TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Christianity

    Faith & Culture

    Joseph Pearce, Editor of Faith & Culture magazine, has weekly interviews with well-known Catholic authors, speakers, and academics on a variety of topics related to Catholicism.

    Advertise
    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    On the Principles of Taxing Beer… Mar 11, 2020
    Show notes

    … & Other Brief Philosophical Essays

    This series of essays forms the concluding work of the long and illustrious career of Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. The late professor of political philosophy at Georgetown University, Fr. Schall authored over thirty books and hundreds of smaller works, articles, pamphlets, and the like. As a priest, teacher, writer, and philosopher of singular quality, Fr. Schall influenced many and his recent passing has left a noticeable void in the company of those who seek to instill sanity, perspective, and balance in this world of ours.

    As the Foreword indicates, Fr. Schall takes as his model and inspiration the work of Hilaire Belloc, particularly the latter’s stylistic approach as an essayist. Belloc authored numerous volumes of short essays, such as his On Everything, On Anything, On Something, On Nothing and Kindred Subjects, all of which covered a vast array of topics, and cultivated a simple and engaging style that appealed to the general reader as well as the scholar. Many who have taken the time to get to know Belloc well have found him to be quite humorous, witty, and surprisingly profound. The same could easily be said of the work of Fr. Schall in general, and this last volume of essays in particular. Some of the essays are quite dense theologically, while others treat of more light-hearted subjects like novels, beer, sports, comic strips, and P. G. Wodehouse. However, most focus on more metaphysical questions regarding the world at large, such as those dealing with the particulars of epistemology, justice, education, and history, as well as more generic topics of theological import such as the nature of truth, the meaning of life, happiness, virtue, and the problem of evil. The style throughout is whimsical and lightsome, yet deeply insightful and provocative at the same time. A warning to the reader in this regard: like Belloc, the essays are indeed aimed at the general public, yet unlike those of the Englishman from Sussex who lacked a formal clerical education in philosophy and theology, a number of Fr. Schall’s essays, particularly those dealing with the more metaphysical questions of life, presume something of a working knowledge of basic philosophical principles.

    A particularly driving theme that runs like a thread throughout the essays is Fr. Schall’s continuous insistence on the importance of a positive ontology; in other words, a deep appreciation of the simple reality of what is. He notes in his Afterword that a formative teaching on his own thinking in this regard is that of St. Thomas, wherein the latter, in his Summa Contra Gentiles, taught that the universe, in order to be complete, requires a knowing subject from within who can comprehend it. As Fr. Schall goes on to note, this presupposes the further notion that the universe is not empty, but rather is full of things that are, and it is the business of the rational mind to come to a knowledge of these things and, through them, come to rest in the knowledge of their ultimate Cause. It is this pursuit that lies at the source of true happiness in the intellectual life of man, that is, to rest in the truth of things that are, recognizing through such an act, their essential nature as gifts. This means that the world outside of the mind is recognized as a distinct objective reality and not a mere mental construct, and hence, is able to convey very real truth about itself to the rational intellect. This metaphysical premise forms the foundation upon which to appreciate the rest of Fr. Schall’s essays, and indeed, his life’s work. The recognition of the world as an objective gift, one that is meant to be known and loved and which points, so to speak, towards a knowledge of its Maker, accounts for Fr. Schall’s fascination with all the varied aspects of humanity, the life of the mind, as well as the infectious humor and joy that characterize his writings. Put simply, Fr. Schall’s literary work is imbued with an unequivocal realist philosophy, and recognizing this enables the reader to appreciate the distinctive optimism as well as the various points of emphasis and insight found throughout his writings.

    In terms of the essay format, given the ever-decreasing attention span of the wider reading public today, this form of writing would seem to be particularly apropos. For those who might only have a few moments here or there to read a quick essay of a page or more, such a book is to be highly recommended. Throughout, one is constantly made aware of the enormous learning of Fr. Schall, combined with his extraordinary powers of synthesis. Given the enormous range of topics covered, such an achievement of concision is no mean feat. For this very reason, some have argued that the essay, in some ways, presents difficulties that surpass the composition of the monograph, wherein great prolixity is allowed, often at the expense of precision and clarity. Should the reader find enjoyment in this work, I would suggest, and it would seem Fr. Schall would agree, that they go to Belloc. Much of the spirit and voice that animates the writings of the latter can be found in the pages of the former, and it would seem to be a particularly needed one in our times.

    On the Principles of Taxing Beer & Other Brief Philosophical Essays

    James V. Schall
    St. Augustine’s Press, 2019
    195 pp., $24.00
    ISBN: 978-1-58731-615-9

    Permalink


    T. S. Eliot's Lenten Meditation Mar 10, 2020
    Show notes

    “Teach us to care and not to care
    Teach us to sit still.”

    Ash-Wednesday, I

    I discovered the poetry of T.S. Eliot at the age of thirteen, a skinny kid in small town Montana who had, for some strange reason, a love of poetry, the novels of Dickens, the music of Mozart, and the art of Andrew Wyeth. All of these are an inter-mingled mystery, even in hindsight, and I suppose they really remain so, as the attraction of great literature and art is a mystery bound to The Mystery. I’m quite certain that my first Eliot poems were The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock and The Hollow Men—the former darkly exotic (“the yellow smoke that slides along the streets”) and the latter oddly apocalyptic (“This is the dead land”).

    The attraction, first and foremost, was the language, the beguiling and strangely captivating flow and rhythm, followed by the stark, immediate, and elusive images: “Like a patient etherized upon a table” and “We are the hollow men/We are the stuffed men”. There was also the raw but measured anxiety, both deeply emotional and quietly contained. In those earlier Eliot poems I heard a voice I could relate to, especially as I often struggled with my Christian faith, which was Fundamentalist, rather anti-intellectual, and impatient with mystery and musing.

    In my fourth year of college, my second year at Bible college, I finally read—that is, really read—Ash-Wednesday and Four Quartets. (I’ll have to quickly confess to spending far less time with The Waste Land.) Both were revelatory, but Ash-Wednesday became something of an obsession, and I ended up writing a paper on it for a literature class—out of my depths in many ways, but quite happy to try to enter a bit more deeply into a poem that is, I think, filled with rich intimations and profound paradoxes.

    Ash-Wednesday, as is widely acknowledged, is a far more simple and immediate poem than, say, The Waste Land, but it is a deceptive simplicity, which proves increasingly elusive with repeated readings. There is a focus on stillness that is not only expressed directly—“Teach us to sit still”—but conveyed in a number of scenes, if you will, that involve a lady and three white leopards, bones in the desert, rocks and a yew tree, and a stair of ascent and trial. Yet there is also a finely constructed restlessness, a spiritual yearning and tension evident right from the start:

    Because I do not hope to turn again
    Because I do not hope
    Because I do not hope to turn
    Desiring this man's gift and that man's scope
    I no longer strive to strive towards such things

    Hope. Turning. Desire. Striving. Not striving. Some immediate context is found, of course, in the title, to that first day of Lent in the Western liturgical calendar, and thus to Christ’s forty days in the desert and our own fasting, penance, and contemplation of sin, mortality, and salvation. The “turning” refers to repentance, as the two are closely intertwined throughout Scripture: “Repent therefore, and turn again...” (Act 3:19). Eliot, in a June 1930 letter to Paul Elmer More, stated that his poem “is really a first attempt at a sketchy application of the philosophy of [Dante’s] Vita Nuova to modern life,” and the influence of Dante can be seen throughout.

    But the theme of repentance comes, in many ways, from the Anglican bishop and scholar Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626) who, in his 1602 Ash Wednesday sermon—and Eliot studied his sermons closely—asked, “shall I continually ‘fall’ and never ‘rise’? ‘turn away’ and not once ‘turn again’?” Eliot’s 1926 essay on Andrewes reveals just how much Eliot’s post-conversion poetry was shaped by those sermons, which Eliot praised as having three “conspicuous qualities” of style: “ordonnance, or arrangement and structure, precision in the use of words, and relevant intensity.” Put another way, Eliot revered Andrewes as a mystic possessing both remarkable powers of communication and spiritual discipline, and those characteristics are certainly two that Ash-Wednesday aims to contain or embody.

    Turning is repentance, then, and so it is also conversion, which in turn requires humility. Conversion is an essential theme—a reality—in Eliot’s life and work, and not just in the obvious way, as in his entrance into the Anglican Communion in June 1927. In October 1929, in a letter to his brother, he said, “I have begun life three times: at 22, at 28, and again at 40; I hope I shall not have to do so again, because I am growing old.” He was referring, respectively, to leaving America as a young man, getting married, and then becoming Anglican. All three acts were of deep and lasting importance; there is a reason, then, that this poem begins with “Because … Because … Because...”

    The six sections of the poem (three published as stand-alone poems before 1930) are like acts in a play, and the entire poem moves quickly—paradoxically, considering its sense of stillness. “From node to node of its own structure,” wrote Hugh Kenner in The Invisible Poet (1959), “from zone to zone, the poem moves swiftly like a swallow, and without flutter. Arrived in each zone, it circles and searches before passing on....”

