Skip to main content

Note

For some strange reason, Blogger is acting up again. This is a new twist, however. I can't access NWW through Firefox anymore. I'm automatically redirected to the Blogger 'create a blog' page. Last night the 'new post' page was still available in Firefox, but today trying to access the 'new post' page gave me a really long error message:
java.lang.RuntimeException: can't load class com.google.blogger.base.User from database at com.google.blogger.dbreader.SqlServer.query(SqlServer.java:1639) at com.google.blogger.base.BaseUser.select(BaseUser.java:116) at com.google.blogger.base.BaseUser.selectByUsername(BaseUser.java:95) at com.google.blogger.base.User.load(User.java:146) [and on and on it goes]
The really odd thing is that I can still access the site and create posts in Explorer. I'm mystified. I added a post last night after the trouble began, just to be sure that IE wasn't simply showing me a cached page. Nope, the new post showed up. I briefly saw the same effect on Jay Jardine's site, but he looks to be OK now. anybody have any idea what's going on? I'm not really happy about working in IE. I miss my tabs! I'm prone to have oodles of them open at a time... Before I head out to the backyard again, I wanted to share a good story from the Times UK (they always have good stuff). I'll probably switch away from all the Papacy coverage I've been doing soon, so I'll get this one in while it's still currant. Why did the Cardinals thumb their noses at the chattering classes of the west? It's simple, really:
If you, as the papacy does, claim direct authority, through your 264 predecessors from the ministry of St Peter, who, the Gospels tell us was inaugurated into that ministry by the Son of God while he was present on earth, is it really possible to take anything other than a bit of a traditionalist view when it comes to doctrinal matters? Don’t get me wrong; I’m not suggesting, at this sensitive moment, that God is a Tory. But the Church’s mission is to bear witness to the truth. The truth is not something that needs redefining each time a pope dies. And it’s not really evident that churches that have made the kind of accommodations with modernity that are urged on the Vatican have fared all that well. The Church of England is a mostly genial institution led, in Rowan Williams, by a good and holy man, but I don’t get the sense that the post hoc validation of modern social mores that the C of E has been practising for some time has led to a religious awakening among the British.
Finally, the author of the article is probably on to something when he makes a guess as to why Ratzinger chose the name 'Benedict' for his papal name:
The Cardinals think long and hard about the choice of a papal nomen. It is intended as a clear signal of their intent. Much attention has focused on the previous 15 popes called Benedict. But it is worth remembering that the first St Benedict was not a pope, but the founder of the monastic order that bears his name. Benedict is the patron saint of Europe. His principal legacy — the Benedictines — was critical in planting the roots of Christianity throughout Europe in the dark, post-Roman period of the 6th and subsequent centuries. Without Benedict, Europe may not have been the centre of Christianity in the Middle Ages that made it the birthplace of modern civilisation.
If this is correct it suggests another reason why Ratzinger may have been attractive to the Cardinals. They know they need to address Europe. I suspect this will be a long job, one that will take considerably longer than Ratzinger has. He will want to pass along what he has, and pass it along intact, to future generations of European Catholics. I'm thinking there may be a new emphasis on Catholic education and on vocations. Given his last job, cleaning up the schools might be a job Ratz is well suited for. He will also get little or no credit for it in the present. It's a job whose fruits lie in the future.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi