Re: Catholicism and Personalism: Not Such Strange Bedfellows

By: Devra Torres

Well put! (Well, of course; it's Chesterton!) Having lived in Spain and Italy, even long past the time when he would have gotten his impressions, I see what he means. Thanks for joining the conversation!

May. 17 at 10:30pm | See in context

Re: Catholicism and Personalism: Not Such Strange Bedfellows

By: UltraMontane

Those countries in Europe which are still influenced by priests, are exactly the countries where there is still singing and dancing and coloured dresses and art in the open-air. Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground. Christianity is the only frame which has preserved the pleasure of Paganism. We might fancy some children playing on the flat grassy top of some tall island in the sea. So long as there was a wall round the cliff’s edge they could fling themselves into every frantic game and make the place the noisiest of nurseries. But the walls were knocked down, leaving the naked peril of the precipice. They did not fall over; but when their friends returned to them they were all huddled in terror in the centre of the island; and their song had ceased.

- Chesterton

May. 17 at 9:00pm | See in context

Re: PODCASTS on The Acting Person

By: Rebecca Anne

Jules,

I was recently introduced to The Acting Person in a class this spring and would be very interested in a podcast series! I will watch for a notification.

May. 16 at 11:29am | See in context

Re: Is Kierkegaard expecting too much from mere mortals?

By: Devra Torres

This reminds me of the part in C.S.Lewis' Great Divorce where someone is explaining to an artist ghost how wonderful it will be when he can rejoice in the beauty of one of his own paintings just as if it had been painted by someone else, and he tries but fails to work up some enthusiasm for the idea.

May. 15 at 11:25pm | See in context

Re: Misery and Earthly Optimism

By: Michael Healy

Excellent observation, Devra; it adds a new dimension of consideration and fits in with my further post on Misery and Pessimism. "Good" is not a fairy tale escape from unpleasantness and "bad" is not the essence of things, but a mere parasite and corruption of the good already there.

May. 15 at 8:26pm | See in context

Re: Is Kierkegaard expecting too much from mere mortals?

By: Rhett Segall

Thank you Jules for your very perceptive and masterfully articulated response to my posting. It's beautifully expressed and most helpful in my efforts to deal with an aspect of DvH's analysis of spirituality that I've had great difficulty coming to terms with. I've studied many of his works for years and the only place where I've seen him give some wiggle room for healthy pride is in the "Acknowledgements" section to "What is Philosophy" where he says: "I am proud to say (Dr. william Marra) was once my student"

May. 15 at 6:42pm | See in context

Re: Misery and Earthly Optimism

By: Devra Torres

This is such an important subject--and in practice, it's easy to set up a false alternative between "optimism," understood as a refusal to contemplate anything unpleasant, and "realism," which looks unflinchingly at all the unpleasant, evil and terrifying aspects of life, all the time. I think one tactic of the devil is to place the idea in our heads, or the back of our minds, that if it's pleasant, it's just an illusion; and if it's unpleasant, it's real. If we're under the sway of this idea, we have to cosnciously cultivate the habit of reminding ourselves that the good is real, too--more real.

May. 15 at 11:14am | See in context

Re: Cardinal George sounds a strong warning

By: Devra Torres

It's true: the administration has shown a preference for that exact phrase--freedom of worship--instead of freedom of religion.

The same sex "marriage" position, though, is the logical outcome of a view of marriage that has nothing essential to do with faithfulness or fruitfulness. Once you call it "marriage" when two people of the opposite sex make an arrangement to stay together "as long as we both shall love," and which may or may not have anything to do with children, it becomes hard to understand why two men or two women can't make a similar arrangement and call that "marriage," too.

May. 15 at 10:57am | See in context

Re: About being under the circumstances

By: Katie van Schaijik

You're right, Patrick. I meant "master our circumstances" only in a limited sense. I'm glad you clarified. We can't control and shape all of reality. A lot of "mastering" in the sense I mean involves accepting what's given--including our own impotence (at times) to change our circumstance.

There's a great Victor Frankl quote that belongs here. I'll have to find it.

May. 14 at 4:09pm | See in context

Re: About being under the circumstances

By: Patrick Dunn

I don't mean to be nitpicky, and perhaps (I believe, actually) this is what you mean, but are we really meant to "master" our circumstances? I think we are, if possible, to master how we live in the midst of, or respond to, our circumstances - and, yes, to change what we can and should regarding our circumstances - but ultimately, there are things we cannot change which, I think, God understands and allows, in a sense, to be our context of holiness (to borrow a concept from Fr. Marc Foley, OCD). I think, at least potentially, there are things that we are "under" and which we somehow, maybe due to vulnerabilities or weakness, inevitably "undergo," and that prove to be more than our potential for self-determination.

I agree with the point about virtue and weaknesses, vulnerabilities and vocation.

Finally, I agree regarding the mystery of individuality, yet if that truth is not kept in balance, as you say (especially with humility), it can be exploited and do 'violence' to others.

I share the feeling Kafka had:

"Not dehumanized; human, rather, all too human. It was people in their insatiable fullness, not in their mechanized emptiness, that Kafka feared." -Zadie Smith, "The Limited Circle Is Pure," in The New Republic, 11/3/03

May. 14 at 4:02pm | See in context