    The scene in Part II, for instance, is a riveting vignette that combines the prophetic starkness of Ezekiel 37 and its valley of the bones with the deeply Dantean Lady who “honours the Virgin in meditation”. There is a palpable sense of both eros and agape here, bringing to mind the “Romantic Theology” of Charles Williams, whose own interest in Beatrice and Dante paralleled that of Eliot. Most striking to me three decades ago was the litany-like song to the Lady:

    Lady of silences
    Calm and distressed
    Torn and most hole
    Rose of memory
    Rose of forgetfulness
    Exhausted and life-giving
    Worried reposeful
    The single Rose
    Is now the Garden
    Where all loves end

    By the end of Ash-Wednesday, this mystical ardor, tinged as it is with conflicted and earthly longings, will have achieved some plane of purification:

    Blessèd sister, holy mother, spirit of the fountain, spirit of the garden,
    Suffer us not to mock ourselves with falsehood
    Teach us to care and not to care
    Teach us to sit still
    Even among these rocks,
    Our peace in His will

    This is, ultimately, Marian in nature: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word” (Lk 1:38). Such an impression—and, really, this is a poem of successive impressions—flows from Part IV, which is a sort of commentary on the Prologue to the Gospel of John:

    And the light shone in darkness and
    Against the Word the unstilled world still whirled
    About the centre of the silent Word.

    The silent Word, of course, being both the Christ child and the beckoning Savior, whose invitation to those “those who walk in darkness” is not accompanied by coercion but by the promise of struggle and continual tension. That struggle is captured in the short and rapid-fire Part III, where the three turnings of the stair correspond to Dante’s hill of Purgatory:

    Now I petition you, by that kind Power
    Escorting you to the summit of the staircase,
    At the appropriate time, recall my pain.
    (Purg. XXVI, 145-57)

    Kenner writes that the “function of the journey” described in the poem “is to arrive at a knowledge of the modes and possibilities of temporal redemption sufficient to prevent our being deluded by a counterfeit of the negative way.” As I see it, Eliot avoids a shallow, pietistic (and false) asceticism that fails to admit the inherent, rich goodness of creation. He also avoids a sort of equally shallow skepticism that rejects the hard demands of renunciation for the sake of beatification: “Where all love ends.”

    In fact, Eliot manages to give a captivating glimpse of robust Catholic spirituality “When the apophatic and cataphatic integrate,” notes David W. Fagerberg in Consecrating the World (2016), “emptiness is fullness.” That is the paradox Eliot understood and struggled to convey, even while he consistently downplayed the merits of Ash-Wednesday, telling one friend, “I don’t think the poem is really first rate, but I do think that it just does escape insincerity, somehow.” To another friend he explained that he believed “there is a very important field still very unexplored by modern poets—the experience of man in search of God, and trying to explain to himself his intenser human feelings in terms of the divine goal. I have tried to do something of that in Ash-Wednesday.” I am forever thankful he did so.

    Permalink


    Book Publishing and Faith & Culture Mar 09, 2020
    Show notes

    Julie Musselman takes the microphone and asks Joseph Pearce to discuss his role at the Augustine Institute as Director of Book Publishing and Editor of Faith & Culture.

    Book Publishing and Faith & Culture Joseph Pearce

    Rome and Raphael Mar 06, 2020
    Show notes

    The highlight of a pilgrimage to Rome is to join Liz Lev for one of her increasingly famous tours of the Vatican Museums. Her high-energy presentation, vast knowledge, and enthusiasm are matched by her warm welcome, sense of humor, and genuine faith.

    Pope Benedict XVI wrote: “The only really effective apologia for Christianity comes down to two arguments, namely the saints the Church has produced and the art which has grown in her womb.” In her book, How Catholic Art Saved the Faith – The Triumph of Beauty and Truth in Counter Reformation Art, Liz Lev draws the two together to present a powerful argument for the importance of art for evangelization and education in the faith.

    I spoke with Liz Lev about her work, her life, and an upcoming tour celebrating the 500th anniversary of the death of the artist Raphael.

    DWIGHT LONGENECKER:

    How long do your tours of the Vatican Museums take?

    LIZ LEV:

    There was a period when I did six hour tours of the museums! That was before the tsunami of tourism and everything was open and every day felt like going to an endless emporium of artistic delights! Today my tours take about three and a half hours but might stretch to four when people have a lot of questions and have great museum stamina.

    DWIGHT LONGENECKER:

    Rome seems busier than ever. How does one avoid the long lines of tourists?

    LIZ LEV:

    There is a lot of strategy in touring the Vatican these days. If you go online, you can get reservations early in the morning or late in the day. If you take time to study the map of the museum, plan to hit the smaller sections that are less travelled, then visit the major areas once the first wave of crowds have passed through.

    DWIGHT LONGENECKER:

    What are the top five “must sees” for a first-time pilgrim to Rome?

