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

Comments

[Apolonio]

Hey, that judgment looks pretty similar to my judgment in the comments below...CL just needs to learn how to analyze propositions such as:

Let P be Inviting Obama to Notre Dame, Q as a Catholic institution that is faithful to catholic principles:

(x) (Qx --> ~P )

etc...it's cooler that way

[JACK]

Too bad it doesn't go beyond the typical CL language.

I have to be honest, Stephen, when I first read this flyer I was quite disappointed. I think it suffers from numerous problems.

Let me begin by saying that I don't honestly disagree with its substance. It is a beautiful vision of a Catholic university and the understanding of Christ's presence. But it begs the question, just for whom is this judgment being made?

First, there is the question of language. Sooner or later someone in CL needs to scream this from the mountain top: the charism is not the CL language! I grow weary of reading beautiful statements that are only meaningfully accessible to those who choose to adopt our language. This is a public judgment and, while I don't deny the importance of bringing what we have to offer to the table, I think we all need to exercise greater care in CL to use language that will actually be understood by those outside of the Movement. I think that is part of the heavy lifting of living that Carron reminds us we cannot shirk. I fear that this flyer is so dense and trapped in its own language that those outside of CL will not invest the time necessary to unlock its beauty.

Second, it is quite abstract. Let's be blunt, it offers no concrete indication for how to change the ND situation, how to bring about the ideal that it suggests. I'm not suggesting the statement must be burdened with that entirely. Goodness, I know that we cannot remove from others the duty to engage in the difficult work of incarnating these ideas. But then let's be honest about what this statement really is. I think CL should cease calling these flyers "judgments" precisely because of this problem. Words are important; written provocations have meaning. But I think CL can often get too caught up in itself and think it has done more than it has with these flyers. If we leave the task of incarnating our message to others, I think we have to be honest then that we haven't done much.

Which leads me to the issue that this flyer gives me no indication of the ND CLU's reaction to the situation. That's the judgment that will be heard and remembered.

Maybe I'm a bit too snarky today, but I honestly wonder outside of impacting CL members and making them feel good that they are not trapped by the ideological times, what honestly does this flyer aim to do? It doesn't really engage anyone else.

[Stephen]

Your position is ideological. There aren't CL words above, there are Christian words above. Also, it's not abstract. It's not a judgment on whether Obama should speak at Notre Dame or not. Who really cares about that fight? The real question is whether the Christian event is even possible, is even proposed.

What strikes me is that this judgment is subversive because you can't fit it into an ideological framework in this debate. In that respect what happens is that people either misunderstand it at best, or are angered by it, at worst. Yet, no one does the work of asking what it's really trying to say and whether that is really worth saying.

I've sent this flyer to many friends who are ND grads and not in the movement. They have all been provoked by the judgment. I think the first problem is whether it provokes you.

This is what gets me. We're talking about Christianity here, which is a fascination with that man who comes to me. Yet everyone is always busy building something other than the relationship with Christ. "Martha, you are busy with many things, only one thing is necessary." We always forget this.

And now, I'm sure someone will try to explain it away, say how we have to worry about "what we're doing, how we're doing it."

But I repeat, only one thing is necessary.

[JACK]

Stephen:

I will admit my comments were a touch snarky, but your reaction is shockingly closed.

If we wish to actually engage me, then I'm happy to talk. But otherwise, it's a waste of time. Frankly, this reminds me of other conversations we have had. I think you are off the mark. But if you don't wish to engage what I actually have said, then I leave it to others to whom you are more open to maybe share what I am getting at. I know my reaction to this statement is not alone. And you can't dismiss all of us as ideological folks who don't get it.

I'm glad you are so focused on Christ. And I appreciate your relentlessness in returning to the heart of the encounter. But you need to cool your jets in labeling anyone who suggests a fuller picture of what we have been given, what the unfolding of the event of Christ means in the context of the reality that He has now made present through His Church, as someone who is ideological, left/right, etc.

