The Cross exemplifies every virtue

Why did the Son of God have to suffer for us? There was a great need, and it can be considered in a twofold way: in the first place, as a remedy for sin, and secondly, as an example of how to act.

  It is a remedy, for, in the face of all the evils which we incur on account of our sins, we have found relief through the passion of Christ. Yet, it is no less an example, for the passion of Christ completely suffices to fashion our lives. Whoever wishes to live perfectly should do nothing but disdain what Christ disdained on the cross and desire what he desired, for the cross exemplifies every virtue.

  If you seek the example of love: Greater love than this no man has, than to lay down his life for his friends. Such a man was Christ on the cross. And if he gave his life for us, then it should not be difficult to bear whatever hardships arise for his sake.

  If you seek patience, you will find no better example than the cross. Great patience occurs in two ways: either when one patiently suffers much, or when one suffers things which one is able to avoid and yet does not avoid. Christ endured much on the cross, and did so patiently, because when he suffered he did not threaten; he was led like a sheep to the slaughter and he did not open his mouth. Therefore Christ’s patience on the cross was great. In patience let us run for the prize set before us, looking upon Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith who, for the joy set before him, bore his cross and despised the shame.

  If you seek an example of humility, look upon the crucified one, for God wished to be judged by Pontius Pilate and to die.

  If you seek an example of obedience, follow him who became obedient to the Father even unto death. For just as by the disobedience of one man, namely, Adam, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one man, many were made righteous.

  If you seek an example of despising earthly things, follow him who is the King of kings and the Lord of lords, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Upon the cross he was stripped, mocked, spat upon, struck, crowned with thorns, and given only vinegar and gall to drink.

  Do not be attached, therefore, to clothing and riches, because they divided my garments among themselves. Nor to honours, for he experienced harsh words and scourgings. Nor to greatness of rank, for weaving a crown of thorns they placed it on my head. Nor to anything delightful, for in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

From a conference by Saint Thomas Aquinas, priest.
In the Office of Readings.

In Memory of All the Children Lost to, and all the Women Wounded by, the Lie

Via Mark Shea.

And the Red Cardigan says:

In fact, a simple definition of abortion might read as follows: an act which directly and intentionally kills an innocent human being at any point between conception and the completion of birth. "Pro-choice" people will rarely define abortion this way, though, preferring to leave the "innocent human being" part out of the equation. The human being in question doesn't count because she is small and totally dependent on her mother for a period of no more than nine months. Why, say "pro-choice" people, should any woman have to put up with nine whole months' worth of the inconveniences of pregnancy just to give another human being the chance to continue to live and to be?

It's so tragically sad that women have become convinced that children are the enemy, that children are impossible, that a child will end their freedom or autonomy or happiness. Children give so, so much more than they ask for in return; any parent will tell you this. But abortion has been sold to women because some people think that women, in order to be free, must be like men: capable of meaningless sexual exploits complete with the ability to walk away from any responsibilities or consequences of their actions.

Let them say that I walked with giants.

'If they ever tell my story let them say that I walked with giants. Men rise and fall like the winter wheat, but these names will never die. Let them say I lived in the time of Hector, tamer of horses. Let them say I lived in the time of Achilles.'

Life and liberty are never in conflict

'Claiming to protect the freedom of one individual can never be an excuse to take the life of another. Life and liberty are never in conflict. Life and inconvenience can be.... No one in this body can challenge me on my defence of personal choice...but I do not accept the notion that choice means the right to take the life of a human being. That's a mockery of the English language and truth. Let me hear no more of choice as an excuse to kill. Please with due respect, pick another, less offensive, word.'

Eloquently and passionately said, by a man who is probably the most consistent and earnest defender of personal choice in the US today.

They booed the Golden Rule...

the most basic and universal tenet of morality?

Swanee River

Via Teresa Thia.



:)

Mendel!

This is just brilliant! Thanks to my friends Andrew and Jean.




Later on the world was awed, at
What he learned from those pods.
But back then no one hurrahed
Gregor Mendel but his God.

Lyrics here.

What is philosophy?

Philosophy, as quest for wisdom, is quest for universal knowledge of the whole. The quest would not be necessary if such knowledge were immediately were available. The absence of knowledge of the whole does not mean, however, that man do not have thoughts about the whole: philosophy is necessarily preceded by opinions about the whole. It is, therefore, the attempt to replace opinions about the whole by knowledge of the whole.... Quest for knowledge of "all things" means quest for knowledge of God, the world, and man - or rather quest for knowledge of the natures of all things: the natures in their totality are "the whole".

Philosophy is essentially not possession of the truth, but quest for the truth. The distinctive trait of the philosopher is that 'he knows that he knows nothing," and that his insight into our ignorance concerning the most important things induces him to strive with all his power for knowledge. He would cease to be a philosopher by evading the questions concerning these things or by disregarding them because they cannot be answered. It may be that as regards the possible answers, the pros and cons will always be in a more or less even balance, and therefore that philosophy will never go beyond the stage of discussion or disputation and will never reach the stage of decision. This would not make philosophy futile. For the clear grasp of a fundamental question requires understanding of the nature of the subject matter with which the question is concerned. Genuine knowledge of a fundamental question, thorough understanding of it, is better than blindness to it, or indifference to it, be that indifference or blindness accompanied by knowledge of the answers to a vast number of peripheral or ephemeral questions or not. Minimum quod potest haberi de cognitione rerum altissimarum desiderabilius est quam certissima cognitio quae habetur de minibus rebus.* (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, qu i, a. 5)

- Leo Strauss, What is Political Philosophy? And Other Studies, p. 10.

* 'The slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things.'



Philosopher in Meditation, 1632, Rembrandt van Rijn, Louvre.

This blog's first Chuck Norris joke

Jon Stewart warns Iran

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook