Being! Or Nothingness

She's no Joycelyn Elders

Rocco has some great information on the nomination of Dr. Regina Benjamin as President Barack Obama's pick as the new Surgeon General.  A Catholic and a longtime advocate of health care for the rural poor, Dr. Benjamin has also served as the head of the Catholic Medical Association and received the Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice award from Pope Benedict XVI in 2006.

From Whispers:

The first African-American woman to lead a state medical association, the 53 year-old nominee -- whose grandmother helped found a Black Catholic parish, its first Masses offered in her living room -- must be confirmed by the Senate before she can become the nation's "top doc." In the meantime, CHA President Sr Carol Keehan "rejoice[d] for the nation" in a statement released just after this morning's announcement:

In Dr. Benjamin, we have a brilliant physician who understands health care, nationally and internationally; but even more important, she knows the health care needs of the people of Bayou La Batre, Alabama, who she meets on a daily basis.

Dr. Benjamin will enrich the nation because she brings competence and integrity to this very important role. This is coupled with the daily experience of trying to meet the health care needs of a very vulnerable community. Our nation will greatly benefit from her leadership and her background in national and international efforts to deliver quality health care.

CHA congratulates Dr. Benjamin and looks forward to working with her to improve the health of our great country.

The Audacity of the Pope

In my opinion, the most interesting "conservative" writer on the scene today is the former senior editor of The Atlantic and the NY Times' new conservative editorialist Ross Douthat.  At 29, he's also the youngest.

In his latest column, Douthat makes an interesting case for the freshness offered by Pope Benedict's new encyclical Caritas in Veritate.

Doing the Nasty

Nasty job of theological critique, that is, with particular respect paid to certain teachers' views on the theology of the body.  This has been one of those "insiders" arguments for about 11 years, pretty much ever since Christopher West graduated from the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in Washington DC.  Most of the last 10 years these critiques have been behind the scenes, so to speak.  However, a few months ago, Christopher West went on ABC's Nightline and suggested that his two heroes which liberated sex from its puritan roots were Hugh Hefner and John Paul II.

Well, anytime someone calls Hugh Hefner a sexual liberator and in league with John Paul II, you should expect men and women of sound body and mind to offer a bit of commentary on this kind of thing themselves.  Enter Prof. David Schindler, director of the John Paul II Institute, and Fr. Jose Granados, a professor at JP2, and co-author of a book with Carl Andersen (Grand Knight of the Knights of Columbus) which can only be read as an attempt to "rescue" the theology of the body from an over-sexualization that is undoubtedly present in Christopher West's writing.  They offered spirited but measured critiques of West's theological "take" on what John Paul II was trying to do with his catechesis of the human body.

Well, open the flood gates of West's defenders.  In particular, were the critiques offered by Janet Smith, who teaches at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, and Prof. Michael Waldstein, a former colleague of Schindler's and currently a Professor of New Testament at the International Theolgical Institute in Gaming, Austria.

It's interesting to note that all of these guys running the critiques, with the exception of Granados, were all on the faculty at Notre Dame at around the same time in the Program of Liberal Studies.

Anyway, I could offer my own commentary on this stuff, but it's likely to pale in comparison.  Suffice it to say that I think there are serious problems with the arguments laid out by Smith and Waldstein in their defense of Christopher West and I find it odd that they would prefer to impugn the reputation of Prof. David Schindler, a real theologian, in an effort to defend the "good work" that Christopher West is doing talking about sex as if it were the reason God put us on earth.

Having attended Christopher West's talks, having read his books, and having discussed this at length with friends who are both his supporters and critics, I can only say that it seems to me he would be well served to reconsider some of his fundamental premises before he realizes that the good he did, was at the root rotten, and therefore the tree is sick.

You can follow all the hullaballo on Headline Bistro, a Catholic news blog run by the Knights of Columbus.

Riding the Wave . . .

Honolulu, HI has held its (and presumably the world's) first e-lection.  In its recent "neighborhood council" elections, residents of Honolulu were invited to vote through a website or on the phone.  I'll set aside the problematic nature of its accuracy and potential for error and fraud.  That's not really what caught my concern.  Instead, this quote did:

"It is kind of the wave of the future," said Bryan Mick, a community relations specialist with the city Neighborhood Commission, "so we're kind of glad in a way that we got to be the ones who initiated it."

First of all, it's a "neighborhood council" election.  It seems counter-intuitive that you would have neighbors vote on their representatives without leaving their homes.  I understand that the desire behind this is to increase voter participation and reduce cost, but all of these decisions cost us something.  Maybe you save tax-dollars, but do you possibly lose the very nature of civic mindedness that a neighborhood council should represent?

It seems that we are growing increasingly apart as neighbors and this dissolution is only exacerbated by something like this.  There is something to be said for having to go down to your local precinct, albeit the neighborhood elementary school or the Unitarian Church or the library.  At the very least it brings us out of our comfortable island McMansions and into the sun where we run into people who also care about our neighborhoods and communities.  Where something might transpire among ourselves:  "Oh, hi!  You live down the street don't you?  You care about the council member too?  Oh, really, yeah, me too, I think they should put a four-way stop at 2nd and Green too!"

In fact, a real council should care about this.  These are the type of people who make neighborhoods great.  Now, they can vote from the couch, watching re-runs of Seinfeld, and shopping on QVC online.  "Oh yeah, and I've can vote too.  This guy looks good, not to old, kinda happy, hot wife."

Are we sure this is a wave we want to ride?

Hope FOR Obama

In the wake of the Notre Dame events, one must wonder, is there any hope that can emerge from the Obama-Notre Dame fiasco?  Many are saying "No,"  In fact, Bishop Finn of Kansas seems to think that all possibility of dialogue ended that day.  Is there anything else that could inspire hope from that day?  Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete seems to see the possibility for something to build our hope upon:

    However, the most important part of his speech was his account of how he became a Christian as a result of his work as a community organizer for the poor. This is what he said: “Perhaps because the church folk I worked with were so welcoming and understanding, perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals, perhaps because I was really broke and they fed me. Perhaps because I witnessed all of the good work their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn not just to work with the Church. I was drawn to be in the Church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.” (I did not hear any of the other speeches, but I would not be surprised if this was not the only time in the event in which the distinction was made between knowing Christ and admiring his “ethical values.”)

    These words of the President recognized the method through which the Christian faith spreads and bears fruit, namely through the witness of someone in whom we are struck by an attractive “different humanity.” Indeed it was at this point that he recalled the witness of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, the Archbishop of Chicago at that time. (Some have said that this was an offense against the current Archbishop who is also the President of the Conference of Catholic Bishops, but instead if President Obama would get to know Cardinal George personally, he would be able to see the continuity between Bernardin’s witness and Cardinal George’s concerns.)

    These words of the President offer the most hope for the future. It is up to us to remember that the point of departure of everything we say or do must be faith in Christ.

Truth & Power

Daniel Philpott, a political science professor at Notre Dame, writes movingly of the events of last Sunday, when the University of Notre Dame hosted President Barack Obama as it's commencement speaker.  I have included a portion of the text below, but please follow the link and see what our good friends at ilsussidiario.net are doing these days:

    When I got home, I went upstairs and read Obama’s speech, which had just been posted on the internet. For eloquence and tailoring to local circumstances and culture: give him an A! The point that he made best was one about charitable argumentation and debate, not demonizing the other. I certainly agree with that, and this part brings up his grade somewhat. But on the quality of its reasoning, I am afraid I cannot give the speech a passing grade. Already that evening, a blog entry on the site of the magazine America, which does not at all have a reputation for being a foe of Obama, called it a paean to relativism. Since we cannot settle our differences, let’s learn to talk about them. That is very important, to be sure, but Mr. President, you forgot about one small thing: justice. The leaders of the great justice movements, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Lincoln, the 19th century suffragettes, were good at being charitable and well-reasoned but they didn’t stop with simply talking about differences. They demanded change -- an end to unjust exclusion.

    Obama spoke of the civil rights movement. Of course, he has every right to, and I was as moved as any American on the night that he was elected when I thought about how far we have come in race relations. But there is great irony here, for he is radically committed to upholding laws that exclude an entire class of persons from their right to life. Can anyone imagine Martin Luther King saying we disagree deeply about our differences but that the important thing is that we learn to talk about them charitably -- and leaving it at that? No, he said: I have a dream. And he demanded justice for those excluded. Obama’s reasoning is remarkably similar to the reasoning that Douglas offered to Lincoln in the famous debates of 1858: this is a moral and religious issue which cannot be resolved, no one is asking you to approve of slavery, only to let the states decide for themselves, etc. Obama’s speech included what I thought were rather small and uncertain measures to get the numbers of abortions down. If they do, then great. We'll see. But he failed to confront any of the real questions. If the unborn are persons, then is it not a fundamental injustice to have laws that allow us to kill them? And if they are not persons, then what are they? For that matter, if they are not persons, then why are you so concerned about getting the number of abortions down? Why be committed to protecting a mere blob of cells or flesh?

Science!

Sarah Palin's Choice

My friend Sharon Mollerus has written a very interesting article in ilsussidairio.net on the debate (which I was completely unaware of) that surrounded some comments made by Sarah Palin at a recent Right to Life dinner in Evansville (which the Bishop there boycotted because of an invitation to Michael Steele).  I think it's worth reading.

Glendon Will Not Accept the Laetare Medal

It's too bad for Notre Dame, really.  I am moved by Prof. Glendon's witness.  This was her decision to make and I'm glad that she is doing this as a way to be faithful to the Church.  I think this is the point of the flyer.  She's not interested in condemning Notre Dame, but certainly pointing out her disagreement.  As she is being honored that day she had to take a stand.  I think her position is well articulated.  What I find unfortunate is that Obama will not have the opportunity to meet this truly Christian woman.

That's what makes me said, really.  If there is any hope for this day (and believe me, I do have hope for this day) it's that in meeting a Christian you meet Christ.  Who knows if Obama would take seriously the attractiveness of anyone he meets that day?  Who knows if anyone will witness to Christ at all?  But I hoped that at least Mary Ann Glendon would.  I'm sad she won't be there.

As my friend said to me, "It's too bad really, I think the only one who became more Catholic today is Mary Ann Glendon."

In a public letter sent to Rev. John Jenkins, President of the University of Notre Dame:

April 27, 2009
The Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame

Dear Father Jenkins,

When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.

Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.

First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:

• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”

• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.

It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.

Yours Very Truly,

Mary Ann Glendon

Mary Ann Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. A member of the editorial and advisory board of First Things, she served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican from 2007 to 2009.

Taking A Step

Our visitor, Giorgio Vittadini, very much wants all of our communities to hold an assembly, as soon as possible, on the Notre Dame flier and the answers of Fr. Carron to questions posed to him on Sunday morning at our National Diakonia in January.  He is convinced of the possibility of an important step in our maturity in this issue that is rapidly becoming very important for many people in our communities.

So this Sunday, April 26, 2009, we will gather at 2:00 PM at:
 
Knights of Columbus Rosensteel Council
Columbian Room,
9707 Rosensteel Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910

Chris Bacich, the head of CL in the United States, will be in DC this weekend and will join us for this gathering.  Please make every effort to attend this meeting as it is very important.
 
Below you will find the text of the of the Notre Dame flyer.
 
I hope to see you all there on Sunday at 2pm.

D'Arcy is a Bad-Ass

 I love what Bishop D'Arcy is saying these days.  In response to the Notre Dame-Obama kerfuffle, I am more and more impressed by how Bishop John D'Arcy is handling these things.  I know the man personally.  I have great esteem for him, but I have not ever been particularly impressed by him.  I have heard him preach more times than I can remember, and I never found him particulary moving.  He was, in my opinion, kind of daffy.  However, in the last few years, he has seemed to really come into his own.  The last, I don't know, 10 years or so, he has become quite courageous and honest and interesting.  I'm glad he's still the Bishop of South Bend, he has had the most clear and charitable position of any of the bishops who have, ahem, exercised their ecclesial bully pulpits.  And, after all, he is the competent ecclesial authority.

BTW, I still don't see the big deal with Obama speaking at Notre Dame.  My conscience is not scandalized, nor am I particularly disturbed by it emotionally.  I don't agree with the moral outrage.  And I still think that most of the arguments against it make it seem as if the only thing that matters in Catholic identity is opposition to abortion.  I still find that ideological.  Yet, D'Arcy clearly has concern for those who do see things this way, and he has such flair.

3 at Last Count

The ex-bishop, kinda-communist, President of Paraguay Fernando Lugo has fathered 3 kids at last count.  I love a chance to play a little Diana Ross.

Notre Dame and Obama: A Witness to an Event

I seem to be all things Notre Dame and Obama lately.  Oh well.  I wanted to share one more, which is the personal account of Paolo Carozza, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame, who led, with Chris Bacich (National Responsible of Communion and Liberation in America) an assembly (discussion) on the CLU's judgment/flyer on the invitation of President Obama to Notre Dame as the commencement speaker.  It was written as a letter to Giorgio Vittadini, the International Visitor of Communion and Liberation to America.  It is moving to read his account because you see that for him, this event was a point of certainty in the relationship with Christ.  This is what we hope for, no?

