Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd.
Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd.
Thinking about what happiness is.
[gallery] design-is-fine:
Gerardo Dottori, Il Trittico della Velocita, The triptych of velocity, 1927. Italy. Via wiki
reconciliation and forgiveness
Reconciliation is only possible when forgiveness meets repentance. And meaningful social change requires the kind of social reconciliation that can only emerge through aggregated instances of both forgiveness and repentance. In South Africa, during the process of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the failure of widespread repentance among whites to match widespread forgiveness among blacks constrained the possibilities for meaningful change. The United States now confronts a similar challenge: Awe-inspiring forgiveness without repentance will not bring reconciliation. Dylann Roof will not be reconciled with the families of his victims absent his repentance. And no matter how many black Americans forgive the unpayable debts owed to them by white Americans, white America will not be reconciled with black America without repentance.
Forgiveness does not displace legal accountability, and forgiveness without repentance does not bring reconciliation. But forgiveness is more than a “discourse” (Xolela Mangcu), a balm for mental and physical health (Matt Schiavenza), or a means of survival (Roxane Gay). It is not simply “noble” and “impressive” (Damon Linker). These well-intentioned efforts to domesticate forgiveness — to make it comprehensible — ultimately fall short. As Michael Wear wrote yesterday in Christianity Today, “the critiques of forgiveness in recent days are strikingly similar to the critiques against nonviolence during the civil rights movement.” Those behind the critiques — then and now — have “misunderstood the allegiances of the black Christians they criticized.” In fact, those offering forgiveness see “no conflict between forgiveness and full-throated, sacrificial advocacy for change.”
[gallery columns=“1” size=“full” ids=“18065”]
[gallery columns=“1” size=“large” ids=“18068”]
eadfrith: Holkham Bible Picture Book - folio 2r; God the Creator with his architect’s compasses in a ring, surrounded by a colourful heaven. Angels above and hell-fire and the Hell Mouth below. Manuscript dated to 1327 - 1335 and made in England possibly London.
[gallery] amare-habeo:
Max Ernst (German, 1891-1976)
Young Man Intrigued by the Flight of a Non - Euclidean Fly
(Junger Mann, beunruhigt durch den Flug einer nicht-euklidischen Fliege), 1942
Even though the pope makes broad, sweeping warnings about the way people use technology, he reserves one particularly biting criticism for people who make media for a living. “Many professionals, opinion makers, communications media, and centres of power [are] located in affluent urban areas, are far removed from the poor, with little direct contact with their problems,” he writes. “This lack of physical contact and encounter, encouraged at times by the disintegration of our cities, can lead to a numbing of conscience and to tendentious analyses which neglect parts of reality.”“Tendentious analyses which neglect parts of reality”: If there’s ever been a more withering critique of the take, I’ve not come across it. No mainstream newspaper or magazine is obligated to follow the teachings of the Church, but even secular journos might do well to heed the pope’s call for “self-examination.” What perspectives are lost when so many reporters are focused on the powerful populations in a handful of cities? And what would coverage look like if more journalists spent time walking the streets among the poor?