I sometimes think that Christians should choose a solemnity, in much the way many people take a patron saint, one that especially sums up to them their perspective on Christian life. Of course, there's a sense in which Easter and Christmas are universal feasts in this sense; but not everyone, I think, is equally called to speak the truth of Easter or the truth of Christmas to the Church and to the world. Some might be called to be Christians of the Annunciation, or of the Baptism, or of the Triumphal Entry, or of Pentecost; not, of course, in the sense that they are different kinds of Christian but in the sense that they are Christians called to affirm more clearly different aspects of life in Christ. There is no question what my special solemnity would be; it occurred yesterday. It is the Feast of the Transfiguration.
Like many great feasts, Transfiguration has an octave and an apodosis; it had a forefeast on Saturday and its afterfeast today. So as a sort of celebration there will be Transfiguration-related posts here and there throughout the week.
Some reading on the Transfiguration.
Not To Be Missed
Transfigure this out (Way of the Fathers): a sermon by Augustine on the day
Angelus Message on the Feast of the Transfiguration (St. Peter's Helpers)
Three from St Ephrem (Summa Minutiae)
The Manifestation of Divine Glory (Deacon Dan Wright)
Feast of the Transfiguration (Spero Forum Weblog)
A Chinese Hymn on the Transfiguration (Word from the Desert)
The Transfiguration Shows Us Who Jesus Is (Bonfire of the Vanities)
St Ephrem's Teaching on the Transfiguration (From the Anchor Hold)
Reflections
Transfiguration (Italian (American) Catholic)
Transfiguration (fatherwoolley.com)
Feast of the Transfiguration: of Christ, Mankind, and Creation (Historical Christian)
The Transfiguration (Southwark Vocations)
Practicing Prayer (meditatio)
Feast of the Transfiguration (ByzFaith)
Unclerical Sermons to Myself (The Curt Jester)
Hiroshima and Tabor
Transfiguration (Sacramentum Vitae)
Sunday Thought: The Kingdom Coming Business (Apologia)
Coming Down the Mountain (Rickety Contrivances of Doing Good)
Christ and the Bomb (Liberamedeus)
The Joy of the Transfiguration (Flos Carmeli)
Transfigurations (From the Anchor Hold)
Monday, August 07, 2006
Friday, August 04, 2006
Wisdom from Hilary of Poitiers
It is manifest that there is nothing which men have ever said which is not liable to opposition. Where the will dissents the mind also dissents: under the bias of opposing judgment it joins battle, and denies the assertions to which it objects. Though every word we say be incontrovertible if gauged by the standard of truth, yet so long as men think or feel differently, the truth is always exposed, to the cavils of opponents, because they attack, under the delusion of error or prejudice, the truth they misunderstand or dislike. For decisions once formed cling with excessive obstinacy: and the passion of controversy cannot be driven from the course it has taken, when the will is not subject to the reason. Enquiry after truth gives way to the search for proofs of what we wish to believe; desire is paramount over truth. Then the theories we concoct build themselves on names rather than things the logic of truth gives place to the logic of prejudice: a logic which the will adjusts to defend its fancies, not one which stimulates the will through the understanding of truth by the reason. From these defects of partisan spirit arise all controversies between opposing theories. Then follows an obstinate battle between truth asserting itself, and prejudice defending itself: truth maintains its ground and prejudice resists. But if desire had not forestalled reason: if the understanding of the truth had moved us to desire what was true: instead of trying to set up our desires as doctrines, we should let our doctrines dictate our desires; there would be no contradiction of the truth, for every one would begin by desiring what was true, not by defending the truth of that which he desired.
Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book X
Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book X
'Author of Sin'
Rebecca has a great discussion of the theological argument-stopper, "That makes God the author of sin." I particularly liked the discussion of Jonathan Edwards's comments on the subject. While they don't use these words, I have seen papers in which philosophers of religion make the same type of equivocation she notes (e.g., by saying, "this makes God the cause of morally bad states of affairs".) That God is (in some sense) a cause of sin doesn't automatically make God a sinner; He can only be a sinner if the way He causes it is itself sinful, as Rebecca rightly notes.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
"Look upwards and share the wonders I've seen"
You scored as Moya (Farscape). You are surrounded by muppets. But that is okay because they are your friends and have shown many times that they can be trusted. Now if only you could stop being bothered about wormholes.
Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics) created with QuizFarm.com |
A bit surprising, and I think I would rather have had Babylon 5 or SG-1, but I can see it.
The Electoral College and the Sense of the People
Via Majikthise I found this article on recent efforts by certain New York legislators to put forward legislation that would give New York's Electoral College votes to the winner of the nation's plurality vote. Unlike Lindsey, I think this is a horrible idea, one based on a clearly false idea, namely, that the Electoral College system is somehow 'broken'. (In fact, whenever people talk about its being broken, what they actually point to for evidence is state election laws. For instance, the reason for the 2000 fiasco has a lot to do with the inability of Florida, for the second time in its history, to figure out what its own election laws require. But state election laws will not disappear or magically become sensible without the Electoral College.) What is more, it violates the whole principle of putting the voting power in an elected college rather than in the state legislature. The Founding Fathers considered giving the legislatures the power to vote; they rejected it in favor of the Electoral College, according to Hamilton, because (1) in an election you need to have the sense of the people of the state, at the point in time of the election, involved in choosing those who decide how the votes will be applied; (2) in case anything strange happens -- for instance, close election or suspicious numbers, or proof of foreign tampering -- you need to have people chosen for their discernment in charge of handling it, rather than a pre-established formula, because you need to have an election system that can handle the unexpected. What the proposed bill would do is demolish both: the legislators of New York are proposing to take the sense of the people of New York out of the distribution of New York's votes altogether, and determine it by a pre-existing rule having little to do with how people in New York vote.
There are many things that could be said about whether our President should be directly elected or (as the President currently is) indirectly elected by a representative college of electors. But it should not be noted that the bill proposed in New York (and each of the similar bills proposed elsewhere) is not a bill for direct election, as it is sometimes treated in the press. To do that they would have to start the process for constitutional amendment. What they are proposing to do instead is to reduce the say of New Yorkers in determining New York's Electoral College vote. Mr. Thiele, who argues that New York is taken for granted, has decided, apparently, to remedy the situation by taking the voters of New York for granted and letting their voice be outweighed in the use of their own Electoral College votes by those of people from other states. Dr. Koza's claim that the Electoral College is the cause of issue distortion suggests he's never looked at how issues get distorted in nations that don't have an Electoral College (like Canada, which has a parliamentary rather than an electoral college system, and whose 2004 election saw the West and the East largely ignored in favor of courting votes in Ontario in order to force a shift in government). It's votes being up for grabs, not the system itself, that creates 'issue distortion'; and there is no voting system in which there aren't votes up for grabs. What Koza calls 'issue distortion' is really just campaigning. One of the nice things about the Electoral College system is that it guarantees that the battleground states (as far as the Electoral College goes) change over time as the populations do, and requires that the state be the focus, and not just its more concentrated population centers.
There are many things that could be said about whether our President should be directly elected or (as the President currently is) indirectly elected by a representative college of electors. But it should not be noted that the bill proposed in New York (and each of the similar bills proposed elsewhere) is not a bill for direct election, as it is sometimes treated in the press. To do that they would have to start the process for constitutional amendment. What they are proposing to do instead is to reduce the say of New Yorkers in determining New York's Electoral College vote. Mr. Thiele, who argues that New York is taken for granted, has decided, apparently, to remedy the situation by taking the voters of New York for granted and letting their voice be outweighed in the use of their own Electoral College votes by those of people from other states. Dr. Koza's claim that the Electoral College is the cause of issue distortion suggests he's never looked at how issues get distorted in nations that don't have an Electoral College (like Canada, which has a parliamentary rather than an electoral college system, and whose 2004 election saw the West and the East largely ignored in favor of courting votes in Ontario in order to force a shift in government). It's votes being up for grabs, not the system itself, that creates 'issue distortion'; and there is no voting system in which there aren't votes up for grabs. What Koza calls 'issue distortion' is really just campaigning. One of the nice things about the Electoral College system is that it guarantees that the battleground states (as far as the Electoral College goes) change over time as the populations do, and requires that the state be the focus, and not just its more concentrated population centers.
The Hillbilly Thomist
Today is apparently the 42nd anniversary of Flannery O'Connor's death. Amy Welborn has a lot of links for O'Connor fans. (H/t: Dappled Things)
One of the keys to O'Connor's fiction, I think, is stated by herself at one point: "In my stories a reader will find that the devil accomplishes a good deal of groundwork that seems to be necessary before grace is effective." Grace uses the imperfect, even the bad, to accomplish great things.
One of the keys to O'Connor's fiction, I think, is stated by herself at one point: "In my stories a reader will find that the devil accomplishes a good deal of groundwork that seems to be necessary before grace is effective." Grace uses the imperfect, even the bad, to accomplish great things.
Wisdom from Peter Maurin
The following are from Peter Maurin's Easy Essays.
Politics Is Politics
A politician is an artist
in the art of following the wind
of public opinion.
He who follows the wind
of public opinion
does not follow
his own judgement.
And he who does not follow
his own judgement
cannot lead people
out of the beaten path.
He is like the tail of a dog
that tries to lead the head.
When people stand behind their president
and their president
stands behind them
they and their president
go around in a circle
getting nowhere.
World War - 1914
As President Wilson said,
the World War
was a commercial war.
But a commercial war
had to be idealized,
so it was called
a War for Democracy.
But the War for Democracy
did not bring Democracy:
it brought
Bolshevism in Russia,
Fascism in Italy,
Nazism in Germany.
You can find more 'Easy Essays' online at The Catholic Worker.
Politics Is Politics
A politician is an artist
in the art of following the wind
of public opinion.
He who follows the wind
of public opinion
does not follow
his own judgement.
And he who does not follow
his own judgement
cannot lead people
out of the beaten path.
He is like the tail of a dog
that tries to lead the head.
When people stand behind their president
and their president
stands behind them
they and their president
go around in a circle
getting nowhere.
World War - 1914
As President Wilson said,
the World War
was a commercial war.
But a commercial war
had to be idealized,
so it was called
a War for Democracy.
But the War for Democracy
did not bring Democracy:
it brought
Bolshevism in Russia,
Fascism in Italy,
Nazism in Germany.
You can find more 'Easy Essays' online at The Catholic Worker.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Superstition in Churchgoers
By way of Ophelia Benson, I came across this rather silly article. As Benson notes, the following claim is rather absurd:
Given how widespread charms were during the Middle Ages this is pretty clearly false. Also, one thing that isn't made clear in the article which pretty clearly should be is the methodology of the survey. Were they asking people, "Is walking under a ladder unlucky?" or "Do you believe that walking under a ladder is unlucky?" or "Have you ever crossed your fingers for luck?" Was it a telephone survey or some other type? The survey was conducted entirely among Anglicans in Wales, so it doesn't seem one can draw the general principle that churchgoers are superstitious (and since there seems to have been no group of non-churchgoers studied, we can't even say that Anglican Welsh churchgoers are more superstitious than non-churchgoing Welsh). This may be one for the StatGuy to look at. In light of it all the conclusion attributed to the authors (which, as always with reporting on any scientific or statistical work, I assume is a misattribution until I see otherwise, particularly given that some of Francis's other work seems at first glance to be done well) seems rather amusing:
Given that 'precludes' usually means 'makes impossible', that wasn't much of a hypothesis, since no one has ever claimed it as a remote possibility; if understood as 'generally prevents', the evidence doesn't support the conclusion. Benson, of course, wonders about how one would draw a non-arbitrary line between religion and superstition; to which the natural answer seems to be that it would probably be in one of the ways people have been doing for centuries. Certainly Aquinas's discussions of religion and superstition are accessible, as is Hume's discussion of superstition in his essays. Both discussions, despite their differences, have the merit of being more precise and less tendentious than most contemporary discussion of superstition. Benson might even like Hume's take, which develops an account of superstition congenial to her views without making the mistake of assuming that all religious are superstitious.
