A place for friends to meet... with reflections on politics, history, art, music, books, morals, manners, and matters of faith.
A blog by Elena Maria Vidal.
"She was not a guilty woman, neither was she a saint; she was an upright, charming woman, a little frivolous, somewhat impulsive, but always pure; she was a queen, at times ardent in her fancies for her favourites and thoughtless in her policy, but proud and full of energy; a thorough woman in her winsome ways and tenderness of heart, until she became a martyr."
"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."
"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."
~Edmund Burke, October 1790
A Note on Reviews
Unless otherwise noted, any books I review on this blog I have either purchased or borrowed from the library, and I do not receive any compensation (monetary or in-kind) for the reviews.
One can see how, while living such an austere lifestyle, it might be
easy, occasionally, to slip. The rules of Columbanus show us the
penalties the monasteries imposed on those who strayed from the expected
norm. For small infractions, the least penalty was the recitation of
three psalms. After that, the penalties increased in severity, with six
to a hundred lashes given on the hand, using a leather strap. One could
also be sentenced to long periods of fasting or silence. The worst
offenses might require exile or banishment. The penalty for murder was
ten years in exile, during which the offender might have to exist for a
time on bread and water. Yet, despite the austere lifestyle and the
penalties for straying, the monasteries grew....
One of the most important duties of a Celtic monk, for those with the
aptitude, was the copying of manuscripts. And the Irish monks and their
students copied everything they received—not only the Bible, but also
Greek and Latin literature. They copied pagan works, mind you. The
Celtic monks even recorded their own ancestral tales, such as The Tale of the Tain.
Churchmen outside of Ireland disapproved of this welcoming view of
non-Christian writings. But the Irish monks’ ready acceptance of all
literature, no matter its religious worldview, helped to preserve the
great works of western civilization.
But think what it meant to copy a book back then. Gutenberg and his
printing press were hundreds of years away. Every document had to be
painstakingly written by hand, dipping the quill in the ink pot several
times to finish even one sentence. The copying took place one letter,
one page, one book at a time. Such long, tedious work was perfect for
the monk who wanted to sacrifice his life for Christ. But also good for
saving literature that otherwise might be forgotten, burned by advancing
barbarians, or hidden in a cache somewhere, never to be found again. (Read more.)
Since our theologians no longer speak of Satan, however, Ven. Sheen
says we must summon the poets instead. So Lucien Greaves, the co-founder
and spokesman for the Satanic Temple, explains that Satan is not
literal but rather a “metaphorical construct.” As the group writes:
“Satan is symbolic of the Eternal Rebel in opposition to arbitrary
authority… Ours is the literary Satan best exemplified by Milton and the
Romantic Satanists.” And now Milton’s “bold” Satan taunts, like some great soul, elementary and middle school parents with After School Satan.
Numerous Christians and conservatives counsel us against undue alarm
over the proposed club. We’re quoted vague literature from the Satanic
Temple promising lessons on science, free inquiry, and art. We’re
reassured, with collective little jokes, that these Satanists don’t
“worship” Satan. We’re advised, indeed, that they are in fact “faux Satanists”—atheists exploiting Lucifer to be “jerks” to people of faith, “satirists” capitalizing on the “PR value of standing for Satan instead of Reason.” So mark the humor, we’re told, of the intentionally “jarring” promotional video featuring backwards-walking schoolchildren, ominous chanting, and a guttural, diabolical voice.
We’re urged, by some Christians, to elude this “trap,” this provocation to shut down all religious clubs with our naïve indignation. We’re exhorted,
by others, to extol the Satanic Temple for sharing our “struggle for
justice” and shielding our “freedoms,” including “the freedom to
offend.” And we’re utterly missing, in our legal shrewdness and brave free
thought, the terrible seriousness of the Satanic Temple’s “symbolic”
Satan.
Frequently invited to shed Satan to gain support for his crusade to separate church and state, Greaves is unpersuadable.
He finds it “annoying” to be dismissed as “‘just’ an atheist group
trying to make a political point.” Others don’t comprehend his
“atheistic religion,” a religion emptied of “supernaturalism.” Satan may
be just a metaphor, but he’s too essential to the religion’s “symbolic
structure,” “sense of purpose,” and “religious narrative” to be ceded. (Read more.)
The Latin phrase, motus in fine velocior, is commonly used
to indicate the faster passing of the time at the end of an historical
period. I’ve heard it said that it means, “Things accelerate toward the
end.” We are living through an historical hour which is not necessarily
the end of times, but certainly could be marked as the end of an era. I wrote about
the potential significance of the 100 years since Fatima, which could
be the “100 years of Satan.” That 100 years concludes in 2017.
With the Supreme Court decision to redefine marriage (Which I’ve been calling our “Genesis 19 Moment“), along with many other events
happening in the world, many wonder what kind of evil has been
unleashed upon the world. Many of these events correspond to approved
prophecies, most of which have been given in the past two centuries. Up
until recent years, I was completely unaware of this prophecy attributed
to Our Lady of Good Success, but many years prior to that, I had been
saying that “something happened … something erupted in the 1960s …”
“Thus I make it known to you that from the end of the
19th century and shortly after the middle of the 20th century…the
passions will erupt and there will be a total corruption of morals… As
for the Sacrament of Matrimony, which symbolizes the union of Christ
with His Church, it will be attacked and deeply profaned.
Freemasonry, which will then be in power, will enact iniquitous laws
with the aim of doing away with this Sacrament, making it easy for
everyone to live in sin and encouraging procreation of illegitimate
children born without the blessing of the Church … In this supreme
moment of need for the Church, the one who should speak will fall
silent.” -Our Lady of Good Success
“Shortly after the middle of the 20th century” … most certainly
points to the infamous anti-authority, pro-hedonism 1960s, that ushered
in unparalleled self-indulgence (the essence of the demonic) into our
world. In the midst of this, our Church has not only suffered
unprecedented losses in the sheer number of souls, but we are witnessing
an epidemic of liturgical abuse and rampant sacrilege. In an article
that speaks to this, I called this a “Stealth Arianism.” Many claim we very well could be in the throes of what is termed, “The Great Apostasy.”
Did Archbishop Fulton Sheen prophesy about the condition of (many parts of) our Church today? (Read more.)
The last survivor of Gone With the Wind. From The Daily Mail Online:
The
actress is one of the last living remnants of Hollywood's Golden Age
and has now disclosed her true feelings about her late sister Joan
Fontaine, revealing that she calls her 'Dragon Lady.' Posing
on a chaise longue in a demure black dress in her Saint James Paris
residence, the still-glamorous two-time Oscar winner quipped that only
'the pearls are fake,' before she agreed to answer more detailed
questions via email - her preferred mode of communication because of her
failing hearing and vision. (Read more.)