    LIZ LEV:

    After the Sistine Chapel and St Peter’s Basilica, I think the catacombs are an essential witness to the early Christian community. The excavation under St Peter’s, known as the “scavi” combines two fascinating threads of Christian history: the martyrdom of St Peter and his burial and the amazing story of the secret excavation and eventual rediscovery of the bones of the Prince of the Apostles. Remember! You must book tickets to tour the Scavi in advance.

    St John Lateran should be on the list as well as St Mary Major—Pope Francis’ favorite church. Most pilgrims will also want to venerate the relics of the crucifixion at Santa Croce in Jerusalem and St Paul’s Outside the Walls—close to the site of St Paul’s martyrdom.

    DWIGHT LONGENECKER:

    What are the best kept art secrets in Rome?

    LIZ LEV:

    The best kept secrets are the multitude of wonderful art works that are waiting in the churches free of charge. Besides the famous “Caravaggio crawl” you can see dazzling Baroque sculpture in the Jesuit church, The Gesu. Breathtaking sculptures by Bernini, amazing illusionistic ceilings in Sant’Ignazio and fourth century mosaics in Santa Pudenziana are all there to enjoy. Explore, explore, explore! Rome is a trove of artistic treasures.

    DWIGHT LONGENECKER:

    What’s so great about Raphael?

    LIZ LEV:

    Raphael embodies three essential virtues that are worth cultivating today. This will be the focus of my “Divine Raphael” tour from April 23 to May 1. We’ll be traveling to key sites across Italy to admire Raphael’s work and learn about his amazing life. The three virtues are:

    1. Raphael’s art is graceful, subtle, and harmonious. Our world is strident and aggressive. Raphael creates quiet spaces with peaceful people that invite careful meditation and peace.

    2. Team building. Raphael ran the equivalent of a Fortune 500 company by the age of 30, employing as many as 50 artists in his studio. He wasn’t afraid to delegate or share his knowledge and contacts, so that many of those who worked with him emerged as great artists in their own right.

    3. Grace under Pressure. Raphael shot into the spotlight at age twenty-five, when he was put in direct competition with Michelangelo. In this ultimate heavyweight championship of painting, it was clear that Raphael was the underdog, yet he successfully faced the tremendous pressure of Michelangelo’s completely innovative style. During our tour, I can’t wait to bring people into the Raphael rooms and the Sistine chapel and recount the incredible story of this clash of titans!

    DWIGHT LONGENECKER:

    For you is it Michelangelo or Raphael? Why?

    LIZ LEV:

    Michelangelo lived to be eighty-nine and had a lifetime to produce art, architecture, and poetry. Raphael died at thirty-seven, so he doesn’t seem as complex as the older artist. Yet Raphael loved art in a way that Michelangelo didn’t. Raphael would try any medium, study any new discovery. He worked in textiles, experimented with the Venetian style, researched ancient techniques, and learned to paint in oil.

    DWIGHT LONGENECKER:

    Is fine art integral to the Catholic faith? Why?

    LIZ LEV:

    Of course it is! The New Testament says Christ is “the image or icon of the unseen God.” The Incarnation, God made visible, cries out for fine art! What could be more beautiful than salvation, salvation that walked among us, as one of us? Why would we not try to bring our greatest talents, to turn our imaginations to the greatest beauty our limited minds can muster to represent him? Look at the Gothic cathedrals, the mosaics of Ravenna and the painting of Raphael—the True and the Good are best expressed through beauty!

    DWIGHT LONGENECKER:

    Can modern art be Catholic?

    LIZ LEV:

    There are many wonderful modern artists out there. However, the tricky part lies in the strain in modern art towards abstraction and cynicism. Too often the modern artist presumes everything around us is unredeemable and that ugliness is the reality of the human condition. That attitude is incompatible with Catholic art.

    Also, to be honest, abstract art, with very few exceptions, strikes me as incompatible with the aims of Christian art. We worship a God who became man, not a squiggle or a blotch. Catholic art is beautiful on its own, but it also has a function. It should help to teach and uphold the faith. This is what I tried to communicate in my book about Baroque art. During the counter Reformation, Catholic artists used their talent powerfully to help promote the faith.

    DWIGHT LONGENECKER:

    Give five tourist tips for Americans visiting Rome.

    LIZ LEV:

    That’s easy….

    • If you can, come in slow season—late November to end of February.

    • Make reservations ahead of time for the coliseum, Sistine chapel, and galleria Borghese.

    • Get off the beaten track, visit a special site like the Domus Aurea, or the Bernini/Borromini walk along the Via XX Settembre. Go out to Ostia antica or Tivoli and explore.

    • Try something new. A spritz, crostini toscani, truffle anything . . . the variety and wealth of Italian creativity is astonishing—art, architecture, dialects, food, wine—you’ll keep coming back to discover more!

