The Catholic Thing
HOME        ARCHIVES        IN THE NEWS        COMMENTARY        NOTABLE        DONATE
Against the “Evolutionary Now” Print E-mail
By Robert Royal   
Monday, 06 August 2012

As part of the vast and unpredictable game of guiding children towards adulthood, parents often say – especially to teenagers – “think for yourself.” They don’t exactly mean it, of course. Under cover of this seeming appeal to freedom, they mean, “don’t think (let alone act) like the boobies you’re hanging around with.” But thinking like their friends – and not like their parents, teachers, pastors, coaches – is precisely what immature kids believe is “thinking for yourself.”

Perhaps it’s an unfair comparison, but this sad fact of human nature came to me when I read LCWR President Sr. Pat Farrell’s recent interview with NPR during which she said that the conflict between her organization of American nuns and the Vatican boils down to: “Can you be a Catholic and have a questioning mind?” Sr. Farrell, let it be noted, faced dangerous years in Latin America, from which she came away, like many others, with what seems to me a mistaken liberation theology. But she put her life on the line for what she believed, and that’s acting like an adult.

Still, there’s something more than slightly adolescent – and patronizing – about her question. LCWR begins its annual conference tomorrow in St. Louis, whose general theme is: “Mystery Unfolding: Leading in the Evolutionary Now.” Only people holding on to a perspective that passed its sell-by date around 1978 could propose a theme like this in 2012, which seems to belong more to a “reactionary then.” Sr. Farrell and her sisters are big on evolving and changing ideas to respond to the times – especially when the new ideas aren’t traditional Catholicism. And that will be in the mix at the conference when they discuss the Vatican’s criticisms of LCWR.        

All this gets great play in the mainstream media, which haven’t interviewed the different breed of religious women who belong to orders that are actually likely to exist in twenty years. But by celebrating Sr. Farrell and LCWR – or Nancy Pelosi talking about how her Catholic faith enables her, as a woman, to make her own decisions – the media practice a subtle ventriloquism. They can make it appear that real Catholics think for themselves, precisely because they think like, say, NPR.

My own take on this is that a certain segment of an older generation of Catholics were sold a pup in a period of chaos – those years after Vatican II when the Church seemed not to know what it believed anymore. Thinking for yourself is fine in many respects. But it’s not all that easy to think and it’s never only you doing the thinking.

The most famous case of someone trying to think solely for himself was Descartes and his cogito ergo sum, “I think, therefore I am.” An old French story, probably apocryphal, has a featherheaded Parisian bimbo approaching Descartes, “But Mons. Descartes, what about me? I do not think. And I exist.”

More seriously, how could Descartes have written cogito if he had not learned Latin from the Jesuits at the College Royale in La Flèche? Or why would he make the argument if there wasn’t a crisis in epistemology in the European society of his time? It’s only because human communities exist and others teach us to talk that anyone can think.

This may seem abstruse, but it has a serious bearing on the question: “Can you be a Catholic and have a questioning mind?” Forget the hidden insult in how this is formulated. The serious way of putting it is: “How can you be a Catholic in your quite necessary questioning and other intellectual pursuits?”

To be a Catholic thinker or questioner is not – pace LCWR – to believe that what passes through your own head therefore deserves attention. There are questions of judgment and experience and belonging to a specific community that come into play.

One of TCT’s founders, Michael Novak, says that when he read in Aristotle that no one can be a philosopher until forty, he asked himself: “Okay, what can I do until then?” That’s youthful promise.

The Church, which absorbed ancient pagan wisdom into its own thinking, has been a living incarnation of this kind of realism. The Latin tag sentire cum ecclesia, “to think with the Church,” can seem to some a limitation on intellectual freedom. But it all comes back to whether you are a Catholic, meaning someone in a living tradition, asking questions.

Catholicism does not have answers for everything, to be sure. The Nuns on the Bus may think they know how to solve poverty or the economic crisis. The Church as a whole doesn’t. But if in 2000 years, she hasn’t accumulated real wisdom, then it might be better to give up the whole thing.

I attribute a lot of the rash judgment, even in the Church, to an attitude that got going around the time of Kant (1724-1804), a very great thinker and serious moralist. But his own Latin motto, Aude sapere, “dare to know,” which was often coupled with the notion that humanity has finally “come of age,” had some unfortunate consequences.

