Continue reading »]]>

Continue reading »]]> There are a lot of ways that we are called to endure injustice. Some of them we are more comfortable with than others.

One of them is how we conduct ourselves in discussion/debate with those we disagree. Principled people of any sort face the challenge today of a public that is, at large, irrational, illogical, prone to faction and lots of yelling. Catholics have the additional challenge of believing and proclaiming very unpopular Truths (perennially as well as currently).

The fact remains, if our reason for discussing/debating is something beyond ourselves – Truth, justice, the souls of the people involved vs our pride or self-satisfaction – then the greater part of discussion/debate, especially today, is charity, patience, and the willingness to suffer injustice. We must be willing to suffer injustice and misunderstanding rather than resort to angry shouting or other means (or memes) that defeat our purposes (and are not justified by them).

What does this look like in practice? Sometimes it means ostensibly letting other people “win” or get the upper hand. It means letting irrational, illogical, puerile, immature, and unfair comments roll off one’s back. It sometimes means sacrificing the argument to win the soul (theirs as well as ours).

We have to continually be realistic about our situation: 1) our beliefs are unpopular and misunderstood, 2) our culture is insane, and 3) the people we are talking to have been heavily influenced by said insanity (as have we). So we have to expect that anyone we talk to comes to the table with a bevy of misunderstandings, assumptions and prejudices about us and our ideas. Their heads are buzzing with witty “gotchas” and “slogans” that only apply to straw caricatures of us.

And you know what? The reverse is almost always true as well.

With all this in mind, we have to be ready to enter a discussion “wise as serpents, simple as lambs” (Matthew 10:6). We need to be bold and prepared, but ready to content ourselves with asking and listening when “telling” isn’t serving the end goal (even if it is making us feel good). We have to be ready to be misunderstood and expect to misunderstand (and patiently attend to the latter first). When the arguments of our opponents make no logical sense, we must help them to clarify and express them better – this is often a prerequisite for them to be able to see that there is a problem! We must be courageous, yes, but nevertheless patient and charitable at all times.

So be ready to “die to self” a bit when discussing/debating with other people. Scratch that. Don’t be “ready”. Expect to die to self. In fact, if your discussion, debate, and evangelization don’t involve “picking up your cross” in some way, you are probably doing it wrong.

Continue reading »]]> I’ll be chatting with Jon Leonetti on the morning show on Iowa Catholic Radio today about technology – specifically: how to keep from being mastered by technology.

It will be a very quick little chat and so I don’t know how far we will get but I wanted to post a few thoughts and links here as an accompaniment.

My personal favorite author on this topic is Neil Postman, whose book “Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology” was one of the few assigned reading at my state university which I really enjoyed and found useful.

I would highly recommend picking up a copy of that book but to get a taste first, read this address he gave to Catholic Bishops in the lat 1990′s:

Neil Postman: Five Things We Need to Know About Technological Change

One of the general characteristics I admire in Postman’s work was that it is neither “technophilic” nor “technophobic” but rather merely realistic. A piece of technology cannot carry any inherent moral good or evil (this much we know and are frequently reminded) and yet all technology does carry with it certain ideas, values, and prejudices about our world:

In a culture without writing, human memory is of the greatest importance, as are the proverbs, sayings and songs which contain the accumulated oral wisdom of centuries. That is why Solomon was thought to be the wisest of men. In Kings I we are told he knew 3,000 proverbs. But in a culture with writing, such feats of memory are considered a waste of time, and proverbs are merely irrelevant fancies. The writing person favors logical organization and systematic analysis, not proverbs. The telegraphic person values speed, not introspection. The television person values immediacy, not history. And computer people, what shall we say of them? Perhaps we can say that the computer person values information, not knowledge, certainly not wisdom. Indeed, in the computer age, the concept of wisdom may vanish altogether.

The third idea, then, is that every technology has a philosophy which is given expression in how the technology makes people use their minds, in what it makes us do with our bodies, in how it codifies the world, in which of our senses it amplifies, in which of our emotional and intellectual tendencies it disregards. This idea is the sum and substance of what the great Catholic prophet, Marshall McLuhan meant when he coined the famous sentence, “The medium is the message.” - Neil Postman: Five Things We Need to Know About Technological Change

This, again, appears to me to be quite realistic. A piece of technology is a finite invention with a rather static potential for utility. As such, it cannot help but carry with it certain ideas about our information, our work, our relationships, and our world.

