Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

1. Use this question to share your thoughts and reflections "along the way," while you read, or that don't fit into any other question.

I've had a hold on the library book since the voting results were announced, but I am still waiting.

Mariangel wrote: "I've had a hold on the library book since the voting results were announced, but I am still waiting."

I had to grab a Kindle version - we were leaving on vacation last Saturday and I was traveling on business until later Wednesday, then was sick Thursday, ended up without time to get the book before leaving.

from ch. 1, I don't understand why democracy entails radical individualism to the detriment of groups (even family) and institutions which make up the fabric of our society.

His commentary on "restlessness" linking Augustine and Pope Francis is fascinating.

And that the post-Christian developed world runs on pragmatism, not principle.

Jill wrote: "from ch. 1, I don't understand why democracy entails radical individualism to the detriment of groups (even family) and institutions which make up the fabric of our society.

His commentary on "res..."

I think his comment goes to the idea that democracy tends towards mob rule, in which a majority coalesces to plunder the minority through "law." Our Constitution was devised to give us a Republic, democratic in form, but with safeguards to mitigate the problems of pure democracy. I think he then says, echoing the founders, that this only works in a religious society.

I love his observation beginning of ch. 2 that it's always good to honor the good in things before criticizing the bad.
interesting analysis of how Christian and Enlightenment ideas intertwined to form our country, especially after last month's author set the two in such strong opposition.

In ch. 3, interesting contrast of a production vs. consumption-based economy, one more cooperative, the other "private"
I don't understand why he links freedom to ownership of property.

ch. 4 seems like a separate essay, not sure I follow his "thread"

ch. 5, how sad that our society has moved from marriage as an institution that serves the common good to something subjective, maintained as long as it's still pleasant for both individuals

ch. 6 His evaluation of the Obama presidency seems far too harsh.

Just got a notice that the book is waiting at the library. Hopefully will start reading tonight.

Jill wrote: "ch. 6 His evaluation of the Obama presidency seems far too harsh."

:^) Funny, I thought it was pretty gentle.

Hello at finally i have got the book. Excuse me for the delay but i do not lose the time now i am in the page 62 of the book.

I found his treatment of the Beatitudes disappointing. For example, he lists hunger for righteousness but seems to talk more about hunger for happiness." And surely being a peacemaker has an element of helping others reconcile, not just going to Mass and confession oneself!

I think that we must Read the book as an opinion of the state of United State and the world. In my opinion i am asthonized for the Big quantity of writers that he mentioned. It is a very good book and not only for the catholics.

Jill wrote: "I found his treatment of the Beatitudes disappointing. For example, he lists hunger for righteousness but seems to talk more about hunger for happiness." And surely being a peacemaker has an elemen..."

I agree; I also found his treatment of the Beatitudes to be . . . well, "disappointing" is the perfect word.

I think that Archbishop Chaput follows an Augustine Focus. The idea of Happiness It is present in the Saint african Bishop. For This reason he spoke of Happiness. Although eye on the Happiness is imposible in This world and only can get It on the future Life. About the Obama more or less Archbishop Chaput are in the line of my American Catholic Friends in Facebook Obama has never involved in the conscious objection in his health care, besides hearing the purposes of the Democrat Party i feel cold sweat every candidate is more radical than the previous. One positive thing of the book The Big quantity of writers that he quoted. The Last chapter is Dostoyevskian and he is very Closer of the definition that the beauty Will save the world. This book is an authentic treasure very valueable.

I liked the section on the Beatitudes.

Overall, I feel that we have already read/discussed his points in other books.

I believe Fonch is so right: Chaput’s home plate is Augustinian. That is certainly borne out in his view of the Beatitudes. I sense a kindred spirit in him!

I must recognize that i am Closer to the aristotlelism and the reason defended by Saint Thomas Aquinas but now the platonism is coming back we look in the book "Seven storey mountain" by Thomas Merton in This book can look the two positions. Mark van Doren would be more influenced by the thomism in This line would be Ralph McInnerny, Peter Kreeft, Mortimer Adler and others but for example the Pope Benedict was Closer to the platonism or a scholastic different Bonaventure. He considered rigid the aristotlelism and thomism being his position different to the Pope Leo XIII and abbot Mercier in This case we look that Archbishop Chaput is Closer to platonism and augustinism. The book is influenced by Saint Augustine. Both ways are right and Orthodox are in comunion with the Catholic Church. Saint Augustine It is not against Aristotle. He considered a Big philosopher but he considered that Plato and his disciples are Closer to the christianity. C.S. Lewis was influenced by the School of Chartres and he is Closer to the platonism we look in his book The Last Battle. His image is platonic.

Wrong place for this question, but can someone remind me what we're reading in April? Now that our local library is closed due to coronavirus (surely that's exactly what needs to stay open!) I'll have to buy the book, I guess.