[Stephen]

Jack,

Let me be clear here, I'm not trying to be dismissive of you. I'm trying to suggest that the argument you outline above is ideological precisely because it does not engage the point of the judgment and rests on reacting to it because of its language and its (in my opinion) misinterpreted lack of a position.

It's as if we (really, we, including me) immediately think that because we have had an encounter now we have to figure out how to act in the world faithful to that encounter, which risks immediately becoming an ideological approach to the world: "I've got the answer now and I'm going to do x, y, and z to bring about the good result." I think this is a wrong approach primarily because being Christian isn't about moral action or cultural/political success.

Instead, what the judgment claims is that this type of approach is precisely what leads to both the invitation to Obama at a level of self-seeking secular glory AND the reactionary sectarianism which implies closing off our institutions to an engagement with the world that is transformative, for the world, but first for us.

Unfortunately, in this schema those on one side want Obama to be invited to vindicate their position against the perceived "conservatives," and on the other those who want Obama to be disinvited therefore winning one for the "good side."

Entering into the debate at this level avoids dealing with Christ, proposing Christ as the only real solution to this debate, affirming Christ as both the meaning of the university, the meaning of Obama, and the meaning of the dialogue.

I'm not interested in a discussion at this level. The only thing I'm closed to is whatever moves the conversation away from what the judgment is appealing to, which is the encounter with Christ.

I don't think we make judgments on things so that we can claim to offer the "right" answer to the drama. I think we make judgments first and foremost so that we can look at something in reality beginning from that man who accomplished nothing in his lifetime that changed the political or cultural situation of his time, he only proposed himself as the necessary and essential aspect of reality that all needed to follow.

[JACK]

Stephen, dude, you started off responding to me by doing the CL equivalent of flipping me the bird. I'm glad that you have come back with a response that is at least not overtly hostile, but you still aren't dialoging with me.

So just for the record, the first half of your response has nothing to do with me. It has no relation to anything I wrote. It has everything to do what you perceive are the reasons someone who has concerns about the judgment must be motivated by when approaching this. Well, I'm here to tell you that they are not what I am motivated by in this at all. Maybe now do me the benefit of the thing you accuse me of not doing: engage my words with an effort to understand the intent behind them.

Your last paragraph, Stephen, could bear some real reflection. I don't think it reflects the truth of judgments, either our own experiences or even what scripture records about Jesus' time. I'm not saying I am advocating a flyer that says, "Inviting Obama was wrong!" or "Congrats on inviting Obama!" But you are behaving like a judgment that actually tries to speak more directly to the actual event, something that goes beyond just a direct proclamation that "Christ is everything" somehow is a denial of the truth that Christ is everything. I think you are wrong in that. Sure, there's a risk of reduction/distortion the moment that we have to make a prudential judgment on how the event of Christ informs a given concrete situation of our life. And thus we should never be in a rush to throw our prudential judgments around to others when there's a chance we are wrong. But at the same time, we have to make such judgments constantly in living. What you say is a reminder that we all need constantly, and a vital part of the self-evaluation that we need to undertake, but it cannot be mistaken for a formula to replace other formulas.

[Francis]

Jack -

I hope I might be able to clear some things up concerning the judgment. In my post, "Either Protagonists, Moved by Mercy, or Nobodies" I also addressed the issue of the Obama-Notre Dame Controversy. For me, the point it brought up most clearly- the point that saddened me- was that the Church on both sides of the argument was viewed as some kind of political organization. I am by no means saying that the Church cannot possess a politics; I am saying the Church, in order to remain the Church, must not be reduced to politics.

It seems to me that those who want a definitive condemnation of Obama or of the university are unwittingly making this reduction. What would happen if the invitation was revoked? The Church would be seen as a moralist and protectionist agency that shepherds the goodness of the world from the tyranny of evil men. Eventually, and more devastatingly, the Church would disappear into cultural oblivion. The fact that this could and probably would happen indicates to me that a revocation of the invitation is not the root of the problem.

So what is the root of the problem? The root of the problem is a question of whether the Christian event (an encounter with Christ) is even possible. The very fact that people are up in arms about the invitation indicates to me that there is a kind of emptiness in Christianity, such that those who adhere to it are forced into a false kind of activism to hide the emptiness of a Church-minus-the-Event. This is what the flyer attempts to address. Thus, it is the most useful thing for the situation rather than the most irrelevant. Think about what Jesus himself does in the gospels: people always try to trick him, to force him into a box, that is, an ideology, and thus to make a condemnation. Christ never does this; he speaks always to the heart of man, which is the only thing that transcends the political spectrum because it transcends ideology.

If this is the true root of the problem, then it is more consonant with my (our) experience as Christians to repeat that this Event is certainly possible, rather than to make a condemnation that plays into the hands of both the left and the right. Steve said something completely disarming in a previous post: it was something like "I met Christ at Notre Dame. Why wouldn't I want Obama to go there?" This disarms ideology immediately, because neither side, unless they get to the heart of the problem, can address this question. And the question is certainly not an approval of the invitation but rather an assertion that Christ is a Fact that comes before our opinions. We seek this Fact in making judgments, otherwise we just confirm what we already think we know or we push farther ahead with what we think is right. Judgments are an occasion for conversion of ourselves, not condemnations of others.

It is fine with me if you want to continue to seek a condemnation. More interesting to me is that I be put in wonder again by the Fact of Christ's death for me, starting tonight at the Mass of the Last Supper, and tomorrow, following behind the Cross as He goes to His death. A death, by the way, that He died not so that we might condemn those without hope, but so that we ourselves might witness to the eternal life He made accessible, and the hundredfold He gives already on earth through the possibility that He comes in every situation. This is the basis of hope, and this is what interests me.

I hope you have a joyous Easter, filled with His presence in your eyes, because Christ is the only thing that saves the world.

Francis

[Cheeky Lawyer]

I would propose to both Stephen and Francis that they try to understand why people are up in arms -- including many bishops -- about this invitation. Can you try to ask why they might be against it? (And for the record I do not think that ND should now withdraw the invitation. I do believe she needs to understand where she went wrong and to that degree I think the judgement goes to the heart and core of things, but it still lives me questioning and dissatisfied.) Can you stop placing your own prominent ideological filter on the situation and try to address reality? You might begin by admitting that the responses to this situation are not binary, they do not fall into the two neat little boxes both of you have set up. You might recognize that there are many responses to the invitation. Some of them cartoonish (e.g., Bishop Doran's letter, Terry Randall, the Newman Society) and others more substantive like that of the CSC priests who published an open letter in the Observer. Your quickness to paint this as solely a question of politics is dismaying. I know plenty of people who are dismayed at the invitation for reasons having nothing to do with politics and everything to do with witness and unity.

I suppose it could be that they are just trying to "hide the emptiness of a Church-minus-the-Event." Or it could be that the event of the encounter with Christ has generated for them a deeper desire to follow the Church, her way, to be united, to give witness to Him and to give witness to the dignity of each person he has created. So one can continue with nice constructs and abstractions about the situation or one can do what I thought CL teaches us to do and actually deal with facts and reality. Part of taking reality seriously is taking the criticisms of Notre Dame seriously, taking the experience of many in CL who are appalled at this invitation seriously, taking reason seriously. That means not placing people into neatly constructed boxes that have no connection to reality, to their real concerns, their real experience. When I look at how both you and Stephen dismiss the concerns and questions of so many, I want to wretch because your comments are wrapped in condescension and, yes, a denial of reality.

I have now heard this line "I met Christ at Notre Dame. Why wouldn't I want Obama to go there?" several times. It is fatuous. It says nothing and only begs questions. It isn't rooted in the encounter with Him. It is an empty phrase of the sort you are criticizing others of. I meet Christ in the Eucharist, why wouldn't I want Obama to take it?

[Cheeky Lawyer]

I might just add that I am trying to approach the flyer with an openness and to let it teach me.

[Francis]

Cheeky -

I will attempt to address your concerns as best as I can:

1. Can you understand why people are up in arms?

Yes I can: it seems like Notre Dame is endorsing a pro-choice politician, especially by giving him an honorary degree.

2. "Can you stop placing your own ideological filter on the situation? And can you realize that some people are upset and are motivated not by a desire for political gain but for witness and unity?"

Christ is not an ideological filter but the truth of everything, particularly the human heart, which is characterized by an unlimited desire. Inasmuch as real unity comes from an answer to that heart, Christ must be the starting point. Yes, I also desire witness and unity. In fact, my friend told me a couple hours ago that his non-Catholic friend has been thinking about conversion recently and was struck by the flyer and my post. Why? Certainly not my intelligence or my positions on things will be the things that convert him. Only a witness to Christ is capable of this.

3. "Part of taking reality seriously is taking the criticisms of Notre Dame seriously, taking the experience of many in CL who are appalled at this invitation seriously, taking reason seriously."

What is reason? It is the capacity of accounting for reality according to the totality of its factors. I am not denying those factors you mentioned. I am trying to seek a broadening of reason concerning my position in front of the controversy. I was forced to broaden my position when I try account for this truth: "Many of my friends met Christ at Notre Dame." How is that fatuous at all? It seems to have everything to do with what is at stake here, which is if the Christian event is really possible, and thus if it is worth defending and witnessing.

4. I meet Christ in the Eucharist, why wouldn't I want Obama to take it?

I agree with this statement. I want everyone to be united to the Church, not because I want to convince everyone of the truth, as if this were a debate game, but because I want everyone to experience the hundredfold. I am not saying let Obama into the communion line right away. That would be rediculous. I am trying to say that our witness and Obama's conversion, the conversion of the world, depend on something deeper than taking sides in the argument.

5. "I know plenty of people who are dismayed at the invitation for reasons having nothing to do with politics and everything to do with witness and unity."

Me too. The flyer itself: "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."

It seems the flyer is attempting to answer the question of witness and unity, and thus tries to answer why such an institution exist. And its answer to these questions is the encounter with Christ. I do not think there could be a more serious criticism of Notre Dame: the reason you exist is so that the world may encounter Christ. It is a serious criticism of me as well, of all of us.

That is my judgment; I don't think anything more than that would help the situation. The only other available positions are, "Inviting Obama was wrong!" or "Congrats on inviting Obama!" Unless I am missing something, I fail to see how Christ, (who dies this weekend and descends into the depths of hell and is raised from the dead, and who now is forever the root, the reason for all that exists), I fail to see how Christ does not account for everything in this situation, and how a judgment that seeks to perceive this Fact is leaving a part of reality out. I would posit that the reason people are up in arms is not the invitation itself but a concern of whether Christianity is still possible. The flyer responds with a resounding "yes".

Perhaps a condemnation of the invitation would be the treatment of a symptom, but the flyer is attempting to address the root of the disease.

Francis

[Stephen]

Jack, Cheeky, you are both right. You win. Is that better?

I am sick of this debate because it belies the fundamental problem in this discussion, which is that for the most part the responses are totally devoid of any concrete witness to an experience of Christ.

Today, at the GS Lenten Retreat with the kids, it was evident to me why Christ's prayer before his death is "Remain in me." He knows how fragile we are, how quickly we fall into projects and positions and ideas and how quickly we stop being in wonder that the God of the universe became flesh for me, encountered me, moved me, brought me into himself.

One of the kids, who was my student last year at Good Counsel, spoke at the assembly about his friendship with a girl in Toronto. He spoke about how one day she was talking with him about how Christ had made a situation better, someone she knew was going to have an abortion, but they had a chance to talk and now the abortion was not going to happen. They were talking about how amazing Christ is and how he was going to do amazing things for them. Then after they hung up she called him back because she received an email that the abortion had already happened. They were immediately disappointed and spoke for a couple minutes ending on "That's just horrible." But after they hung up, within a minute, my student called her back because he thought "No, Stephen says Christ is the lord of everything, so its not enough that we say it's horrible, I want to be certain of him." So they spoke for a while longer about this and realized that in the very fact of their friendship, of this possibility of being recalled to the fact that happened to both of them, the reason for their friendship, they were both moved to tears because it was clear to them that Christ was answering them precisely in the witness of each other to the fact that evil does not win because despite the death of this baby, they were able to affirm to the truth of that baby, the truth of themselves, and the truth of all of reality.

Now, when this girl in Toronto sees her friend she can speak to him with certainty about the meaning of this tragedy. The next day, when my student woke up, he called me for the Angelus because he wanted to be recalled to the truth of his day from the first the very first minute.

We are Christians. Our fight for justice and truth is not a battle we wage against each other with a desire to be proven right. Better that I be proven wrong and grow in love for Him than that I win this argument and lose my certainty of Him. I cannot help but feel that people have a dog in this fight only to be right.

Honestly, did you beg him to come to you, to reveal himself to you even in the poverty of this blog discussion? Who desired to know him rather than score points? Who even cared?

I don't really care what you think of me or of my post. I don't care if you think I sound self-righteous or sanctimonious. I don't care if you think it's arrogant or dismissive or even if it makes you want to wretch. I have met a man who has told me everything I have ever done, and knowing him, being with him, remaining in Him is the only thing that is interesting to me. Only His presence can change the world, I want him, I need him.

"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.
Father, they are your gift to me. I wish that where I am they also may be with me, that they may see my glory that you gave me, because you loved me before the foundation of the world. Righteous Father, the world also does not know you, but I know you, and they know that you sent me. I made known to them your name and I will make it known, that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in them." John 17

[Fred]

It's interesting to see that two lawyers have been most provoked by this judgment. Lawyers are like modern knights, fighting under one banner or another. Christian lawyers risk their career and their professional reputation if they fight for the common good as the Church teaches. ND conferring a Catholic law degree on President Obama would be like naming Frederick II the title Defender of the Faith.

I would like to say that the honorary law degree means nothing, because in fact its meaning is ambiguous. But I don't know if I can do this without reducing every university degree to a piece of paper... and yet - this problem is not new. Isn't the same thing true about the honorary doctorates ND awarded to Presidents Carter and GW Bush? Is it too much to expect these honors to be a clear gesture of an education as an introduction to all of reality?

I can't solve these issues: they are matters too great for me. I will say that the judgment in this flyer has changed my perspective. I realize that if I expect ND's gestures to be clear proposals then my gestures also need to be clear. I am disappointed, but this disappointment does not determine my response. What do I want? I want a serious education that treasures whatever sliver of good it can find. I want Christ. The political wrangling is not a clear gesture. It does not cultivate the Christian experience. It accepts the default position that power is what saves us. Forcing ND to tow the line will not make it more Catholic, more Christian. For that, we need Christians.

[Cheeky Lawyer]

Francis,

Thank you for answering some of my questions. Some of what you have said is actually helpful. Some of it, I fear, fails to engage my criticisms. Perhaps, I just need to go to the Assembly on this and try to understand things better.

I want to be clear that I separate my questioning, concerns, disappointment with the flyer from my criticisms of your words. My problem is less with the flyer and more with the response here from you and Stephen. As I said I think the flyer goes to the heart of things, I don't think it is clear enough and I don't think it helps those outside the Movement dig deeper on this question. I do not think you and Stephen are saying the same thing as the flyer especially given as it is a profound criticism of the university that sees the invite as a symptom of a larger failure, a failure to make Christ present.

But I return to my criticisms of what you are writing.

You write: "Christ is not an ideological filter but the truth of everything, particularly the human heart, which is characterized by an unlimited desire. Inasmuch as real unity comes from an answer to that heart, Christ must be the starting point. Yes, I also desire witness and unity."

I agree. I am not suggesting he is. I am suggesting that you have latched on to words without going beyond them to understand the whys.

I also want to be clear that I don't think it fatuous to say that I or my friends met Christ at Notre Dame. That is a most important thing. What I think doesn't follow from saying that is that one has no problem with this invitation. That is what I found fatuous, unconnected. That I met Christ at Notre Dame doesn't answer the question, "Do I think Obama should have been invited?"

I don't want to win an argument Stephen, I want to understand this flyer, but I also want to defend in charity those both of you have been attacking, whose Christianity you've been impugning. I could simply be blind, but your judgement of the reactions to the invitation doesn't match mine. I haven't perceived all the reactions to the invitation as sectarianism, as lacking Christ, etc. Again, I could be blind, but that's what I am writing against. Not to win, but to say, hey look, my experience of this has been different, I've seen something different, I've seen the very things you are denying have been there. But again I could be misperceiving, I could simply be latching on to one aspect of reality. Given my other friends in CL like JACK who are seeing exactly what I see, I tend to think my experience is a valid, true one. But still, I beg to understand, to be corrected, to come to know Him better, to see more truly. I want to know why I am not satisfied with this judgement, with your and Francis' words. What am I missing? Again, this probably isn't the best place to figure it out, but I do desire to know Him better.

[Francis]

Cheeky -

I am glad you are desiring to learn more about the reasons given for the judgment and seeking to understand who Christ is. This was also for me the position that provoked me into writing my post (Either Protagonists, Moved By Mercy, or Nobodies)...My initial reaction to the situation was "who cares? is it really that big of a deal? why did we want the Pope to speak so badly at La Sapienza, and why were we so upset when he was forced to withdraw from speaking, but are now unwilling to let the president speak at our Catholic institutions?" All the moral outcry seemed disingenuous in that regard. Then, I thought "yeah, it does look bad for the university to invite this pro-choice politician and to give him an honorary law degree." This made the university sound disingenuous, and even myopic in its decision. Both positions are, to me, surface level positions (ideologies), and set me up for a battle of remonstrations.

What changed the situation for me was talking to some friends who pointed to a deeper problem, with a more profound answer. This is what the flyer says to me: the outcry is indicative of a crisis of identity, of a skepticism concerning whether the Christian event is still possible. Even more striking, the words of Fr. Giussani seem to get to the heart of the matter:

"This, we can say, is the indicator of our faith’s truth, its authenticity or lack thereof: if the faith is truly in the foreground, or if in the foreground there is another kind of concern; if we truly expect everything from the fact of Christ, or if we expect from the fact of Christ what we decide to expect, ultimately making Him a starting point and a support for our projects and programs."

And, further, he indicates two effects of this reduction:

"a) First: “An efficientistic conception of Christian commitment, with accentuations of moralism.” Not accentuations–with wholesale reduction to moralism! Why should anyone remain Christian? Because Christianity pushes you to action, presses you to commitment, no other reason! It’s like a father and mother who tell you, “Come on, you have to do this!” and then they leave you alone to do it yourself, as if they weren’t there. (Instead, Jesus says, “I will be with you to the end of time.”) This is a concept of incarnation in which the Christian is truly cut in half, cloven in two. And from the contingent, historic point of view, Christians still have the right to remain in the world only to the degree in which they throw themselves into worldly action: it’s ethical Christianity, that is, Christian ethics, Christian behavior, which means being Christian in the world identified with worldly commitment....

b) Second consequence (and this is the gravest thing): the incapacity to “culturalize” the discourse, to bring one’s Christian experience to the level in which it becomes systematic and critical judgment, and thus a prompt for a modality of action. It’s the Christian experience blocked in its potential for impact on the world, because an experience impacts the world only to the degree to which it reaches a cultural expression....Cultural expression means judgment, capacity for systematic and critical judgment of the world, of worldliness, of the historic circumstance, and thus it becomes a suggestion for a modality of program and of action."

Giussani's words are always a reminder of the truth of Christ, of the Fact of Christ in our lives. Christ is the Alpha; but He is also the Omega. We are not the Omega. I think we agree on mostly everything except where you say the flyer doesn't go to the heart of things. Something can't get to the heart of things and be lacking a necessary dimension. If Christ is just the Alpha, then yeah, we have some work to do on the flyer. As it stands, I think the flyer is proposing exactly this digging deeper that you are suggesting. Think about your experience: you are obviously intrigued (struck?, frustrated?, disappointed?, etc. by the flyer) but you are going to an assembly to understand more the reasons given in it. This, to me, is beautiful. Invite your friends!! Don't worry about a language barrier!! Where else did this happen? Where else did the discourse provoke you to dig deeper, to not remain at the efficientistic (I swear, Giussani makes up words sometimes) level?

A few more things. I was in no way impugning anyone's faith. That would be a ridiculous position, probably most in line with the liberal minded Catholics who want to shove this controversy in the face of supposedly conservative prudish closed-minded Catholics. I want to make it clear that my position is in no way a silent endorsement of Obama.

I think this is also where we are not on the same page on another comment I made, about the encounter with Christ in a specific context not being fatuous. I did not mean that it follows that Notre Dame should endorse Obama. What follows from it is that CHRISTIANITY IS POSSIBLE!! IT IS POSSIBLE TO BUMP INTO THE FLESH OF CHRIST ON EARTH!!! IT IS POSSIBLE TO KNOW HIM, TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH HIM!!! That is what I was disarmed by, and that is why I think the judgment is complete. Those who want to take action in other ways, are fine by me. Does the flyer in any way repudiate the position of those who are protesting, other than to say that our task is not one of condemnation but witness?

That is all I want to do: witness to the truth. That is what I attempted to do in my post. Its absence from the dialogue is what saddened me. Neither I nor the flyer are criticizing certain sects of believers for not witnessing... instead it is a reminder for all of us, and I think in this situation that is what was most needed.

In my experience, this position is what truly changes things. First of all, it changed me. Second of all, as I said before, one of my friend's atheist friends was interested in my post. I was moved by this. That guy probably doesn't give a shit about our protest of Obama's visit. What interests him is a human experience of fullness, which in every occasion we are called to witness to. I sent my post to another one of my friends, and she thanked me for helping to remind her the meaning of what we do on Good Friday when we follow that man going to Calvary. In this sense, the approach of the flyer and the approach I attempted in my blog post are an attempt to respond to the opportunity for witness, and thus to make a judgment, in the sense that Giussani uses the word above. It is more consonant with my experience to witness in this situation to the possibility of the Christian experience, rather than make a condemnation. Of course, people have their circumstances, and some may be called to protesting. I don't know. I wasn't. Christianity is not against anything. It is only against evil, which is nothingness. I must be reminded constantly that my position, devoid of a witness to Christ, is just as evil as any other. Let's not try to fool ourselves. It is false for me to think that I am better than Obama because I am a Christian. This is a surface level reaction. More correspondent is to say that I am happier than Obama, I have a hope that he can't give me, because I met Christ! There is a difference between the two positions. Since I think the latter is the truer position, this is all I tried to communicate in my post.

I agree with what my friend Fred said, "The political wrangling is not a clear gesture. It does not cultivate the Christian experience. It accepts the default position that power is what saves us. Forcing ND to tow the line will not make it more Catholic, more Christian. For that, we need Christians." What we need are Christians witnessing to a new life that is possible. The flyer both acknowledges the tragedy of an life lived devoid of Christ's presence, but affirms with certainty that our witness to Christ's work in building a new creation is the important thing. It may seem like a tiny, fragile seed; it may seem incomplete. It may seem like the first brick laid after the University was burned down. But in that tiny seed lies the salvation of the world.

Happy Easter!! Christ is risen!! We need nothing else but to witness to that fact!!

Francis

[Holly]

I don't wish to be disrespectful, but after reading this "judgment" three times, I still don't know what it says. I'm not sure it says anything.

I accidentally found this site doing a google search for people's reactions to the ND controversey. I am truly interested in what people have to say about the matter. You appear to be a genuinely caring person of strong faith. But very little of what you said made sense to me. What exactly are you judging (or who?). And what is your judgment? Just say it plainly. Communication is very important.

Just saying . . .