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.

ND, Obama, & "What about abortion?"

In my senior year as a student at the University of Notre Dame, I was involved in a little act of civil protest.  Needless to say, the reaction was mixed.  I was glad to have made a friend that day, however, in Cappy Gagnon, the head of Notre Dame's Security Police.  Had I to do it all over again, I would do it exactly the same, except that maybe the protest would have been a little less reactive and more planned.  My problem with the event was not with, as Cappy says in his article, Liberman's right to say what he thinks.  Rather, my problem was with the fact that he was campaigning for office and using the University of Notre Dame as a platform for this campaign.  All in all, despite the reaction, I'm glad I did it.

Now, 9 years later, Notre Dame will be visited by another pro-abortion politician.  This time that politician is not campaigning, and he is not using Notre Dame as a platform (he has a bigger platform than Notre Dame already).  This time the politician is the President of the United States of America.  For some reason, and certainly not because I support this politician (I don't, for the record), I'm not opposed to his speaking at Notre Dame.  It seems fitting to me that the President would accept this invitation (as G.W. Bush did in 2001) and that the university would issue it.

I'm not convinced that this invitation is a rejection of Notre Dame's Catholic identity.  Nor am I convinced that this somehow gives scandal by some sort of tacit accpetance of abortion, somatic stem cell research, or gay marriage.  Nay, I think the University can invite him, invite the dialogue surrounding his invitation, and still call itself Catholic in support of those aspects of her own agenda that are in direct contradiction with some of his.

I just don't see a problem with it.

Mind you, I still think it would be cool if a student (or thousands) exercised their own conscience and protested it in some way.  I like revolution.

Peace by Police, not Co-Existence

Bono's dream that everyone "COEXIST" is certainly born from the experience of violence lived in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland.

A situation that has seemed peaceful for the last 5-10 years of economic success is threatened once again by a "blame them" mentality that becomes prevalent in a weak economy.

John Waters is worried.  As one of the most prescient voices of modern Ireland, his worry carries a lot of weight.  Peace is a fragile thing, but freedom even more so.

Ideologies Die, In Time

The death of the ideology of Capitalism is evident all around us.  I'm glad that Crossroads Cultural Center blog "Paper Clippings" is pointing out this very interesting article.

What is Needed is a Caress from the Nazarene

It's been about a month since the Italian woman Eluana Enlargo* passed away after being denied nutrition and hydration because of her permanent non-responsive state.  Many saw this as a "mercy" killing because she would not enjoy the "quality of life" that a human being "deserves."  Yet, in front of her death (murder?) what we need most is not a political solution, but a caress from the Nazarene.  Here is the judgment of Communion and Liberation on that event:

How needed is a caress from the Nazarene!

---

“Existence is a space that has been given to us and that we have to fill with meaning, always and in every situation” (Enzo Jannacci, Corriere della Sera, February 6, 2009).

But how can a life like Eluana’s be filled with meaning? Does it still have any meaning?

The death of Eluana hasn’t closed the door on this question at all. It’s not all over, a failure of hope for those who wanted her to continue living, or liberation for those who held that the situation was no longer bearable. Precisely now, the challenge becomes more radical for everyone.

The death of Eluana goads us to ask ourselves how we collaborated to fill her life with meaning. What contribution did we give to those who were more directly struck by her illness, beginning with her father?

When reality has us up against the ropes, our measure can no longer offer the meaning we so need for going on. Above all, before painful and unjust circumstances that don’t seem destined to change or be resolved, we begin to wonder what meaning there can be. Is life just a rip-off?

The sense of emptiness advances if we remain prisoners to our reason reduced to measure, incapable of withstanding the impact of contradiction. We find ourselves bewildered and alone with our powerlessness, with the suspicion that deep down, everything is nothingness. Can we “fill with meaning” a life when we find ourselves before a person like Eluana? Can we bear suffering when it exceeds our measure? Alone, we can’t make it. We need to run up against the presence of someone who experiences as full of meaning a life that we ourselves instead experience as a devastating void.

Not even Christ was spared the shock of pain and evil, to the point of death. What made the difference in Him? That He was more perfect? That He had more moral energy than us? No, so much so that in the most terrible moment of His trials, He asked to be spared the cross. In Christ, the suspicion that life is ultimately a failure was defeated: His bond with the Father won.

Benedict XVI reminded us that to hope, “The human being needs unconditional love. He needs the certainty which makes him say: “neither death, nor life … will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:38- 39). If this absolute love exists, with its absolute certainty, then—only then—is man “redeemed”, whatever should happen to him in his particular circumstances.” (Spe salvi 26).

The presence of Christ is the only fact that can give meaning to pain and to injustice. Acknowledging the positivity that overcomes all solitude and violence is possible only through the encounter with people who testify that life is worth more than illness and death. For Eluana, these witnesses were the nuns who cared for her for so many years, because, as Jannacci said, today as well, “How needed is a caress from the Nazarene; how badly we need a caress of His,” of that man who two thousand years ago said to the widow of Nain, “Woman, do not cry!”

February 10, 2009
Communion and Liberation

*[Eluana Englaro, in a coma for 17 years since a car accident when she was 21, died this week 72 hours after she was deprived of water and food, in the midst of a government emergency session to overturn the decision of the Court of Cassation in Rome, the highest appeals court of Italy, allowing her father to order her death. The nuns and staff at the nursing home where Eluana had been cared for had refused to obey the court order to stop her water and nutrition, even entreated her father to leave her with them, and let her live, but last week he transferred her to a clinic willing to participate in her death. Finding such a clinic was quite difficult, as the Italian Minister of Health and Welfare had issued guidance saying that under Italian law, withdrawal of food and hydration from helpless disabled persons in the care of public health facilities is "illegal." In January 2009, an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg was rejected because the pro-life coalition presenting it did not have a legal link with Eluana. Considered the “Terri Schiavo” case of Italy, this event has been the subject of searing political debate, even causing a breach between Premier Berlusconi and President Napolitano, the former who pressed for the emergency legislation to save her, the latter who refused to sign it into effect.]

Matthew 7:17 & The Legion of Christ: A Question

"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit."  Matthew 7:17

"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."  Luke 6:45

These two passages (taken from the Douay-Rheims version of the bible) have been rolling over in my head for the last week since learning of the confirmations that many (most?) of the allegations against Fr. Marcial Maciel, the founder of the apostolic order Legion of Christ and the lay apostolic association Regnum Christi.   Added to the list of accusations which were previously made is the confirmed fact that Fr. Maciel fathered a daughter who is now 22 years old and her mother is only 37 years old (which mathematics will tell you was 14 or 15 when she conceived).

Often on blogs people posit their positions as provocations or opinions, using the blog primarily as a medium of judgment on the events around them.  That is usually my reason, as well.  However, today I offer this post primarily to engage you to think with me what these two passages mean and how the current situation that the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi can be understood in light of them.

I want to avoid a moralistic approach and at the same time I want to avoid an interpretation of those passages as deterministic.  I also don't want my reflection to remain at the surface of my annoyance with the LC or RC in my particular encounters with them.  Instead, I want to try to understand what exactly a "fruit" is and more so, I want to understand how much the "charism" of any religious order or lay movement is tied to the person of the founder, and whether or not this "tie" is necessary to or a consequence of the moral life of the founder.

I also want to understand more about the Legion's formation and structure.  Are some of it's tendencies (the focus on appearance, sameness, moral rigidity, secrecy, the apostolate) a result of some work Christ was doing "through" a fragile, broken creature or are they the result of a dualism that emerges as a result of his constant rejection of Christ's grace.

Here are some thoughts:

1. The focus on appearances belies the tendency in someone who lives a double life to convince all those around him that "everything is fine."  It's not a coincidence that all the Legionaries are told time and time again that their appearance is fundamental in not interfering with someone hearing the gospel message.

2.  The focus on the "sameness" of all Legionaries could also be a symptom of the above mentioned problem.  The more everyone is the same, the more the person who is living the double life can rely on those patterns and expectations to cover their own duplicity.

3.  The focus on moral rigidity often what we call "reactionary."  The reaction is to the person's own sinfulness.  Sin, in the Christian life, usually evokes shame.  Since serious patterns of sin result from our own choices, we often think that our choices and actions will lead us back to the right path.  This is a typical misunderstanding of the Christian life in which instead of a complete reliance on Christ, we rely on the rules as the path to holiness.

4.  The focus on secrecy is almost self-evident.  When you have something to hide you treat everything as if it is "private" and therefore create patterns of behavior where you "hide from the left hand what the right hand is doing."  This isn't always negative.  Somethings should be private.  But when everything has the potential to be a little damaging or negative is treated with "secrecy" we can really occlude the truth.

5.  The focus on the apostolate is troubling because it avoids the personal interior work of self-awareness and self-acknoledgment.  This is true in my experience.  Often when I focus on my work as the most important thing it is because there is an interior rejection of my dependence on Christ and an inability to be silent in front of him and recognize what I am in front of him.  Even prayer can be full of this "business" so even hours in front of the Blessed Sacrament can amount to a "nothingness" if I am not present with all of myself infront of the "You" that makes me. 

In addition, I think it also can be used a "measure" of one self, in the way that the protestant tradition has looked at it.  "I must be good with God, because look at how successful my apostolate is going."  It's the tendency that many had to say "Fr. Maciel must be a saint, because look at all the good that the Legion does, look at all the seminarians, look at how faithful they are to the pope, only a saint could generate all of that."  If he's not a saint, are those things that he generated now evil?

I offer these thoughts for your comments.

Unity, Community, Communication

It seems to me that the current hullabaloo regarding the merciful gesture of Pope Benedict toward the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X is probably well deserved.  This dialogue with the modern world, entered into at the Second Vatican Council is something that the various offices of the Curia have yet to really understand.  Worse still, the utter incompetence in public communication is a sign of what seems to be a lack of inter-office communication as well.  I'm not looking for Vatican spin-doctors, but it would be intelligent if the proposal was made in a reasonable fashion, trying to account for all of the factors involved in such an announcement, including public reaction.  Even if they did not know Williamson was a holocaust denier (which as many have pointed out, a simple Google search would have resolved) there is still the fact that this type of gesture brings out the worst in the "spirit of Vatican II" crowd.

Still, the most acute evaluation of the reaction lies in the criticism levied at the pope that is symptomatic of the current cultural position toward the Church:  it is stupid and deceitful and should be held accountable to an authority above (although decidedly below, in real authority) beyond itself:  the "people".  That this comes from outside the Church is hardly a surprise, although the vehemence from those at the highest levels of culture and political responsibility is troubling.  However, when you see among (albeit liberal) theologians a call for the pope's resignation over such a mishandling should give everyone pause. 

This position is what we are all tending toward in the way we look at the successor of Peter and the institutional apparatus that history has provided as a means for him to exercise his pastoral responsibility.  To the world, and increasingly to us, he is a political head, a man in whom is vested responsibility and power, but not authority in the strict sense.  Even among its own agencies ( Radio Vaticana in Germany) there are those who suggest that the pope resign to "maintain the credibility of the Holy See."  Of course, what saddens me is that they do not have the courage to offer their own resignations for failing to diligently fulfill their own responsibility to help the Pope do his job well.

When Catherine of Sienna was pained by the Western Schism in 1376, she very acutely felt it was HER personal call to live a holier life, to travel to Avingon in 1376 and beg the pope to return to Rome.  When she was unsuccessful she did not blame him, but rather deepened her desire that she be more certain of Christ so that she might communicate him more.  She was intimately aware of the fact that the "problems" (in the Greek sense) of the Church were her problems.

This modern notion that everything can be cured by management, political restructuring, and new leadership is anti-Catholic, anti-Christian.  It's as if we want to try to be good without Jesus, as if he is the result of our goodness, or worse yet, a symbolic figurehead of an organization that does good work, even the "best" work, in the world and that "good work" is what is most important and should be allowed to continue at all cost.

Bullshit!

Why Jocks aren't Philosophers:

Pre-Game Coin Toss Makes Jacksonville Jaguars Realize Randomness Of Life

Charity or Violence?

Hey everyone, this is Francis, a friend of Steve, and I will be posting occasionally on the site now, hopefully copiously if I overcome my laziness and start to look - look! - at the provocations copiously given by reality. 

Here is a very clear judgment on the issue of euthanasia. I have some thoughts about it, some things I have been learning in my classes on ethics and political philosophy that gained a new light from this flyer, and I will attempt to post those soon.

"So the case of Eluana puts us in front of the first evidence that emerges in our life: we do not make ourselves. We are made, we are wanted by Another. We are saved from our nothingness by Someone who loves us and has told us: 'Even the hair on your head is counted.' Rejecting this evidence means, sooner or later, rejecting reality. Even when this reality has the face of the people we love."

"Christianity originates exactly from a passion for man. God became man to meet the need of all men, believers and non believers, to understand the meaning of life and death. Christ had pity on our nothingness, and gave His own life to affirm the infinite value of each of us, in whatever condition.

We need Him to be ourselves. We also need to be educated to recognize Him, to be able to live."