Rod Dreher Likes It, He Really Likes It!

Brokeback Mountain, that is. This editorial with Rod Dreher endorsing Brokeback Mountain as a work of art was both surprising and also welcome (I like to see people who will find out for themselves if it seems indicated).

My friend Victor Morton turned me around. On his "Right-Wing Film Geek" blog (www.cinecon.blogspot.com), Victor wrote a long, impassioned post that said, in effect, Don't believe the 'Brokeback' hype, from either side! The film is good, not great, Victor argued, but what makes it worthwhile is its fidelity to the tragic truth of its characters, not its usefulness to anybody's cause.

Intrigued, I found on the Internet a link to the Annie Proulx short story on which the movie is based and was shocked by how good it was, especially at embodying the "concrete details of life that make actual the mystery of our position here on earth" – Catholic writer Flannery O'Connor's description of what true artistry does. Though director Ang Lee's tranquil style fails to capture the daemonic wildness of Ms. Proulx's version, I came away from the film thinking, this is not for everybody, but it really is a work of art.

Will I go see it? Nope. I don't like sad stories and I often don't care about "art." Do go read the entire editorial. Free registration is required but don't let that stop you.

UPDATE
Tom Kelley likes Rhonda Lugari's referral for this article so well that he urges me to put it on the main blog ... so here ya go!

Getcha Saints Right Here!

Actually, not right here, but over at A Catholic Life there is a new post with more saints' selections of people to be special patrons for in 2006.

If you have requested a saint and don't see your name there, Moneybags' friend is struggling to keep up with the unexpected demand. This is when we all have to practice that patience that is such a virtue, right?

My Catholic Reflections

Darren just started up a few days ago but already has an interesting place set up. Drop by and welcome him to St. Blog's Parish.

New Year's is Coming ... Favorite Fiction

Favorite Fiction of 2005
(in no particular order)

• Anansi Boys : A Novel by Neil Gaiman
  The best thing he's written since Neverwhere and that's saying something. About the sons of one of my favorite "tricksters" ... Anansi the Spider.


• Magic Street by Orson Scott Card
  I'll never look at A Midsummers Night Dream the same way again.


• Valley of Bones by Michael Gruber
  We all remember how excited I was by this book right?


• Tropic of Night by Michael Gruber
  The precursor to Valley of Bones and just as excellent (and complicated) but with a major voodoo emphasis instead of Catholicism. However, the theme of mercy is still very much emphasized. I found it to be very "Christian" under everything.


• Home to Harmony by Philip Gulley
  Like the stories from A Prairie Home Companion but better and told from a Quaker minister's point of view. Very cozy.


• Sunshine by Robin McKinley
  Baking, vampires, a quest ...


• Our Lady of the Lost and Found: A Novel by Diane Schoemperlen
  A writer who lives a quiet life walks into her living room one day to find Mary (yes, the Blessed Virgin) standing in her living room with a suitcase. She needs a vacation to rest up before May begins with all the celebrations devoted to Mary. I think of this as a story of what Mary does in "ordinary time."


• Corpse de Ballet : A Nine Muses Mystery: Terpsichore by Ellen Pall
  More depth than the average mystery and a fascinating look behind the scenes developing a ballet.

I'm Laughing Already

There is a custom among us of drawing by lot, on New Year's Day, special Patrons for ourselves for the whole year. In the morning during meditation, there arose within me a secret desire that the Eucharistic Jesus be my special Patron for this year also, as in the past. But, hiding this desire from my Beloved, I spoke to Him about everything else but that. When we came to refectory for breakfast, we blessed ourselves and began drawing our patrons. When I approached the holy cards on which the names of the patrons were written, without hesitation I took one, but I didn't read the name immediately as I wanted to mortify myself for a few minutes. Suddenly, I heard a voice in my soul: "I am your patron. Read." I looked at once at the inscription and read, "Patron for the Year 1935 - the Most Blessed Eucharist." My heart leapt with joy, and I slipped quietly away from the sisters and went for a short visit before the Blessed Sacrament, where I poured out my heart. But Jesus sweetly admonished me that I should be at that moment together with the sisters. I went immediately in obedience to the rule.

Excerpt from Divine Mercy in My Soul, the Diary of St. Faustina"

This was part of an email received by Moneybags at A Catholic Life that spoke of choosing a saint at random to be your patron for the year ... or actually of letting the saint choose you. Moneybags then offered to let others have their patron for the year "chosen" as well.

I was intrigued by this idea since my experience with any of my favorite saints definitely has been of them making themselves known to me, rather than the other way around.

I looked at this as a way to have God match us up ... to let this saint show me things that I need to learn. So I asked Moneybags to have the emailer pull a saint's name. Then I asked God to send me the saint he wanted me to get to know over the year.

It was definitely with a feeling of amazement that I read that the saint that chose me was Saint Vitus. The patron saint of comedians.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. God has quite a sense of humor.

Could this matchup be any more perfect?

Well, yes it could.

Saint Vitus is one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers, who, as a group, are especially venerated in France and Germany. The Holy Helpers were believed to possess especially efficacious intercessory power. The relics of Vitus are said to possess many healing properties, especially when epileptics prayed before them.

Source

I never heard of the Fourteen Holy Helpers until last year when Yurodivi's wife was diagnosed with cancer and he alerted us to them as intercessors. To see them brought up again like that, so seemingly at random, got my Spidey senses tingling.

I believe Saint Vitus was sent to be my special patron this year.

A year spent with a saint who brings laughter and good will. Sounds good to me.

Prayer to Saint Vitus

Dear Vitus, the one thing we are certain about is that you died a martyr's death. In early times, churches were dedicated to you in important places. In the Middle Ages, your intercession obtained cures from epilepsy so that this disease came to be called "Saint Vitus' Dance". Inspire comedians to make people dance with laughter and so bear goodwill toward one another. Amen.

Read more about Saint Vitus here.

Moneybags is happy to pass on the request for your special patron of saint for 2006. All you have to do is hop over there and leave a comment.

New Year's is Coming ...

... and that means it's time for those delightful "best of" lists. Hey, it amused me to make them so their purpose has been served. If it amuses anyone to read them, well it is doubly served.

Favorite Nonfiction of 2005
(in no particular order)

• Under the Overpass : A Journey of Faith on the Streets of America
  by Mike Yankoski


• The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice
  by Philip Jenkins
  


• Salt of the Earth: The Church at the End of the Millennium
  by Peter Seewalt and Cardinal Ratzinger
  


• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science
  by Tom Bethell
  


• The Words We Pray: Discovering the Richness of Traditional Catholic Prayers
  by Amy Welborn
  


• Aristotle for Everybody: Difficult Thought Made Easy
  by Mortimer J. Adler
  


• The Right to Be Wrong: Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America
  by Kevin Seamus Hasson

Cookbooks and food writing will be covered in a separate post.

Christmas Blessings

We all got wonderful gifts and had a delicious meal (if I say so myself) with our loved ones. Tom's brother drove his mom to Dallas so we made rather more merry than usual with large family gatherings three nights in a row. Totally fun.

However, God trumped it all (as it should be) at Christmas Mass.

Advent had been really rich for me and had been building toward a Christmas Day climax of which I was totally unaware. I felt such joy at the promise of the Messiah being fulfilled, such as I have never felt before. For me that means tears and we must have been quite a lachrymose looking trio with me, my sister-in-law tearing up thinking of her recently sick grandmother, and my mother-in-law shedding tears of joy thinking of how my deceased father-in-law would have loved seeing three of his sons attending the Mass together. Because, lo and behold, to my great surprise when we had extended the Christmas Mass invitation to two of Tom's brothers everyone present accepted. (Only Tom and one other of his four brothers are still in the Church, and these two were some of the fallen-away).

