Only posts tagged with: Rachel Abrams | Display all
Jun. 14, 2013, at 10:30pm
John Podhoretz has written a moving tribute to his sister, Rachel Abrams, who died last week of cancer. I think the only thing of hers I ever read was a short story he re-published right after the news was made public. It made me want more. She seems to have been an extraordinary person. I read her mother's book, An Old Wife's Tale, years ago and found it full of warmth and wisdom.
I link it partly because of the way it ends. It's that word again: tenderness.
Speaking to her nearly every day, as I did, was like having my lungs filled with the purest oxygen. Hearing her laugh. God, did she love to laugh. Telling her about my kids, every detail of whose lives she vacuumed up hungrily and thoroughly, like a Dyson. And above all, throughout it all, her ineffable tenderness, her indescribable tenderness, her incandescent tenderness.
Or maybe this one:
Nov. 19 at 9:44pm | See in context
Rose, here's a link I found:
I'm not sure if it will work--maybe if you cut and paste the link to your browser?
Nov. 19 at 9:42pm | See in context
I like that example Katie. Once a widely shared moral blindness of some sort is exposed as a blindness, insisting on it (though understandable for a while) turns into something worse than a mere blindness.
Nov. 19 at 8:40pm | See in context
I want to add a point.
The story of St. Francis cutting ties with his father is an especially dramatic one. Most cases of human conflict are not so clear and unambiguous.
Still, it offers us a pattern we can recognize in our own experience.
We can know and vividly experience that we are offering love and truth (the truth of ourselves) to a person who refuses it. Very often he not only refuses it, but heaps contempt on it, and tries to twist it into something else—something ugly and unacceptable. He tries to shame us into compliance with his false view of us, of himself and of reality. We experience the attempt both as a rejection of us, and as a terrible temptation to disconnect with ourselves and our mission of the moment.
Read the literature on co-dependency and other toxic forms of relating, and you'll soon see how normal an experience this is.
Nov. 19 at 10:23am | See in context
I just saw it's unavailable now on youtube. I don't know why. Maybe Devra can find it. Meanwhile, there's another very good one just put out by Courage, a group dedicated to supporting SSA Catholics in their desire to live chaste lives.
It's called Desire of the Everlasting Hills.
Nov. 19 at 8:13am | See in context
What do I do to watch the video ?
Nov. 19 at 8:08am | See in context
I added the second paragraph to my post for a few reasons. The main one is that I do not like to speak for Newman. Not so much because I think he would not agree, but because 1) I want to be held responsible for my own thoughts, and 2) because I would like to stay on topic, and not get diverted into arguments about what Newman said where and when, and how to interpret it all.
Another reason is that the post is limited. Not biased or slanted I hope, but selective and incomplete. The many negative conservative reactions to Pope Francis over the last year or so, have brought to mind, to my mind, certain observations and insights of Newman. I used some of those in my post without any intention of giving a complete or balanced picture of Newman.
This is perfectly legitimate on a forum like this, don't you think?
Nov. 18 at 10:22pm | See in context
I want to add something about "neutrality". But first: I just reread these lines in your 2nd comment:
Can't we use Newman's method to determine whether these positions taken in the interim draft represent a corruption of doctrine?
Someone could surely do this. Someone who knows both Newman and the theology of marriage and the family very well. But I am not that someone. (Plus, I fear that if two such people tried it, they might come up with different and even contradictory answers, depending on their leanings.)
Nov. 18 at 8:57pm | See in context
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Let's see if I can clarify.
First, I think I answered the particular question you asked (whether certain suggestions made by the bishops were corruptions rather than developments) by saying that Newman has little to say on the topic of marriage and family. What you are looking for is a concrete application of the theory of Doctrinal Development, to the issue of divorce & communion, and of homosexuality. That is something you will not find in Newman.
My own sense, in case you like to know, is that allowing the divorced and remarried to receive communion, is incompatible with the Faith, and hence a corruption. I don't expect it will be adopted in the end. (But I am not certain.)
As to condoning homosexual unions, I haven't heard anyone suggesting that. But that we need to appreciate the gifts that people with same-sex attraction have to give to the church, that sounds good to me.
Honestly though, I have not read any of the documents in great detail. I'm very interested in the final results of the synod, but not so much in the whole process and the accompanying media frenzy.
Nov. 18 at 8:53pm | See in context
Freda, I'm really glad you asked this question and really glad you're following up and pressing your questions. Thank you!
Jules was teaching today, but I'm sure he'll have a response at some point. I have thoughts of my own, but I want to wait and hear what he says before I chime in.
Nov. 18 at 4:37pm | See in context
Copyright: The Personalist Project 2014 | Contact us
519 North High Street, West Chester, PA 19380