I was too young to follow Vatican II, but I do remember, a bit later, Catholics talking brashly about a world “come of age” (which actually appears in the Conciliar documents) and striking out boldly on what they thought would be the path of renewal.

Well, we’ve had two centuries since Kant and a half-century since the Council. We’ve had serious material improvements: contrary to the liberationists, capitalism, industrialism, and technology have raised the living standard of ordinary people and moved more than a billion out of destitution. Are there profound problems with this entire process? Absolutely. But it’s unequalled in human history.

As far as human maturity goes, however, we’re always pretty much the same. And if, as a Catholic – or a human being – you want to do some thinking for yourself, you’d do better to forget the Evolutionary Now and come to terms with that old, but indispensable truism.


Robert Royal
is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. His most recent book is
The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West, now available in paperback from Encounter Books.
 
The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (28)Add Comment
0
...
written by Michael Paterson-Seymour, August 06, 2012
"It’s only because human communities exist and others teach us to talk that anyone can think."

Yes, indeed. As Wittgenstein said, "Thinking is not an incorporeal process which lends life and sense to speaking"
0
...
written by Mark, August 06, 2012
Scripture equates faith with obedience. A lack of one is a lack of the other.
0
...
written by Tampa Mike, August 06, 2012
I am a practicing, devout Universal Christian (Catholic) because I do have a questioning mind!!
0
...
written by G.K. Thursday, August 06, 2012
Thinking with the Church is not an easy task. Ideas that once seemed to have captured the it, are now recognized as pernicious. Recall St. Jerome's remarks that after the Council of Ariminum in 359 A.D., "the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian."
Even the Pope, Liberius, may have accepted some form of it to save his life, when threatened by the Arian Emperor, Constantius. It took many more years to defeat this heresy and reestablish orthodoxy among all the bishops, clergy and laity. There were still Arian kingdoms in the West until the 7th century A.D. It is because St. Athanasius held at arms length the "changing now" of his time (i.e., Arianism), that he resisted what seemed to have conquered the thought of the Church. But many were swept away by it, perhaps to their soul's perdition.

The challenge is to be as St Athanasius was: not swept up by change, either to one side or the other, but firmly tied to the anchor of the true, apostolic Roman Catholic faith.
0
...
written by WSquared, August 06, 2012
"Thinking for yourself is fine in many respects. But it’s not all that easy to think and it’s never only you doing the thinking."

Indeed. Particularly if we've never once questioned *what* it is we think with. What you've written, to say nothing of "sentire cum ecclesia" sums that up wonderfully. Furthermore, as you've pointed out elsewhere in your columns, everybody, certainly those chafing at the bit when it comes to obedience," obeys SOMETHING. The more important question is whom or what. People are also free to say that they "obey their own conscience," private or not, but then that begs the question of whom or what forms that conscience.

Furthermore, "sentire cum ecclesia" raises further questions that Catholics do need to engage with: what do we mean and understand by "Church"? The need to think about this one is made all the more important by the likes of "We Are Church" and other movements like it. Furthermore, Fr. Robert Barron has recently pointed out that one is better enabled to understand Vatican II by looking at the trajectories of two theological journals in particular-- namely "Concilium" (Hans Kung et al.) and "Communio" (DeLubac, Von Balthasar, Ratzinger, et al.).
0
...
written by Grump, August 06, 2012
Leslie Weatherhead, author of "The Christian Agnostic," contended that agnostics are much closer to belief in the true God than many churchgoers.

He wrote, “I am not prepared to hand over to any other person, though wise and learned, or to any institution however ancient or sure of its position, my inalienable right to search for ever-growing and ever-expanding truth. I believe the craving for security in belief is one which arises from within ourselves, and can only be met adequately from resources which are within ourselves. It seems to me that it is far more important for a soul in evolution to believe a few things because it has struggled, thought and suffered to discover and possess them, than it is for it to have a comfortable and orderly faith which it has adopted from any source outside itself.”
0
...
written by Robert Royal, August 06, 2012
Grump, your point is partly true and wholly misleading. No one has ever claimed that becoming a Catholic means turning over the whole search for truth to the Church. That's a red herring. It's only by seeking that we find - and continue to find. The real situation is more like coming to trust in a doctor and medical science. At a certain point, you can see from what you know and the results it produces that a body of truth has been established that continually meets the need better than any other. If you recognize that and accept it, you are guided in large decisions by something you know is larger than yourself. As many have noted over the centuries, if man is the measure of all things, where does that leave God? The true human measure is to recognize as a truth a measure that is not us. If you don't think that measure is to be found in the Church, that's your judgment. But it's simply false to suggest that the Church asks you to hand over your brains if you want to be a Catholic. That's not what Augustine, or Aquinas, or Newman thought. Why should anyone else?
0
...
written by Grump, August 06, 2012
Bob, with all due respect, I cannot allow Augustine, Aquinas or Newman to do my thinking. Or Ingersoll or Mencken for that matter. Jesus said, "seek and you shall find..." I've been seeking all my 70 years and still have not found. The gap between doubt and certainty can be narrow or wide but the gap always remains for me.
0
...
written by S. Walter, August 06, 2012
Re the original column & Grump's quotation, how very childish to imagine that my hermetically sealed self needs no "source outside itself" to learn any kind of truth. If one believed that in principle, faith in any revelation would be literally impossible, unless I imagine that my little self is itself God. Far better to recognize the landscape in which all of us reside, as described by the fiercely questioning, fiercely faithful novelist Flannery O'Connor, interviewed in 1959: "Her faith furnishes her with 'a sense of continuity from the time of Christ,' she says. 'I can accept the universe as it is -- I don't have to make up my own sense of values; I can apply to a judgment higher than my own -- I'm not limited to what I personally feel or think.'"
0
...
written by Robert Royal, August 06, 2012
Grump, you're missing the point again. I didn't say that Augustine, Aquinas, and Newman do your thinking for you. I said they didn't believe the Church requires you to hand over your brains. I don't agree with every point in any one of those brilliant men. But I agree with all of them that faith seeking understanding is what being a Catholic thinker is all about. You can quote all the people you want to about the Church demanding you hand over your intellect. That's the standard slander against Catholicism. But you won't find that in authoritative sources. It's, to repeat, a red herring that stops you from thinking about the need in some matters for a basic - not question-stopping -- authority.
0
...
written by Chris in Maryland, August 06, 2012
The "Thinking for Myself" mantra is just a facade for arrogating the all-mighty self to sovereignty. This position is, fundamentally, eternally hostile to being a Catholic.

The LCWR has rejected Christ as Lord and Savior. Their keynote address in one recent year, deliverd by one of the so-called "sisters," was about "Moving Beyond Christ."

Catholics in truth (i.e., those who worship Christ) should treat these people as adults, and tell them that since they have "moved beyond Christ" they have moved out of the Church, and we expect them to stay out of our house, unless and until they repent, publicly.
0
...
written by G.K. Thursday, August 06, 2012
Re: seekers who never find

Making his rounds in the evening, a London police officer noticed a man on his hands and knees looking hither and thither under a street lamp. The bobby approached them man and asked what he was looking for. Without lifting his head from the frantic search, the man said "A key to the Tower of London. I need to get in." The booby replied, "Where did you last have it?" "Never had it," said the man. "Then why not find the authorities and ask him to let you in?" queried the bobby. "I refuse to ask anyone for help," said the man, "I must do for myself after all." "I see," said the bobby, "and why are you looking for it here?" "Aha!" said the man, finally looking up, "at last you ask a pertinent question!" The bobby peered expectantly at the man scrabbling in the dirt. "There's more light here!"
0
...
written by Grump, August 06, 2012
Bob, your use of the term "red herring" is misapplied because the central questions remain unanswered for me and millions of others who find the Church's dogma hard to understand.

This, asserts S. Walter above, means I am "very childish" because I cannot rely on "outside sources" for the truth which he so readily grasps.

Talk about "faith" and "authority" all you want but words mean different things to different people. What is faith but believing in something for which no evidence exists? Whose authority? God's? Which god? There are thousands to choose from. Even the "one God" espoused by the monotheistic religions has different names -- Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, etc. Take your pick.

Do I believe in the "God of War" in the Old Testament or the "God of Peace" in the New? How do I believe in a god who, we are told in the opening lines of Genesis, decides everything he created was "good," then a few chapters later finds himself unhappy with man's wickedness and kills every living thing on the face of the earth except Noah's family? A new start, but the same old result.