Wow.

Our deacon's homily was as if tailor-made to speak to them ... really outstanding (and he's always good). I could feel the Holy Spirit flowing. What an experience.

Simultaneously, in the face of the glory and joy of the incarnation of the Word made flesh, I also was humbling myself and offering myself as his servant (once again ... wouldn't it be nice if I didn't have to keep revisiting and just stayed humble?). Knowing how I am when actually faced with that whole servant thing, I told him to trample all over my feelings and objections and just get me doing what he wanted. To use me as his servant.

After Mass, the deacon asked me to wait for a second and then offered me an opportunity to volunteer for something. Well, you can't say that God is a slacker, can you? He gets right down to business.

It is a ministry that I have been campaigning about to both our priest and deacon for some time. However, it also is one that I frankly didn't think I'd have any sort of input about. I have spent the past couple of years praying for this ministry to happen in obedience to what they told me (with a little pestering on side, just to keep my hand in, ya know!). It is also not in a form that I ever would have expected.

You know what that means, right?

It's got God's fingerprints all over it. Exciting! And intimidating also. I'll be contacting someone tomorrow about getting involved.

Because, for the moment at least (and as long as I can hang onto it), I am His humble servant.

I am more grateful than I can say.

Thanks be to God for prayers answered.

C'Mere, You Big Lug

Photo Source

KING KONG

The original King Kong is one of my favorite movies of all time so Peter Jackson and I have that in common. I was predisposed to like it merely because I knew Jackson was such a fan. And I did. In fact, we all did.

Jackson kept things moving along so well that it really didn't seem like three hours, although partway through all the monster fighting on the island I was ready for things to move along more quickly. Tip to the squeamish: when they show the guys who fell off the log? If you don't like bugs, then don't look ... no matter what. (This was my strategy and it worked well.)

The regular movie critics have pretty much covered it all ... you'll either like it or hate it.

We especially enjoyed the character development which the first movie lacked. It gave all the characters much more reason for what they did later on. Jack Black was particularly good as the megalomaniac who was going to make that movie come hell or high water ... or giant gorillas.

This King Kong is the most sympathetic yet and I had tears running down my cheeks at his ending (as always I'm usually rooting for him to take down the planes and hop a steamer back to Skull Island). However, Rose put it nicely for all of us when she said that it would have been nice if Jackson had made a little further delination between Ann Darrow's love for King Kong as a pal rather than as something more. As it was, we felt that poor Jack was getting King Kong's leftovers.

HC rating: 9 Thumbs Up!

Defending the Faith: Instructing the Ignorant

Another source of confusion about allies and enemies is a misunderstanding of the Church's teaching on invincible ignorance and non-Catholics. Some apologists ... think that once Catholicism has been explained to the intelligent Protestant, for instance, he can no longer be invincibly ignorant of it. If he remains a Protestant, he cannot be saved. His remaining a Protestant in such a situation only proves to some apologists that he is not a good man. He is, they think, an enemy, not an ally, of truth.

We should be clear: those who hold this view do not deny that non-Catholics can be saved. They simply think that reasonable non-Catholics who have heard the case for the Catholic Church can no longer be invincibly ignorant. If such a non-Catholic fails to convert, it must be because he is, in his heart of hearts, stubbornly opposing the truth, and, therefore, stubbornly opposing God himself...

The trouble with this scenario is that it does not accurately represent Catholic teaching about ignorance and culpability. Invincible ignorance does not mean one is merely ignorant, through no fault of his own, of what the Catholic Church teaches; it means one is ignorant of its truth -- of the fact that it is true -- through no fault of his own ... after all is said and done, after the Catholic apologist has framed the best arguments he can and after the Protestant has investigated Catholicism honestly and to the best of his ability, the Protestant may still (erroneously and mysteriously, perhaps) think that Catholicism is false or less than completely true. If the Protestant were to become Catholic under those circumstances, he would be embracing what he thinks is untrue. And that would amount to sin, not salvation for him.

