Daniel, Michael E Review of: Continental ambitions: Roman catholics in North America: The colonial experience, by Kevin Starr, pp. 605, hardback, $59.99.

Daniel, Michael E Review of: It is right and just: Responses of the Roman Missal, by John M. Cunningham, Strathfield, NSW: St Pauls, 2017, pp. 63, paperback, $9.95.

Daniel, Michael E Review of: My door is always open: A conversation on faith, hope and the church in a time of change, by Pope Francis with Antonio Spadaro, trans. Shaun Whiteside, London: Bloomsbury, 2014, pp. 172, $30.00.

Daniel, Michael E Review of: Wehrmacht priests: Catholicism and the Nazi war of Annihilation, by Lauren Faulkner Rossi, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015, pp. 255, hardback, $79.00.

In this essay, I address three questions: the nature of heidegger's involvement with national socialism; whether there is an essential link between heidegger's thought and his political decision to support hitler; and allegations regarding anti-Semitism in his thought and politics.

Daniel, Michael E Review of: Saints, sacrilege and sedition: Religion and conflict in the Tudor reformations, by Eamon Duffy, pp. 253, paperback, $27.99.

Readers of C.L.R. James are familiar with the thinker’s careful reading of Melville’s Moby-Dick in his text Mariners, Renegades, and Castaways. In that work James proposes that Melville exposes the foundations of societal level fascism as exemplified by the monomaniacal purpose of Ahab. The purpose of this effort is to push further into the concept of societal division as exemplified by Moby-Dick by proposing that Melville is taking on the discourse of color (black vs. white) and its relationship to ontological (...) value (bad vs. good) by imploding the internal logic of Plato’s Phaedrus. What concerns this project is the relationship between the phenotypic “blackness” of the characters of African descent in Moby-Dick and ways in which Melville endeavors to destabilize skin color in the western imaginary as a means to correct the negative consequences of this flattening of the hierarchical nature of society on the part of Ahab. (shrink)

Limitations of space dictate that we confine ourselves to Miss Stern's most salient comments. First, a preliminary point. Miss Stern says “Levin offers no argument” for why “e happened because of c” implicitly contains an explanatory description, while “c caused e” does not. But surely the remark that we often know that c caused e without knowing why c caused e is just such an argument. Our linguistic intuition suggests that we use the first locution in this case; Miss Stern's (...) evidently does not. Cases of non-diagnostic causal ascriptions do exist, and even ordinary language must provide for them; how it does so is a verbal dispute about English. (shrink)