If Catholics cannot agree on what teachings to accept from the "Church," the rest of us cannot be faulted for our skepticism. Faith and reason ever war despite centuries of vain attempts by theologians and philosophers to reconcile them.

0
...
written by Robert Royal, August 06, 2012
Grump, I'll say this once more and then we shouldn't waste our - or other people's - time. What you've said is true. Those are all things that need pondering. But you've said that the Church requires a Catholic to surrender his own freedom of thought - which is simply not the case and IS a longstanding red herring. If I have confidence that a scientist knows what he's talking about, it's not irrational for me to take his word for things about which I know nothing. Similarly, if I think - and I've thought about it - that the Church is faithful to the teachings of Jesus, then it's not irrational for me to trust much of what She says.

Of course there's no "proof" in the ordinary scientific sense about God. It would trivialize God as a mere object in the world if there were. That kind of God is not the Christian God; it's more appropriate for Zeus, who would be a powerful and immortal part of nature.

But there's no possible proof, either, that someone loves a spouse or a child, or laid down his life for another out of love. Proof of the scientific kind cannot be applied to such subjects because the relationships between persons - even when one of those person is a personal God - don't fall into the category of scientific relations. Reason tells us that quite clearly. You have to decide what that means, there's no rationalistic formula for settling it.
0
...
written by Grump, August 06, 2012
Be assured, Bob, you are not wasting my time and I hope others who may find this exchange illuminating. You state, "If I have confidence that a scientist knows what he's talking about, it's not irrational for me to take his word for things about which I know nothing. Similarly, if I think - and I've thought about it - that the Church is faithful to the teachings of Jesus, then it's not irrational for me to trust much of what She says."

Two things: Science never stands still and where once it appeared to be firmly fixed it has since evolved. What Aristotle said was superseded by Galileo, in turn superseded by Newton, then Einstein, et. al.

Secondly, it can be argued that the Church was not faithful to the teachings of Jesus, else there would have been no Reformation. Clearly, Christianity's great schism remains, with both main branches -- Catholicism and Protestantism -- claiming to be bearers of the truth and unable to harmonize.

Again, Bob, I appreciate your forbearance in responding to what may seem to be straw men, but my doubt is sincere. I truly would like to embrace my birth religion but cannot do so in good conscience. I've told Brad that if forced I'd make Pascal's Wager, but that's hardly the basis of sound belief.
0
...
written by G.K. Thursday, August 06, 2012
Thanks, Robert for your patience with the commentators on your post. C.S. Lewis in _The Last Battle_ wrote a chapter titled "How the Dwarfs refused to be Taken In." Perhaps you recall it? Alas for those who seek, but won't be "taken in"; knock, but won't go through the open door. OTOH, I'll just mention Mortimer Adler. There's always hope.
0
...
written by Robert Royal, August 06, 2012
OK, Grump. We just have to sort it all out as best we can. Just remember, faith is a gift, not an intellectual system. We all have to pray that we won't refuse it when it's offered.
0
...
written by debby, August 06, 2012
just a note to dear Grump-
i understand that TCT is a place of much reason and reckoning over matters great and often sublime; i am not discounting this discussion with a "cop-out". please consider my wondering with you.....
i pray with and "hang" with some solidly Catholic people, and a 12-step support group. one 72 year old member who is a Biblical scholar (she began Hebrew lessons at 50 so she could read the Torah in God's original language, with all it's fullness of meaning lost in translation) has an expression i want to share with you:
"Sometimes it becomes crucial to get out of your head and get into your heart."
in other words, you can beat Love to death by over "analyzing".
i am not criticizing you, Grump. you have been in my prayers for years.
but if i receive a Valentine from my husband of 30 years and he means to touch me with his affection, yet inside there is a part of me unknown that aches to be known, do i dare to imply he doesn't love me because he doesn't understand me, or that because of this i cannot trust him with my heart? i have a choice. i can accept him and what he shares with me as it is, HUMAN, always praying to grow in love, or i can chose to doubt his word and be all "lost" over it- he doesn't always make sense to me and i am sure the same can be said by him.
yet some things are NOT revealed this side of the veil- you must deeply know that in your core by now.
i cannot begin to speak to your intelligence, but what of your heart, dear man?
do you believe that the God Who put the stars in space and made Queen Anne's Lace knows all the hairs on your head and with all His Being Loves you?
and if you believe that,
do you believe what Jesus said? "I will be with you until the end of the age?" "Unless you eat my flesh....."
"Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my church..." etc.
you know i was once a Protestant.
i can tell you that the fellowship may be more comfortable. but NOTHING COMPARES WITH THE HOLY EUCHARIST AND CONFESSION.
NOTHING.
not the music, the familiarity, the Bible-quoting, the enthusiasm. NOTHING. the so-called Reformation did not re-form Christ's church. it shattered a dysfunctional family and we are still looking for recovery.
i think there is a possibility (and please, i do not mean to pass "judgement" here) that you have become too friendly with your doubts and your "nature" and not looked upon them as your enemy. you cannot necessarily answer all your looming questions with information, regardless of all the very well educated and articulate friends you have on this site and in your life.
maybe your answer needs to mirror St. Therese's heroic action: in the face of the Devil's arguments tempting her to severe doubts, she wrote The Credo in her own blood on a piece of linen and wore it until her death. She couldn't answer any other way.
Love was all she knew for sure.
i think that is the whole big plan.
please go back to 1 Corinthians 13 and read it in front of Him.
at one point you just need to make a choice and move ahead. you keep hanging out with your own doubts and they have not served you well. you just don't seem content with them. i guess your Easter Confession didn't go very well. i am grieved. you brought me such joy at the thought.

may the Peace of Christ be with your spirit.
oh and btw- i discovered while on a silent retreat a couple years ago that the Stations of the Cross match up perfectly to the verses in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8.
Jesus is Condemned - Love is Patient, etc....quite the heart-inspiring revelation to my mind.
0
...
written by Grump, August 06, 2012
Debby, poignant and heartfelt words. However, I find prayer unavailing and could go into great detail here but to what purpose? Boiled down, I took Jesus at his word when he said, "Ask anything in my name and it shall be done." This proved to be an empty promise throughout my life and I rationalize it by saying either 1) it wasn't said to me but to his disciples or 2) I am not worthy or righteous enough to warrant an answer.

When a child dies despite his/her parents' fervent prayers, the bromide, "it's God will" fails entirely.

"The peace that passeth all understanding" that Christ promised eludes me. I am glad you find comfort in your religion as many do. For me, it does not work. While once I was a romantic and an idealist, I am now a pragmatist. If something doesn't produce results, then don't bother me. The proof is in the pudding.

Religion is built almost entirely on faith, which Bob Royal says is a gift. If that is so then it implies that only a few (the narrow gate) ever receive it. Not everyone is gifted.

During that Easter confession I spilled my guts to the priest. I asked if I could call him so we could continue the discussion. I had a million questions and no answers. I called him and left a message but he never called me back.

That and so many other things have hardened my heart in recent years. God hardened Pharoah's heart, too. He blesses whom he blesses and curses whom he curses. He's the potter, we're the clay. We have no say in how we're made. He makes us to suit his own purposes; thus, I don't believe we truly have free will.

Despite all this, I read TCT daily because of the kindnesses that are expressed here. People like you, Bob Royal, Brad Miner, Hadley Arkes and Austin Ruse impress me with your devotion to Catholicism and sometimes your cogent arguments but I can't quite make the leap demanded of me. "Without faith it is impossible to believe God." Every day I wake up and say, "I'd give a year of my life for One Good Day." But I am lucky to have a year left. At the end of one of Thomas Hardy's novels, a character says, "Life consists of moments of pleasure amid a general drama of pain." There is much too much evil, pain and suffering in the world (just read the headlines) to allow me to believe in a benevolent, caring God.