I thought she was in favor of eco-friendly alternatives. From Fortune:
Hillary Clinton has significantly out-raised Donald Trump in the oil
and gas industry, an important venue for campaign financing that has
historically served as a boon for Republicans, according to a new Wall Street Journal analysis.
As of the latest fundraising cycle at the end of July, employees in
the oil and gas sector had donated $525,000 to Clinton’s campaign,
compared with $149,000 to Trump’s team, the newspaper reported. That’s outside of the $470,000 that members of the industry gave to a
fundraising account Trump holds with the Republican National Committee.
But even that pales in comparison to Clinton’s DNC account, which took
in $650,000.
Taken together, oil and gas donors have contributed roughly twice as
much to support Mrs. Clinton’s campaign as Mr. Trump’s,” reported the Journal.
Its analysis points to heavy hitters in the typically Republican stronghold of business, such as Exxon MobilXOM0.92%
, where employees have apparently made 175 donations
consisting of $200 or more to the former secretary of state. Only one
such donation was made to the GOP nominee, according to the WSJ.
In the meantime, members of the American Petroleum Institute, a major
lobbying group for oil executives, also have yet to open up their
wallets for Trump, said the publication.
Remarkably, this development in fundraising doesn’t appear to be
symbolic of a broader trend in the election. Other Republicans have
continued to receive money from oil and gas industry employees this
year, raising a collective 90% of the total $71 million in donations
made so far. What’s significant is that “only a small amount of that is
going to Mr. Trump,” noted the Journal. (Read more.)
A great sentence makes you want to chew it over slowly in your mouth
the first time you read it. A great sentence compels you to rehearse it
again in your mind’s ear, and then again later on. A sentence must have a
certain distinction of style – the words come in an order that couldn’t
have been assembled by any other writer. Here’s an elaborate, Latinate
favourite, from Samuel Johnson’s preface to his Dictionary of the English Language
(1755). We have to train ourselves to read complex sentences like this
one, but if it’s read properly out loud by an actor or someone else who
understands the way the subordination of clauses works, it may well be
taken in more easily through the ear:
When we see men
grow old and die at a certain time one after another, from century to
century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a
thousand years; and with equal justice may the lexicographer be derided,
who being able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved
their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his
dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and
decay, that it is in his power to change sublunary nature, and clear the
world at once from folly, vanity, and affectation.
The
sentence is elevated in its diction, but it is also motivated by an
ironic sense of the vanity of human wishes. It is propelled forward by
the momentum of clauses piling on top of one another. Edward Gibbon is one of 18th
century Britain’s other great prose stylists. The sentences of Gibbon
that I love most come from his memoirs, which exist in a host of drafts
braided together for publication after his death. As a young man, Gibbon
fell in love and asked permission of his father to marry. But his
spendthrift father had depleted the family’s resources so much that he
told Gibbon not to. ‘I sighed as a lover, I obeyed as a son,’ Gibbon
wrote. The aphoristic parallelism in that lovely sentence does some work
of emotional self-protection. Also from Gibbon’s memoirs: ‘It was at
Rome, on the fifteenth of October 1764, as I sat musing amidst the ruins
of the Capitol, while the barefooted friars were singing vespers in the
temple of Jupiter, that the idea of writing the decline and fall of the
City first started to my mind.’The precision of the
place and time setting, the startling contrast effected by the
juxtaposition of barefooted friars and the pagan temple, the fact that
there is an exterior soundscape as well as an internal thoughtscape, the
way the sentence builds to the magnitude of the project to come – all
work to make the sentence great. (Read more.)
I’m increasingly wondering if we are witnessing the conflict
prophesied by Pope St John Paul II in the mid 1970’s — the conflict
between the true Catholic Church and the anti-Church:
We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical
confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide
circles of American society or wide circles of the Christian community
realise this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between
the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel.
Some have interpreted Pope St John Paul II’s warning about the
confrontation between the Church and anti-Church as referring to
persecution by atheistic secularism, that is now in the ascendency in so
many countries. No doubt this is true, but I’m also certain that it
also refers to the conflict we are witnessing between those who remain
faithful and loyal to Our Lord’s Gospel and the increasing numbers who
reject Our Lord’s teaching out of adherence to ‘political correctness’
such as that of the LGBT ideology. The imposition of this politically
correct ideology in many parishes and dioceses is creating an
anti-Church that is in opposition to the Catholic Church, the true
Church of Christ.
The anti-Gospel of the anti-Church is in many cases indistinguishable
from secular ideology. The natural law and commandments of God that
have informed and protected man’s moral, spiritual and physical
well-being for thousands of years are overturned. The anti-Gospel
proclaims a narcissistic, hedonistic attitude that rejects any
constraint except that imposed by man-made laws. God’s will is being
deposed in favour of the individual’s will-to-power, will-to-pleasure
and will-to-consume. The anti-Gospel seeks to de-throne God as creator,
saviour, and sanctifier replacing Him with man the self-creator,
self-saviour and self-sanctifier. It is the ancient, prideful heresy
under the guise of “human rights”.
During the present time the Catholic Church and the anti-Church
co-exist in the same sacramental, liturgical and juridical space.
Instead of breaking away from the Catholic Church, the anti-Church
attempts to pass itself off as the Body of Christ, seeking to induct, or
coerce, all the faithful to become adherents of PC ideology. When the
anti-Church succeeds in taking over the space of the true Church we see
the rights of man supplant the rights of God through the desecration of
the sacraments, the sacrilege of the sanctuary, and the abuse of
apostolic power. Politicians who vote for abortion and same-sex
“marriage” receive Holy Communion, husbands and wives who have abandoned
their spouses and children for adulterous relationships receive the
sacraments, priests and theologians who publicly reject the Church’s
doctrine are free to exercise ministry and spread dissent. (Read more.)
The first few days at Silverstream I enjoyed the beautiful chant and
followed the text with my rusty college Latin as best I could. But I was
still “outside” of it. It was only water, good, life-giving and
necessary, but lacking the heartwarming power of wine.
It was on our outing to the nearby ancient ruins of Monasterboice
that this changed. Monasterboice felt as if we had really reached old
Ireland at last, the isle of saints and scholars. Surrounded by
gravestones, by high crosses and only a few feet from the sky-high round tower,
in the ruins of a 10th-century church we — my family and part of my
monastic family (three of the monks, two aspirants) — chanted the office
of None. Kneeling on the damp grass to sing the praise of Christ in the
Most Blessed Sacrament, the grace of St. Benedict’s love for the Office
entered my heart.
