Translate

sábado, 20 de mayo de 2017

What is God asking you to do? Defending unpopular truths as a signal of your willingness to stand on those same principles


Faith and Reason, Beauty and Holiness




by Ryan T. Anderson 

We have the obligation to propose with the apostle Paul the more excellent way. And this only intensifies as you graduate today and enter a world that is simultaneously hungry for and resistant to your message.


On Saturday, May 13, Public Discourse's editor Ryan T. Anderson received an honorary doctorate from Franciscan University of Steubenville and delivered the commencement address. His remarks follow.

Father Sheridan, Dr. Kempton, members of the board of trustees, distinguished faculty and staff, fellow members of the great class of 2017, and the families and friends who supported you to this happy afternoon: 

It is a joy to share this moment with you, and an honor to address you and to become an honorary alumnus of the Franciscan University of Steubenville. I must say, obtaining this doctorate has been a fair bit easier than the last one. But this one means much more to me.

To stand here and receive this honor today is of much greater ultimate importance because Franciscan’s appreciation for the work I’ve done in recent years defending unpopular truths is a signal of your willingness to stand on those same principles and to continue forming generations of students in these truths. Thank you for this honor and thank you for the great work that you do.

Of course, this university has been in the business of defending unpopular truths for many years. And you, fellow graduates, are well prepared to lend your voices—and dedicate your lives—to the cause of truth. I’ve had the great pleasure of speaking on this campus every year for the past four years. Each visit has been a delight, speaking to students who actually want to learn, and want to make a difference. Franciscan University has prepared you well. And the world needs what you have received. So as we celebrate your accomplishments over the past years as students, we must also think about what comes next. What is God asking you to do?

I’ve worked for the past twelve years as, among other things, an editor. And when people want to become writers, the first piece of advice they should receive is this: Write about what you know. I think the same thing is true for speaking: speak about what you know.

So in the time we have together this afternoon I want to speak about something I know quite intimately: my own calling in life. And I hope that my sharing a few thoughts on that will be helpful as you think about your own callings.

If we have a calling in life, it is because someone has called us. God calls each of us by name to a specific path of holiness and service to others.

And yet, we live in a society that largely avoids thinking seriously about callings. We live in a society of rampant individualism and relativism, where man is the measure of all things. We hear people speak of human rights, for example, but rarely of human goods, or human nature, or nature’s Author. We hear people appeal to natural rights, but rarely to natural law, or the Natural Law-Giver.

So, the first thing to say about vocation is that it is intimately connected with truth—both metaphysical and moral truth. We have it on good authority that each of us has a calling in imitation of the Master who gave his life bearing witness to the truth. We will face this challenge everywhere our lives take us: in government service, in the marketplace, in our families, and in service to the church. And we must be prepared to defend truth as never before.

Let me say a word about how I got here. As an undergraduate, I was planning on teaching high school after graduation, coaching football and lacrosse, and helping with my school’s music program. But my undergraduate years were when President Bush issued his executive order on embryonic stem cells, when the attacks of September 11th took place, when we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and when the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts redefined marriage—making Massachusetts the first state to do so in America.

All of these events got me thinking more seriously about the importance of politics, and of political morality in particular. What did I think about the morality of human embryo destruction? About the justice of war and peace? About the consequences of redefining marriage? And how should Christians participate in these discussions?

This time at college was also the first time I had ever met Evangelicals, and daily Mass-attending Catholics. Indeed, it was the first time I met any Christian deeply committed to the faith. And so, at Princeton University of all places, I started to think seriously as a Christian. And I came to see that there’s no conflict between faith and reason. I came to understand more deeply the reasons for the hope I have.

I also came to see just how misguided secular liberal policies were on the most urgent and important questions, and how much damage—in terms of human brokenness—these policies cause. I saw that to love my neighbor required me to help defend the truth in terms that my secular classmates could engage. That the knowledge I had acquired in thinking through these questions wasn’t just for me, it wasn’t just so I could be secure in my opinions, puffed up knowing that I’m right and they’re wrong, but was to be shared—and it was to be shared precisely because it is the truth that sets us free, and makes us flourish. This was what God was calling me to do then and there.

He may be calling some of you to do the same. Franciscan is rightly famous for its top-notch nursing program and for Patrick Lee’s world-class bioethics center. In a certain sense, all of you will be engaged in nursing a wounded culture as you graduate from this place today. You will encounter the “walking wounded,” and will need to minister to them as part of what Pope Francis has described as the “field hospital” of the Church.

In my case, this meant not pursuing a career teaching high school, but living out a vocation in the public square. As my college graduation approached, I turned down a job offer from Teach for America and I took a position at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton providing research assistance to two political theorists. This was a crash course for me in political philosophy and natural law theory. I then worked for two years as an assistant editor at the journal First Things in New York City. There I learned how to write, and how to edit, and also how to think in terms of political theology.

This then prepared me to enter a PhD program in a discipline—political science—that I had never even taken one class in as an undergraduate. It prepared me to do the work I’ve done at the Heritage Foundation for the past 5 years, finding ways to reach modern secular audiences with arguments for the truth about life, marriage, religious liberty, and social justice.

I never could have planned this for myself. It was simply a matter of taking one step at a time. God sometimes gives us five, ten, and twenty-year plans. But frequently he just tells us what our next step is. And we have to be faithful in taking it. What is the next step God’s calling you to take? Are you willing to take it?

Now, why does any of this intellectual work matter? Why did you devote the last four or so years of your lives to higher education? Universities were a creation of the Church. Christians believed that all knowledge came from God, and so using both faith and reason we could seek out unified knowledge of the truth. In the Middle Ages, Christians established some of today’s most storied institutions—Oxford and Cambridge, the Universities of Paris, and Salamanca, and Bologna—all to fulfill Christ’s command that we love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind. Precisely because God isLogos, because God is Reason itself, it is good for man to develop his mind. As a being made in the image and likeness of God, man has reason to seek out the truths about God, about man, and about nature—truths that are embedded in creation, a creation that should be understood as the outgrowth of God’s designs. And in the universities established by the Church we see the flowering of theology and philosophy, science and medicine, human rights and legal theory, economics and ethics, literature and music and art. All of these disciplines were developed and deployed at the service of the truth, the truth about God and man and nature.

As free and rational beings—that’s what it means to be beings created in the image and likeness of God—we have a calling to develop our minds—to embrace the best of both Athens and Jerusalem, philosophy and theology. When faced with secularist ideologies, we have the responsibility to show the world the harmony of faith and reason. When faced with modern relativism, we have the obligation to propose with the apostle Paul the more excellent way. And this only intensifies as you graduate today and enter a world that is simultaneously hungry for and resistant to your message. Franciscan has given you the tools to continue learning for a lifetime—and to share that knowledge with your neighbors, desperately in need of the truth, even when they don’t realize it.

I want to illustrate this with lessons learned from three of my teachers.

Hadley Arkes was my first, unofficial, teacher of political philosophy. A Jewish professor at Amherst College, Hadley was convinced by the natural law of the moral truths that many of us here defend. And it was the Church’s witness to these truths that led him a number of years later to be baptized into the Body of Christ. Some argue that the Church should soften her stance on so-called controversial issues. That in order to be evangelists we need to be seeker-friendly. They’re wrong. While we shouldn’t be bombastic or imprudent, it is precisely our countercultural witness to what St. Paul called the more excellent way that will bring people to Christ. By witnessing to the natural law, we can make our claims about the supernatural law—the law of Grace—all the more believable. For all law comes ultimately from the same divine guide. In a culture that is so confused about morality, and with so many people hurting from false teachings, helping people see the truth is one way of loving our neighbors.

Robby George was my next teacher. Here’s what I learned: Bad philosophy needs to be answered by good philosophy. Bad science needs to be responded to with good science—this is true with the science of embryology and the social science of marriage and the psychology of gender identity. We cannot allow the other side to depict these debates as ones that pit faith against reason, that force a choice between backward superstition against enlightened science. As C.S. Lewis taught, “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.” This takes work. Since our adversaries control the principal institutions of our culture, we have to work twice as hard as they do. We have to understand their arguments better than they understand those arguments themselves—so we can then explain, at the level of reason, where they’ve gone wrong. Even if your professional vocation will never bring you anywhere near these debates, you need to continue the learning that took place here at Franciscan and prepare yourselves for the discussions at the office water cooler and at Little League games, being ready to help your neighbors understand the reasons for the truth.

But you can’t stop there. Here’s where my third teacher comes in, Father Richard John Neuhaus. Neuhaus taught me that while we have to respond to bad reason with good reason, we also have to build on that reason with revelation; that while nature and natural law are foundational, grace builds on and perfects nature. And Christ came to make us perfect.

Neuhaus’s life was one of witnessing to the truth of Christ. To what he called the high adventure of Christian discipleship. For Neuhaus, friendship with Jesus was—at the end of the day—what mattered. The only way to persevere in living out the truth of the natural law is to know and love the natural lawgiver. The only way to find the courage, and the strength, and have the hope to fulfill our vocation is to rely on the grace of the one who calls us to that vocation. You leave Franciscan today and enter a society that, in many ways, is fundamentally opposed to what you have learned here. Do not allow your spiritual life to decline once you leave this supportive environment. Make the effort now, as you start your careers and families and graduate educations, to commit to a life of prayer, sacrament, and service.

Father Neuhaus was a leader in the civil rights movement. He marched with Martin Luther King Jr. He protested the Vietnam War. And he was an early recruit to the pro-life movement. He saw it as the logical extension of his prior activism. He hoped that his liberal friends would see it the same way. But they caved. And they abandoned him. And a life that was set on a trajectory of liberal accolades, and the applause of the elites, took a new path. Abandonment by former friends, denial of honors and prestige, scorn and ridicule, all of this may very well happen to many of you because of your witness to the truth about the dignity of the human person and the human body.

But none of this is new. The two-thousand-year story of the Church’s cultural and intellectual growth is a story of challenges answered. For the early Church, there were debates about who God is (and who is God). In response, the Church developed the wonderfully rich reflections of Trinitarian theology and Christology. In a sense, we have the early heresies to thank for this accomplishment. Arius’s errors gave us Athanasius’s refinements on Christology. Nestorius’s blunders gave us Cyril’s insights.

A thousand years later, with the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, the Church saw renewed debates about salvation. The rending of western Christianity was an unspeakable tragedy, but it left the Church with a much richer theology of justification, ecclesiology, and soteriology.

Today’s debates are not primarily about the nature of God or the Church, but about the nature of man. John Paul II taught that the crisis of the twentieth century was a crisis of faulty humanism. Secular thinkers thought that by diminishing God, they would be elevating man. Instead, by diminishing God they debased man. The result was World Wars, totalitarian regimes, Auschwitz, and the Gulag.

Today’s debates simply extend a faulty anthropology to a new domain: Whether it be debates about abortion or assisted suicide, same-sex marriage or gender identity, they all challenge three truths right on the first page of the Bible: that we are made in the image and likeness of God, that we are created male and female, and that male and female are created for each other.

We now need to defend these truths using every discipline that can reveal the truth about man. In addition to John Paul’s Theology of the Body, we need a philosophy of the body, and a psychology of the body, and a sociology of the body.

We need you. We need philosophers and theologians. Psychiatrists and psychologists. Biologists and sociologists.

And we need artists and saints, because our defense of the truth can never be merely an intellectual exercise.

Take it from no less an intellectual giant than Benedict XVI. Pope Benedict is famous for having written profound works of theology and participated in debates with top European intellectuals. Yet he’s also famous for saying that it’s not the arguments of the intellectuals that win converts, it’s the lives of the saints and the beauty of the artists. And as he once put it, “Christianity is not an intellectual system, a collection of dogmas, or a moralism. Christianity is instead an encounter, a love story.”

This love story—with its beauty and holiness—starts in the home, the domestic church. If you are graduating today from Franciscan, chances are you didn’t do it on your own. You had help along the way. Someone was there to teach you to walk and talk, to read and write. Someone was there to help you to love Jesus, to take any interest at all in the type of education and formation that Franciscan provides. Someone helped with all of life’s ups and downs. Be sure to thank your mom and dad, and grandma and grandpa. And in the midst of all of your excitement today, don’t forget that tomorrow is Mother’s Day.

Your parents and grandparents took care of you as a child, and you should start now preparing to take care of them. Too many of us think it’s the government’s job to care for our aging parents and grandparents. But when scripture speaks of honoring our mother and father, it doesn’t only mean behaving ourselves when we’re kids. It also means caring for our parents as they age. Whenever possible, inviting them into our homes, rather than sending them to a nursing home. Viewing them as our responsibility, not just Social Security’s.

Sadly, this is another point on which our culture is eroding. One of the most alarming developments of the past few years has been the re-opening of the debate about assisted suicide. Alarming, but not entirely surprising. We live in the most medically advanced era of all of human history, and yet it is only now that we think physician-assisted suicide is a necessity of human dignity. This isn’t because it is medically necessary—it never has been and never will be—it’s because caring for the elderly is inconvenient. And we’re a selfish, individualistic and materialistic people. We’ve come to view the elderly and disabled as burdens, and as a result, they’re coming to view themselves that way. Patrick Lee makes a solid intellectual argument against assisted suicide—and that’s an important thing to do. Indeed, it’s indispensable. But our best way of fighting this scourge is to love and cherish and care for our elderly. To do what the Little Sisters of the Poor do when they’re not being forced to sue the federal government: showing the world what a true death with dignity looks like. This is the part of the love story that Pope Benedict is talking about. Unconditional love to the end.

Many of you found your place in that love story and the adventure of Christianity while here at Franciscan. The community here helped you to grow in your faith. As you graduate today, find ways to continue that community. Stick together. The world outside this campus is not a friendly place, especially to people who speak the truth. But it needs what you have to offer. It needs what Steubenville has given you. And you need each other.

Bear witness to the truth by living out the truth. Go to Mass. Go to confession. Join a parish. Volunteer to teach Sunday school. Get involved in your parish’s school.

Be generous in responding to God’s call in your life. Join a religious community. Get married. Stay married. Be a faithful spouse, knowing that adultery and divorce are always dangers that must be guarded against. Be generous in welcoming children, and be a devoted mother or father. Bear one another’s burdens, persevere through adversity, and let the family you create—the children you raise and the parents you care for—be your best long-term defense of life and marriage. Let the love you create and sustain—the holiness and beauty of your life—be what attracts others to Christ.

Class of 2017, Congratulations on all of your achievements these past four years, and best wishes in the years ahead. If you remember nothing else that I said today, remember this: important as academic and professional success may be, God doesn’t ask you to be successful according to worldly standards, he asks you to be faithful. The only success of ultimate importance is holiness. The only real tragedy in life is not to have been a saint.

Ryan T. Anderson is the Founder and Editor of Public Discourse. The William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, he is co-author ofDebating Religious Liberty and Discrimination, just released from Oxford University Press.



Read more: www.thepublicdiscourse.com

lunes, 15 de mayo de 2017

L’évolution des inégalités n’est pas aussi simple qu’on peut le croire, ou que Thomas Piketty le présente.


Vrai ou faux : il n’y a jamais eu autant d’inégalités qu’aujourd’hui 


Par Valérie Pascale.
Un article d’Emploi 2017.
Nous exposons ici le premier mythe à propos des inégalités, dénoncé par les économistes du Cato Institute dans leur étude récente1, que nous avons décidé de présenter à nos lecteurs. Ce mythe a atteint son apogée dans le livre de Thomas Piketty qui lui consacre plusieurs centaines de pages pour convaincre le lecteur que les inégalités entre riches et pauvres n’ont jamais été aussi fortes.
Pour ceux qui n’ont pas lu le livre de Piketty, le message est parfaitement relayé par tous les médias et rapports officiels de divers organismes publics. Cependant, si les inégalités économiques existent, elles sont moins fortes que ne le prétend l’auteur et elles sont acceptables, voire nécessaires pour le développement harmonieux d’un pays. Dans cette étude du Cato, plusieurs économistes ont décortiqué la thèse de Piketty et expliquent toutes les erreurs commises selon eux par l’auteur, certaines d’ordre méthodologique, d’autres philosophique ou éthique. Nous résumons ici celles qui nous paraissent les plus importantes.
Tout d’abord, Chris Giles, rédacteur économique de Financial Times, montre qu’il y a beaucoup d’erreurs dans la base de données de Piketty. Pour certains chiffres il n’y a pas de source originale et les données sont souvent produites de manière imaginaire.
Ensuite, l’équation mythique « r>g », indiquant que le taux de rendement du capital est toujours supérieur au taux de croissance économique, et qui est à l’origine de la thèse de Piketty sur les inégalités, est erronée. Comme le montre Matthew Rognlie, économiste au Massachusetts Institute of Technology, si l’on tient compte de l’immobilier, la hausse des prix explique à elle seule une partie importante de l’augmentation de la part du capital dans les revenus à long terme. L’intégration de l’immobilier dans la démonstration économique de Piketty ne permet plus d’expliquer l’accroissement des patrimoines par héritages, comme le propose l’auteur.
Alan Auerbach, économiste à University of California-Berkley, et Kevin Hassett de l’American Enterprise Institute montrent quant à eux que Piketty n’a pas tenu compte du risque et de l’instabilité des revenus dans ses calculs de rendement du capital. Ils se servent du modèle de simulation économique, élaboré par le National Bureau for Economic Research, pour conclure que le rendement du capital après impôt est bien inférieur à celui du PIB.
..........


domingo, 14 de mayo de 2017

Preparing the 100th birthday anniversary of Alexander Solzhenitsyn


2018: Preparing the centenary of the birth of Alexander Solzhenitsyn



by Pablo Lopez Herrera


In the year 2018 will have already been completed a centenary of the birth of the great writer and freedom fighter. The anniversary will surely be celebrated in various parts of the world, including Russia. What is surely not going to be done in all countries where the date is remembered, is a uniform reading of this great personage, already controversial in his own life. The centenary of the birth of the writer can be an excellent opportunity to verify the validity and timeliness of his ideas, study them, review them, subject them to discussion, with particular attention to his "prophetic" view of the world and the actuality of his preaching of autolimitation as a means to correct excesses of all kinds. And it would also be a good opportunity to spread his literary work on the occasion of the printing of his complete and revised works covering about 30 volumes.

