"why we have no trouble in being kind to heretics, and no repugnance in rubbing shoulders with them"

     "If heretics no longer horrify us today, as they once did our forefathers, is it certain that it is because there is more charity in our hearts?  Or would it not too often be, perhaps, without our daring to say so, because the bone of contention, that is to say, the very substance of our faith, no longer interests us?  Men of too familiar and too passive a faith, perhaps for us dogmas are no longer the Mystery on which we live, the Mystery which is to be accomplished in us.  Consequently, then, heresy no longer shocks us; at least, it no longer convulses us like something trying to tear the soul of our souls away from us. . . . And that is why we have no trouble in being kind to heretics, and no repugnance in rubbing shoulders with them.
     "In reality, bias against 'heretics' is felt today just as it used to be.  Many give way to it as much as their forefathers used to do.  Only, they have turned it against political adversaries.  Those are the only ones that horrify them.  Those are the only ones with whom they refuse to mix.  Sectarianism has only changed its object and taken other forms, because the vital interest has shifted.  Should we dare to say that this shifting is progress?
     "It is not always charity, alas, which has grown greater, or which has become more enlightened:  it is often faith, the taste for the things of eternity, which has grown less."

     Henri de Lubac, S.J., Further paradoxes, trans. from Nouveaux paradoxes (1955) by Ernest Beaumont (London:  Longmans, Green; Westminster, MD:  The Newman Press, 1958), 118-119.
     That last paragraph continues and concludes with the words:  "Injustice and violence are still reigning; but they are now in the service of degraded passions."  So were our "forefathers" who "refuse[d] to mix" with heretics, then, guilty of "bias", "Injustice and violence"?  Is that how, contra some, this passage should really be read?  Or is the conservative reading correct after all, since the "passions" of our "forefathers" were apparently not then "degraded"?  I have made no attempt to read around this in context, and am no expert on de Lubac, who, I believe, suffered himself from some censure, and could therefore be saying something somewhat more nuanced here.

"a technology is not simply a technique that may be employed for good or ill"

"a technology is not simply a technique that may be employed for good or ill but bears within itself a value system and a worldview—perhaps even a metaphysics and a theology."  Somewhat like art, which is "explicit" about this, "its [implicit] purpose is to be the bearer of a message and a meaning."

     Stratford Caldecott, "New sins:  technology and the frontiers of Catholic social teaching," Communio:  international Catholic review 28, no. 3 (Fall 2001):  9 (1-17).

"What John Paul II has done with . . . his establishment of the John Paul II Institute, with its branches in every continent, cannot now be undone."

     Stratford Caldecott, "New sins:  technology and the frontiers of Catholic social teaching," Communio:  international Catholic review 28, no. 3 (Fall 2001):  8 (1-17).

"technology is never merely technology. It reveals man and his aspirations"

"Technology — it is worth emphasizing — is a profoundly human reality, linked to the autonomy and freedom of man. In technology we express and confirm the hegemony of the spirit over matter. 'The human spirit, "increasingly free of its bondage to creatures, can be more easily drawn to the worship and contemplation of the Creator"'. Technology enables us to exercise dominion over matter, to reduce risks, to save labour, to improve our conditions of life. It touches the heart of the vocation of human labour: in technology, seen as the product of his genius, man recognizes himself and forges his own humanity. Technology is the objective side of human action whose origin and raison d'etre is found in the subjective element: the worker himself. For this reason, technology is never merely technology. It reveals man and his aspirations [(technica ars numquam est tantummodo technica ars. Hominem ipsa ostendit eiusque . . . proclivitatem)] towards development [(ad progressionem)], it expresses the inner tension that impels him gradually to overcome material limitations. Technology, in this sense, is a response to God's command to till and to keep the land (cf. Gen 2:15) that he has entrusted to humanity, and it must serve to reinforce the covenant between human beings and the environment, a covenant that should mirror God's creative love."

But "technology can [also] be understood as a manifestation of absolute freedom, the freedom that seeks to prescind from the limits inherent in things. The process of globalization could replace ideologies with technology, allowing the latter to become an ideological power that threatens to confine us within an a priori that holds us back from encountering being and truth. Were that to happen, we would all know, evaluate and make decisions about our life situations from within a technocratic cultural perspective to which we would belong structurally, without ever being able to discover a meaning that is not of our own making."

     Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in veritate (29 June 2009), part 6, secs. 69-70.  But as the Latin makes clear, these "aspirations" are but a single "proclivity," and that towards progress.  So the But of secs. 70 and following has to do with a potential corruption of that rooted in the desire for "absolute freedom".

"I am the resurrection and the life."

"All the efforts of technology [(technicae artis)], however beneficial, cannot allay human anxiety, and the prolongation of biological life [(biologica longaevitas)] cannot assuage the essential longing of the human heart for further life [(ulterioris vitae)]."

     Gaudium et spes 18, as trans. in Tanner.  But shouldn't "ulterioris vitae" have been rendered "the life to come"?  "ulterior" is not an especially biblical term, but 1) the contrast is between "longaevitas" on the one hand, and "vita" on the other, while 2) "ulterior" can mean "that which lies beyond" or "is still to come."

"he raiseth up the soul, and enlighteneth the eyes, and giveth health, and life, and blessing."

Ravenna, Museo Arcivescovile,
Cathedra of Archbishop Maximian

ἀνυψῶν ψυχὴν καὶ φωτίζων ὀφθαλμούς, ἴασιν διδούς, ζωὴν καὶ εὐλογίαν.

     Sir 34:20 DRA (=34:17 RSV).  DR 1610:  "exalting the soule, and illuminating the eies, giuing health, and life, and blessing."  Benjamin G. Wright's New English Translation (of the Septuagint) looks a bit closer to the Vulgate

exaltans animam et inluminans oculos dans sanitatem vitam et benedictionem

in some respects than to the Septuagint:  "one who uplifts the soul and enlightens eyes, gives healing of life and blessing."

"The certainties of physics might establish an intellectual foundation, and philosophical ambiguities may delight, but not much compares to the roar of a bike."

     Matthew B.Crawford, as quoted in The chronicle of higher education, 8 April 2015.