It is up to us to, again, not be automatically techno “philic” or “phobic” but simply to approach technology with eyes wide open, aware that all technology/media carry a message and actively seeking what that is. Then of course we have to have the self-knowledge and discipline to see how a technology is or could be affecting us negatively and then to do something about it, whether this means trying to limit the damage or just passing up on a given piece of tech entirely.

In addition to discipline and the ability to just say “no” if necessary, I think we need to be creative. We need to avoid merely taking new technologies at face value and using or embracing them as their inventors expect us to. The creators of our communications technologies – computers, smart phones, email, etc – tell us that we should be connected 24/7, but we don’t have to be. But my little family limits tv watching (Netflix, in our case) to weekends only and I personally restrict my email checking to twice a day. After college I got rid of my video games entirely just because there was/is no more space in my life for them (and if there were, there are better things to be added).

Wow, I have a lot more I want to say on this topic but for now, 1) be aware, critical, and realistic about technology, 2) know and be realistic (and honest!) about thyself, and 3) be disciplined, be able to say “no”, but also be creative when figuring how to continue living “in but not of the world” ad majorem Dei gloriam.

Continue reading »]]> Terri Carrol, a sociology professor at Bowling Green and the co-director of the National Center for Family and Marriage Research (NCFMR), has a lot of interesting information to share in the article “State of the American Family” that was recently published in BGSU Magazine. But what goes unsaid in fact speaks far louder. Behind the litany of sociological observations, one gets the sense that Carrol and the researchers at the NCFMR think that the movement away from the traditional family ideal is a positive and perhaps liberating change.

“Pervasive,” “15 year aberration,” and a “nostalgic myth” are a few of the terms used to describe traditional families as exemplified in the 1950s show Leave it to Beaver. While the Cleaver family in the 1950s sitcom was certainly unique to the time period in many ways, a more traditional family model seems to be guilty by association. Far more “pervasive,” though hardly aberrant, is the primordial model of the human family consisting of a monogamous mother and father and their children — no nostalgia or myth-making necessary. After we read that only 15% of people now belong to such traditional families, Dr. Susan Brown (another BGSU sociology professor) is quoted as saying, “But the era represented by ‘Leave it to Beaver’ is long gone, reflecting rapid social, cultural, and economic changes. We have more options today. There is no longer one, uniform model of family life.” Here again the language carries an amount of implicit interpretation of the data. Changes to the normal structure of the family are called simply “options” and the existence of such options implies, in Brown’s estimation, that any prior model of family is losing its relevance.

The crucial question not being asked is this: Because there is a movement away from the traditional family structure, does that mean there ought to be? Does the fact that many modern families increasingly fail to fit into more traditional models imply that such a failure is in fact a success? We realize of course that these days, any and all “change” is something we are expected be “hopeful” about, but does that hold true for the changes observed by researchers at the NCFMR?

We can and must reflect on where our families are now (as has been done by the NCFMR) but we cannot interpret what that means without some sense of where families should be.  We can say where we are on the map, but we cannot say our location is good or bad unless we know where we are going. In the same way, we cannot begin talking about the “state of the American family” without putting thought to what a family truly is — what it ought and ought not be.

Without any sort of ideal of what the family should be, we cannot say (or imply) with any weight whether or not the current state (or states) of the family is better or worse off. However, this seldom deters us from putting blind faith in “progress.” It is a purely modern prejudice to assume that we are better off now than in the past, simply because the past is the past. We speak so often of “progress” though we have no idea where we are progressing to! Brown has told us that we have many new “options” for what the family might be, but she has not told us whether or not any of these options are good options (at least not explicitly). If we want to be able to make any qualitative statements about the “state of the family,” then we must have some criteria or ideals by which to evaluate.

We surely can agree about some things that make a family healthy and good, but we rarely find it convenient to follow such intuitions to their conclusions. We all intuit the value of commitment. For example, commitment of fathers and mothers to each other and to their children has always clearly been regarded as a good thing. Any first or second-hand experience of divorce or separation can show us that commitment belongs to the ideal family. We like families that last. We also don’t like adultery. Anyone who has been “cheated on” can say that is not a good thing. Such things may be “options,” but are they not options to be avoided?

