Check out the animated show Bat out of Hell on YouTube!

Archives for April 2006

St. Catherine of Siena…

…whose feast is today, is one of those people who tempt you to think, “Either she was mad, or there really is a God.” The bizarre austerities combined with the earthly wisdom combined with the mystical visions combined with the incredible social fluidity…amazing.

Tullamore Dew or Powers?

The Dan Brown Dystopia

“I have talked to a number of people that were greatly taken with the book, and my impression is that most of them know it’s a big pile of crap. They may not admit it in conversation, and they might not even admit it to themselves, but they know it. A huge, steaming pile of crap.” –Quotidian Quintilian

Today in Porn, Sheepish Edition

Commentor Mamagiglio wishes I would post less about porn – hence, the “sheepish” in the title. I won’t say I can’t help myself, but I do find myself thinking, “This needs to be noted.”

Allan MacDonell has written a book about his career in the Larry Flynt publishing empire – by the end, he was executive editor of Hustler. In the inevitable NYT profile, we are naturally reassured that, despite his occupation, he has a “very conventional marriage” with his second wife. The story then gives us this perfect gem:

They met roughly 12 years ago on a blind date, and when she heard where he worked, she was a little hesitant, he said, but quickly got over it because “she’s incredibly secure with herself.” Mr. Flynt attended the wedding, he added, and after meeting that notorious pornographer, Mr. MacDonell’s mother-in-law, a devout Roman Catholic, said he was so charming he reminded her of Ted Kennedy.

That last sentence is almost too perfect to spoil with any kind of comment.

Help Wanted

Apparently, I was mistaken. (Apparently, there is nothing new under the sun.) The Catholic Educator’s Resource Center is not out of the financial woods. Please consider donating if you find what they’re doing at all valuable. Yeah, that’s my dad’s stuff on the website. But that’s not why I’m asking.

Kierkegaard Blog Watch

Up From Atheism – Conclusion
“I had taken up a strong interest in the writings of Kierkegaard and St. Augustine during these times, along with making valuable use of Laura’s own intellectual resources on the history of Christianity and Christian thought.”

21st Century Kierkegaard
“I’ll leave you today with this brilliant nugget by the 19th century thinker Kierkegaard: If you label me, you negate me.”

“Kierkegaard” on May Day
“Walking into the toilet, I saw my MD peeing and was inspired to pen this down after Kierkegaard …”

Inside Iraq
“If you profess to be Christian, then read your own Bible, especially the Sermon on the Mount. If you’re not particularly religous, that’s ok — read Sartre, Kierkegaard, Frankl, Kafka, Brecht.”

I Imagine That Yes is the Only Living Thing
“The task is not to find the lovable object, but to find the object before you lovable. – Soren Kierkegaard, Works of Love”

“Fear and Trembling” has three problems
“Was it ethically defensible of Abraham to conceal his purpose from Sarah, from Eleazar and from Isaac? Kierkegaard’s discourse on these problems astounds me, what a mind!”

Søren Tender from Fearen Trembling
“Both knights, as different as they are, have take the step out into the open space where they stand in the presence of God alone with no mediating structures, no ethical codes, no systems of practical reason, no proofs or demonstrations or crutches or guarantees, and they obey God.”

my sweet Aviator of the Sky Christ first pilot_ of written

I believe because it is absurd.
Something like that , if memory serves.
Kierkegaard built nearly all his thinking around
the notion, that the belief, in this thing, is absurd.
[the phrase originates in the latin
Credo quia Absurdum of
Tertullian, the old growling church
father of the ancient days…]
there’s no evidence, for it, and everything around us,
and it, and the world, argues against it,
there’s no evidence of Any kind.

Faith and Reason and Writers

The intrepid Maud attended this year’s PEN Faith & Reason event, and did us all the favor of posting a lengthy report on the goings on. Her closing statement:

By the end of the night, Russell, a science guy, shared Michael Orthofer’s opinion that the focus of the event was too heavily tilted toward faith, “with reason as the afterthought or occasional counterweight.” They’re right: the discussion was largely religion-centered.

