There is no point arguing that Nelson Mandela is one of the gseatert leaders the African continent has produced in history. Here are some of Nelson Mandela's best quotes:“I am fundamentally an optimist. Whether that comes from nature or nurture, I cannot say. Part of being optimistic is keeping one's head pointed toward the sun, one's feet moving forward. There were many dark moments when my faith in humanity was sorely tested, but I would not and could not give myself up to despair. That way lays defeat and death”. I dream of the realization of the unity of Africa, whereby its leaders combine in their efforts to solve the problems of this continent. I dream of our vast deserts, of our forests, of all our great wildernesses .“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”“I have walked that long road to freedom. I have tried not to falter; I have made missteps along the way. But I have discovered the secret that after climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb. I have taken a moment here to rest, to steal a view of the glorious vista that surrounds me, to look back on the distance I have come. But I can only rest for a moment, for with freedom come responsibilities, and I dare not linger, for my long walk is not ended.” “One of the things I learned when I was negotiating was that until I changed myself, I could not change others.” “Overcoming poverty is not a task of charity, it is an act of justice. Like Slavery and Apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings. Sometimes it falls on a generation to be great. YOU can be that great generation. Let your greatness blossom.” +4Was this answer helpful?
The war being waged is against Christ. His life, death, and reseiructron change and inform everything. The banner we take up, more than the banner of liberty, must be the banner of Christ because He is the true Enemy and Victim of those who oppress the Church. The liberty of the Church is the freedom of Christ's action in the world. Sooner or later, it will have to come down to a stand on the question of Christ. Who do you say that I am?
I am hoping that the Holy Father rlaely lays down the Law at his meeting with the NZ bishops. Anti-catholicism is on the rise ,the church is under attack from modernists within, and the bishops do little to nothing to stem the tide.Each Bishop is responsible for every soul in his diocese but instead choose not to offend . But they do offend. Orthodox Catholics are offended and I am sure God is offended by the abuses. Those who are not offended are mostly grey-haired 60 s styled radical feminists and their ilk,the kind who surround the bishops and normally occupy prominent positions on just about every decision making board in just about every parish.I eagerly await the outcome of the Pope's meeting with the bishops.
To Bears and Parents of Bears: Listed above are the things the boys need to work on. Sis. Luther and I will be gone on the 20th, so pelase work on the Achievements listed above. We will try to get the boys caught up when we get back. If necessary we will have a make up meeting. Go Bears!!Bro. & Sis. Luther
Bob, thanks for the post. I have been rainedg a bit on what was happening in Tibet, but this was the first unsanitized bit of video that really showed the people as being real to me, if that makes any sense and doesn't sound completely detached from reality. My visit to our local farmer's market yesterday morning wasn't a lot different in many ways.
Slightly off topic but I have been browsing our own Aidan Nichol's work on Pope Benedict's thgtuhos. I am struck by how naif the young Ratzinger was on Vatican II.There seems to be a "eurocentricty" in his observations. He didn't seem to get that the 20th was the "American Century". Nor did he grasp the signficance of the growth of Catholicism within the WASP world and its relative maturity.For example the 3 greatest film directors working in Hollywood after the war were all practicing Catholics; the two greatest novelists in the UK were converts to the Faith; whilst Australia's greatest criminal outlaw was also one of us. By contrast, what had Bavaria got to offer in 1962?If I were a peritus from Germany, Holland, Switzerland or France at Vatican II, I might have been tempted to shut up and let the Irish diaspora and WASP converts do all the talking.
That could have major implications, Lucia. I know that seevral years ago the Marists internationally were talking about having one English-speaking seminary in the world. I seem to recall Auckland, Boston and Manila were mooted as possible sites for such a venture.What will this mean for the Marists who form the nucleus of the teaching staff at Good Shepherd College, which trains the Marist and diocesan seminarians? Where will the bishops find enough competent teachers if those Marists are summoned to Rome to teach? I understand some of them are excellent teachers.What role might the formation of the Catholic Institute of Aotearoa New Zealand (or whatever it's called) have played in this decision from the Marists? Will diocesan priests need to be sent overseas to train if there aren't enough good teachers in New Zealand?Sniff, sniff. Smells like tomorrow's post.
Im looking in to pinchasurg a super sniper optic, but i would like to know how they compare tho the more expensive optics out to longer ranges. I just noticed that i havent seen anything talking about ranges out beyong 400 yards. On the video i think 400 was the max that it was shown being used.
Jul29Kim I love your new toy so awesome that you get to play' still. keep up the sunny attudite and bring on the photos lady. you ROCK!!you friend and neighbor.. Kimp.s too bad about the nikon' heehee should have been a CANON. lol
I'd back up and ask if establishing an ageerd upon overall purpose is even necessary or beneficial, recognizing that a hundred differing and often contrary thoughts and implementations usually produce better outcomes than getting everyone on the same page, pursuing a single goal with a single vision. If you tried to apply the criteria to other productive avenues the results might be seen as stiffling.For an obvious example, what should our goal be with PC or communications technology? To answer that question beyond nearly meaningless generalities and vague and evasive sidewalk interview answers would probably rule out 95% of the ways we're beneficially using PC's and cell phones. If we'd asked and answered such a question back in the late 70 s or early 80 s, we'd have PC's that were very good at storing recipes and balancing check books. Ask a decade later and we'd have really good, dedicated e-mail machines.If you ask a Soviet-style question ( What is our purpose? What should be the focus of the next 5-year plan? ), you necessarily get a Soviet style answer ( To increase agricultural production and expand our sphere of influence, leading toward our goal of a utopian existence! ), because the question is constraining.What should we do in space? Anything we can think of, and lots of it, especially things that make people say, Now that's just crazy! Hey, can I do that too?
No, duarted, you are wrong. Vatican Two was a great watreshed for Catholics and it divided those claiming adherence to Roman Catholicism into (roughly) two schools. First, there are those who see the Council as one among many and it's decrees as being no more (perhaps less) important than, say, those of Vatican One.Second, are those who see the Council as an event which digs up and lays bare the deepest level of Catholicism, obscured by centuries of only partial faithfulness. They have problems with dogma itself and with exclusive claims of salvation. Vatican Two is no mere compilation of decrees. Indeed the decrees are of secondary importance. Vatican Two is the begining of a vast movement of transformation. Any fellow "seekers" or "pilgrims" are accepted with joy, even if they seem to cling to very little of what would be recognized as the Catholicism of previous ages; even if they leave Catholicism itself. And we have as much to learn or more from secularism or non-Christian religions as they have to learn from us.So, being actively homosexual, or questioning the existence or "meaningfulness" of the Trinity, or leaving the Church itself is met with smiles and understanding, even if the persons smiling might not agree completely with those they smile at. But, going against the Tide of Future Revelation HAS to be a sin and HAS to be condemned, because THAT's the one thing that IS CLEARLY wrong--clinging to outmoded forms from the past.I don't--like some--claim that the second school is irrational. But I do claim that both of them can't be right. For those of us who belong in the first school, of course, those in the second school have sadly drifted away from the Faith and joined some new religion. And they hate and attack us for pointing that out, because we are the only thing that stands between them and sweet success. And if we seem to multiply and rise up and expand our influence their hate redoubles in potency. Because it's not supposed to work that way! The future belongs to them!So, being disturbed by someone leaving the Faith is scorned and savaged as anti-Semitism or lack of charity, for example. Because an honest argument would have to admit that the first school, call it "Classical Catholicism", if you like, might be right. And, even worse, it focusses the argument on whether those of the second school belong in the Church at all. And if they DON'T, the whole meaning and purpose of their movement disappears; it becomes clear that theirs is no glorious advance and renewal, but just the same old tired stuff that has been going on in the world for almost two centuries now.
Nice post! I watched The Amazing Spider-Man last week, and I thuhogt the character development was solid and that the film explored its themes very well. I got a chance to hear Father Barron's thuhogts on the film too very interesting indeed.