Families should ensure the welfare of children. In fact ensuring the wellbeing of the next generation is one of the primary purposes of family. Thus we have another easy ideal with which to question the health of the modern family: does it care for children? Does it put their needs, their rights, and their welfare first? What type of family structure or parental arrangement is best for children?

Unless evidence can show that the traditional “option” of a mother and a father in a committed monogamous relationship is not ideal, why do we so hastily dilute the meaning of the word “family” to include any and every new set of circumstances? Brown asserts the validity of these options with no justification other than the fact that they are new, available, and have been  occurring in society.

Certainly, the data paints a picture of fragmentation and flux regarding family structures. We would imagine that even those 15% of families that resemble what is considered “traditional” have more than their fair share of dysfunction. Fathers and mothers have left their children and spouses, most families are divorced or broken in one way or another, and young parents are frequently underprepared for the necessary responsibility and commitment. We heartily affirm the valiant efforts of loving individuals who attempt to pick up the pieces of such unfortunate circumstances, but we do them no good by attempting to re-label their circumstances as merely “new options”.

The fact that there is infidelity in many marriages says nothing against the goodness or possibility of marital fidelity. The fact that many children grow up without a mother or a father does not mean that mothers and fathers are not the ideal parents for a child. The fact that separation, division, irresponsibility, betrayal, and selfishness break up so many families and cheat so many children out of a normal life does not mean that we should throw up our hands and calls such circumstances “options”. In fact, we must realize that the ideals of what a family could and should be are what allow us to affirm our best efforts in imperfect situations. We say such things as “he is like a father to me” or “they were the only family I ever knew” precisely because we recognize the heroic love and sacrifices that often occur in less-than-ideal situations. Either there is such a thing as an ideal family, and loving individuals in less-than-ideal situations strive to provide something like it, or there is no such thing as an ideal family, and all of our judgments, opinions, praise, criticisms, and “family and marriage research” are meaningless.

The data in the “State of the American Family” is interesting and certainly has its place in the public discourse; it tells us where we are currently at and clues us in to how we got here. However, even Dr. Wendy Manning recognizes that there is something of importance intuited in the primordial family relationship:

Everyone has a family. As the primary organizational group in our society, people are aware that healthy families are key to a healthy society. People sense intuitively that families are evolving and, therefore, are interested in our findings. 

Dr. Manning, we couldn’t agree more: everyone has a family, healthy families are key to healthy societies, and the state of the family is drastically changing. The first two observations, if taken seriously, should give us great pause in light of the third.

We are in need of frank, courageous, and honest consideration of the traditional, primordial model of the human family which the researchers at the NCFMR so readily marginalize. Let us think carefully on the nature and purpose of family, not in order to condemn best efforts of loving individuals in tough situations, but in order that we may plot a course of true progress, even if it means retracing our steps.

This article was written by BGSU Alumni, Rob Hohler and JonMarc Grodi in response to “State of the American Family” published in the BGSU Magazine.

Continue reading »]]> This passage comes from chapter VI of C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters, the correspondence between a senior demon, Uncle Screwtape, and his pupil, Wormwood. This is a favorite passage of mine because like all of Lewis’ work, it is such an eminently practical bit of insight into the the interplay of temptation, grace, and our free will.

“An important spiritual law is here involved. I have explained that you can weaken his prayers by diverting his attention from the Enemy Himself to his own state of mind about the Enemy. On the other hand fear becomes easier to master when the patient’s mind is diverted from the thing feared to the fear itself, considered as a present and undesirable state of his own mind; and when he regards the fear as his appointed cross he will inevitably think of it as a state of mind. One can therefore formulate the general rule; in all activities of mind which favour our cause, encourage the patient to be unself-conscious and to concentrate on the object, but in all activities favourable to the Enemy bend his mind back on itself. Let an insult or a woman’s body so fix his attention outward that he does not reflect ‘I am now entering into the state called Anger–or the state called Lust.’ Contrariwise let the reflection ‘My feelings are now growing more devout, or more charitable’ so fix his attention inward that he no longer looks beyond himself to see our Enemy or his own neighbors.” (emphasis added)

What Screwtape is saying in the first part, roughly translated into our terms and context, is this:

When we are in a negative mental or emotional state or experiencing temptation (i.e. fear, anger, lust, etc), we must take note that Wormwood or Uncle Screwtape will attempt to keep our attention focused outward – on the thing feared, the person or situation at which we are becoming angry, or the object of our lust. In a situation like this, Screwtape wants to keep our attention outward and away from the actually cross we are being called to carry at the moment. Consider an earlier passage:

“What the Enemy means by this is primarily that he should accept with patience the tribulation which has actually been dealt out to him – the present anxiety and suspense. It is about this that he is to say “Thy will be done”, and for the daily task of bearing this that the daily bread will be provided. It is your business to see that the patient never thinks of the present fear as his appointed cross but only of the things he is afraid of.”

In any situation where some strong negative emotion, passion, or temptation is present, we will be tempted to put reason and awareness out of our minds. One reason for this is so that we keep from checking ourselves, identifying an occasion of sin, and avoiding it. Another reason however, is to confuse us as to the actual task or cross at hand. Lewis continues:

“Let him regard them (things the patient is afraid of) as his crosses: let him forget that, since they are incompatible, they cannot all happen to him, and let him try to practise fortitude and patience to them all in advance. For real resignation, at the same moment, to a dozen different and hypothetical fates, is almost impossible, and the Enemy does not greatly assist those who are trying to attain it: resignation to present and actual suffering, even where that suffering consists of fear, is far easier and is usually helped by this direct action.”

Often in a state of fear or anxiety, we let ourselves worry about many future potentialities that may or may not come to pass and in doing so, despair in the present. However, it is only the fear of the present moment we need to worry about. When we are angry, we are often so fixated on the person or situation, how obnoxious they/it are and how to fix them, that we forget that this present experience of annoyance or anger is itself what we are first and foremost called to embrace with virtue. In a state of lust, it is easy to linger long in the occasion of temptation, enjoying the thrill of almost but not quite giving in, never really looking inward to take stock of the danger we are entertaining. We must remain aware of our passions and thoughts in the present moment and make prudent choices to avoid occasions of temptation.

The second part of Screwtape’s “general rule” is that when we are in any positive mental or emotional state or experiencing the movement of grace, the temptation will be to focus on the thoughts, emotions, or movements themselves, rather than on the source of these (God) or on perhaps the intended recipient, our neighbor.

When we pray, Screwtape now wants us to be concerned with our feelings and thoughts rather than the object of our prayer, God. When we do good, he wants us to think of the good we are doing and how great we are for doing it. Ideally, he would like to relegate our goodness and virtue to theory alone, and keep it out of practice altogether.

“The great thing is to direct the malice to his immediate neighbours whom he meets every day and to thrust his benevolence out to the remote circumference, to people he does not know. The malice thus becomes wholly real and the benevolence largely imaginary. There is no good at all in inflaming his hatred of Germans if, at the same time, a pernicious habit of charity is growing up between him and his mother, his employer, and the man he meets in the train. Think of your man as a series of concentric circles, his will being the innermost, his intellect coming next, and finally his fantasy. You can hardly hope, at once, to exclude from all the circles everything that smells of the Enemy: but you must keep on shoving all the virtues outward till they are finally located in the circle of fantasy, and all the desirable (sinful) qualities inward into the Will.”

So, in time of trial and tribulation, identify the present and actual cross – i.e. whatever emotional or passionate or tempting state you are in. Endeavor to make the right decision now, whether to persevere with patience, fight, or flee, and deal only with future/potential fears or tasks or crosses when they arrive, and not until then.

On the other hand, when you pray or do good works, be in the moment, turn outward, and endeavor to forget about yourself. In the words of G.K. Chesterton “let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With a topic like this, discussion of additional anecdotes and examples may be helpful for all listening. So, do you have any examples, whether personal or general, of either end of Screwtape’s general principle? In other words examples of either a) the temptation to ignore our internal state during fear, anger, lust, etc or b) to be fixated on our internal state during prayer or good works.

Continue reading »]]>

Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.

G. K. Chesterton

There is less difference than many suppose between the ideal Socialist system, in which the big businesses are run by the State, and the present Capitalist system, in which the State is run by the big businesses.

G. K. Chesterton

The only difference between a Socialist state and a Capitalist state is whether power is concentrated in a few private or a few bureaucratic hands.

