Benedict Books

I found the Sailor's Wife very touching yet educational. Educational because I was able to learn some basic Greek by way of the story. And touching because it told the story of a young girl who thought she would find happiness leaving her home and family to realize it was there all along. Of course living as a peasant Greek wife for two years did give her the strength to be independant. But she would also realize that culture shock also can lead to heartbreak and deception. For any young girl who reads "The Sailior's Wife" take this warning. Be wary of young, muscle-bound men with thick foreign accents. Just because they are exotic in your eyes; sometimes they are not the answer to your problems.

"This is a bitter, wise and powerful novel. Benedict's anatomy of Greek village life and peasant psychology is penetrating and just... an intensely realized personal tragedy. -- Peter Green, Los Angeles Times, July 22, 2001.

I found this novel about Joyce, a young American girl disenchanted by her useless life in Florida in the early 70s and lured to a life of hardship on a remote Greek island by a handsome sailor very entertaining. Joyce, used to flaunting her young body in a bikini, must now keep her eyes downcast while walking through the rural village as if she does not, she will attract the young soldiers who will think she is nothing better than a prostitute. In spite of the hard work she must do each day to help her elderly in-laws eke out a living, she finds happiness in feeling that her efforts amount to something. In fact, she loves the work and her relationship with her in-laws a little more than than she atually loves her virtually unknown spoiled and arrogant husband who when on leave, treats her like a beloved pet rather than his wife. As the sailor of the title, Nikos is gone for months at a time, and naturally Joyce is lonely for people her own age. When handsome Brit, Alex appears in the small village, Joyce's fragile equilibrium is finally toppled and earth-shattering events occur faster than one of the area's most devastating earthquakes.
I loved the interplay between Joyce and her in-laws; the love and regard between them was built up nicely by the author. However, I found the ending a little disorienting and a little rushed. I realize that Joyce made all her decisions in the story from an immature standpoint, and that her actions would have been interpreted in the village in only one way, but I still would have liked the story to end a little more definitively.

All in all, the novel is definitely worth reading,if only to get that bird's-eye-view of what life on a beautiful Greek island would really be like.

Joyce is hypnotized by the beauty and attention of an exotic Greek sailor as she helps him in a Miami supermarket. Though the two can barely communicate verbally she falls deeply in love and at the age of 18 marries him against her parent's wishes.

Our story really begins when Nikos takes her home to his family on the Greek island of Ifestia where she realizes the ways and customs are quite different from the freedom she has taken for granted in the USA. Finding herself ruled over by a dominating Mother-in-law she does her best to fit in. The language barrier slowly becomes less of a problem as she grows to love the island but there is much more to living the ways of the past than she will ever be able to assimilate.

This was a wonderful book filled with more than a love story gone awry. It is the telling of a past political uproar and the wars and strife suffered by the people of Greece at the hands of the Nazi's, Turks and sometimes their own countryman. It is a story of personal freedom. I would give this book 4.5 stars if I had the option and I look forward to reading more titles by this author. Kelsana 3/30/01

Telling the tale of young love, irrationality, and brusque decisions is Benedict's forte. Her gift of prose weaves a brilliant portrait of myriad topics.

Joyce is a young American searching to find herself, seemingly lost in her own skin, in her own world. Meet Nikos, the stunning Greek sailor. The two meet in a grocery store, where he soon whisks her off as his 18 year old bride, and takes her to his parents on the small Greek Island of Ifestia.

Ifestia, [loosely based on Lemnos, according to the author], is an island with quite a history. Constantly at war, it's people are hard, and from another time. Joyce, attempts to fit in and find her niche in Greek peasant society.

Benedict's characterizations, descriptions and brilliant prose sails the reader to another time, in a completely enveloping tale. A tale of love, tragedy, life, and its lessons rolled into one, The Sailor's Wife, attempts and succeeds at being a fascinating, thought-provoking read.

Enjoy!

This is a wonderful translation of one of Benedict De Spinoza's most important works. Here he explains in great detail not only the Biblical exegesis for which he was excommunicated, but also expounds with great richness and unique insight on political systems. A seminal work in the history of thought, providing marvelous insight into one of the great minds in human history. A very good introduction goes very thoroughly into detail about the discrepancies between what he published and what he might truly have thought.

Spinoza's monumental treatise on God, the Bible and the Society is one of the founderstones of modern thought, and does not need any new reviews. Many ideas expressed in the book can serve as models for standpoints also today in the intellectual debate about matters of religious freedom, critical analysis of texts and ideas, and political theory. The English translation in the Gebhardt Edition is clear and easily understood, and the book can be read without feeling the three centuries that have passed since the original was published in Latin. In the context of a new emerging wave of religious fundamentalism on one hand, and post-modernist denials of the importance of Reason on the other, the book is as important as ever to the intellectual heritage of modern Society.

There are two points about the treatise I wish to talk about.

Spinoza's view of miracles in the Bible (Old Testament). He took up a trend that began years before. Maimonidese, for example, gives species survival, not Sin in the Garden, as the
reason for death. Spinoza takes all alerations in natural law
stated in the Bible to be poetic or symbolic, not real and not consistent with the Nature of God.

Secondly, Spinoza defends democracy over other forms of government is that in democracies there are numerous factions,
and it is difficult for any one faction to grain arbitrary power
as to engage in wars. For example, though not mentioned by Spinoza, Peter The Great saw one year alone as Czar when Russia was not at war. Spinoza thinks this sort of thing less probable in democratic government. Democracy's value is that it leadss to free, unhindered discussion of matters at hand. He does not exactly say it, but I think Spinoza took free and open discussion of issues as the principal "Sine qua non" of democracy. This is quite relevant to current US foreign and domestic policy. In early 2006 Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government publish a study by a
Harvard professor and another from U of Chicago on the Israel lobby; the study contends that US foreign policy is dictated by The Lobby, meaning Jewish pressure groups acting on Congress and the White House regardless of political party. The professors contend that free discussion and debate are impossible when "The Lobby" has a particular position. Congressmen and Senators live in fear of Jewish funding of opponents, smear tactics and other similar actions. They describe the Prime Minister in Israel as saying he had President Bush (the second) "wrapped around his finger." The Giant Question is: within Spinoza's notion of democracy, does Judaism de facto oppose democratic government and is Judaism inconsistent with democratic/representative government in a diverse democracy? The answer is of utmost importance. Another aspect of democracy is defended by Spinoza's argument for free and open and fearless debate is that fundamental decisions that shape society and direct governmental actions will be done in this open, fearless, free environment. The Suypreme Court's string of decisions starting in 1940 making states subject to the "Bill of Rights" is the antithesis of democracy.

