Some Clarifications on Fr. Henri de Lubac and His Views on the Relationship Between Nature and Grace:
When responding to an email correspondence some time ago on the subject of nature and grace at this humble weblog, I noted a few things about Fr. Henri de Lubac's position and also that I would send this link to a couple theologians more familiar with de Lubac's work than I am for confirmation on this.{1} That was done and responses were actually pretty prompt on the part of those whom I sent a note to about a clarification. However, as this was in the weeks winding down to the election, I wanted to focus on subjects pertaining to that event and put this thread on the backburner. Nonetheless, here is the note that was sent back in mid September of 2004:
From: I. Shawn McElhinney
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 12:47 PM
To:
Subject: Request for a Clarification (and Possible Correction)...
I note the area where I would like a clarification (if it is deemed necessary) in this post:
[Link snipped]
As two theologians who have read more of Cardinal de Lubac's work than I have, I will accept any corrections you may have of my representation of his view on nature and grace.
The first response I received was from Kevin Miller, a professor of theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville -who is well studied in the work of Fr. Henri de Lubac (certainly far beyond my own studies in this area). Here is what he had to say:
Shawn,
Yes, de Lubac (and Rahner) did indeed take a position that was explicitly distinct from the one rejected in HG.
Regarding Teilhard de Chardin - I'm actually not sure when de L started defending him; I'm not sure, therefore, how much that had to do with de L's troubles. I think the problem was at least partly that some people in Rome (who already disliked de L's work) misread HG and/or de L and wrongly took de L's view on nature/grace as he'd recently expressed it in Surnaturel (and perhaps other elements of his methodology) to be rejected by HG (e.g., by reading the position of the writer "D" into de L). Robert can probably give you more details on that.
The second response I received was from Robert Gotcher, a professor of systematic theology at Sacred Heart School of Theology among whose specialties include the theology of Fr. Henri de Lubac. Here is what he had to say:
Shawn,
De Lubac didn't start publicly defending Teilhard de Chardin until 1960, as far as I know. What he did in private, I don't know. As for HG, de Lubac would have said "of course!" to Pius XII's statement. He would have then added that those rational beings would not be human beings, but something else. So he did dodge that particular bullet.
He was never censured for any statement as far as I know. Nor was he ever punished by the Vatican.
Anyway, the readers are asked to accept these notes as correctives to my previously enunciated post on these subjects.
Note:
{1} Though this statement was true as far as it goes; nonetheless it was admittedly no small understatement on my part. (As my studies of de Lubac cannot compare to that of two professors who are specialized in his theology.)
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Points to Ponder:
(On an Obvious Double Standard)
I remember a few years back when Bill Clinton was president. Social Security, we were frequently told, was on the verge of bankruptcy. Decreasing worker payments and increasing boomer retirements were the cause. Only a dedicated, brilliant, and left-wing social servant like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Bill Bradley could possibly save us by reforming the program.
But now that George Bush works in the Oval Office, things are looking up. Social Security is just fine and dandy, thank you very much, and there's no reason to change one iota of the program. Oh we might consider tinkering here and there to make it even better than perfect, but really there's no need for alarmed, hasty, or even prompt action on the matter. [Ian McLean (circa 02/05/05)]
(On an Obvious Double Standard)
I remember a few years back when Bill Clinton was president. Social Security, we were frequently told, was on the verge of bankruptcy. Decreasing worker payments and increasing boomer retirements were the cause. Only a dedicated, brilliant, and left-wing social servant like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Bill Bradley could possibly save us by reforming the program.