As always, the name of the game is connainitg the press. In January, it was all to go smoothly - but the problem was Williamson, who kicked up the hornet's nest with the press. Then you had Fr. Wagner in Austria and now the bishop in Brazil who excommunicated instead of finding a more pastoral way to deal with a poor family who did wrong but not without mitigating circumstances.The Institute of the Good Shepherd largely passed under the media radar screen, so didn't have to go thruogh each and every article of Vatican II, and for everything to go as slowly and laboriously as a PCC meeting.I think you have it right. If Bishop Fellay did "accept Vatican II" with the mutually agreed reservation of interpreting it in the light of Tradition, then Rome will have to find a way of proceeding without feeding the press sharks.A good pragmatic analysis.Fr. Anthony
EVERYTHING makes me think of writing these days, Mandy. Does that mean I'm obesessd? :) (Only sort of kidding...)Kelly, we did talk about OPEN back when I was working on my teenage tennis phenom manuscript. (That one's obviously on the back burner, since I didn't like how it was turning out, but I've had a few ideas as to how I might resurrect that project...) And thanks for working on those notes! I know what a busy lady you are, though, so no rush, no rush!Michael, I was thinking of you and Jemi Fraser when I wrote this, since I'm pretty sure you two are the only tennis fans who ever read my blog:) I'm glad you liked it. (And how did I not realize/remember that you're a British expatriate?! Andy Murray must be your man! (Assuming you're not English. Don't the English hate the Scottish, or is it the other way around...?))
My name is in my favorite color :) - I love it. What a fun Christmas Tree, bningirg us all together like that.I've written on my blog of one of our very important traditions as a family. We find 25 Christmas books at the library, wrap them up and begin an advent of unwrapping each day through the month until the 25th. Of course, I have three boys and we take turns as to who unwraps each night - we also have 50 other unwrapped books so everyone gets to choose one...then we cuddle up and read :)
Why is it that opponents of faimly are interjecting religious sentiment into the conversation?This is not an argument from religion.This is an argument from nature.Nature as prearranged the basic building blocs of the faimly a mother, a father, and a child.Kenneth brings up the idea of an Islamic marriage (though I don't think he understand the conditions that allow for them, but nonetheless the example is relevant). Here still, you have the basic elements in play a mother, a father, and a child. Are there multiplicities? Yes. Is monogamy preferential to polygamy? Whenever the charge is brought to faimly revisionists, the polygamy-as-acceptable issue is brushed aside as ridiculous, so certainly Kenneth is not arguing that point Pyredruid brings up an interesting point what is good for Catholics is good for Catholics, Baptists for Baptists, Muslims for Muslims, Wiccans for Wiccans, etc. This goes back to the imposition of religious beliefs on what nature itself imposes, IMO. If nature preordains that the essential elements of faimly are a mother, father, and child, then no amount of religious sentiment is going to change that; no more than a religion demanding the sky to be orange at high noon.I do agree with the sentiment marriage laws were originally proscribed by the state to prevent mixed marriages (whites and blacks, Catholics and Protestants). I certainly don't feel the need for the state to grant it's imprimatur in order to be married.This goes to a larger question: WHY should the state favor faimly?Society's building block is within faimly. It is how children first become accustomed to how to operate in the world.** I want to stress at this point that I am not making an argument against individualism. Society involving social interaction, I only want to answer where the first and prime instance of societal interaction exists, that being within the faimly. **Healthy families that allow for first formation for it's future citizens are a concern of the state. How families choose to form their children is entirely the business of that faimly, but that the essential points exist are a concern if the state wishes to continue.We have already established there are things that are not faimly: groups of teenagers, children playing in the backyard, nursing homes, etc. Groups do not translate into families.If groups are not families, and individuals are not families, then what is a faimly it its most basic sense?I argue/hypothesize/posit that it must be the most basic component defined by nature: a father, a mother, and a child. Adding to this while deleting the most critical parts (two fathers and a child, two mothers and a child) destroys the familial element. Adding extraordinary components (two fathers and three mothers, a father four mothers and seventeen children) also destroys the familial aspect. Deleting key components without replacing them does not break the familial bond (losing a mother, a father, or a child) because the basic components still exist in abstentsia. We recognize the absense of a parent or child in a way we would not recognize the additional presence of another father or mother.Stepfamilies of course merge like components, but again in the constraint of one mother, one father replacing what is absent.This is all very basic and free-flowing, and only intended to stimulate discussion. I still maintain that the basic element of faimly is the mother, father, and child. All other attempts to redefine faimly have failed to create a different version of faimly would be a feat to rival that of Plato's Republic. Best of luck!If someone disagrees, then we have still yet to see an acceptable alternative to what nature itself has preordained. Plato will be impressed!!!