Thank you, in all sincerity, for your thoughtful comments. I have rehearsed my last words on my deathbed should I be able to utter them: "Jesus, have mercy on me."
0
...
written by DS, August 06, 2012
Grump, Your struggles have been experienced by both many of ordinary faithful and many of the saints. Like them, you have many God-given gifts, including sincerity, honesty and perseverance. You have a desire to believe and ask the right questions...the ones that certain "religious" people are often afraid to ask. You also have the wisdom to understand that both faith and life are gifts, not possessions to be guarded over. You remind me that God desires our hearts first and foremost, more than doctrinal certitude. So when I read your contributions, I believe that you are already on a profound journey of faith. I, for one, would like to say THANK YOU for sharing it.
0
...
written by Robert Royal, August 06, 2012
Grump there's a story in Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov about a guy who couldn't believe. When he died, he has to walk a million years through the dark and emptiness until he's admitted into Heaven. When he gets there, he praises God so vehemently that he actually starts to annoy the angels and saints. I have the feeling you're something like that, my brother.
0
...
written by debby, August 07, 2012
dear grump,
He will.
all Hope rests in His Mercy.
i think you have Faith- true Faith.
it's just that maybe your digestive system is colic.
gassy babies are very vocal and uncomfortable until they can finally rest, usually in the parent's arms.
His await you.
much love & peace for the rest of your struggle here.
your friend and sister in Faith.
0
...
written by Grump, August 07, 2012
DS & Bob, thanks for those inspiring comments. I read Brothers years ago and what I faintly remember is the exchanges between the Grand Inquisitor and Jesus. So I had to look it up (from wiki):

The Grand Inquisitor says that Jesus should not have given humans the "burden" of free will. At the end of all these arguments, Jesus silently steps forward and kisses the old man on his lips. The Grand Inquisitor, stunned and moved, tells Him he must never come there again, and lets Him out. Alyosha, after hearing this story, goes to Ivan and kisses him softly, with an unexplainable emotion, on the lips. Ivan shouts with delight, because Alyosha's gesture is taken directly from his poem. The brothers then part."

Maybe God will put up with kvetches like me. If He lets me in, I hope my dogs can come, too.
0
...
written by kristinajohannes, August 07, 2012
Robert, thanks for the article and the links. I did a little further searching on the subject of the conference and it scared the Hell out of me, literally. Is there nothing new under the sun? Adam and Eve, redux. “You shall be like gods.”
Sister’s comments also brought to mind the fact that if you think that divine law is too hard on some people you lose trust in God. Once you lose trust in God, it's hard to assent.
0
...
written by Louise, August 07, 2012
Grump, I keep you in my daily prayers but for what it is worth, here's some advice based on reading the various things you have posted.
You were given the gift of faith, hope and charity with your baptism. They are your birthright, so to speak. Return if you can, to your childhood faith, before you decided that you knew better than God how to answer your prayers! Ignore all those temptations to doubt and replace them with the father’s prayer in Mark 9:24 each time you are tempted. And you really can’t go wrong in praying a daily Rosary. You should at least be assisting at Sunday Mass. On the “cultural” side, I prescribe a viewing of “Bruce Almighty” which isn’t entirely Catholic in its outlook but gets quite a bit right and sort of reminds me of your questioning.
The sacrament of confession is not spiritual direction and the priest can’t use things you said in confession outside of it. So if you want to pursue spiritual direction you should make an appointment for that purpose and if it is the same priest, you will have to tell him what you want to discuss, not relying on anything you’ve already told him. Just be sure the director you choose is solidly Catholic, learned in the Faith, prudent, and experienced.
0
...
written by Tony Esolen, August 07, 2012
I like the German word "entsetzlich," which literally suggests something so dreadful it knocks you off your seat. An NPR bimbo asking a nun whether you can be a "thinking Catholic" is entsetzlich and laecherlich at the same time. It's rather like a golden retriever tilting her head and trying to understand thee-o-lo-jee from Mary Tyler Moore in that awful movie with Elvis the Pelvis. "Sincerely, now," says the bimbo, with the oh-so-caring look in the eyes, "can you be a Catholic and an artist?" It is to laugh, quoth Daffy Duck.
0
...
written by Louise, August 07, 2012
Grump, i should clarify that the point about your knowing better than God how to answer your prayers was made with a twinkle in my eye and is based on your previously saying that God doesn't answer your prayers. I think one of the great joys in Heaven will be understanding how God lovingly attended to even the smallest detail of our prayers in ways far exceeding our expectations which we could not always understand on earth but will in Heaven. I've been thinking about this ever since you identified the beginning of your loss of faith with an "unanswered" childhood prayer.
0
...
written by WSquared, August 09, 2012
Mr. Esolen, that you mention the words "entsetzlich" and "laecherlich" to describe what goes on when "Nuns on the Bus" meets NPR reminds me that the whole thing can be summed up as the following: "dreadfully funny."

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 

Other Articles By This Author

CONTACT US FOR ADVERTISERS ABOUT US
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner