Thursday, November 21, 2013, 7:10 AM
I love being part of ecumenical dialogues because I always learn as much about my own family of churches as I do about the other traditions represented. A few years ago I was involved in an ecumenical conversation as one of five representatives of Pentecostalism. The team members were from various parts of the world with two being from lands traditionally Orthodox.
At one point in the conversation the Pentecostal team was asked about our views of the sacraments: Do Pentecostals believe in the sacraments and how many? One of my fellow team members immediately responded in the affirmative and said that we Pentecostals had seven. After recovering from a bit of shock at this answer, I interjected that this perspective did not hold true for most Pentecostals in the United States.
At the first break I inquired further about this view among Pentecostals in former Communist nations. Did they really hold such a view of the sacraments? Much to my surprise I was told that in lands historically Orthodox, Pentecostals had drunk deeply from Orthodox life and this affected their theological development. (more…)
Wednesday, November 20, 2013, 5:00 PM
At Postmodern Conservative, Carl Scott grades a student and writes on happenings in Albuquerque and Kabul.
Peter Leithart has three posts today, all on music: Scruton on Wittgenstein on music, Proust on music, and music by Smith Leithart.
Dr. Boli has the only career advice anyone will ever need.
Here at First Thoughts, Francis has begun to worry about being misunderstood, and Ryan T. Anderson is honored to have received the Buckley Award.
And On the Square today, George Weigel remembers JFK, while Stephen L. Mikochik worries about assisted suicide and the disabled.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013, 3:00 PM
The following remarks were delivered last night at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington, DC upon reception of the Young Conservatives Coalition’s annual Buckley Award.
Thank you. I am honored to be named a 2013 Buckley Award winner. In the two minutes I have tonight, I’d like to acknowledge three groups of people:
1. Young people. I’m grateful to the many young people who nominated and selected me. It’s a sign that this next generation hasn’t given up on marriage. And as I’ve lectured on a couple dozen college campuses in the past year—places like Harvard, Yale and Princeton, Stanford, Columbia and Amherst, NYU and BYU, CUA and UVA—almost always at the invitation of a young student, not an old faculty member, I’ve come to the conclusion that the argument for marriage hasn’t been heard and rejected, it simply hasn’t been heard. And it’s our job to make it, not give up on youth.
2. Great colleagues. Few things are better in life than doing important work with good colleagues. I’ve been fortunate to spend the past year at two great institutions: The Witherspoon Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Any good that I have accomplished in the past year is because of them.
My co-authors, Sherif Girgis and Robby George, and my Public Discourse managing editors, Gabby Speach and Serena Sigillito, are godsends.
Anything you’ve read by me that you thought well-written is due to the work of Heritage’s editor, Ken McIntyre. Any good media appearance is the result of coaching from Jackie Anderson and Beverly Hallberg. I shudder to think how Piers Morgan would have gone if not for their work.
In what was frequently a stressful and depressing year, the job of keeping my spirits up and my ego in-check fell to Sarah Torre, Rachel Sheffield, Bethany Davis, Les Ford, and Brittany Corona. Thank you. And, of course, as anyone who knows her will readily admit, I have the best boss in DC: Jennifer Marshall.
3. Finally, a word about my family—my mom and dad and one brother are with us tonight.
None of my grandparents graduated from high school. My mom tells me that her parents, Sicilian immigrants, never even attended high school. My mom wasn’t fortunate enough to go to college, and my dad earned his degree at night school. Together, they successfully raised five sons: a college professor, an assistant US attorney, a bank controller in Baltimore, and a Swiss banker in Geneva. I’m the under-achiever in the family.
My family’s story is remarkable for being entirely unremarkable. It’s the story of so many American families—it’s the story of the American dream. Before I knew the philosophical arguments or social science statistics, I experienced it firsthand.
I experienced the great benefits that come from a married mom and dad. It helps explain the work I’ve done in the past year. Let me add that one week from today we’ll celebrate my parents’ forty-ninth wedding anniversary.
