« September 4, 2005 - September 10, 2005 | Main | September 18, 2005 - September 24, 2005 »
September 11, 2005
From Speculative Catholic
You are St Brigid's Cross: St. Brigid is an Irish
saint who hand-wove a cross,out of rushes she
found by the river. She made the cross while
explaining the passion of our Lord to a pagan
man.
What Kind of Cross are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:56 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Library Thing
This has to be one of the coolest things I've ever seen for library keepers. A community of cataloguers. I found the site at Elena's (My Domestic Church) and am contemplating spending the enormous sum of $10 to catalogue as many books as I wish for as long as the owner keeps the site up.
Below is, I hope a blog-widget that gives a sense of what is so very cool about what's happening here.
Oh, and you can craft the widget to display what you want it to display--random books, most frequent authors, etc. Really, nice.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 11:02 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Other Versions of the Widget
Authors:
Tags
Recent books with images
Posted by Steven Riddle at 12:24 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
A Trip to Boston
TSO shares with us some of the highlights from his trip to Boston.
I love Boston as a city. For one thing it is so walkable, and even where it is not walkable the T (is it?) goes nearly every place. (All of which is a good thing given that the rotaries are among the most horrifying traffic configurations to ever strike an urban setting.)
I love the Freedom Trail, the magnificent the museums, and the proximity of such things as Walden Pond, Branson Alcott's (and Louisa May Alcott--his daughter) Home, Hawthorne's Home, and Emerson's house which overlooks the field in which was fired "the shot heard round the world." And let us not forget the residence of the gone but not forgotten Dylan. May he grow to prosper and may he always be remembered in our prayers.
Of course, as you might guess from my present location, in my estimation it suffers a trifle in terms of weather. But that triviality aside, it is certainly one of the more entertaining cities to visit for those of us who like to poke about historical settings.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 12:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Efficacy of Prayer
Some have argued that Katrina is a visitation of the judgment of God. I'm not ready to go there for a number of reasons--not because it can't be, and not because God might not do something like that, but because it would seem to me that a visitation might have been due Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot and any number of other tyrants (Kim il Jong, etc.) before it was due New Orleans. Yes, much bad goes on in New Orleans--I hardly think it compare with death camps and genocide, and I think God, if He were visiting wrath would probably weigh that in the scales. But the reality is that I must admit I do not know the mind of God and He may have something else behind this judgment if it is.
But the main point of this is that I wonder if those who were so quick to reach this conclusion would equally quickly embrace the possibility of the good that prayer can do. Can we, through concerted effort "pray away a hurricane?"
So far our lovely little friend Hurricane OPHELIA has wandered around and around the Atlantic--the shifting course making prediction of anything nearly impossible. First Jacksonville, then Savanah/Charleston, now the outer banks were the target. But look how it skirt the outer banks? Would our prayers be efficacious in moving it more? And how would we know?
Regardless of whether or not we would know, perhaps we should make a concerted effort to pray that this Hurricane miss landfall entirely. Katrina has visited enough destruction for a pretty good chastisement for some time to come. It would be better that no one else suffer because of the weather. Admittedly the storm is relatively weak in terms of hurricanes--but so was Katrina when 7-10 people died in the Miami area.
So, let us all pray together for this storm to follow some as yet untracked course away from land. Surely God can hurry the front along and push Ophelia away from all the possible harm she may do. And if not, then, "thy will, not mine, be done."
Posted by Steven Riddle at 4:25 PM | TrackBack
September 12, 2005
The Wojtyla-Ratzinger Continuum
Brought to you by your friend at Speculative Catholic. Of course, one can pretty much determine one's course through the quiz, but then, that's what makes it all the more enjoyable.
Wojtyla! You take after the energetic and
enthusiastic John Paul II (the Great). Your
vision is prophetic and BIG - when it comes to
saints, travel, or crowds you can't get enough!
Where do you fall on the Wojtyla-Ratzinger Continuum?
brought to you by Quizilla
Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:10 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Linda's Birthday
Soliciting prayers for a good, happy, healthy, fun day of home-schooling and whatever it is we decide to do this afternoon.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 12:11 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Who Would I Be in 1400
The Prioress You scored 7% Cardinal, 82% Monk, 52% Lady, and 29% Knight! |
You are a moral person and are also highly intellectual. You like your solitude but are also kind and helpful to those around you. Guided by a belief in the goodness of mankind you will likely be christened a saint after your life is over. You scored high as both the Lady and the Monk. You can try again to |
 |
|
My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|
| Link: The Who Would You Be in 1400 AD Test written by KnightlyKnave on Ok Cupid |
Found by mistake from Julie's Happy Catholic. But I'm always happy to know what my role might be. A little disturbing that I scored better than half of the population on "Lady" but, oh well, there were relatively fewer niches for the withdrawn in 1400.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Here's the One I Was Looking for When I Found t'other
Touchstone You scored 9 evilness, 27 romance, 27 tragic, and 63 comic! |
You are the fool from "As You Like It." Touchstone's name comes from an Elizabethan word that refers to anything that could be used to test the genuineness or value of something else. Touchstone tests the world by making fun of it. |
 |
|
My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|
| Link: The Shakespeare Character Test written by mandi_g on Ok Cupid |
Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 13, 2005
Hubris
Whatever Katrina may or may not imply about God's will, one would think that one thing we should have learned from it is humility. Instead, the great trumpets of hubris blow. "Bush is responsible for this by not signing the Kyoto accords." "Bush is responsible for this because he didn't plan enough." "Bush is responsible for this because. . ."
What is more to the point is something that I think we all need to take a heart-felt lesson about. Nature is big, savage, uncaring, and uncontrollable. Yes, we can continue to learn how to control. Yes, we can make better contingency plans. But when we do plan for that emergency, what natural disaster will there be that we have somehow overlooked. To suggest that we need to prepare for every conceivable emergency is to bind all the planning folks up in years of work that will have vanishingly small returns. Yes, let's make our plans for the coming Tsunami in Kansas. Yes, let's plan for the Earthquake in Florida.
What plans can you make that will address the devastation IF and when the New Madrid Fault let's go again. Last time it happened the Mississippi river ran backward in its channel for three days. On the day of the event churchbells were run by the waves as far away as Quebec.
We can plan until we turn blue in the face, but there are some contingencies, some things that we ought to have planned for that we will overlook.
I'll grant you, it is the height of misplanning for the local officials to have never considered the possibility of a category 4 or 5 storm (levees were bult to withstand a 3) making direct or close hit on a city on average twenty feet below sea-level. Those of us who are states' rights advocate do well to insist upon state responsibilities. It is the responsibility of the state to have planned, prepared for, and seen to the disaster. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government and all of the rest of us to assist when, despite all good planning things go awry. But to maintain that it is the Federal Government's responsibility to somehow have made these plans for Louisiana is overstepping the bounds of what the government should be responsible for.
Now, let me also make clear that I do not hold the government of Louisiana completely at fault. Yes, the contingency of a larger hurricane should have been considered long ago. But let's say that it was and that preparations had been made that prevented the levees from breaking but resulted in some other tremendous unforeseen difficulty.
My main point is that whether or not this is a "chastisement," it should be viewed as an object lesson in humility. Though modernism teaches us to think the world, and more, of ourselves and our abilities, the reality is that we are very, very small compared with the forces that drive nature. This is a horrifying, humbling catastrophe. I pray for those who were harmed by it, and I do what I can to help. But I also see it as a lesson in who we are before God. We think we can do all things, with or without Him who strengthens us. The reality is that on our own we are flawed, imperfect, and incapable.
Yes, more could/should have been done. But pay attention to the first lesson--we are not at the helm and we are not in control. We are pushed around by every stray breeze and drown in even a puddle of water. We are small, weak, and inefficient. It's a good thing to remember when we are tempted to think that "If Prez. Bush only did that, If the Guv'ner of Looseiana only did this. . ."
Posted by Steven Riddle at 4:53 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
September 14, 2005
La Madre muy práctico--Santa Teresa
Reading once again in the marvelous anthology of essays Carmelite Prayer: A Tradition for the 21st Century (ed. Keith Egan). I cam upon this marvelous observation:
from "Jesus Christ in Carmelite Prayer"
Margaret DorganTeresa urges gentleness, no forcing. "Taking it upon oneself to stop and suspend thought is what I mean should not be done. . . . " She tells us that in regard to "this effort to suspend the intellect. . . labor will be wasted. . ." (BL 12.5). She warns against a kind of mental coercion to empty ourselves of thoughts in order to achieve a held absorption. St. Teresa was familiar with this experience in herself and in others, based on a too-demanding cut-down of outside stimuli, that could lead to quietism. "To be always withdrawn from corporeal things. . . is the trait of angelic spirits, not of those who live in mortal bodies. . . . How much more is it necessary not to withdraw through one's own efforts from all our good and help which is the most sacred humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ." (IC 6.7.6)
In one stroke we are told two important things. Prayer is never our effort unaided. When we think so we become more Buddhist than Christian. Prayer is always an invitation from above to converse. WE needn't chastise ourselves because of our distractions, nor need we try to force ourselves to be empty of them. We need to pursue the invitation in the ways that allow us the best communication. As we no longer need those ways of praying, God will gradually remove them from us. When He starts to do so, we must be willing to let them go.
