FAITH Magazine’s May-June issue

Posted on 1 June 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I had a nice note pointing me to the May-June number of the excellent FAITH magazine published in the UK.  You might want to check a few of the articles and subscribe.  Our Catholic publications need support.

May-June 2010

Editorial Introduction: Towards a New Heart and Mind sl
Editorial: The Statement of Ed Balls and Post-Vatican II Evangelisation [This gets into sex-education as a new level of cooperation with evil.]
Theology of the Body: A Vigorous Discussion bMcClean Cummings
Shallow Comparisons and the Papal Visit aJoanna Bogle
Priestly Contributions to Modern Science: The Case of Msgr Georges Lemaitre bJoseph R Laracy
The Quest for Feminine Identity (Part II) bCormac Burke
The Road From Regensburg b
Pro-Life Education for Children bAntonia Tully
Comment on the Comments – The White Flag of Silence bWilliam Oddie
Book Reviews b
Letters to the Editor
Notes from Across the Atlantic aJoseph Bottum
Cutting Edge

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

One Comment

  1. catholicmidwest says:
    6 June 2010 at 12:52 AM

    Whenever I see the term “sex-education” I don’t know whether to grimace or laugh.

    “Sex-education” appears to me to be the perfect example of the secular trying to replace the religious and doing a bang-up job of missing the point entirely. BECAUSE:

    a) People are really stupid, but hardly more stupid than fruit flies who manage the deed just fine, thank you, so “sex-education” can’t hardly refer to that aspect of education. (And in addition, anyone who hasn’t the wits to figure out the simplest act of the living should NOT procreate for the good of the species!)

    b) So the term “sex-education” must refer to a series of advisories on the other aspects of sex, such as morality or wisdom of partaking. [The only other aspects left, it seems to me are the economics of sex, and the sheer medical mechanics of it, neither of which the secular restricts itself to.] BUT the secular is really not equipped or even capable of talking about either morality or wisdom. The secular can’t even figure out whether certain magazines &/or advertisements are immoral or not. It has no criteria other than aesthetic objection to use; none whatsoever. Which means that the term “sex-education” is bandied around constantly but means next to nothing.

Comments are closed.