Through the Dark and Middle Ages, anyone suspected of using traditional charms to secure good or bad luck for themselves or others would usually be burnt at the stake or drowned. The victims were nearly always women.
Given how widespread charms were during the Middle Ages this is pretty clearly false. Also, one thing that isn't made clear in the article which pretty clearly should be is the methodology of the survey. Were they asking people, "Is walking under a ladder unlucky?" or "Do you believe that walking under a ladder is unlucky?" or "Have you ever crossed your fingers for luck?" Was it a telephone survey or some other type? The survey was conducted entirely among Anglicans in Wales, so it doesn't seem one can draw the general principle that churchgoers are superstitious (and since there seems to have been no group of non-churchgoers studied, we can't even say that Anglican Welsh churchgoers are more superstitious than non-churchgoing Welsh). This may be one for the StatGuy to look at. In light of it all the conclusion attributed to the authors (which, as always with reporting on any scientific or statistical work, I assume is a misattribution until I see otherwise, particularly given that some of Francis's other work seems at first glance to be done well) seems rather amusing:
In the paper, to be published in the Journal of Implicit Religion, the authors say that the findings contradict the hypothesis that Christian teaching precludes superstitious beliefs.
Given that 'precludes' usually means 'makes impossible', that wasn't much of a hypothesis, since no one has ever claimed it as a remote possibility; if understood as 'generally prevents', the evidence doesn't support the conclusion. Benson, of course, wonders about how one would draw a non-arbitrary line between religion and superstition; to which the natural answer seems to be that it would probably be in one of the ways people have been doing for centuries. Certainly Aquinas's discussions of religion and superstition are accessible, as is Hume's discussion of superstition in his essays. Both discussions, despite their differences, have the merit of being more precise and less tendentious than most contemporary discussion of superstition. Benson might even like Hume's take, which develops an account of superstition congenial to her views without making the mistake of assuming that all religious are superstitious.
History Carnival XXXVI
The thirty-sixth History Carnival is up at "Clews: The Historic True Crime Blog". I particularly want to emphasize that you should go and see, because Laura James managed to put together a good carnival in the absence of any nominations.
P.S. Oh, and I don't know how I could have forgotten to mention it (apparently I need to get back into the habit of paying more attention to carnivals again), but the newest edition of Carnivalesque is also up. It's an ancient/medieval edition at "Xoom". I especially liked this post on sixth-century Chinese essay writing at "Frog in a Well". This discussion of chryselephantine was also interesting; although (admittedly) I mention it in part because I've always liked the word 'chryselephantine'.
P.S. Oh, and I don't know how I could have forgotten to mention it (apparently I need to get back into the habit of paying more attention to carnivals again), but the newest edition of Carnivalesque is also up. It's an ancient/medieval edition at "Xoom". I especially liked this post on sixth-century Chinese essay writing at "Frog in a Well". This discussion of chryselephantine was also interesting; although (admittedly) I mention it in part because I've always liked the word 'chryselephantine'.
Demolishing Your Enemies Without Raising Your Voice
Florence King gives us a basic lesson in lethal civility at National Review, by taking down Ann Coulter. With a stiletto rather than a sledgehammer.
As the 'Sicilian' proverb goes: The only real way to win an argument is to put your thumb on the blade and thrust upwards. The ideal is to find that one smooth motion that strikes to the heart of the matter, not to pound at the other side (and, inevitably, be pounded back).
As the 'Sicilian' proverb goes: The only real way to win an argument is to put your thumb on the blade and thrust upwards. The ideal is to find that one smooth motion that strikes to the heart of the matter, not to pound at the other side (and, inevitably, be pounded back).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)