Stack o’ Books: Favorite Fiction

Note: this stack is certainly not exhaustive. If I put all my favorite books here it would be a pretty tall, teetering stack…

dscf1393.jpg

From top to bottom, the stack is: James and the Giant Peach, Pride and Prejudice (the most recent favorite), The Hobbit, All Creatures Great and Small (featuring one of my favorite characters in all literature, Cedric the Farting Boxer), Lord of the Rings, and Watership Down.

Clue

dscf1391.jpg

Why is that Clue renders everyone in my family incapable of speaking normally? We all start talking like Sherlock Holmes, Inspector Clouseau, or Charlie Chan.

FYI: it was Professor Plum, in the kitchen, with the rope.

Essay by Daniel Pipes on Islam in Europe

Just an article link again today:

Will Europe Resist Islamization? by Daniel Pipes

Very interesting!

Anarchical Freedom

pope-benedict-xvi.jpg

Couple of quotes from B16 about what he calls “anarchical freedom”:

Here’s the first one:


I would like to glance briefly at perhaps the most radical philosophy of freedom in our century, that of J.P. Sartre, inasmuch as it brings out clearly the full magnitude and seriousness of the question. Sartre regards man as condemned to freedom. In contrast to the animal, man has no “nature.” The animal lives out its existence according to laws it is simply born with; it does not need to deliberate what to do with its life.

But man’s essence is undetermined. It is an open question. I must decide myself what I understand by “humanity,” what I want to do with it, and how I want to fashion it. Man has no nature, but is sheer freedom. His life must take some direction or other, but in the end it comes to nothing.

This absurd freedom is man’s hell. What is unsettling about this approach is that it is a way through the separation of freedom from truth to its most radical conclusion: there is no truth at all. Freedom has no direction and no measure.

But this complete absence of truth, this complete absence of any moral and metaphysical bond, this absolutely anarchic freedom which is understood as an essential quality of man reveals itself to one who tries to live it not as the supreme enhancement of existence, but as the frustration of life, the absolute void, the definition of damnation. The isolation of a radical concept of freedom, which for Sartre was a lived experience, shows with all desirable clarity that liberation from the truth does not produce pure freedom, but abolishes it.

Anarchic freedom, taken radically, does not redeem, but makes man a miscarried creature, a pointless being. (Pope Benedict XVI, from Truth and Freedom, 1996 http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/TRUEFREE.htm)

And the second one:

…the various forms of dissolving marriages today, as well as the free unions and the ‘trial marriages’, including pseudo-marriage between people of the same sex, are, rather, expressions of an anarchical freedom, which passes itself off, wrongly, for a true liberation of man. Such pseudo-freedom is based on making the body banal, which inevitably includes making man banal. (Pope Beneict XVI, 6 June 2005, at the Ecclesial Congress of the Diocese of Rome on “Family and Christian Community: Formation of the Person and Transmission of the Faith”)

Easter Season greetings…

dscf1354.jpg

Nothing to post about today. Huge writing deadline. Must get to it. Hope you understand! Happy Easter!

Divine Mercy Sunday

032908_lead_today.jpg

Just a link today—to one of the front page articles at Catholic Exchange:

The Mystery of Divine Mercy

More on Pride & Prejudice

home_main_619×251.jpg

Am currently embarked on Bridget-Jones’s-Diary-induced Pride & Prejudice kick. Have watched BBC television version of P & P twice in the past two days. Have crush on Colin Firth and therefore cannot bring self to watch new theatrical version of P & P starring some other actor as Mr. Darcy. I beg you to forgive me, but am unable to speak normally due to excessive influence of Bridget Jones diary-speak and 19th century British diction. Are you not exceedingly diverted?

Related articles:
Bridget Jones’s Diary and the Theology of the Body

Juxtaposition Review: Bridget Jones’s Diary and Children of Men

Quote: Suffering in Silence

No matter how great your sufferings are, your victory over them is in silence.
— Desert father, name unknown

Bridget Jones and the Theology of the Body

mv5bmtyznjm5oty0ml5bml5banbnxkftztcwodu5mdcymq_v1_sy140_sx100_.jpg

I wrote recently about Helen Fielding’s novel Bridget Jones’s Diary (”Juxtaposition Review: Bridget Jones’s Diary and Children of Men“) and after reading the book I didn’t think I would enjoy the movie adaptation of Bridget Jones at all, so I put off watching it, with no real plans to do so.

