Monthly Archives: December 2021

Do you know the translation of the French word “le canular”?

English translation of “le canular” [noun]


le canular—hoax, joke, spoof, leg-pull


la blague—joke, kidding, pouch, trick, jest, hoax

Rev. Martin D. O’Keefe, SJ (1980)

The manifold rescuer in St. Louis, Missouri.

Mr. Easton-Henry and his new slinky

Gramma Jules enjoys grandchildren

New Richmond, Wisconsin

Christopher Dawson is still a classic….

Medieval Essays (Worlds of Christopher Dawson) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0813210178/ref=cm_sw_r_other_apa_glt_i_KZHF57039C56TVVNA503

1981-2021 anniversary

Superior, Wisconsin

Larry Sanger on Wikipedia


Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger claims left-leaning editors have made the site biased, untrustworthy

In this  Jan. 18, 2012, file photo, Mallory Whitt works at her desk at the offices of the Wikipedia Foundation in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg, File)
In this Jan. 18, 2012, file photo, Mallory Whitt works at her desk at the offices of the Wikipedia Foundation in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg, File) more >

By Andrew Blake– The Washington Times – Friday, July 16, 2021

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger criticized the current state of the online encyclopedia he started in a recent interview, casting doubt on whether it can be trusted to provide unbiased information because of the heavy input of editors with “establishment” views.

“You can trust it to give a reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything,” Mr. Sanger, who launched Wikipedia in 2001 with Jimmy Wales, said in an interview published online Wednesday.

“Can you trust it to always give you the truth? Well, it depends on what you think the truth is,” added Mr. Sanger, who left Wikipedia in 2002 and has been vocally critical of the site ever since.

Mr. Sanger, 53, made the comments in a video interview conducted by the website UnHerd. Wikipedia did not immediately respond to a message from The Washington Times seeking a reaction to his remarks.

Recalling the early years of Wikipedia, which allows its users to anonymously contribute and edit content, Mr. Sanger said that it was a lot easier back then for people to participate in those processes.


Several years ago, said Mr. Sanger, a Wikipedia article for a hot-button issue such as a U.S. president’s record would be presented with “multiple different points of view, reasonably, fairly laid out.”But as Wikipedia gained influence over time, Mr. Sanger said that “a very big, nasty, complex game” emerged behind the scenes being played by people wanting the website to push a particular narrative, usually coming from the left side of the political spectrum.

Mr. Sanger cited the Wikipedia page for President Biden, arguing that it presented an “extremely biased” interpretation of allegations made against him and “reads like a defense counsel’s brief.”

Asked why the article about Mr. Biden was biased in the president’s favor, Mr. Sanger said he is “pretty sure” it is because of Democratic-leaning volunteer Wikipedia editors controlling the content.

“I think that there are a lot of people who would be highly motivated to go in and make the article more neutral, more politically neutral, but they’re not allowed to,” claimed Mr. Sanger.

“Wikipedia is pretty reliably establishment in its viewpoint, whatever the viewpoint is, which is ironic considering its origins from a couple of libertarians who, at least in the beginning, were really tolerant and open to all sorts of anti-establishment views being canvassed within the article,” he added.

Mr. Sanger argued Wikipedia readers “do not want to be led by the nose” before criticizing the website for not allowing content that cites outlets like the populist British tabloid The Daily Mail.

“So what does that mean? It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream, center-left media, then it’s not going to appear on Wikipedia,” he said.

“If only one version of the facts is allowed, then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power,” Mr. Sanger said. “And they do that.”

Wikipedia deemed the Daily Mail an “unreliable source” in 2017 and said it could no longer be cited in online entries. A spokesperson for the paper responded then by calling it a “cynical politically motivated attempt to stifle the free press.”

• Andrew Blake can be reached at ablake@washingtontimes.com.

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

(1988) • Cardinal Ratzinger Addresses Chilean Bishops

Corpus Christi Watershed · November 7, 2019

Address by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger,
Prefect of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, given in Santiago
to the Chilean bishops (13 July 1988)

N RECENT MONTHS, we have put a lot of work into the case of Lefebvre with the sincere intention of creating for his movement a space within the Church that would be sufficient for it to live. The Holy See has been criticized for this. It is said that it has not defended the Second Vatican Council with sufficient energy; that, while it has treated progressive movements with great severity, it has displayed an exaggerated sympathy with the traditionalist rebellion. The development of events is enough to disprove these assertions. The mythical harshness of the Vatican in the face of the deviations of the progressives is shown to be mere empty words. Up until now, in fact, only warnings have been published; in no case have there been strict canonical penalties in the strict sense. And the fact that when the chips were down Lefebvre denounced an agreement that had already been signed, shows that the Holy See, while it made truly generous concessions, did not grant him that complete license which he desired. Lefebvre has seen that, in the fundamental part of the agreement, he was being held to accept Vatican II and the affirmations of the post-conciliar Magisterium, according to the proper authority of each document.

There is a glaring contradiction in the fact that it is just the people who have let no occasion slip to allow the world to know of their disobedience to the Pope, and to the magisterial declarations of the last 20 years, who think they have the right to judge that this attitude is too mild and who wish that an absolute obedience to Vatican II had been insisted upon. In a similar way they would claim that the Vatican has conceded a right to dissent to Lefebvre which has been obstinately denied to the promoters of a progressive tendency. In reality, the only point which is affirmed in the agreement, following Lumen Gentium 25, is the plain fact that not all documents of the Council have the same authority. For the rest, it was explicitly laid down in the text that was signed that public polemics must be avoided, and that an attitude is required of positive respect for official decisions and declarations.

It was conceded, in addition, that the Society of Saint Pius X would be able to present to the Holy See—which reserves to itself the sole right of decision—their particular difficulties in regard to interpretations of juridical and liturgical reforms. All of this shows plainly that in this difficult dialogue Rome has united generosity, in all that was negotiable, with firmness in essentials. The explanation which Msgr. Lefebvre has given, for the retraction of his agreement, is revealing. He declared that he has finally understood that the agreement he signed aimed only at integrating his foundation into the “Conciliar Church.”. The Catholic Church in union with the Pope is, according to him, the “Conciliar Church” which has broken with its own past. It seems indeed that he is no longer able to see that we are dealing with the Catholic Church in the totality of its Tradition, and that Vatican II belongs to that.

Without any doubt, the problem that Lefebvre has posed has not been concluded by the rupture of June 30th. It would be too simple to take refuge in a sort of triumphalism, and to think that this difficulty has ceased to exist from the moment in which the movement led by Lefebvre has separated itself by a clean break with the Church. A Christian never can, or should, take pleasure in a rupture. Even though it is absolutely certain the fault cannot be attributed to the Holy See, it is a duty for us to examine ourselves, as to what errors we have made, and which ones we are making even now. The criteria with which we judge the past in the Vatican II decree on ecumenism must be used—as is logical—to judge the present as well.

One of the basic discoveries of the theology of ecumenism is that schisms can take place only when certain truths and certain values of the Christian faith are no longer lived and loved within the Church. The truth which is marginalized becomes autonomous, remains detached from the whole of the ecclesiastical structure, and a new movement then forms itself around it. We must reflect on this fact: that a large number of Catholics, far beyond the narrow circle of the Fraternity of Lefebvre, see this man as a guide, in some sense, or at least as a useful ally. It will not do to attribute everything to political motives, to nostalgia, or to cultural factors of minor importance. These causes are not capable of explaining the attraction which is felt even by the young, and especially by the young, who come from many quite different nations, and who are surrounded by completely distinct political and cultural realities. Indeed they show what is from any point of view a restricted and one-sided outlook; but there is no doubt whatever that a phenomenon of this sort would be inconceivable unless there were good elements at work here, which in general do not find sufficient opportunity to live within the Church of today.

For all these reasons, we ought to see this matter primarily as the occasion for an examination of conscience. We should allow ourselves to ask fundamental questions, about the defects in the pastoral life of the Church, which are exposed by these events. Thus we will be able to offer a place within the Church to those who are seeking and demanding it, and succeed in destroying all reason for schism. We can make such schism pointless by renewing the interior realities of the Church. There are three points, I think, that it is important to think about.

While there are many motives that might have led a great number of people to seek a refuge in the traditional liturgy, the chief one is that they find the dignity of the sacred preserved there. After the Council there were many priests who deliberately raised “desacralization” to the level of a program, on the plea that the New Testament abolished the cult of the Temple: the veil of the Temple which was torn from top to bottom at the moment of Christ’s death on the cross is, according to certain people, the sign of the end of the sacred. The death of Jesus, outside the City walls, that is to say, in the public world, is now the true religion. Religion, if it has any being at all, must have it in the nonsacredness of daily life, in love that is lived. Inspired by such reasoning, they put aside the sacred vestments; they have despoiled the churches as much as they could of that splendor which brings to mind the sacred; and they have reduced the liturgy to the language and the gestures of ordinary life, by means of greetings, common signs of friendship, and such things.

There is no doubt that, with these theories and practices, they have entirely disregarded the true connection between the Old and the New Testaments: It is forgotten that this world is not the Kingdom of God, and that the “Holy One of God” (John 6:69) continues to exist in contradiction to this world; that we have need of purification before we draw near to Him; that the profane, even after the death and the Resurrection of Jesus, has not succeeded in becoming “the holy”. The Risen One has appeared, but to those whose heart has been opened to Him, to the Holy; He did not manifest Himself to everyone. It is in this way a new space has been opened for the religion to which all of us would now submit; this religion which consists in drawing near to the community of the Risen One, at whose feet the women prostrated themselves and adored Him. I do not want to develop this point any further now; I confine myself to coming straight to this conclusion: we ought to get back the dimension of the sacred in the liturgy. The liturgy is not a festivity; it is not a meeting for the purpose of having a good time. It is of no importance that the parish priest has cudgeled his brains to come up with suggestive ideas or imaginative novelties. The liturgy is what makes the Thrice-Holy God present amongst us; it is the burning bush; t is the Alliance of God with man in Jesus Christ, who has died and risen again. The grandeur of the liturgy does not rest upon the fact that it offers an interesting entertainment, but in rendering tangible the Totally Other, whom we are not capable of summoning. He comes because He wills. In other words, the essential in the liturgy is the mystery, which is realized in the common ritual of the Church; all the rest diminishes it. Men experiment with it in lively ashion, and find themselves deceived, when the mystery is transformed into distraction, when the chief actor in the liturgy is not the Living God but the priest or the liturgical director.

Aside from the liturgical questions, the central points of conflict at present are Lefebvre’s attack on the decree which deals with religious liberty, and on the so-called spirit of Assisi. Here is where Lefebvre fixes the boundaries between his position and that of the Catholic Church today.

I need hardly say in so many words that what he is saying on these points is unacceptable. Here we do not wish to consider his errors, rather we want to ask ourselves where there is lack of clarity in ourselves. For Lefebvre what is at stake is the warfare against ideological liberalism, against the relativization of truth. Obviously we are not in agreement with him that—understood according to the Pope’s intentions—the text of the Council or the prayer of Assisi were relativizing.

It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church. Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolate Vatican II and which has provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II.

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of “super-dogma” which takes away the importance of all the rest.

This idea is made stronger by things that are now happening. That which previously was considered most holy—the form in which the liturgy was handed down—suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited. It is intolerable to criticize decisions which have been taken since the Council; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or even of the great truths of the Faith—for instance, the corporal virginity of Mary, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, etc.—nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation. I myself, when I was a professor, have seen how the very same bishop who, before the Council, ad fired a teacher who was really irreproachable, for a certain crudeness of speech, was not prepared, after the Council, to dismiss a professor who openly denied certain fundamental truths of the Faith.

All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people. The one way in which Vatican II can be made plausible is to present it as it is; one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith.

In the spiritual movements of the post-concilar era, there is not the slightest doubt that frequently there has been an obliviousness, or even a suppression, of the issue of truth: here perhaps we confront the crucial problem for theology and for pastoral work today.

The “truth” is thought to be a claim that is too exalted, a “triumphalism” that cannot be permitted any longer. You see this attitude plainly in the crisis that troubles the missionary ideal and missionary practice. If we do not point to the truth in announcing our faith, and if this truth is no longer essential for the salvation of Man, then the missions lose their meaning. In effect the conclusion has been drawn, and it has been drawn today, that in the future we need only seek that Christians should be good Christians, Moslems good Moslems, Hindus good Hindus, and so forth. If it comes to that, how are we to know when one is a “good” Christian, or a “good” Moslem?

The idea that all religions are—if you talk seriously—only symbols of what ultimately is incomprehensible is rapidly gaining ground in theology, and has already penetrated into liturgical practice. When things get to this point, faith is left behind, because faith really consists in the fact that I am committing myself to the truth so far as it is known. So in this matter also there is every motive to return to the right path.

If once again we succeed in pointing out and living the fullness of the Catholic religion with regard to these points, we may hope that the schism of Lefebvre will not be of long duration.

https://www.ccwatershed.org/2019/11/07/13-july-1988-josef-cardinal-ratzinger/

Viktor Emil Frankl Biography

1905–1997

March 26: Viktor Emil Frankl is born in Vienna as the second of three children. His mother, Elsa Frankl, nee Lion, hails from Prague, his father Gabriel Frankl, Director in the Ministry of Social Service, comes from Southern Moravia.

1914-1918

During the first World War the family experiences bitter deprivation; sometimes the children would go begging to farmers.