Monasterboice is a tourist attraction. I am sure we
got a few stares that afternoon. Certainly, we were a spectacle to
angels and to men, as Dom Benedict had preached that very morning for
the feast of St. James: “For I think that God hath set forth us
apostles, the last, as it were men appointed to death: we are made a
spectacle to the world, and to angels, and to men. We are fools for
Christ’s sake” (1 Cor 4:9-10). But I think also that the souls of the
Irish faithful who had prayed on this consecrated ground before us were
pleased to look down and hear the praise of God rising again. (Read more.)
With the stipulations of the Hardwicke Act in place, how did a couple manage an elopement? An obvious solution might be to go somewhere else to get married, like
perhaps Scotland. Scottish law merely required two witnesses and a
minimum age of sixteen for both parties. (Of course for now, we’ll
ignore the fact that whether or not Scottish marriages were legally
valid in England was a matter of some debate.) Gretna Green was just nine miles from the last English staging post at
Carlisle and just one mile over the border with Scotland. The town took
advantage of the situation and made something of a business in quick
marriages, not unlike Las Vegas today. Hence, it was known for
elopements, and it became a favorite plot device for romance writers
everywhere. (Read more.)
The Colin Kaepernick controversy is symptomatic of our days. A major
league football quarterback sits down during the national anthem as a
protest. The liberals crown him a hero exercising his freedom to protest
against alleged injustice. The conservatives deplore his action
(rightly so) because it dishonors the flag and the nation. Another case
in point is that of the Satanic Mass in Oklahoma City held
last month offending God and countless Catholics. Liberals hailed this
event as an exercise in freedom of expression. Those opposing saw it was
a horrific blasphemy of the worst sort....
In a society where everything is allowed—where if you can do it, you
should—there is only one action that is not permitted: To affirm that
something is categorically wrong and should not be done. There is only
one thing that one is not free to express and that is the assertion that
such controversial actions are immoral. Anyone who states there is an
objective moral law based on human nature and valid for all times and
places is censored, ridiculed, and scorned. As the Sorbonne students in
the 1968 riots said: “It is forbidden to forbid.”
Against those who claim “if you can do it, you should,” the only
defense is to proclaim loudly and clearly that “just because you can do
it does not mean you should.” The mere fact that it is legally permitted
does not mean it is right. (Read more.)
Mexico, like the British colonies, had republicans and royalists as
well. They also had an established and politically involved church, the
Roman Catholic Church, which supported the Spanish Crown. Mexico became
independent quite a few years later than the United States because the
Spanish or pro-Spanish Mexican royalists had a stronger position in the
country. Essentially, in Mexico, there were Mexicans who favored a
republic and Mexicans who favored a traditional monarchy. When the
republicans, such as under the heretical priest Father Hidalgo, rose up
in rebellion, the Spanish were able to count on the support of the
Mexican monarchists in suppressing such troublemakers. Yet, in time, the
Mexican monarchists were alienated from Spain and, after having fought
in defense of the Spanish Crown, decided to make common cause with the
pro-independence republicans so long as the independent Mexico would be a
monarchy rather than a republic. This coming together of the two sides
for the cause of independence has long been represented by the legendary
embrace of the conservative Don Agustin de Iturbide and the
revolutionary Vicente Guerrero, the famous 'Abrazo de Acatempan'.
The result was the success of the anti-Spanish forces, the independence
of Mexico and the short-lived first Mexican Empire with General Iturbide
as Emperor Agustin I. It was short-lived, however, because the
republicans were still there and soon fought to overthrow and ultimately
kill their Emperor. Likewise, when Guadalupe Victoria assumed office as
the first President of Mexico, those who had favored the empire were
still on hand. They could not, as the Tories had done, simply move in a
mass exodus to some other part of the Spanish-speaking world because
they were, as far as the Spanish were concerned, just as much traitors
as their former republican comrades had been. Iturbide, for example, had
gone into exile in England rather than Cuba or Spain itself because the
Spanish authorities would have executed him for treason. The Tories in
America had, as their most fundamental principle, their loyalty to the
British Crown and King George III whereas in Mexico, the monarchists had
broken away from the wider, global Spanish empire in favor of having an
empire of their own so that, even had they desired to, there was no way
they could turn back from the path they started down with Iturbide. (Read more.)
In Seats of Power in Europe During the Hundred Years' War,
Emery studies 60 residences of the crowned heads and the royal ducal
families of the countries involved in the conflict. Here, writing for History Extra, Emery explores nine of the most significant royal palaces built during the period…
The Hundred Years' War began in 1337 and lasted until 1453 – a span
of 116 years – but in reality, the war arguably extended a further 30
years until its final conclusion in 1483 with the deaths of Edward IV of
England and Louis XI of France.
The war was not a continuous conflict but one of battles, sieges and
armed conflict interspersed with periods of comparative calm or even
peace, at least in England. Nearly all the fighting occurred in France,
with England suffering only from sea raids and the threat of invasion
between 1370 and 1390. However, the war had wider European
ramifications, for it extended into Scotland, Flanders, the Iberian
Peninsula and even the Holy Roman Empire.
The reasons for building during a war varied from the likely presence
in a region of armed forces to a person's financial capabilities and
standing in society. The shape and character of a residence during a war
was similarly determined by the leader's position in society, but also
by his technical knowledge and as a demonstration of his lordship,
power, and wealth.
The anticipation of conflict often determined the defensive character
of the palaces built by the key protagonists, but it should be
remembered that castles as well as palaces were as much a residence as a
fortification, with considerable flexibility in their design. Even in
war, kings and nobles were just as capable of building a manor house as a
fortress, depending on that person's reaction to the political and
military circumstances in the region. (Read more.)
Putin is no Stalin, whom FDR and Harry Truman called “Good old Joe”
and “Uncle Joe.” Unlike Nikita Khrushchev, he never drowned a Hungarian
Revolution in blood. He did crush the Chechen secession. But what did he
do there that General Sherman did not do to Atlanta when Georgia
seceded from Mr. Lincoln’s Union? Putin supported the U.S. in Afghanistan, backed our nuclear deal with
Iran and signed on to John Kerry’s plan have us ensure a cease fire in
Syria and go hunting together for ISIS and al-Qaida terrorists. Still, Putin committed “aggression” in Ukraine, we are told. But was that really aggression, or reflexive strategic reaction?
We helped dump over a pro-Putin democratically elected regime in
Kiev, and Putin acted to secure his Black Sea naval base by re-annexing
Crimea, a peninsula that has belonged to Russia from Catherine the Great
to Khrushchev. Great powers do such things. When the Castros pulled Cuba out of America’s orbit, did we not decide to keep Guantanamo, and dismiss Havana’s protests? Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo?
What is the great moral distinction here?
The relationship between Russia and Ukraine goes back to 500 years
before Columbus. It includes an ancient common faith, a complex history,
terrible suffering and horrendous injustices — like Stalin’s starvation
of millions of Ukrainians in the early 1930s. Yet, before Bush II and Obama, no president thought Moscow-Kiev quarrels were any of our business. When did they become so? Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so,
it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for
Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia’s internal affairs for years?