But now that George Bush works in the Oval Office, things are looking up. Social Security is just fine and dandy, thank you very much, and there's no reason to change one iota of the program. Oh we might consider tinkering here and there to make it even better than perfect, but really there's no need for alarmed, hasty, or even prompt action on the matter. [Ian McLean (circa 02/05/05)]
Friday, February 04, 2005
Points to Ponder:
We've heard it before that whenever social security reform is planned, republicans are out to "steal the money of old people" or "mortaging our future by robbing from the people present." Yet this tactic is now absolutely useless in the social security debate, since those around the age of 55 who are going to retire will not be effected by any of the Reforms. The AARP can no longer complain about how retired people will be effected, because retired people won't be effected! This has been the lefts tactic on social security for 20 years, and with one masterful swoop, Bush flanked them. He also laid out just the principles, and wants Congress to do something. In other words, if the left wants to succeed here, they can't just be anti-bush, but for something. Yet as we know, the Democrat Party no longer stands for anything worthwhile, they just oppose Bush. [Kevin Tierney (circa February 3, 2005)]
We've heard it before that whenever social security reform is planned, republicans are out to "steal the money of old people" or "mortaging our future by robbing from the people present." Yet this tactic is now absolutely useless in the social security debate, since those around the age of 55 who are going to retire will not be effected by any of the Reforms. The AARP can no longer complain about how retired people will be effected, because retired people won't be effected! This has been the lefts tactic on social security for 20 years, and with one masterful swoop, Bush flanked them. He also laid out just the principles, and wants Congress to do something. In other words, if the left wants to succeed here, they can't just be anti-bush, but for something. Yet as we know, the Democrat Party no longer stands for anything worthwhile, they just oppose Bush. [Kevin Tierney (circa February 3, 2005)]
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Points to Ponder:
(A Special "Engrave the Tombstone Dept." Edition)
Though a lot could be said about how good President Bush's State of the Union Speech was (I caught it on playback incidentally enough), it seems for the sake of economy of time (on my part) appropriate to allow Libertarian Neil Boortz to comment on the subject since on this matter he and I have a lot of similar views. Without further ado, here are some points to ponder from Mr. Boortz circa today:
Fresh off his State of the Union speech last night, naturally the media came out with a variety of instant polls. So what were the results? The fact is Bush hit one out of the park. It was probably the best speech of his presidency, and better than his inauguration speech from a couple weeks ago. The general public seems to agree.
This all leads to a headache for Democrats this morning. Their favorite "scare tactic" program is in trouble. After Bush's speech last night polls showed that Americans are reacting more favorably to Bush's ideas. Before the speech 51% of Americans thought that Bush was moving America in the right direction on Social Security. After the speech that figure was 66%. That's a 15% increase with just this speech. (By the way, the figures for Bush's policies on Iraq went from 66% to 78%.) Before the speech the CNN/Gallup poll asked Americans if Bush was making a convincing case on Social Security. The figure before the speech -- 67%. After the speech -- 74%. This spells nothing but trouble for Democrats.
The part of George Bush's speech that brought the moans was his assertion that by 2042 Social Security would be exhausted and bankrupt. Boos from Democrats. Can you believe it? Never in the history of the State of the Union Speech have boos been heard. Tradition, courtesy and protocol means nothing to Democrats when it comes to expressing their hatred of George Bush, their pathological dismay at losing the reigns of power in Washington, and their fear of Social Security privatization.
Now ... the Democrats will tell you that the boos were deserved; deserved because of Bush's statement that Social Security will be bankrupt by 2042. Democrats will point you to the ephemeral Social Security Trust Fund. They will tell you that there is plenty of money in the Trust Fund to take care of things for fifty years or more into the future.
Come on, folks. I know you aren't buying that one. Listen closely. There is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund. It is gone. All of it. Spent. Every single year for decades Democrats and Republicans have raided the Social Security Trust Fund of every single penny that was left after that year's benefits were paid. That money was taken and spent on various vote-buying programs. All that Social Security has left is some IOUs sitting in a grey metal filing cabinet in West Virginia.
Think this through. What happens in 2042 (or earlier) when working Americans are not paying enough in Social Security taxes to cover the benefits for retired Americans. Some of those IOUs in that filing cabinet are going to have to be cashed in. And where is that money to come from? The U.S. Treasury, that's where. Can you tell me where the huge surplus resides from which that money can be drawn? Yup, you're right. There is no fund anywhere just waiting to cough up the money to cash in those trust fund IOUs. This means that our congress will have to either (a) cut spending in other areas to come up with the cash; (b) raise taxes to come up with the cash, or (b) borrow the money. That's a crisis, folks, by any definition. A crises denied by Democrats .. denied for purely partisan reasons.
AND THE DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE
Did you catch the Democratic response to the State of the Union address? This one was a complete bust...a real snoozer. It's hard to believe...but it's true: the Democrats have selected a worse communicator than Tom Daschle to represent them in the Senate. Watching Harry Reid is about as exciting as reading an apartment lease.
Anyway, it was Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, sitting there looking like they should be selling jewelry or sex aids on the shopping channel. Reid went first, and his goal was to bash the president and detail the obstructionist Democratic agenda. In a display of blatant hypocrisy, the Democratic leader took a swipe at the president for the large budget deficits. Fair enough. Spending has increased exponentially since Bush took office. But then Reid went on to propose more and more spending.....spending that would cost billions. So which is it? Is it that the president is spending too much money, or is it the deficit? The answer is neither.