Dear Giorgio,
 
I would like to tell you a little bit about our assembly at Notre Dame yesterday, which I think was a great and important sign of our presence as something new and exceptional in the university and in the society.
 
The room we used – in the middle of the campus, in the campus ministry building – was full, with 35 or 40 people, mostly undergraduate and graduate students, with a few others from faculty and staff.  We had published the flier in the student newspaper and invited many administrators and faculty to the assembly, too.
 
We played music to begin (Beethoven’s violin concerto) and a few of the students then sang a song (A New Creation).  They explained their singing as a way of being united, and the song as an expression of the same ideals that the flier contained.  I gave an explanation of the purpose of the flier and what we mean by a “judgment”, and invited everyone to use our experience of faith together as a method of knowledge, referring to the Beethoven to explain how we depend on our belonging to the community in order to grow in a mature relationship to reality that frees us.  Chris introduced the theme of Catholic education and why we thought it was important in the flier to begin not from a specific approval or condemnation of the university’s decision but instead to call attention to the “something that comes before,” the presence of Christ and the unity of faith and reason that makes the university have a meaning.  Then we immediately opened the conversation up, and for an hour and a half it was very intense and lively.
 
It was very clear that our judgment touched upon an open wound, a theme of great relevance that many wanted to talk about but that had not been raised openly in any of the debates on campus so far.  Instead of the typical factions, the taking of sides on Obama or on prolife policies, we had a discussion that was new, that provoked people to ask deeper questions about what was going on in our environment.  We talked a lot about what makes Notre Dame Catholic, and even more about why it should matter – why do we care about building and living a Catholic university at all?  What does it mean?  What is our responsibility before this great ideal?   What does it imply for student life, for teaching and for research? One thing in particular became very clear to me in this moment:  that we carry the hope and ideal of the university in our presence here.  While others might be prepared to give up on their hope for Notre Dame because it is based on who controls the power of the university, we can give reasons for it that do not disappoint – we are the witnesses to why Notre Dame does and must exist, and what it aspires to be, and for those reasons we will still be here even when everyone else has gone in disillusionment.
 
Chris was wonderful, and through his words and responses in particular the discussion seemed inevitably to grow from one about the university into a great announcement of our charism, of what we have met that makes us passionate for the heart of man and for the education of all.  One friend of ours wrote this to me afterwards:  “As I sat there yesterday listening to the dichotomy of remarks made by those who grasped what you and Chris and the flyer were proposing and those who saw it only as a fog (or worse), I was struck by the fact that what I have experienced in CL is truly extraordinary. Not just for me, as someone for whom the Movement was a path to Catholicism, but extraordinary even as amongst lifelong, serious Catholics…”
 
This morning, the student newspaper published a front-page story about our assembly, which I attach for you below (it’s not exactly the story as we would have reported it, but for student journalism it is not bad, at least basically accurate).
 
Based on other conversations that I have had since Sunday with friends among the faculty and administration, I have very good reasons to believe that our presence and our approach has not only been noticed, but it also is having a real impact in internal discussions around the university among those who desire to turn this “crisis” into an occasion to reaffirm the Catholic character of the university, including its clear commitment to the sanctity of human life.  You see, our capacity to propose something that really starts with Christ and not from values or from politics or from ideologies has already struck people as something truly worth looking at and following! 
 
Finally, I want to emphasize how beautiful the relationship is that Andrea Simoncini and I have had with some of our students and friends in all of this.  Those who have stayed with us, and who truly used our companionship as an experience of faith to judge this situation with openness and sincerity, have grown up before our eyes, seeing what they could not see before and going out and bearing witness to their friends of what they have encountered.  And in the process, we ourselves have been changed, have moved, as well – in our fatherhood we have again rediscovered ourselves to be children of another Father.
 
I am so grateful for what we have been given, and so awestruck that Jesus should show a human preference in this way, through us who are nothing…  Thank you for your help and guidance in all of this, which has been so important.
 
In friendship and affection
Paolo

CLU at Notre Dame: The New Commencement Begins

The Observer, the student newspaper of the University of Notre Dame had a front page article on an assembly (discussion) of the well-commented judgment I posted below which the University students of Communion and Liberation wrote in response to President Obama's invitation to speak at Notre Dame's commencement.  It's interesting to note that the student following the discussion seems not have missed the point that for CLU at ND the interesting thing to talk about in response to this flyer is the encounter with Christ.