Putin is a nationalist who looks out for Russia first. He also heads a
nation twice the size of ours with an arsenal equal to our own, and no
peace in Eurasia can be made without him. We have to deal with him. How does it help to call him names? (Read more.)
I find this an irresistible spur to the imagination, and as I read
through the Durham Proverbs I like to picture young Osbern and his
fellow schoolboys being reared on these eminently practical bits of
wisdom. Perhaps when they were restless their masters used to say to
them Geþyld byþ middes eades ('patience is half of happiness'),
as my parents used to laughingly say to me, 'Patience is a virtue!' I
wonder what the blind girl in Osbern's story would have made of the
seventeenth proverb, Blind byþ bam eagum se þe breostum ne starat,
'He is blind in both eyes who does not look with the heart'. Perhaps
once cured, as she marvelled at all the new sights open to her, she
would have agreed with another of the proverbs: Ne wat swetes ðanc, se þe biteres ne onbyrgeð, 'He never knows the pleasure of sweetness, who never tastes bitterness'.(Read more.)
The sanctuary of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Drogheda, where the head of
Saint Oliver Plunkett is kept with great reverence in a magnificent
reliquary. Majesty: how much have we lost since this way of building and
the way of worship that went hand in hand with it has been lost? (Read more.)
Leaving aside the details, the key to the Donald-Ivanka plan is the
recognition that we need to stop pretending that as a common good
parents’, especially mothers’, caring for their own children is worth
exactly zero, and child care is only of value if you pay a stranger
(almost always another woman, preferably a foreigner) to do it. It’s
time to stop denigrating stay-at-home parents, especially moms, as “not
working” and in effect subsidizing, even coercing, their exit from the
home by squeezing them economically with worker-hostile trade, tax, and
immigration policies imposed by a donor class that won’t be happy until
American wages are on a par with those of Bangladesh. It is precisely
this calculated war on home moms that Obama has waged, and which Hillary would prosecute further.
Approximately ten-and-half million American women are stay-at-home moms, and in the phony Obama Recovery that number appears to be growing. Trump’s family-friendly plan could have an impact on the election,
especially in light of the Republican candidate’s polling shortfall
with women. Married women are a key GOP voting bloc with which the polls
show Trump lagging, but that might change—if they take note of his
plans to help them. (Read more.)
The policy was lauded by pro-life, pro-family politicians and
organizations. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who chairs the House Select Panel
on Infant Lives and introduced Mr. Trump on stage Tuesday night, said
the tax plan would “ensure women do not have to choose between work and
family as well as ensuring that if a parent does decide to stay home to
care for their children, they are not unduly penalized by the federal
tax code.” Congresswoman Vicki Hartzler of Missouri, a pro-family
champion, said, “Not only does Mr. Trump’s plan help working parents,
but it also gives benefits for parents who chose to stay-at-home with
their children.” Rep. Diane Black called the plan “both pro-growth and
pro-family.” And Rep. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming said his “thoughtful
proposal shows a Trump administration will be a pro-family
administration.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Center,
added that “Trump's plan recognizes the importance of the family in
society and the importance of children to future economic growth. His
plan encourages family formation which will, over time, help boost the
economy.” Rep. Blackburn, R-TN, called the initiative “a game-changer” on Fox
Business Channel Wednesday morning, saying it will support traditional
families while appealing to female voters.(Read more.)
One
of the things that fascinated me about Eleanor and one in which she
truly was ahead of our time, even if not her own, was the amount of
energy she had and how indefatigable she was right up until her last
days. She died at the age of 80, which was a marvelous span in a period
without life-saving operations and medication. Most octagenarians, even
the robust ones, these days are swallowing a raft of tablets to keep
them up to scratch.
Like
many of the medieval aristocracy Eleanor had a peripatetic lifestyle.
As a girl she would have been constantly on the move throughout
Aquitaine with her parents. At 13 she married the soon to be Louis VII
and shortly after their wedding in Bordeaux, travelled up to Paris. Then
it was back to Poitiers and then a return to France where again, the
court was constantly on the move. Around the age of 23, she set off for
Jerusalem with her husband on the Second Crusade. This took them down
through Germany, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria to Constantinople (modern
day Istanbul) across the Bospherous, across Anatolia under constant
attack, eventually to Antioch and then down the coastal strip to
Jerusalem. Eleanor and Louis returned home 4 years later via Sicily and
Rome on what must have been one of the 12th century's most extreme
military come sight-seeing expeditions. (Louis just loved his shrines).
Biographer
Amy Kelly, coming from a literature rather than history background,
among other dubious notions, had promulgated the whole courts of love
theory which has now been discredited, although the idea remains dear to
the hearts of popular history. Victorian biographer Elizabeth
Strickland is responsible for Eleanor's reputation for gadding about on
the Second Crusade dressed as an Amazon. Her source for this scandalous
happening goes no further back than 1739. There is no evidence for this
story before that date, but it has come to be accepted by many as the
truth. (See Inventing Eleanor: The Medieval and Post Medieval image of
Eleanor of Aquitaine by Michael Evans).
There
is the matter of the scandal of her supposed affair with her uncle
Raymond of Poitiers en route to the second Crusade when Eleanor demanded
an annulment of her marriage from Louis VII. I discuss the
unlikeliness of this one on my own blog Living The History. Eleanor of Aquitaine, Raymond of Poitiers and the Incident at AntiochShe
is also supposed to have slept with her second husband's father
Geoffrey le Bel, but since the chroniclers concerned were hell bent on
bringing the Angevin monarchy into disrepute and were notorious gossips,
it would seem prudent to err on the side of caution in that assessment.
Geoffrey is supposed to have warned his son off marrying Eleanor, but
since Geoffrey and his father had been desperate for years to get their
hands on Aquitaine, I somehow doubt that warning would have taken place.
Indeed, I suspect that Geoffrey would have been keen to see his son
marry Eleanor the moment the annulment with Louis VII was announced.
Many
of the biographies and online articles (especially the latter) tell us
that Eleanor incited her sons to rebel against Henry II because she was
enraged that he had taken a young mistress, Rosamund de Clifford, and
was treating her like a queen. Serioulsy? Eleanor would raise an
empire-wide rebellion, dragging her sons into a war with their father
because she was jealous of Henry's philandering with a baronial nobody?
It's a bit insulting to promote the idea that a savvy, intelligent
woman such as Eleanor was some sort of emotional harpy who would throw
over an entire kingdom because her husband, already known for sleeping
around, was carrying on with another woman. Would the same be said if
she was male? What about the political machinations that were happening
at the time as Henry undermined Eleanor's authority as ruler of
Aquitaine and held their sons firmly under the thumb? Might that not
just have been more pertinent to the situation than a supposed jealous
snit over a mistress? (Read more.)