The centenary will occur in the context of a "renaissance" in many countries of a certain "national spirit" trying to revaluate own´s "identity" in the face of the threats of the great state bureaucracies, which may even form new ideologies of power. The changes that lead our nations, or those that appear before our eyes at a greater distance, present new risks of "slipping" to conflicts of unsuspected dimension in a scheme that has its similarities with that experienced at the beginning of the XX century, when the optimism for the development of science and the degree of civilization attained prevented the view and control of the avalanche of violence, wars and confrontations, which took place practically in the whole century, and which just seemed to end with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Both the international situation concerning national leadership and the Islamic expansion show the need for new analysis and the re-evaluation and updating of forms of coexistence and political organization and social issues that were not discussed until recently.

Despite the fall of the Berlin Wall, ideological struggles and wars, "political stories", the search for the application of utopian systems designed to demolish republican and democratic regimes, and the distorting and hypertrophied inclusion have not ceased in the world, puting ahead -mainly in Latin America- the concept of "people" as the criterion of political thought, even theological. And if there is a struggle that fought with all its strength and energy the Russian writer, it was against ideological thought and the construction of stories alien to anthropological, philosophical and theological realism.

For many it is a personage of the past who has passed into oblivion. Appointed at the time - among other qualifications - as reactionary, anti-Semitic, nationalist, prophet of catastrophe, ungrateful, his image is tinged with nuances that obscure his life, his "profile", his thought, and his legacy. But as Joseph Pearce puts it in his biography, "in a few instances a writer has attracted so much publicity, both good and bad throughout his life." (1) He has been enslaved or reclaimed, loved or hated,

Liudmila Saraskina argues that "It is considered that the nineteenth century ended with the First World War, just as the eighteenth century closed with the French Revolution. Solzhenitsyn was born at the very beginning of the twentieth century, and in the course of his life he appropriated all the historical space and the whole semantic horizon of that century. The twenty-first century must rediscover the hidden meaning of the lessons of the century that has just ended. And therefore he must study and understand the signs that marked the fate of Solzhenitsyn. A heavy work of access to knowledge begins.. " (2)

The number of controversies aroused around him did not help a univocal knowledge or the consensus about his contributions. The truth is that there are still many questions to answer. Among others: who was Solzhenitsyn really? An idealist disconnected from the reality and his time? a dreamer? A thinker? An intellectual? A politician who acted as a "libero"? A one-man-show "think tank"? A prophet? What was all his thinking about? What was his work? What was his legacy, if any? Was he an important character of the century?

As Saraskina says, it will be necessary "a heavy access to knowledge" and a dense intellectual work to understand the author, if some want to embrace, and receive his contributions in full.

Solzhenitsyn has a way of analyzing reality that includes Aristotelian and medieval elements that are familiar to us, such as a treatment of the subjects that he studies that includes steps that could perfectly correspond to those of lectio (information), quaestio (questioning,and the logic of reasoning and arguments) and finally contentatio (discussion).

Georges Nivat emphasizes realism as one of the characteristics of the "Solzhenitsyn phenomenon" (3), who, as a good scientist, moves throughout his life with a certain obsession to approach to reality, which turns out to be his main source, Interlocutor "and" referent. "

In order to get close to the real-world universe, he devotes enormous efforts to recording everything that he thinks is important in his elucubraciones: facts, places, people the events of his own life and those of his next, and takes notes in chips. Or when it is impossible to write files the data in his prodigious memory. He then orders, analyzes and interprets the data with a vision of the world in constant movement and evolution, but that progresses throughout his life in an ascending way that allows him to gain height to acquire an increasingly broad and universal perspective. And finally he presents and publishes his statements, and his literary work with the calculation and precision of a gunner who points his cannon at the heart of ideologies, revolutionary utopia, or against lies and their political use.

With that realism he moves in three concentric circles: that of the world of nature, that of thought, and in the supernatural world. It could be said that all his work has "all reality" as the main "source". If reality is "irrefutable" and "the only truth is reality", approaching reality to know it in all its aspects is the best method to approach the "truth". Solzhenitsyn felt comfortable and secure with "permanent truths." And taking into account that the constitutive variables of the reality of "being", "doing", "knowing" or "believing" do not change, their validity - that is, the validity of truth - is permanent. Hence the assurance of their claims.

