Link

Justin Katz contrasts intricacies of love and hate from both a Jewish and Christian perspective.

Rabbi Soloveichik states that there is "no minimizing the difference between Judaism and Christianity on whether hate can be virtuous," and the more one considers it, the more the question seems to relate to elemental beliefs. From a Christian point of view, the most profound reality that those who killed Jesus "knew not" was that theirs was an act of deicide. Borrowing a phrase from Jacoby, "those who torture and murder without qualm, who are pitiless in the pain they inflict on others," ignore what is sacred in every human being. In charity, we hope that they know not the spiritual truth of what they do.

That charity, as an expression of love, is critical for our own well-being. In order to hate, no matter how under control we believe the emotion to be, we must also turn our eyes from the sacred in those whom we hate. For hatred’s sake, we deny that, somewhere within them, God is part of their true natures. In doing so, we deny that He is necessarily part of our own.

He also touches on a statement by columnist Jeff Jacoby. Jimmy Akin previously wrote a post Mercy Even For Monsters that also addressed some of these issues.

Here is another interesting treatment in First Things on the same subject by Meir Y. Soloveichik.

Christopher at Against the Grain has an excellent post called "Towards a Critical Appreciation of Thomas Merton " which is well worth reading for a balanced look at Thomas Merton. In the current Crisis Magazine Fr. Ray Ryland wrote an article about his time while still an Anglican priest about his interaction with Thomas Merton. At the end of the article he writes:

"Shortly after his death, Merton’s secretary Patrick Hart, stated definitively that at the moment of his death, Thomas Merton was a devout Catholic who had no intention of deserting the Faith. Indeed with the blessing of his abbot, he was going to start a new Trappist foundation and had preliminary conversations about it with people in both Washington state and Alaska."

A nice reflection at Signum Magnum on New Years resolutions with some quotes from the Holy Father and St Josemaría Escrivá.

Additionally Dawn Eden has a great idea to spend New Year’s Eve in intercessory prayer. So before the ball drops tonight let’s not drop the ball in our prayer life.

A nice Christmas reflection at the blog John the Mad [Via Paul Cella]

He also uses the same blog introductory quote that I used for my first blog entry.

G.K. Chesterton once wrote that "if something’s worth doing, it’s worth doing badly."

Nasty Chasuble Contest. The bunny rabbit on the back makes for a very implausible Chasuble

WOODBRIDGE, N.J. — Officials have fired a nun at a Roman Catholic school in Woodbridge who is accused of threatening to give a sixth-grader a knuckle sandwich. Sister Catherine Iacouzze was an assistant principal and the disciplinarian at Saint Cecelia School.
The 69-year-old was relieved of her teaching duties nearly a month after she allegedly told a pupil she would knock his teeth out. The boy had allegedly used the wrong stairwell. [Source]

Here was a letter to the Editor complaining about Michael Rose’s new architecture site dellachiesa.com.

Dear Editor

Why would you send a flyer condemning what you (your group) feel is ugly? If the exterior of a building is not "traditionally" attractive, yet its interior inspires and uplifts people to be moved toward a closer relationship with God, why the condemnation?

Jesus used a simple upper room for the Last Supper. He used knolls and the desert as his pulpit. Your flyer and your website appear to be very arrogant and judgmental. To assume "traditional" architecture is the best for our churches reflects a lack of depth of understanding how the heart can be moved by God. Ultimately, its the people who gather who uplift and proclaim God’s greatness. The church is not simply a monument, but a tool to help people become community who gather not only for the sacred, but to proclaim with joy thanksgiving for the gifts God gives us.

There is no need to "restore" beauty to our churches. Rather, the need seems to be for you to restore your relationship with God, without the "crutch" of architecture. When the community becomes as high or a higher priority than the building, you will then have your priorities in order. You don’t seem to understand the theology that acknowledges the value of the community. That is the good and genuine theology expressed in Vatican II.

This is really funny since usually architects and liturgist use the excuse for their Church designs as ways of enhancing community. That the church in the round concepts reinforce the church as community. Now this priest wants to say that the church architecture doesn’t matter at all and we only need to restore our relationship with God. While there is a partial truth in this it forgets the fact that we are body and soul and that the church needs to reflect these aspects also. But at the same time he was saying that this modern architecture can uplift people. Isn’t he trying to have it both ways here?

Visual beauty can reinforce spiritual truth. I have heard and read many conversion stories where people who first found themselves attracted to the beauty of a Church later found the beauty in the truth of the Church. Have you ever heard a similar conversion story that started out with an attraction to a cement box style building? Most of use are not like the desert fathers who can find God easily in a stark dry environment. If beautiful architecture is only a crutch then it is a crutch that is needed to help us stand upright in worship of God. If is rather difficult to read the Old Testament and to come to the conclusion that God expressed no preference in liturgical architecture whether it be a tent or a temple. King David was rebuked not for wanting to build a temple for God, but because he was not the person to do it and it was passed down to his Son to do. If it was only a matter of a spiritual relationship with God then no building would have been erected and no details such as the Ark of the Convenent would have been given. Instead we had explicit details as far as the wood used, how it was to be covered and gold and that statues of angels were to be placed above it.

Thank you for letting me make a comment on your "mission." It appears you choose to cast judgement, rather than allow all people to find the path to God that is most fulfilling.

I hope God will bless you and guide you to a more enlightened form of ministry.

Peace,

Fr. Steven O’Brien

Matt C. Abbott has a positive review of Canon Lawyer and blogger Pete Vere’s new book called Surprised by Canon Law. Definitely a book I will be interested in reading.

Here is a great essay by Paul Cella at TCS about Stem Cells and Philosophy. [Via El Camino]

You can also find Paul Cella’s well-worth reading blog here. Especially good is his latest post on Chesterton and birth control. I just wish that he would activate his RSS feed since I had gotten out of the habit of reading his site since I look at most blog’s through an aggregator. Update: He now has an RSS feed.

Update: Small but Disorganized offers some other comments in reference to Paul Cella’s article, including.

Basically, the proponents of scientism believe that what we should do should be determined by science. In other words, if science can do it, we should do it. Just because we can do something, ought we do it? That question is a non-sequitur to many unconscious proponents of scientism.

However, I wonder how many true proponents of scientism there are? How many of those who favor fetal stem cell research in order to apply it to curing various diseases would also favor continued nuclear energy research, for example, in order to apply it to building safer and more numerous nuclear power reactors to cure our dependency on fossil fuels?

I think the difference in those two examples are this: fetal stem cell research only violates a human life… the life that gets destroyed for the sacred liturgy of research at the altar of scientism. Nuclear reactors are seen as a threat to humanity as a group… as a collective.

I think he hits the nail on the head when he compares the zeal for science when it comes to ESCR with the very contrained view of science when it comes to things such as nuclear power. Though I think it goes farther then to just things that might threaten humanity as a group. The outcry against DDT as a pesticide was mainly seen as a threat to some species. The fact that the banning of DDT has resulted in thousands of deaths due to malaria is not a concern to them in this case. Even scientism is restrained by whatever views the person holds. Their advocacy of science for science sake hits a wall when to comes to environmental causes. What is comes down to is that in reality everybody actually believes that philosophy should come before science, it is only what philosophies we should adhere to that are disagreed on. Even scientism is a philosophy and not a science and those who truly advocate a unstrained scientism are advocating the philosophy of scientism.

Christopher Blosser of The Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club is interviewed by Ignatius Insight in a two part interview. I had not realized that my fellow Catholics in the Public Square editor had come into the Church in 1997. With his wealth of knowledge I had assumed he had been a Catholic much longer then that. There is also a picture of him over at his father’s blog.