Mother/daughter relationships can be tricky. We all have countless
girl friends still reeling from the scars inflicted by this basic
relationship. Let’s just say Emily and Lorelai Gilmore are not
extraordinary.
That said, through some wonderful gift and happenstance, I have been
blessed with a fabulous mother. She’s a little bit Zsa Zsa Gabor, a
little bit Scarlet O’Hara, and very much her own. It’s from her that I
get my passion for decorating, creating a home, excellent food from the
best ingredients, and complete focus on my extraordinary daughters. My
mother was all of that. And raised four girls who, even as adults, are
amazed by her energy, her enthusiasm, and her excellent taste. (Read more.)
Should it be a crime to hate women? This
unfortunate question is thrown up by the news that misogyny might soon
become a hate crime across England and Wales. Two months ago, Nottingham
Police launched a trial ‘crackdown on sexism’, investigating cases of,
among other things, ‘verbal harassment’ and ‘unwanted advances’ towards women. Now top coppers from across the country are looking into criminalising misogyny elsewhere.
I find this terrifying. Misogyny is vile
and ridiculous and I feel privileged to live in an era when, in the West
at least, it is in steep decline; an era in which women work, run
things, outdo lads at school, and no one bats an eyelid (except men’s
rights activists who physically live in their mum’s basements and
mentally live in the 1950s). But I am as opposed to the criminalisation
of misogyny as I am delighted by its decline. For the simple reason that
the state has no business policing people’s thoughts, even their dark
thoughts. Have we forgotten this basic principle of the free society?
Imagine the potential for miscarriages of justice in this Orwellian experiment which would investigate people for what they feel (in this case, alleged contempt for women) alongside what they do.
Short of inventing a machine that can measure wicked thinking, how does
one prove that an individual’s mind is a murky swirl of anti-woman
hatefulness? How do we know that the man who engages in an ‘unwanted
advance’ towards a woman is driven by ‘ingrained prejudice against
women’? He might simply be motivated by attraction to one woman, not
hatred for all. (Read more.)
Heidi said several times in the conversation that we have to remember
the end goal — a love of learning. So everything we do to encourage
reading needs to feed into that. You can’t force
someone to enjoy something. But you can draw a picture of how attractive
an activity is and then savor it yourself to model that joy.
One of Heidi’s suggestions that I most loved was simply to talk to your child about what you are reading. It’s that common advice of “let your kids see you reading” taken to the next logical step. Not only do they see
you with a book in your hands, but they also hear you talking excitedly
about the great story you read. You engage them in a conversation about
the novel just like you would a television show or a story that
happened to you.
She is a proponent of weekly library visits and letting kids choose
things they are interested in and then check out as many books as they
can physically carry. (Read more.)
The journey from imagination to page is inherently fraught with what Twyla Tharp calls, “divine dissatisfaction.” In the theater of our mind, our story is a multi-dimensional,
techno-color, high-def world teaming with life. But inevitably, in our
early attempts to transfer that vision onto the page, that world
disintegrates. It’s where a lot of writers get lost. Or stop writing altogether. But the truth is, every writer worth his or her salt grapples with this very same struggle. (Read more.)
In
this simplest of sketches David shows not a queen, nor the hated figure
so vilified by her persecutors, but a simple human in her final
minutes. There was nothing remotely Royalist in David's work and yet his
honest depiction carries with it a dignity of its own. He might have
produced far finer works and laboured long hours over great canvasses
but for me, this simple, human sketch is one of David's greatest works;
it captures a singular moment in time and one that, as the tumbrel
rolled on past the artist's window, was soon gone forever. (Read more.)
It sounds like a good plan to me, better than anything offered by any president or presidential candidate in the past, of either party. From Ivanka Trump:
The current federal policies created to benefit families were
written more than 65 years ago when dual-income families were not the
norm. Today, however, in about two-thirds of married couples, both
spouses work.
In addition, 70% of mothers with children under 18 work outside the
home; so do 64% of moms with kids under age 6. The number of households
led by single mothers has doubled in the past three decades, and the
majority of these women work in low-paying jobs without flexibility or
benefits. My father, in his campaign for president, has proposed a
plan to bring federal policies in line with the needs of today’s
working parents.
Part one is a rewrite of the tax code, allowing working parents to
deduct from their income taxes child care expenses for up to four
children, as well as for elderly dependents. This will be capped at the
average cost of child care in each family’s state, and the wealthiest
individuals will not be eligible for the deduction. The benefit is
structured to ensure that working- and middle-class families see the
largest reductions in their taxable incomes.
To
bring meaningful assistance to lower-income Americans who don’t pay
income tax, the Trump plan will offer rebates on child-care spending
through the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). In a nation where
almost two-thirds of mothers with children under age six are employed,
child care is an undisputed work-related expense. In business, other
such expenditures are tax-deductible. This single reform under the Trump
plan will effectively increase the take-home pay for tens of millions
of American parents.
And what if one parent staying home to
raise the children is the best option for a family? This is the
praiseworthy choice of many, yet there’s zero value or recognition by
our government for this hard and meaningful work. Under my father’s
proposal, stay-at-home parents will receive the same tax deduction as
their working peers.
The plan’s second part is the establishment
of Dependent Care Savings Accounts, created to aid families in setting
aside extra money to foster their children’s development and offset
elder care for adult dependents.
These accounts will operate like
Health Savings Accounts, with tax-deductible contributions and tax-free
appreciation year to year. When established for a minor, funds from a
Dependent Care Savings Account can be applied to traditional child care,
after-school enrichment programs and school tuition.
To help
lower-income parents, the government will match half of the first $1,000
deposited each year. Balances in a Dependent Care Savings Account will
roll over from year to year so that a substantial amount of money can be
accrued over time.
When established for an elderly dependent, a
Dependent Care Savings Account can cover services like in-home nursing
and long-term care. The ability to set aside funds will be particularly
helpful to women, low-income workers and minorities, who are
statistically more likely to reduce time working outside the home in
order to provide unpaid care.
The third part of the plan will
address the federal regulations that currently discourage informal
child-care—such as a mom watching her own kids and a few others in her
home. Arrangements such as these are not now given fair consideration by
our federal bureaucracy, which is biased in favor of institutional
care. We need to create a dynamic marketplace to offer solutions and
give parents greater freedom of choice.
Consider parents who work
part-time, on a night shift or on call. The standard model of
institutional care doesn’t serve these workers: How many day-care
centers are open at night? It takes even less account of parents who
live in low-income and rural communities.
The fourth part of my
father’s plan will add incentives for employers to provide child care at
the workplace. Breakdowns in child-care networks cause employee
absences that cost U.S. businesses billions each year.