Y Tu Mama Tambien! And in all things, Charity.

I am not inclined to agree with Deal Hudson in general, but I think he writes a good essay.  I'm not advocating that we should just try to "play nice" with each other.  I don't really care about that and, in fact, I think we err to often on politeness rather than the truth.  I prefer the truth.  Still, as is evidenced by the debate surrounding (Obama, abortion, gay marriage, etc.) we seem to have lost all capacity for honest, civil dialogue.  We scream past each other and all charity is lost in our attempts to convince, convict, be "right."

Or maybe we should just take up fisticuffs?

Hallelujah!

And for those of you who read:  The Evidence of the Resurrection?

and:  A Mystery of Hope, Forgiveness, and Resurrection

Easter Message from the Patriarch of Jerusalem

Easter Message 2009 By
H.B. Fouad Twal
Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem

Dear Brothers and Sisters

        We have arrived at the doorstep of Holy Week, the great week, which is the summit of the Christian year.   During this blessed week, God gives us the grace to relive the event of our salvation: with Jesus, and in Jesus, we pass from death to life, we strip off the old man in order to clothe ourselves with the new man.  This week is the synthesis of our entire Christian life.

Let’s be clear about this.  The account of the Passion, of the Death and the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus does not just relate to historical events already completed, events that we drag out from a dusty tome in order to give pious remembrance to them, but which nonetheless remain outside of the real drama and tragedies that are being played out in our lives.  No, in these feasts we find ourselves on the inside of the drama, the same drama that is being played out within us.  We are participants in the mystery of salvation, and the mystery of salvation is accomplished in us!  This is because we recognize ourselves very well in each one of the characters of the Pascal event: in Jesus and his suffering, those same sufferings that each one of us must undergo in the course of our lives: hunger, betrayal, exhaustion, injustice… in Peter, so impulsive and generous, but ever so vulnerable; in Judas and the apostles; in Pilate and in the chief priests, who judge and strike out without mercy; in the crowd that now is cheering and then roaring in its hate; in the Virgin Mary, whose heart is pierced by a sword, but who accompanies Jesus along his way of the cross and stays by his side in the most dramatic moments in a total and confident abandonment; in the soldiers who mock him, strike him and are completely indifferent to the sufferings of the Christ; in Veronica and the other holy women who weep and attempt to assuage the sufferings of his Mother; in Simon the Cyrene and Joseph of Arimathea; in the good thief who calls on Jesus and manages, in the very last moments of his life, to snatch for himself paradise itself…

In the course of our lives, we are in turn each one of these characters. 

But the One who attracts us most of all, who touches us, moves us and transforms what is inside of us, this is Jesus the Christ.  It is He.  During all this Holy Week, we must never allow ourselves to take our eyes off of Him… For it is towards Jesus that we have to turn our eyes and hearts “to know him and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by being conformed to his death, if somehow [we] may attain the resurrection from the
dead.” (Ph 3:10-11)

Here we have Jesus, the Messiah, the one who we cheered so much just a few days ago on Palm Sunday, who staggers out of Pilate’s house bearing upon his shoulders the heavy cross.  His path moves through those narrow, winding and steep streets of Jerusalem.  We follow this scene, but from a distance; in this way no one notices our presence…  We are too afraid of ending up like him, suffering and dying.  The soldiers shout and strike the Lord in order to stir up within him the last dregs of energy that he has left.  Look, Jesus falls. To see our Lord fall, the same one who we beheld in all his glory on Mount Tabor…  Three times he falls, but struggles up again and just barely manages to continue on his “via crucis.”

He finally arrives at Golgotha, and there is crucified between two criminals.  Mary his mother is near him, with two other women.  John is there also. What a terrible sight.  It is too much to bear… Our hearts are torn between compassion and revulsion – compassion for the Master who suffers this martyrdom though “he has done nothing wrong.”(Is 53:9)  On the contrary: “He always went about doing good.”(Acts 10:38).  How things have turned around, that this Lord here, who so many times showed his power in words, lets these men have their way with him and stands there mute “like a sheep before its shearers.”  This Lord here who so many times revealed his power in gestures, hangs there impotent...  We too sometimes are tempted to say with the chief priests: “Let him come down from the cross now!  Save yourself, you who saved so many others! (Mt 27:42)

Seeing Jesus on the cross really puts our faith to the test.  He performed so many signs during his public ministry… but this time, where is the sign?  What can be the meaning of all this?  And here is Jesus shouting out in a loud voice: “My God, My God, why have you abandoned me?” (Mt 27:26)

Then he expires.  He is dead.  It is finished.  Why stay here to watch this, to look upon this pitiful failure?  Let’s go home.

Today is Holy Saturday.  It is all emptiness.  The Lord is dead.  Our fondest hopes have taken flight and departed.  We are gathered here with the apostles and their disciples, and we brood over our sadness, our disappointment but also our shame and our guilt at not having “been up to the task.” The only comfort that we find in our midst comes from Mary his Mother.  She suffers, you can see that, but at the same time she is at peace.  She invites us to believe, to hope against all hope.  Jesus can neither be deceived nor deceive us.  The truth will come to light.  When?  How?  And what has all this been for?  This is the day of “why’s”, but still no answer comes.  Still there is Mary whose mother’s heart beats with an unutterable premonition.  Mary believes with her whole heart, with her whole soul and with all her strength.  We do as she does. 

Resurrection Sunday:  We have trouble believing what Mary Magdalene and the women have come to tell us.  They say that they have seen the Lord alive!  They say that we are to wait for him in Galilee. 

Woman’s talk, nothing more…

And yet...

And yet, if it’s true…

Here are Peter and John racing to the tomb.  We follow them.  Our hearts are pounding in our chests… What has happened?  Has someone taken his corps off somewhere? The Romans?  The Sanhedrin?  No, no we have an inkling that something else has happened.  The fragments and half phrases of the Lord, which were lying dormant in us, rush back to our memory.  "The Son of Man is to be handed over to men,
and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day." (Mt 17:22)  Are not those the same words that the angels spoke to the women?  But whatever can it mean to “be raised” from the dead?  In the tomb, the corps has disappeared!  And this cannot have been a robbery since, just as the women and Mary Magdalene confirmed, everything is in its place: there is the shroud, empty on the inside, in the very same place where the corps had been lain… there is the cloth that surrounded the Lord’s head, collapsed in on itself…

Could the women, then, have been telling the truth? The Lord, who was dead, could he be alive?

With the eleven disciples, we hurry on to Galilee, to the mountain that Jesus mentioned.  The Lord is waiting for us in Galilee.  Galilee, our Church, our home, it is there that we performed our service; Galilee, that is the place where the Lord sent us to be joyous witnesses of His death and resurrection. 
We come to the mountain.  The Lord is there!  Yes, it is really him!  He is different and yet the same.  Yes, it is really us!  The same, and yet so different.

With Thomas we cry out: “My Lord and my God!”  With Mary, we say with our whole heart: “Rabbi”
Yes, Christ is risen!  He is truly risen!

The adventure now continues.  Or rather, it now begins again, all new!  For ourselves, for our country, for our Church.  Salvation has been accomplished and must be proclaimed to all men. 

Once again, Easter has taken place in our Churches, in our houses, in our towns and villages, in our parish communities, monasteries and convents, in our souls and our hearts, on the beautiful faces of all of our dear pilgrims and tourists.  Halleluiah rings out once again far and wide!

This is our feast!  And participating in our joy, Jesus says to each one: “I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Either Protagonists, Moved by Mercy, or Nobodies

The University of Notre Dame has been reprimanded by many for what seems to be a myopic decision to invite president Barack Obama—44th president and often staunchly opposed to the Church’s political positions—to give the commencement address at graduation and receive an honorary degree.  The invitation has sparked outrage from many students and alumni, the former writing a petition protesting the president’s visit, and the latter withholding donations from the school. None of this, however, seems to me to be the fundamental problem, and I doubt whether these ancillary issues can be viewed correctly until the essential problem is addressed.  This essential problem is that Christianity, to many people—including Christians—is nothing more than a moralistic, political ideology.

The issues raised above are not primary if we consider this scenario.  Suppose that Notre Dame were to rescind the invitation extended to president Obama.  This would mean that the Newman Society and the petition would have "succeeded".  They would have won their political battle, protected their turf, kept Our Lady's university safe.  And then what?  Discussion ceases, the arguments subside, and the Church removes once again into cultural oblivion while seeming ever more like a radical moralist ideology. This is a Christianity that is lived in a ghetto, guided by moralism and protectionism.  In short, this is a reduction of the problem and the meaning of life to power, and ultimately a giving in to the nihilism of our age.  It does not get to the root of the problem.

The interesting question to me is not “how can we insulate our lives evil?” but rather, “who can save us from our wretched state?”  I frankly do not care for an answer to the first question.  The second question, however, is endlessly fascinating: the answer to that question is the same man who claimed to be God, the man whom people dropped everything to follow. Zaccheus came down from the tree for Him. Why? Zaccheus was the Tony Soprano of his day: he was feared, hated by the people.  He was an extortionist.  What was so attractive about Christ?  Who was that man? Why did Zaccheus follow him?  

The alternative to a paradigm of power is the mercy of Christ’s presence.  It is a love for us; while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.  It is a mercy that regenerates those who follow and thus generates a new culture.  The culture of life will not come, as we think it will, from power and elections, but from our giving priority to this love.  The latter position makes us protagonists, while the former position makes us antagonists, always retreating, always trying to block the next move of our opponents, whoever they may be, and always one step behind. Christ is the starting point, and that only seems ineffective or impractical to us because ”Christ” has become a banal word.  A word; not The Word made flesh, not the reason for everything.  It is not Christ who is ancillary; the problem is the way we look at reality according to our preconceptions about how things are supposed to happen.

The whole situation smacks of a similar dilemma facing the Christians in Soloviev's story of “The Anti-Christ.”  The most moving scene in this tale is the point where the Anti-Christ, who is a brilliant leader and politician working for globalized peace and the union of the all the nations of the world, has convinced the majority of the religious people of the world to follow him.  In the story there are those who object to the Anti-Christ on various grounds, but when he appeases their demands, they begin to follow.  In the same way, there are those who object to Obama on pro-life and anti-gay marriage grounds in such a focused, particular way that Christianity becomes for them a political persuasion, a persuasion that implies that, if the president were to fix our list of issues, he would be our savior. But this is false. We are Christians because of Christ, because of His mercy, and for nothing else: 

          "In a grieved voice the Emperor addressed them: 'What else can I do for you, you strange people?  What do you want from me? I cannot understand. Tell me yourselves, you Christians, deserted by  the majority of your brothers and leaders, condemned by popular sentiment. What is it that you value  most in Christianity?'

           "At this Elder John rose up like a white candle, and said in a gentle voice: 'Great sovereign! The thing  we value most in Christianity is Christ Himself—He in His person. All the rest comes from Him, for we  know that in Him dwells bodily the whole fullness of Divinity.'" (Soloviev)

Any manifestation of Christianity that falls short of Elder John’s confession is truly impotent and myopic.  Impotent, because it lacks its very foundations; it may be correct in its views, it may be able to say the right things, but it will never be able to live an experience of hope based on the certainty of Christ, and thus it will never have any capacity to regenerate the world.  Myopic, because in its obsession with moral cohesion as a primary category of Christianity, it is unable to account for Zaccheus, who came down from the tree.  Nor are they able to account for the position of my friend: “Obama has been invited to the place where I met Christ.  Why wouldn't I want him to go there?”  That simple testimony is disarming, but it makes us reinvestigate what it is about Christianity that has allowed it to survive for 2,000 years: a gratuitous, regenerative mercy, a freely given and unexpected encounter. It is a fact that we have difficulty accounting for in our schemes of power.

I haven’t mentioned much about Obama, because I think the issue his visit to Notre Dame has raised is ultimately: “What is Christianity?  What about it is so worth defending?”  This question remains unanswered unless we arrive to a true recognition of Christ, on the cross, giving us everything.  In a sense, this is all that is asked of us.  What upset me so much about the whole issue is how devoid of a recognition Christ’s presence the whole of popular reaction has been.  If the essence of Christianity is power, as it is being portrayed both by the media and by those utterly outraged at the invitation, then I am not interested in being a Christian.  I am interested in what made Zaccheus a protagonist; I am interested in the man who is able to call me down from the tree.

Communion & Liberation and Notre Dame: A New Commencement

The following is a judgment written on the Notre Dame Commencement controversy surrounding Notre Dame's invitation of President Barack Obama to receive an honorary Doctorate of Laws and give the 2009 Commencement address.  I encourage you to read the judgment with an open mind and heart.  It goes beyond the typical politicization of the issue in an desire to arrive at what is most essential and necessary in this situation, that is, to arrive at the truth, which is Christ.

A New Commencement

Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama to deliver the Commencement
address and to receive an honorary degree unleashed a wide controversy and
provoked violently opposed reactions among all who look upon this University as
a sign of the ideal of Catholic higher education. The community finds itself
divided and confused, and the integrity of the University’s educational mission is
being challenged. On such an occasion, with great urgency we feel the need to
take hold of the reasons for which such an institution exists.

