he'd started two wars and was responsible for one to three million deaths during those wars.
Pope John Paul II had almost apocalyptic forebodings about the Gulf War. And it appeared like that war ended without his fears materializing. Now however it seems possible that the Gulf War led to this more dangerous war which might lead to...? Who knows, maybe JPII will be proven right.
This ties in with the previous post regarding how we allow those who started down the path of error a free pass. I suppose the blame game is the height of irrevelancy, but fairness prompts it. To be honest, I have mixed emotions. Was Nixon or Johnson more culpable for the Vietnam War given that Nixon sacrificed 20,000 soliders even though Johnson had already proved the war was unwinnable (given war with China was unthinkable)? With LBJ you can always say "he didn't know how it would turn out".
Although it's not a great analogy, the Church sort of recognizes the principle that it's the initial perpetrator that is most culpable. The anathemnas of Trent concerned Martin Luther and the heretics, not the local Lutheran living next door today. They simply followed the errors of their spiritual father.
Meanwhile George H.W. Bush seems to have become a secular saint while his son is seen as the demonic spawn -- but I say that's unfair. Historians will have a clearer eye on the ball. The abrupt coitus interruptus of the Gulf War, leaving Hussein in power, set the stage. What do I know? Little. But I've never been convinced that anyone should have "known" Hussein was essentially harmless, given that he'd started two wars and was responsible for one to three million deaths during those wars.
Pope John Paul II had almost apocalyptic forebodings about the Gulf War. And it appeared like that war ended without his fears materializing. Now however it seems possible that the Gulf War led to this more dangerous war which might lead to...? Who knows, maybe JPII will be proven right.
August 09, 2006
Sex & Death
I was pondering the parallels between the sexual revolution and the targeting-of-civilians revolution. In both there seems a slippery slope and in both it seems the last person or group to abuse the principle gets a disproportionate share of the blame. Homosexual activists are currently the focus of conservative wrath but they are merely the last to come around to break a principle long since broken. It's predictable (Pope Paul VI did in fact) that when you divorce sex from procreation you'll open the door wide open to the regularization of porn and aberrant & marriageless sex, which of course we're seeing now.
The use of the atomic bomb seems another classic example of the slippery slope, this time with respect to the principle of not targeting civilians. Germany in WWI began it first, which shocked everyone. (One professor calls that war a constant experience of "the shock of the new"). During WWII Germany began bombing London and other cities and the Allies retailiated by laying waste to Dresden and others in Germany. This is not to excuse Truman's decision, but his predecessor (the now sainted FDR) was targeting civilians in the same numbers as the atomic bomb only accomplishing the same end over a couple weeks instead of one day. It's hard to see why FDR isn't as guilty at least in principle. Certainly it was FDR who began the whole program and the purpose wasn't to build peaceful nuclear power plants.
Listening to the WWI tapes, you get a sense of how Germany pioneered every horrible thing during that war. Targeting civilians? Germany. Poison gas? Germany. And so it is sad that the U.S. is forever linked to the first use of the atomic bomb and sadder that so many Japanese civilians died. Some seem to emphasize that many of the Japanese who died were Christians, but I'm not sure of the relevancy given that everyone is created in the image and likeness of God, not just Christians.
I was pondering the parallels between the sexual revolution and the targeting-of-civilians revolution. In both there seems a slippery slope and in both it seems the last person or group to abuse the principle gets a disproportionate share of the blame. Homosexual activists are currently the focus of conservative wrath but they are merely the last to come around to break a principle long since broken. It's predictable (Pope Paul VI did in fact) that when you divorce sex from procreation you'll open the door wide open to the regularization of porn and aberrant & marriageless sex, which of course we're seeing now.
The use of the atomic bomb seems another classic example of the slippery slope, this time with respect to the principle of not targeting civilians. Germany in WWI began it first, which shocked everyone. (One professor calls that war a constant experience of "the shock of the new"). During WWII Germany began bombing London and other cities and the Allies retailiated by laying waste to Dresden and others in Germany. This is not to excuse Truman's decision, but his predecessor (the now sainted FDR) was targeting civilians in the same numbers as the atomic bomb only accomplishing the same end over a couple weeks instead of one day. It's hard to see why FDR isn't as guilty at least in principle. Certainly it was FDR who began the whole program and the purpose wasn't to build peaceful nuclear power plants.
Listening to the WWI tapes, you get a sense of how Germany pioneered every horrible thing during that war. Targeting civilians? Germany. Poison gas? Germany. And so it is sad that the U.S. is forever linked to the first use of the atomic bomb and sadder that so many Japanese civilians died. Some seem to emphasize that many of the Japanese who died were Christians, but I'm not sure of the relevancy given that everyone is created in the image and likeness of God, not just Christians.
Aug. 9 - St. Nathy (6th Century) & a Sligo Saint & Poet
Another hugely popular saint from Sligo is St. Attracta, whose feast is just two days hence:
The Irish poet Tadhg Dall Ó hUiginn (Tadhg Dall) was born in the same town as St. Nathy, though about a thousand years later, in 1550. A savor of his verse:
 | In addition to Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, today is the remembrance of St. Nathy: Nathy is surnamed Cruimthir (the priest). He was born at Luighne, Sligo, Ireland and became a disciple of St. Finnian of Clonnard, who made him a bishop. |  |
"The impression...which his works produced on the minds of his contemporaries has been handed down in the tribute which the successive writers that mention the name of Nathy never fail to pay to his extraordinary sanctity. Other Irish saints are noted for characteristic virtues: Columbkille, for love of churches; Finnian of Clonard, for zeal in teaching; Brendan for pious voyages; Columbanus and others, for missionary activity; but the patron of Achonry shines chiefly by preeminent sanctity. It is a great distinction." --Archdeacon Terence O'Rorke, writing on Saint NathyThere is also a personal connection as I have ancestors who came from Sligo during An Gorta Mor, or The Great Hunger, in 1847. The Catholic Encyclopedia sheds a bit of additional light on this saint who, concerning which, one site said: "Unlike his master, Nathy, who has never found a biographer, St. Fechin has had his life written by several persons." :
The village of Achonry occupies a very picturesque situation in the south of the County Sligo. Here St. Finian, who died in 552, established a church and monastery on some land given him by the prince of the Clann Chonnaire. Over this he placed Nathi O Hara, who had been his pupil in the famous school of Clonard and is always spoken of in the annals as Cruimthir-Nathi, i.e. the Priest Nathi. In a short time the monastery and its head acquired a remarkable reputation, and a diocese was formed (c. 560) of which Nathi is reputed to have been the first bishop...He is the patron of the diocese, and his feast is celebrated on 9 August. His successors made use of his monastery-church as their cathedral, and traces of it may still be seen. The diocese was formerly sometimes called Leyney from one of its largest and most important baronies, or perhaps because it was coextensive with what is still known as the barony of Leyney.___________________
Another hugely popular saint from Sligo is St. Attracta, whose feast is just two days hence:
It is possible that Attracta worked for Christianity in Connacht before Brigid arrived on the scene. She founded a Convent in Killaraght in Sligo and another in Roscommon. The Hospice which she established Near Lough Gara endured for one thousand years.___________________
Lough Gara
There are many stories and legends about Attracta handed down through the ages, It is difficult to know which is fact and which is fancy. The following one tells of Attracta's encounter with the King of Connacht. The King carried away some hostages from the area known as Leyney, And held them in his strongholds. Soon their friends liberated them,but the King of Connacht and his troops followed them and came upon them at Killaraght, Surrounded them on the land side,leaving no room to escape, except through the Lake which was impassable. However, Attracta,who lived in her Convent on the Shore of Lough Gara, came to their rescue by opening a passage for them through the waters of Lough Gara. Immediately the waters of the lake divided and the people of Leyney marched through to the opposite shore.
The Irish poet Tadhg Dall Ó hUiginn (Tadhg Dall) was born in the same town as St. Nathy, though about a thousand years later, in 1550. A savor of his verse:
TO MÓR, DAUGHTER OF BRIAN BALLACHTranslated:
By Tadhg Dall Ó hUiginn
A Mhór cuimhnigh an comann,
Gá dtám dhó, a dhearc fhochondonn?
Ní budh cás réidhiughadh roinn
Ór fhás d'éiliughadh eadroinn.
Ah Mór, remember the affection, but in
brief, thou eye with the hue of springing
corn, there will be no difficulty in clearing
away the charges which have sundered us.
Richard O'Connor in The German-Americans...
..writes of the German work ethic and English sloth:
..writes of the German work ethic and English sloth:
In writing to the Crown authorities back home, Captain [James] Smith himself, like the other Englishmen in his colony, often characterized the Germans and Poles as "damned Dutch," collectively, because of their sturdy sense of independence and their refusal to wait hand and foot on the "gentlemen" of the colony. When it was proposed that reinforcements be sent to Jamestown, however, he beseeched the authorities to send him "thirty carpenters, husbandmen, gardiners, fisher men, blacksmiths, masons and diggers up of trees' roots" from Germany and Poland rather than a thousand Englishmen of the type he had been burdened with. In contrast to the sober-minded and industrious Germans and Poles, Captain Smith wrote in his history of the colonization of Jamestown, the English with him were "Adventurers that never did know what a day's work was".Geesh, where does that leave the Irish?
Andrew Greeley in The Jesus Myth:
We can see that many of the religious ideas and movements in Jesus' time have their counterpart in our own day. The Sadducees, the corrupt, politically minded heirs of the ancient church, were an Establishment. The Pharisees were liberal reformers filled with self-righteousness and zeal.Interesting comments in view of the Episcopalian mess...
__
Even the "situationalists" or the "contextualists" end up almost necessarily with some new form of systematic morality, though usually one which takes a more benign view of sexual aberrations than the older systems-- a view which is in its turn often rooted in a simpleminded misunderstanding of psychoanalysis...[The Beatitudes have] little to do with the sloppy sentimentality of those contextualists who are bent on justifying premarital sex at any cost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)