It was way funnier to see it represented than to read it. Oh, well... a generational abyss might be the reason for my lack of understanding. It had itIt was way funnier to see it represented than to read it. Oh, well... a generational abyss might be the reason for my lack of understanding. It had its funny bits, thought....more
Tuve dos pequeños inconvenientes a la hora de leer este libro:
-Citar a Anselm Grün sin mayores explicaciones y / o reservas. (pág. 59)
Aunque no parezcTuve dos pequeños inconvenientes a la hora de leer este libro:
-Citar a Anselm Grün sin mayores explicaciones y / o reservas. (pág. 59)
Aunque no parezca estar diciendo algo contrario a la doctrina de la Iglesia en el texto utilizado, no parece una buena idea. Sobre todo si el libro está dirigido a aquellos que no se sienten a gusto en la misa, porque no tienen la suficiente experiencia en la vida religiosa. El interés por libros de este monje benedictino puede llevar a desviaciones, ya que Monseñor Aguer y otros han denunciado su mezcla de la religión con teorías psicológicas que la contradicen, y su relativización del catolicismo como religión portadora de la verdad absoluta (lo que no excluye el respeto a aquellos que profesen otras religiones). En el texto, menciona el despertar de "energías" internas por la práctica de un ritual matutino de oración. La idea de "energías", es contraria a la doctrina.
-"El incienso hoy se utiliza poco, porque a muchos fieles les molesta" (pág. 79) .
Si bien, luego el autor procede a hacer una defensa del significado ritual que tiene el incienso, no creo que sea razón suficiente. Si hay alergias, podría reconsiderarse, pero ¿porque les molesta? No creo que sea una razón suficiente. Quizá sea necesario explicar alguna otra cosa. Porque por ejemplo, expresa su asombro ante la actitud de algunos católicos que no comprenden y rechazan la uniformidad de gestos en la misa, y les parece algo bueno en otras religiones (por ejemplo, los monjes budistas), a la vez que habla de interiorizarse en la oración de los fieles porque en las palabras escogidas por la Iglesia está aquello que es necesario, aunque yo no lo comprenda. Y con el incienso, podría aplicarse la misma lógica. Sería un grave error no utilizar el incienso por una cuestión subjetiva.
De todas maneras, me parece excelente la forma didáctica en que están explicados los fundamentos para la presencia real, sustancial y sacramental en la Eucaristía, la importancia de ella y su relación con los otros sacramentos, las partes de la misa, los ejercicios que nos ayudan a entrar en contacto con otros antes, durante y después de la celebración, el manejo de los textos bíblicos y documentos de la Iglesia.
Es muy recomendable para utilizar en un curso de catequesis para adultos.
De hecho, acabé con una pequeña lista de (re)lecturas
-Isaías, Oseas, Ezequiel, Jeremías, Ev. sinópticos (parte de la eucaristía), Primera y Segunda Carta a los Corintios, Carta a los Hebreos. -Apología, san Justiniano -Didasjé -Mane nobiscum Domine -"Dénles ustedes de comer", Conferencia Episcopal Argentina. -Docs. de y sobre el Concilio de Trento -Escritos de Santa Teresita -Santa Teresa de Ávila, Camino de Perfección...more
It is very complete, and despite its extension, I believe it's very useful for a reference on many situations that are common for Catholics and all ofIt is very complete, and despite its extension, I believe it's very useful for a reference on many situations that are common for Catholics and all of people in this day and age, nothing too "elitist" in approach. It's supposed to be this way because it's a document by the Pope, after all.
It also has its little literary moments, and is very tied to Scripture and previous documents on the family by his predecesors. Very recommendable even if you don't have much of a parish life other than attending Mass. And even if you're not Catholic. ...more
It's my first approach to his sermons, and this book features both his Anglican and Catholic sermons, and a good set of notes, reason why we are ableIt's my first approach to his sermons, and this book features both his Anglican and Catholic sermons, and a good set of notes, reason why we are able to notice his little changes, that finally would lead him home.
I'd like to read them all, someday. But for the time being, this has been a sobering experience. It would have been both very good and demanding to have been at one of his homilies. The selection covers Ascension, Pentecost, the Holy Trinity, the Saints, Mary, and a few thoughts on the nature of children, the importance given to them by Christ, their worthiness of Baptism, and the weaknesses provided by mundane distractions, as well as spiritual lukewarmness. ...more
It's a bit unfair to "review" and "rate" a corpus of works so influential in the establishment of the Franciscan way of life for women, and St. Clare'It's a bit unfair to "review" and "rate" a corpus of works so influential in the establishment of the Franciscan way of life for women, and St. Clare's thoughts that would lead the way, as well as be reflected in her correspondence. Her language is subtle, simple and yet straightforward. Humbleness before the lord first, because he's our mirror: of what we should be. ...more
The opening sentence of this Butler classic and feminist (if it can be called as such at all) reference, says what's happening of late. The definitionThe opening sentence of this Butler classic and feminist (if it can be called as such at all) reference, says what's happening of late. The definition of gender is the crumbling point for feminism, as gender theorists and radical feminists have this rivalry that endangers the theorical unity of the movement, and maybe it's very purpose. Why call it feminism at all if now it can be about every single gender expression out there? Why would its concern be women, when gender minorities might be some made up gender you just thought of?
But I digress. She reflects on the theory that preceeded her, namely Beauvoir and Sartre, and their problematization of female otherness, sometimes in an euphemism known as "mystery" (which, incidentally, has nothing to do with the feminine mystery that John Paul II speaks of). A genderist would deny the existence of mystery in a positive sense. Everything is a question of power, dialectic, marxist relations. This is going to be a fun ride, I thought to myself as I read this.
What would happen if we tackled presumptive heterosexuality? "I must get in trouble", the sentence reads. No matter what the cost. "I must be a rebel". And the loathed expressions such as "compulsory heterosexuality" start. Now, it's funny because genderists stumble between arguments on whether homosexuality, or all sexuality is a choice. And if heterosexuality is compulsory, someone forces you to feel that way, which would mean that you can choose your way out. And same for homosexuality, even if for these movements it's an expression of freedom, you could choose out if you wanted to. A big 1-0 for the radfems and the horrible, horrible religious right.
The question of femaleness arrives. Is it a performance? Is it really "natural"? Foucault is her base for asserting that what must be investigated are the political institutions which hold certain practices as "natural", when in reality they're just imposed. There are two institutions: phallogocentrism and compulsory heterosexuality.
There's not much sense in being a woman or a female altogether, if we're not defined as such in opposition to other, so for the time being, the only solution Butler finds acceptable is to do away with the conception of identity and never ask about it anymore. Systems of power settle the question: the subject which will be reduced to a concept and later represented, all this process is done by a system of power. So, the definition of woman itself is a product of a system of power, which responds to its requierements.
"Woman" is not a common identity, and the notion of patriarchy oppressing women does not apply equally in all parts of the world. Feminism can't be universally representative of every woman, because in order to work as an encompassing discourse it has to have some restrictions. An ode to vagueness. Feminist aims are exactly the contrary of what its limited discourse encompasses. If I have to define what a woman is, I'm also defining relationships, therefore no emancipation is possible. But here's the deal: every political idea has to have definitions to work from, whether these definitions might be perceived as reductionisms or not. Butler wants a war against language, by using language. If languages didn't work with concepts, and words to represent them, communication would be impossible altogether. Or maybe she has a better method, but this is honestly turning confusing.
The sex / gender distinction makes gender "the cultural interpretation of sex". It also establishes the idea of a "natural sex". She takes the notion of Beauvoir that women are not born as such but become such by cultural practices, and then applies it to the idea that follows, which is even crazier: becoming a woman is not a question of biological nature, but cultural instead. Since it doesn't stem from sex, anyone can become a woman (well, this is the corner stone of transexualism, isn't it?)
Since women escape the representation of a phallogocentric language, they can be anything. Then she questions the need for unity in political action. She's trying to deconstruct feminism because she's not happy with how it succumbed to the categories of language it said to despise. Is genderist approach even marxist at all? Or some weird kind of individualism? By not defining gender entirely, anyone can participate in the struggle (which kind of going against, or probably for the monthly adding of one letter in the LGBT acronym, or something like that)
But what is identity to Butler? What is a person? Is identity a normative ideal? Can identity be understood at all? The institutionalization of heterosexuality opens the door for the creation of binaries and oppositions that make reality understood in these terms. This leaves a lot of identities out.
The whole work turns into an epistemological question: what can really be understood at all? A critique of poststructuralist french feminist school ensues. And it's surprising, because in many ways, Butler is rejecting what allowed her to start with all this nonsense in the first place. Her conclusions about Beauvoir and Wittig's anaylisis is even more outrageous: the construction of the notion of sex is made for men's enjoyment. Women and lesbian are, therefore, not the same, and lesbian is a cop out from the oppression.