On-site child-care centers help resolve avoidable employee absenteeism,
in addition to saving time and helping companies retain valued staff.
Finally,
under the Trump plan, the federal government will guarantee, for the
first time, six weeks of paid maternity leave. This will be done by
amending the existing unemployment insurance that companies are required
to carry. The enhancement will triple the average paid leave that new
mothers receive, and it will do so without raising taxes. (Read more.)
Over the course of the Tudor period there were marriages and many
births that occurred within the red bricks walls. In the summer of 1491
Elizabeth of York retired to her chambers and on the 28th of
June that year she gave birth to her second son Prince Henry (later
Henry VIII). Two of Henry VIII’s marriages took place in private in the
Queen’s closet at Greenwich; the first to Katherine of Aragon on 11 June
1509 and his fourth to Anne of Cleves on 6th January 1540.
Both of Henry’s VIII’s daughters were born and christened at
Greenwich. Catherine of Aragon’s daughter and only surviving child,
Princess Mary was born on 18 February 1516, but perhaps the mot eagerly
awaited birth took place on the afternoon of 7th September 1533. (Read more.)
Such is the power of scent that it can bring forth recollections of
treasured moments in time. Perfume-makers, such as Galimard in Grasse,
France, have been perfecting their fragrance distillation techniques for
centuries. Today, the company offers workshops where attendees can
choose from 127 different “notes,” or scents, to create a personalized
fragrance.
Fragrance is rooted in the everyday, the romantic, in cosmetics, the
culinary arts, and even in the therapeutic arts. And it is undeniably
intertwined with our memories. The smell of freshly baked bread or a
certain perfume often recalls specific moments in time. So perhaps it is
no surprise that companies like Grasse, France–based Charabot employ
ingredients from olfactive families including gourmand, fruity, and
citrus, as well as the more traditional, such as spicy, ambery/vanillic,
aromatic, and floral scents. (Read more.)
The BBC
says that 10 percent of all Syrians are Christian, which would mean 2.2
million Christians. It is quite obvious, and President Barack Obama and
Secretary John Kerry have acknowledged it, that Middle Eastern
Christians are an especially persecuted group. So how is it that
one-half of 1 percent of the Syrian refugees we’ve admitted are
Christian, or 56, instead of about 1,000 out of 10,801—or far more,
given that they certainly meet the legal definition? The
definition: someone who “is located outside of the United States; is of
special humanitarian concern to the United States; demonstrates that
they were persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion,
nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social
group.”
Somewhere between a half million and a million Syrian Christians have fled Syria, and the United States has accepted 56. Why? “This
is de facto discrimination and a gross injustice,” Nina Shea, director
of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, told Fox News.
Fox notes another theory: The United States takes refugee referrals
from the U.N. refugee camps in Jordan, and there are no Christians
there. (Read more.)
Now that we’ve clarified that profanity isn’t always immoral, I will
state my personal position on the matter. I strongly believe that
obscene or profane speech should be completely avoided. Here are five
reasons.
1. It is unnecessary – I haven’t used profanity in
about 10 years, and I have yet to be unable to express myself
adequately. In fact, there are many people who go their whole lives
without using a single obscenity. So why bother?
2. Our words will be judged – Jesus said, “I tell
you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless
word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your
words you will be condemned.” That’s a pretty scary thought if you think
about how carelessly we talk many times. Do you really want to have to
justify to our Lord why you let fly with an f-bomb? Do you really want
to defend why you told someone to go to hell? I didn’t think so.
3. It might cause someone to stumble – St. Paul was
once asked about whether or not eating certain foods was immoral. He
answered that it wasn’t immoral for those who were mature enough to
handle it. But he immediately added the caveat that we should never
engage in liberties that might cause our brother or sister to fall into
sin. Even if you’re a mature Catholic, you must consider the impact of
using obscenities in front of someone who might be horrified and
scandalized by such talk.
4. It desensitizes us – Back when I was in the habit
of using profanity, it took a lot to shock me. I could listen to music
or watch movies with the a lot of vulgar language, and it wouldn’t
bother me at all. But now, when I hear obscenities, it seems so crude
and repulsive. Vulgarity has a way of deadening our soul to things that
would normally shock us. And there are some things we simply shouldn’t
grow accustomed to.
5. It isn’t classy – Ok, I’ll admit this is the
least compelling reason in my case against profanity, but I think it’s
valid. If you wouldn’t walk around in public in your pajamas or wear
your pants so low your underwear can be seen, why would you say things
that are the verbal equivalent?
As Catholic men, we shouldn’t ask how much we can get away with.
That’s an immature attitude. Instead, we should ask if our speech is
fitting for a follower of Christ. (Read more.)
Obianuju Ekeocha: I was born and raised in a small
town in Nigeria. And I had the great blessing of assimilating, from my
family and society, basic principles and values of faith, family, love,
life, dignity and discipline. I was taught that sex was sacred and best reserved for marriage, that
marriage was the foundation of family, and that family was supposed to
be the center of love and support. I understood that human life was
precious from the womb and so every abortion was a serious attack
against human life.
I knew, even as a young girl going through the less-than-perfect
educational system in Nigeria, that my empowerment was dependent on my
continued access to education rather than my access to contraception
(and abortion). By the time I moved to Europe in my mid-twenties for my masters
degree, I realized that even though there was much to admire in the
Western culture that I had moved into, there was a part of this culture
that I could not accept or embrace because it was the direct opposite of
the values I had learnt from my youth.
For years I held my thoughts, opinions and convictions to myself, but
in 2012, when I heard that Melinda Gates was launching a
multibilliondollar contraception and population control project targeted
towards the 69 poorest countries in the world (most of which were
African countries), I saw this as a bold move on her part to impose her
worldview upon the poorest of the world. She was pushing to shift the
views of millions of people on family, motherhood, marriage and sex.
This was cultural imperialism and I couldn’t reconcile with it or be silent about it. So I wrote an Open Letter which
was providentially made public by Teresa Tomeo — a renowned Catholic
show host on EWTN. The letter eventually went viral as it was published
by one of the Vatican websites as well as many other websites around the world in different languages. (Read more.)
By 1812 the Americans were at the end of their tether, and on June
5th 1812 Congress voted in favour of war. This was the first time that
the US had declared war on another sovereign state. The next two years saw regular US incursions into British Canada,
some successful but most short lived. Because of the war efforts in
Europe, the British could not afford to send any additional troops to
North America and therefore a defensive strategy was taken. To help the
British it was decided that Canadian militia were to be drafted in, as
well as local Native American forces.
At sea, the British had complete supremacy (with a few notable
exceptions) and quickly set up blockades of American ports. In New
England these blockades were much less strict, allowing trade through in
return for the regions’ more favourable attitude towards the British.
In fact, it was in the New England states where the Federalist party was
in control, a party which favoured closer ties to Britain and were generally against the war.
By 1814 the war in Europe was over, and the British were able to send
in reinforcements. The first point of call for these reinforcements
would be Washington DC, an area on the eastern seaboard which was seen
as relatively undefended. A total of 17 ships were dispatched from
Bermuda and arrived in Maryland on August 19th. Once on the mainland the
British quickly overwhelmed the local militia and continued into
Washington. Once the army had reached the city, a flag of truce was
sent, but this was ignored and the British were instead attacked by
local American forces.
The British quickly defeated the insurgency and as punishment, set fire to both the White House and the Capitol. A Union Flag
was subsequently raised over Washington. Although other government
buildings were destroyed in the process (including the US Treasury and
the headquarters of a newspaper seen as inciting anti-British
propaganda), the British decided to leave the residential areas of the
city intact. (Read more.)
The Left should really get pressed on this. How can their candidate look
out for the best interests of a country when you believe that so many
people in the country are evil? How can you claim to support democracy
when you believe that so many voters are unfit to govern? Do these facts
explain why you are always trying to give away U.S. sovereignty? Do
they explain why you have long supported giving more power to judges and
other unelected officials? (Read more.)
The attempt to eliminate entry-level
jobs by demanding that every position provides a “living wage” instead
of a step on the ladder toward economic independence leaves millions
stranded with no way to improve their economic condition. Progressives
may feel good about themselves because they have voted to increase the
minimum wage and allow the homeless to sleep in their cars year-round
(with art!). But there simply is no substitute for work experience and
the habits it inculcates if one is to build a decent life as an
individual or a head of household. The alternative is not a hammock of
governmental support, but rather the chains of welfare dependency, in
which one dares not work for fear of losing benefits, and eventually
loses the will to work for oneself and even for one’s children, instead
surrendering to despair and resentment in crime- and drug-ridden
neighborhoods filled with dangerous strangers.
In more general terms we in the United
States are in the process of de-legitimizing work. One of many problems
with a tech-centric ethos (the industry simply does not employ enough
people to make for a tech-centric economy) is that it devalues work. The
game-playing, puzzle-solving atmosphere of Google and other tech
companies that encourage their workers to stay “on-campus” all the time
is solidifying a world-view according to which ”smart” people are
successful. It is not so much what the tech-savvy do for work, which is a
limited activity, but what tech-savvy people are—smart, in a quite
limited way—and how their personalities and lifestyles are shaped, that
makes them valuable, at least in their own eyes. As for the rest of us,
and especially for those who work with their hands, they are stand-ins,
doing a job until automation takes over for them.
Particularly when one listens to the
hypocritical virtue signaling of the likes of Messrs, Zuckerberg, and
Gates, one senses an attitude of entitlement mixed with contempt that
leaves little room for compassion, let alone a desire to allow people
the means by which to forge lives of dignity. Importing workers who
cannot leave or ask for raises for fear of losing their visas, exporting
manufacturing jobs to veritable slave labor camps, and pushing for
welfare and other government programs that provide a “safety net” that
keeps the poor safely out of their way, today’s oligarchs see no need to
maintain a society of opportunity for anyone who does not score well on
college entrance exams or I.Q. tests. (Read more.)
Born around 962 he was the eldest son of
Edgar the Peaceable, king of England. His mother was Æthelfled “the
Fair”, daughter of Ealdorman Ordmaer. There seems to be some confusion
as to Æthelfled’s actual status (not surprising given the distance of
over 1,000 years, I suppose). Some sources say she and Edgar were
married, but later divorced. However, others suggest that young Edward’s
legitimacy was in doubt and that his parents never married. This last
is compounded by suggestions of ‘youthful indiscretion’ on Edgar’s part.
Nothing is heard of Edward’s mother after
his birth, possibly suggesting that she died shortly after. Edgar,
however, married again – or at least formed another relationship. His
2nd wife was Wulfthryth, with whom he had a daughter, Edith (Eadgyth).
Wulfryth became the abbess of Wilton and young Edith followed her
mother into the convent.
And then Edgar formed a 3rd and final
relationship that would have far-reaching consequences for his
first-born son, Edward. Edgar married the daughter of Ordgar, a powerful
Devon thegn who died in 971. Unlike Edgar’s previous ‘wives’, Ælfryth
was crowned and anointed as queen, following her marriage with Edgar,
which was officially blessed by the church. Ælfryth gave Edgar 2 sons;
Edmund, who died in 971 and Æthelred, born in 968. (Read more.)
Today's young people have an entirely different view of work than their parents and grandparents. The boundaries between work and the rest of their lives are not as distinct, so Millennials expect more personal fulfillment from their day jobs.
But Generation Y — defined loosely as those born after 1980 — has
also been acutely affected by the Great Recession, and this means that
they also know the value of a hard-earned paycheck.
In fact, entering the workforce during a down economy creates attitudes that could last up to 20 years, according to a recent study led by Yale economics professor Lisa Kahn.
This includes a tendency toward risk-aversion, a greater willingness to
settle, and a belief that luck plays a big role in future success. (Read more.)
Communion on the tongue helps to foster a proper sense of reverence
and piety. To step up to a communion rail, and kneel, and receive on the
tongue, is an act of utter and unabashed humility. In that posture to
receive the Body of Christ, you become less so that you can then become
more. It requires a submission of will and clear knowledge of what you
are doing, why you are doing it, and what is about to happen to you.
Frankly, we should not only be humbled, but intimidated enough to ask
ourselves if we are really spiritually ready to partake of the
sacrament. Kneeling means you can’t just go up and receive without
knowing how it’s properly done. It demands not only a sense of focus and
purpose, but also something else, something that has eluded our worship
for two generations.
It demands a sense of the sacred. Just like Peter, James and John
before our Transfigured Lord, it challenges us to kneel before wonder.
It insists that we not only fully understand what is happening, but that
we fully appreciate the breathtaking generosity behind it. It asks us
to be mindful of what “Eucharist” really means: Thanksgiving for GOD we
are receiving. (my comments are from this article) (Read more.)
Brian Arrowsmith was born in 1585 in the small hamlet of Haydock,
Lancashire near England’s west coast to devout Catholic parents. Faith and perseverance ran in his blood. Because of their faith, both
of his grandfathers were regulars at the local prison, and in one
instance his grandfather Nicholas was forced to attend a protestant
service, where he was promptly dragged back to prison after loudly
singing the hymns in Latin.
Brian’s parents fared no better, and were often dragged to jail,
leaving a young Brian to feed and care for his siblings. Though his
family came from noble stock, the perpetual fines soon drove them to
destitution and near starvation. During this hardship, Brian never
abandoned his faith, and by his teenage years, he began considering the
priesthood; a vocation that meant certain imprisonment or martyrdom.