1918-1923

In his high school years Frankl attends public lectures on Applied Psychology. He starts a correspondence with Sigmund Freud. A manuscript he sends to Freud is published in the International Journal of Psychoanalysis.

1921

At the age of 15, Frankl offers his first public lecture, On the Meaning of Life. His sensibility for social inequality leads him to become a functionary of the Young Socialist Workers.

1923

Frankl becomes increasingly attracted to the Adlerian movement of Individual Psychology, with its emphasis on community and social reform.

1924

Frankl is studying medicine at the University of Vienna Medical School and becomes spokesman of the Austrian Socialist High School Students Association. He regularly attends the meetings of the Alfred Adler circle at Vienna’s “Cafe Siller.” As the youngest member he is given the nickname “Benjamin.”

1925

Frankl’s article Psychotherapy and Weltanschauung is published in the “International Journal of Individual Psychology”. He strives to explore the frontier between psychotherapy and philosophy, focusing on the fundamental question of meaning and values – a topic that will become the central subject of his life work.

1926

Frankl presents public lectures on congresses in Duesseldorf, Frankfurt, Berlin. For the first time he propounds the idea of a meaning-centered approach to mental healing, using the term Logotherapy, based on the Greek word logos for meaning.

1927

His relationship to Alfred Adler declines. He is critical of central tenets of Individual Psychology. His ideas for improvements are dismissed by Adler himself. Frankl is excluded from Adler’s circle. Despite this, Adler’s daughter Alexandra (photo), Rudolf Dreikurs and other important Adlerians remain lifelong friends to him.

1928-1929

Frankl organizes youth counseling centers in Vienna. Renowned psychologists such as Charlotte Buehler and Erwin Wexberg join Frankl’s project, which offers free counseling to adolescents.

He picks up mountain-climbing, which will become his life-long passion.

1930

He organizes a special counseling initiative at the end of the school term. In consequence, the number of student suicide drops significantly. Frankl gains international attention: Wilhelm Reich invites him to Berlin, the universities of Prague and Budapest want him for lecturing.

1931-1932

 

Following his graduation Frankl starts his medical carreer at the “Maria Theresien Schloessl”, a Neurological Hospital in Vienna founded by the Nathaniel Rothschild Foundation.

1933-1937

Frankl becomes chief doctor of the “Suicidals Pavilion for Women” at the “Steinhof” Psychiatric Hospital in Vienna. In the following three years he gathers considerable diagnostic experience by attending to about 3000 patients per year.

1937

Frankl opens a private practice as Doctor of Neurology and Psychiatry. Only a few months later he will have to close it down due to the Nazi annexation of Austria and the ensuing restrictions for Jewish doctors.

In his paper Seelenaerztliche Selbstbestimmung he takes a stand against the misuse of the therapist’s authority to impose their own worldview – in particular, the rampant German-nationalist ideology – on a patient.

1938

Following the Annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany Frankl must adopt the middle name “Israel” and call himself “Fachbehandler” instead of physician. His office is “aryanized”, and he has to move his practice into his parent’s home.

 

In the infamous “November Pogroms” hundreds of Jews die and many synagogues are destroyed – among them the magnificent “Leopoldstaedter Temple” near the Frankls’ home.

1939

His paper Philosophy and Psychotherapy is published in a Swiss medical journal. In it he coins the expression “Existential Analysis,” the philosophical foundation of Logotherapy.

1940

Frankl becomes director of the Neurological Department of the Rothschild Hospital, a clinic for Jewish patients. In spite of the danger to his own life he sabotages Nazi procedures by making false diagnoses to prevent the euthanasia of mentally ill patients.

1940

He obtains an immigration visa to America but decides to let it expire, not wanting to desert his old parents.

1941

He starts writing the first version of his book The Doctor and the Soul (Aerztliche Seelsorge) in which he lays down the foundations of his system of psychotherapy, Logotherapy and Existential Analysis. Later, upon arrival at the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, he will be forced to throw away the unpublished manuscript.

1941-42

Frankl marries Tilly Grosser, a nurse he had met at the Rothschild Hospital. A short time later, the Nazis force the young couple to have their child aborted.

1942

In September Viktor and Tilly are arrested and together with Frankl’s parents are deported to the Terezin Ghetto, north of Prague. His sister Stella has shortly before escaped to Australia, his brother Walter and his wife are trying to escape via Italy. After half a year in Theresienstadt his father dies of exhaustion.

1942

Frankl attends to the psychological crises experienced by the inmates of the Terezin camp by organizing a first response team for the shocked new arrivals. In his efforts to fight the danger of suicide he is joined by fellow inmate Regina Jonas, the world’s first female rabbi.

1944

Viktor and Tilly, and shortly later his 65 year old mother, are transported to the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. His mother is immediately murdered in the gas chamber, and Tilly is moved to the Bergen-Belsen camp. After a few days Frankl is selected for transfer to a labor camp. He is brought to Kaufering and later Tuerkheim, subsidiary camps of Dachau in Bavaria.

1945

In the Tuerkheim camp he comes down with typhoid fever. To avoid fatal vascular collapse during the nights he keeps himself awake by reconstructing the manuscript of his book Aerztliche Seelsorge on slips of paper stolen from the camp office.

1945

On April 27 the camp is liberated by U.S. troops. Frankl is made chief doctor of a military hospital for displaced persons. Anxious to find out about the fate of his wife he embarks on the arduous journey to Vienna. Within a span of a few days, he learns about the death of his wife, his mother and his brother who has been murdered in Auschwitz together with his wife.

1945

Full of despair about the realization of his losses, Frankl finds support in his friends and in the determination to rewrite his book. His friend Bruno Pittermann, who has become a member of the new government, organizes an apartment and a job for him – as well as a typewriter.

1946

Frankl becomes director of the Vienna Neurological Policlinic, a position he will hold for 25 years. His reconstructed Aerztliche Seelsorge, with an added chapter on the “psychology of the concentration camp,” is one of the very first books published in postwar Vienna. The first edition is sold out within a few days.

1946

Within nine days he dictates the book Ein Psycholog erlebt das Konzentrationslager, which will later be published in English as Man’s Search For Meaning.

1946

He holds a series of much noted public lectures in which he explains his central thoughts on meaning, resilience, and the importance of embracing life even in the face of great adversity. These lectures are subsequently published as Yes to Life in Spite of Everything.

1947

Frankl marries Eleonore Schwindt; in December their daughter Gabriele is born.

He expands and refines his theory of logotherapy in no less than eight books published between 1946 and 1949.

1948

Frankl obtains his Ph.D. in philosophy with a dissertation on The Unconscious God. He is promoted to Associate Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry at the University of Vienna Medical School.

1948

   

He writes his drama Synchronization in Birkenwald in which he draws from his own experiences in the concentration camps by using an imaginary camp as a backdrop for illustrating existential questions such as guilt, suffering, responsibility and inner freedom.

1950

On the basis of a lecture series he writes the book Homo Patiens with its central theme of how to give support and comfort to suffering human beings.

At the “Salzburger Hochschulwochen” Frankl expounds his “Ten Theses On The Human Person”, a cornerstone in the anthropological foundation of Logotherapy.

1954

Universities in England, Holland and Argentina invite Frankl to give lectures. In the USA, Gordon Allport promotes Frankl and the publication of his books.

1955

Frankl is promoted Professor at the University of Vienna. He begins guest professorships at overseas universities.

1959

Man´s Search for Meaning is published in the U.S. under its first title From Death Camp to Existentialism.

1961

Frankl becomes guest professor at Harvard University. Addressing the topic of personal freedom, he makes the often quoted remark, that “the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast should be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast.”

1966

He writes his most systematic book in English, The Will To Meaning. Lecture tours frequently take him to the U.S., South America, and Asia.

1966

Frankl is invited to speak at San Quentin prison. His views on personal responsibility, guilt and redemption resonate strongly with the inmates, and he is asked to deliver a special message to a prisoner on death row.

1970

The United States International University in San Diego, California, installs a Chair for Logotherapy.

1971

Frankl starts taking flying lessons. In 1973 he acquires his Solo Flight Certificate.

1980

The First World Congress on Logotherapy takes place in San Diego, California.

1986

Frankl´s most prominent student Elisabeth Lukas opens the South German Institute of Logotherapy, offering the first professional training in Logotherapy and Existential Analysis.

1988

At the Memorial Day commemorating the 50th year after the annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany, Frankl speaks out against the concept of “collective guilt.”

1988

Frankl celebrates his Second Bar Mitzvah in Jerusalem.

1991

The Library of Congress lists Man’s Search for Meaning as “One of the ten most influential books in America.”

1993

Chicago’s North Park University bestows an honorary doctorate upon Elly Frankl in recognition of her life work devoted to Logotherapy.

1995

Frankl writes his autobiography, Recollections.

1997

Frankl’s last book is published: Man’s Search For Ultimate Meaning.

1997

Viktor Frankl dies of heart failure on the 2nd of September.
https://www.univie.ac.at/logotherapy/biography.html