The New Marie Antoinette

 Let’s go live in France, in a Château!

True Confessions. Yes, I have a few bad habits, and some of my friends might say, “Really darling, I would never have guessed.” I hold to the principle that I’m no better than anyone, and no one is better than me. Sometimes, I slip in that arena, too. 

I also watch YouTube. I have discovered a niche of (mostly) foreigners renovating Châteaux in France. I am a francophile and still speak and understand the language with less proficiency than I imagine after not living in France for more than 50 years. I once had all of Julia Child’s cookbooks along with the overlooked but, in some ways, more interesting Elizabeth David’s French Provincial Cooking, and I used them. I follow the reconstruction of Notre Dame.

Stephanie Jarvis bought the run-down Château de la Lande over twenty years ago. It is in Crozon-sur-Vauvre, south of Paris in central France, in the middle of nowhere. The nearest major city is Poitiers. Starting with little money, she and her friend Michel began ripping Lalande apart and undertaking an extensive DIY project. She was among the first Château YouTubers and has amassed 257K subscribers. She does segments for UK TV plus her Château Diaries. It was a lucky choice she made more than two decades ago.

Some of her projects are extremely interesting. She undertook the renovation of the 19th-century chapel with a very creative online fundraising scheme. Though not a listed building, she has spent nearly a million euros to have specialists do the work. The painting is as intricate and beautiful as some of the side chapels in Notre Dame, and those video segments have been fantastic TV. Recently, some sagging beams above the grand salon required extensive work in the bedrooms and washrooms on the first floor and renovations of the ancient fireplaces. The carpenter, her cousin, is a master. Top drawer.

Less interesting is Stephanie’s fretting over wallpaper choices, sorting hundreds of unread books, rummaging through every brocante between Lalande and the Mediterranean, and spending hours moving precious junk from one attic room to another. I usually fast-forward but can be slightly amused. 

It is also not lost on me that YouTube has provided a handsome income for Stephanie, her boyfriend, her mother, and other friends, who regularly rush off to Paris, Vienna, Venice, Geneva, the Riviera, or Marrakech for fantastic food. She leads an incredibly privileged life. (They even popped off to Venice and returned with the bed that King Charles and Camilla slept in, which became available before a major renovation in a hotel on the Grande Canal! How many people can point to a bedroom in their Château and say King Charles slept in that bed?)

Now we get to the fun part, the over-the-top mother of all disasters, the devastation of devastations! There was a leak in the ceiling of the kitchen. She had to rush back from dinner in Geneva, driving through the night to view a situation well in hand; two skilled carpenters already had the false ceiling down; the floor was mopped up, a plumber on the way; the dishes removed to a safe place, not one broken, no poo from the faulty sewage pipe on the floor, the kitchen relocated to another full-service kitchen in another part of the house, but Stephanie was inconsolable. 

20 years of shattered dreams. Her well-oiled team of codependents gather around to soothe her. Oh no, she cries. How can I go on? The kitchen was the first room we repaired. It fell apart. This is the worst tragedy ever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVShsNmf1sM

Get a grip, girl. Do you think you’re Marie Antoinette? The histrionics point to a life far too privileged and perhaps overpaid. I began: “Stephanie, darling, can I make a suggestion? I don’t mean it in a nasty way. Tone down the disaster and devastation talk.” I got jumped by one of her cohort of codependent supporters, telling me that she was just grieving and that I should get over it. She’s got you hooked into her game: “Poor me. A struggling minor English actress in France. Fate handed me the burden of having to spend money I have to fix a kitchen that needed to be fixed before I move on to repairing the damage caused by rotting 400-year-old beams before I restore boiserie that I picked up for a nickel out of a Parisian Hotel Particulier.

I’ll stop trying to be nice. I mean this in the nastiest possible way. Just shut up. Stop it. People who can’t afford to redo their kitchens and grand salons might find this as offensive as I do. Your team is far more interesting and pleasant.

Here is a list of my favorite YouTube Châteaux videos:

The Château Diaries; https://www.youtube.com/@TheChâteauDiaries.

Escape to Rural France; https://www.youtube.com/@escapetoruralfrance.
Les Jeromes; https://www.youtube.com/@LesJeromes.

Bordeaux Life; https://www.youtube.com/@BordeauxLife.

The Petherics; https://www.youtube.com/@ThePethericks.

Château du Theil; https://www.youtube.com/@Châteaudutheil.

Château de Purnon; https://www.youtube.com/c/Ch%C3%A2teaudePurnon.

Au Petit Château 1780; https://www.youtube.com/@AuPetitChâteau1780.

How To Renovate A Château; https://www.youtube.com/@HowToRenovateAChâteau.'

Escape To The Dream; https://www.youtube.com/@chateaudelalacelle.

 

Ordo Amoris

This is not the first time I’ve been disappointed in our roman catholic shadow government. I’m starting to feel the ghosts of Pius 12 playing footsie with Mussolini and Hitler, but perhaps my paranoia is winning the day. It is still unnerving to watch this unfold. 

JD Vance told us to Google it. I share this much with our Catholic VP—I often use Google while constructing theological arguments. What shows up in my search for “Ordo Amoris” does not go back to the sayings of Jesus but originates with Augustine, another convert from some weird Gnosticism almost 400 years after the life and death of Lord Jesus and, I might add, a favorite of Opus Dei. 

So, let’s take care of the biblical sources right away. JD’s “family and friends first” is on shaky ground. I’m not saying the scripture has nothing to say about your mother, but you should not elevate those conversations to prayers to the Blessed Virgin. Three passages will cover my argument. 

Matthew 12:47-50: “47 Someone told him, ‘Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.’ 48 He replied to him, ‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.’”

John 15:12–13: “12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

And then, of course, Luke 25-37, the story of the Good Samaritan. I’ll only quote Luke’s rhetorical question: 36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” 37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Obviously, Jesus was not as narrow-minded as JD. Or perhaps I should say, “properly ordered.” Loving your parents, especially your mother, is high on the list of virtues to be emulated. Even the Dalai Lama tells his followers to love the world like your mother. But add a Latin formulation from Agustine to Aquinas, and ordo amoris has the ring of natural theology if not the Revealed Word of God. 

But I have trouble with it. It is called natural theology because it states that the order of the world as we find it should be respected because it provides a broad outline of what God intended for the world. But Natural Theology, at least as far I recall, was a relatively confined discipline, covering the “Just War Theology” and a list of sexual disorders that included contraception, sexual attraction, and the proper positions for sexual intercourse. Of course, there were other applications, but this is where the rubber met the road in my Jesuit theology: justification of the war in Vietnam, condemning the sexual revolution, and the “gay Kabal.”

But here is where I can legitimately put on both what remains of my Ratio Studiorum (should I tell JD to Google it?) and my Buddhist robes: Compassion is not a zero-sum game. Vance wants to use lofty-sounding Latin to justify draconian budget cuts that mostly affect poor immigrants and people of color because he can then say that Catholic teaching justifies budget cuts. The order of the universe tells us to take care of our own first. I will not comment on the finite limits of the possible US debt obligation, but this is not a conversation about compassion or the proper order of love. It is bookkeeping, and paying the bill is included. Luke’s tale is explicit. After the Samaritan cared for the man: “35 The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’ 

Father Ignatius also teaches us that Love is expressed in actions, not words. Compassion is the supreme virtue in most Buddhist sects, and I suspect in most interpretations of the teaching of the Lord, though the language is slightly different. I usually try not to give spiritual advice online, but this is a no-brainer: JD, talk to your priest or spiritual director. You are doing something wrong if your compassion is not growing and expanding, including more while excluding none. Change your life, and don’t take the advice of your bookkeeper or the tax collector as the word of God. 

I found this article by Frederick Bauerschmidt and Maureen Sweeney in The Church Life Journal helpful. They are a couple. Maureen is an immigration attorney, and Frederick is a theologian.

https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/ordo-amoris-wisely-extending-love/

Words Shape Our World: Why It's Time to Rethink the Language of Partnership

 by  Akash Maharaj

e

stndprog,c1c59g1bt9c70e13if4f282o5i aht g5745180Or12234uh  

· 

I returned to this article today by my friend Akash Mahataj. I thought I should repost it.

Most people don’t think twice about the words they use, but the truth is, words shape our world. They're not just descriptors. They’re creators. When someone says, “You’re hired” or “You’re fired,” they’re not just describing a situation—they’re creating a new reality. The phrase “I now pronounce you husband and wife” doesn’t reflect a relationship—it forms one. That’s how powerful language is. Even in the Bible, it says, "In the beginning was the Word." The very foundation of creation starts with language. Words are that powerful.

Philosophers like John Searle and Fernando Flores got it. They understood that words aren’t just passive tools we use to describe the world—they actively create the world. When we speak, we’re doing more than talking. We’re building the future with every sentence.

Now, think about the language we use at work. Specifically, in recruitment and professional services—a world I know well. Words like “human resources” are a relic of an industrial past, where people were seen as cogs in a machine. “Head-hunting”? Even worse. That language reflects a transactional, outdated way of thinking about talent. It doesn’t just describe how we treat people; it informs how we treat them.

What if we changed that? What if the words we used matched the future we want to build? We don’t need "resources." We need talent, creativity, and energy. We don’t "hunt heads." We build teams. This isn’t just semantics—it’s how we shift the narrative, the culture, the work we do.

And speaking of shifting narratives, it’s time to rethink how professional services and managed service providers are viewed. “Suppliers.” Really? That word reduces us to a one-sided transaction, where companies receive and service providers deliver. But the best partnerships aren’t built on transactions—they’re built on collaboration. Service companies should be seen as partners—invested in your success, not just delivering a service. It’s a relationship that goes both ways, where both parties grow together.

But here’s the kicker—changing our language isn’t hard. It’s a choice. It’s about being intentional. When we start using words that reflect respect, possibility, and collaboration, we stop thinking about people as resources and start thinking about them as partners. It shifts the conversation from what we can get to what we can create together. And that small change in language? It leads to a big change in culture.

So, what does this mean for you? It means you can start today. Pay attention to the words you’re using. Are they shaping the future you want, or are they holding you back in an outdated mindset? The power to change the way your organization thinks, hires, and grows is already in your hands—or rather, in your words. And once you start using them with intention, the impact will be impossible to ignore.

“Don't Just Give Up!”

 Should You Just Give Up?

Sisyphus couldn’t stop pushing his boulder—but you can.

By Joshua Rothman

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/open-questions/should-you-just-give-up

Far be it from me to enter into a debate with an astounding self-help writer. He writes for the New Yorker, so God help me, but I will call him out. Joshua Rothman seems to indicate in his latest article, “Should You Just Give Up?” that sometimes--actually, as a general rule--we should scale back our dreams to land them within the parameters of reasonable or “doable” and thus escape being disappointed or disillusioned. We’d be happier campers. 

Who am I to argue with a man with such august credentials? I am an 80-year-old failure who has faced at least an equal share of unhappiness as most living, breathing humans, but since I entered religious life as a Jesuit when I was 23 after an Ivy League education with its promise of a cushy life with lots of cash and prizes, I have never given up on my dreams. They have, of course, changed and morphed, but they are still as strong a motivating factor as they were on August 15th, 1966. What is most important, however, is that at 80, I am still living my dreams. Life is challenging, exciting, and new if I’m not careful, although when I get up from more frequent naps, I find myself remembering people and events decades old with clarity and sometimes even wonder. But the most frequent emotion is a deep feeling of gratitude. 

However, when Rothman dug up some anecdotal evidence from Kennet Roshi, I dug in my heels. He cites another self-help writer, Oliver Burkeman, who advocates “imperfectionism.”  Burkeman invokes the British Zen master Houn Jiyu-Kennett, who, instead of lightening the burden she placed on her students, made it “so heavy that he or she would put it down.” Once her charges saw their situations as “totally irredeemable,” they gave themselves “permission to stop struggling.” Burkeman counsels: “Instead of setting out to become a master meditator—and buying the requisite books, candles, cushion, and app—you should simply try meditating for five minutes today, and see what happens.”

I am at least 25,000 hours beyond the meditation time I might have logged using his five-minute rule. I also know the first person in the US that Kennet authorized to teach. We talk at least twice a week. Just standing in those qualifications, I want to ask Mr. Burkeman who the fuck he thinks he is to be telling people to give up on the dream of becoming Zen Masters so that they can settle into some kind of semi-pleasurable mediocrity? We need more Zen masters. You have examined the state of our world and noticing that innumerable unhappy people have given up their dreams, your best advice is just to wake up and do a long, fact-driven pro and con list to settle on some achievable goals. Then you cite all the psychologists you’ve delved into in your 20-year writing career and find evidence that people have been pie in the sky and perhaps just getting real and seeing what they can reasonably do is the best way out. After all, Jung told us just to do what’s at hand. 

I’m not giving some blanket advice that talking to someone with perspective is not valuable or that when pursuing some quixotic project, talking to a lawyer or accountant is a bad idea; far from it. Perhaps Burkeman is drawing the wrong conclusions from his Kennet anecdote. Maybe it was not to give up at all, but rather to see the situation for what it was, head-on, with no illusions, and then change your approach and give up a strategy that is not working. Yes, of course, stop struggling, but that is not advice to give up. It just means to stop struggling and perhaps stop daydreaming. Go deeper into your dream and discover what it tells you. I am also sure Kennet said to wake up, but certainly, she did not counsel anyone to shut down their dreams.