Spinoza is a great introduction to real thought. And the Tretise is not difficult reading at all.

A great assignment for High School government or History.

"Men would never be superstitious, if they could govern all their circumstances by set rules, or if they were always favored by fortune..." Thus begins one of the greatest books in the history of philosophy. Spinoza is an esoteric writer; he doesn't shout everything he has to say, though an attentive reader has a chance, however slight, to discern at least part of it. The existence of this philosophical-political esotericism, first adequately described by Leo Strauss (in "Spinoza's Critique of Religion"), is now on the verge of becoming generally accepted. For a very good example of this new, but qualified, acceptance of Spinoza's esotericism from a left/postmodern perspective, check out the recent collection of essays, "The New Spinoza", edited by Montag & Stolze, especially the essay by Andre Tosel.

But the history of Spinoza reception is another story and another review. Many modern readers of Spinoza speak with vague unease about Spinoza's 'elitism', supposing it to be but another slight of the poor, weak and uneducated; we can perhaps begin to gauge the full length, breadth and depth of this philosophical 'elitism', and its true target, in a focused reading of the opening pages of the Preface to the Theologico-Political Treatise. "The human mind is readily swayed this way or that in times of doubt, especially when hope and fear are struggling for the mastery, though usually it is boastful, over-confident, and vain." Thus the problem with Man is not, strictly speaking, merely a lack of knowledge (and therefore the problem is not merely a lack of education) but also, and perhaps most importantly, a lack of self-control.

Immediately, Spinoza follows this sentence by saying, "[t]his as a general fact I suppose everyone knows, though few, I believe, know their own nature..." There is a disconnect not only between knowing and doing but also between 'knowing' in general and knowing oneself. In order to do good how important is it to know yourself? There are several ways to understand this. One possible way is to say that even those ('sainted' elites) that 'know' are, nevertheless, unable to control their emotional behavior. Perhaps it is even this emotiveness that is especially vulnerable to superstition...

But men, "in prosperity, are so over-brimming with wisdom [...] that they take every offer of advice as a personal insult"! Still, we are not surprised to read that "...superstition's chief victims are those persons who greedily covet temporal advantages...". (Note that it is not chiefly ordinary people that 'greedily covet temporal advantages' nor is it said that they are 'in prosperity'.) And, a little later, we learn that these people "are wont with prayers and womanish tears to implore help from God...". Indeed, Spinoza, when giving an example of this despicable behavior under duress turns to no less an exemplar than Alexander the Great - and his superstitious seeking of advice from seers. Now, the use of Alexander in this regard is a vital clue in our attempt to understand Spinoza's esotericism (i.e., his 'political' philosophy). The question is this: If Spinoza is indeed an elitist, exactly what is the position that can look down on not only the common people but also the actual 'elite'; i.e., the religious and political leaders?

Well, of course, Spinoza is a philosopher; indeed he is one of the greatest. This understanding of philosophy, as the heights from which one looks down on everyone, is an old one. See, for instance, Averroes (in the so-called 'Decisive Treatise') for an overt example of the philosophical attempt to control a faction of the medieval elite (i.e., the theologians) with another faction of the medieval elite - the Islamic Jurists. Also, one should of course consider Machiavelli's Prince for a somewhat more circumspect (or covert) example of philosophy attempting to control the direction of politics and the political elite. Spinoza's decision to view politics and theology (or politicians and theologians) as dangers that need to be moderated philosophically is thus not unprecedented. Also, on this line of thought one should perhaps also take into account Nietzsche who, in the 'Genealogy of Morals', seems to go so far as to present history itself as a struggle between priestly and warrior noble castes...

In electing to use Alexander as an example of superstition Spinoza is indicating that philosophy is above both religion and politics. Indeed, Spinoza continues in a (ahem) 'Nietzschean' vein and says, "that prophets have most power among the people, and are most formidable to rulers, precisely at those times when the state is in most peril. I think this is sufficiently plain to all, and will therefore say no more on the subject." Well perhaps not entirely plain; this basically says, for those that have ears to hear: 'Statesman! Either satisfy the common people or forfeit your right to rule to the prophets and their theologians.' Thus the 'war' between priestly and warrior castes was quietly noted, by Spinoza, long before Nietzsche. As an aside I should perhaps note that one also finds oneself (perhaps) nervously asking, at this point, are people today 'satisfied'?

Kojeve, the architect of the most recent apotheosis of the political (i.e., the Universal Homogenous State), seems to confirm this interpretation (in his "Introduction to the Reading of Hegel") by saying that as "long as History continues, or as long as the perfect State is not realized [...] the opposition of these two points of view (the "philosophical" and the religious or theological) is inevitable." Of course Kojeve, following a Hegel that never existed, attempts to convince us that politics and philosophy are exactly the same and that theology was ever nothing. His mistake, from the viewpoint of philosophy, can perhaps be said to be that he took sides in the interminable war between elites. ...But that is another story. However, Kojeve is correct insofar as he is understood to be maintaining that there is an unbridgeable gulf between the political and the religious...

Back to Spinoza. Satisfying the common people seems to be easier said than done. In a terrifyingly memorable passage - that is both a diagnosis and a prophecy - Spinoza writes, "[f]or, as the mass of mankind remains always at about the same pitch of misery, it never assents long to any one remedy, but is always best pleased by a novelty which has not yet proved illusive." Thus, given the perpetual emotional dissatisfaction of the people, Spinoza seems to be indicating that no one ever rules for long. He also seems to be indicating that emotions (at least among the 'mass of mankind') are uncontrollable and that the people are, in the long run, unsatisfiable. (...So exactly what is Enlightenment - and exactly why is Spinoza supporting it? ...Hmmm.)

"Superstition, then, is engendered, preserved and fostered by fear", Spinoza had earlier said. But fear is an opportunity for philosophy, I mean for philosophical intervention. Machiavelli (in 'The Prince', chapter 6), after all, had already confirmed that the oppression, dissatisfaction and dispersal of the people was, above all, an opportunity for the creative One. Spinoza says that, "Prophets have most power among the people, and are most formidable to rulers, precisely at those times when the state is in most peril." The fundamental argument (and struggle), of course, between philosophers and the political-religious elites, seems to be over the exact identity of the creative One. For the religiously inclined the creative one is God and those who act in his name, for the politically 'pious' the creative one is the (hereditary, patriotic or revolutionary) 'Prince'. For Machiavelli, Spinoza, and Nietzsche one suspects that, 'behind the scenes and between the lines', the creative one (the bringer of New Modes and Orders, to quote Machiavelli) can only be the philosopher.

Spinoza continues, quoting Curtius (the historian of Alexander): "The mob has no ruler more potent than superstition," and Spinoza immediately adds, "and is easily led, on the plea of religion, at one moment to adore its kings as gods, and anon to execrate and abjure them as humanity's common bane." Thus 'superstition' would seem potentially to be either a weapon of the religious or the political... This is a warning; but to exactly whom seems to be a bit unclear. I should mention that it is not impossible to read Machiavelli, with his high praise of ancient pagan religion, to be indicating much the same: that is, the necessary permanence of superstition. ...But, exactly what can and can't be done with superstition?

The way out of this (seemingly) unpredictable and uncontrollable mess? One possible solution, according to Spinoza, is given by the 'Turk'. They have instituted a system that invests "religion, whether true or false, with such pomp and ceremony, that it may rise superior to every shock..." Of course, as Spinoza indicates, this absolutism leaves no room for either individual freedom or a thoughtful philosophy. But then Spinoza adds, "yet in a free state no more mischievous expedient could be planned or attempted." So, after discussing (and discounting) the possibility of theocracy (the Turks) Spinoza advocates the system allegedly reigning in Amsterdam: freedom and commerce. (Whew!)

Now, in case some have been asleep for the past 300 years, I will point out that the rise of democracy was not always accomplished peaceably, nor, after its rise, has it been able to always maintain the peace. The test of being able to maintain the peace that Spinoza flings in the face of the Religion of his times can today, with equal appropriateness, be flung in the face of politics. I of course mean all politics. ...But that too is another book and another review.

Spinoza can be said to here begin a process that leads to us. I hope I have begun the process of showing that the target of Spinoza's contempt was not the common people, but the ignorance and weakness of all their tormenters. I also want to note, given both the nature of these elites and also the perpetual suffering of the people, that all solutions are transient. And that the early-modern philosophical turn to the politicos, made in the teeth of ceaseless religious war, was only a maneuver. Over the past century philosophy found itself again in an era of civil wars, revolutions and world wars; - one wonders where philosophy will now turn in its never-ending struggle to moderate elites...

Who will write the next Theologico-Political Treatise that will do to political Ideology what Spinoza here does to religious Revelation? Where is the next 'novelty'?

This book came out in 1670 in a Holland that was a haven of freedom in a Europe under religious terror. Spinoza's relatives in Portugal had been murdered by the inquisition. When he was born, German catholics and protestants were fighting a 30-year war that cut Germany's population in half. 20 years before in Italy, Giordano Bruno had been burned at the stake for heresy, and France had been ravaged by its 16th-century religious wars. Religious violence abated only slowly after Spinoza's death, with
the Salem witchcraft trials 16 years later. On 7/1/1766, after failing to salute a catholic procession in Paris, an 19-year old boy had his tongue pulled out, and was beheaded and burned with a copy of a book found in his room! Today's death threats to Danish cartoonists hint at what Spinoza's world was like, and the courage it took for him to confront it. Besides living in Holland, Spinoza further protected his freedom by staying single, living with the bare minimum of possessions, and seeking no official post or recognition.

The point of this book, as announced in the preface, is that, as was practiced in his beloved Dutch republic, freedom of religion can be granted without prejudice to public peace and that, "without such freedom, piety cannot flourish nor the public peace be secure." Today, this point is obvious: the G7 countries, all have freedom of religion, and five of them -- the US, Japan, France, Italy and Canada -- have separation of church and state. In Spinoza's day, it wasn't, and he couldn't make his case based on empirical evidence. Instead, he makes it by deconstructing the Bible using Descartes' method, which is an astonishing choice. If Machiavelli, for example, had undertaken to prove the same point, he certainly would not have done it this way.

Spinoza spent his childhood memorizing the Torah in Hebrew, at the time and in the city where Descartes lived, and his fascination with Descartes is obvious even if their metaphysics disagree. One of Descartes' own applications of his method was on the art of cutting glasses for optics, which is how Spinoza earned his modest living. Among the many astonishing finds in this book is how, by simply reasoning on the original text, Spinoza arrived at conclusions on the authorship of the early books of the bible that nearly match those of modern scholars like Abba Eban, who have had full access to archeological evidence.

I have read many books about the Eucharist and many books by Cardinal Ratzinger. However this is one in a million. It has a vibrant quality that springs from a true contemplative, a profoundly spiritual man that really lives what he is writing about. I think that what makes this book really special is the depth of Ratzinger's knowledge of the Bible and how he illuminates the reading of the Old Testament when read in the light of the New Testament. For me it has been a real higlight in my spiritual life and in my understanding of this Sacrament.I cannot recomend it enough.

The former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and current Pope Benedict XVI displays both his wisdom and devotion to Christ in this anthology of writings, homilies and lectures on the Eucharist. Benedict's renowned intellect is on display here but so is his faith, his humility and his love of catechesis. The ideas in this book are at once sensible and inspirational and the chapters are short enough to provide daily reading and meditation during Lent and Easter.

God is Near Us is a book written by Cardinal Joseph Alois Ratzinger who was then the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine for the Faith.

He talks greatly about transubstantiation and distinguishes the difference between transubstantiation and transignification. The Holy Father even objects to the Protestant reformer, Fr. Martin Luther on his objection to a continual sacrifice such as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which was instituted by Our Lord.

Pope Benedict perfectly defines the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist as "the Sacrament of the Reconciled where those who have reconciled with Our Lord could receive him".

Great on those Catholic teachings, but here's the Cons of the book:

Pope Benedict XVI is not opposed to communion in the hand. He does cite examples where communion in the hand was allowed by the Catholic Chuch during the early 8th century, but only to be prohibited in the future. This has not thrilled many traditionalist Catholics in the Roman Rite for him being "conservative" with the Holy Liturgy.

Pope Benedict uses the Modernist buzzword to describe the Eucharist as "to understand [the Eucharist] in a ecclesiological dynamism". Modernism defined on dynamism in which truth or dogmas constantly changes or adapts to the changes of time.

When describing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it's rather intertwined with the Conciliarist innovation of "Paschal Mystery" or as he defines it as the Mystery of Easter. There is rather less mention that the Mass is a propiatory act for the remission of daily sins and of temporal punishments due to mortal sins already forgiven.

Lastly, Pope Benedict says it does not matter whether the Consecration of the Chalice in the Roman Rite is mistranslated in the vernacular. If the consecration is mistranslated, then the meaning of the sacrament changes. How can the sacrament then be valid if the translation is not exactly word-for-word? The Latin text states, "Which will be shed for you and FOR MANY" but the ICEL (International Commitee of the English Liturgy) mistranslates it to "for you and FOR ALL".

Benedict XVI states that it does not matter whether it is "FOR ALL" or "FOR MANY" because Christ died for everyone which is unorthodox and contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church as well as the theological significant statement to which St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori stated in his famous book, "The Holy Eucharist".

Reading this book, I was able to learn about the Holy Father's Modernist views and teachings on the Holy Eucharist.

If you wish not to be led by a Modernist spirit on the Holy Eucharist, then I suggest that you don't read it.

If you wish to read good books on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Holy Eucharist, I suggest you buy books written by Dom Prosper Guaranger. Dom Prosper Guaranger's books are now published by Loreto Publications and Baronius Press, Ltd. Or as an alternative on the Holy Eucharist only, read the book "The Hoy Eucharist" by St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori. St. Alphonsus' book on the Holy Eucharist is very different from that of the Holy Father's book.

Nicely written. Really helps understand and prove the presence of God in the Eucharist. Some of the vocabulary was a bit hard to get through but I'm a new Catholic so it will probably be fine for someone whose been a long time practicing catholic.

As is characteristic of Ratzinger's work, the texts collected in this volume are both refreshing and traditional. As in all of his works, the future Pope Benedict XVI shows a true reverence for the teaching of the Church while discussing those age-old teachings with a true vibrancy. For him, the Eucharist is, at its core, a concern of love. It is the sacramental center of the Church which gives her life. In contact with God, man is able to reach out beyond himself to his fellow man. This love is the center of the various texts in this volume. Because of the variety of topics held in here, I will not attempt to outline the text. However, I will quote him from page 90: "The Eucharist means, God has answered." I recommend this text to all who want to reflect on what this answer means and how we may truly respond to it.

This book by Joseph Ratzinger collects a number of sermons on Genesis and the theology of creation (delivered long before he became pope).

Ratzinger has been portrayed as a theological right winger, but that's hardly the case. His view of the authorship of Genesis appears to take the liberal position. For example, he believes that there are two creation accounts in Genesis, one of which is post-exilic. He mentions Adam and Eve, but doesn't explicitly say whether he considers them to be historical. ("The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God . . . does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are.")

On the issue of evolution, Ratzinger says he believes in creation and evolution. But to what extent he rejects evolution isn't explained. Those who would like to find in the current pope an advocate of Intelligent Design will likely be disappointed.

On these issues Ratzinger reminds me of the late John Paul II when it came to the population of hell, the salvation of unbelievers, and truth or falsity of non-Christian religions. The liberal door is open, but he doesn't want to walk quite through.

This is a useful book on the Catholic view of creation, but those who want a systematic study will have to look elsewhere.

No time could be better than now for this text to be read by Americans. Catholics stand between adamant fundamentalists and extreme atheistic evolutionists. This text is something I have desired to see for a long time. It is often difficult to show atheists that Catholics are not opposed to evolution and still show fundamentalists that we are not atheistic. I believe that reading this text and also sharing it can indeed help with dialog along these lines. Ratzinger presents insights about the true importance of belief in being created, a message that can help change the view of the world for many. Additionally, he exquisitely discusses the nature of sin in mankind, giving a brief, yet profound depth to a subject which is so often avoided in modernity.

I recommend this to all who would like to see and understand a truly Catholic stance on the nature of belief in creation. In particular, I suggest it to parties that believe one of the two extremes mentioned above. Nonetheless, there are insights to be gained by all in reading this marvelous text.

This short book is a compendium of sermons the Pope gave during a Lenten season. It is necessary reading for people who are temped to take the Bible literally. It also gives others alternative understanding of Genesis and that there is a deeper meaning to the book. The Pope does an excellent illumination of the creation story from Genesis and the challenge which modern science seems to present to literal accuracy of these passages in the Bible. He presents the lessons we can learn from the creation story and accepts the science which seems to contradict the Bible.

I found it so engaging I passed it along to our local Pastor to read during this Lenten season.

In the Beginning was a delight to read. One should not feel intimidated by the author. I must say I found the new pope's style very poetic and easy to follow in contrast to the writings of John Paul II whose style was more academic. I appreciated the distinction he made regarding the necessity of understanding the "literal" meaning of Sacred Scripture in the context of its literary form. For instance, if I read an Aesop Fable as though it were history, I would be missing the true literal meaning of the text - literal in the sense of literature or the means of communication based on writing. This must be taken into consideration, and everyone in fact does - even fundamentalist/literalists, although they won't admit it. For instance they would not claim Jesus actually taught we should eat his Body and drink his Blood. They would claim that our Lord's words in John 6 were metaphorical. The tragedy occurs when one interprets Sacred Scripture apart from the Church of Christ, the Church that is his Body and possesses his mind as St. Paul so clearly teaches. Then scriptural interpretation becomes absolutely subjective. The Holy Father also focuses on the true Christian attitude toward Creation, a doctrine that has been totally lost to the public mindset. Altogether, the book clears up many misconceptions regarding Catholic doctrine.

I found this book, which contains homilies by then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), an excellent teaching on the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis. Cardinal Ratzinger writes exceptionally clearly on complex issues and his arguments are truly a delight to follow. This book is an excellent antidote to Catholics who think the Church takes Genesis 1-2 literally as do Evangelical Christians. Cardinal Ratzinger explains well the concepts of salvation history and that science and Christian belief are truly not in conflict. I found this very orthodox teaching a wonderful reminder. This book is an excellent source for anyone who wants to understand the Catholic Church's teaching on the Genesis creation stories and the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

It seems that Christian theologians have attempted to find the continuity of the faith with it's ancient Jewish roots since the beginning. This has overflowed into the extremes such as Marcion and others who found little or no continuity and another extreme that attempts to liberalize and distill Christianity and Judaism to their lowest common denominators to the point of them losing their significance altogether. As with his work, Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI once again draws us back to the essentials of our faith in order to provide an honest comparison. He finds the essential link of Old/New Testament and Judaism/Christianity lies in God's revealing himself to man by way of covenant. Therein is the key to understanding the continuity of the two faiths and the common ground for dialog and understanding.

The identification of covenant makes the Foreword by Dr. Scott Hahn, who lectures and writes extensively on covenant theology, all the more appropriate.

A well reasoned, concise, and helpful discussion leading to a deeper understanding of the continuity of faith in Christianity from Judaism. A must have for any Christian or Jewish theologian's library.

Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI. At the time of this writing he was Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Propogation of the Faith.

This small book is his exploration of ressourcement involving but not limited to a very broad sketching of biblical theology, involving "not just a recovery of the Fathers, but a return to the place where the Fathers returned, again and again: the living oracles, the Word of God" (15).

In Part One, "Israel, the Church and the World," Ratzinger considers whether a rapprochement between the Church and Israel is possible after Auschwitz, and if so toward what end. He begins by examining how the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) highlights the role of Jesus in uniting Jew and Gentile in the worship of the true and Living God. Through His coming, Jesus "brings together the histories of the nations in the community of the the history of Abraham the history of Israel. His mission is unification, reconciliation, as the Letter to the Ephesians (2:18-22) will then present it. The history of Israel should become the history of all" (27). Focusing on how the history and status of the Jews as the chosen people is foundational to the identity and reality of the Church, he establishes the continuing importance of Israel for the Church. The key theme of Jesus' coming is reconciliation, not only of Jew and Gentile to God, but of Jew and Gentile to one another.

Besides reconciliation, Ratzinger explores continuity in the realm of Torah, highlighting the catechism's avowal that Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill (and thus, validate) the Law. There must also be a continuity between Jesus and Israel, or he is an agent of division rather than reconciliation. Ratzinger tends to collapse the Law into the moral law, and sees Jesus as elevating that moral Law to its highest plane and deepest focus, thus validating rather than replacing it. He sees the Older Testmant as fundamentally Law and Promise, and Christ as the interpreter of the former and the fulfillment of the latter.

In Part Two, "The New Covenant," he explores whether the older and New Covenants are each a vassal covenant or a grant covenant, and collapses the covenants plural and lower case into the one Covenant singular and upper case, failing to adequately explain the rationale for and the nature of this shift. I find his theologizing too abstract and self-consciously christocentric, as if all of God's doings collapse into the work of Christ. Part Three is a Homily, "The New Manna," exploring the paradoxical nature of our relationship with God and of His work in the world, forswearing force, accepting weakness and vulnerability, yet inexorably transforming everything.

Part Four, "The Dialogue of The Religions and the Relationship Between Judaism and Christianity," is the most crucial chapter for my work. It involves a bare and careful sketch of a kind of logos theology, in which the truths we know of God are always partial, and the revelation we receive is often a journey in the dark, yet toward the light.

The chapter includes a sletch of the birth and nature of ecumenism, and how Christendom discovered and began to honor the religious imprinting of peoples whom it simply viewed as a target audience. He views discussions of unity and diversity to be crucial, since the geopolitical realities we all live with require of us progress in peace, justice, and preservation of the earth.

He broadly divides world religions into two categories: tribal and universal, and then divides universal religions into theistic ones (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and mystical ones. He opens the question as to whether unity is to be attained either by mystical religions absorbing the theistic ones, or vice versa. To these two options he adds a third, the pragmatic solution, orthoprzxy, by which any religion would be evaluated and disciplined through its practice of the Golden Rule.

He identifies four problems, or four losses, if mystical religion were to absorb theistic religion: loss of a distinction between theistic and mystical religions, loss of the cosmos through all embracing interiority, loss of the relevance and meaning of history, and loss of binding ethics. As for the pragmatic model (orthopraxy) he indicates that religion must inform and structure ethics and morality which are not free-floating self evident categories, and that the goal is not religion as moralism but rather growth in the knowledge and service of God.

As for theistic religion absorbing the mystical, he first considers the unique relationship between Judaism and Christianity, and the question for their peaceful reconciliation (he would probably view coexistence as inadequate). He identifies two key ideas to reduce the tension and increase agreement between the Church and Israel: that through Jesus Israel's God becomes the God of the nations, and that Jesus is the servant of Israel's God for the nations' sake. These two facts can be freely acknowledged by both Jews and Christians. He suggests that two poles anchor the faith of Israel: Torah and the Messianic hope. He sees Christianity as similarly anchored, with Jesus as the Church's Sinai, and the second coming as her messianic hope. These two poles--Torah and hope link past, present and future for Israel as obedience to a received deposit, present living out of God's will, and hope in the Messiah to come. The same is true for the Church, living in the obedience of faith (past/faith), anticipation of the parousia (future/hope), and love in the present. Ratzinger avers that Christ therefore both separates and unites the Church and Israel.

Finally, in configuring the relationship between the Christian faith and mystical religions, Ratzinger says Christianity has room for a God who s always greater than our formulations, and that God's self-revelation simultaneously conceals, as in the kenosis (the self-emptying of Christ in the Incarnation). In structuring and conceiving the dialogue or religions, he says (1) the encounter of thr religions is not possible by renouncing or downplaying truth but only by encountering truth more deeply; (2) We must be prepared to acknowledge and find the truth others have found even when it comes to us in strange and foreign garb; (3) Mission and dialogue go hand in hand, since dialogue aims at finding truth and missionaries must always be learners as well as teachers. Returning to his logos imagery, he closes by indicating that all of us have encountered truth to some degree and we must learn from each other, listening to the Logos.