How Not to Share Your Faith:
The Seven Deadly Sins of Apologetics
by Mark Brumley

Again we see the great tribute paid to conscience. If someone is following theirs truly even if they don't agree with you, then they have the right to be wrong (as, indeed, we should have in their eyes).

Finishing Up Global Warming

I grow weary of this subject and I bet everyone else has also, so I will merely recommend that anyone with a remotely open mind go read this excellent speech by Michael Crichton who, I have been told by a reliable source, started to write a book about the dangers of global warming and ... well ... wound up with this speech.

A book recommended by the Politically Incorrect Guide is "Global Warming's Unfinished Debate" by S. Fred Singer; Oakland, CA: Independent Institute, 1999.

Next up, probably after Christmas ... nuclear power! I can't wait to see the comments boxes on that one.

It All Depends on Where You Stick That Thermometer

According to the most reliable summaries of the earth's surface temperatures for the whole globe, which go back no further than 1861, there was a warming period in the first half of the twentieth century, lasting from about 1910 to 1940. That was followed by a cooling period from 1940 to 1975. Since 1975, we have experienced a slight warming trend. The three periods combined give us a surface temperature increase of perhaps one degree Fahrenheit for the entire twentieth century.

But there is a problem. Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures do not agree with these surface readings. Satellite measurements began only in 1979, and they have shown no significant increase for atmospheric temperature in the last century. Balloon readings did show an abrupt, one-time increase in 1976-1977. Since then, however, those temperatures seem to have stabilized.

Environmentalists believe that the twentieth-century warming was caused by human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels...

The [Greenhouse] effect itself is not disputed by scientists, but whether man-made carbon-dioxide emissions have been sufficient to cause measurable global temperature increase over the last thirty years is a matter of fierce debate ...

The surface data itself suggests that man-made carbon dioxide has not been sufficient to increase global temperatures. Consider the period 1940-1975, a time of considerable fossil fuel consumption. Coal-fired plants emitted smoke and fumes without any Green party or environmental ministers to restrain them. Yet the Earth cooled slightly. Also, if manmade global warming is real, atmospheric as well as surface temperatures should have steadily increased. This has not happened. Increases were recorded only in the late 1970s, but these were probably caused by a solar anomaly, not by anything man was doing.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science

UPDATE:

General global warming thinking would be that the warming of the troposphere (red) results in the stratosphere (blue) being cooler. However, several times on the chart both are warming (like the summer of 1997).

Blogger Meeting Photos

Left to right: Tom and psyguy

Left to right: Happy Catholic and epiphany

If I'd have remembered photos would be taken I'd have spruced up a bit!

Defending the Faith: Ecumenism

Some apologists have trouble here because when it comes to dialogue with non-Catholic Christians, they have only half of the equation. These apologists rightly want to present Catholic truth as the fullness of the Christian faith, but they do not necessarily know how to discuss their faith with non-Catholic Christians without entering into full-blown apologetical arguments. They may be great when it comes to arguments, but they seem to be lost when it comes to ecumenism. Among other things, ecumenism means stressing (and valuing) what we Christians have in common, as well as discussing our differences. Both elements are needed if we are to attain the full unity Christ wills for his followers. And both elements have a role to play in the Church's mission...

According to Vatican II's Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, Catholics must make "every effort to eliminate words, judgments, and actions which do not correspond to the condition of separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations between them more difficult." Yet how often do we hear Catholic apologists mischaracterize Protestant theology or fail to distinguish among the various Protestant positions on certain subjects? Often, the underlying attitude is this: since the Catholic Church is ultimately right and Protestantism of whatever stripe is ultimately wrong, what does it matter if the Catholic apologist confuses Reformed doctrine with Methodism, or Baptist beliefs with Presbyterianism? Who can keep straight all the varieties of Protestantism anyway? But difficult or not, correctly representing non-Catholic beliefs is part of the Church's ecumenical teaching.

How Not to Share Your Faith:
The Seven Deadly Sins of Apologetics
by Mark Brumley

I honestly cannot think of a way to insult someone more than to say, "Oh whatever. You Protestants are all alike anyway. Because you're wrong!" Gee whiz. Way to be charitable! Of course, it would be so very nice to say that I have never encountered that lack of understanding (which I prefer to think of as charity) from Protestants. Sadly I can't. How can you properly discuss anything with someone unless you understand their point of view also? Or are at least willing to let them explain it to you?

Cindy Sheehan, Mr. Post, and Me

Actually, there is very little of me in this post at all, except for this introduction which I realize is very long (so perhaps there's more than just a little of me in here).

Rose said, "Look who Rolling Stone picked as their "Maverick of the Year" and held the magazine up to show us a closeup of Cindy Sheehan, her face twisted in sorrow.

*collective eye roll from everyone in the house*

I haven't said much about Cindy Sheehan here because I really haven't much to say except that I feel great pity for her. I believe she is unbalanced by her sorrow and being taken advantage (by the media if nothing else). As I was expounding on that for the umpteenth time, Rose burst out, "Even Mr. Post doesn't like her ... and he's a liberal!" (Bishop Lynch is a conservative bastion and the "liberal" teachers all are well known.)

She then pulled this editorial from the school newspaper and began to read it aloud. At that moment her ride showed up and after she left, I was so interested that I continued reading it aloud to Tom.

Cindy Sheehan And I

Hmm. This is exasperating. Frustrating. Infuriating. Maddening.

Cindy Sheehan and I.

I have read a good bit on her, since that is what I do. I read a good bit in a good bit of publications about a good bit of people and a good bit of subjects. I am an American intellectual with the academic pedigree to anchor it, the didactic curiosity to sustain it and the confidence to flaunt it.

We have next to nothing in common, Cindy Sheehan and I. She is from the West. I am from the East. She is a woman. I am a man. She likes wine. I like beer. She appears to be unemployed. I work a million hours a week. She has bad hair. I have no hair. She alludes to the "treasonous deviltry" of the right and the "conniving greed" and "commercial manipulation" by the Jews to cause this war. I encourage sober evaluation of Conservative reasoning and teach the historically justified trepidation of the Jews. And yet, due mostly to the irresponsible promotion of her by the media and the carelessness for which most Americans cultivate their judgments, we are the same.

Exactly the same, Cindy Sheehan and I.

You see, Cindy Sheehan and I oppose the war in Iraq. She has been presented by the mainstream media as the symbol of the anti-war movement by lending ridiculous amounts of air and print time to her funky, contrived protest in Crawford in which she demanded the politically impossible: a face to face talk with our Commander in Chief about why her son was killed in the conflict. So we have formed an invisible and yet impenetrable bond with each other, Cindy Sheehan and I.

Because of her of the war eventually ends with me being defensive and dismissive about Cindy Sheehan and her neo-hippie polemics about why we are in error for waging this conflict. I do not have the space allotted in this forum to properly elucidate the salient arguments, be they ultimately right or wrong, that provide the ballast for my opposition.

But trust me on this one -- or come by any time at the end of Heritage Hall and we can advocate our contentions in person -- I have absolutely lucid, rational, informed and intellectually honest rationale.

Cindy Sheehan does not.

I can trace, for instance, in whatever detail you desire, the complex, serpentine path of Al Qaeda commencing with the Afghanistan resistance to the Soviet Union invasion in the late seventies, to last weeks arrest in Bali of 4 money launderers in a second tier sleeper cell supported by a convoluted terrorist network of shady operatives like Butheiana al-Haj Saleh and Rafkik Bashar al-Semak.

Cindy Sheehan can not.