The work that I’ve been fortunate to do, defending the first freedoms of life and religious liberty, and promoting marriage and a conservative vision of social justice, is simply a debt being repaid on the gifts that I’ve received: gifts of life and faith, a married mother and father, and the opportunity to do meaningful work.
No award is necessary for simply doing one’s duty, but I am grateful for this Buckley Award all the same. Thank you.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013, 9:12 AM
At the Center for Law and Religion Forum today, we have a podcast on the legislative prayer case just argued at the Supreme Court, Town of Greece v. Galloway. The podcast will be particularly useful for students and others interested in the history of legislative prayer and an analysis of oral argument in the case. We end with a prediction of how the justices will vote. You can listen to the podcast here.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013, 9:00 AM
Surviving a Religious Cleansing
Mollie Hemingway, Federalist
Squeak and Gibber
John Crowley, Lapham’s Quarterly
Who Was John Tavener, Anyway?
Paul Elie, Everything That Rises
A Postscript to Peter Steinfels
George McKenna, Human Life Review
The Sacred Subdivision
Deborah Justice, Marginalia
Wednesday, November 20, 2013, 8:16 AM
Here’s what looks to be the final update on that interview Pope Francis gave to Eugenio Scalfari of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica this fall. Readers of this website will recall that the interview quotes Pope Francis as saying, among other things, that “proselytism” is “nonsense” and that, with respect to conscience, everyone must follow his own idea of good and evil. Progressives swooned; traditionalists grumbled; everyone wondered what it all meant.
Shortly after the interview ran, it emerged that Scalfari had reconstructed the pope’s words from memory. Scalfari had not tape-recorded the pope nor taken notes during the meeting. In other words, the La Repubblica “interview” was not an interview at all. Why a respected newspaper would publish an imaginative reconstruction as though it were a real interview is beyond me—but the Vatican stated at the time that the interview was basically “trustworthy,” if not verbatim. And the Vatican posted the interview on its website.
Last week, however, the Vatican decided to take the interview down. According to this report from the Catholic News Agency, Pope Francis became concerned that people might misunderstand the interview—particularly the discussion of conscience. According to a Vatican spokesman, “The information in the interview is reliable on a general level but not on the level of each individual point analyzed: this is why it was decided the text should not be available for consultation on the Holy See website.” The music was right, I guess, but the lyrics were bit off. Probably the interview is still available at La Repubblica, though.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013, 5:00 PM
At Postmodern Conservative, Peter Lawler thinks about the progressive rejection of the ACA and Pete Spiliakos draws a lesson from Nancy Pelosi and the media.
Maureen Mullarkey on El Greco: “It is one of the oddities of cultural history that this non-Spaniard, buried in an unknown grave and neglected for nearly three centuries, should have arisen in the late nineteenth century to displace even Velásquez as the glory of Spanish painting.”
Peter Leithart writes about Steven Pinker.
Dr. Boli teaches you childcare.
Here at First Thoughts, Dale M. Coulter is besieged by the bourgeois, Collin Garbarino defends the lecture, and B. D. McClay thinks a philosophical religion may be neither.
On the Square today, Tom Wilson brings our attention to Chagall’s crucifixion paintings, while Elizabeth Scalia wonders if we are really learning what Francis wants to teach us.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013, 4:30 PM
On Wednesday, November 13, Fr. Maciej Zięba, O.P., came to the New York office to give a talk on the theory and practice of solidarity. His reflections were grounded in his concrete experiences of life under communist rule. Moving through an analysis of the philosophy of solidarity, especially as seen in the writings of John Paul II, to a history of solidarity in Poland, he emphasized the historically important role of communal action (symbolic or otherwise), the legacy of the great Polish pope, and the joy of freedom.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013, 11:45 AM
To open these reflections with an unavoidably terrible sentence: Peter Gordon’s review of Carlos Fraenkel’s book Philosophical Religions from Plato to Spinoza in the New Republic is an interesting account of what sounds like an interesting book. Still, the review left me with several questions. In particular, what it leaves out seems as important as what it actually says.