What is the meaning of Christian education, and even more fundamentally
what is Christian life today? How do we live today the fruitful faith that led a
handful of French missionaries a century and a half ago to found a tiny college
on the shore of Saint Mary’s Lake—where before there was nothing—with the
firm conviction that that the school “will be one of the most powerful means for
doing good in this country”? How is that connection between faith and life
present as the impetus for our work in the university and in society?

For us faith is not an ethical code nor an ideology but an experience: an
encounter with Christ present here and now in the Christian community.
Christian faith gives us a freedom and a passion for living that express
themselves above all in the form of questions as we face reality, and an
inexhaustible openness to everything human. Political and ethical categories do
not define us; our life springs from belonging to a fact, to a story begun and
carried forward by an exceptional Presence in human history. Over the course
of two millennia, that Presence has inspired innumerable initiatives that have
educated men and women, including the University of Notre Dame. We cannot
limit our thirst for truth and our desire to enter into a genuine relationship
with reality; we want certainty about its meaning in its totality. We need a place
where faith and reason are not enemies, where their unity launches us on a path
of knowledge that is fearless, open, and free.

An invitation to a Catholic university – an invitation to anyone, especially to
the President of the United States of America – should be an invitation to
encounter that history, that method of relating to reality, and that experience
of life and freedom.

What then is at stake in this Commencement Day? Much more than merely
defending values — even the most sacred — or affirming a Catholic institution’s
“openness” to the world. At stake is our hope for the future of the university
and the future of society.

For us hope begins from the recognition that with Christ we discover a new
way to live life, to study, to do research, to be involved in politics and
economics, to work in the world. In commencing from that Presence, we live
hope not merely as a sentiment, a dream, or a project of power but as a certainty
for the future that springs forth from an experience happening now.

With the certainty of faith that Father Sorin had after Notre Dame burned to
the ground in 1879, let us recognize at the end of each day that we “built it too
small … so, tomorrow, as soon as the bricks cool, we will rebuild it, bigger and
better than ever”.

-Communion and Liberation

God, Obama, Notre Dame

I find it odd sometimes that I'm sounding like a "liberal" to my friends (especially my pro-life friends) because I am not scandalized by the invitation of Obama to Notre Dame.  In fact, I'm in favor of this invitation, and of all of the vigorous critique surrounding it.  In a certain sense you could say that I'm on both sides of this battle, but I think for different reasons than either side has for their position.  Ken Woodward has similar thoughts on this topic in the Washington Post today that I encourage you to read for yourself.

Two things:

First, the sincerity of the moral outrage that this decision to invite Obama has provoked is rather incredulous.  Most people seem to express "shock" that Notre Dame would invite such a vociferous supporter of abortion to speak at "Our Lady's University" at all.  I find this disingenous.  Most of the critics long ago wrote off Notre Dame as having secularized beyond recognition as a Catholic University.  The protest being waged is not aimed at defending or protecting the integrity of Notre Dame as a catholic institution.  Instead, it is a political tactic.  The faith, for both the "left" and the "right" on this issue, is reduced to nothing more than a political position. 

There does not seem to be any interest in the Christian event, rather there is only concern with "winning."  Those who oppose abortion are hoping for a black eye on the President they see as their "enemy."  The political situation is bleak, but here at a Catholic University, they have a chance to "win."  The "Culture Wars" of Pat Buchanan's days are in full swing and this is the vestige it's 80's success.

Second, clearly no one believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the lord of everything and we don't believe that anyone can authentically meet Jesus of Nazareth in the Church, i.e. through another Christian.  We think that those who become Christian's do so because they are "convinced of the truth" rather than put in wonder by an encounter which occurs on a personal level through another person.  We think that Christianity is the natural law, or that Christianity is dogma, or that Christianity is moral perfection.  We confuse Christianity with being "right."

In this mentality, Obama going to Notre Dame has no value for Obama.  Apparently it's irrelevant that he will be among thousands of Catholics.  Ignore that he will have personal encounters with priests who faithfully hold to the Church's teachings (I know Fr. John Jenkins) and at least one other honoree who is among the most sincere and authentic Christians of profile in America, because we don't believe that an encounter with the Body of Christ can change him, impact his life, convert him.  We don't believe in Christianity.

The problem of Obama at Notre Dame is not a political one.  That argument is a red herring.  The real problem is that Christianity is not believed, even by its adherents.