The Democrats would gleefully raise your taxes to cover the shortfall in the deficit and in the process snuff out the economic recovery. They have no intention to cut spending at all whatsoever. Then he talked about Social Security. More on that in a minute.
Then it was time to hand it over to Ms. Extreme Makeover herself, Nancy Pelosi. The radical 60's leftist aging hippie from Haight - Ashbury who wants to somehow convince us that she's actually some sort of moderate started to talk about foreign policy. This is where the whole thing turned into an outrageous disaster.
After Bush stood up there and said he didn't want to give a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq because he didn't want the Islamic terrorists to wait us out, Pelosi demanded one. Then she went on to demand that the president do everything the president is already doing.
The Democratic party continues its long walk off a short plank, and the disastrous leadership on the left in the Congress is leading the charge.
Democrats actually have a pretty simple template when it comes to approving or fighting legislation in the congress. If the legislation would make Americans more independent of government, the bill must be fought. If the legislation would make Americans more dependent on government, the legislation is praiseworthy. Do you think I'm oversimplifying things? Fine! Watch for yourself. Watch the legislation that Democrats love. Universal health care, expansion of "refundable" tax credits, spending programs after spending programs ... all designed to make Americans more and more dependent on government handouts and government programs. When someone introduces legislation that would make it easier for individuals to purchase their own health insurance policies, Democrats rise in opposition. When a bill appears on the floor that would make it easier for parents to get their children out of the clutches of our hideous government schools, Democrats go nuts! It's all about dependency. Democrats know that the less people need government, the less people need Democrats. The idea of generations of Americans investing in their own retirements, instead of leaving that cash in the hands of the government, brings nothing but despair to the left.
Will the Democrats come up with a plan to counter Bush's efforts? Sure they will. They must! With 74% of Americans saying that Bush is making a convincing case for Social Security reform, Democrats must come up with something. Here's your guarantee. The Democrats' plan will involve tax increases. Oh, they may not call them tax increases ... but tax increases they will be. A no-brainer, my friends. An easy call...
You no doubt heard the president announce his plans for reforming Social Security last night. In what can only be described as a political masterstroke, he only gave an outline of how the program should be reformed. He is leaving it to the Congress to come up with a solution. He even went on to give the names of several prominent Democrats and the solutions they offered. Bush's game plan is pretty simple. Don't raise Social Security Taxes, allow people to invest at least some of the money they earned in their own privately owned accounts, and don't mess with the benefits for people 55 and over.
So what was the Democratic response to this bipartisan outreach?
Harry Reid has the response immediately after the President's speech. Reid said they "disagree with the president's plan to privatize Social Security." This is a scare tactic. Bush just wants to make privately-owned accounts a part of the Social Security mix. That's not "privatizing Social Security." It's a simple scare tactic, but it will work with those with less than clear thinking abilities who tend to vote for Democrats.
Reid also said "it's wrong to replace the guaranteed benefit that Americans have earned with a guaranteed benefit cut of 40 percent or more." My friends, there is no guaranteed benefit. Harry Reid can not point to one single paragraph in the U.S. Code that guarantees any Social Security benefits to anyone. When benefits can be taken away on a simple whim and a majority vote in the Congress there is NO guarantee. When you own the account yourself ... when that account is your private property ... well that's about as close to a guarantee as you can get in this world. Also, Bush is not proposing any cuts in benefits. This is a favorite Democrat trick. Bush is merely going to change the formula used to calculate Social Security benefits in future years so that benefits don't grow faster than the rate of inflation. Doesn't that make perfect sense? [Neil Boortz (circa February 3, 2005)]
(A Special "Engrave the Tombstone Dept." Edition)
Though a lot could be said about how good President Bush's State of the Union Speech was (I caught it on playback incidentally enough), it seems for the sake of economy of time (on my part) appropriate to allow Libertarian Neil Boortz to comment on the subject since on this matter he and I have a lot of similar views. Without further ado, here are some points to ponder from Mr. Boortz circa today:
Fresh off his State of the Union speech last night, naturally the media came out with a variety of instant polls. So what were the results? The fact is Bush hit one out of the park. It was probably the best speech of his presidency, and better than his inauguration speech from a couple weeks ago. The general public seems to agree.