How is Solzhenitsyn coming to reality? Georges Nivat tells us that it is through the "look". He observes everything that happens, all the relevant people involved in the stories, all ways of thinking and acting in the face of the same facts. In a way, his method leads us to the Aristotelian theory of knowledge, in particular to the perception of reality through the senses, and more specifically of the view. His physical, intellectual and supernatural gaze of existence is shaped by the accumulation of maps, plans, photos, testimonies, travels, meetings, dialogues and animated debates, and exhaustive visits to the places where the historical events took place, searching for relevant information.

But he is aware that those who come into contact with reality are people different from each other, and that everyone participates in the same reality in circumstances that are their own, with different beliefs, and that are both voluntary and involuntary protagonists of it. In many respects human experiences are the forced fruit of external coercive factors beyond their control and will. Consequently, it is necessary to analyze the different approaches and experiences so as not to become a kind of monochrome and autistic "oracle", with ears closed to other convictions and reasonings.

Moreover, without denying the knowledge of truth through his own reasoning, Solzhenitsyn gives a place of privilege to what he considers an evidence, namely that truth arises from the trials to which men and women are subjected. Nations and concrete lifes histories: every man is tried and has to be defined often with choices that "compel" him to choose, and to put on the side of truth and justice, or of lying and arbitrariness. And from this test comes the knowledge of the true and the just. The tests to which men and nations are subjected give them the opportunity to choose between accepting or rejecting discourses and stories that stand between them and reality, with the risk of being trapped by ideologies, or truly free.

Freedom for Solzhenitsyn thus transcends external circumstances and thus leads him to bless the prison in which he was forced to choose between the narrative - as a filter - or approaching the same reality, enemy of any ideology.

The realism of Solzhenitsyn leads to the use of an almost "filmographic" resource in his works. In many of his important writings we see his figure as that of an author, director and protagonist of films in which he himself walks virtually with his "literary camera" in chosen scenarios, as in the real cinema did Alexander Sokurov in "Russian Ark "(2002), which runs the Hermitage of St. Petersburg in a single shot. Or in the manner of Sergei Bondarchuk in "War and Peace" (1966), that "walks" through the story narrated by Leon Tolstoi in 1869, penetrating with realism facts, people, feelings and history.

Daniel J Mahoney, Raymond Aron Award 1999, states that Solzhenitsyn did not confuse moral progress with technological development, and that "... it must be read in the light of Russian literary and intellectual traditions, and in light of the great tradition of political thought which began with Plato and Aristotle, and continues with Montesquieu, Burke and Tocqueville. " For his complete experience and profound analysis of a century that has suffered with ideologies, "his message has not lost anything of its actuality, for a humanity that continues to seek a meaning" (4).

The actuality of his thought will make the centenary an opportunity for anyone to whom this thinker, fighter, prophet, polemicist and patriot means something to him.


(1) "Solzhenitsyn, a soul in exile" - by Joseph Pearce, Ciudadela, 2007
(2) "Alexandre Soljénitsyne" by Lioudmila Saraskina Fayard 2010
(3) "Le Phénomène Soljénitsyne" by Georges Nivat Fayard 2009
(4) "Alexandre Soljénitsyne: En finir avec l'idéologie" by Daniel J Mahoney Fayard 2008

A primer on the history, present aspirations, and future implications of Cultural Marxism.


Cultural Marxism Explained in 7 Minutes


by Joseph T. Salerno

Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left by [Scruton, Roger]

This is an excellent short video explaining the source and nature of Cultural Marxist movements like political correctness, modern feminism, pansexualism, multiculturalism, "whiteness studies," etc. 

For an in-depth critique of the thinkers whose writings shaped Cultural Marxism, see Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left by the eminent British philosopher Roger Scruton. 

Scruton brilliantly exposes the pretensions, obscurities, and inanities of Sartre, Foucault, Galbraith, Marcuse, Lukacs, Habermas, Adorno, Rawls, Dworkin and others of their ilk. 

The book is not just a philosophical tract but a work in critical political economy and contains one of the most penetrating discussions of the Marxist labor theory of value that I have ever read.

................

https://youtu.be/c7as0pFxPYc

Read more: mises.org

miércoles, 10 de mayo de 2017

C.S. Lewis, one of the best Christian apologists of the 20th century, believed in Purgatory


WHY THE PROTESTANT C.S. LEWIS BELIEVED IN PURGATORY?

MAY 7, 2017 ROMEO HONTIVEROS

WHY THE PROTESTANT C.S. LEWIS BELIEVED IN PURGATORY?
by ChurchPOP Editor – May 6, 2017
via narniaweb.com / Public Domain, Wikipedia


C.S. Lewis is widely considered to be one of the best Christian apologists of the 20th century. Though he was converted by hisCatholic friend J.R.R. Tolkien, Lewis decided to join the Protestant Church of England, in which he remained until his death.