Overall (from my agonistic but faith-sympathetic perspective) this focus followed from the idea that religious extremism of various kinds is one of the greatest obstacles to harmony in our increasingly globalized world. Some authors worked toward the notion that faith isn’t inherently bad — that reason, too, can be problematic. Others charged that religious faith is backward or insidious. A few seemed to believe it may be the death of us all.


From Maud’s report, it doesn’t sound like anybody suggested that faith might actually be salvific. From my extremely humble perspective, this may possibly indicate a flaw in PEN’s invitation decisions. Would it have killed them to invite one serious believer, one person who saw faith as not only human, not only compatible with reason, but as a real (if still msyterious) and transcendent good? They could’ve invited Ron Hansen – he’s got cred. Or Alice McDermott. Just somebody.


If you link only to those who link to you, what is extraordinary about that? Even the pagan bloggers do as much…

Fair enough. But Mine Iron Heart went and linked to me a while back, so, like a good pagan, I paid him a visit, and found this. Very interesting. Essentially, it sounds like the Episcopal bishop of San Diego is forbidding schism and demanding obedience. I wonder if Rome ever issued similar letters to the Episcopalians – and I don’t mean that in a smarmy way.

Good paragraphs from the letter, with a couple of can’t-help-myself comments:

Let me be clear about the import of this direction. If you and your congregation pursue an effort at secession, you will at that moment be in violation of your ordination vows. By this Pastoral Direction, you will be, by that very act or by your participation, an inhibited priest and deprived of standing or canonical or legal authority to do the very action you purport to effect. In issuing this Pastoral Direction, it is my hope that the issue of congregational secession can be conclusively addressed, and that we can concentrate on what is our common work together.

[But isn’t the nature of your “common work” precisely the question that is causing this division? Don’t some people think that the Episcopal Church in America is departing from the “common work” in crucial ways?]

Too much time and energy has been spent on this question. Individual clergy and people may choose to leave the church. This is a right that each of us has. But it is not permissible to participate in actions which attempt to remove a constituent part of the Diocese and Episcopal Church from the whole.

[Isn’t each member, clergy or otherwise, a constituent part? If they each have the right to leave individually, then why can’t a congregation simply say, “Each of us is exercising our right to leave individually”? Or perhaps I’m misunderstanding here.]

At this time in the life of our church, it is imperative that we understand clearly the difference between conscience and the obligations of vows and office. I will always respect individual conscience. But as clergy, we hold vows, and as rectors you hold an office, which includes your bond of trust to me as your bishop….

This Pastoral Direction correctly frames the issue as one of ecclesiastical authority, which is essential to the good order of the Church, and thus calls us back to remain together so that we can serve and care for the people whom God has entrusted to us.

[What is the nature and cause of that authority? And what if the authority is wrong, and is acting in such a way that is not in fact truly caring for “the people whom God has entrusted to us”? Again, not being smarmy – it’s a serious question.]


Over at About Last Night, Terry has a lovely little rant against spin, one which gets at one of the great crimes against language – the transformation of its purpose from communicating to manipulating (and by “manipulating,” I fear we very often mean “selling”). He also includes this:

…the greatest piece of unspin ever uttered by a public figure, General Joe Stilwell’s statement to the press after Japanese troops forced his men to retreat from Burma to India: “I claim we took a hell of a beating. We got run out of Burma and it is as humiliating as hell. I think we ought to find out what caused it, and go back and retake it.”

Just imagine if people talked like this. It’s part of the reason I loved Thank You For Smoking. For all the smoke being blown in that film, there was a certain, raw, honesty. Same goes for The Squid and the Whale. It’s gotten so that I’m grateful to hear the truth, no matter how ugly.

More on Golddiggers…

If I were a better person, I’d figure out a way to say this in a Controlled Cinematic Haiku, but if there’s one thing Godsbody isn’t, it’s a better person…

Amazing to think that there was a time when the aristocracy wanted nothing to do with “the theater.” (Reminds me of all those olde-timey saints’ admonitions to keep away from the place.) I mean, now, the aristocracy is the theater.