The Distributist Review

Self-portrait of G. K. Chesterton based on the distributist slogan “Three acres and a cow”. Via Wikipedia

You are probably, like me, frustrated at the ways in which our political, social, and economic discourse has been forced into a series of false dichotomies: socialism or capitalism, ultra-liberality or ultra-conservatism, ever growing government bureaucracy or ever growing big businesses, social justice or orthodox religion/traditional morality, and so forth. We do our best to navigate the polarizing dialogue of modern society, but the limited options we are presented with always force us to choose a mixed bag, considered to be the lesser of two evils. But even if in practice we must sometimes settle for such tough choices among limited options in the short term, we shouldn’t let these circumstances limit the ideal we work towards.

Many who lean liberal/socialist/big-government/etc simply do so out of a sincere concern for social justice and in reaction to the very real ills (whether inherent or circumstantial) of a laissez-faire capitalism as we know it. On the other hand many, like myself, have leaned conservative/capitalist/libertarian/etc out of a concern for freedom and in reaction to the very real ills of socialism/communism. Both are afraid of the other side, yet neither I suspect, were they truly honest and made to face the facts, is perhaps perfectly comfortable with their own.

If you want to breathe some fresh air outside today’s stale political conversation, consider taking a look at Distributism, particularly the wise writings of the great generalist G.K. Chesterton.

Distributism is a rich and yet practical economic philosophy based firmly on Catholic social teaching and the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity. Most famously popularized by G.K. Chesterton in the late 19th and early 20th century, Distributist thought emphasizes the importance of widespread ownership – “three acres and a cow”, as the slogan goes -, strong local economies, small family and worker-owned businesses, and the Catholic social principles of Subsidiarity – things should be handled on the lowest level possible (individual, family, village, state, etc) – and Solidarity – concern for the common good (Click here for a longer explanation).

Stratford Caldecott offers this great summary in an article over at The Distributist Review:

“I take Distributism to be the view that private property should be widely distributed in society, rather than concentrated in a few hands, in order to enable more or even most people to be able to take responsibility for their own families by means of productive and dignified work. This can be seen as a practical expression or implication of the Catholic social doctrines of subsidiarity in solidarity, of the common good, and of the family as the best foundation of a healthy civil society.

Distributism is not socialism. It does not suppose that property should be stolen from the rich and given to the poor, or appropriated by the state or by a party representing the people, but rather that legislation should make it easier for the small property-owner, landowner, tradesman, and shopkeeper to survive, and harder for the tycoon to accumulate so much wealth and power that the former is forced to become a mere employee of the latter, or effectively a wage-slave.” - A Distributist Education

As I have begun to poke around amongst Distributist thinking and thinkers, I am finding  many natural connections with other topics I am already excited about – sustainable agriculture, homesteading, small business, real/traditional food and production, a rightly ordered concern for the environment, the important of addressing poverty on the local level, and the attempt to more authentically live out the Gospel calls to poverty, simplicity, and detachment.

As I continue to learn, I hope to write much more about Distributism and the ways in which my house and I are doing our best to serve God and neighbor. For now though, a few quotes, a bit of my own musing, one long citation, a couple appeals to authority, and finally a list of further reading (below) will have to do.

Thanks for reading and I hope the resources below inspire and challenge you further.

Here are the two books I am currently reading on the subject:

• The Hound of Distributism: A Solution for Our Social and Economic Crisis
• Beyond Capitalism and Socialism: A New Statement of an Old Ideal

Here is a nice FAQ: http://distributistreview.com/mag/test-2/

Here are 102 great action steps: http://www.justpeace.org/encourdistributism.htm

Rerum Novarum: Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Capital and Labor

Here is a neat flyer on Distributism:

Continue reading »]]>

— 1 —

An Intentional Advent (So far!)Advent is here and I can happily say, perhaps for the first time, that we were ready for it and are off to a strong start.

First off, before Advent even began we reaffirmed our normal daily spiritual regimen, normalizing our schedules and re-prioritizing our time. In the morning we do our best to eat breakfast together, read the mass readings aloud, and say a few short prayers asking for an increase in virtue – especially patience, fortitude, humility, and charity – and for openness to whatever conversion of heart God has in mind for the day. At noon I say the Angelus, praying specifically for my wife Teresa, and we say it aloud if we are together. In the evenings we do our best to have a sit-down dinner, say a rosary afterwards, and keep the tv off if it is a weeknight. Finally, Teresa and I have a few night prayers we say together based on compline.