We are also told something tremendously important to the understanding of the nature of detachment. We are not disembodied spirits, as much as some of us would like to behave so (not me, I'm afraid I'm all too embodied as yet). Having corporeal needs, we must attend to them. It is the right use of created things to meet our needs. It is also the right use of created things to appreciate the goodness that is in them and that is meant for us. Jesus did not constantly eschew food, wine, and company. Indeed, several of His miracles provided food for hungry people desiring to learn from Him. Yes, he fasted, which is also proper use of created things. But He did not fast limitlessly AND he even advised those criticizing his disciples that "the time for fasting is when the bridegroom has left."
It is not the use of created things that causes a problem ever. When we become detached it isn't about trying to become like the angels, but trying to train ourselves to the proper use of created things. We need not empty our houses until they all resemble Japanses interior design (unless that suits us). Detachment is about ever refining our sense of what we NEED against what we DESIRE. As we become more aware of what we need, we become more capable of limiting or seeing what we desire as distraction from the One Thing Needful.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:13 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Metablogging Thoughts
These were appended to the post below, but they did not really belong.
I know you all tire of hearing the same broken record. But that broken record is part of what this blog is all about. In fact, one might say that my purpose in writing is to discover for myself the contours of what is meant by detachment and how one cultivates the right attitude so that detachment is not the same effort as it is when one starts walking the road of prayer. I daresay the majority of people I have met could benefit from small lessons in what is needful and what is desired. Even if others cannot benefit so much as I do, the lessons of this blog are intended chiefly for the audience of its author. If others benefit by that sharing, I couldn't be more pleased. But I do write to know and to explore and my writing is an invitation to everyone who reads to accompany me on the exploration. We will occasionally stumble down dead-end paths, but we'll all learn something in the process. I know over the course of this blog I have learned a tremendous amount and have wandered down countless blind alleys. As a result, I have a much keener estimate of my own abilities and failings, and for that self-knowledge I am much obliged to those who have seen fit to comment, correct, and advise.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:34 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
September 16, 2005
The Dilemma of the Schizophrenic God
A few weeks back, I commented on some difficult passages of the bible wherein we are told that God told the Israelites to slaughter all of a certain group of people for one reason or another. I have to be very, very honest. No matter what his sovereignty, I reject a genocidal god who goes back on his own word to his own people.
But, honestly, I don't think that is what the Bible portrays. I had to spend some time and ask myself, "How do I really deal with these passages without rejecting Biblical inerrancy?" My answer my be akin to verbal sleight-of-hand, I don't know, but it works for me.
Let me give the full answer. Most honestly, I largely used to deal with these passages by eliding them or pretending they don't exist. I still tend to avoid them because they provide a stumbling block, but as I considered the data and Church teaching, I think I've reached a conclusion that is viable.
What I say to myself in the course of these passages is that while the Holy Spirit inspired what was written, it was interpreted through faulty men and women who were desperately trying to understand God, but who had not yet had complete knowledge of God's revelation. These people interpreted events and actions and their understanding in such a way as we get these awkward passages--passages that hint at God's abiding love for at least one group of people, but which fail of the mark of true, all-encompassing love.
I go back to one of St. Thomas Aquinas's most persausive arguments (if I understand it properly) God is triparite, but uniate and simple. That is God is of one essense, there is nothing mixed in Him. Anger and malice do not blend with sympathy and love. When we say that God is Love, that is to say that God is entirely love--the essence of God is love. There is nothing about God that is not love. If God is love, God must be love for all people, not just for me. If I understand God ever to say that He hates anyone then I am just not hearing God, because God is simple, uniate, love. That God "hates" or rejects sin is entirely commensurate with love because sin rejects love, but that God "hates" a person is not commensurate with love, because a person is a creation of love.
So, when I hear someone say that "God hates homosexuals," I think I'm hearing a modern echo of part of the Old Testament. The rulers and leaders and military persons of Israel would naturally assume that God hated what was not Israel.
However, when we get to the prophets, while we still do not have the fullness of the revelation of Jesus Christ, we get far closer to the real message. Jonah is sent to the Ninevites--not a people of Israel, not one of the chosen race. Hosea writes to Israel, but reveals Gods tender and compassionate love, most particularly in chapter 11. Isaiah promises a savior to all of us, lion and lamb shall lie down together both literally and figuratively.
So, while I am an inerrantist, I am not, nor ever have been a literalist. There are faulty narrators and faulty hearing throughout the Old Testament.
Now, does this refute the fact that God may, indeed, choose to punish individuals? No. Entire nations? I am less certain--but I am absolutely certain that He would not do so through genocide. If we can bring ourselves to believe that, it is only a short step away to accepting abortion as a near-sacrament. Why would it be okay to slaughter women and children and yet we would be required to spare children in the womb? Obviously, it doesn't make sense. Nor does a God who, now or then, orders genocide to preserve racial purity (sounds frighteningly familiar, does it not?)
No, the way I see it is that the Biblical text is inerrant, but reading bits in isolation does not allow for the complete image of God. And the complete image of God MUST be simple, uniate, complete. God is love--it is impossible for Him now or ever to be anything other than love or to express anything less than love. It is not in His nature.
At least, this is how I talk my way around this extremely difficult passages. Maybe, as I said, a verbal sleight-of-hand. But I don't think so. I'll research it and come back some time soon if I arrive at any astounding conclusions or find anything that accepts or refutes the notions I have proposed above.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:21 AM | Comments (14) | TrackBack
Finally. . . Soseki
Soseki Natsume's Botchan on-line. One of the great Japanese Novelists, one of his great novels.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 9:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 17, 2005
Why Orthodoxy Matters to Me
There is a tendency on the part of some to deride orthodoxy--to see it as the strict domain of the ultra-Catholic. Not many, but some. I thought I'd spell out why Orthodoxy is so important to me and why I do try to toe the line, if not always successfully.
I became a Catholic principally because I wanted a guide to what was beautiful and true. In my other faith life, I was told to read the Bible and it would tell me all I needed to know. There was really no reason for someone else to help you understand the Bible because it really was a "priesthood of the believer." In a sense, everyone was to fashion his or her own reality, and hence, in my estimation, his or her own perfectly suited God. This is an unfair representation of the reality and comlexity of Baptist thought, but it is what I finally made of it.
Orthodoxy is valuable to me because I want to believe what is true rather than what is comfortable. My strongest desire is to grab onto the truth and hold on for all I'm worth, because the Truth, ultimately is Jesus, who told us, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." If so, then to believe the Truth is the believe Jesus and to do anything else is to miss the mark.
What I've come to discover is orthodoxy is not so simple as all that. For example, as an Orthodox Catholic, I have as a set of clear guidelines to behavior the decalogue. Among the commandments encoded therein is "Thou shalt not kill." Thus, one could conclude that the orthodox Catholic would say, "Killing is wrong." However, we then face the question of just war and the death penalty, both of which are permitted by the Church (although the latter to be exceedingly narrowly interpreted and applied). Hence, "Thou shalt not kill" is not so clear as the four words might seem to say to the orthodox Catholic. I struggle with this because I want those four words to mean precisely what they say. But nothing is so simple. Everything must be interpreted and understood as the Author intends, rather than as I understand.
Orthodox faith is exceedingly valuable to me. But its articulation is never more valuable that a person. That is to say, where orthodoxy can be hurtful, I must believe the truth, but I feel as though I must not bludgeon others with it. When my opinion or belief is not directly asked for, and where that might hurt another's ability to speak with God, I should not advance it. (TSO posted something the other day that touched upon this, and started this train of thought, but I can't seem to find it now. Later: Here it is. I had merely placed it later in the list in my mind and hadn't gone searching far enough. Thanks TSO.)
Thus, I believe that the Church teaches that homosexuality and a homosexual expression of love is sinful. (Honestly, I struggle with internalizing this truth, but I accept it as the truth.) However, in dealing with a homosexual person, I am dealing first and foremost with a person, not with a walking sin. Sometimes, people I encounter treat the sin first and foremost and the person only secondarily.
Now, I need to make clear that there are those who are called and who have the dispostion proper to reproving and correcting. I do not fault anyone for following God's way. I just am all too aware of the glass walls of my own house to begin casting stones. I know how far I am from perfection of action, thought, or word. I also know that I will be a long time (with the aid of the grace of God) hauling that beam from my own eye--so I'm not out looking for my brothers' motes.
Even writing these words sends up warning flags--as though I am trying to say something about those who do correct and teach. Believe me, I am not. I am not more fit judge for them than I am for people who sin. I am an unfit judge even for myself. So I struggle to avoid judgment and to live, as best I can the orthodox life. And I always find myself overthinking the matter.
In truth, this is the story of my journey to Carmel. Carmel encourages me not to get lost in the incredible labyrinth of my own thought, but to look at God and love Him as He is--the God of love and life. I need to know enough to know Him truly, but I do not need to worry so much about all the details. I may err in my thoughts, as I did when I started out Catholic. But I have complete faith in God and in His good people, that these errors will gradually be remedied and corrected, that I will gradually be freed from the slavery of sin, and that I will eventualy find my way home to Him.
Posted by Steven Riddle at 10:53 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack