The know-it-all uninformed have thought for centuries it was Inigo (later Ignatius) Loyola, the Basque. Sorry, a Huff Post writer has the scoop.

When Jorge Mario Bergoglio became Pope Francis, many Roman Catholics were quick to optimism. Some dared to hope for something of a church renaissance, and for relief, perhaps, in the wake of the bitter reign of “God’s Rottweiler,” Joseph Ratzinger. Much was made of the Jesuit pope’s decision to assume the name Francis because the name recalled to mind the saint from Assisi. However, the founder of the Society of Jesuits was a Francis, too.

This slight boo-boo does not, however, prevent the writer from pontificating about the incumbent and his maybe canonizing his predecessor once removed, Jn Paul II. That said, she does provide food for thought, and I’m sure she’s humble enough to admit that I am right and she is wrong about who founded the Jesuits.

Depends what you mean by wrong.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen raised shrieks from the left and some muffled applause from the right with what everyone tells me was an exceptionally audacious and hard-hitting column. Was it, though?

“I don’t like what George Zimmerman did,” Cohen starts off. Why not? What Zimmerman did was defend himself against a violent criminal (taking assault and battery to be violent crimes, which I believe is the common understanding) who had attacked him [as the jury decided on evidence]. What about that don’t you like, Mr. Cohen?

In the next paragraph: “What Zimmerman did was wrong.” Why was it wrong? The police initially, and the court system eventually, determined that Zimmerman performed an act of justifiable homicide. That might be regrettable, but it’s not wrong in any system of values known to me.

If he was justified, it wasn’t wrong.

I paid special notice to this item, having heard a preacher say it (what happened, vaguely considered) was wrong, by which he meant (or had to mean, in the context) morally wrong, even if, as he told me later, he did not think the jury was wrong, by which he meant mistaken.

Here.

. . . the Emerald Isle, in fact. Listen to this Irish woman at the legislative (parliamentary) podium, especially the part about Irish press fawning over Barack and Michelle (and kids) in their latest visit.

(The one where he took a leftist-secularizing crack at religious schools, by the way, NOT mentioning madrassas.)

Nothing of blarney here.

On the night Trayvon was killed,

Nobody else was there.

Confusion and ignorance about what exactly happened . . .

But

. . . any American with open eyes not just African Americans knows the extent to which young black men in this country are casually assumed to be dangerous troublemakers just for nothing.

Just for walking down the street. Just for wearing a hoodie.

In the same editorial. Casually assumed. For wearing a hoodie. How does S-T know this in view of the confusion and ignorance?

. . . says Sun-Times columnist Mary Mitchell today. Go with that, Mary. We know kids are dying, so enough of weepers (tragic newspaper stories). Instead, get specific. Dare you?

Problem is thoroughly demoralized black community. Terrorized by their own. Turn up heat indeed. Ideas?

Meanwhile, Rahm pushes ban on so-called assault weapons etc. But if our current legislation doesn’t keep guns away from home-grown urban terrorists, why will new ones? Point in much of this seems to be to take guns away from self-defenders.

Meanwhile again, bunch of black guys, not kids, including one very obese adult, take over greensward of Oak Park’s Scoville Park, rush hour yesterday, having a grand old athletic time with touchball — “Go go go, go, Yayyyy!” — safe from gunfire. Yes.

Arrogance of power here. Chi Streets & San man Charles Williams walked out on Insp. Genl. team when asked how he was to monitor garbage-collection savings. “Who are you to quesion me?” he said in effect.

Rahm E. running: Will save $60 mill on new system. Rahm elected: Nope, $18 mill. Show me, says IG, Rahm’s man walks out on meeting. (“And don’t aske me again!” again in effect.

The story, by F. Spielman, is beautifully titled, “Talking trash.” Sun-Times, of course, where Chi gets covered and less is more.

Williams, a former Chi Police Dept. deputy supt, probably a hack (acts like one), wholly reliable as stand-up guy vs. such creatures as IG and anyone else who wants to know things.

IG has also questioned city’s red-(traffic) light candid camera program. Are red-light districts the most dangerous? Have they reduced accidents? Also here: “Move on. Nothing to report here.”

Sheesh. It’s not easy being an IG, who was never promised a rose garden.

No good deed to to unrewarded.

It’s good for you.

Ignatian spirituality begs for more silence, not less
written by Paul , July 03, 2013
“Younger retreatants want shorter retreats with less silence and more interaction…” except Ignatian spirituality works best with more silence. Perhaps the young don’t know what’s ultimately good for them.
report abuse
vote down
vote up

Votes: +0
Landscape Designer
written by Joe Drexler , July 05, 2013

I went on my first jesuit retreat when I was 18 years old with my father. My dad told me what to expect, but I still was not prepared for it. I could not believe that no one would talk to each other for days. My first day was an adjustment to say the least. No phones, no tv, no radio, I just about went crazy. The second day, my “will” gave in and I thoroughly enjoyed the rest of the retreat. It is hard to explain, but in the silence we are able to hear the Lord’s voice more clearly. Perhaps it is something that could be left in the retreat but to a lesser degree? Maybe offer the silent retreat as the advanced version once you have drawn the younger crowd in to the center?

In story by Green Bay diocese about revamped Jesuit retreat center in Oshkosh WI.