She takes the case for hermaphrodites as an impossible identity in the sex binary. Identity is, for Foucault, a regulatory fiction. At least she recognizes that Wittig does not aim to take language out as something purely evil in nature, but yet misogynystic in its applications, a reason why it can be transformed for good purposes.
This is, undoubteddly, the most confusing book on Earth. I was planning to read it as to see what else I'm opposing to, when I speak of my opposition to gender theory. While the idea is to escape essentialism, all the other concepts seem vague, or to go nowhere. Maybe her personal anecdote of wanting to be in trouble since it was unavoidable, shown in the preface, is the principle of this book.
There's some re-readings of Freud and Lacan whose work I'm not very familiar with. A few more references to juridical "fictions" and constructions of the subject (then again, how is possible to understand anything at all if you don't make a cut somewhere?) I get that it is important not to make assumptions which end up being damaging to human relationships. To propose that nothing can be understood is a bit frustrating. And how can you propose such a thing if nothing really can be understood?
Even lesbianism is not a liberated sexuality for Butler. She says it's the result of a lesbian appropiation of Foucault which allowed for the thought of this utopia to take place (interesting, because Foucault gave no thought to lesbians as far as I'm concerned, and I've read his History of Sexuality, while the radical feminist whose work I'm interested in, Sheila Jeffreys, acknowledges this and despises Foucault and Butler likewise for their childish desires of "sexual liberation").
Perhaps Butler is not too far from arguing for some other kind of sexual liberation which claims to be better. To oppose female sexuality to male sexuality is problematic. Everything is problematic. The existence of feminism trying to define what a woman is, is as problematic as the existence of a woman herself. Everything is reductionism, so let's be incredibly vague about notions, and criticize notions to appear to be more inclusive.
This paragraph below is one of the most intelligible paragraphs of the whole book (and even so, it's quite frustrating), which summarizes what I just said. Don't get into the binary logic, don't coin other terms for alternative sexualities, because it's impossible:
"If sexuality is culturally constructed within existing power relations, then the postulation of a normative sexuality that is 'before', 'outside', or 'beyond' power is a culturally impossibility and a politically impracticable dream, one that postpones the concrete and contemporary task of rethinking subversive posibilities for sexuality and identity within the terms of power itself. This critical task presumes, of course, that to operate within the matrix of power is not the same as to replicate uncritically relations of domination".
The heterosexist discourse has not permeated homosexual relationships by perpetuating stereotypes as "butch" and "femme" (though both are parodical representations of maleness and femaleness, as other feminists acknowledge). To reconstruct these categories in the homosexual ambient legitimates heterosexuality, and Butler can't have that.
I wonder if Butler knows what she wants and what she means, because 33 pages in, I just don't know. I wonder how many people who applaud this book really understood a word. I'm not the most versed person in philosophy around, but this screams rebellion for rebellion's sake to me, and not clear definitions at all.
So maybe, radical and liberal feminism have something in common: an anarchist desire. At least, radical feminists bother to define something, no matter how outrageous it might seem.
I just thought, this is a short book. I need to give it a chance before I get further into the radical feminist critique of transexualism. Oh, boy. How wrong I was. ...more
Once love teaches her the way, Finea can become such a seemingly fool in the eyes of his father, that she can carry on with marrying the man she desirOnce love teaches her the way, Finea can become such a seemingly fool in the eyes of his father, that she can carry on with marrying the man she desires. Sharing some similarities on the worries of the role of women in marriage, with other works such as William Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew, it also explores the thin line between being a fool and being insane. Obviously, a woman like that is smart enough to do what she pleases, regardless of what men wanted in her. There's very funny moments all along, it's really worth reading....more
Good Catholic, faith oriented play. Calderón de la Barca argues, much in the medieval tradition, that all things come to an end, that God chooses ourGood Catholic, faith oriented play. Calderón de la Barca argues, much in the medieval tradition, that all things come to an end, that God chooses our role, and judges us accordingly, that poor and rich are more intertwined than the later would think, that worldly conceptions of beauty end up in vanity, and that power in this world doesn't necessarily mean you'll keep it in the next. The part where they're invited to adore the Bread of Life they don't have a need to eat anymore is of special significance and I'd say this work is wonderfully done. The unjust reality of the world is due to free will, as so is the good that men can do. Whether people hear the Law of God, it sure makes a difference. ...more