This all leads to a headache for Democrats this morning. Their favorite "scare tactic" program is in trouble. After Bush's speech last night polls showed that Americans are reacting more favorably to Bush's ideas. Before the speech 51% of Americans thought that Bush was moving America in the right direction on Social Security. After the speech that figure was 66%. That's a 15% increase with just this speech. (By the way, the figures for Bush's policies on Iraq went from 66% to 78%.) Before the speech the CNN/Gallup poll asked Americans if Bush was making a convincing case on Social Security. The figure before the speech -- 67%. After the speech -- 74%. This spells nothing but trouble for Democrats.
The part of George Bush's speech that brought the moans was his assertion that by 2042 Social Security would be exhausted and bankrupt. Boos from Democrats. Can you believe it? Never in the history of the State of the Union Speech have boos been heard. Tradition, courtesy and protocol means nothing to Democrats when it comes to expressing their hatred of George Bush, their pathological dismay at losing the reigns of power in Washington, and their fear of Social Security privatization.
Now ... the Democrats will tell you that the boos were deserved; deserved because of Bush's statement that Social Security will be bankrupt by 2042. Democrats will point you to the ephemeral Social Security Trust Fund. They will tell you that there is plenty of money in the Trust Fund to take care of things for fifty years or more into the future.
Come on, folks. I know you aren't buying that one. Listen closely. There is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund. It is gone. All of it. Spent. Every single year for decades Democrats and Republicans have raided the Social Security Trust Fund of every single penny that was left after that year's benefits were paid. That money was taken and spent on various vote-buying programs. All that Social Security has left is some IOUs sitting in a grey metal filing cabinet in West Virginia.
Think this through. What happens in 2042 (or earlier) when working Americans are not paying enough in Social Security taxes to cover the benefits for retired Americans. Some of those IOUs in that filing cabinet are going to have to be cashed in. And where is that money to come from? The U.S. Treasury, that's where. Can you tell me where the huge surplus resides from which that money can be drawn? Yup, you're right. There is no fund anywhere just waiting to cough up the money to cash in those trust fund IOUs. This means that our congress will have to either (a) cut spending in other areas to come up with the cash; (b) raise taxes to come up with the cash, or (b) borrow the money. That's a crisis, folks, by any definition. A crises denied by Democrats .. denied for purely partisan reasons.
AND THE DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE
Did you catch the Democratic response to the State of the Union address? This one was a complete bust...a real snoozer. It's hard to believe...but it's true: the Democrats have selected a worse communicator than Tom Daschle to represent them in the Senate. Watching Harry Reid is about as exciting as reading an apartment lease.
Anyway, it was Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, sitting there looking like they should be selling jewelry or sex aids on the shopping channel. Reid went first, and his goal was to bash the president and detail the obstructionist Democratic agenda. In a display of blatant hypocrisy, the Democratic leader took a swipe at the president for the large budget deficits. Fair enough. Spending has increased exponentially since Bush took office. But then Reid went on to propose more and more spending.....spending that would cost billions. So which is it? Is it that the president is spending too much money, or is it the deficit? The answer is neither.
The Democrats would gleefully raise your taxes to cover the shortfall in the deficit and in the process snuff out the economic recovery. They have no intention to cut spending at all whatsoever. Then he talked about Social Security. More on that in a minute.
Then it was time to hand it over to Ms. Extreme Makeover herself, Nancy Pelosi. The radical 60's leftist aging hippie from Haight - Ashbury who wants to somehow convince us that she's actually some sort of moderate started to talk about foreign policy. This is where the whole thing turned into an outrageous disaster.
After Bush stood up there and said he didn't want to give a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq because he didn't want the Islamic terrorists to wait us out, Pelosi demanded one. Then she went on to demand that the president do everything the president is already doing.
The Democratic party continues its long walk off a short plank, and the disastrous leadership on the left in the Congress is leading the charge.
Democrats actually have a pretty simple template when it comes to approving or fighting legislation in the congress. If the legislation would make Americans more independent of government, the bill must be fought. If the legislation would make Americans more dependent on government, the legislation is praiseworthy. Do you think I'm oversimplifying things? Fine! Watch for yourself. Watch the legislation that Democrats love. Universal health care, expansion of "refundable" tax credits, spending programs after spending programs ... all designed to make Americans more and more dependent on government handouts and government programs. When someone introduces legislation that would make it easier for individuals to purchase their own health insurance policies, Democrats rise in opposition. When a bill appears on the floor that would make it easier for parents to get their children out of the clutches of our hideous government schools, Democrats go nuts! It's all about dependency. Democrats know that the less people need government, the less people need Democrats. The idea of generations of Americans investing in their own retirements, instead of leaving that cash in the hands of the government, brings nothing but despair to the left.