Which makes this fact a bit strange: he believed in Purgatory.

The doctrine of Purgatory is the belief that Christians may undergo a period of purification by grace after death but before entering heaven. The Church also teaches that Christians alive on earth can pray for the dead in purgatory and so quicken their entry into heaven. These were major tenets of Catholicism that were rejected by 16th century Protestants.

In his book Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, publishedposthumously in 1964, Lewis gives a fictional friend advice about the spiritual life, and it’s in Letter 20 that we find his surprising words about Purgatory.

“Of course I pray for the dead,” Lewis writes. “The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me.”

When his fictional friend challenges him that he’s just advocating the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, he responds clearly: “Well, I suppose I am. […] I believe in Purgatory.”

He goes on to explain that, in his view, the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory had become warped by the 16th century, and that both earlier versions (e.g Dante’s vision of Purgatory) and modern versions (e.g. Bl. John Henry Newman’s view) are more palpable.

“Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they?” he continues in his defense. He says he thinks it would not be very loving for God to usher us into heaven despite all our attachments to sin. “Should we not reply, ‘With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.’ ‘It may hurt, you know’–‘Even so, sir.’”

Regarding whether he thinks Purgatory is painful, he gives a very Lewis-esque common sense answer: “I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it. But I don’t think suffering is the purpose of the purgation. […] The treatment given will be the one required, whether it hurts little or much.”

Those who have read his other fictional works will note that he also includes a version of Purgatory in his classic book The Great Divorce.

So maybe the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory shouldn’t be so scary for Protestants after all?

Read the source: https://churchpop.com/2017/05/06/why-the-protestant-c-s-lewis-believed-in-purgatory/

[See also: 5 Myths About Purgatory That Too Many People Still Believe (Maybe Even You!)]

[See also: Burned by the Hands of Souls in Purgatory: A Museum’s Rare Collection]

Read the related articles/ Videos click below:

Purgatory 101: Does the Church even still teach Purgatory & what exactly is the purpose is of Purgatory?

25 Bible Passages on Purgatory

Video: Is Purgatory a physical place?

The secret of the poor in Purgatory

St. Therese’ Daring Teaching on Purgatory

The war for the soul of the Church (Video)

The souls of aborted/ unbaptized babies

How we are in communion with our dearly beloved?

7 Questions on the powers of the human soul compared to other souls

St. Augustine on caring for the dead: 6 exhortations

Padre Pio’s Mysterious Encounters with Souls from Purgatory

What is purgatory, and is it reasonable to believe?

Commemoration of the faithful departed (All Souls Day – November 2)

The History of All Saints and All Souls Day

Solemnity of All Saints Day – November 1

“Inconceivable Beauties”: The Secrets of Heaven Revealed to St. Faustinahttp://www.pagadiandiocese.org/2016/10/27/inconceivable-beauties-the-secrets-of-heaven-revealed-to-st-faustina/

The Doctrine of Purgatory is Biblical and Makes Sensehttp://www.pagadiandiocese.org/2016/06/07/the-doctrine-of-purgatory-is-biblical-and-makes-sense/

4 Biblical Principles That Show the Reality of Purgatoryhttp://www.pagadiandiocese.org/2016/09/15/4-biblical-principles-that-show-the-reality-of-purgatory/

Readings & Reflections with Cardinal Tagle’s Video: The Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed (All Souls), November 2,2016 http://www.pagadiandiocese.org/2015/11/01/readings-reflections-with-cardinal-tagles-video-the-commemoration-of-all-the-faithful-departed-all-souls-november-22015/

Masses of Mercy: Why We Offer Prayers for the Deadhttp://www.pagadiandiocese.org/2016/11/03/masses-of-mercy-why-we-offer-prayers-for-the-dead/

What is purgatory? Purgatory is the state of those who die in God’s friendship, assured of their eternal salvation, but who still have need of purification to enter the happiness of heaven (CCC: 1030-1031, 1054).

How can we help the souls being purified in purgatory? Because of the communion of saints, the faithful who are still pilgrims on earth are able to help the souls in purgatory by offering prayers in suffrage for them, especially the Eucharistic sacrifice. They also help them by almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance (CCC: 1032).

In what does hell consist? Hell consists in the eternal damnation of those who die in mortal sin through their own free choice. The principal suffering of hell is eternal separation from God in whom alone we can have the life and happiness for which we were created and for which we long Christ proclaimed this reality with the words, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41; CCC: 1033-1035, 1056-1057).

Death does not put an end to life with loved ones in Christ. It actually enhances Life. “What is the Church if not the assembly of all the saints? The communion of saints is the Church” (CCC: 945). “Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness… They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus…. So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped” (CCC: 956). “In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins she offers her suffrages for them (2 Macc 12:45). Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective” (CCC: 958).


Dostoevskij: una riflessione e un approfondimento del rapporto tra il Cristianesimo del grande scrittore russo


Dostoevskij: abitare il mistero

Roma, 27 e 28 aprile 2017
Programma: www.pusc.it


Il tema del VII Convegno Internazionale di «Poetica & Cristianesimo», Dostoevskij: abitare il mistero, invita a una riflessione e a un approfondimento del rapporto tra il Cristianesimo del grande scrittore russo e il senso di vuoto dell’uomo contemporaneo. Si vuole analizzare la sua opera in una prospettiva interdisciplinare (dalla teologia all’antropologia, alla cinematografia) onde mettere in risalto, nella poliedricità dei suoi scritti e del suo pensiero, il modo in cui ci fa entrare nel mistero di Dio e dell’uomo e che cosa ci dice oggi.
Il Convegno si chiede se abitare la narrativa cristiana e anti-moralista di Dostoevskij può contribuire a capovolgere la prospettiva dell'anti-moralismo post-moderno di matrice nichilista e rendere più vivibile il mondo del 21esimo secolo.


Poetica & Cristianesimo, forum internazionale di studio del confluire di cultura artistica ed espressioni della fede, consiste in un Seminario Permanente scandito da Convegni biennali internazionali e offre un luogo di incontro fra accademici e artisti che provengono da diversi campi e approcci di lavoro.

N.B.: La Pontificia Università della Santa Croce è riconosciuta dal M.I.U.R. come ente qualificato per la formazione continua dei docenti e del personale della scuola italiana (rif. prot. n. AOODGPER. 5987)



“Dostoievski ayuda a entrar en contacto con el misterio” (Alessandro D’Avenia)


La actualidad del cristianismo de Dostoievski


Por José M. García Pelegrín

La visión cristiana del gran escritor ruso ha sido objeto de un congreso internacional titulado “Vivir en el misterio”


Roma. “Cuando leo a Dostoievski tengo la impresión de que está hablando de mí”; quizá estas palabras de Alessandro D’Avenia –el autor de novelas como Blanca como la nieve, roja como la sangre, de gran éxito en Italia y en numerosos otros países– resuman de un modo especialmente gráfico la actualidad de Fiódor Mijáilovich Dostoievski (1821–1881). Al gran autor ruso del siglo XIX dedicó la Universidad Pontificia de la Santa Cruz de Roma su VII Congreso internacional Poética & Cristianismo los días 27 y 28 de abril, que se cerró con una mesa redonda entre los escritores Alessandro D’Avenia y Eraldo Affinati –conocido por Campo del sangue, sobre Auschwitz–, moderada por el periodista Alessandro Rivali.

La crisis ética actual tiene mucho que ver, según Affinati, con la crisis de la palabra, pues muchas de las palabras que se pronuncian son “vacías y estériles”. La literatura, y en eso Dostoievski es un maestro, debe intensificar la propia experiencia, la propia vida. Por eso, el gran escritor ruso influye sobre las experiencias de autores actuales, al plantear interrogantes sobre cómo relatar la realidad de cada uno de ellos. “No se trata de una realidad nostálgica”, completó D’Avenia. Leyendo a los grandes maestros como el escritor ruso, se accede al propio plano interior de uno mismo; “Dostoievski ayuda a entrar en contacto con el misterio”, dijo el escritor, en referencia al título del Congreso, “Vivir en el misterio”. Es más: “en cada una de sus páginas hay un espacio abierto a lo sacro”, pues trasmite la idea de que, acorde con la visión cristiana del mundo, “el amor tiene prioridad sobre el conocimiento”. Dostoievski escribe sus obras como si fueran una continuación del Evangelio, resumió D’Avenia.

Al cristianismo del gran escritor ruso se refirió también especialmente Tatiana Kasatkina, profesora del Instituto de Literatura Universal de la Academia Rusa de las Ciencias (Moscú). Hablando sobre todo de Memorias del subsuelo(1864), dijo que Dostoievski es un teólogo en sentido original. “En Tomás de Aquino aparece Dios en un sistema; pero al principio, la Teología habla de conceptos sin herramientas ni métodos. Dostoievski sigue la tradición ortodoxa de los poetas-teólogos”, en la que las imágenes del mundo exterior sirven para construir imágenes interiores. “Dostoievski entrega el conocimiento en un lenguaje poético para despertar lo que hay en nosotros”.


...........

Leer más aquí: www.aceprensa.com