In ch. 12, I don't see how he can say destruction of the environment has been deliberate. And how sad that it's often very committed Christians who care the least, or even deny climate change.

Jill, the book for April is Deliver Us from Evil, by Thomas A. Dooley. And I should start looking for a copy!

Just found the e-book on sale on Google Play for $5.20 without tax! It is the story of the rescue of the Vietnamese Boat People.

Jill wrote: "In ch. 12, I don't see how he can say destruction of the environment has been deliberate. And how sad that it's often very committed Christians who care the least, or even deny climate change."

Sometimes it looks like some people are destroying the environment deliberately, as when massive application of insecticides (poisons) is done without any control.

As to climate change, one year ago I wrote the following post in my blog:

Since then, the human origin of the climate change has been further confirmed by new studies.

Fergus wrote: "Just found the e-book on sale on Google Play for $5.20 without tax! It is the story of the rescue of the Vietnamese Boat People."

Not exactly. The Vietnamese Boat People had to be rescued when South Vietnam fell into the hands of the communists, in the seventies. "Deliver us from evil" was written when North Vietnam fell into the hands of the communists. At that time (1954-56) those who fled the communists were not Boat People, as they passed a land boundary.

That’s why it’s so inexpensive. But I look forward to reading it, since I remember the Kingston Trio’s tribute to Tom Dooley in 1960 so clearly. Thanks for the clarification, Manuel.

Fergus said: "I remember the Kingston Trio’s tribute to Tom Dooley in 1960 so clearly. Thanks for the clarification, Manuel."

I don't think that was the same Tom Dooley.....

Guess I became confused when I saw his name in this context.

This book unfortunatelly. I do not think that i can not get It and the University is closed for This reason i can not open my mail account. I Will have to wait the Next two books because neither i Will be able to Read the book of Mrs. Lebak.
About Vietnam in This question i disagree with Chaput. Of course that in the Vietnam war commited a lot of crimes Wars and mistakes between them the murdered of the President of South Vietnam. But i think that the movement of complain against the Vietnam War was a movement skillfully instrumented by the communist and the left wing and the people bought This lie meanwhile the people do not repair in the Vietkong's crime. The society of seventies of the previous century morally is much worse than The society of the preVietnam war. The moral values disappeared and the crimes Will increase however this movement It was not as harmful as may 68 in Europe whose effects we are suffering at This moment.

Fonch, your vital presence will be greatly missed!

deliver us from evil kindle edition is 3.99 or the library may have e books that you can get from their site?

Thanks Fergus i trust that my friend Alfonseca tell me your progress. I am going to miss my good Friends of Catholic Book Club a lot :-(.

Fonch wrote: "Thanks Fergus i trust that my friend Alfonseca tell me your progress. I am going to miss my good Friends of Catholic Book Club a lot :-(."

I also will miss reading your comments on the books we are reading.
I often fall behind in my reading but always enjoy seeing what others have to say.

My friend The Professor Will tell me everything. If you need my colaboration you know where you can find me :-).

Jill wrote: "In ch. 12, I don't see how he can say destruction of the environment has been deliberate. And how sad that it's often very committed Christians who care the least, or even deny climate change."

What does the one have to do with the other? Given the anti-life policies that are often associated with Climate Alarmism, might not one ask instead how very committed Christians can so readily join themselves to such a movement? In truth, there is little in Christian teaching that would move one to one position or the other, though I would argue that it is wise to avoid men claiming to know everything if only we follow their advice.

About the topic of echology i totally agree with recycle and to care the Planet but i totally disagree with abortion and reduce the tax birth. I think we must look for a healthy echologism not polluted by the left wing or the liberal as the American people call them. It would be good look for other ways i think in the crunchies, Wendell Berry, G.K. Chesterton, and J.R.R. Tolkien. We must avoid a temptation considered to the earth is Gaia, the pantheism and resurrect pagan cult some information of Amazonia did not like me.

Climate change will always be with us. But to those who seek to force us into new behaviors and more taxation, it would be wise to consider the source, and more importantly, follow the money. Do those who are advocating giving up money or freedom of movement or any other things that we value in order to "save the planet" have a track record of doing what is good for most of humanity, or do they in other ways honor the laws of our country, of nature, and more importantly, of God?

Such a good point, Madeleine, at a time when myopia is endemic to our planet. Thank you!

Thank you, Fergus. I might add that it has occurred to me more than once that the climate change agenda, as well as many other issues that the same people advocate, stem from a desire to either second-guess God's plan or replace it with their own version of the world and in all ways they make it clear that "In God We Trust" has no place in their version of America or the rest of the world. For that reason I hesitate to trust in their plans to remake the world I have grown up in.

John, haven't you read Laudato Si?

Madeleine wrote: "...it has occurred to me more than once that the climate change agenda, as well as many other issues that the same people advocate, stem from a desire to either second-guess God's plan or replace it with their own version of the world and in all ways..."

You are right, that's a danger, but there's another danger: saying that this is God's plan and therefore we don't have to do anything about it.

It's ever more clear that a great part of the climate change we are experiencing is man-made (anthropogenic). Shouldn't we do something to prevent it, if we still can?

The only thing that i worried me. It is that some No Goverment Organization, lobbyes, and some parties employed to do política and to force the people to do things against his conscious. Particularly i am outraged against the people in favor the control of population or the people in favor to promote abortion with This epedimic there are people to cheer up that the people fue because they say that they have a less polluted world and this people get angry to me. In my opinion we must avoid pantheism and pagan ideologies and the echology Converts in a religion and i do not like people that make business with This question and the puppets and Greta. To the global warming and the echology crisis we must look for a Catholic/christian replies i purpose some of a bit top.

I agree with Fonch and of course we have a responsibility to be good stewards of all that we have been given and all that we are responsible for. I'm only saying to look beyond the emotional pitches and examine who is making the pitches. What else do they believe in? I see the most vociferous among them advocating death and destruction --abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and the eugenics of the Nazi regime and racial divisions, a world where the rich and powerful decide who is "worthy" enough to keep alive, people who want to erase history and monuments, people who want to stifle and suppress any dissent. The USA has possibly been among the most responsible nations about recycling and controlling pollution, but the emotional leftist advocates are silent about the worst countries and how they affect the world's health and economy. Their solutions involve death and destruction and not reverence for life or for the Creator. What else do they advocate? Eliminating the name of God and the Ten commandments from our public spaces, erasing the boundaries between sin and virtue, male and female, If we follow God's laws and protect our freedoms and realize that beauty and truth and traditional families and the innocence of children are worth defending, it follows that we will not be reckless polluters not will we waste or hoard or take from others what we have not earned. The State is a poor substitute for following Biblical values, as the third world countries, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and other Communist regimes should have taught us. Too often these regimes suppress the most creative and enterprising people --those who work in the third world to teach proper use of resources and how to be self-supporting (and I personally know several who do just that) instead of plundering those resources and exploiting the poor at the expense of the rest of the working world. I submit that Christianity has the better solution for climate change than the godless nations that control the U.N. and their supporting entities

Thanks, Madeleine. Again, you put it all so well! That gives me comfort.

It does not Matter Madelaine. The world el we must care for two reasons firstly because without him we can not survive the resources are not illumitated and the second because It is a God's present and destroying It we reject him. But we must avoid the things that i said previously and the trap of the seculars powers.

Yes Fonch, You are so right. Too many people, though, are listening to the propaganda that passes for news. Orwell predicted that too, and said the last real news died in the late 1930s. Too many people do not realize the work of the devil in our politicians.

Madeleine wrote: "I agree with Fonch and of course we have a responsibility to be good stewards of all. that we have been given and all that we are responsible for. I'm only saying to look beyond the emotional pitch..."

I agree with this comment.

And I too. Thanks so much, Madeleine!

Jill wrote: "John, haven't you read Laudato Si?"

I have tried, a couple times. Every time I get derailed by the jumps in logic, the falsehoods and the assertions as fact of things that are not known with any kind of certainty. I know I should try again, though no Pope has any special competence when it comes to the environment or science or economics.

Manuel wrote: "Madeleine wrote: "I agree with Fonch and of course we have a responsibility to be good stewards of all. that we have been given and all that we are responsible for. I'm only saying to look beyond t..."

I also agree.

Manuel wrote: "It's ever more clear that a great part of the climate change we are experiencing is man-made (anthropogenic). Shouldn't we do something to prevent it, if we still can?"

I don't want to debate climate science here, but I don't agree with this. The proof of science is in the ability to make accurate forecasts and in this climate "science" has failed miserably. London's climate is not like that of Siberia (as was projected in 2003) and the National Park Service in the US has now taken down the signs put up at Glacier National Park in the last decade or so claiming the glaciers would be gone by 2020 or 2030 - they have actually grown, some by as much as 25%.

The amount of money thrown at this field has hopelessly corrupted it. Government agencies in the US have been caught manipulating the base data and some climate "scientists" have published studies, but refused to release their data. John's Number One Rule for Understanding Complex Matters: If there is a lot of money at stake and people are acting like they have something to hide, they probably do.

Economic growth requires inexpensive and abundant energy. Assuming anthropogenic climate change is real and is a real crises, rather than just another power grab, we cannot do anything to stop it without condemning untold billions of people to abject poverty. God created us to be creative and adaptable, I would rather count on those abilities to adapt than turn over all power to corrupt politicians.

John wrote: "Manuel wrote: "It's ever more clear that a great part of the climate change we are experiencing is man-made (anthropogenic). Shouldn't we do something to prevent it, if we still can?"

I don't want to debate climate science here, but I don't agree with this..."

I agree with you that we shouldn't debate climate science here.