Will the Democrats come up with a plan to counter Bush's efforts? Sure they will. They must! With 74% of Americans saying that Bush is making a convincing case for Social Security reform, Democrats must come up with something. Here's your guarantee. The Democrats' plan will involve tax increases. Oh, they may not call them tax increases ... but tax increases they will be. A no-brainer, my friends. An easy call...
You no doubt heard the president announce his plans for reforming Social Security last night. In what can only be described as a political masterstroke, he only gave an outline of how the program should be reformed. He is leaving it to the Congress to come up with a solution. He even went on to give the names of several prominent Democrats and the solutions they offered. Bush's game plan is pretty simple. Don't raise Social Security Taxes, allow people to invest at least some of the money they earned in their own privately owned accounts, and don't mess with the benefits for people 55 and over.
So what was the Democratic response to this bipartisan outreach?
Harry Reid has the response immediately after the President's speech. Reid said they "disagree with the president's plan to privatize Social Security." This is a scare tactic. Bush just wants to make privately-owned accounts a part of the Social Security mix. That's not "privatizing Social Security." It's a simple scare tactic, but it will work with those with less than clear thinking abilities who tend to vote for Democrats.
Reid also said "it's wrong to replace the guaranteed benefit that Americans have earned with a guaranteed benefit cut of 40 percent or more." My friends, there is no guaranteed benefit. Harry Reid can not point to one single paragraph in the U.S. Code that guarantees any Social Security benefits to anyone. When benefits can be taken away on a simple whim and a majority vote in the Congress there is NO guarantee. When you own the account yourself ... when that account is your private property ... well that's about as close to a guarantee as you can get in this world. Also, Bush is not proposing any cuts in benefits. This is a favorite Democrat trick. Bush is merely going to change the formula used to calculate Social Security benefits in future years so that benefits don't grow faster than the rate of inflation. Doesn't that make perfect sense? [Neil Boortz (circa February 3, 2005)]
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Well now, it seems that Howard Dean has virtually no opposition to becoming the next Democratic Party Chairman. It is therefore appropriate to remind the readers of this humble weblog what Our views on this situation happen to be.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
St. Blogs Annual Awards:
(The picks of your humbler servant at Rerum Novarum)
I suppose these are at least more interesting to consider than the Academy Awards or the Oscars since what is involved here is more than mindless entertainment. Nonetheless, with the exception of certain categories where I am either uncertain of whom to vote for or feel the need to recuse myself from voting in for various and sundry reasons (where I will note an uncertainty of whom to vote for) here are my picks for 2004:
Most Humourous: Jeff Miller's Curt Jester
Best Apologetical: Dave Armstrong's Cor ad Cor Loquitur
Best Group: Envoy Encore - Carl E. Olson, Dwight Longenecker, Jim Moore, Patrick Madrid, Patty Bonds, Pete Vere
Best blog by a woman: Eve Tushnet
Best blog by a priest: Fr. Jim Tucker's Dappled Things
Best Political Analysis: Catholics in the Public Square - Oswald Sobrino, Earl E. Appleby Jr, Jeff Miller, David Schrader, Christopher Blosser
Most Bizarre: Dale Price's Dyspeptic Mutterings{1}
Best Social Commentary: Not sure whom to vote for here
Most Creative: Jeff Miller's Curt Jester
Best Presentation: Christopher Blosser's Against the Grain
Most Devotional: Gerard Serafin's BLOG for Lovers
Most Intellectual: Dr. Philip Blosser's Musings of a Pertinacious Papist /Ian McLean's SecretAgentMan (tie)
Most Insightful: Not sure whom to vote for here
Most Informative: Heart, Mind, and Strength
Most Theological: Thoughts of Apolonio Latar III
Best Blog Overall: Mark Shea's Catholic and Enjoying It
Best New Blog: Jonathan Prejean's Crimson Catholic
As I noted to some friends who spoke of this humble weblog, I do not think Rerum Novarum is specialized enough to be viable in very many categories. (We do too much here to be put into the kinds of neat boxes that categories common to awards attempt to do.). Nonetheless, nominations are (of course) appreciated. We did get some votes last year in a couple of categories (one of which I found rather puzzling) but that is neither here nor there. Anyway, there are my votes in the various categories for those who are interested.