These objections are fairly tentative, since I am not a historian of religion. To a certain extent, I’m offering them because we have a highly educated comments section that could probably help me with my questions.
First: For some reason, either Gordon or Fraenkel have chosen to characterize this project as anti-Straussian—a decision which confuses me, given that Leo Strauss only matters to a handful of people in the first place—but go on to outline a position that is, by their own definition, excessively Straussian (only the philosophers know what religion really represents, while ordinary people mistake its different representations for something real).
Whether or not the characterization of Strauss is accurate is something I’m not really in a position to judge. But why exhume Strauss’ corpse just to bury him again, particularly when you end up undermining yourself?
Second: Something bothersome—a simple search within the article for “Plato” yields, by my count, thirteen results. “Aristotle” yields three. Given that, how are we to make sense of this list:
[Philosophical religion] is a tradition that united pagan thinkers such as Plato with Christians (Origen and Eusebius) and Muslims (Al-Fārābī and Averroes) and Jews (Philo and Maimonides) in a shared philosophical vision, according to which historically distinctive religions should not be understood in the literal sense.
Well, Averroes and Maimonides and Al-Fārābī were commenters on Aristotle, so far as I know, and Aristotle is more than a bridge to Plato. Given that what links them, intellectually, is their shared interest in Aristotle, one would naturally expect Thomas Aquinas to put in an appearance here. (more…)
Tuesday, November 19, 2013, 9:30 AM
The Atlantic ran an interview with David Thornburg, entitled “Lectures Didn’t Work in 1350—and They Still Don’t Work Today.” It’s full of the typical technology-will-save-education balderdash. I’ll skip any comments on that topic.
Let’s talk about this assertion that lectures don’t work. The interviewer asks why we keep using this lecture-based model that doesn’t suit every student’s needs. Thornburg answers:
It’s a fascinating question. There’s a painting of a classroom by Laurentius de Voltolina from 1350 that shows it’s not working. Students are talking to each other or falling asleep while the teacher drones on. Why has this perpetuated? I don’t know.
I can tell you why. It’s perpetuated because it works.
It worked in the fourteenth century, and it still works today. For the last eight hundred years, schools have been dealing with limited budgets and high student-teacher ratios. The lecture-based model mitigates these obstacles.
If the lecture isn’t the problem, what is? I see two.
1. It’s not the lecture; it’s the students. Look at that picture of the medieval university classroom again. How do we know that the lecture is boring? The students sitting in front are engaged. The students in the back are not. I teach in a university classroom. Things haven’t changed. Some students really don’t want to learn the material. They sit in the back to hide from it and from me.
We cannot look at one painting of a medieval classroom and claim that the lecture is not working; however, some textual evidence might give us insight into the back row of that classroom. Consider this letter from a medieval father to his son studying at the university.
I have recently discovered that you live dissolutely and slothfully, preferring license to restraint and play to work and strumming a guitar while the others are at their studies, whence it happens that you have read but one volume of law while your more industrious companions have read several. Wherefore I have decided to exhort you herewith to repent utterly of your dissolute and careless ways, that you may no longer be called a waster and your shame may be turned to good repute.
Here’s another one from a different father.
I have learned—not from your master, although he ought not to hide such things from me, but from a certain trustworthy source—that you do not study in your room or act in the schools as a good student should, but play and wander about, disobedient to your master and indulging in sport and in certain other dishonorable practices which I do not now care to explain by letter.
These letters show that while times change, human nature does not. Of course, not all medieval students were wasters. One overachieving son sends a letter to his father claiming that his lectures were so popular that other classrooms were deserted. That’s the thing; lectures can be wildly entertaining, as well as educational, which brings us to the second problem.
2. It’s not the lecture; it’s the lecturers. A much more pressing problem than lazy disengaged students, is lazy disengaged teachers. Why don’t students develop a passion for the material? Probably their teachers don’t demonstrate a passion. Curiosity and excitement are contagious, even in a lecture.
Of course most bad lecturers aren’t lazy or disengaged. They just haven’t been taught what a good lecture looks like. They do not understand fundamental principles of rhetoric and public speaking. Some teachers know what a good lecture looks like, but they do not have the time or energy to actually create a good lecture. Teachers at all levels spend precious energy jumping through administrative hoops. Adjunct college professors have the added complication of trying to teach six or seven classes at three or four different schools in order to pay off those student loans. Excellent lectures take time. Sometimes there’s just no time.
Can we please stop blaming the lecture? I’m the first to admit that not all lectures are good. But that’s true of all media. Not all books are good. Not all blog posts are good. Probably most books published last year were not worth reading. Certainly most blog posts written last year was not worth reading. Even though most lectures might be bad, it doesn’t mean that the lecture itself is to blame. For most content areas, the lecture remains the best medium for educating a large group.
Don’t let the prophets of the new techno-education fool you. The lecture is here to stay. It’s been tried and tested.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013, 9:00 AM
Still in the World
Joe Carter, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Crops, Towns, Government
James C. Scott, London Review of Books
Defending ‘Branch Theory’
Fr. Jonathan, Conciliar Anglican
Sex and the Polis: A Symposium
Christopher Fisher, Intercollegiate Review
Changes in the Pro-Life Movement: Part II
Robert Vega, Catholic News Agency
Tuesday, November 19, 2013, 7:10 AM
In 1939, the historian Christopher Dawson penned the essay “Catholicism and the Bourgeois Mind,” a call for resistance to the bourgeois mentality. Dawson set a hostile tone almost immediately by declaring that “it is difficult to deny that there is a fundamental disharmony between . . . the mind of the bourgeois and the mind of Christ.” Dawson’s is no Marxist analysis, however. A bourgeois mentality is not reducible to a particular class. Its anti-type is the “man of desire.”
The bourgeois mentality turns out to be a particular approach to life, initially associated with a medieval class that emerged behind the walls of developing urban centers but now embodied in a culture that dominates the modern landscape.
For Dawson, the bourgeois mind exhibits an urbanism that divorces humanity from nature. “It turns the peasant into a minder of machines and the yeoman into a shopkeeper, until ultimately . . . the very face of nature is changed by the destruction of the countryside.” Just two years after Tolkien reminded Britain of a time of hobbits and a verdant Shire, Dawson declared that the bourgeois was an enemy of the peasant.
Monday, November 18, 2013, 5:00 PM
Happy Monday! I hope everybody had a good weekend. Here’s some of what we had for you read over the weekend:
At Postmodern Conservative, Carl Scott is a voice connoisseur and Peter Lawler thinks the brave new world isn’t coming.
A selection of Peter Leithart’s posts: more on N. T. Wright, a post on Eusebius, and a post on Apple.
With Dr. Boli, it’s never too early to plan your vacation, your dinner, or your headstone.
Here at First Thoughts, Carl R. Trueman wonders about culture: “But what happens to a society when the primary means of such distraction are pornography and violence, or, as is increasingly the case, a macabre combination of the two?”
And On the Square today, R. R. Reno asks how to be a Christian intellectual, while Timothy George shines a light on a little-known hero. And Archbishop Chaput allowed us to publish his speech on the new evangelization.