Clearly, Ratzinger is a first-class thinker. That the book is so brief is both a strength and weakness, as matters are repeatedly sketched instead of drawn. One wants to know more, and yet, appreciates the momentum of the overview. I appreciate the book as a summation of now Pope Benedict XVI's perspective, and have three problems with the treatment. First, I find myself alienated and unconvinced by overly abstract theological arguments: it seems a linguistic game to me (cf. Wittgenstein). Second, to the degree he seeks to speak for Israel, as in the case of what Jews believe, he offends. He would not welcome a Jews defining and characterizing the Holy See. The editors should have had a rabbi on hand to Jewishly validate or invalidate the portrait of the Jewish people Ratzinger constructs. Finally, I find myself far less sanguine about the prospects of absorbing or reaching rapprochement with the world religions. My evangelical conditioning suggests that the voices heard in some religions come from a different kingdom.

Despite these caveats, this is an important book for those seeking an orientation to the current pope's mindset and views on the Jews.

This is a surprising book! I was amazed to read of such views taken by the Holy Pontiff. I have a more positive view after reading this short but important book.

The style is typical Ratzinger. Thoughtful and insightful. Slow reading at times yet this is to be expected when dealing with a devisive issue which as firmented for nearly 1500 years. Definately worth the time to read and digest if for no other reason than to provide the reader with a farmilarization to the author. More professionally known these days as Pope Benedict XVI.

Much of what Cardinal Ratzinger has said here has been said in other works (by him or by others). However, the given text functions as a thoughtful synthesis of these movements of thought. It is not an attempt to completely answer the question of pluralism or of the Christian-Jewish relationship. Instead, this text lays a basic framework for considering Christ's role in fulfilling the Jewish faith, the nature of Covenant as God's self-communication, the nature of the New Covenant, and religious dialogue.

I suggest this text to all but not lightly. While it is not very esoteric, it is weighty enough to require quiet reflection. The fruits of reading it are great and also give one a starting point for further thought on the subject material. I suggest it to all open minds.

St. Benedict (480-546) stands out as a key figure in the history of Western monasticism. His Rule is the guiding document for the greater part of Catholic monastic life, serving as the foundation for the Benedictines, the Cistercians, and the Cistercians of the Strict Order (the Trappists).

THE RULE OF SAINT BENEDICT attempts to recapture the spirit of community evidenced in The Acts of the Apostles, that is to say, a common life in faith, in worship, in simplicity, and in which possessions are shared. This restoration of early Christian life Benedict developed for cenobitic (versus eremitic, i.e., communal versus hermit) monks. The Rule for this life is centered on prayer, and in particular, the "work of God"--opus Dei: the Eucharist and the chanting of the Divine Office. The Divine Office, in turn, revolves around the chanting of the Psalms.

Although a guide for monasticism and an interesting historical document to boot, THE RULE OF SAINT BENEDICT is also excellent spiritual reading for any person of faith. The Rule, and the spirit of monasticism which suffuses it, reminds us to be attentive in prayer, to observe silence and simplicity in our daily lives; to be "countercultural," if you will, in the sense of resisting the world's materialism, individualism, and egotism. The Rule challenges us to be centered in Christ (and so, other-centered), to be open to the wisdom and guidance of others, to exhibit humility, reverence and restraint in speech. It should not be read by the lay reader as a literal rule for living a Christian life; rather, the lay reader should try to absorb the spirit of Benedict's words and live the essence of the Rule. In this way, too, Benedict's Rule might have appeal to non-Christian faiths.

The introductory material by Thomas Moore, a former monk and current author, and Thomas Fry, O.S.B., a Benedictine monk and former editor of the AMERICAN BENEDICTINE REVIEW, are succinct and useful. There is also a helpful Chronology of Christian Monasticism. This edition is a light and portable paperback, making it ideal for tucking away in a bag for spiritual reading while on public transit, or while traveling.

This is a must read for anyone dabbling into Christian spirituality. Especially helpful are the introductions that include a brief history about monasticism and an essay written by Thomas More.

I have the Vintage Spiritual Classics edition. I really like the Vintage Spiritual Classics series. They do a great job of presented the texts, and the covers are nice as well. The text of the rule was originally in Latin, the translation presented in this text is known as RB1980 which was translated by Timothy Fry.

The rule is not very long. In my copy the text of the rule takes 63 pages. The most interesting (and relevant) part of the rule is the first seven chapters. These chapters talk about the qualifications of the abbot, how a monk should go about his business, obedience, restraint in speech, humility etc. There is really great stuff in here!

Here's a great example of the kind of stuff in the rule: "Your way of acting should be different from the world's way; the love of Christ must come before all else. You are not to act in anger or nurse a grudge. Rid your heart of all deceit. Never give a hollow greeting of peace or turn away when somebody needs your love. Bind yourself to no oath lest it prove false, but speak the truth with heart and tongue."

I can't see anything there that requires you to be monk to benefit! Beyond the first seven chapters, there are very interesting things to be gleaned from the rule. The psalms are the heart of the monastic life, prayer the chief concern. The rule provides for spiritual guidance as well as how a group of men will get along living together every day.

On the whole I think the rule is fantastic. I have no desire to be a monk, I'd much rather be married :-) But I think we can learn from the rule and from the life of the monastics. I don't know that I would recommend you run out and buy the book, I'd say read the text online and see if you want to own a copy first.

Joel

I found this to be a fascinating insight into the lives and leisures of the Benedictine Order of Monks. True, to contemporary ears the complete obediance and devotion demanded seem harsh but it is an amazing look into the expectations of early church founders. For a religious book, it is an incredible page turner. I finished it in approximately 2.5 hours. If you have an interest in Medieval Religious Life, this is one to have.

The Rule of St. Benedict is a fairly short book, usually printed in fewer than 100 pages, with its 73 chapters of a few paragraphs in length at most. Here the entirety of the Rule is contained in 70 pages. It is a good example of the statement, 'good things come in small packages'.

This particular volume comes from the Vintage Spiritual Classics series, and there is no doubt that the Rule of Benedict, standing solid in community for 1500 years, qualifies. Countless people have based their lives and spiritual practices on the words contained herein.

Thomas Moore, noted author of such texts as 'Care of the Soul' and 'Meditations', provides an introduction to the series. Moore's sensibilities lend themselves to the practice of a rule -- discipline and community are important to him, and as such he finds a natural bond with Benedictine practices.

Father Timothy Fry, OSB (which stands for 'Order of St. Benedict', and is used by monastics and oblates), provides a brief introduction and a timeline of monastic development from before the Christian era to after the time of Benedict.

Benedict was fully aware of human frailty, as true 1500 years ago as it is today. This frailty requires much to be done to give the person strength, and so Benedict's Rule is designed for an ever-increasing self-discipline which is supported by community worship and practice.

Benedict's Rule for life includes worship, work, study, prayer, and relaxation. Benedict's Rule requires community -- even for those who become hermits or solitaries, there is a link to the community through worship and through the Rule. No one is alone. This is an important part of the relationship of God to the world, so it is an integral part of the Rule.

Benedict's Rule was set out first in a world that was torn with warfare, economic and political upheaval, and a generally harsh physical environment. This Rule was set out to bring order to a general chaos in which people lived. This is still true today, and men and women all over the world use Benedict's 'little rule for beginners' as a basic structure for their lives.

The first word of the rule is Listen. This is perhaps the best advice for anyone looking for any guidance or rule of life. While Benedict's Rule is decidedly Christocentric and hierarchical (though not as hierarchical as much popular ideas about monastic practice would have one think), it nonetheless can give value to any reader who is looking to construct a practice for oneself.

Benedict's establishment of a monastery was in fact the establishment of a school for spirituality. In his prologue to the Rule, Benedict even states this as his intention. In drawing up its regulations, he intends to set down 'nothing harsh, nothing burdensome.' He sets forth in this brief rule a guide to individual life within community that will bring one ever closer to the divine.

Benedict explores the issues of charity, personality, integrity, and spirituality in all of his rules. From the clothing to the prayer cycle to the reception of guests, all have a purpose that fits into a larger whole, and all have positive charges and negative warnings. Benedict is especially mindful of the sin of pride, be it pride of possession, pride of person, pride of place -- he strives for equality in the community (as a recognition that all are equal before God).

Hundreds of thousands of pages have been written over the last millenium and a half on the Rule of St. Benedict, but it all comes down to this brief collection, which can be read easily in an hour, yet takes a lifetime (or perhaps more!) to master.

There is a useful section for guidance for further reading at the end. Open it for yourself to see what riches it may hold for you.

Well, this book brought me even closer to the holly events of the New Testament!! Being a mother myself, I felt even closer to lovely Maria, with a deep human compassion and a deep religious and human respect...The details of the everyday living and human contact of those days is an invaluable historical find!!

The book being based on parts of another big book (The Passion of Christ) reffering only to Mother Mary'life, looses its deeper impact and value as a quality Literature book...I also felt , that I needed to learn more about the common life of Joseph, Mary, and all of their children! But this part of Maria's life is unfortunately missing in this book , while it is not missing in the Bible Itself ( : The original New Testament in Ancient Greek) ...

Anne Catherine Emmerick is the same person who inspired Mel Gibson to make the movie "The Passion". A heart felt insight to the life of Jesus Blessed Mother.

Clemens Brentano had planned a Life of Mary to be based like The Dolorous Passion Of Our Lord Jesus Christ: After The Meditations Of Anne Catherine Emmerich, on his recordings of the visions of the famous mystic, Anne Catherine Emmerich. On his death in 1842 the work was left unfinished, and it was not till many years later that it was finally completed by other hands.

'Though the accounts of these visions', to quote Brentano's Preface to the Dolorous Passions, 'solemnly reject the slightest claim to bear the character of historical truth' - being merely 'a pious nun's Lenten meditations' - yet he was at pains to try to verify, often with surprising success, the scriptural, historical and geographical elements in the mystical visions he recorded. The results of his researches he embodied in notes which are here reprinted, together with further critical notes, on both the original text and Brentano's comments, by Father Sebastian Bullough, O.P.

A treasury of holy scenes and pictures which contribute to the edification and inspiration of the faithful; the Life of Mary is 'a worthy companion' to the earlier book, and should obviously be read in conjunction with the Dolorous Passion, since the one narrative often supplements the other.
--- from book's back cover

How can anyone review a book like this ? One has to read this book with an open heart. Anna Catherine is so religious and sincere that its a wonder. Read this book in the same mode..Is there any one like this do-day ??

I know this book. It is extremely valuable in content and articulation.

I need to alert someone about the fact I tried to order 2 of these books besides the bood on Mary Magdalen by the same author, bringing my purchase over $20.00, thus avoiding shipping charges. I hope this is understood. Del Rhames

The minute I took it out of the box I knew I would return it. And that was before I even opened the book! The pages aren't numbered but it appears to have about 25 pages in it. Taking the price into consideration that comes to almost $1 a page. Additionally, inside there are many blank areas to write your ideas on so ultimately I was spending $19.95 for a note pad. Too bad. Everyone else seemed to love the ideas the author presented. I couldn't get past the feeling of being cheated to even read her ideas.

One of the greatest strengths of Susan Turnbull's book is that she is able to make the process of writing an ethical will manageable. The book is not overloaded with information or questions to ponder, which could be overwhelming. And something that's overwhelming won't get done...

Instead, she has honed in on key ideas to consider for people who want to write an ethical will, and made it clear that the final document can be as simple or as elaborate as you want it to be. It can also be something that happens gradually (and evolves) over the course of time. The book is beautifully designed, too.

The recent illness and death of several people who are close to me has made mortality very tangible, and I've realized how much I want to leave a legacy letter to my own family. This book really helped me begin what could have been an otherwise overwhelming process.

Susan Turnbull has written a masterful guide to creating your own ethical will. Working one's way through the book is very much like having a caring guide alongside you, pointing the way, asking the important questions, and supporting you through the sacred work of documenting your values and what you stand for (and against). I have recommended this book to many clients and friends. I hope that in my own writing and publishing, I can create as much value and beauty as Susan Turnbull has done in The Wealth of Your Life.

Ed Jacobson, Ph.D.

I had never heard about Ethical Wills until recently, but was really inspired by the idea when I heard about it. I knew myself well enough to know that I would need some kind of path to follow to actually get started, and so I was really glad to find this book. What is great about it is that it is both broad and narrow - broad enough that it really got me thinking and narrow enough to give me some structure to follow. I recommend it highly!

This is a good and concise overview of what it means to be Japanese, and to think as the Japanese do. (With appropriate caution, of course: the book is over 50 years old). Such a book is important because since Japan is a modern industrialized world power, Americans can tend to forget that there are still cultural and social chasms between our way of thinking and interacting and that of the Japanese.

Understanding various concepts of obligation, debt, face-saving, and the influences of historical events (such as the Meiji reform)are covered here. Benedict is also an engaging writer who makes ample use of stories, anecdotes, and illustrations to make her point.

Cultural anthropologist Benedict began interviewing Japanese living outside Japan in the 1940s to grasp the structure of their thought, behaviors, motivations compared with American ideas. The goal was to benefit Allied Forces fighting Japan in WWII. With the end of the war, the focus for using her research shifted to the appropriate manner in which to administer reconstruction. In contrast with Italy and Germany where Allied Forces took over and executed reconstruction, in Japan the Allies utilized the social infrastructure already extant.

This decision to respect the unique cultural aptitudes and preferences of the indigenous population led to a remarkably smooth post-war transition.

Ruth Benedict explains why what a Westerner would interpret as hypocrisy is essentially an effort of etiquette,to maintain relationship so that one may have another opportunity to interact in the future and perhaps repair any damaged feelings in the process.

If one reads Genji, then Tale of Murasaki, then Chrysanthemum and Sword in that order, the sense is of a society structured much as Jane Austen viewed her rural England.

The explanations of Japan's perplexing incongruities, incomprehensible behaviors is enlightening, and allows one to inhabit a culture quite different yet equally valid from one's own.

Highly recommended

Any westerner who's ever been to Japan may have felt at one moment or another that he or she has landed, not only in a different country, but in quite a different planet. If you're taking a trip to Japan, the cultural tips you find in a quick reference tourist guide might suffice for travel, but if you're planning to live in Japan or study any particular topic of its culture, you'll definitely have to dig way deeper."The Chrysantemum And The Sword" is a classic text of Cultural Anthropology written around the end of WWII, and althought its author, Ruth Benedict, wrote it whithout ever setting foot in Japan, it's remarkable how far she went to understand the underlaying values of a culture like this, at times fascinating, and at times shocking. It was written in 1946, but it's still a book some people in Japanese universities suggest as a reference to understand some key aspects of this amazing culture. I'd also say this book is a must-read for anyone interested in humanity in the middle of war.

In 1944, the Allies landed in Normandy, forcing the German army to fight on two fronts; on the Pacific the counteroffensive against Japan gave the Americans one victory after another. The war was almost finished and the new world order was only a matter of time.
The losers, Germany and Japan, not only had to be punished, but these nations needed to be revived and given a fresh start.

In this political situation, the American government decided to get advice not only from the military and politicians, but also from the anthropologists - in an attempt to understand foreign, now subordinate, societies. The Japanese culture, so alien and distant from the American one, which is firmly rooted in Europe, was analyzed by Ruth Benedict, an anthropologist from Columbia University. The goal was to learn of the strengths and weaknesses of the Japanese in order to assume the best strategy towards the end and after the WWII.

Benedict writes with rare objectivity, describing Japanese traditions and customs, the habits, which are obvious in Japan, but weird, extreme or unheard of for an average Western person. She describes the situations, when the Japanese expect politeness and respect, and when they cannot count on any; when they feel shame, confusion and embarrassment; what they demand from their family, friends, co-workers and themselves. She discusses their roots, symbols and ideas on which the society is based (this is not a book about religion or art, so they are only mentioned when necessary).

The fact, that Benedict had never set foot in Japan, was nothing special - it was believed that it is possible for an anthropologist to use means other than personal experience in their work. She interviewed the Japanese immigrants and expatriates, and used written texts - books, newspapers and letters, to recreate the picture of the Japanese society and familiarize the Americans with the Japanese life attitude - to the certain extent. She succeeded in presenting the Japanese as people different, but equally civilized and developed to the Americans, and despite her objectivity she managed to sneak in some personal attitude - for example, although she mentions the defeat of Japan and American victory, she does not mention the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which she did not approve of. Interestingly, she compares the Japanese to teh Americans, which, to non-American reader, is also a good insight into the life of the average American in the 1940s.

"The Chrysanthemum and the Sword" remains the staple for those interested in Japan. It still gives the basis of the knowledge of the Japanese and provides a starting point. Of course, there is no mention (how could it be?) of the Meiji Restoration and modernization of the society, of the economic boom and the technological revolution, of karoshi and sararimen (but how to understand the latter two without any knowledge of bushido and samurai culture?). But nearly every new book, which describes these phenomena, mentions Benedict's work.

Certain chapters in Ruth Benedict's book are easier to read than others. In some chapters, her writing style is terse, heavy, prone to constructions that reek of a style common 50 years ago that no one uses anymore. This occasionally made it difficult getting to the useful information.

Other chapters read in a much lighter, easier to digest fashion. The chapters on obligation ("on") and child rearing were very interesting and easy to read. These were also probably the chapters I found most enlightening for understanding the Japanese character.

I recently began working for a Japanese firm and became very interested in understanding more about the unique Japanese character, and how I could communicate best with my co-workers and perhaps understand them better when they said certain things or acted in certain ways. In this respect, this book has been invaluable, especially when dealing with individuals born from 1940-1970.

This book has helped me understand why the Japanese say or do certain things that seem superfluous or hypocritical to an American. Also, this book has opened me to having true cultural understanding (not "tolerance" which is not the same thing, but truly understanding the roots of culturally distinct behavior and psychology) for the Japanese.

Recommended for anyone working with or living with the Japanese.

The book is an extensive overview of the Christian faith from a Catholic point of view, the format is question-answer, and the questions are by the well prepared (and friendly) Peter Seewald, the answers are by the church theologian Cardinal Ratzinger, (Currently Pope Benedict XVI).
The book is worth reading by anyone, and a must reading by a Christian Catholic. It sheds a lot of light on the elaborate (and controversial) philosophy of the church. The real draw back is the friendly attitude of the interviewer, he just lets the Cardinal off the hook so readily (and there are a lot of hooks), at times you can see the Cardinal stretching things beyond reasonable limits, or taking refuge in the "beyond reason mysteries".
This approach when mixed with some logical "fortifications" is a recipe for explaining anything in any direction.
I remember Pope Benedict XVI recently criticizing the approach of following abstract reason all the way when dealing with morality and I admired his point of view that this might lead into disastrous conclusions, but after reading the book I realized that the op