However, I was at the library the other day and it was there, so I checked it out and watched it.

I was pleasantly surprised.

Don’t get me wrong: the movie is definitely not for children or even for teens. Like the book, it’s very very funny (especially if you enjoy British humor) but it’s vulgar, loaded with profanity, contains somewhat explicit sexual references and images and, on its surface, presents a view of human sexuality that is opposed to the Catholic understanding of it. For these reasons I probably wouldn’t recommend it for most adults, frankly.

Except for the fact that it is a pretty good fictional explication of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.

“Huh?” you say.

As I was watching it, I kept thinking of Christopher West’s image of the dumpster versus the banquet. JP II says in Theology of the Body that men and women long for communion–true communion with one another and especially and ultimately with God. We are wired to long for that communion–the hope of Heaven. We are starving for love and connectedness.

Christopher West says that the modern world presents to love-starved men and women a vision of human sexuality that is equivalent to leading a food-starved person to a dumpster and telling him that’s as good as it gets. Modern sex–hooking up, shacking up, and so on–is dumpster diving. It is rubbish fed to people so desperate for love that they’ll settle for anything.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, presents love-starved men and women with a banquet of true love and connectedness in the practice of chaste married love and the understanding that all human love is a mere glimpse into the perfect communion of Heaven.

Bridget Jones is a stand-in for all men and women: she doesn’t want to be alone. She longs for connection. Daniel Cleaver is the dumpster. Mark Darcy is the banquet. Early in the movie, Bridget dives head first into the dumpster, gorges herself on garbage, and thinks she’s happy this way. The banquet is always there, in view. At first she can’t see it for what it truly is (the “sin makes you stupid” concept. Hat tip to Mark Shea.) but eventually she comes to see that the banquet is what she was really longing for.

To perceive this TOTB angle in a movie like Bridget Jones, you must be able to forgive quite a lot of vulgarity and crudity, but TOTB is there, and I’m glad for it–this was an extremely popular movie, so apparently a lot of people were exposed to the positive message that the dumpster does not satisfy and they should keep looking for “something extraordinary.”

The performances were excellent. I’ve seen the movie several times now and the principal actors are “something extraordinary,” especially Colin Firth, who plays Mark Darcy–the banquet. A subtle and fascinating performance.

Definitely not saying you should all go rent it and watch it. It might be offensive. The happy ending to the story is that instead of fornicating with the insufferable prat Daniel Cleaver, Bridget will now proceed to fornicate with the good man Mark Darcy. Oh well. That’s the way modern stories portray it. Perhaps the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice, upon which Fielding based her novel, would be a better choice because it ends with the heroine marrying the right guy. (Firth plays Darcy in that one, too–LOL!)

Catholic author Tom Grace–the Catholic Tom Clancy?

1593154569.gif

Anyone read any of the books by Tom Grace?

National Catholic Register reviewed The Secret Cardinal recently:

The Secret Cardinal is a deft blend of fact and fiction, but the author is careful to separate both at the book’s end. For example, a key character — Cardinal Malachy Donoher — heads something called the Vatican Intelligence Service. Grace makes clear that no such entity exists.

Although Grace is an excellent storyteller, The Secret Cardinal exceeds its entertainment value by raising awareness of China’s persecuted underground Catholic Church, which has been illegal for more than a half century.

The book also scores points for recognizing Church teaching on human life in its account of why Kilkenny and his late wife postponed treatment of her cancer until after their child could be safely born. Grace weighs Kilkenny’s fidelity to his faith against the loss he suffers by letting it play out in a conversation between Cardinal Yin and Kilkenny.

Here, readers are given a compassionate picture of the Church as Yin, no stranger to suffering for doing the right thing, is able to offer manly comfort and counsel to Kilkenny: “You and your wife made a decision based on faith and hope, yet still suffered a great tragedy. I believe God is aware of this tragedy. …” This is refreshing stuff in a novel from a secular publisher.

Grace’s latest work is representative of his previous novels, in which sex and profanity are used sparingly in comparison to other books in this genre. Even so, some of the descriptions of torture are somewhat graphic, and may be too much for sensitive readers. Overall, however, this is a fine read that lends a Catholic presence to popular literature in the secular culture.

full review here:
review of The Secret Cardinal by National Catholic Register (review by Judy Roberts)
http://ncregister.com/site/article/7282

Published by Vanguard Press

« Previous PageNext Page »