Monday, November 18, 2013, 9:00 AM
Aquinas and Natural Science
James Chastek, Just Thomism
Bring Them In: On Prisons and the Poor
Sen. Mike Lee
We Believe in Institutions
James K. A. Smith, Comment
Three Kinds of Hope
Stratford Caldecott, Imaginative Conservative
Lewis Joins Poet’s Corner
Iona McLaren, Telegraph
Monday, November 18, 2013, 9:00 AM
Last week, my attention was brought to three things, sure and certain signs of this present age. The first was the baby suit above, which bears the legend “Future Porn Star.” I assume this is an attempt at humor; but it is interesting what passes for a fashionably marketable joke these days, is it not? The second was the news that Scarlett Johansson has added to the ever swelling carbuncle of pious cultural platitudes emanating from Hollywood (perhaps we might categorize such as examples of ‘uncritical theory’) by declaring that pornography can be a good thing for men and women. The third was the report that grade inflation (or should it be deflation?) applies to movie ratings, given that today’s PG-13 offerings would probably have received an R-rating thirty years ago. (more…)
Sunday, November 17, 2013, 1:32 PM
That’s the title of a lecture the Witherspoon Institute is very proud to sponsor, this Tuesday, November 19, at 4:30 p.m. on the Princeton University campus (co-sponsored by the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions). It’s the first in a new annual lecture series, the William E. and Carol G. Simon Lecture on Religion in American Public Life, and the first lecturer is Allen C. Guelzo, the distinguished Lincoln scholar and Civil War historian, and Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era and Professor of History at Gettysburg College. The occasion is, of course, the sesquicentennial of the Gettysburg Address. For more information see here. We hope First Things readers in the area on Tuesday can come hear Professor Guelzo.
Friday, November 15, 2013, 5:00 PM
Now it’s really Friday. Before you shuffle off into parts unknown, take a look at what we wrote for you today:
Over at Postmodern Conservative, Pete Spiliakos gets into the headline game.
Peter Leithart continues to think about Exodus and read the Times Literary Supplement.
On the Square today, Howard P. Kainz asserts the world is getting better, and Wesley J. Smith can’t help missing JFK.
A little bit of a quiet day. What were some of your favorite pieces that we ran this week?
Friday, November 15, 2013, 12:30 PM
New York Events:
Forming the Artist
Saturday, November 16
This third installment of the “The Art of the Beautiful” lecture series will be given by David Clayton, Artist-in-Residence and lecturer at Thomas More College. Thanks to the Catholic Artists Society and the Thomistic Institute for hosting these wonderful lectures. More information here.
Who’s Afraid of Modern Art
Tuesday, November 19
“Dan Siedell, author of God in the Gallery, a curator, and now a Presidential Scholar & Art Historian in Residence at The King’s College, presents ‘Who’s Afraid of Modern Art?’—a personal account of his journey as a Christian and as a curator and art critic devoted to modern and contemporary art.” Register for this free event here.
Doing Business: A Dog-Eat-Dog World?
Friday, November 22
Crossroads and the American Bible Society present a conversation with Andreas Widner, director of Entrepreneurship Programs at the Catholic University of America on the topic of “why entrepreneurship is not about profit maximization and untamed competition.” This is a free event. Find out more here.
C.S. Lewis: In Memoriam
Saturday, November 23
The Sheen Center and the New York C.S. Lewis Society “will commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of [Lewis’] death with distinguished speakers, panel discussions, a documentary film, much conversation, refreshments, a book table, and dinner.” Here is a full schedule. For more information about the event and registration, visit here.
And in Washington D.C.:
Faith: The Key to Unlocking the Scripture
Thursday, November 21
Fr. Ignacio Carbajosa will give a talk on his book Faith, the Fount of Exegesis in which he “uncovers the philosophical premises of the dominant [scriptural] interpretations and their deceptive claims to objectivity.” Presented by Crossroads and the Catholic Information Center, this free event’s details can be found here.
Leland Award Lecture on Religious Liberty
Friday, December 13
“Russell D. Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, will host The Leland Award Lecture on Religious Liberty featuring Robert P. George . . . The event will be held from 2:00 to 3:30 PM EST at the Rayburn House Office Building in the Gold Room, #2168, and is open for media to attend.” For more information, visit here
Friday, November 15, 2013, 9:00 AM
Thursday, November 14, 2013, 5:30 PM
Yet another Thursday where I completed the whole day before realizing that it was not Friday has gone by, and here’s some stuff for you to read:
Over at Postmodern Conservative, Pete Spiliakos thinks about what it will take for Hillary Clinton to become President, Carl Scott refuses to tie the Velvet Underground to the failure of the ACA rollout (refusing to do so again and again) and Peter Lawler answers his own questions.
Peter Leithart has posts on Nietzsche, Descartes, Thomas Aquinas, Isaiah, risk, quantum dice, and the Trinity.
Dr. Boli continues to dispense advice, tells you how to embed esoteric messages in your children, and directs you to the very best of all Christmas presents.
Here at First Thoughts, Dale M. Coulter replies to Gerald McDermott, Wesley Hill thinks about friendship and intimacy, J. David Nolan wonders what Pope Francis will say about fracking, David Mills wrote a post called “Sexy, Beautiful Women,” and former assistant editor Ryan Anderson won an award.
And On the Square today, Pete Spiliakos wants limited government principles to help families, too, while Kate Havard contemplates the seductive evil of Macbeth.
Thursday, November 14, 2013, 2:31 PM
Well, winner of the Buckley Award, anyway. Ryan, a former assistant editor and now a member of our Advisory Council, was one of the five people awarded the Young Conservative Coalition’s award for young conservative leaders. The biography included mentions his “influence and ‘courage under fire’,” noting the way he handled himself when under attack by Piers Morgan. (If you have had a similar experience, you will know how impressive Ryan’s performance was.) The quickest way to summarize his gifts and accomplishments is just to say that we’re very, very, very glad he’s one of us.
Congratulations to Ryan.
Thursday, November 14, 2013, 2:23 PM
The little metal shed at the corner near the office sells candy, soft drinks, and magazines, with the magazines—mostly People and its peers—on a shelf sticking out from the corner of the shed so that the passersby notice them. I pick up something about popular culture from scanning the covers as I walk by. (One thing I’ve learned is that you’re supposed to pay attention to people who have no other claim on your attention but that they’re on magazine covers.)
One thing I’ve noticed is how often some young woman is declared “sexy” or even something like “the sexiest woman alive.” It’s a comparative I don’t know how any one would measure. All the magazines’ definition of the word seems to be is “a pretty young woman, either well known or famous (famous is better), wearing skimpy clothes.”
“Sexiest woman alive” is a distinction of sorts but not a very useful one. The sexiest woman alive now isn’t going to be called that in five years, or maybe ten if she wins the title early. There are other distinctions more useful and longer-lasting. Beauty, for one, partly because it does not depend upon genetic accidents, plastic surgery, personal trainers, and youth. As Emily Stimpson writes in What Makes a Body Beautiful:
We may not think we’re beautiful. We may look at the women and men gracing the pages of Glamour or Men’s Fitness and think we don’t measure up because our hair isn’t as thick or our abs as tight or skin as firm. We may not like what we see in the mirror: the wrinkles, the scars and stretch marks, the cellulite or gray hairs, the nose or eyes or lips that don’t resemble the models in the magazines.
But the people we love don’t see what we see.
They don’t see a collection of body parts; they see us. They see our love for them. They see sacrifices made and patience exercised. They see how many times we’ve forgiven them, listened to them, and encouraged them. They see our honesty, integrity, fidelity, and devotion. They also see our intelligence, humor, wit, and creativity—all gifts from God and all ways we image God.
Of course the guy with little hair and what hair he has is white would say that, you may be thinking. And there may be something to that. This may be one of those (many) cases where age brings insight. But there are many young women who are beautiful but not sexy who need to know they’re beautiful and that beauty beats sexy any day. Because these horrible magazines tell them otherwise.
Thursday, November 14, 2013, 12:50 PM
A recent image of Pope Francis holding a T-shirt with the slogan “No al Fracking”—“No to Fracking”—has sparked varied response, including worries from Sarah Palin and praise from environmental groups.
Reports from a meeting held on Monday between Francis and Argentine environmentalists hint that the pope may be preparing an encyclical dedicated to environmental issues, including the issue of fracking. If these reports are true, the pope would be following in the steps of Benedict XVI and John Paul II, who both recognized the depths of our current environmental crisis and eloquently encouraged appropriate responses. It also makes sense that the namesake of St. Francis would dedicate thought and energy to environmental action, especially after John Paul proclaimed St. Francis “the heavenly Patron of those who promote ecology” in 1979.
John Paul had some very strong words on the human duty to address the current environmental crisis in his 1990 World Day of Peace address. He explicitly emphasizes the moral character of environmental issues:
Faced with the widespread destruction of the environment, people everywhere are coming to understand that we cannot continue to use the goods of the earth as we have in the past. . . . Moreover, a new ecological awareness is beginning to emerge which, rather than being downplayed, ought to be encouraged to develop into concrete programmes and initiatives. . . .
[W]e must go to the source of the problem and face in its entirety that profound moral crisis of which the destruction of the environment is only one troubling aspect.
Certain elements of today’s ecological crisis reveal its moral character. First among these is the indiscriminate application of advances in science and technology.
Fracking is a relatively old technology—the first well in the USA began operations in 1968. And the recent boom (of perhaps “indiscriminate application”) undoubtedly has its benefits. It offers a major economic boost, especially for communities that sit on top of shale gas reserves. Furthermore, fracking has already contributed to the U.S.A.’s energy independence, and offers the promise of energy stability for years to come.
But the past three popes have all argued that short-term economic gains do not justify themselves, especially given the challenges humanity faces in terms of climate change and widespread environmental destruction. It is unfair and immoral to pursue current prosperity at the expense of the wellbeing of our children and grandchildren.
Additionally, John Paul recognized that environmental issues cannot be disconnected from a care for the poor. (more…)
Thursday, November 14, 2013, 9:00 AM
Brent Cunningham, Lapham’s Quarterly
The Local, Universal Master
Ingrid D. Rowland, New York Review of Books
The Last Jew in Afghanistan
Jessica Donati & Mirwais Harooni, Reuters
The Boring Word in Theology
Scot McKnight, Jesus Creed
Jesuits, Dominicans, and the Reformation
Br. Bonaventure Chapman, O.P., Dominicana
Thursday, November 14, 2013, 8:43 AM
« Newer Posts
Via Helen Rittelmeyer on Twitter, here is a lovely post by Brooke Conti on what we miss when we miss friendships from our younger days:
When I was in my twenties, I was enmeshed in my friends’ lives in ways that went beyond our constant phone calls. We actually lived with each other, even after college, and even after most of us had gotten our own apartments. If we lived in different cities, we’d visit each other for long weekends—and if we lived in the same city, we’d crash at each others’ places when it got too late to go home for the night. We’d sleep in the same room, use the same bathroom, make breakfast together. Or we’d hang out at each others’ places for hours as afternoon turned into evening, watching bad t.v., reading magazines, drinking a bottle of wine and doing our makeup as we tried to decide what to do with the night.
Now we’re busier, with work and other things. Almost all of us are partnered and half of us have kids, and spending large blocks of time together is a trickier proposition. Even when Cosimo and I stay overnight with friends, it’s usually just one night (if we’re traveling), or there’s some event we’re all going to (reunion, sporting event), so the rhythms aren’t those of real life.
But over the past year, I’ve stayed for two or three nights, just by myself, with four or five different friends (and their partners and kids, if they have ’em), some of whom I’d never before seen in pyjamas, or whose kitchens I’ve never experienced flooded with early-morning sunlight.
— Older Posts »