When he was 20, Edmund was able to sneak out of England to study at
the College of Doui in France, a university now immortalized by the
Douay Rheims Bible translation. While at Douai, Brian received the sacrament
of confirmation, where he took the name Edmund, in honor of the martyr
Edmund Campion, a name he was fittingly called for the rest of his life. Edmund was ordained 1612 and was presented with an unenviable choice:
instead of remaining in the comforts of Catholic France, Edmund chose
instead to return to his native England and tend to his hunted flock. (Read more.)
Earlier this year, Salon called Mother Teresa “repugnant,”
accusing her of glorifying suffering instead of relieving it. “Judged
by any metric of medical standards,” the piece stated, “it is difficult
to remember her legacy as anything other than an inefficient,
sanctimonious and wholly ideological franchise.”
Last weekend, The New York Timesshowcased
“one of the most vocal critics” of Mother Teresa, an Indian physician
named Aroup Chatterjee who has made a career out of casting aspersions
on the work of the Albanian nun. Chatterjee calls Teresa’s work “an imperialist venture of the Catholic Church against an Eastern population.”
“I just thought that this myth had to be challenged,” he added.
In 1994, Dr. Chatterjee teamed up with professional atheist Christopher Hitchens to produce a documentary trashing Mother Teresa and her missionaries, called “Hell’s Angel.”
Shortly afterward, Hitchens cashed in on Mother Teresa’s immense popularity by writing his own bestselling book excoriating the sister, irreverently titled The Missionary Position. In this “exposé,” Hitchens calls Mother Teresa “a religious
fundamentalist, a political operative, a primitive sermonizer, and an
accomplice of worldly secular powers,” as well as asserting that the
secret ulterior motive behind all her work was “furthering Catholic
doctrine.” (Read more.)
Take this recent NPR piece that asks: “Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?”
If you want to learn about how environmentalism has already affected
people in society, read about the couple pondering “the ethics of
procreation and its impact on the climate” before starting a family or
the group of women in a prosperous New Hampshire town swapping stories
about how the “the climate crisis is a reproductive crisis.”
There are, no doubt, many good reasons a person might have for
not wanting children. But, certainly, it’s tragic that some gullible
Americans who have the means and emotional bandwidth — and perhaps a
genuine desire — to be parents avoid having kids because of a
quasi-religious belief in apocalyptic climate change and overpopulation.
Then again, maybe this is just Darwinism working its magic. In
the article, NPR introduces us to a philosopher, Travis Rieder, who
couches these discredited ideas in a purportedly moral context. Bringing
down global fertility rates, he explains, “could be the thing that
saves us.” Save us from what, you ask? The planet, he
tells a group to students at James Madison University, may soon be
“largely uninhabitable for humans” and it’s “gonna be post-apocalyptic
movie time.” According to NPR, these intellectual nuggets of wisdom left
students speechless. (Read more.)
We can see here how, at least in Boromir's mind, testing and tempting
are two faces of the same coin, differentiated by the good purpose of
the one and the ill purpose of the other. Other evidence shows us that
Tolkien himself saw testing and tempting as synonymous. Later in this
same chapter, when Frodo freely offers Galadriel the Ring, she refuses
it and all that accepting it would have entailed. Having done so, she
famously comments: 'I pass the test' (FR 2.vii.365-66). In three
separate letters, moreover, the only three which mention this moment,
Tolkien refers to it each time as the 'temptation' of Galadriel (nos.
210, 246, and 297n.). We may also see in another letter in which Tolkien
discussed the 'tests' that 'angelic' beings in the material world were
liable to face experiences that he might have equally well have called
'temptations' (Letter no. 156).[1] So the temptation
to claim, or take, or use such power as the Ring offered is not itself
the whole of temptation. There is more to it than that. (Read more.)
Please enjoy a wonderful interview with Brendan and Elly Roberts about their new book on finding a spouse. Worth the Chase: Finding Love God's Way has received the following
comments: “Refreshing and inspiring,” “life changing,” “part of my
healing process,” “deeply moved,” “It made me cry several times and
laugh”.
This book was written by Catholics who met in an adoration chapel,
just 30 minutes after the young lady was begging God for a writing
mentor! After writing the book they fell in love. While it was primarily written for singles on relationships with a
woman's perspective and man's perspective (two books in one) which
focuses on purity, the authors have been surprised that married couples
are also enjoying it. It also has heart touching testimonies of broken
hearts, a single mom's challenges, a mistress who was led to end her
toxic relationship and a woman who was pressured into having an
abortion. All share how they came to surrender all to Jesus and return
passionately to follow Him. Many singles lose hope on finding the person God has destined for
them; they fall prey to the lie that if they feel they are in love then
they should give themselves body and soul to the other person. Worth the
Chase addresses this, offering great hope that one can become fully
pure spiritually especially by seeking Christ's forgiveness through the
Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Worth the Chase has love letters from God for women and also love
letters from God for men which are deeply touching hearts. We are
getting feedback of many people crying upon reading these letters.
Read three chapters for free via www.amazon.com/dp/B00V7IRN2W/
To contact the authors, please write them at worththechase2@gmail.com.
Marie-Antoinette "en gaulle" by Elisabeth Vigée-Lebrun
#1 in Kindle Biographies of Royalty!
Marie-Antoinette, Daughter of the Caesars: Her Life, Her Times, Her Legacy
An Audible Bestseller
Marie-Antoinette, Daughter of the Caesars: Her Life, Her Times, Her Legacy
An Amazon Bestseller
Trianon: A Novel of Royal France
My Queen, My Love: A Novel of Henrietta Maria
Available from Amazon
The Saga of Marie-Antoinette's daughter, Marie-Thérèse of France
A Novel of the Restoration
In Kirkus Top 20 for 2014! And #1 in Kindle Historical Mystery, Thriller & Suspense Fiction
"In every Eden, there dwells a serpent . . . ."
#1 in Kindle History of France!
The Night's Dark Shade: A Novel of the Cathars
Join me on Facebook!
Elena Maria Vidal Author Page
Join me on X!
@emvidal
Visit My Tumblr!
East of the Sun, West of the Moon
St. Teresa of Avila, pray for us!
"...Bud forth as the rose planted by the brooks of waters. Give ye a sweet odor as frankincense. Send forth flowers, as the lily...and bring forth leaves in grace, and praise with canticles, and bless the Lord in his works." —Ecclesiasticus 39:17-19
The fact that a link is provided here in no way constitutes an endorsement of everything on the other end of the link.
Comments Policy
Comments are moderated. If a comment is not published, it may be due to a technical error. At any rate, do not take offense; it is nothing personal. Slanderous comments will not be published. Anonymity may be tolerated, but politeness is required.
I would like to respond to every comment but my schedule renders it impossible to do so. Please know that I appreciate those who take the time to share their thoughts.