Note:
{1} Dale has some of the best fisks of liberal lunacy to be found anywhere in the blogosphere and for that he deserves recognition. Since Jeff Miller is most humourous, I have to elect Dale to something; ergo, most Bizarre.
(The picks of your humbler servant at Rerum Novarum)
I suppose these are at least more interesting to consider than the Academy Awards or the Oscars since what is involved here is more than mindless entertainment. Nonetheless, with the exception of certain categories where I am either uncertain of whom to vote for or feel the need to recuse myself from voting in for various and sundry reasons (where I will note an uncertainty of whom to vote for) here are my picks for 2004:
Most Humourous: Jeff Miller's Curt Jester
Best Apologetical: Dave Armstrong's Cor ad Cor Loquitur
Best Group: Envoy Encore - Carl E. Olson, Dwight Longenecker, Jim Moore, Patrick Madrid, Patty Bonds, Pete Vere
Best blog by a woman: Eve Tushnet
Best blog by a priest: Fr. Jim Tucker's Dappled Things
Best Political Analysis: Catholics in the Public Square - Oswald Sobrino, Earl E. Appleby Jr, Jeff Miller, David Schrader, Christopher Blosser
Most Bizarre: Dale Price's Dyspeptic Mutterings{1}
Best Social Commentary: Not sure whom to vote for here
Most Creative: Jeff Miller's Curt Jester
Best Presentation: Christopher Blosser's Against the Grain
Most Devotional: Gerard Serafin's BLOG for Lovers
Most Intellectual: Dr. Philip Blosser's Musings of a Pertinacious Papist /Ian McLean's SecretAgentMan (tie)
Most Insightful: Not sure whom to vote for here
Most Informative: Heart, Mind, and Strength
Most Theological: Thoughts of Apolonio Latar III
Best Blog Overall: Mark Shea's Catholic and Enjoying It
Best New Blog: Jonathan Prejean's Crimson Catholic
As I noted to some friends who spoke of this humble weblog, I do not think Rerum Novarum is specialized enough to be viable in very many categories. (We do too much here to be put into the kinds of neat boxes that categories common to awards attempt to do.). Nonetheless, nominations are (of course) appreciated. We did get some votes last year in a couple of categories (one of which I found rather puzzling) but that is neither here nor there. Anyway, there are my votes in the various categories for those who are interested.
Note:
{1} Dale has some of the best fisks of liberal lunacy to be found anywhere in the blogosphere and for that he deserves recognition. Since Jeff Miller is most humourous, I have to elect Dale to something; ergo, most Bizarre.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
A Minor Rerum Novarum Weblog Readjustment and Update:
Basically, a few subcategories were renamed (slightly), a few categories were adjusted in the margin to be in different parts of the scroll, a few weblogs were added, two weblogs were reclassified into a new "on haitus" classification, and the JibJab political parody site was added in the list of recommended links. The new subcategory in that heading (Recommended* Articles on Various Subjects) will be enlarged in the coming weeks as I peruse the archives and look for miscellaneous links recommended in the past to put there.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
[Update: I have perused the archives at Rerum Novarum going back to June 2004 and culled a bunch of socio-political articles as well as religious-theological articles that were posted to this weblog. They were added to the side margin today and other articles in the archives will be added as I find them and have time to format and add them. Anyway, this is just a brief note on the matter for those who are interested. - ISM 1/31/05 8:58 pm]
[Update: The archives through 2004 have now been perused now and the vast majority of the recommended links which still work have been added to the side margins. - ISM 2/02/05 4:58 pm]
Basically, a few subcategories were renamed (slightly), a few categories were adjusted in the margin to be in different parts of the scroll, a few weblogs were added, two weblogs were reclassified into a new "on haitus" classification, and the JibJab political parody site was added in the list of recommended links. The new subcategory in that heading (Recommended* Articles on Various Subjects) will be enlarged in the coming weeks as I peruse the archives and look for miscellaneous links recommended in the past to put there.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
[Update: I have perused the archives at Rerum Novarum going back to June 2004 and culled a bunch of socio-political articles as well as religious-theological articles that were posted to this weblog. They were added to the side margin today and other articles in the archives will be added as I find them and have time to format and add them. Anyway, this is just a brief note on the matter for those who are interested. - ISM 1/31/05 8:58 pm]
[Update: The archives through 2004 have now been perused now and the vast majority of the recommended links which still work have been added to the side margins. - ISM 2/02/05 4:58 pm]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)