I can tell you the dynamics and peculiarly American reluctance to embrace Imperialism that has led us through a long trail of disappointments that includes the Post-Spanish War Philippine revolution, to complications in the artificial construction of sovereign countries in post-WWI Europe, to systematic flaws in Cold-War Domino Theory initiatives like the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam, to the precarious and dicey nation-building effort in Iraq today.

Cindy Sheehan can not.

I can effortlessly engage in lively and multi-faceted discussions on a variety of levels about the ramifications of our dependency on crude oil. I can highlight the diverse commentaries of Thomas Friedman, David Broeder, Noam Chomsky and George Will as to the critical element of oil in the ultimate outcomes of our goals and aspirations as the leader of the free world.

Cindy Sheehan can not.

If, by this stage of this rant you have attained the glazed over look of the typical American consumer of journalism, than you have confirmed my claims.

And yet Cindy Sheehan, because of the media's obsession with her honestly motivated but ultimately trite, goofy mission, and the determination of Americans to insist on cursory analysis, she has become the talisman of the anti-war movement. Preposterous.

Is the media wagging the electorate? Is the government wagging the media that is wagging the electorate? Is the pedestrian American, groomed on a steady and relentless diet of 60 second sound bites on the occasional evening news, wagging the media who is wagging the government?

That my friends, I do not know. But guess what? Neither does Cindy Sheehan.

Hmm.

I suppose, than, in the end, we do have something in common after all, Cindy Sheehan and I..

Mr. Post is another of the excellent teachers Hannah has been fortunate enough to have at Bishop Lynch. He teaches U.S. Government and is a tough grader. As mentioned above, he's a known liberal (quelle horreur!) and this makes the kids wary when they take his class. Hannah also found him to be intelligent, humorous, and extremely fair.

The Anchoress has often reminded us of her liberal friends with whom she does not agree often, but with whom she is still friends regardless.

Mr. Post's editorial reminds me of this and also makes me think of my very good friend, Toby, who is one of the few liberal leaners with whom I can have a rational conversation about politics and religion without either of us going for the throat. We respect each other's beliefs, intelligence, and ability to reason ... even if we also believe that the other person is generally wrong. (Ahhh, but we all have the right to be wrong about politics as well as religion, do we not?)

This is a truly rare quality. I am lucky to find it in Toby. Hannah is lucky to have seen her teacher exhibit it so consistently. And I feel lucky to pass this editorial on to y'all, even though I do not agree with Mr. Post about the war in Iraq. Should we ever discuss it (Heaven forfend ... I have the distinct notion he'd argue circles around me), I somehow feel that he and I would have much more in common than Cindy Sheehan has with either one of us.

Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself

Has it ever occurred to you how astonishing the culture of Western society really is? Industrialized nations provide their citizens with unprecedented safety, health, and comfort. Average life spans increased 50 percent in the last century. Yet modern people live in abject fear. They are afraid of strangers, disease, of crime, of the environment. They are afraid of the homes they live in, the food they eat, the technology that surrounds them. They are in a particular panic over things they can't even see -- germs, chemicals, additives, pollutants. They are timid, nervous, fretful, and depressed. And even more amazingly, they are convinced that the environment of the entire planet is being destroyed around them. Remarkable! Like the belief in witchcraft, it's an extraordinary delusion -- a global fantasy worthy of the Middle Ages. Everything is going to hell, and we must all live in fear.

Michael Crichton, State of Fear, quoted in
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science

You know, that never had occurred to me, although I recognized it as soon as I read it. Remarkable indeed.

Why is this? Tom blames the media for their desire to sell with alarmist headlines and sound bytes. I agree although I also would include the experts who constantly are chiming in about the dire consequences of not following recommendations whether it is about child care, household products, the environment, or voting. Is it any wonder that we are so cynical about what "everybody knows" in our household?

2005 Weblog Award Results

Find them here. None of my favorites won though The Anchoress came in second in the Best Conservative Blog category. It doesn't really matter as the true honor in any of these awards (IMO) is being nominated. Like a lot of the awards listings, this is a good source to check out the favorites in the blogsphere.

It Ain't Necessarily So: Stem Cells

SEOUL (Reuters) - Key parts of a landmark paper from South Korea's most renowned stem cell scientist were fabricated and the researcher is seeking to have the work withdrawn, a close collaborator told South Korean media on Thursday...

Roh told media nine of the 11 stem cell lines that were part of the tailored stem study paper were fabricated and the authenticity of the other two was questionable.

According to recent reports in South Korean media, some of the photographic images of the stem cells lines may have been manipulated to make it appear as if there were 11 separate lines.

Read the whole story

Skipping ahead a bit in the The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, this quote seems prescient when taken into account with the happenings above.

For years it was not stem cells but gene therapy -- the idea of fixing a disease by mending broken DNA -- that seemed to be the ultimate expression of molecular medicine. Cures, we were told, lay just around the corner. Unfortunately, success turned out to be much harder to achieve in people than to diagram on a chalkboard ... Realization that the promised cures were years away finally burst the bubble. Today, a disappointingly small number of hardy investigators remain in what was once medicine's most highly anticipated new area of research.

Is this going to be the fate of embryonic stem cell science in five or ten years? I hope not, and yet it's also not very difficult to imagine this happening. Already newspapers are filled with extravagant claims of progress and cures. These reports belie the very slow rate of true scientific advancement. Add to this the explicit expectation of rapid clinical progress ... and you have a recipe for trouble.

David A. Shaywitz,
Harvard stem cell researcher,
Washington Post, April 29, 2005

UPDATE: Get Religion has a good story with links about the cloning superstar's "feet of clay."

Dialogue

For all these years I had thought of doubt and faith as mutually exclusive opposites. Also faith and reason, faith and despair, faith and fear. I had thought that as long as I still had doubt, I could not have faith. For all these years, I had assumed that god did not want to hear from me until I had resolved my doubts and vanquished my uncertainty.

But that Thursday night in April with the Virgin Mary sleeping in the room next door, it suddenly occurred to me that I was wrong. Maybe this endless internal monologue need not be a monologue at all. Maybe it was meant to be a dialogue. Perhaps, for all these years, I had not needed to be talking to myself. Perhaps, for all these years, I could have been talking to God. Perhaps that night, when I thought I was thinking, really I was praying.

Perhaps it was more important to ask these questions than to have all the answers. Perhaps God was just as interested in hearing about my doubts as anything else. I finally understood that just as, according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, a system is changed by the observer, so I, too, was being changed forever by asking the questions in the first place. I finally understood that my uncertainty and my doubt were gifts that made me the perfect candidate for faith.

Our Lady of the Lost and Found
by Diane Schoemperlen

Because the person who keeps questioning and looking will be answered in the end. Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened. People who think that God expects certainty and perfect faith and therefore turn away don't understand that doubt and questions are the human condition. Good thing for us that God knows it. And He never gives up on us. Never.

Peddling Fear

Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider, winner of a MacArthur Fellow "genius" award in 1992, was quoted as saying: "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means both."

Discover, October 1989, quoted in
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science

This seems to me to be a rare moment of unguarded honesty in how much of science operates today. Perhaps something we should all keep in mind?

I Just Can't Put This Book Down

Garlic and Sapphires : The Secret Life of a Critic in Disguise by Ruth Reichl

I tried Reichl's first two memoirs attracted by the food writing connection but, let's face it, I just don't like the grittiness that comes with some memoirs and Reichl's were of that sort to me. This book, however, is nothing like that as Reichl is telling about her struggles to stay "under cover" as when it is announced she will be the next NY Times food critic her photo is plastered all over restaurant kitchens throughout the city. She also tells about her struggles to change the sorts of restaurants that the Times covers, including a hilarious recounting of her interview where she tried her hardest to be so outrageous that they wouldn't offer her the job. I am only partway through but this book is a great read for anyone interested in food writing ... or any writing.