For the Advent season we have added and emphasized a few things:

1) Teresa created a red and green advent “chain” out of construction paper. Each link contains a scripture reading and activity for every day leading up to Christmas. We remove one link in the morning at breakfast and read the scripture at the end of dinner.

2) For every day of Advent, we chose a family member or relative to spend the day praying especially for.

3) We firmed up our normal commitment to limiting tv watching to the weekends. Additionally, we went ahead and cancelled Netflix and Hulu (our sources of tv) and will be instead watching a few Christmas or saint movies on the weekends. ( Though, of COURSE, we planned an exception to see the Hobbit at the move theater with our Faith on Tap group)

4) Finally, Teresa made a concerted effort to plan and research Advent and Christmas themes ahead of time so that we could be very mindful of and engaged with the liturgical season. For example, she has had us read excerpts from books and articles on Christmas traditions in other countries and the meanings of Christmas symbols.

How is your Advent going? If you haven’t yet started preparing for Christmas, it is not too late!

— 2 —

Real books vs ebooks 

The other day I was helping a friend and colleague get the .epub version of his book ready for publication. At one point in our email exchange, he noted that he didn’t think he’d ever grow accustomed to ebooks. My reply turned into a couple of paragraphs that sum up my current feelings well:

“I agree with you on ebooks. I started reading them for a short stint and gave up. I like a physical tome I can touch, feel, and smell . The physicality of the book makes a far greater impression on all of my senses, without which I have great trouble focusing on the text, integrating it, making connections, keeping it all in context, and recalling information after I finish. I also can’t stand to read without a pen or pencil in my hand for underlining.

These may be learned dependencies, but I also feel that the ebook is less “mine” than a physical book. If the power runs out, or my device breaks, my ebook is gone. I value real property as opposed to transient (which is also why I am determined to get and stay out of debt, own my own house and land someday, and yes, have a giant library for my children to explore).”

I like ebooks like I like the telephone. It is useful and better communication than none, in a pinch, but it will never take the place of the physical presence of another person.

How do you feel about physical vs “e” books? How do you feel about “owning” digital media – mp3′s, mp4′s, digital photos, ebooks – vs owning physical media – books, physical photos, etc?

— 3 —

Speaking of books….

This has (or has not, depending on the perspective) been a great week for my bibliophilia. I have been going…. to…. TOWN on PaperBackSwap.com and received a couple amazon purchases in the mail this week also.

As a result, my current slate of reading is quite full again (just the way I like it):

What are you reading these days? (My favorite question to ask anyone)

— 4 —

Twin Legacies

Out of all the topics on my mind of late – gospel poverty and simplicity (via, Fr. Dubay’s “Happy Are You Poor”), the Distributism of Chesterton and Bellock, local economies, rustic living, real food, the importance of family and community, etc – a strong, concrete desire has surfaced regarding the legacy I hope to pass on to children and grandchildren.

Two items in particular: A homestead and a library.

The more I ruminate on how best to both teach my children the content of the Catholic faith as well as to give them the best possible chance of falling in love with goodness, truth, and beauty, these two items, a homestead and a library, keep coming to mind and refusing to leave. More about this later.

The natural defence of Freedom is the Home; and the natural defence of the Home is the Homestead. The Family, not the Individual, is the unit of the nation. As Political Economy is the child of Domestic Economy, all laws that weaken the Home weaken the nation. Father Vincent McNabb O.P. (1868-1943)

— 5 —

I am a big fan of Mumford and Sons. They have a great, rustic, moving, folk-rock sound and just some of the most beautiful, rich, erudite lyrics you’ll find. One of their bigger hits, “The Cave”, references Plato’s famous allegory, the Odyssey, and, some argue, bits of G.K. Chesterton’s “Francis of Assisi”.

Anyhow, it was pointed out on Facebook recently that Marcus Mumford is indeed a fan of G.K. Chesterton.

“It’s (The Outline of Sanity’ by G.K. Chesterton) changed my life quite a lot, it’s fairly serious, it’s somewhat political, and is my first dip into these rather dizzying and very terrifying waters. But it has gripped me and inspired me and said things I haven’t known how to say but that I feel quite strongly, and so thought it was appropriate for the Book Club.” – Marcus Mumford

And later that year…

“Suffice to say it’s [The Outline of Sanity] changed my life; but I don’t expect it to, or even feel that it must, have the same effect on everyone! I think even if you disagree vehemently with what GKC puts forward, it’s still a really refreshing experience to read such well considered and intriguing lines of argument. Especially now, on pretty hot topics like ‘big vs small business’, ‘private vs public ownership’, ‘the man-made vs the natural’, etc. The actual political ideal of Distributism, I’m still getting my head around, if I’m honest. But his thinking and his writing are just plain bitchin, in my very humble opinion!” – Marcus Mumford

This was great to see. One always got the sense that there was some real substance behind the lyrics and themes of much of their music. Hope they keep reading!

— 6 —

Science Fiction/Fantasy News

- Thus far I have consciously been ignoring any reviews coming out regarding the new Hobbit movie. We are going to see it this weekend with our Faith on Tap group (as I mentioned earlier).

When a beloved book is put to film, a bit of trepidation is to be expected. However, my friend William Newton had some good thoughts on letting Jackson’s interpretation be just that.

- Have I told you that C.S. Lewis Space Trilogy – Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandera, and That Hideous Strength - are probably my favorite books of all time? (No? are you sure we are friends?)

“It is not for nothing that you are named Ransom,” said the Voice…

The whole distinction between things accidental and things designed, like the distinction between fact and myth, was purely terrestrial. The pattern is so large that within the little frame of earthly experience there appear pieces of it between which we can see no connection, and other pieces between which we can. Hence we rightly, for our sue, distinguish the accidental from the essential. But step outside that frame and the distinction drops down into the void, fluttering useless wings. He had been forced out of the frame, caught up into the larger pattern… “My name also is Ransom,” said the Voice.” 
― C.S. Lewis, Perelandra

If you haven’t read this brilliant trilogy, do so now. (I’ll wait)

…..

Done? Ok, like all good books it gets better with every re-read. Go read it a couple more times. Let it really sink in.

……

Okey Dokey! For those that have already read it or are now working on their next re-read, I came across this neat little documentary:  The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism.

I would love to discus, this, my favorite trilogy with you. Hit up the com boxes!

- Finally, a friend of mine named Rod Bennet, author of Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words just finished his own Sci-Fi novel entitled The Christus Experiment, which I am excited to read. It has been getting some high and intriguing praise:

Early readers of The Christus Experiment have had nothing but raves: Author and historian Mike Aquilina declared it “a piece of out-and-out genius…I couldn’t put it down. Haunted me for days afterward.” Micah Harris, author of Heaven’s War, the acclaimed graphic novel from Image Comics, says The Christus Experiment is “mind-blowing…and hugely entertaining. This is what C.S. Lewis would be doing in the age of Iron Man. Bravo!” Popular internet pundit Mark Shea called the book, “a lulu of a sci-fi story that I stayed up later than I should have reading…I so want to see a movie made of this. It would rock the house…Rod Bennett is one of the most original minds going right now.”

Here is longer interview over at Catholic Lane.

So check it out and share with others who might be interested!

— 7 —

Jennifer Fulwiler, lifelong Atheist turned Catholic and author of ConversionDiary.com (and hostes of “7 Quick Takes Friday”) is the star of her own reality show “Minor Revisions” which debuted yesterday night and will continue next thursday. You can watch online at http://netny.net

The first episode was great fun, giving us a glimpse of Jen’s beautiful family and hearing her talk of her conversion. Because there were a lot of technical issues with the broadcast (and in case you missed the epic twitter party) Brandon Vogt has links here.

There were many great moments in the show, but a crowd favorite was a comment from Jen’s young daughter:

And that wraps it up! Have a great weekend! Start a new good book!

For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!

Continue reading »]]> My son Dominic and I were especially excited to find %90 Lindt chocolate bars, one of our favorite treats (or perhaps “supplements” – read Paul Jaminet’s fun post on the optimal dose of Chocolate).

We have been very intentional this Advent with our prayer, decorations, activities, etc.

Saint Nicholas was a third century bishop with a reputation for generosity. He also is said to once have ended a debate with Arias by slapping him in the face.

via Catholic Memes

Happy feast day! Saint Nicholoas, pray for us!