    • Try to write, or draw something on your trip. Crazed picture taking with your iPhone results in a lot of unidentified pictures and little actual visual time. If you see something lovely, try to sketch it or describe it in words—it will stay with you better.

    Learn more about Liz Lev’s Divine Raphael Tour here and be in touch at her website here.

    This conversation first appeared in The Imaginative Conservative and is published here with permission.

    Permalink


    Chippewa Literature and Canadian Culture Mar 05, 2020
    Show notes

    Good literature must have enough subtlety to engage the reader. Information is explicit, as it should be. The telephone directory, cooking instructions, and traffic signs are not examples of literature. I used one of my philosophy classes some time ago to see if any of my Canadian students could make the transition from the barrage of information they encounter on a daily basis to the subtle world of literature.

    I used the blackboard to inscribe a simple and elegant verse from a Chippewa love song:

    A loon I thought it was
    But it was
    My love’s
    Splashing oar.

    A poem of thirteen words would not impose a hardship of my 25 students’ attention span. I asked them what anyone thought it meant. To their credit, my students were responsive. Their enthusiasm, however, was not accompanied by any degree of enlightenment. The poem remained a conundrum for them. One student had a Freudian interpretation of the oar. Was someone bird-watching? Was the person handling the oar an amateur at his task? I reminded my class that the poem is of Chippewa origin and should not be interpreted according to Canadian cultural assumptions.

    I asked, “What time of day does the story in the poem take place? One student suggested daytime and a sharp bend in the river prevented one Indian from seeing the other. To my question, “How many people are in the poem?” one student believed there were three or more. I urged them to try to situate themselves in the poem, mindful that it is reflective of a woodland Chippewa culture.

    I suggested that there must be something to this little verse to explain why it has survived, and has even crossed over to other cultures. Therefore, there must be something universal about it. But it is a piece of literature and not a cryptogram. I was accused of reading too much into it. I envisioned a Chippewa woman waiting for her loved one to return. She could not rely on the telephone or emails. She had to rely on her senses, specifically her ears because the night obscured her vision. She waited and waited for her loved one as she stood somewhere on the bank of a river. At long last, she heard a splash. But it was not a sign that her Brave was returning because the splash did not recur. It was but a single splash, attributed to a loon. Frustration and fear mounted for this Chippewa woman. She was beginning to lose hope. Time passed. Despair began to cloud her judgment when she dismissed the next splash she heard as belonging to another loon. But then, another splash, and yet another. This time it was not a loon, but her Brave coming back to her. The rhythm of his oar matched the beating of her heart. They would soon embrace. As the splashes became nearer and louder, her heart beat faster. He is safe and soon she will be in his arms.

    Obviously I was hallucinating. The class ended without my having convinced any of the twenty-five that this thirteen-word verse was really a beautiful love story. My would-be disciples returned to their world of explicitness and to their next class.

    Poetry has its roots in the familiar world, but thanks to figures of speech, such as the metaphor, is able to lift our awareness to a higher plane. We should not want to be trapped in the prison house of the mundane. At the heart of the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas is the notion that the natural order participates in the supernatural order. The mere natural is not complete unless it is fulfilled by the supernatural.

    Hilaire Belloc tells of a colleague from schooldays who failed to see the significance of the metaphor. A metaphor, he said, “was nothing but a long Greek word for a lie.” A metaphor is certainly not a lie, but a light. It is a light that illuminates the path that takes us from one plane of reality to a higher one. We remain impoverished when we reduce religion to ceremony, marriage to convention, love to lust, education to information, and poetry to prose. Life is broader and richer than it may appear at first glance. Poetry has wings. We are all travelers at heart.

    Dr. DeMarco’s latest book is Why I Am Pro-life and Not Politically Correct.

    Permalink


    Questions Need Answers Mar 04, 2020
    Show notes

    Sometimes it is a little too easy to ask questions. It is especially easy when we expect someone else to do all the work in answering them. Then the questions seem to fuel themselves. A child can keep asking “Why?” until the only real practical response is to stuff an old sock in his mouth.

    This sort of questioning does not represent a true thirst for knowledge but rather a willful reluctance to accept the knowledge that has been offered, and an unwillingness to think for oneself. It is always easier to let someone else think for us. Children are usually genuinely curious, of course, but at times they can also be obstinate past all parental patience. In other words, there is a difference between child-like wonder and childish stubbornness. “Child-like” is usually a virtue. “Childish” is generally a vice.

    G.K. Chesterton, who never failed to adore the innocence and wonder of children as a quality we should all imitate and aspire to (for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven), also warned us to avoid the very different characteristic of childishness. Modern philosophy, for instance, is childish, and, according to Chesterton, is as stubborn as a donkey, “which wants kicking to make it go on.” The modern mind is just clever enough to take things apart but is not able to put the pieces together again. “No one, therefore, does any good to our age merely by asking questions - unless he can answer the questions.… The note of our age is a note of interrogation. And the final point is so plain; no skeptical philosopher can ask any questions that may not equally be asked by a tired child on a hot afternoon. ‘Am I a boy? - Why am I a boy? - Why aren't I a chair? - What is a chair?’” Chesterton says that a child can ask these questions for hours, but modern philosophers, who should know better, have been asking them for the last few centuries.

    What they haven’t bothered doing is answering these questions. There are answers, but the modern world does not really seek them. We hide behind our questions. Chesterton, however, reminds us: “The human brain is a machine for coming to conclusions; if it cannot come to conclusions it is rusty.”

    All questions are spurred by a separation from truth. The answer is always a communion with truth. And the ultimate answer is the ultimate truth: it is Jesus Christ. Sin has separated us from God. It has also clouded our thinking. Christ has reconciled us with God. And he has given us the Church to clarify our thinking.

    Here is the amazing thing. The Catholic Church has answers. It is a reliable guide. The only difficulty comes when we decide we do not trust its guidance.

    For the Catholic Church proclaims the truth and defends the truth. The first is evangelization, the second is apologetics. Evangelization is preaching the Gospel. Apologetics is giving an answer to the attacks on the truth. Evangelization is offensive. Apologetics is defensive. Evangelization is the sword of the spirit. It conquers. Apologetics is the shield of faith (and reason). It protects.

    For those who are troubled that proclaiming the Gospel is offensive, I can only answer with the words of Christ: “Blessed is he who takes no offense at me.” (Matthew 11:6)

    Being offended is not an intellectual response; it is emotional. The intellectual challenges to the Faith are not the greatest barrier to believing. In the end, it is the stubbornness of the will. We address the intellectual objections only to clear the ground for the work of the spirit. We get the head out of the way of the heart. That is when an actual decision has to be made.

    The problem, however, is that most of us are afraid either to proclaim our faith or defend it. G.K. Chesterton says, “We are children of light, and yet we sit in the darkness.” Why is that? I think one reason is that we do not avail ourselves of the fullness of the Catholic Faith. We neglect the sacraments. We neglect the straightforward moral teaching of the Church. We neglect prayer. We neglect to do good to our neighbors. We even neglect to do good to ourselves. If we don’t fall into bad behavior we fall into dull behavior. We let someone else do our thinking for us.

    Lent is a time to draw closer to God. Deeper prayer. Deeper spiritual reading. A time to get rid of all those things that prevent us from enjoying a fuller communion with God. Usually, in order to get rid of those things, we have to do penance. Penance is an act of separating ourselves from the things that have separated us from God.

    Lent is a time to fill ourselves with truth so that we can proclaim the truth and defend the truth. So we can answer questions and not just ask them.


    Techno-Addiction and the New Barbarism Mar 03, 2020
    Show notes

    I have often been called a luddite. It’s not a very nice word and it’s not a very nice thing to be called. For those who have no idea what the word means, the original luddites were workers during the early years of the industrial revolution who smashed machinery in factories because they believed it had caused the loss of their jobs. In modern parlance, a luddite is a retrogressive thinker who doesn’t like or trust new technology. To be labeled a luddite is to be consigned to history’s waste-heap, just like the original luddites who failed to prevent the rise of the machine and the “progress” it heralded.

    Although I resent and reject the luddite label, I do refer to myself sometimes as a technoramus because, as a techno-minimalist, I do not even try to keep up with the latest technology, nor do I spend much time with social media. I’d rather read a book, dine with friends, or watch the sunset. I am beginning to think, however, that it is not I who am a technoramus but those techno-addicts who are no longer able to engage with reality because they are constantly ensnared by technology.

    A series of recent studies highlights how techno-addiction is leading to a new barbarism; how it is creating a whole generation of students who are incapable of study.

    A University of Nebraska-Lincoln study illustrates that 80 percent of college students send text messages during class. A professor at the University of Waterloo placed a postgraduate at the back of the lecture hall to observe his students. More than 85 percent of them were using their laptops for things unrelated to class. A Cornell University study confirms that most students engage in some form of high-tech extra-curricular communication during class.

    Considering that students are meant to be paying attention to their professor, the only valid argument for using laptops in the classroom is for the taking of notes. Since we can type faster than we can write, this would seem to make sense. Yet a study from Princeton University shows that we process information better when taking notes by hand precisely because writing is slower than typing. Since handwritten notes help students learn and retain the material being taught in class, the only real reason for the use of laptops in the classroom disappears.

    Another study illustrates that people better comprehend what they’re reading if it’s on paper rather than on the screen. A study from the University of Stavanger in Norway revealed that readers on Kindle struggled to remember plot details in comparison with those who read printed books. Another study discovered lower levels of comprehension in those subjects reading PDF versions of texts.

    I now realize that being a techno-minimalist does not make me a technoramus. On the contrary, I now know that my techno-minimalism prevents my becoming a technoramus. A technoramus is not one who is ignorant of technology but one who is ignorant of everything except technology.


    Emissaries of the New Evangelization, Part Two Mar 02, 2020
    Show notes

    Joseph Pearce continues the conversation with Julie Musselman about the work of the Augustine Institute's Parish Emissaries.

    Emissaries of the New Evangelization, Part Two Joseph Pearce

    Emissaries of the New Evangelization, Part One Feb 24, 2020
    Show notes

    Joseph Pearce in conversation with Julie Musselman about the work of the Augustine Institute's Parish Emissaries.

    Emissaries of the New Evangelization, Part One Joseph Pearce

    The Legitimacy of the Human Feb 21, 2020
    Show notes

    The Legitimacy of the Human

    by Rémi Brague
    St. Augustine’s Press, 2017
    177 pp., $26.00
    ISBN: 9781587314605

    Reviewed by Kenneth Colston

    If you think the Church is hurting, then read Rémi Brague about mankind. In the second chapter, after an historical “opening movement” of the “rise and fall of humanism,” this erudite French classicist follows the most perceived threats (environmental collapse, nuclear catastrophe, and demographic implosion) with a catalogue of less-obvious philosophical horrors: the replacement of classical learning with statistics, the schizophrenia caused by the non-verifiability of particle physics, the rejection of final cause, the rupture of morality from reality, and the replacement of human work and intellection by technology. Man looks more than embattled and diseased: he seems obsolete, and some philosophers call for his eradication.

    But man has often been embattled. Brague’s third movement begins with a look back at the ancients to expose “the myth of joyous paganism,” which he calls a Romantic invention. Thinkers from Sophocles to Quoholeth to Pseudo-Diogenes took a dim view of our species; even the Talmud wonders whether God did well when he created man. Classical philosophy attributed human dignity only to the aristocratic élite, which offers no grounding for our democratic age. Brague then shows that the question of man’s legitimacy has been denied in three domains: of man’s relation to nature, where he has been seen as a shedder of blood by angels in the Koran and a predatory nomad by Hermes Trimegistus; of man’s presence on Earth, where his bodily creation is seen as evil by Gnostics and Platonists; and of man’s mixed nature, where man as the middle being in creation between angels and beasts has been lost to such a degree that young academic philosophers can write books with a title like this one by David Benatar: Never to Have Been. The Harm of Coming into Existence (Oxford University Press, 2006).

    Taking up man’s relation to nature, the fourth movement reveals Brague’s virtuosity. An accomplished Arabist, he unearths a medieval text by an anonymous Islamic sect, the Brothers of Purity, in which animals enslaved by men engage in a formal debate for manumission judged by an objective Jinn. Men tout their superiority, but animals refute each claim. A Syrian Jew advances that only man practices religion; the nightingale responds that birds praise God in song but, being sinless, not as expiation. A Persian boasts about man’s division of labor; a parrot replies that animals too admit a pecking order, with nothing demanded in exchange for leadership. A Muslim from Hejaz (the region of Mecca and Medina) says man can achieve paradise; the wise parrot adds that he can also suffer eternal fire. Mohammed then steps in to calm the audience with the promise of salvation for all Muslims, irrespective of sin. Brague ends with a question that adds suspense to his exegetical, historical, linguistic, and philosophical symphony: “Is human life truly livable without the promise of an absolute joy?”

    In an interlude, Brague hunts down the first appearance of the word “anti-humanist,” by the Russian poet Alexander Blok, just after the Great War, following also a prior apocalyptic movement that saw civilization as sick and decadent and that looked forward to the music of the “more vigorous barbarous masses.” (The assaults on our ears today make that prophetic!) The “new man” to emerge from this preserver of culture will be the artist, and Brague lets it go without saying where that contemporary paragon has led.

    Brague then takes up Foucault as the arch anti-humanist who still dominates the academy by breaking down a little-known interview in 1971 with high school students in which he is singularly lucid and direct about his project to overturn traditional ideologies. Foucault’s text is worth quoting, for it is the vademecum of the activist academy that drives away the search for truth and goodness and the real in its lecture halls and in the courts:

    I understand by humanism the set of discourses by which Western man has been told: “Even if you do not exercise power, you can still be sovereign. Even better: the more that you renounce the exercise of power and the better you are subject to the one who imposed on you, the more you will be sovereign.” Humanism is what successively invented these subject-sovereignties: the soul (sovereign over the body, subject to God), consciousness/conscience (sovereign in the order of judgment; subject to the order of truth), the individual (sovereign possessor of rights, subject to the laws of nature or the rules of society), liberty as fundamental (inwardly sovereign, externally consenting and in accord with its destiny). In short, humanism is everything by which the West blocked the desire for power—forbade the desire for power, excluded the possibility of taking it. At the heart of humanism is the theory of the subject (in the dual sense of the word). That is why the West rejects with so much insistence everything that could spring this bolt. This bolt can be attacked in two ways. Either by a “desubjectification” of the will to power (i.e., by political struggle understood as class struggle), or by the effort to destroy the subject as pseudo-sovereign (i.e., by cultural attack: the overcoming of taboos, of sexual limitations and divisions; the practice of communal existence; getting rid of inhibitions towards drugs; breaking down all the interdictions and boundaries by which normative individuality is constituted and directed). Here I am thinking of all the experiences that our civilization has rejected, or admitted only in the element of literature.

    Welcome, brave new post-sixties world, with its casualties glaringly obvious now! While Brague scrutinizes the terms of Foucault’s interview, his real concern is to expose Foucault’s claim about God in a parallel text from his introduction to Kant’s Anthropology: “The death of God, did it not make manifest, in a double murder, that by putting an end to the absolute, at the same time man himself was killed?” How? Since man is in God’s image, then the divine—or the special, the distinct, the higher—in man disappears when God leaves the intellectual stage. Conceptually, man becomes a mere animal when he doesn’t look up to live beyond himself. Brague proposes instead that man’s obedience to God not be seen as an alarming submission but a means of freedom with responsibility: as a plenipotentiary, “invested with a task, and thus granted full powers that allow him to fulfill, but at the same time responsible for its execution.”

    Thus, the major motif of Brague’s symphony is resolved in the final movement of the last three chapters. To make man legitimate, the transcendent must be found, but not in Foucault’s God, “an archaic representation from which the Bible broke in decisive fashion.” Brague rather shows how a little-known German thinker, Hans Blumenberg (1920-1976) demonstrated that Gnosticism, by an overemphasis on fallen creation and a suspicion of intellect, lingered in medieval thought and that modernity is trying to exorcise it through blind faith in man’s ability to know and control nature through science. Instead, Brague urges a restoration of creation as good and of Providence as “the indispensable condition of the continuation of the human adventure.” Neither the self-affirmation God of existentialism, nor the elimination of mankind by Gaia-worshippers, nor the “blackguard” God of the will to power and of Gnosticism, nor the blind evolutionary God, can legitimize man: their paths are bleak with suicide. Where might such a God of “freedom,” “Providence,” and “goodness” be found? In Genesis, Brague concludes, but there is one huge problem: “no has ever seen God” (John 1:18). How can the hidden God be a model?

    Brague’s solution is brilliant and requires his full scholarly powers as historian, linguist, philosopher, exegete, and even Arabist. He finds in a close reading of the Pentateuch, including Talmudic and Islamic commentaries, that man’s legitimizing task is the primal mitzvah of being. God is Being and commands being. In Hebrew grammar, the first command to be is in the jussive rather than the imperative mode because nothing is prior to receive and follow the command. Divine creation simultaneously implies action: “Follow what called your nature into being.” The divine Logos of John is simply a reissuing of this primal command. Perhaps some readers will find this concluding tour de force paradoxically too simple and abrupt. Once man’s being is commanded, Brague has a certain French intellectual’s optimism: “Men are perfectly capable of grasping what allows them to lead a harmonious and peaceful existence. For that they do not need a reference point.” He is doubtless talking about knowing and following the natural moral law with Thomistic confidence. It would be interesting to see what Brague would do with the darker passages of Augustine and Pascal. He is surely correct, however, that man’s hardest task is finding a final reason for living. That reason, which affirms “that it is good that we are,” comes only from the God of Genesis and John. Since Brague is so heavy in diverse theistic and philosophical traditions and so light in Christian sources, this God has a chance even with hard-bitten atheistic secularists.


    Previous 1 8 9 10

    Related Podcasts

    Joel Osteen Podcast

    1

    Joel Osteen Podcast Christianity
    Joel Osteen Podcast

    2

    Joel Osteen Podcast Christianity
    The Bible For Normal People

    3

    The Bible For Normal People Christianity
    The Liturgists Podcast

    4

    The Liturgists Podcast Christianity
    Firestarters

    5

    Firestarters Christianity
    Elevation with Steven Furtick

    6

    Elevation with Steven Furtick Christianity
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights