Under A Chindolea

Feast of St. Ignatius and New Blog

2009-07-31T11:26:00.004-05:00

Today is our feast day. And the contribution that some of us have decided to make to St. Ignatius is this new blog that kicks off today.

In the Constitutions, St. Ignatius writes in paragraph 378:

Because of the utility there is in the practice of disputation (especially for those who are studying arts and scholastic theology), the scholastics should participate in the disputations or ordinary circles of the schools which they attend, even if not of the Society; and they should endeavor to distinguish themselves by learning joined with modesty.

He continues:

During the preceding afternoon these theses will be posted in writing on the door of the schools, so that those who wish may come to dispute or to listen. After these defendants have briefly proved their theses, those from within and without the house who wish to object may do so.

Then in paragraph 379:

The purpose is that the intellectual powers may be exercised more and that difficult matters occurring inn these subjects may be clarified, for the glory of God our Lord.

Finally, in characteristic Ignatian fashion, he concludes the discussion on disputations in paragraph 382 with a caveat:

In regard to the exercises of repetitions, disputations, and speaking Latin, if something ought to be changed because of circumstances of place, time, or persons, the decision will be left to the discretion of the rector, with authorization, at least in general, from his superior.

These quotations above summarize what we at this new blog are attempting to do. Combining, hopefully, "learning with modesty," we are posting our ideas on the modern day "doors" so that everyone can see them. We'll try to prove our theses, and then "those from within and without the house" can do what they can to prove use wrong. Such is the method of disputation, foundational to the idea of western learning since Socrates.

Of course, Ignatius always adds two things to just about everything he says. First, make sure that it fits the circumstances. After all, if we are to find God in all things, regularly updating our methods is required. Second, do so under the sure protection of obedience. The idea of this blog is thus a response to the belief that "something ought to be changed because of circumstances of place, time, or persons." That something is how Jesuits live in and confront the world with their particular charism. To hide either out of fear or apathy is directly contrary to our mission. For this reason, hoping to give glory to God and to exercise our intellectual powers for the good of society, "Whosoever Desires" has been born.

This project cannot work unless you are engaged. We thus ask that you contribute vigorously to our discussion. The more comments the better, since this is precisely how disputation works. Ideas are put in the open so that they can be commented on. We encourage all comments. Just be charitable in form and content please. If you have something harsh to say, clothe it in courteous language.

The formula for first vows in the Society concludes:

And, as you have freely given me the desire to make this offering, so also may you give me the abundant grace to fulfill it.

This blog is an offering of some of us. Hopefully St. Ignatius will be pleased by the effort of his sons. Please keep us in your prayers.

St. Ignatius, pray for us.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Buttiglione Clarifies

2009-07-30T16:04:00.002-05:00

Rocco Buttiglione clarifies his position here:

“I did not say it was wrong to seek to defend the rights of the child through the use of the penal code. I did not say that. The life of the child should be defended with all possible means. With penal law? Yes, of course, with penal law, where possible.

“But this is not possible in Italy today, so we must rely on other means. We must realize that we do not have a consensus on an abortion ban.”

However, he suggested pro-lifers in the past have relied “too much” on penal sanction, which is only the “one element” in the defense of life.

“If we do not remove the causes that lead so many women to abort, we will not win our battle against abortion,” he told C-FAM. “We will not win our battle against abortion relying only on penal sanction.”

He urged nations which retain abortion restrictions to defend their laws against abortion and also to complement such laws with “good policies in defense of motherhood, and for the support of mothers.”

Otherwise the pressure to remove abortion restrictions will be too strong, he believed.

“You cannot pit the support of the mother against the penal defense of the life of the child. They are two parts of one strategy to defend life. It is always better to have two legs.”

As many have argued, penal sanction alone will not solve the abortion problem. Laws favoring motherhood and cultural shift are the only methods that will be effective in the long run.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

New Websites for Father Thomas, SJ

2009-07-28T14:00:00.008-05:00

I have written here and there in pieces about Father Rick Thomas, SJ, my primary reason for becoming a Jesuit, and the Lord's Ranch Catholic community in New Mexico. These are some new websites that have been created about the various works that my family and the larger Catholic community does. They are still rudimentary, but are a work in progress. Like the Bishop of Las Cruces, New Mexico, I believe that Father Thomas is a saint and that the Church may indeed recognize him as such one day. Here are the three sites:

Father Rick Thomas, SJ

The Lord's Ranch

Las Alas Catholic Community

There are two things that I would like to specifically highlight. First, you'll notice on the Father Thomas site the following:

Father Rene Laurentin, a renowned theologian, wrote two books about Father Rick and the community entitled, “Miracles in El Paso?” (which is now out of print) and “Le Miracle Continue” (which was only published in French.)

A new book, written by a Canadian journalist named Richard Dunstan, is scheduled for publication in July 2009 and is entitled, “The Bible on the Border: How Father Rick Thomas and his friends learned to serve the poor of Mexico by taking God at His Word”. Dunstan is currently working on a biography of Father Thomas.

I've read the manuscript for "The Bible on the Border." It is excellent, and a good overview of the work done by the community on the Lord's Ranch, in El Paso, and in Juarez, Mexico.

You'll also notice on the Father Thomas site an old article that he wrote. He wrote very little for a Jesuit, but this was a very early piece discovered in which he presents a simple case for the meaning of the poor for the Church. I suggest you read it in full. His repetitive style, borrowed from Ignatius' Exercises, may disguise some his profundity.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

How to Solve the Health Care Problem

2009-07-26T10:25:00.003-05:00

John Allen writes:

In a similar vein, I asked myself this week what I would do if somebody offered me a blank check to spend on some project in American Catholicism. The more I think about it, the more my CJ-esque reply would be, “Hire a nurse for every parish in the country.”

As with African roads, parish nursing may not be the most glamorous idea around. But looking down the line it’s tough to imagine a step of greater practical value -- regardless of whatever Washington does or doesn’t do with health care reform.

Not just of practical value, but of evangelical value. His post reminded me of these two easy essays by Peter Maurin:

Feeding the Poor at a Sacrifice

In the first centuries
of Christianity
the hungry were fed
at a personal sacrifice,
the naked were clothed
at a personal sacrifice,
the homeless were sheltered
at personal sacrifice.

And because the poor
were fed, clothed and sheltered
at a personal sacrifice,
the pagans used to say
about the Christians
"See how they love each other."

In our own day
the poor are no longer
fed, clothed, sheltered
at a personal sacrifice,
but at the expense
of the taxpayers.

And because the poor
are no longer
fed, clothed and sheltered
the pagans say about the Christians
"See how they pass the buck."

The Duty of Hospitality

People who are in need
and are not afraid to beg
give to people not in need
the occasion to do good
for goodness' sake.

Modern society calls the beggar
bum and panhandler
and gives him the bum's rush.
But the Greeks used to say
that people in need
are the ambassadors of the gods.

Although you may be called
bums and panhandlers
you are in fact
the Ambassadors of God.

As God's Ambassadors
you should be given food,
clothing and shelter
by those who are able to give it.

Mahometan teachers tell us
that God commands hospitality,
and hospitality is still practiced
in Mahometan countries.

But the duty of hospitality
is neither taught nor practiced
in Christian countries.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Quote of the Day

2009-07-24T14:15:00.002-05:00

One of my tremendous pet peeves is when people talk about how we used to interpret, for instance, Genesis "literally" but now we interpret it "figuratively." So now we understand that the literal meaning might be that God created in six days, but the figurative or symbolic meaning is that these "days" represent millions of years, or something like that. What we end up doing is abdicating to the fundamentalists something they do not deserve.

We interpret Genesis literally more correctly, not them. And we do so because we, not they, understand what "literally" means. It means to understand a passage according to the literary genre in which it was written. We would never allow a fundamentalist to use the word "literally" to explain the figure of speech "the creek laughed" to mean that the water started talking. We would "literally" understand this to mean that maybe it was not stagnant, sounded nice, etc. Yet we allow them to do this with the Bible! Not that we actually approve, but we grant to them the language of the word "literal" to describe what we do. So, with that background, my quote of the day from Karl Rahner, SJ:

A way of talking as if the account in Genesis was understood more literally by the older exegesis whereas this is no longer the case, should be altogether avoided, because it is false and confusing. A statement is all the more literally understood, that is the to say, all the more fully and precisely, the more clearly and consciously the literary character of the statement in question is recognized. If we can do this better now than some time ago, it is we, not the exegetes of the nineteenth century, who understand the text "more literally."

Karl Rahner, Hominisation, 1965

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Sufjan!!!

2009-07-23T18:27:00.003-05:00

Majesty Snowbird - Sufjan Stevens

For those of you who like Sufjan like me, here are some songs I had never heard before, I think because you can't buy them on i-Tunes. I checked. The one above is awesome. Beautiful. I was able to embed it here. It's long though, so give yourself time. The next ones are all linked to sites where you can listen to them. Enjoy!

Sofia's Song

Free Man in Paris (Joni Mitchell cover)

You Are the Blood (Castanets cover)

Pray that he comes out with a new album soon!

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Examination of Conscience

2009-07-23T15:01:00.004-05:00

I'm taking this from Evangelical Catholicism, who got it from Fr. Dubay's book Happy Are You Poor. Great examination of conscience:

By what standards do I determine what is necessary?

Do I collect unneeded things? Do I hoard possessions?

May I, on Gospel principles, buy clothes at the dictates of fashion designers in Paris and New York? Am I slave to fashion? Do I live in other peoples’ minds? Why really do I have all the clothes I have: shirts, blouses, suits, dresses, shoes, gloves?

Am I an inveterate nibbler? Do I eat because I am bored? Do the weight charts convict me of superfluity in eating and drinking? Do I take second helpings simply for the pleasure they afford?

Do I keep unneeded books and papers and periodicals and notes?

Do I retain two or three identical items (clocks, watches, scarves) of which I really need only one?

Do I spend money on trinkets and unnecessary conveniences?

In the winter, do we keep our thermostat, at a setting higher than health experts advise: 68 degrees?

When I think of my needs, do I also think of the far more drastic needs of the teeming millions in the third world?

Do I need the traveling I do more than the poor need food and clothing and medical care?

Am I right in contributing to the billions of dollars spent each year on cosmetics? How much of this can be called necessary?

Is smoking necessary for me?

Is drinking necessary for me?

Do I need to examine exactly what I mean by saying to myself, “I need this”?

Can I honestly say that all I use or possess is used or possessed for the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31)? Would he be given more glory by some other use?

Do I in the pauline sense “mind the things above, not those on earth” (Col 3:1-2)?

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

We Need Social-lifers, (or Pro-justicers)

2009-07-23T14:07:00.002-05:00

Deal Hudson at Inside Catholic criticizes three ways of reading Caritas in Veritate. One of those ways is John Allen's irenic "package" reading:

Benedict XVI insists that Catholic social teaching must be seen as a package deal, holding economic justice together with its opposition to abortion, birth control, gay marriage, and other hot-button issues of sexual morality. The pope expresses irritation with 'certain abstract subdivisions of the Church's social doctrine,' an apparent reference to tensions between the Church's pro-life contingent and its peace-and-justice activists.

This reading, claims Hudson, fails to take into account the reality of the two camps in which "social justice" advocates regularly distance themselves from pro-life positions while pro-lifers "do not dissent from social justice issues." So there is an imbalance here.

Oh really? That was not, nor is, my experience concerning just war theory. Nor torture. Nor racism, which many "social justice" people still consider a prevalent problem in society, a position which makes many pro-lifers scoff (this comes from my experience). Hopefully the divide is narrowing, but it is still a reality.

We would also do Benedict great harm not to give him credit for being a very historically minded thinker. There is a reason that Paul VI wrote Populorum Progressio and Humane Vitae, both. The first was -- and still is by the likes of Weigel -- considered a "progressive" fluke, while the second was widely rejected by arguably most Catholics in the United States. I think that Benedict is intentionally bringing these two together in one encyclical. His address on the 2008 World Day of Peace -- which brought together sexual ethics and social issues -- continues to be the best guide to the new encyclical.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Clarification

2009-07-21T22:05:00.003-05:00

I have nothing against Michael O'Brien as a person. He is my favorite living Catholic author (with the possible exception of Ron Hansen). I've read all of his novels and regularly recommend them. I also quite appreciate his paintings.

I think that he has misappropriated to his own (good?) ends dubious content from a letter by then Cardinal Ratzinger. That is all.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

House Built on Lies

2009-07-21T13:43:00.003-05:00

Some of the sad details coming out about the Legion. Yet they continue to begin new schools and carry on life as normal. What more needs to be discovered? Let's just pray for them. Here are some excerpts from the linked article:

“The atmosphere in House of Studies is bizarre,” a Legion priest said glumly, sitting on a bench near the Tiber River, fearful of repurcussions should his name be used. “Even now, the brothers [seminarians] have not been told about Maciel’s pedophilia. Their mail is screened and web access restricted.”

He considers the 320 seminarians “brainwashed. They read the letters of Nuestro Padre” — Our Father, as Maciel, touted internally as a future saint, was called. “Three years after the Holy Father punished him, they study his writings. Priests can spend time freely outside. The brothers are in a concentration camp.”

Money was an instrument by which the Legion secured Vatican support. Maciel spent lavishly to woo cardinals and bishops, even after a 1997 Hartford Courant investigation exposed his sexual abuse of early seminarians. Another Legionary, over coffee, fumed: “So much money at Christmas goes to the wine, the whiskey, and the special hams for the gift baskets. Legionary brothers are sent in cars to deliver them to cardinals and other allies, always for a purpose. To gain power for the Legion and Maciel ... . A small gift, I understand; but a large gift is a bribe.”
He said that Maciel had subsidized the publication of a book for a Latin American cardinal, and presented a new car to the late Cardinal Pio Laghi, former Vatican ambassador to the U.S., who spent his final years as Vatican prefect of the Congregaton for Education. This was when Maciel was building the university. Laghi rebuffed the offer. The car went to another cardinal, who has since died, according to the priest.

Christmas gifts were divided into category by declining levels of importance, the Legionary continued. For weeks, “eight or 10 brothers prepared the baskets in the basement. Fine Spanish hams cost quite a lot — 30 euros per kilo. You can spend $1,000 for a large one,” said one of the Legion priests who spoke on condition that his name not be used.

Another priest here who left the Legion years ago recounted how Maciel in 1946 arrived in war-ravaged Rome and presented Cardinal Clemente Micara, then the vicar of Rome, with $10,000 cash.

“That was an enormous amount in those days,” the former Legion preist said.Micara would return the favor at a pivotal moment in Maciel’s life. In 1956 the Legionary founder was suspended by Pope Pius XII while hospitalized for morphine painkiller addiction, amidst abuse allegations in the seminary. Barba and others have stated that as boys he abused they lied to protect Maciel in questioning by Vatican officials. “We obeyed our vows to the Legion,” he said. “You must realize, it was the only world we knew.”

When Pius died in 1959, Micara had Maciel reinstated, though whether the cardinal had the formal power to abort a papal investigation is in doubt. Micara would preside at the opening of the Guadalupe Basilica Maciel built in Rome.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Grilling Sotomayor on Life

2009-07-20T21:42:00.001-05:00

Passed on from a friend.

Sen.Tom Coburn, speaking to Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor at confirmation hearing, July 15, 2009:

We now record fetal heartbeats at 14 days post-conception. We record fetal brainwaves at 39 days post-conception. And I don’t expect you to answer this, but I do expect you to pay attention to it as you contemplate these big issues. We have this schizophrenic rule of the law where we have defined death as the absence of those, but we refuse to define life as the presence of those.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Genetics and Homosexuality

2009-07-20T13:34:00.005-05:00

I've often wrestled with the question of what I would be forced to believe if science ever discovered a "gay gene." With the mapping of the human genome, Francis Collins has affirmed that this is not a remote possibility. Would this mean that, since one can be genetically predisposed to be gay, that the homosexual inclination is in conformity with the natural law?

I think that part of this objection has to do with too closely conflating natural law theory with biological determinism. No single genetic inclination makes that inclination "human." After all, the evolutionary development of the human being is full of mistakes and wrong terms, and so it can only be suspected that our genetic make-up is full of deviations from what it means to authentically be human. If anything, evolutionary theory has helped us to understand precisely how much we are not dependent upon our genetic make-up, or at least that we are capable of rising above. Due to the evolutionary process, some people are genetically more prone to aggression than others, but this does not make aggression that leads to murder right.

Natural law reflects on what it means to be human as body and soul. Therefore it includes the body, but not in a deterministic way. With existentialist philosophy, it agrees that what primarily constitutes human nature is precisely freedom -- not freedom in the abstract, but human physical freedom for, not from. What it means to be human according to natural law theory is to be an embodied person who exercises freedom as a tool towards the accomplishment of the single vocation of the human race. This ultimate vocation is union in God. Because our human nature is freedom for, we must eliminate all practices -- even negative genetic holdovers from evolution that can be compounded by selfishness -- that, as I have argued before, are not self-diffusive of the person, which is the inherent structure of authentic freedom. Homosexual behavior is one such practice.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Teilhard

2009-07-20T10:12:00.003-05:00

The Divine Milieu by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ is a masterful work on spiritual theology. Here are a couple of quotes I like:

The day is not far distant when humanity will realize that biologically it is faced with a choice between suicide and adoration.

The Christian, who is by right the first and the most human of men, is the more subject than others to this psychological reversal whereby, in the case of all intelligent creatures, joy in action imperceptibly melts into desire for submission, and the exaltation of becoming one’s own self into the zeal to die in another. Having been perhaps primarily alive to the attractions of union with God through action, he begins to conceive and then to desire a complementary aspect, an ulterior phase, in his communion: one in which he would not develop himself so much as lose himself in God.
He does not have to look far to discover possibilities and opportunities for fulfillment in this gift of self.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Harry Potter: The Pope Does Not Have an Opinion

2009-07-19T18:13:00.006-05:00

I have gone back and forth on Harry Potter over the years. What I do firmly believe is that parents should educate their kids about the actual dangers of magic and occultic practices so that they know how to recognize the difference between power coming from God and from the devil. But in an alternate universe where God doesn't feature and there are other kinds of powers at work -- such as in The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, we can't just equate "magic" with "bad." Either way, the Catholic novelist Michael O'Brien has done most of the philosophical work arguing for why the Harry Potter books are dangerous for children. However, he has also been in the news several times for claiming that Benedict XVI agrees with him and has condemned Harry Potter. Whether one thinks Harry Potter good or not, claiming that the pope has an opinion about it is nonsense, and for the sake of truth and honesty, I'm posting a good and thorough report on the subject below. This is a report by Rita Skeeters and I've taken it from Hogwarts Professor:

The most frequently requested article from the old Hogwarts Professor site after “Obviously Dumbledore is not Jesus” has been this piece on the scandalous use of the Pope by Canadian Harry Haters and Culture Warriors the day before Half-Blood Prince was released. I re-print it now in anticipation of similar shameful efforts in the third week of July this year. Harry Potter is a phenomenon those who style themselves latter-day Savonarolas almost certainly will not let pass without a volley and flourish.

“Pope Opposes Harry Potter”? Hardly.
Michael O’Brien and the Kuby Letters: Rita Skeeter covers the Vatican

A Time Line and Commentary on the Kuby Letters, supposedly written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), on the subject of the Harry Potter novels written by Joanne Rowling.

February, 2003:

The story begins at the press conference releasing the Pontifical Council on Culture and Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue’s of “Vatican statement on New Age Religions’ Jesus Christ: The Bearer of the Water of Life (A Christian Reflection on the “New Age”).

Fr. Peter Fleetwood at the Press Conference for this document was asked about Harry Potter. In an interview 15 July 2005 on Vatican Radio Fr. Peter said that, at the 2003 Press Conference he had said only that (1) the books reflect Rowling’s Christian upbringing and study of myth and (2) that the books are about good triumphing over evil. This was widely reported and interpreted as a Vatican endorsement or “closet imprimatur” for the Potter books.

Michael O’Brien, Canadian painter and self-described “combat soldier in the culture war,” has said about this event:

“In short, it was the superficial personal opinion of a man who may or may not have read the books. That the media turned this into a major world-class story (and at the same time largely ignored the reason for the conference, the release of the Vatican’s teachings on the New Age movement) is so blatant a violation of journalistic standards that one cannot help but wonder over it.”

March, 2003:

In March 2003. a German sociologist and self-educated Catholic apologist sent a copy of her Harry Potter book to then Cardinal Ratzinger asking for his endorsement. She received this response (English translation by LifeSiteNews.com):

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Vatican City
March 7, 2003

Esteemed and dear Ms. Kuby!

Many thanks for your kind letter of February 20th and the informative book which you sent me in the same mail. It is good, that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly.

I would like to suggest that you write to Mr. Peter Fleetwood, (Pontifical Council of Culture, Piazza S. Calisto 16, I00153 Rome) directly and to send him your book.

Sincere Greetings and Blessings,

+ Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Ms. Kuby did send the book to Fr. Peter Fleetwood as instructed by then Cardinal Ratzinger and received a four page response explaining where he thought she may have misunderstood or read too much into the books. He said he never heard back from her.

Ms. Kuby did write the Cardinal again, asking permission to use his book blurb and received this response (translation again from LifeSiteNews.com):

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Vatican City
May 27, 2003

Esteemed and dear Ms. Kuby,

Somehow your letter got buried in the large pile of name-day, birthday and Easter mail. Finally this pile is taken care of, so that I can gladly allow you to refer to my judgment about Harry Potter.

Sincere Greetings and Blessings,

+ Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

The Cardinal’s sentence was published on the book which was reviewed in Germany and largely dismissed. As German Catholic priest and literature critic Fr. Karl Leisner pointed out at the time and again recently, and as Fr. Fleetwood has said he wrote to her in response to then Cardinal Ratzinger’s request that she write to him, Ms. Kuby is neither a careful reader nor a competent critic, however admirable her intentions.

April, 2005:

The matter rested there until Cardinal Ratzinger’s elevation to the Papacy the next spring. Ms. Kuby then shared her letters supposedly from the new Pope about Harry Potter again with the Press. This made a “big splash” in the papers and Harry Potter fan sites at the end of April, 2005.

There was very little said about this report after the announcement in April, other than notices being made that the letters were (1) from Cardinal Ratzinger writing a book blurb for a friend, not from the newly elevated Pope speaking ex cathedra and (2) that it was very unlikely that then Cardinal Ratzinger had read either the book by Ms. Kuby or the Harry Potter books. The story died a natural death.

June 27/July 13, 2005:

In late June and then again three days before the release of the sixth Harry Potter novel, a small Catholic news service that reports pro-life stories located in Combermere, Ontario, Canada, releases a story with the headline “Pope Opposes Harry Potter Novels” with the location of the news release being given as “Rimsting, Germany.” The articles feature comments by Catholic novelist Michael O’Brien, also, remarkably, of the small town Combermere, Ontario, Canada. He says in this piece:

“This discernment on the part of Benedict XVI reveals the Holy Father’s depth and wide ranging gifts of spiritual discernment.” O’Brien, author of a book dealing with fantasy literature for children added, “it is consistent with many of the statements he’s been making since his election to the Chair of Peter, indeed for the past 20 years - a probing accurate read of the massing spiritual warfare that is moving to a new level of struggle in western civilization. He is a man in whom a prodigious intellect is integrated with great spiritual gifts. He is the father of the universal church and we would do well to listen to him.”

The timing of this article and the remarkably deceptive headline caused the firestorm one would expect. Catholics around the world were led to believe by newspapers (that picked up this story and headline from a news-scanner called Drudge) that their Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, had weighed in on this subject. Mr. O’Brien appeared on a CNN news program Friday, 15 July, which program belittled his position but reported without qualification the LifeSiteNews.com story about the Pope. O’Brien proclaimed this a victory on his website, saying:

The great grace of Friday’s CNN show was that the Holy Father’s letter regarding the Potter series was read, even in the midst of everything working against it.

The delight of staffers in the spread of their story from LifeSiteNews.com is evident in this posting on a Catholic web site by “Hilary” on July 13th:

I’m very proud to say that was us. LifeSite has been hammering at Harry Potter for years and we got the letters by contacting the woman presonally. Drudge picked it up this morning and we rushed to get the graphics off the story before the tidal wave hit us and crashed the site, which has happened the couple of other times we have been picked up by Drudge. He’s really good at crediting us and as also always happens, the first few stories who pick it up from Drudge also credit us, but by the time the Washington Post gets it and it rolls back to Canada’s National Post, we have dropped off the radar. But it seems to be better this time, John Henry got a call from the London Times this morning, which is something because we are six hours ahead of them.

But you should hear the neo-catholics screeching at us! Every time we go after Harry the Weigelites come after us with knives sharpened. They really REALLY hate to have their complacent little tea party with The World disturbed by difficult truths hey?

I should enjoy it less I suppose…but that’s whaty I’ve got a spiritual director for I guess.

But is this letter from Cardinal Ratzinger actually from Cardinal Ratzinger? Has it been translated verbatim or in a way that sensationalizes and misrepresents what the Cardinal or the curia bureaucrat who wrote it has said? And what is the Vatican position on Harry Potter, if any?

The Vatican was, of course, immediately besieged by requests for confirmation or denial of the story with the headline “Pope Opposes Harry Potter.” The Pope and his secretary were at the Pope’s retreat villa in the Northern Italian Alps so there was no response from Pope Benedict XVI. Vatican Radio, however, “the Voice of the Pope,” on July 15, two days after this report was re-released from Michael O’Brien’s hometown, featured an interview with Fr. Peter Fleetwood about the Kuby letters. The Catholic News Service, the most reputable source of news for Catholics, also reported on the “New attention given to 2003 Cardinal Ratzinger letter on Harry Potter.”

In the interview, Fr. Fleetwood makes it clear he doubts the letters were written by the Cardinal:

I was sent a letter from a lady in Germany who claimed to have written to the then-Cardinal Ratzinger, saying that she thought Harry Potter was a bad thing. And the letter back, which I suspect was written by an assistant of the then-Cardinal Ratzinger in his office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, suggested that there was a subtle seduction in the books. What that subtle seduction was, was not specified, which makes me think it was a generic answer. And she had written a book on these subjects and so the Cardinal’s signature was at the bottom of the letter, suggesting she should send me the book. She sent me the book, and I found it a very unsatisfactory book.

So unsatisfactory was the book that he felt obliged to send her a four page letter detailing the errors and misunderstandings in it. Ms. Kuby, Mr. O’Brien, and LifeSiteNews.com make no mention of this exchange and Ms. Kuby’s failure to heed or even respond to a letter sent from an official of the Pontifical Council of Culture who has read the books.

As Fr. Fleetwood points out, the wording in the German is generic and “subtle seductions” does not point to Harry Potter the way the LifeSiteNews.com translation presents it. The German language version in fact reads more like a description of poisons that don’t allow plants to grow normally in the soil. It congratulates the author for being watchful for such subtle seductions in even children’s books but does not say that Harry Potter is one of these.

As the Catholic News Service report makes clear, “Cardinal Ratzinger did not say he had read any of the Harry Potter books.” His letter did, however, direct the author to a Pontifical Office that dealt with these matters and to a person that had read the books, whose guidance and instruction Ms. Kuby has ignored and LifeSiteNews.com neglects to mention.

The Vatican position, if there is one, seems to be the one expressed by Fr. Peter Fleetwood on Vatican Radio. As reported by Catholic News Service and available verbatim on line :

The most appropriate way to Judge Harry Potter is not on the basis of theology, but according to the criteria of children’s literature and whether children will read the book willingly.

This interview and reports are the only statements made (1) by a legitimate Catholic official (2) speaking directly to the subjects of Harry Potter and the Kuby letters (3) from a Vatican news service.

How then are we to understand the Kuby letters?

I think the common sense conclusion but sad fact of the matter is that a provincial Catholic zealot group has exploited the Pope and Catholic feeling for their Holy Father for their own gain. “Pope Opposes Harry Potter” Hardly. The new Pope did not write these letters as Pontiff, it is doubtful then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote courtesy book blurbs, and, if he did write these letters, they don’t say what LifeSite News and Mr. O’Brien say they do. A better and more accurate headline would have been: “Vatican office sends polite thank you to frenetic Catholic Harry-Hater.”

Mr. O’Brien decried the “superficial personal opinion of a man who may or may not have read the books” when speaking about a Vatican official and Englishman who certainly had read the novels and spoke in a Pontifical Office charged with knowing about such things. It is ironic and hypocritical that he then says about then Cardinal Ratzinger, a German in an office with responsibilities not stretching to children’s literature and who almost certainly has not read the Potter novels, that “this discernment on the part of Benedict XVI reveals the Holy Father’s depth and wide ranging gifts of spiritual discernment” and that “he is the father of the universal church and we would do well to listen to him.”

O’Brien and LifeSiteNews.com have exploited the Pope and made him into something of a hand puppet to say the things they want him to say. Anything from the Vatican archives or waste bins that can support the Combemere, Ontario, position is “spiritual discernment.” Explicit correction, on the other hand, from Vatican offices charged with such matters are neglected or misrepresented.

“Star Chamber” and “Super-Catholics” are here evidently “Cafeteria Catholics,” picking and choosing what they like from the Vatican menu.

The Kuby letters are best understood as letters from a curia official writing a polite book blurb and thanking her for the kindness of sending the Cardinal a book. As Mark Shea has written, “the note was obviously about as doctrinal as a Papal handshake in a giant crowd.” The re-release of these letters by a Catholic artist and news service located in a provincial Canadian town on the eve of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’s publication, a re-release four months after the story had broken, speaks to the type of media irresponsibility decried by O’Brien and satirized by Joanne Rowling in the Harry Potter novels. Mr. O’Brien and LifeSiteNews.com, in fact, resemble with disarming likeness The Daily Prophet and reporter Rita Skeeter.

The only difference is, sadly, the satirical characters and media in the Potter novels could never have dragged down the faith of millions and diminished both a Pope’s reputation and “spiritual capital” for their personal gain. For a sober Catholic’s reflections on the Kuby letters and Harry Potter books, please read acclaimed Catholic novelist Regina Doman’s essay at the Zossima Press home page.

And please remember the next time you see Michael O’Brien on CNN or a quotation or story from LifeSiteNews.com that these provincial Canadian Catholics have their private agenda for you, the Pope, and faith and culture.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Mason, We Will Miss You

2009-07-18T15:37:00.005-05:00

Well, Mason Slidell is taking a bit of a vacation from blogging. He may not be back for a little while, but he may make cameos if you beg hard enough. We will miss him of course. He had most of the profound or humorous things to say around here. Wish him well and say a prayer for him as he tackles the challenges of diocesan formation.

Also, though I will continue writing here, as of July 31, the feast of St. Ignatius, Whosoever Desires will be officially launched, and I will spend time writing for that project as well. However, I will continue here, so don't leave me bereft and blue. Just read both.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Chapter 3: Gratuity and Gift

2009-07-16T14:04:00.005-05:00

I'll have to admit, this made me laugh. It was one of the initial humorous responses to Weigel's ridiculous piece in the National Review. I think the best direct response can be read at Evangelical Catholicism. You should go read it.

But what I'd like to do here is rather comment a bit on what the encyclical actually says. I wanted to do this chapter by chapter, and I still hope to do that, but Weigel's comments will make me go a little out of order. Notice for instance this statement he makes:

But then there are those passages to be marked in red — the passages that reflect Justice and Peace ideas and approaches that Benedict evidently believed he had to try and accommodate. Some of these are simply incomprehensible, as when the encyclical states that defeating Third World poverty and underdevelopment requires a “necessary openness, in a world context, to forms of economic activity marked by quotas of gratuitousness and communion.” This may mean something interesting; it may mean something naïve or dumb. But, on its face, it is virtually impossible to know what it means.

The encyclical includes a lengthy discussion of “gift” (hence “gratuitousness”), which, again, might be an interesting attempt to apply to economic activity certain facets of John Paul II’s Christian personalism and the teaching of Vatican II, in Gaudium et Spes 24, on the moral imperative of making our lives the gift to others that life itself is to us. But the language in these sections of Caritas in Veritate is so clotted and muddled as to suggest the possibility that what may be intended as a new conceptual starting point for Catholic social doctrine is, in fact, a confused sentimentality of precisely the sort the encyclical deplores among those who detach charity from truth.

I'll grant to Weigel that I think these parts of the encyclical are hard to understand. But what I won't grant to him is that they are incomprehensible, or just the angry mutterings of Peace and Justice. Rather, what we should do as readers is try to understand why Benedict would put these into a social encyclical at all. Tomorrow I will write about Vocation and Discernment in Caritas in Veritate. Today I want to take up Gift and Gratuity.

Chapter 3 is the chapter of gratuity. In it, Benedict constructs a tightly knit argument about the need for gratuity in market exchanges. Originally, this does appear incomprehensible. Isn't the market founded upon the equivalence of value of exchanged goods? Yet Benedict makes these claims:

In fact, if the market is governed solely by the principle of the equivalence in value of exchanged goods, it cannot produce the social cohesion that it requires in order to function well. Without internal forms of solidarity and mutual trust, the market cannot completely fulfil its proper economic function.

This is a mild way of making his point. Internal to the market must be solidarity. But what exactly does it mean that solidarity is "internal" to the market? Solidarity -- the recognition that all are responsible for all -- is hardly a market principle. But Benedict is very clear. Gift must become a central aspect of market exchange. And it would be easy here to simply claim that he must be talking about mutual giving, which is simply another way of speaking of exchange. But he says clearly:

When both the logic of the market and the logic of the State come to an agreement that each will continue to exercise a monopoly over its respective area of influence, in the long term much is lost: solidarity in relations between citizens, participation and adherence, actions of gratuitousness, all of which stand in contrast with giving in order to acquire (the logic of exchange) and giving through duty (the logic of public obligation, imposed by State law).

He is talking about something beyond giving in order to receive and giving through duty. Neither market exchange nor taxation is what Benedict is the answer. Rather, genuine gratuity must find a place internally as a market force.

To try to grasp exactly what he means by this, we should try to unpack exactly how Benedict conceives of society as a whole. Adopting John Paul II's tripartite understanding of human society, he speaks of the State, the Market, and Civil Society.

The Market

The market, for Benedict, is not neutral. It does not exist in a pure state, as economist will often claim for it. It does not operate in a vacuum. Nor is it evil of itself. Benedict speaks of it as an instrument. Here are some examples of his thought:

Admittedly, the market can be a negative force, not because it is so by nature, but because a certain ideology can make it so. It must be remembered that the market does not exist in the pure state. It is shaped by the cultural configurations which define it and give it direction.

The economic sphere is neither ethically neutral, nor inherently inhuman and opposed to society. It is part and parcel of human activity and precisely because it is human, it must be structured and governed in an ethical manner.

The market is not negative in itself. It is rather human. Its laws are human, and so they are necessarily bound up in human freedom and human choices. Therefore, for the market to work correctly, humans must work correctly. The initial way in which the negative tendencies of the market are held in check is by that other human instrument, the State.

The State

The place of the state, since Rerum Novarum, has been to regulate the market and allow for just redistribution. Benedict repeats:

The civil order, for its self-regulation, also needed intervention from the State for purposes of redistribution.

Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.

Legitimate forces of regulation must be in place, and this is the traditional duty of the state. In this regard, Benedict tells us, the role of the state may have to grow. However, the State along as a human and political regulation of the market is itself not enough.

Perhaps at one time it was conceivable that first the creation of wealth could be entrusted to the economy, and then the task of distributing it could be assigned to politics. Today that would be more difficult, given that economic activity is no longer circumscribed within territorial limits, while the authority of governments continues to be principally local. Hence the canons of justice must be respected from the outset.

He continues:

The exclusively binary model of market-plus-State is corrosive of society, while economic forms based on solidarity, which find their natural home in civil society without being restricted to it, build up society. The market of gratuitousness does not exist, and attitudes of gratuitousness cannot be established by law. Yet both the market and politics need individuals who are open to reciprocal gift.

What is required is neither more state control, nor more freedom in the market. Neither of these provides the solution. More "freedom" for the market is just a classical liberal term that means individualism and greed. This concept has been so manipulated by large corporations and their advertising arms that it no longer even contains any meaning. But neither can the state simply exert more control over the market as a way of improving it. Rather, it needs a new mechanism from within that can transform it. This new mechanism is Gift.

What sense does this make?

To explain what he means, Benedict turns to the third part of John Paul II's tripartite scheme: Civil Society.

Civil Society

Benedict renames the three divisions according to three kinds of logic. There is the logic of exchange, political logic, and the logic of unconditional gift:

The economy in the global era seems to privilege the former logic, that of contractual exchange, but directly or indirectly it also demonstrates its need for the other two: political logic, and the logic of the unconditional gift.

Now things clear up slightly. Civil Society must be characterized by the logic of unconditional gift if the other two are to function as they are meant to. In other words, civil society must be the heart and soul of the state and the market. It's own logic must pervade the other two to such a degree that it saturates them. But how can this happen?

I think what we must do it look back to Benedict's talk at the World Day of Peace, where he connected the Family to World Peace. This threw people off a bit, but I think the logic is tight. In a family, the logic that rules is that of unconditional gift. A family is not made up of individuals, but of brothers and sisters. Benedict hints to this when he speaks of the global family. He notes in the Introduction to Caritas in Veritate:

As society becomes ever more globalized, it makes us neighbours but does not make us brothers. Reason, by itself, is capable of grasping the equality between men and of giving stability to their civic coexistence, but it cannot establish fraternity. This originates in a transcendent vocation from God the Father, who loved us first, teaching us through the Son what fraternal charity is.

Since neither the market nor the state can make us brothers, this must be the work of civil society, and most markedly, of the family. In the family, the logic of unconditional gift reigns. And this is the highest form of logic. I'm getting ahead of myself to tomorrow, but in the family, there is a common vocation. And the very concept of vocation, of calling, requires that one find oneself by giving of oneself. This is of course symbolized richly by marital intercourse. And this is also why according to this logic homosexual "marriage" can have no place. The family is the foundation of tripartite system. It is also the place of unconditional love and gratuity. In the family, the logic of prelapsarian man can still be found. After the Fall, the tendency of man is to digest, to consume and to make all things into myself. But Reason, as Thomas noted, resists this fall of the flesh, by trying, as Aristotle said, to become all things. This is our calling, our vocation, to become all things, and so to be united with all. The Eucharist most perfectly makes this happen, and so is the most perfect antidote to the Fall, making us all literally one body in Christ. But in marriage, this making of One Body is replicated in a smaller symbolic way all over the world. And so the family produces on a small scale what the eucharistic Church tries to produce on a large scale: the self-diffusion of the individual into the universal vocation of all human beings. We become one body. The self is so given over, in fact, that a new person comes into being, a Third, beyond the two. This is why metaphysically, homosexual behavior is violent behavior and destroys the logic of love. Sexual behavior and social justice are one and the same issue.

But that is another topic. Most importantly, unless we can become a world family, economics cannot work. The market will be destructive. But we all know that the Enlightenment experiment of a worldwide fraternity failed. That liberal vision was destined to fall to pieces. Benedict is not looking to build a civilization founded on rational principles of fraternal equality, but rather on vocation and gratuity. And for this to happen, the logic of the family must saturate the state and the market. This means, contra liberal society, communal Ends, not just personal aggregate goals. Not personal ends, but a single End that all strive for. This is what happens in the family. It must too happen in the market. This is why capitalism on a liberal model must be rejected and new ways of understanding capitalism in a communal model must be found. Over and over Benedict mentions communities. They are the only way to achieve his goal. A new end, the end offered by the logic of gift, must replace the vacuum of ends that makes up liberal capitalism:

Charity in truth, in this case, requires that shape and structure be given to those types of economic initiative which, without rejecting profit, aim at a higher goal than the mere logic of the exchange of equivalents, of profit as an end in itself.

This is because communities, like families, have singular ends, not individual ends that are supposed to aggregate into a "common good." As communities form, the market is tempered to a proper end, and can work as a positive rather than a negative force. Whether Benedict has in mind Mondragon in Spain or not I don't know. But surely something along that model might be the best way to go.

Either way, contra Weigel, I think we need to try to plumb Benedict's thought, rather than engage in selective source criticism. And I think I will better explicate how Gratuity should work internally the market when I engage Discernment and Vocation tomorrow.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Michael Novak, as Warm Up for Tackling Caritas in Veritate Little by Little

2009-07-15T21:23:00.002-05:00

Michael Novak strongly defends liberalism as a system within the confines of American law and culture. Like Murray, I take him to be articulating something that he thinks has always been a part of American culture or public philosophy but must now be further explained. His argument is that liberal capitalism in the American experiment, through which it first acquires the name of “democratic capitalism,” is the ideal economic system for a free polity. He argues, following as he claims Centesimus Annus, for a tripartite system. However, first I would like to restate Novak’s thesis, since it succinctly gives his reader a sense of the optimism which he has toward an American democratic free economy. He typically argues:

Thus the insight most lacking in traditionalists is that intelligent and practical persons, acting freely and on behalf of their own practical wisdom, can in their free exchanges generate a spontaneous order, a form of catallaxy superior in its reasonableness to any order that might be planned, directed, or enforced from above.

This is his thesis, which, however, he continually modifies with his tripartite society.

Novak quotes John Paul II in order to explain what he means by a tripartite society that he envisages the United States to be: “Such a society is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the state so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied.” Here we see the three forces that must interact in a free society: the market, civil society, and the state. Each of these three branches – the market, civil or cultural society, and the state – must balance one another out in order to have a truly free way of life. By outlining this tripartite society, Novak means to free himself from so-called “primitive capitalism” which was truly a war of all against all within the market. Therefore, he is not, as John Paul II also was not, an advocate of a lassaiz faire free economy, but rather of a free economy within a strong system of checks and balances. He himself admits: “At various times in American history, both the political system and the moral-cultural system have seriously intervened, positively and negatively, in the economic system. Each of the three systems has modified the others.”

What then must these checks and balances look like? Murray argued that American law had as its primary precursor British Common Law which in turn has its moral roots in medieval natural law theory. If this is true, then the American system of government was founded by a group of men who were reasonable and virtuous and who expected that those who would live within the system they established would also have the same prerequisites. Novak argues the same. Over and over he states: “A free economy cannot function unless its participants have mastered certain moral virtues. Important ethical assumptions are built into the free economy.” A free economy must be “embedded in powerful democratic and moral-religious traditions.” It must contain the twofold presupposition of the entire western tradition: the understanding of the human vocation to bring the earthly city in line with the heavenly city, and the vision that even the lowliest person is precious in God’s eyes.

Novak presents a beautiful vision of a human society. His tripartite society of checks and balances borrowed from John Paul II is admirable. Its grounding in the American proposition is debatable, and this is not an argument that he takes up here. What are more important are his presuppositions about such a society. I am not claiming that the best economic system would be one created from above as the traditionalists would claim. Rather, his presupposition stated in the first quote above concerning “practical persons, acting freely and on behalf of their own practical wisdom” seems dubious. He claims in regard to the Polish workers movement that “the birth of a capitalist system requires a moral revolution.” This was certainly not true in England at the time of the Industrial Revolution, nor was it true of most forms of primitive capitalism which Marx took aim at. He must then mean capitalism as he understands in within his tripartite society.

But if this is the case, then capitalism itself is not a “moral revolution.” Rather, it must take place within a moral revolution and must be constantly informed by such a revolution. And this is difficult once a free economy is in place. Free economies tend to exert a powerful influence upon the moral status of a nation, an influence that governments cannot be expected to counteract entirely. Often governments themselves become heavenly influenced by values of the economy. Therefore, this influence is left up to a moral culture. Yet this moral culture, far from simply being in line with the same principles of capitalism, must actually regularly resist the influences of a free economy. This is so because the market and the production of goods tend according to the nature of human beings to be selfishly driven and egotistically motivated. The market is neutral in itself. Novak is right about that. Yet it tends to feed off of the humans who make it up, and humans, as a good anthropology knows, more often than not follow their concupiscence. Therefore, a “neutral market” will almost inevitably go in the direction of alienation and exploitation. This is simply human nature in relation to money, the “root of all evil.” Murray himself observed that “the native tendency of an industrial economy is towards oligarchic organization and towards independence of all political, not to say popular, control.” For the most part, a moral and religious society must spend most of its time acting against the tendencies of a free market rather than acting as its cheerleader, which is what Novak seems to be doing primarily. If it does not do so, the market will not only not remain value-neutral, but it will begin it assert its own negative values acquired through human weakness upon the moral culture of a nation. I think this is simply being realistic. While the tripartite system is nice to look at, the economy tends to exert the majority of influence. They all touch each other, but not equally. And so the other two must push back in order to maintain a society in proper check.

This leads me to my second criticism of Novak, concerning his treatment of “creative subjectivity.” Novak sees creative subjectivity as the virtue par excellence for a capitalistic society. Yet he must be careful here on two fronts. First, in The Acting Person, as in every other place where he writes on creative subjectivity, Wojtyla places equal emphasis on the notion of community. In the case of persons, subjectivity is always intersubjectivity. Therefore, all creativity must remain within the bounds of an understanding of community, which is an equal good for the human person. As the person leaves his family and moves into the market, he must now form community, whereas before it was given to him. And the market must not be at odds to the formation of genuine community. Capitalism by its nature tends to rupture families and communities, even while it gathers together groups of individuals to work toward a common goal. One need only look at working families these days and all the travel that both mother and father must often do, or, conversely, at the actual “communities” that have formed with their center around sprawling suburban strip malls. When it comes to community, capitalism can be more of an enemy than an ally.

I post this now, because Benedict in Caritas in Veritate brings up again the tripartite system of Centesimus Annus. However, he tweaks it in some rather important ways that I will discuss tomorrow. What role must the state and the family have on the market? Benedict takes this up in a particularly unique way, using fairly new terms in the Catholic social debate: vocation, discernment, gratuitousness and gift to highlight his new emphasis. Benedict goes beyond the free exchanges of practically wise men that Novak envisions. He inserts the new term of gratuity. More later.

Liberalism

2009-07-15T18:30:00.001-05:00

David Schindler on modern liberalism:

I’m inclined to accept what Alasdair MacIntyre says — and I quote it often — that most of the public debates today are among different strains of liberalism: conservative liberalism, liberal liberalism, and radical liberalism. … Often Catholics have prematurely followed liberalism in the sense of assuming that its institutions are good and that freedom of choice is good, as long as both are used for the right purposes. If you press deeply enough, there’s an ontologically self-centered utilitarianism already built into the original logic of our (liberal) institutions and freedom.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Benedict and Darwin in 2009

2009-07-14T15:21:00.002-05:00

It is an important year for Benedict to come out with a new social encyclical. Not only to look back at Populorum Progressio, but also to consider many of the effects of Darwin's theory 200 years after his birth and 150 years after his publication of On the Origin of the Species. We can make this connection because of Benedict's concern, as he says, to promote an "integral humanism." A brief survey of the Introduction to Caritas in Veritate makes clear note of this. For example, some of the main themes found in the Introduction:

Love is God's greatest gift to humanity, it is his promise and our hope.

Charity goes beyond justice, because to love is to give, to offer what is “mine” to the other; but it never lacks justice.

The earthly city is promoted not merely by relationships of rights and duties, but to an even greater and more fundamental extent by relationships of gratuitousness, mercy and communion.

Every Christian is called to practise this charity, in a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the degree of influence he wields in the pólis.

In an increasingly globalized society, the common good and the effort to obtain it cannot fail to assume the dimensions of the whole human family, that is to say, the community of peoples and nations.

Life in Christ is the first and principal factor of development.

The risk for our time is that the de facto interdependence of people and nations is not matched by ethical interaction of consciences and minds that would give rise to truly human development.

Particularly the last two raise interesting questions in relation to Darwin. It would be easier -- as many theologians have done over the century -- to turn to Lamarck rather than to Darwin as a refuge for theological deism wedded with evolutionary theory. Lamarck claimed that evolution worked like an escalator, moving ever higher and higher in its progress and advancement of the species. Darwin, on the other hand, argued that evolution did not necessarily favor progress and advancement. Often simpler organisms adapted better to their environment than did more complex ones. However, many of his advocates quickly embraced his theory as a form of Lamarckianism rather than accepting his own claim. The rapid spread of his theory into various versions of social Darwinism found their economic enthusiasts in the Rockefellers and Carnegies. Philosophies of individualism appeared to be sanctioned by Darwinism rather than more communal understandings of civil life. As William Graham Sumner, a noted American capitalist and exponent of social Darwinism claimed:

If we do not like the survival of the fittest, we have only one possible alternative, and that is the survival of the unfittest. The former is the law of civilization; the latter is the law of uncivilization.

And the law of charity. Of course, Darwin's understanding of the development of morality understood the golden rule to be a high point of evolutionary instinctual development. It was the natural outcome of social instincts. Others did not see it this way, especially in America, and theories of individualism became closely linked, not only with social Darwinism, but also with a form of Larmarckianism.

However, excising the Larmarckian tendencies, at least from the economic ramifications that social Darwinism has had on American society, could do some good. It is not progress for its own sake at any costs that we seek. It is not hard to see the current economic crisis as a reflection on Lamarckian views. If the escalator goes up, I might as well get a head start. Darwin's own views, rather, leave out the progressive aspect more simply in favor of requisite change for survival.

Benedict takes this direction, recognizing both the need for development for the sake of human society, but also the importance for this development to be a communal enterprise, built upon solidarity and love. As he says at the beginning of chapter 1: "integral human development is primarily a vocation." This means that there is a goal, but not a single-faceted one. What happened in the American economic and philosophical scene was that early on, the great entrepreneurs picked out one single capitalistic variation -- making money -- as the only sign of progress. The havoc this vision has wrought is visible to all. Integral development implies vocation, and vocation is a wholistic term. Nor can this human vocation be known without the "unfittest." They are precisely the key to noticing what is most "advantageous" in the human person. They are the linchpin who often most clearly see the "trait" that best advances human society: charity. Benedict acts as a scientist of the human heart in selecting out this most important feature of human development.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

2009-07-12T14:20:00.002-05:00

From Caritas in Veritate:

In order to protect nature, it is not enough to intervene with economic incentives or deterrents; not even an apposite education is sufficient. These are important steps, but the decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of society. If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

New Encyclical and Tony Campolo

2009-07-11T14:28:00.002-05:00

I will write more on Caritas in Veritate soon, but I've wanted to add a quote by Tony Campolo, and a footnote in the encyclical made me think of it. The footnote reads:

[88] Saint Augustine expounds this teaching in detail in his dialogue on free will (De libero arbitrio, II, 3, 8ff.). He indicates the existence within the human soul of an “internal sense”. This sense consists in an act that is fulfilled outside the normal functions of reason, an act that is not the result of reflection, but is almost instinctive, through which reason, realizing its transient and fallible nature, admits the existence of something eternal, higher than itself, something absolutely true and certain. The name that Saint Augustine gives to this interior truth is at times the name of God (Confessions X, 24, 35; XII, 25, 35; De libero arbitrio II, 3, 8), more often that of Christ (De magistro 11:38; Confessions VII, 18, 24; XI, 2, 4).

Here is the full paragraph from the encyclical:

34. Charity in truth places man before the astonishing experience of gift. Gratuitousness is present in our lives in many different forms, which often go unrecognized because of a purely consumerist and utilitarian view of life. The human being is made for gift, which expresses and makes present his transcendent dimension. Sometimes modern man is wrongly convinced that he is the sole author of himself, his life and society. This is a presumption that follows from being selfishly closed in upon himself, and it is a consequence — to express it in faith terms — of original sin. The Church's wisdom has always pointed to the presence of original sin in social conditions and in the structure of society: “Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action and morals”[85]. In the list of areas where the pernicious effects of sin are evident, the economy has been included for some time now. We have a clear proof of this at the present time. The conviction that man is self-sufficient and can successfully eliminate the evil present in history by his own action alone has led him to confuse happiness and salvation with immanent forms of material prosperity and social action. Then, the conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from “influences” of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way. In the long term, these convictions have led to economic, social and political systems that trample upon personal and social freedom, and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they promise. As I said in my Encyclical Letter Spe Salvi, history is thereby deprived of Christian hope[86], deprived of a powerful social resource at the service of integral human development, sought in freedom and in justice. Hope encourages reason and gives it the strength to direct the will[87]. It is already present in faith, indeed it is called forth by faith. Charity in truth feeds on hope and, at the same time, manifests it. As the absolutely gratuitous gift of God, hope bursts into our lives as something not due to us, something that transcends every law of justice. Gift by its nature goes beyond merit, its rule is that of superabundance. It takes first place in our souls as a sign of God's presence in us, a sign of what he expects from us. Truth — which is itself gift, in the same way as charity — is greater than we are, as Saint Augustine teaches[88]. Likewise the truth of ourselves, of our personal conscience, is first of all given to us. In every cognitive process, truth is not something that we produce, it is always found, or better, received. Truth, like love, “is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings”[89].

There is a lot to unpack here, but for now it gives me a chance to throw in a Tony Campolo quote that I’ve wanted to post that makes a similar point:

Those who have tasted transcendental reality can never again be convinced that this world and the society that regulates them can satisfy their need. Those who have tasted of the heavenly gift will always hunger because they know there is more to life, and that something more is not controlled by the system but lies beyond anything that the rulers of the system can provide. Out of such holy discontentment new movements are born. The sense of what is absent makes us discontented with what is present….

Again, I say, Marcuse would have understood. In his analysis of our modern one-dimensional society, he made the point that, in earlier times, when alienation from nature was not so severe, eroticism was more diffused. Marcuse explained that there were people in another time who experienced passionate love with all the world. These were the people who sensed the mysterious tremendom in all they saw and touched and smelled and heard. Such saints were erotically stimulated by everything. Nothing for them was prosaic. Everything was poetic. The life-giving energy of eros seemed to flow out of everything around them, and Thanatos, the death force, seemed to have lost its sting. Death was overcome in victory, and its power was unable to threaten either young or old.

Marcuse explained that as humanity entered the era of modernity and all but the rational categories were excluded from experience people still had the hunger for erotic satiation. But the rationalists taught us that the only eroticism was sexual and that is was only through the sexual that we would find the release that would leave us with a sense of fulfillment and well-being. And that is why we have become a people preoccupied with sex. We expect all of our erotic appetites to be gratified through orgasms.

From “Carpe Diem”

To repeat the second line from the paragraph above in Caritas in Veritate, “Gratuitousness is present in our lives in many different forms, which often go unrecognized because of a purely consumerist and utilitarian view of life. The human being is made for gift, which expresses and makes present his transcendent dimension.”

Recognizing gratuity as the foundation of economics changes a lot.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

New Jesuit Blog

2009-07-07T17:47:00.006-05:00

Well, it's been a long long time. Very sorry. I came out of retreat and then went on vacation and now I'm at the Lord's Ranch with my family. It has been a great blessing to be back in the home of Father Rick Thomas, SJ, a man who I consider my mentor and someone who one day will be a saint.

Since I have not had any time to prepare anything deep, what I want to do is point you all to a new blog. There are many blogs out there, but this one is special. It is a blog written entirely by young Jesuits who are all in formation. None of them are yet ordained, though we are all in different stages of formation. Most of us are either Regents or Theologians, different periods of our scholastic years leading up to ordination.

Aaron Pidel, SJ is a theologian who I went to Franciscan University with a long time back. He was several years ahead of me, and quite brilliant. Now at Boston College where our theologate is.

Michael Magree, SJ is a third year regent, also quite brilliant, teaching music, latin, and theology in Philadelphia.

Jeff Johnson, SJ is the literary critic of the bunch who enjoys lying on the beach and reading James Joyce (and generally all bleak novels, which just happen to usually be Irish). Also at Boston College.

Brian Reedy, SJ is the scientist -- biophysicist that is-- who is now a theologian. So direct all those questions to him.

John Brown, SJ is doing the layout stuff. So any cool design that comes up, that was probably him.

And you know me.

We will be writing on all things catholic, cultural, literary, academic, political, etc, from the perspective of young Jesuits who take seriously our mission both to live on the frontiers of the Church (as Benedict asked of us) and to live at the heart of the Church, thinking with her (as Ignatius asked of us). So take a look and let us know what you think. You can find us here at whosoeverdesires, the first lines of the Formula of the Institute, which is sort of an initial sketch of what the Constitutions would become. Being a Jesuit is about desiring what God desires. And that is what unites us in this common enterprise. Hope to hear from you on your thoughts (over there, not here).

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Annual 8-day Silent Retreat

2009-06-17T12:25:00.004-05:00

Tomorrow I begin my annual 8-day silent retreat. Please keep me in your prayers and you will be in mine.

Every day we wake up empty and frightened
Don't go to the study and pull out a book,
Take down a musical instrument instead
Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are a hundred ways
To kneel and kiss the ground.

Jalaluddin Rumi

I will be kissing the ground at the feet of Christ and before his face.

Christ's peace be with you all.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Subverting the Masters of Suspicion

2009-06-14T15:24:00.002-05:00

Just a quick thought I had while flying today. I've been traveling a lot, so not much time to write.

Over the weekend I was at a Jesuit ordination, and it got me to thinking about religious life again and the meaning of the vows, especially in our age.

We live in an age still dominated by the Ricoeur dubbed Masters of Suspicion: Nietzsche, Marx, Freud. Though not modernists, each of them continued to argue that there is a subtextual meta-narrative capable of explaining every aspect of life. For Nietzsche: power. For Marx: money. For Freud: sex.

Religious life answers each of these three lords of our age with its vows.

Against Nietzsche: obedience. Obedience is not the destruction of the vital powers, but rather their release in freedom.

Against Marx: poverty. Voluntary poverty, in imitation of Christ and in solidarity with his poor.

Against Freud: chastity. The subtext of life is not sex but desire. Not sexual desire but personal desire. The religious lives this to the full, refusing Freud's reductive determinism, refusing to immanentize the eschaton.

Religious life is a hermeneutic of love founded in the person of Jesus Christ.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Reflections on the Trinity

2009-06-09T19:39:00.005-05:00

Sorry I haven't finished my comments on women in Paul yet. I'm a bit behind on posts. So instead, in honor of the Trinity whose solemnity we just celebrated, I'm posting below a reflection on the Trinity that I gave to some of the seniors on one of my retreats. They found it very helpful, particularly because it offers concrete ways of praying to each of the Divine Persons, using three kinds of love in Greek from C.S. Lewis' analysis in The Four Loves as their tools for prayer. Use it if you find it helpful. I think the Trinity often gets the shaft in our prayer, but it is at the heart of Ignatian spirituality.

Indeed, Arrupe offered an analysis of the Ignatian revelation as ultimately trinitarian. Ignatius' first profound mystical moment was beside the Cordoner river, where he was given the building blocks of the Spiritual Exercises. He was given there, he tells us, a profound knowledge of the meaning of the Incarnation, of the work of the Son.

Then, while outside of Rome at La Storta, he had a vision of himself being placed by the Father with his Son, and heard the words, "I will be propitious to you in Rome."

Finally, while discerning the meaning of Jesuit poverty in his personal diary, he had profound experiences of the Holy Spirit, including groans, tears, and an experience of something he called loquela, which no one knows how to translate.

These were his three most mystical moments, revealing his spirituality to us as eminently trinitarian. I'll write more on that tomorrow if I can, before we get to the feast of Corpus Christi. That will deserve its own reflections.

So here are those reflections:

Prayer Sheet

Relationship with the Trinity

Three Kinds of Love:

Storgae: Love of a child for his parents and vice-versa

• Words that describe: Affectionate, unconditional, strong, constant, pure, without any ulterior motives, condescending, always there, generous, trust
• Goal: Growth, development, maturity, security

Philia: Love of friendship

• Words that describe: Brotherly, honest, comfortable, open, non-exclusive, easy
• Goal: Personal development, deeper awareness of myself, fun, comraderie, holiness

Eros: Romantic love
• Words that describe: Overwhelming, incredible, passionate, exclusive, intense, emotional, difficult sometimes, creative, intimate, eyes
• Goal: Growth in love, joint holiness, children, unity and one flesh

God the Father

• Kind of love: Storgae

• Kind of Prayer: Asking for help, thanking, praising, looking up to him as your Father, needing mercy, sharing problems, etc. Jesus in the Garden, “Dad, take this cup from me.” Profound trust. This is what we need to develop.

• Personal fruit: Sonship. To be able to call myself a Son of God. That is the most important thing I can ever say about myself. Develop this relationship. Learn to call out to God as your dad, as your father. This is one of the most important things that Jesus came to teach us. This is part of what it means to be a Christian. Learn to do this, or you have an inadequate relationship with God.

Scriptures: Romans 8:14-17; Psalm 131. Be quiet and still with your Father who loves you. Learn to call him Abba. Learn to let him love you.

Jesus

• Kind of love: Philia

• Kind of prayer: Of equals, easy, honest, open, personal, questioning, problem-solving, catching up. Don’t be afraid to talk about regular things. He wants to know, from you. Jesus my age, at my experience level. He was the age of all of us. Ask him about girls he liked. What did he do about it?

• Personal Fruit: Friendship with God. Learn from Jesus how to really be a good friend. Learn to share yourself, and offer yourself.

Scriptures: John 1:35-39; John 15:12-17

The Holy Spirit

• Kind of love: Eros

• Kind of Prayer: Intense silence, music (sing her a love song), praising (think of how much time you spend praising your girlfriend), gazing into her eyes, open hands, use of the body as we expect from erotic love.

• Personal fruit: Lover of God.

Scriptures: Joel 2:28-29; Wisdom 7:25-27; Romans 8:26-27

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

George Tiller, R.I.P.

2009-06-07T11:14:00.006-05:00

I was busy for a while, so I didn't have time to comment on a fairly important event that rocked the pro-life world recently. I'm speaking about the murder of George Tiller. What an awful time for this to happen. Not that there is ever a good time for someone to be killed, but this is particularly bad timing. Just as Obama has offered an olive branch to the movement, someone in that movement has reacted with a terrible act of violence.

I posted recently on the Old Guard of the pro-life movement. Don't get me wrong. I love the Old Guard, and I think that the movement is where it is now because of them. Because of the Old Guard, more Americans now call themselves pro-life than pro-choice. In 1995, the percentage was 56-33 pro-choice. Now that has swapped to 51-42. That is quite a switch. Nor do I call Scott Roeder a member of that Old Guard. Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, has unambiguously stated that Scott was never a member of Operation Rescue.

The change has come about because of a wide variety of things. Operation Rescue played a large part. But even more importantly has been the grassroots impact of crisis pregnancy centers, post-abortive services, counseling, homes opened for women to live in while they complete a pregnancy, and other grassroots methods of fighting abortion that have focused on the women as much as on the babies.

Traditionally, the movement has employed a trio of tactics to fight abortion: operation rescue; political engagement; and services offered to women. After FACE when sitting in front of an abortion clinic became a felony, that leg of the tripod evolved into the methods of Mark Crutcher, and harassment of abortionists at their homes and at work. These methods were effective. We ran most of the abortionists out of El Paso using this latter method.

But I think what the movement has learned as of late is that the path of fanatical language and good party-bad party politics doesn't work. Tiller the Killer, as we called him growing up, was a household name. And he was a killer. To the end, he was one of the only abortionists to perform third-trimester abortions for almost no reason whatsoever, even on minors, without reporting any instances of statutory rape. But Norma McCorvey was converted, not by being called a killer, but by the love of a young girl. And I think that one thing that we should accept from Obama is his offer of dialogue.

This does not mean that we get lulled to sleep. It means that we actively engage in this new stage of the battle. There are a Scylla and a Charybdis that we must navigate here. On the one side, we can hear Obama's framing of the issue in a whole new way, a way more positive for the pro-life movement than from any other democratic president, and sit back and believe ourselves victorious in the culture wars. If we do this, we will wake up to find ourselves in the situation of Europe now, where issues of morality have ceased to be salient in the public square. Or, we can go the route of the three wise men -- Novak, Hudson (replacing Neuhaus) and Weigel -- and refuse to hear Obama as anything but a fork-tongued politician. If we go this route, we must also condemn L'Osservatore Romano as naive and ignorant of American affairs. But we must steer between these two hazards. We have not won, but the days of Weigel's partisanship are over. They must be over, because they did not work. It is time to universalize our movement, removing it from the shade of any party and any ideology. We will talk to everyone, and we will rejoice in the death of no one.

I'm not sure where this should take us necessarily. But hopefully the death of George Tiller will bring the abortion debate to a new level that will finally lead us to that hoped-for victory.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Vive Roger

2009-06-07T10:58:00.004-05:00

Well, I just have to pass on my excitement from the world of sports with all of you. Federer has done it, finally, and all the tennis world breathes a sigh of relief. He has tied Sampras and won all four majors. He is now, arguably, the greatest tennis player ever. Only Rod Laver won all four grand slam titles in a single season. And Agassi is the last to have won all four at all. Before him, you have to go back to the 60's to Emerson and Laver to find this accomplishment again. So he has won 14, and has done something that Sampras never did, winning all four. He has finally won the French. What will solidify his title as greatest ever? For me, he has to defeat Nadal once more in a grand slam title. You can't be the greatest ever if you can't be the greatest in your own time. He needs to win at least one more, and he needs to do it against Nadal. Then I would be content.

And yes, the U.S. defeated Honduras 2-1 after the humiliating 3-1 loss vs. Costa Rica. I have many issues with our team, but at least we can now say that twice we have come from behind -- against El Salvador and now against Honduras -- proving that we have heart and the capacity to score when needed. Now how about having a defense.

I know, you all care about basketball or baseball. I could care less. So I'm passing on my joy coming from two of my favorite sports and two of the greatest sports to watch.

Nice going Roger. Now let's go win the World Cup! (yeah right)

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Learning from Pier Giorgio

2009-05-29T13:29:00.006-05:00

I've been preparing for a backpacking retreat that I'm leading this weekend. I've called it the Verso L'Alto retreat. The title is taken from picture of Pier Giorgio Frassati rock climbing on which he wrote these words, translated "to the heights." The idea is to take these young men, seniors, into the mountains, away from the city and its temptations toward mediocrity, in order to offer them Pier Giorgio as a model for holiness. While preparing my talks, I re-read the biography written by his sister Luciana titled "A Man of the Beatitudes." It is an easy read, but very profound. I selected quotes out of it to use in the talks, and I thought I would post them here for you. They are divided into sections by theme, with the page listings below. These page numbers will work if you have the Ignatius press version of the book.

The Mountains

“When one goes into the mountains one should sort out one’s conscience, because one never knows if one will come home. But with all this I am not afraid, and thus I am keener than ever to climb mountains, reach the most difficult peaks, feel the pure joy that is only to be had in the mountains.”

Giorgio, 100

Pier Giorgio could not fail to love the mountains; for him they were an amusement in the Lord, rather than a distraction from the Lord…. The meaning is clear: purification, ascent…. He knew how damaging the city and idleness are to the young. He encouraged them, saying: “Learn to be stronger in spirit than in your muscles.”

Luciana, 131-132

“Every day, my love for the mountains grows more and more. If my studies permitted, I’d spend whole days in the mountains contemplating the Creator’s greatness in that pure air.”

Giorgio, 132

That winter, in his new mountain costume, he seemed forged in bronze. Now he looked much smaller, thinner, tired. I thought it was the exams, the summer, but he was already beginning to detach himself from us. “You are pale, Frassati!” “I need the mountains!” he said. Yes, to go up high and not with us.

Clementina Luotto, 167

I think the meaning is clear, as Luciana tells us, for Pier's love for the mountains: purification and ascent.

The Meaning of Religion

Frassati is a Christian, simply and in an absolutely spontaneous way, as if it were something spontaneous for everybody. He has the strength and courage to be what he is, not from opposition to his parents’ generation, not from a prognosis and diagnosis of the culture of the time, or some such idea, but from the Christian reality itself: that God is, that what sustains us is prayer, that the Eucharist nourishes what is eternal in us, that all people are brothers and sisters.
Karl Rahner, 16

“As long as faith gives me strength, I am happy. Any Catholic can’t help but be happy. Sadness should be banned from Catholic souls. Pain is not sadness, which is a disease worse than any other. This disease is nearly always caused by atheism, but the end we are created for shows us the way, which may be full of thorns but is not sad.”

Giorgio, 135

He thought that religion, being love, should exclude everything that smacked of mere duty.

Luciana, 147

Friendship

In the club, he was often surrounded by mediocre people. However, their very mediocrity made them ready to follow, and he ended up a leader.

Luciana, 52

For this he used his favorite instrument, high spirits, which, in its various forms, flourished in the society, creating a collective spirit and uniting all under the magic sign of laughter.

Luciana, 104

“In my inner struggles I have often asked myself why I should be sad. Should I suffer and bear this sacrifice with a heavy heart? Have I lost my faith? No, thank God, my faith is still steady enough and so we confirm that which is the only Joy that can satisfy us in this world. Every sacrifice is worthwhile only for this.

Then as Catholics we have a Love which is above all others and which – after that we owe to God – is the most beautiful, as our religion is beautiful. Love whose advocate was the Apostle who preached it daily in all his letters to the various churches. Charity, without which, says St. Paul, every other virtue is worthless. This indeed can become the guide and direction of our whole life, a whole program….

So, my program in this is to transform that special feeling that I had for her, and which is not wanted, to the end to which we must strive, the light of charity in the restful bonds of Christian friendship, respect for her virtues, imitation of her outstanding gifts, as with other girls. Perhaps you will tell me that it is mad to hope this. But I believe, if you pray a little for me, that in a short time I can achieve that state in prayer.

This is my program, which I hope with God’s grace to follow. Even if it costs me the sacrifice of my earthly life, it does not matter.”

Giorgio, 110

“It is beautiful to live because our real life lies beyond…. I shall be cheerful on the outside to show my companions not sharing our ideas that you can be a Catholic and still be young and happy.”

Giorgio, 127

There is something extremely profound about Pier's struggle with his love for Laura Hidalgo, an orphan who his parents would never allow him to marry because of her background. And so, Pier decided in prayer that this love was not for him. He devoted himself instead wholeheartedly to his service of the poor and his work among his friends, to sanctify them and to bring them with him to heaven. But he suffered terribly inside. The process of sublimation of romantic love into love for others is not an easy task. I know, I've taken a vow to do just that. Instead of loving in a way that I am not to love, in a way that is not wanted, as Pier Giorgio says, I am to imitate these young women, and pray for them, to love as they love and to show that love more widely to all of Christ's brothers and sisters.

This is painful. But Pier reminds us that pain is not sadness. Pain is a part of life, as are thorns. But sadness need not be part of that. Joy and pain go together, at least in the Christian vision. Pier was known for the constant smile on his lips and the laughter in his mouth. He never allowed joy to leave him. What a model for those times of loneliness and of pain, when the deprivation of unwanted love threatens to kill the heart.

Option for the Poor

His friend Paolo Marchisio pointed at a poor woman’s home exclaiming: “If I were the owner of that slum I’d pull it down!” Pier Giorgio replied in distress: “Oh, Paola, if you knew how many good souls live in houses that you call slums!”

Giorgio, 32

His favorite saying, which he often repeated in letters, was: “When all accept Christ’s voice and teaching, we will be able to say we are equal and every difference between human beings will be annulled.”

Giorgio, 57

Pier Giorgio was spiritually remote from all luxury and wealth. He had the great merit of having chosen the most difficult life when the easiest of lives was available to him.

Luciana, 64

“But I am poor like all the poor.”

Giorgio, 66

Who would understand the greatness of his secret life? Humanity was his problem, which is why his mind often wandered as he went on eating calmly with an appetite that never let him down, as serene as if all the criticisms were addressed to someone else and as if there was perfect affection between those at table.

Luciana, 69

His option [was the] option for the poor and for militant Catholicism…. The “receptions” he attended did not require any formal attire, and they did have music and dancing! One day, the chancellor of the embassy, Rofi, seeing him rushing out, asked if he was going to some party. He answered by giving the address of an alley near Alexanderplatz, a street full of misery. And he entered those grim houses begging their pardon, shy in case he was disturbing people, never forgetting that hew as a stranger to them.

Luciana, 72-73

Someone who travels third class and takes the cheap seats in the theater so as to offer the difference in ticket price to the poor cannot side with the forces attached to money.

Luciana, 76

“From time to time think that while you enjoy yourself millions of others are suffering, so do as much good as you can…. It is not those who suffer violence who should fear, but those who practice it.”

Giorgio, 81

“I see a special light surrounding the poor and unfortunate, a light that we do not have.”

Giorgio, 93

“As we grow close to the poor, bit by bit we gain their confidence and can advise them in the most terrible moments of this earthly pilgrimage…. Seeing daily the faith with which families often bear the most atrocious sufferings, and their constant sacrifices, and seeing that they do all this for the love of God, often makes us ask why I, who have had so many things from God, have always been so neglectful, so bad, while they, who have not been privileged like me, are infinitely better than I. Then we resolve in our conscience to follow the way of the cross from then onward, the only way that leads us to eternal salvation.”

Giorgio, 141-142

He goes about in secret, without applause, and to the poor he gives bread and his heart, to the orphan an affectionate caress, to the old his luminous smile, to the sick the balm of his loving care…. He ignores the brilliant possibilities that a high income would allow him and is not afraid to carry his singular evangelical spirit of renunciation, detachment, and poverty into a life which we humans have turned into a wild party where rude guests each grab the food from their neighbors instead of offering it around.

Angiolo Gambaro, 142

This last quote by a friend simply blows me away. "To the poor he gives his bread and his heart." The external and the internal, fused together in the sanctity of love. How often I am the rude guest. We all live this way, some more than others. And America is the center of this wild party. It makes one want to weep, but for Pier Giorgio, it simply led him toward a joyful austerity that is beautiful to behold. Without applause, to give.

You'll notice too that most of what Pier had to say was about his love and concern for the poor. That was his constant thought and inspiration.

Program for Life

“Student duties, religious practices, option for the poor”

Luciana, 74

Study was only part of his day and, although he considered it his first duty, he often came to it only after a considerable time spent with the poor, a session at the St. Vincent Conference, and a night spent in Adoration.

Luciana, 91

“This life must be a continual preparation for the next.”

Giorgio, 101

There is a simplicity in his words that belies the depth behind them. I hope they can give you some fruit for prayer as they have for me.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

What To Do with Christopher West

2009-05-28T12:00:00.005-05:00

Janet Smith defends Christopher West here. I'll withhold my own thoughts on the matter to respond to your comments. I'm posting below just the first part of Smith's article.

Moral Theologian Says Christopher West's Work is 'Completely Sound'

by Dr. Janet Smith

Christopher West’s interview on ABC’s Nightline has sparked some terrific discussion on the Internet. An impressive amount of the interaction is intelligent and illuminating, even some of that which is seriously wrong. One of the better responses is that by Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers and the follow-up comments to his blog.

Here, I want to offer a brief, partial, response to Prof. David Schindler’s assessment of West’s work. The fact that Nightline got a lot wrong about West’s work is not surprising. In fact, it is surprising how much it got right. Those of us who work with the media know that potential martyrdom awaits us at the hands of an editor. West has likely been suffering a kind of crucifixion over the past week. What is puzzling is that an influential scholar chose this moment to issue a sweeping, negative critique of West in such a public forum. I have great respect for the work and thought of Schindler and realize that it must be difficult to be on the receiving end of criticisms of the work of one of their most high profile graduates. I wish, however, he had found another occasion to express his reservations about West’s work.

I think we should be very careful in our evaluation of the work of someone who is on the front lines and who is doing pioneer work. Virtually every pioneering author and presenter has had severe detractors in his own time. Some of them have been disciplined by the Church and eventually exonerated. I would like to give examples and mention names, but I don’t want to ignite a firestorm of "how can you compare Christopher West to X, Y or Z?"!

I want to add my voice to those who are enthusiastic about the West/Theology of the Body phenomenon. I think it is important to keep in mind, as Akin does, who West’s audience is. It is largely the sexually wounded and confused who have been shaped by our promiscuous and licentious culture. People need to think long and hard about the appropriate pedagogy for that group. Yet, as West himself knows, his approach is not for everyone. An analogy that pushes the envelope may be "offensive" to one person and may be just the hook that draws another person in. West has adopted a style that appeals to a large segment of that population—and even to some who are “pure and innocent.”

It is not hard to find hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals who will testify that they have come to love Christ and his Church, and better understand and live the Church’s teaching about sex because of the work of Christopher West. Cohabiters separate, contracepters stop contracepting, and men cease looking at pornography—and that is the short list. Countless young people are now taking up the study of the Theology of the Body because of West’s work. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

Schindler objects to the language used in a list of comments made by West and dismisses them as "vulgar," "in bad taste," and "silly." Was Schindler careful to verify those comments and take into account the context in which they were made? Let me defend two matters mentioned by Schindler, “praying over genitals” and anal sex, that might seem peculiar if not properly understood. I hesitate to draw further attention to these subjects because I do not want to give the impression that West’s work focuses on tangential and sensational issues of sexuality. It does not. West focuses on making John Paul II’s vision of our creation as male and female accessible to the common person in the pew. But people deserve answers to their honest questions, and West is charitable in his willingness to meet people where they are.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

How to Read the Bible

2009-05-28T11:39:00.003-05:00

Fr. Robert Barron at Mundelein Seminary writes a good article for America about his missionary apostolate on YouTube and the most frequent adversaries to his videos. The last two offer good reflection on how we go about reading scripture. These questions come up often enough in my scripture class and in regular conversation and represent common misunderstandings even among well educated Catholics on how to actually go about reading the Bible.

A third heresy is biblical fundamentalism. I hear from my YouTube opponents that the Bible is a mishmash of "bronze-age myths” (Christopher Hitchens) and childish nonsense about talking snakes, a 5,000-year-old universe and a man living three days inside of a fish. I observe in reply that the Bible is no so much a book as a library, made up of texts from a wide variety of genres and written at different times for varying audiences. Just as one would not take "the library” literally, one should not interpret the whole Bible with one set of lenses.

I like this image of a library, an inspired library of course. It is full of many kinds of writing, many of which we still do not fully know how to classify. It is made up of inspired myth, genealogical fragments, works of fiction, etc. One takes the library literally only by understanding the type of literature that one decides to check out. It is ready literally according to its genre.

My YouTube conversation partners typically fire back that I am proposing a novelty in order to respond to the attacks of modern critics. I try to steer them to Irenaeus (second c.), Origen (third c.) and Augustine (fourth c.), all of whom dealt with the complexity of the Bible through the exercise of a deft hermeneutic. Some of those who appreciate the library analogy wonder how one would decide which kind of text one is dealing with and hence which set of interpretive lenses to wear. I respond that their good question proves the legitimacy of the Catholic Church's assumption that the church-that variegated community of interpretation stretching over 20 centuries - is required for effective biblical reading today. I ask, How do you know the difference between Winnie the Pooh, The Brothers Karamazov, the Divine Comedy, Carl Sandburg's Lincoln and Gore Vidal's Lincoln? Then I answer my own question: You have been taught by a long and disciplined tradition of interpretation. Something similar is at play in authentic biblical reading.

Very well said.

The fourth YouTube heresy is Marcionism, which brings us back to one of Irenaeus's principal opponents, Marcion. He held that the New Testament represented the revelation of the true God, but that the Old Testament was the revelation of a pathetic demigod marked by pettiness, jealousy and violence. This ancient heresy reappears practically intact on the YouTube forums. My interlocutors complain about the morally offensive, vain, psychotic and violent God of the Old Testament, who commands that a ban be put on cities, who orders genocide so that his people can take possession of the Promised Land, who commands that children's heads be dashed against stones. In the wake of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, this complaint becomes more pointed. If I gesture toward the wisdom of the biblical tradition, I am met with this objection.

I urge my respondents to read the entire Bible in the light of Christ crucified and risen from the dead. I tell them of an image in the Book of Revelation of a lamb standing as though slain. When no one else in the heavenly court is able to open the scroll that symbolizes all of salvation history, the lamb alone succeeds. This indicates that the nonviolent Christ, who took upon himself the sin of the world and returned in forgiving love, is the interpretive key to the Bible. It was in this light that Origen, for example, read the texts concerning the Old Testament ban as an allegory about the struggle against sin. The bottom line is this: One should never drive a wedge between the two testaments instead, one should allow Christ to be the structuring logic of the entire Scripture.

What is blocking the preaching of the faith, especially to younger people? Many things. But I would suggest that preachers, teachers, evangelists and catechists might attend with some care to these four.

The other two he mentions are Scientism and Ecclesial Angelism, or the idea that because the Church has done bad things it must be discredited.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Dead Right and Dead Wrong

2009-05-21T17:26:00.006-05:00

Reverend Emmanuel Charles McCarthy offers some rather impassionate commentary on the Notre Dame debate. His comments are worth reading, even after the fact. They are in four parts. I'll give you the first paragraph of the first three, and you can click on the links for the rest.

DEAD RIGHT AND DEAD WRONG:

Notre Dame and Bishop John D’Arcy

Part I of IV

If I were the Bishop of the diocese within which the University of Notre Dame lives and moves and has its being, I would have done exactly what John D’Arcy, current bishop of that diocese, did when it was announced that President Obama is to deliver the Spring 2009 commencement address at Notre Dame: turn down my standing invitation to attend the commencement. My reasons for doing so would include two of his reasons for doing so. Quoting a 2004 statement of the U.S. bishops, Bishop D’Arcy says, “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” At another point in the explanation of his nonattendance, he writes, “My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth
about human life.”

Part II of IV

This is a battle between Constantinian Christian all-stars—Catholic division. In one corner sits the “Fighting Irish,” the University of Notre Dame. Its history of embracing, with full Catholic fervor, the United States military and its money, as well as the American power elite and its money, is legendary. That history began in earnest with World War I and has run non-stop until today—Notre Dame being the envy of every Catholic college in the U.S. for having, proportionately, the largest ROTC operation of any Catholic institution of higher education. In the other corner sits Bishop John D’Arcy, representing the position of the U.S. Catholic Bishops, whose history of pandering to the military and the power- players of this society for their money, matches—at least—that of the University of Notre Dame. Yet at this hour these kindred spirits and operations are at swords’ points over the questions, “Whose killing of whom is the killing that faithfully follows Jesus, the Word of God Incarnate?”—and “Whose unjust killing of whom can be ignored, or at least considered not so bad as to warrant denying him or her Catholic awards, honors or platforms, and the presence of a Catholic Bishop?”

Part III of IV

Holy Mother Church, that is, the institutional Constantinian Church, gave birth to the institution named the University of Notre Dame. It was in this mother’s image that this Constantinian Catholic university was formed. She was Notre Dame’s mother, and Notre Dame’s model of what it means to be a Christian and how to live the life for which Jesus gave His disciples the gift of faith. Notre Dame learned well the lessons her mother taught her, and she has achieved full stature as a Constantinian Catholic university. She has grown into thatwisdom and age, that wealth and power which have been the glory, hallmark, and modus operandi of the Constantinian Church Militant for over a millennia-and-a-half.

Part IV of IV

They are all worth reading and I look forward to any comments you may have on them.

Mason mentioned to me recently how this Notre Dame event brought a lot of the old guard of the pro-life movement out of the woodwork. Fr. Weslin was arrested, founder of the Lambs who went around the country getting arrested during the Operation Rescue movement. I was privileged to meet him a couple of times growing up, along with his team of volunteers who went around with him. As you can see on several videos on Youtube, Norma McCorvey was stopped and Alan Keyes is also arrested. Next to Father Weslin is Joe Landry who I went to college with. Randall Terry and others also came out.

As Mason said, one of the great tragedies is that Notre Dame did not grant a protest permit. I'm also wondering though if getting arrested in this way is still the way to go. I remember the Operation Rescue movement, and most of the adults I grew up with were arrested several times. It was a powerful movement, and also a great ecumenical movement, as Fr. Thomas used to observe regularly. But he was also a big advocate of new strategies, of flexibility, of coming up with new ideas. And he came up with many of them, all brilliant. The goal is to change minds and hearts. And the question is what has brought about that change as of late. If more Americans now identify themselves as pro-life according to recent polling, then what has brought this about? I firmly believe that it has been better education and rational argumentation. I wonder if the old guard still has a place. It's an important question.

But it's also important that we take to heart some of the ideas of Rev. McCarthy above. More Americans may be anti-abortion, but are they also pro-life? We must fight for the whole and resist compartmentalization.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Benedict on Ricci

2009-05-21T17:25:00.000-05:00

POPE RECALLS JESUIT'S WORK TO EVANGELIZE CHINA

Commemorates Father Matteo Ricci's Missionary Efforts

MACERATA, Italy, MAY 19, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI is highlighting the example of a Jesuit missionary, Father Matteo Ricci, who worked to root the Gospel in Chinese society and promote dialogue between eastern and western cultures.

The Pope affirmed this in a letter sent to Bishop Claudio Giuliodori of Macerata-Tolentino-Recanati-Cingoli-Treia in Italy, where Ricci was born in 1522, on the occasion of the fourth centenary of the missionary's death.

The Vatican press office publicized the letter Monday, in which the Pontiff highlighted the pastoral strategy of the Jesuit who lived in China for 28 years and died in Beijing on May 11, 1610.

The Holy Father noted the "profound faith and extraordinary cultural and academic genius" of the missionary who "dedicated long years of his life to weaving a profound dialogue between West and East, at the same time working incisively to root the Gospel in the culture of the great people of China."

"Even today," Benedict XVI added, "his example remains as a model of fruitful encounter between European and Chinese civilization."

The Pope stated: "In considering his intense academic and spiritual activity, we cannot but remain favorably impressed by the innovative and unusual skill with which he, with full respect, approached Chinese cultural and spiritual traditions.

"It was, in fact, this approach that characterized his mission, which aimed to seek possible harmony between the noble and millennial Chinese civilization and the novelty of Christianity, which is for all societies a yeast of liberation and of true renewal from within, because the Gospel, universal message of salvation, is destined for all men and women whatever the cultural and religious context to which they belong."

The Pontiff noted that the missionary's apostolate was "original" and "prophetic" due to the "profound sympathy he nourished for the Chinese, for their cultures and religious traditions."

He called Father Ricci a "model of dialogue and respect for the beliefs of others" who "made friendship the style of his apostolate."

The Holy Father explained that the Jesuit's evangelization employed a "scientific methodology and a pastoral strategy based, on the one hand, on respect for the wholesome customs of the place, which Chinese neophytes did not have to abandon when they embraced the Christian faith and, on the other, on his awareness that revelation could enhance and complete" those customs.

He sought "constant understanding with the wise men of that country," Benedict XVI added.

"Following his example," the Pope concluded, "may our own communities, which accommodate people from different cultures and religions, grow in a spirit of acceptance and of reciprocal respect."

Benedict and Obama

2009-05-18T14:34:00.005-05:00

I'm not an Obama cheerleader like many I know. He's a politician, and they don't deserve to have cheerleaders. They're not playing a game. They're supposed to be doing serious stuff. But I thought Obama gave a good speech at Notre Dame. Now, you may tell me, his fair words are his way of wooing us into apathy while he spins his demonic plots. Possibly. But while not allowing him to lull me to sleep with his soothing voice, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt as to what he may think. I think this is the fair intellectual approach to his speech. We should listen to what he says while keeping an eye on what he does.

I don't like a lot of what he does. But I didn't like a lot of what Bush did. And I didn't hear many bishops and prominent Catholics speaking out loudly about that. I believe that was a tragedy. Like Obama, Bush often spoke with a double tongue. We gave him the benefit of the doubt and then found him to be a liar (and not a very good one). We failed in that regard. Catholics were too excited about his "pro-life" stance actually watch what he was doing. So why should we give Obama a chance? Why should we listen to him if he will probably be just like Bush, saying one thing and doing another? Good question. But for one, I think he makes more sense than Bush when he talks. He says things that can actually be engaged on an intellectual level. He makes arguments that are coherent. And he founds these on a general world view that I can often accept. So for that reason, I will try to engage him, and encourage others to do the same, hoping that engagement will genuinely change hearts and minds.

I think one reason I do this is because he often sounds a lot like Benedict XVI. I know, I know, blasphemy. But they are both good speakers who often speak about similar things. For example, check out the following quotes from Obama's speech, my favorite quotes:

We must decide how to save God's creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it.

Since becoming pontiff, this issue has been one of those at the forefront of Benedict's teachings. He has made it a point to make front and center the question of man's relationship with creation and how we treat the earth. Our attitude toward creation should be biblically based, not Kant based. For all the benefits that transcendental philosophy has contributed to the pursuit of wisdom, this one statement of Kant I never grow tired of quoting, since I believe it opened up for the modern era a regime of domination towards the natural world under which we still live:

Reason must approach nature with the view, indeed, of receiving information from it, not, however, in the character of a pupil, who listens to all that his master chooses to tell him, but in that of a judge, who compels the witnesses to reply to those questions which he himself thinks fit to propose. To this single idea must the revolution be ascribed, by which, after groping in the dark for so many centuries, natural science was at length conducted into the path of certain progress.

Benedict has clearly and decisively declared battle against this modernist heresy, and in doing so, he aligns himself with many in America who would be considered part of the political Left, including Obama. Obama, like Benedict, links reverence for nature with the biblical world view rather than the Kantian one, and on this issue we can find common ground.

In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family.

Another fundamental message of Benedict's pontificate has been the principle of solidarity. Over and over he reminds us -- as John Paul II did -- that we live in a global world now and all are truly responsible for all. The poor suffer from the greed of the rich and poor countries from the "progress" of rich countries. And for Benedict, we are not one human family because we all have a rational intellect. We are one family because we have one destiny. This is an eschatological link first, rather than an ontological one. And because it is eschatological, it effects every realm of human interaction, since at least partially speaking, the Kingdom of God is already among us.

Unfortunately, finding that common ground - recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a "single garment of destiny" - is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man - our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game.

Like Benedict, Obama realizes that a description of human reality that does not include the doctrine of Original Sin is an incomplete description. Good place to begin.

The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts.

The fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Acknowledging this gulf is important.

At the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads - unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty, AIDS, and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together; always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, "You can't really get on with preaching the Gospel until you've touched minds and hearts."

The fact that Obama can quote a man who profoundly disagreed with him on the issue of abortion is impressive to me. We must find role models among those with whom we often disagree.

But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own. This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness.

Remember that in the end, we are all fishermen.

I liked his speech. I hope he was speaking the truth about how he actually thinks and what he actually believes. It's hard to trust politicians. But even to hear him say the things he says was a surprise to me. If the religious Right and the religious Left can listen to him, it would at least bring us much closer to one another in conversation, even while we continue to hold irreconcilable views. The Society of Jesus, for example, spans the religious Right and Left. If we do this right, this speech can bring us closer ideologically, and then provide us with a template for combatting the culture of death in our culture and our own hearts. What I like about Obama is that he does not presume that the pro-life movement will or even should go away. He doesn't caricature like Bush did, and for that I'm thankful. Now we just need to change his heart.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

What Do You Think?

2009-05-17T17:49:00.003-05:00

Excerpt from Obama's Notre Dame commencement speech. Full text here:

The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that's not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Creepy Ave Maria Town

2009-05-13T11:39:00.002-05:00

Check out this story from the Naples Daily News about the town of Ave Maria, Florida. Apparently, absolute oligarchy still exists.

Ave Maria’s governing board, now selected entirely by Monaghan and Barron Collier Cos., already has authorized the sale of $820 million in municipal bonds to pay for construction of roads and services.

Since its first meeting four years ago, the government has acted as the developer’s rubber stamp. The five-member board has approved 49 resolutions at the developer’s behest, such as issuing bonds and purchasing land, without a single “no” vote.

On the board are three current or former Monaghan or Barron Collier Cos. employees, a retired partner from the engineering firm that designed Ave Maria and another large landowner in eastern Collier County.

Before establishing the government, Monaghan and Barron Collier Cos. formed a 50-50 private partnership called Ave Maria Development to own and develop Ave Maria’s land. An executive committee with representatives from both sides runs the partnership. Authority over all matters, including the selection of government board members, rests with that committee.

The law allows the executive committee, controlling the votes of the largest landowner, to choose at least three out of the five seats on the board forever.

Based on the progress of development, the other two seats will transition from control by landowners to control by the town’s registered voters through elections. That means residents could always lose to Ave Maria Development’s three-member majority on the board.

And it looks like those faithful souls who moved to Ave Maria from across the country were not told that they would have no real power to govern themselves.

The public, Ave Maria residents and otherwise, is unaware of this arrangement. When they bought their homes, Ave Maria residents received written notice of the government’s existence and its ability to tax them. But the developer didn’t disclose how, when or if townspeople would make the government’s decisions.

When they moved from Massachusetts to Ave Maria, David Shnaider and his wife, Patricia Sette, understood that Ave Maria Development would control the town’s government for a time. Like Delaney, they didn’t think the partnership’s control could last forever.

“I would have the expectation that it’s going to be like every other town in America,” Sette said.

The series goes on to describe other oddities of the government of Ave Maria, like the unelected board's ability to tax the residents without any citizen representation or approval and such.

What exactly is the purpose of such a draconian method of governance? Why deceive those who move into Ave Maria about this oligarchy?

I fear that this is yet another example of the effectiveness of brainwashing. "You don't need to govern yourself, nor do I need your permission to tax you and profit exclusively from your tax dollars - don't worry, I'm orthodox!"

Mason Slidell

Sin Nombre

2009-05-12T15:37:00.004-05:00

We are a year away from the Postville, Iowa police raid that almost crippled a small town in northeastern Iowa:

Since federal helicopters raced over cornfields on May 12, 2008, en route to arresting 389 illegal workers at a sprawling kosher meatpacking plant, what was a center of commerce in northeastern Iowa teeters toward collapse as the plant sputters in bankruptcy, its managers face prison time and the town fights to stay solvent.

The anniversary of Postville provides a segway to a movie that you should try to go see. Sin Nombre is a Focus film that is playing in select theaters around the country. Like the other great film of its genre El Norte, Sin Nombre is about two groups of people who make their way north from Guatemala through the border crossing in Tapachula. One immigrant is a member of the notorious gang Mara Salvatrucha, while the others are a poor family looking for a better life.

One of the great benefits of this film is the insight it gives us into the life of some of the great Central American gangs. References are made to the Chavalas and to Mara Diesyocho, both notorious gangs spanning Central America to the United States. I would rather not steal the thunder of the movie from you, since it does such a graphic job of describing internal gang life. I had heard of these gangs before. While I was in El Salvador, I was told that there was a time when Salvatrucha and Diesyocho controlled whole states or "departamentos" of the country to such an extent that they exacted a tax from anyone who traveled through these states. They continue to wield a tremendous influence. Documentation has been done on how deportations of gang members from Los Angeles has contributed largely to their dramatic growth and influence. Deported members who become experts in gang warfare in Los Angeles have in turn taken this expertise back with them to Mexico and Central America. The drug demand in the United States is almost rivaled by the demand for guns in those countries south of the border. And so we both feed one another's addictions.

A Jesuit friend of mine recently led a group from Guatemala to the United States, staying along the way in homes for immigrants who make this hazardous trip. One of the most profound moments of the movie for me was seeing La Bombilla, a train station where immigrants by the thousands hang out waiting for passing trains. Human limbs, I am told by this Jesuit, dot the tracks where people have slipped and fallen and been sliced to pieces. Simply the reality of this dangerous journey. Seeing this spot actually shot on film was a profound moment. I have never seen this actual station, but when I went to El Salvador, I took a bus through Mexico and crossed into Guatemala in Tapachula. Sadly, it has become a city of tremendous violence and suffering.

I'll let Ebert have the last word on Sin Nombre:

"Sin Nombre" is a remarkable film, showing the incredible hardships people will endure in order to reach El Norte. Yes, the issue of illegal immigration is a difficult one. When we encounter an undocumented alien, we should not be too quick with our easy assumptions. That person may have put his life on the line for weeks or months to come here, searching for what we so easily describe as the American dream. What inspired Fukunaga, an American, to make this film, I learned, was a 2003 story about 80 illegals found locked in a truck and abandoned in Texas. Nineteen died.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Angels and Demons

2009-05-09T10:41:00.001-05:00

This is fun.

By John C. Wright

Golly. I thought ANGELS AND DEMONS by Dan Brown would turn out to be just an ordinary run-of-the-mill Catholic-bashing hate-fest. But, no, the whoppers told strain credulity. Do people actually know that little about history? It seems that they do.

Here is what I picked up here and here.

Brown claims: Copernicus was murdered by the Catholic Church.
Fact: Copernicus died quietly in bed at age 70 from a stroke, and his research was supported by Church officials; he even dedicated his masterwork to the Pope.

Brown claims: “Antimatter is the ultimate energy source. It releases energy with 100% efficiency.”
Fact: CERN, the lab which plays an important role in his story, actually debunked this claim on their website: “The inefficiency of antimatter production is enormous: you get only a tenth of a billion of the invested energy back.”

Brown claims: Churchill was a “staunch Catholic.”
Fact: Any history buff could tell you that Churchill wasn’t Catholic, he was Anglican; nor was he particularly religious. The only things Churchill was staunch about were cigars, whiskey, and defending the British Empire.

Brown claims: Pope Urban VII banished Bernini’s famous statue The Ecstasy of St. Teresa “to some obscure chapel across town” because it was too racy for the Vatican.
Fact: The statue was actually commissioned by Cardinal Cornaro specifically for the Cornaro Chapel (Brown’s “obscure chapel”). Moreover, the sculpture was completed in 1652 — eight years after Urban’s death.

Brown claims: Bernini and famed scientist Galileo were members of the Illuminati.
Fact: The Illuminati was founded in Bavaria in 1776. Bernini died in 1680, while Galileo died in 1642 — more than a century before the Illuminati were first formed.

The idea that Copernicus was murdered by the Church is just too stupid for words. I mean, I have a pretty low threshold when it comes to Illuminati fiction. I love that 'secret-history' stuff.

I am not a hard sell. If you want to put in your book that Atlantis was a superhightech civilization destroyed by the extra-dimensional Eddorians in order to thwart Arisian attempts to breed mankind to create the Kwisatz Haderach, child of the Lens and the father of the race that will rule the Sevagram, I will suspend my disbelief like it was bouyant with helium.

You want to establish that a race of robots hidden in a secret base in Mount Ararat has been guiding human history since the time of Enoch, I am your man.

You want to say the Freemasons (who built the temple of Solomon) are the archenemies of the Slavemasons (who build the Great Pyramid of Cheops) have been fighting a duel to place or remove feng-shui-significant stonehenge, monuments, and Cathedrals at goethermal accupuncture points across Europe, Asia and the New World since the Bronze Age, and that all major wars and architectural firms are under their control, and involved in a secret aeons-old Cold War to prevent the telluric current from destroying this world as unwise abuses of the geomancy of the canals of Mars did that remote, dying world? Sure!

Shiwan Khan is actually a time-travelling alien from planet Mongo, granted eternal youth by the powers of alchemy, and he long ago replaced the royal family of England with Life-Model-Decoys which he controls with the ten magic rings he found in the wreckage of a spaceship from planet Maklu IV? Why not?

Lord Byron was a vampire? You would have to pay me money not to believe that.

Queen Elizabeth ran of coven of witches whose stormcrafty drowned the Aramda of Philip of Spain, after he had secretly adopted the practice of mass human sacrifice from his wife who was secretly an Aztec princess in order to gain magical control of an entire hemisphere's worth of demon-cursed Mexican gold? Not only possible, but likely!

The entire Middle Ages is an elaborate fraud perpetrated by the Roman Empire, which never fell but simply went into hiding once Virgil the Magician discovered the tunnels leading to Pellucidar in the Hollow Earth? Seems reasonable to me!!

The US Congress killed and replaced by shape-changing seals from the Dreamlands who talk like movie pirates? Brother, I wrote it!

But the Catholic Church MURDERED Copurnicus? Oh, my aching back. He was a churchman himself: why not simply order him to recant his findings?

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

More on Torture and the Bumbling Catholic Right

2009-05-08T22:53:00.009-05:00

Since my colleague Mason has gotten us going on torture, and since the Catholic journalistic world has seen some interesting commentary as of late on the topic, I can't resist summarizing for you a bit what is being said.

First of all, you can't really continue your life without reading what Policraticus has to say in response to the astoundingly absurd article written by David Carlin at Inside Catholic. As long as this passes for argument, Catholic America is surely doomed. I'll offer a too brief summary below of some of Carlin's "arguments:"

Cicero was faced with a choice: Do I break the law, or do I let Catiline and his friends make a coup d’etat? When he saved the republic by breaking the law, he had every reason to believe that he would never face prosecution for his deed. The traditional Roman attitude had been to look the other way when some savior of the city cut legal corners.

Keep in mind, however, that Cicero was a man of high ethical standards. He was one of the most notable moralists of the ancient world: see, for example, his work De Oficiis (On Duties). It is one thing for a good man to feel that he has a license to break the rules; it is something else for a bad man to feel he has that license.

I wish that I could tell you that there is much more to Carlin's argument, but sadly, there isn't. It bears all the marks of the thoughtless and frantic ideology for which he accuses the Left. Policraticus does well to shred this him. Who could actually take seriously such a position in a court of law: "But your honor, I'm a good man, so it's okay." Right. That sounds a lot more like the philosopher Nietzsche than Cicero, and very little like the 2000 years of Catholic moral philosophy influenced, not by Cicero, but by Christ. I'm not sure Carlin wants to go to bed with Raskolnikov on this one.

So leaving that frantic argument aside, why has the Right taken such a relaxed attitude toward torture? I wish that I could say that Carlin is the only one to sound so stupid and offensive. But sadly, it gets worse over at EWTN. If you have not listened to Raymond Arroyo's interview of Father Robert Sirico, you had better go and do so. Try not to choke. Here for example are a few quotes from the interview:

ARROYO: Many people will then come in and say, “Wait a minute, but they’re against torture, and they’re for immigration…” These are all prudential judgments, as opposed to this abortion question…
SIRICO: Which is intrinsically…
ARROYO: …Which is always gravely evil.
SIRICO [simultaneously]: …intrinsically evil.
ARROYO: And how is it defined by the Church?
SIRICO: There’s a difference between something that is intrinsically, by its nature, evil and something that may be problematic, depending on certain circumstances, that requires prudential judgment.

It is astounding to note that apparently both Arroyo and Sirico appear to believe what they say, which is that torture is simply a matter of prudential judgment while abortion is an intrinsically evil action. They speak as if the Church has never spoken on such an issue. One hardly knows what to think. Are they intentionally lying? Are there purposely obfuscating the truth? I can't help but believe that this is the case to some degree.

SIRICO: Waterboarding, which doesn’t sound like very plea– I know that I was threatened with that earlier in the evening… [laughs]
ARROYO: No, I said I wouldn’t waterboard you!
SIRICO: Well, actually I’m from Brooklyn.
SIRICO: Um… My understanding is that a lot of intelligence officers have been through this, if you’ve ever known anybody who’s been in the SEALs, as I have, they have been through sleep deprivation, waterboarding, and other things. So I think you have to make those distinctions. You also have to make a distinction with regard to ethics and morality, and a distinction with regard to legality and effectiveness. You know what I think would be very helpful, is if we took and adapted some principles of the just war theory and applied it to aggressive interrogation techniques. So it would be a matter of the competent authority; it would be a matter of the proportion. I would also add immediacy, because what makes it urgent to resort to real physical agression is whether there’s a ticking bomb, or there’s a kid in storage who’s going to suffocate.

Just to fill you in, yes, they are joking around about waterboarding. And no, that last answer by Sirico is not supposed to make any sense. I challenge anyone to dig a single coherent thought out of there. So again, what is going on? Do we again need to quote Vatican II, the Catechism, and Veritatis Splendor on torture in order to convince Catholics that torture is an intrinsically evil act? Is the fact that the Bishops have themselves said so not enough? We seem happy to listen to them when they talk about Obama at Notre Dame, but not so happy when what they say contradicts a position coming from the Republican party.

Mason already quoted in an earlier post from Vatican II. The Catechism states it in this way:

2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong.Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizationsperformed on innocent persons are against the moral law.
2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.

And Veritatis Splendor, paragraph 80 puts it this way:

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exists acts whichper se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object." The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honor due to the Creator.

Not very ambiguous I would think. Yet many Catholics want to waffle on this issue. Mark Shea writes a good article on why he thinks this to be the case. Based upon an apparent hypothetical postulated by Fr. Harrison about the Catechism and the Geneva Conventions, many Catholics are going around claiming that the use of torture in order to obtain life saving information is a matter of prudential judgment, or is at least an open theological question. And they twist themselves into all kinds of shapes in order to make this argument.

Again, notice the paradox here. When the Bishops say something about Obama going to Notre Dame -- not by any means an intrinsically evil action -- right wing Catholics all agree. When they something very strongly in Faithful Citizenship about torture, another pertinent moral question, these same people turn the other way and argue that this is a matter of prudential judgment and discussion.

This is what the Bishops say about torture:

22. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.
23. Similarly, direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos, are also intrinsically evil. These must always be opposed. Other direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified.

Why is Obama going to Notre Dame an issue on which many Catholics will listen to their Bishops, but torture is simply a matter for each to decide? Why the double standard? That I don't understand at all. If one is open for discussion, then certainly is the other. If one is not, then certainly the other is not either. Torture is an intrinsically evil action. For all that Fr. Sirico may say about Just War and prudential judgment, an intrinsically evil action can never be justified. Just War theory employs Double Effect, among other principles. But these can never apply to an intrinsically evil action. There is no comparison, and he is just being a bumbling idiot for no reason. Rather, he should clearly and succinctly defend the position of the Church on this issue as I'm sure he does very well on others. Sadly, I can't help but think that partisanship plays too large a part in this debate.

The place of true Catholics then, of those who do not want to become modern day Donatists but want to remain faithful to true Catholic teaching in an increasingly complex American Catholic culture, is to become even more educated about their faith and less closely allied to political parties. This does not mean disengaging from the political sphere. But it means, like Dorothy Day, engaging politics without political affiliations. These affiliations have become bankrupt, and they are getting us nowhere. The only place they are getting us is to a form of Catholicism that we cannot deem acceptable, a Catholicism that smacks of Americanism. Following the directives of the universal Church and walking more deliberately in the footsteps of our Pope and the Bishops in union with him is the only authentic way. And this means reading and hearing what our Pope says above the din of the Republican party and its Catholic cheerleaders: In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances”
Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Part I: Paul and Women

2009-05-04T20:48:00.006-05:00

Before we get on to year of the priesthood, I've wanted to wrestle with a few passages in Paul. I stupidly thought that I would get time to really tackle them, but since that hasn't happened, I'll just offer what I have.

They are passages that have to do, of course, with women. What do we do with some of Paul's more difficult texts on women? I'll start with 1 Corinthians 11 and then later move to 1 Timothy 2. They've often presented me with problems, so here's me taking a shot at them.

The first is 1 Corinthians 11:

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.
3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ.
4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head.
5 But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved.
6 For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.
7 A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
9 nor was man created for woman, but woman for man;
10 for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11 Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord.
12 For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God.

I think it's important to begin by recognizing that what sounds one way to us would sound very different to a first century audience. For instance, when we hear Paul in Romans 13:1 say something like, "Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God," we immediately think of Paul as some kind of political conservative who would have problems with revolutions. But of course, this is not what Paul is talking about. N.T. Wright reminds us that this statement by Paul would be read by his readers as extremely minimalist, unlike how we read it. After all that Paul had written about Christ as the cosmic ruler, bringing about the Kingdom of the Messiah, Christ as Lord, the subversion of the Cross -- Rome's most useful tool of imperialism -- in other words, after Paul has completely undermined the empire of Caesar in favor of the Lordship of Christ, the least he can do now is to not ruin the whole Christian enterprise by risking mass riots. Paul subtly and not so subtly undermines Caesar, but he wants to do it without destroying Christianity in the process. And so he writes about the role of living peacefully under authority -- at the end of Romans.

What does this have to do with what he says about women? I think it is easy to read Paul's statements about women as anti-feminist, which would be a silly modern reading. Instead, we have to read them in terms of their climate, and also in terms of Paul's own writing method. Let us look at the passage above. Paul begins by asking for imitation. Within the Church, especially in Corinth, there have been problems during Liturgy. This is the whole problem dealt with in this chapter, as too in 1 Timothy 2. And so Paul is asking for imitation in worship. He then goes on to explain the importance of imitation. Imitation is based on hierarchy, and there is a natural hierarchy to the world. Christ reigns at the top of it, says Paul. And that is important to remember, so that order is kept.

So far so good. Everyone is reading along and agreeing. These are "traditions" that they are used to. Paul goes on to say that when a man prays or prophesies, his head should be uncovered. Very good. But then he discusses when a woman "prays or prophesies." Now we are getting to the heart of it. Paul wants women to pray and prophesy. In other words, they can teach. Women are to be able to declare the event of Christ as much as men. After all, Mary Magdalene was the apostle to the Apostles. Men start to get uncomfortable in Corinth here.

So there are regulations given for both men and women. Men should have their head uncovered; women covered. Why? Women must emphasize their natural veil with a covering, precisely in order to draw attention to their womanhood. When women prophesy and pray, it should be clear that they are women. They shouldn't try to look like men; nor men like women. It is their distinction that matters here. Hair is a natural veil, and wearing a veil emphasizes it. And this helps clarify Galatians 3:28. There is no longer male or female in terms of equality, but only in terms of proclamation. Women proclaim as women, and the distinction must be in place. Paul constrains men and women equally in the assembly. Because Paul wants them both praying and prophesying together, and he wants nothing to get in the way. If not wearing the veil gets in the way, then wear the veil as a sign of womanhood. Just don't get in the way of the message, of prophesying, of the point of the whole gathering.

And so Paul relativizes things in light of the gospel message. Now, what appears difficult is that he uses Genesis, it seems, to justify why women should wear a veil. Man is the image of God; woman is the image of man. Man came from God; woman came from man. This, in Paul's reading, is all very clear in the Genesis account. We can forgive him for not having read John Paul II's theology of the body. Or, we can follow the passage a little further. Paul again does what we have seen him do before. Alain Badiou calls it subsequent symmetrization. For Paul's readers, surely the argument can end here. Case closed. We have Genesis as a back up and women should wear a veil as a sign that they are under the authority of men. But instead, Paul explains how things are "in the Lord."

11 Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord.
12 For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God.

Neither man nor woman are independent of one another. Men, it would seem, are independent, being the "head" of women. But verse 12 then comes as a shocker. Just as women "came" (past tense) from man, so man "is" (present tense) born of women. And all comes from God. I have to do more study, but what this sounds like is this:

"Just as woman came from man (in Genesis, as I just explained), so now (in the fullness of time, when God sends Jesus born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law) man is born of women. And particularly of the Woman, whose birth of the Son is our birth as well." Is Paul being this dramatic? It at least sounds like it to me.

In other words, the traditions of veil or no veil are rather silly. What matters is that women and men both prophesy, both declare the meaning of the Resurrection. If men have a problem, they can look at Genesis. But if they are going to look at Genesis for justification, they better realize that this can easily be reversed on them, since now men come from women. And so, women can now be seen as having authority over men. Paul desires imitation, and women would now be the source of imitation, since "man is born of woman."

And so, rather than engage in useless arguments and quibbles, which Paul hates so much all through his writings, let's just "pray and prophesy." Get on with preaching the gospel. And do it as men and as women. The distinction is important, but not as a marker of equality. Rather, to end with a quote of Badiou again:

What matters, man or woman, Jew or Greek, slave or free man, is that differences carry the universal that happens to them like a grace. Inversely, only by recognizing in differences their capacity for carrying the universal that comes upon them can the universal itself verify its own reality: "If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is being played on the flute or the harp" (I Cor. 14:7)? Differences, like instrumental tones, provide us with the recognizable univocity that makes up the melody of the True.

May the Fourth be with you.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Torture Is Evil

2009-05-01T10:33:00.002-05:00

Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honor due to the Creator. ~ Gaudium et Spes, no. 27

Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. ~ Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2297

The regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed. International juridical instructions concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances. ~ Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 404

Given the statements above, why are some Catholics twisting and contorting the English language to defend the CIA's use of waterboarding? Torture is evil. Why are some Catholics in the business of defending acts of evil? I feel lost in the cosmos.

Mason Slidell

The Best Response to Father Jenkins

2009-04-27T20:23:00.002-05:00

From Mary Ann Glendon

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

Mason Slidell

The Pauline Understanding of the Cross in Galatians 2: Part II

2009-04-14T21:10:00.003-05:00

2:17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we ourselves were found to be sinners, is Christ then an agent of sin? Certainly not! 18 But if I build up again those things which I tore down, then I prove myself a transgressor.

Paul is saying here that, by endeavoring to be justified in Christ, all Jews by Nature now find themselves to be Sinners. Paul and Peter are now Sinners. Once they leave the protective covering of the Law, once they cross the dividing wall between Sinners and Jews by Nature, they themselves become Sinners. But, if by no longer following the Law by following Christ, and so are now said by all good Jews to be Sinners, was it Christ then who was an “agent of sin” by making them to be sinners, by destroying the wall dividing Jews by Nature and Sinners from the Gentiles? NO! But, once I’m over the wall, once I no longer trust the Law, I can no longer build it up again. If I do so, if I rebuild the Law dividing Sinners from Jews, then I am now permanently a Sinner, since I have broken the Law by leaving its protection.

In other words, Paul is telling Peter and other Jews, once you leave the protection of being a Jew by Nature in order to follow Christ, in the eyes of all good Jews, you are now a Sinner from the Gentiles, with no hope at all of salvation. You are a “sinner.” But only from their perspective. You are now in Christ. But you can’t go back. You can’t do both. If you try to rebuild the wall like Peter did again between Jews and Sinners and try to put yourself back on the side of Jews, you are a Sinner, since you have already transgressed the Law. You can’t just go back.

2:19 For I through the law died to the law, that I might live to God. 20. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose.

A Jew who has not believed is now going to look at someone like Paul and say that Christ was an “agent of sin” for Paul, that Christ caused Paul to become a Sinner, outside the Law. Paul is therefore telling Peter and all other Jews: It is all or nothing. You can’t rebuild the wall of separation spoken about in Ephesians 2:14, since if you do, you will find yourself on the side of the Sinners from the Gentiles. You have to die to the Law, just as Christ died to the Law, since he became a curse by hanging on a tree, as Paul explains later in Galatians 3:13. Christ died to the Law by becoming cursed by the Law. The Law was its own undoing; by cursing, it blessed. Christ died to the law, and thereby found himself to be a “sinner among the gentiles.” But he therefore lived for his Father, “lived for God.” We too must go through the same process, dying to the Law with its restrictive claims to salvation.

Yet I cannot “die to the law,” since I cannot do what Jesus did, taking upon myself the curse of the law and hanging from a tree. The only way I can be on the other side of the Law and not be a Sinner is to be in Christ. That is the only way. Or else I am just a Sinner. I have to now live in a new place, and that is in Christ. I have to be crucified in his crucifixion, and allow him to live in me, or else I am just a Sinner. He is the only one who actually died and took the curse, so he must now live in me. Only thus can I also die. All I have left as a Jew outside the Law – now considered a “sinner from the Gentiles” by all law-abiding Jews – is faith in Christ. That is now my only hope for salvation.

By dying, Christ undid the law. Now, if justification is through the law, then Christ died in vain, since it can still bring salvation. But, says Paul to Peter, the law can no longer fulfill that function. As he says later in 3:24, the Law was our babysitter until Christ should come. Now, it has no function. You can’t go back to it after you have left it. You can’t go back to the babysitter when the parents come home. The Cross of Christ has replaced the Torah and all of its works. Yet only Christ can actually die to the Law by taking the curse upon himself. Therefore, for me to find salvation, he must live in me.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

The Pauline Understanding of the Cross in Galatians 2: Part I

2009-04-13T21:48:00.003-05:00

Galatians 2:11-21: Some notes on the logical flow of the argument

2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity.

In Acts 10, Peter has a vision in which he is told to eat unclean food for a Jew, which he does after objecting. He then goes to the house of Cornelius and explains himself to a pious Gentile, how God commanded him to eat unclean food, since nothing is unclean to God. Now he backs down from the personal vision he received. He is possibly afraid for his life, after fleeing Jerusalem. Or just plain hypocrisy. There was at the time a huge Jewish population in Jerusalem.

There are levels of “Judaizing” for a Gentile:

• Keeping the Sabbath

• Table-fellowship, or eating together

• Moral obligations

• Rejecting idolatry

• Circumcision, the apex of becoming a Jew and symbolizing the keeping of the entire law

These five are the process by which a Gentile would Judaize, or become a keeper of the Law.

2:14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” 15 We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, 16 yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified.

Here, “living like a Jew” refers not to circumcision, but to table-fellowship. Peter is not living like a Jew when he shares the table with Gentiles, so how can he require Gentiles to live like Jews? Paul accuses Peter here of forcing Gentiles to Judaize, after he has not obeyed the precepts of the law himself. Part of this may also be that Gentile wine was forbidden to Jews, which Peter may have been partaking of.

Paul sets up an important dichotomy that was common at the time between “Jews by birth” or by nature, and “Sinners from the Gentiles.” This was how the Jews divided up the world. You had two kinds of people: Jews by nature, who lived under the law, and Sinners, which included all who were outside the law. They were usually simply called “sinners,” or sometimes, “sinners from the Gentiles.” “Sinners from the Gentiles” had no hope of salvation, as opposed to Jewish sinners, who could turn back to the Torah and find salvation again. A “sinner” usually refers to anyone who is not a good covenantal Jew, anyone outside the covenant.

Paul makes the distinction between Sinners – all those outside the covenant, who don’t keep the whole law – and Jews by Nature – those who keep the whole law and live under the covenant. That was the normal view. Jews are “righteous;” Gentiles are “Sinners.” The Law is what separates Jews from Sinners. However, once the wall that is the Law is broken down, Peter and Paul now become “sinners.” If there is no law, according to all good Jews, all are now “sinners,” since the Law alone keeps people from being “sinners.” That is what sets up the next few verses.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Alexamenos Sabete Theon

2009-04-11T18:32:00.008-05:00

Don't ever forget this picture. Don't ever forget that this is the very first piece of Christian art, a taunt, graffiti, a mockery. "Alexamenos sabete theon," it says, "Alexamenos worships his God." Probably from 1st century AD, a playground bully makes fun of little Alexamenos for worshiping a crucified God. What could be more ridiculous? He is right. It is quite ridiculous. Nor should we ever forget.

But it is not only this picture that we should never forget. We shouldn't forget Alexamenos. He, a little boy, does better than all the Apostles except for John. He remains at the feet of Christ. In his daily life, in the playground. He was not willing to deny his God in a Roman playground. He held firm.

We must learn from him. We must do better than the Apostles. Let me repeat. We must do better than the Apostles. Jesus continues to look down from his cross. He looks down and he sees abortion, murder along the border of Juarez and around the world, starvation. He sees his people on the cross. But as he looks from the cross with these people, does he see us with him? Have all his apostles fled? Did they all opt for the easier option? Suburban Christianity, easy Catholicism? Did they opt for compromise instead? Have we fled the cross? Or will we stand there and remain at Christ's feet, no matter how that looks, what that means for us?

We must do better than the Apostles. We must; the world depends on it. We must imitate, not Peter but Alexamenos. In his playground, he stood firm. Will I stand firm. Or will the sufferers of this world look down from their crosses and see none of use standing there beneath, waiting, weeping, loving, taking them down from the cross when their ghosts have expired. Most of us experience Good Friday and Holy Saturday only once a year. They experience it every day of the year. The tabernacle is empty. God is dead and gone. And so we must bring him there, into their lives, into the empty tabernacle of the world that does not even realize that he is gone, does not realize that the sacramental presence of God has been stripped from its altars, and what is left are Nietzschean sepulchres.

Let us not forget this picture. It is what our Christian lives are all about.

"This crown, my Lord, a token

no, more, my self-will broken

and surrendered to your kingly grace."

Mockery? Yes, and No, as they recall

my words, tumbling rashly, mixed with gall

and thrown into his face.

Did I know, young squire; desiring only his lance

to carry; a young James or John seeking to enhance

his position with the king?

No I, pride-ruled, my will in hand

heeding not my Master's meek command

fixed on his brow this ring.

Now I watch; seems no victor's wreath

this band of torture, piercing crown beneath

Ah, now wrenched free

these tears, shed, bled in water dyed red

where he is mixed with me. And I? I bend low and kiss this noble head.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

John's Theology of the Feet

2009-04-11T17:55:00.004-05:00

In Graham Greene's The Comedians, Mr. Brown comments to his secret affair accomplice that "there is no theology in this body," or something to that effect. He then goes on to uncover her naked in bed and to quote to her lines he remembers by heart from the Song of Songs (taught to him by Jesuits, he informs us). It is a great moment of irony in which he refuses to equate his sexual lust with any everlasting significance while recognizing in the beauty of her body something of the mysteries of God.

These last few days, we have done precisely the same thing, though in a very different way. We have contemplated a body, many parts, to be precise. And the ones that I want to examine are the feet, the feet of Christ. There is something profound about Christ's feet that causes great devotion. I can remember as a child and teenager that my favorite station of the cross, the one that I would linger over the longest, was "Jesus is nailed to the cross." The way of the cross by Alphonsus Liguori leads the one praying to beg: "Nail my heart to your feet." That moved me greatly. At his feet I could receive the blood of Jesus. It could flow into me and give me new life, replacing my blood with his. Ignatius invites us to pray at the feet of the cross and to meditate on the meaning of his death. Because there at his feet, so much can happen.

John's gospel gives us a theology of feet. Sounds funny, I know, but if you look in John's gospel, the use of the word "feet" is very significant. At least I think it is, I don't know anyone else who says it is. But I say it is. It occurs 13 times I think, but only in chapters 11-13, the center of the whole gospel and the transition point into the Passion. First, in John 11:2, Mary of Bethany is mentioned as the one who anointed the feet of Jesus. This sets us up for what Jesus will do for Lazarus, prefiguring his death and resurrection. Then, when Jesus raises Lazarus, it says that Jesus tells those standing near to unwrap his hands, his feet, and his face. In other words, the location of the wounds of Christ. Lazarus prefigures the offering of Jesus.

Move to chapter 12, and Mary anoints Jesus' feet and wipes them with her hair. She performs this great act of service before Jesus does in chapter 13. We all know about Jesus washing the feet of his disciples. It was a service that not even slaves were expected to have to do. But there is an ascending theology going on. First, Jesus commands that Lazarus' feet be unwrapped, a symbol of what he came to do for us, raising us from death to life. Then, Mary imitates this action of Jesus by doing it for him, since he had done it for her brother. She is showing her gratitude. As a disciple, she understands that the actions of Jesus are to be imitated. He unwrapped her brother's feet, so she washes his feet. And then in chapter 13, Jesus washes his disciples' feet.

There is always an interesting parallel going on between Peter and Judas. We know about it during the Passion: Both betray Jesus, but one asks forgiveness and doesn't despair. But it begins much earlier. When Mary anoints Jesus' feet, they are at table, just as they will be in chapter 13. Mary washes Jesus' feet. Judas objects, just as Peter will do in the next chapter. In other words, Mary is light years ahead of the other disciples. She understands what the feet are all about. They are a symbol of service, of giving up one's life for another. And so Judas objects, as we would expect. He doesn't want to be that kind of disciple. He doesn't want that kind of master, who expects feet washing from his disciples. So he objects on principle. When Jesus stands up at table, he is doing the exact thing that Mary had just done. It is an incarnational movement. He stands up from the eternal banquet, puts off his robe of divinity, puts on the towel of humanity, and bends low to wash feet.

Peter objects. This is not what his Lord should do. Just as Judas objected, now Peter objects to the exact same thing. Did Jesus get the idea from Mary? I think rather that when Jesus unwrapped the feet of her brother, Mary understood. It clicked for her, what this Jesus thing was all about. It is about raising from death to life. Jesus unwrapped her brother's feet, setting him free, performing the act of service that would give him a new life. And so when she perfumes Jesus' feet, Jesus understands what she is doing: preparing him for his own burial and resurrection. She understands the pattern.

But Peter doesn't, and so he objects. And Jesus makes it clear that without our feet washed by him, we have no part in him. Peter then asks for his whole body to be washed, but Jesus once again lets him know that he is missing the point. It is not about being washed, it is about the feet. "Whoever has bathed has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over." Being bathed or not bathed is not the issue, for even those who have bathed need their feet washed. No matter how clean you are, how moral, how law-abiding, how perfect, unless Jesus washes your feet, you have no part in him. You need Jesus. You need his service. You need his purification in the filthiest, lowliest part of your body, or you have no place in his kingdom. That is where he looks, at your feet. Even the lowliest part of yourself must be incorporated into the kenotic structure of the Christ event, or you have no part in Jesus.

This is his model for us. Go to the dirtiest depths of each person you meet, and wash that part. Offer Christ. Put on the towel of Christ, bend down, and get washing. Or else you are not any disciple of his.

This is John's theology of the feet.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Tolstoy on Women

2009-04-04T16:56:00.007-05:00

I've been reading Tolstoy short stories now for a while (I know, I didn't post that under the What I'm Reading section. I'm a fraud). I found this remarkable segment in The Kreutzer Sonata. I have a very old translation, and what I found interesting is that most online translations in English do a massive editing job of the text. I was going to highlight the parts that are removed by most modern translations, but they are too numerous. Also, most use inclusive language that makes this text almost impossible to recognize as the same one. It took me a while to find this old translation by Aylmer Maude online. Of course, I think that Tolstoy's Calvinist tendencies betray him a bit here and he goes overboard. Nevertheless, I won't edit the text so that you can read it and think what you want. Why should I tell you what is good and bad about it?

The education of women will always correspond to men's opinion about them. Don't we know how men regard women: Wein, Weib und Gesang, and what the poets say in their verses? Take all poetry, all pictures and sculpture, beginning with love poems and the nude Venuses and Phrynes, and you will see that woman is an instrument of enjoyment; she is so on the Truba and the Grachevka, and also at the Court balls. And note the devil's cunning: if they are here for enjoyment and pleasure, let it be known that it is pleasure and that woman is a sweet morsel. But no, first the knights-errant declare that they worship women (worship her, and yet regard her as an instrument of enjoyment), and now people assure us that they respect women. Some give up their places to her, pick up her handkerchief; others acknowledge her right to occupy all positions and to take part in the government, and so on.

They do all that, but their outlook on her remains the same. She is a means of enjoyment. Her body is a means of enjoyment. And she knows this. It is just as it is with slavery. Slavery, you know, is nothing else than the exploitation by some of the unwilling labor of many. Therefore to get rid of slavery it is necessary that people should not wish to profit by the forced labor of others and should consider it a sin and a shame. But they go and abolish the external form of slavery and arrange so that one can no longer buy and sell slaves, and they imagine and assure themselves that slavery no longer exists, and do not see or wish to see that it does, because people still want and consider it good and right to exploit the labor of others, and as long as they consider that good, there will always be people stronger or more cunning than others who will succeed in doing it. So it is with the emancipation of woman: the enslavement of woman lies simply in the fact that people desire and think it good, to avail themselves of her as a tool of enjoyment. Well, and they liberate woman, give her all sorts of rights equal to man, but continue to regard her as an instrument of enjoyment, and so educate her in childhood and afterwards by public opinion. and there she is, still the same humiliated and depraved slave, and the man still a depraved slave- owner.

They emancipate women in universities and in law courts, but continue to regard her as an object of enjoyment. Teach her, as she is taught among us, to regard herself as such, and she will always remain an inferior being. Either with the help of those scoundrels the doctors she will prevent the conception of offspring -- that is, will be a complete prostitute, lowering herself not to the level of an animal but to the level of a thing -- or she will be what the majority of women are, mentally diseased, hysterical, unhappy, and lacking capacity for spiritual development. High schools and universities cannot alter that. It can only be changed by a change in men's outlook on women and women's way of regarding themselves.

I find this text remarkable because of how it addresses so many issues: from women's liberation, to contraception, to the human libido dominandi, to questions about women's alterity. The primary question it seems to me of the contemporary women's movement is the question that Jacques Lacan asked once: Is there such a thing as 'woman'. Or, is she really only a projection of man. I also find it interesting that this question dominated both the mind of John Paul II, and most constructivist feminists. What exactly is the genius of women? Can she be seen for herself? Can she truly appear?

Unlike most feminists, I do not have a problem with the language of complementarity, as long as it is used carefully. For example, in Genesis 2, when the woman is called the "helpmate" of the man, the word used is one that in most other places in the Bible is applied to God. God helps Israel just as woman helps man. Does this flip on its head the symbolism of Israel as a wife and God as a husband that is found in other OT texts and that is used by Paul in Ephesians 5? I don't know. I don't think so. But it does temper it a bit. Remember, in this text in Genesis 2, a text which has been used in the past as weapon against women, man actually clings to women, because she is his helper, just as Israel must cling to God in faith and trust since he is Israel's helper. Women are only condemned to yearn for man as a curse of sin. Anyway, I figured out would get this out of the way before we move into Holy Week and all of those rich themes as material for reflection.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Gay Marriage in the Heartland

2009-04-04T15:43:00.005-05:00

I pick out some quotes from the opinion, Varnum, et al. v. Polk County, which was issued by the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously. As these arguments are not being made by easy-to-target progressives from the coasts, I would like to know the thoughts of anyone regarding whether or not this shift from the coasts to the heartland changes the debate.

The County aruges that same-sex marriage ban promotes the "integrity of traditional marriage" by "maintaing the historical and traditional marriage norm as between a man and a woman." This argument is straightforward and has superficial appeal. A specific tradition sought to be maintained cannot be an important governmental objective for equal protection purposes, however, when the tradition is nothing more than the historical classification currently expressed in the statute being challenged...

We begin with the County's argument that the goal of the same-sex marriage ban is to ensure children will be raised only in the optimal milieu [of one father and one mother]. In pursuit of this objective, the statutory exclusion of gay and lesbian people is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. The civil marriage statute is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents - such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support and violent felons - that are undeniably less than optimal parents. Such under-inclusion tends to demonstrate that the sexual orientation-based classification is grounded in prejudice or overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities or preferences of gay and lesbian people, rather than having a substantial relationship to some important objective. The ban on same-sex marriage is substantially over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. Yet, the marriage statute denies civil marriage to all gay and lesbian people in order to discourage the limited number of same-sex couples who desire to raise children. In doing so, the Legislature includes a consequential number of "individuals within the statute's purview who are not afflicted with the evil the statute seeks to remedy" Conway, 932 A.2d at 649...

A suggested rationale supporting the maintaing statute is "promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships." While the institution of civil marriage likely encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships, we must evaluate whether excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships. The County offers no reasons that it does and we can find none. The stability of opposite-sex relationships is an important governmental interest, bu the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is not substantially related to that objective...

Now that we have addressed and rejected each specific interest advanced by the County to justify the classification drawn under the statute, we consider the reason for the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage left unspoken by the County: religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The County's silence reflects, we believe, its understanding this reason cannot, under our Iowa Constitution, be used to justify a ban on same-sex marriage...

Mason Slidell

Son of God, We Draw Near

2009-04-04T14:12:00.004-05:00

This is not the greatest video, but I've always loved this song by Sufjan Stevens. It's called Transfiguration, and though I missed the date of the Transfiguration, I thought that it would go well with the theme of Palm Sunday. Look up the lyrics if you get a chance; well worth it.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Annunciation, Transfiguration, Dostoevsky

2009-03-25T16:49:00.004-05:00

Today is the Annunciation, a tremendous feast day, so I feel inclined to have some fun. We'll start with some exegesis, and then end up with Dostoevsky. Hard to beat that.

When Gabriel appears to Mary, there is a good chance that she is at prayer. What is the evidence for this? If Jesus was born on the 15th of Tishri, the first day of the festival of Succot, as there is evidence (which I won't go into here) to believe, then nine months previous would be the first day of Chanukah, or the 25th of Kislev. There were prayers for women to say during Chanukah, and on the first night, she would pray the Ushpizin prayer:

"Oh surround us with the pure and the holy radiance of thy glory that is spread over our heads as the eagle over the nest. He stirreth up and thence bid the stream of life flowing upon thy handmaid".

Mary would have been praying for the glory of God to spread over her, and Gabriel tells her that the power of the Most High will overshadow her. Ok, that's kind of neat. But it's a lot better than that. If Mary was praying during the feast of Chanukah -- the feast of the rededication of the temple after it was taken back from the power of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Seleucid Greeks -- then she was praying during a time when people were particularly conscience of the fact that there was no ark of the covenant.

Flip your bible for a second to 2 Maccabees 2:4-12. There is an interesting legend or tale that the author of 2 Maccabees records there. According to legend, he says, as Judah was being deported into Babylon in 586BC, Jeremiah orders that the ark of the covenant be hid on the mountain where Moses has seen the Promised Land -- Mount Nebo. Purportedly, the ark was indeed hidden there, but when those who had followed Jeremiah wanted to mark the way to the cave, Jeremiah responds in verses 7-8:

The place shall be unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy. And then the Lord will disclose these things and the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, as they were shown in the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked that the place should be specially consecrated."

The author of Maccabees tells this story in connection with the feast of Chanukah, the rededication of the temple of the Lord. But, of course, even though the temple was rededicated, there was still no ark. The Holy of Holies remained empty. So when is the time when God will "show his mercy" and the "cloud will appear?"

Well, first of all, there is a clear reference here to the Transfiguration. Luke consciously uses the Greek word episkiadzo in Luke 9:34 to refer to the "overshadowing" of Jesus, Moses and Elijah. The time has come for the ark to appear again, and it is found on a mountain just as it was buried according to legend on a mountain. Except now, Jesus is the new ark.

But, in anticipation of the Transfiguration, Luke uses this same word once more. That place is in Luke 1:35. There, a good Jew would have recognized that the time that Maccabees was referring to is drawing near. Mary, at prayer during the feast of Chanukah, begins to fulfill the prophecy recorded during the first Chanukah. The temple is about to be rededicated. The Holy Spirit will "overshadow" her, a word used rarely in the Septuagint, and importantly in Exodus 40:34-34 to refer to the cloud of God's glory overshadowing the tent of presence with the ark in it. This overshadowing presence of God in the Old Testament is extremely important, since the first overshadowing could be said to take place at creation when the Spirit hovers over the waters; at Sinai when the cloud descends on the mountain; over the tent of presence with the ark in it; and in the dedication of the temple of Solomon. The overshadowing that that God will do over Mary refers to the tremendous cloud of God's presence all over the Old Testament. Mary is the new location of God's presence. At creation, the Spirit was over the waters of the abyss, the "space" where creation would take place. Mary is the "space" of the New Creation. The cloud of God was over the mountain of Sinai where the Law was given. Mary is the mountain of the New Law. The presence of God was over the tent of presence where the ark was kept. Mary is the new tent of presence, the dwelling place of the ark. She is also the new Holy of Holies of Solomon's temple where only the High Priest could enter: Jesus, the new High Priest.

The text in Maccabees, however, connects the ark again with Moses, as does the Transfiguration. The ark will appear when the new Moses, who built it, appears again. Just as no one knows where Moses was buried, so with the ark. They will appear together. This happens before the Transfiguration in Luke though. Again, it begins with Mary. She is overshadowed, making her the new tent of presence where the ark dwells. But she is also the new Moses. Moses is the first prophet of the Old Testament to follow the pattern of a Calling Narrative. And, we know from Deuteronomy that the Messiah will be a new prophet greater than Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15-18). Mary follows the same pattern. The pattern goes something like this:

God calls; prophet is afraid; God assures that he will take care of everything and delivers message, usually saying in some way that he will "be with you;" prophet wonders how this can happen because of his own inadequacy and weakness; God says that it will be his own power that will make this happen; prophet says Yes.

Moses is the first and greatest prophet to follow this pattern. Luke is careful to structure Mary's annunciation following this same pattern. Why? She is not only the bearer of the New Ark, she is also the new prophet Moses receiving the New Law within her, greater than the old law, and greater than Moses. In Matthew, Jesus is the new Moses, giving the new law in the sermon on the Mount. I think that in Luke, Mary is the new Moses, bearing a new ark that she helps build with her very own body, "overshadowed" by the Spirit so that she can give birth.

The new Chanukah can now take place, the fulfillment of the dedication of the temple, since now the ark is here, and Moses has been found. We have a new Moses, a new ark and a new temple.

Fun stuff. I don't know if it all works, since I'm just throwing this together as I go, but I think it hangs together. Ok, so we have dealt with the Spirit telling Mary that the power of the God will episkiadzo her. But he will also "come upon" her, also in verse 35. That word is eperkomai. Most translations say that the the Holy Spirit will "come upon" her. That is weak. Weak! This word in the Old Testament most often refers to the Day of the Lord, usually a terrible day, the day of the Messiah, when God will judge the earth. So God is going to "come upon you, as on the day of the Lord, a day of judgment." In other words, while Mary is listening to Gabriel use these words, she is hearing a lot of things. She hears that the Day of the Lord, the great and terrible day prophesied in the last verses of the Old Testament, is now here, right now, in her. It is going to happen inside of her. Jesus is that Day. The climax of history, and the moment of judgment is now upon Israel, and literally upon Mary, who represents the purified Israel. So now, within a single verse, Moses and Elijah have appeared. Moses through the word episkiadzo and Elijah through the word eperkomai. How does Elijah appear? He will bring about that great and terrible day, we are told by Malachi in the last two verses of his book. Before that terrible day of the Lord, the one that is now here, Elijah must appear. That will be John the Baptist primarily, but Mary in her own way is the prophet of the Day of the Lord. It comes upon her first of all Israelites. She is a microcosm of Israel, and the Day comes to her first.

So the Annunciation is a mini Transfiguration. Mary is both Moses and Elijah, the great prophets of the Old Testament, inaugurating the Day of the Lord, the New Ark, the rededicated Temple, the New Law, all of these things within herself. Now that's feminism!

So how could she possible say Yes to this? Wasn't she terrified? I can imagine a terrible struggle going on within her. On the one hand, she recognizes that something incredible is about to happen. On the other hand, she will be stigmatized now for life. Who will believe that she is impregnated by the Holy Spirit? Now I suppose if Joseph was told by the angel right when Mary conceives that she was pregnant and they marry right away, no one would know that Mary got pregnant before the wedding. But we don't know that for sure. Maybe Joseph didn't find out until Mary began to show. Maybe God tested Joseph and he only found out later. We don't know if anyone found out. The whole town may have known and thought that Mary had cheated on her betrothal with Joseph. And then when they get married, it starts to look like Joseph might have gotten her pregnant, and so now they are marrying to cover it up. I have often wondered if Jesus spent so much time specifically with prostitutes because behind his back growing up, the gossip was that Mary couldn't wait till marriage. Even though he knew this was not true, maybe he had a special love for the sexually weak.

In any case, Mary knew that a new and hard life was in for her. She had to have tremendous trust. I'm going to steal a passage from Crime and Punishment to wrap up this reflection. It is one of my favorite parts of the book. It is when Sonia reads the story of Lazarus from John 11 to Raskolnikov. I am taking it out of context, but I think it fits in nicely here. Go read the whole section on your own! Raskolnikov is with Sonia, who is preparing to prostitute her body just to make a little money to save her family. But she also has deep faith, and it is that part I want to highlight in this quote. Raskolnikov is speaking to himself:

"And if she has not gone out of her mind... but who says she has not gone out of her mind? Is she in her senses? Can one talk, can one reason as she does? How can she sit on the edge of the abyss of loathsomeness into which she is slipping and refuse to listen when she is told of danger? Does she expect a miracle? No doubt she does. Doesn't that all mean madness?"
He stayed obstinately at that thought. He liked that explanation indeed better than any other. He began looking more intently at her.
"So you pray to God a great deal, Sonia?" he asked her.
Sonia did not speak; he stood beside her waiting for an answer.
"What should I be without God?" she whispered rapidly, forcibly, glancing at him with suddenly flashing eyes and squeezing his hand.
"Ah, so that is it!" he thought.
"And what does God do for you?" he asked, probing her further.
Sonia was silent a long while, as though she could not answer. Her weak chest kept heaving with emotion.
"Be silent! Don't ask! You don't deserve!" she cried suddenly, looking sternly and wrathfully at him.
"That's it, that's it" he repeated to himself.
"He does everything," she whispered quickly, looking down again.

"What should I be without God? He does everything." That summarizes the message of Mary. She, like Sonia, was on the brink of something incredible, even terrible. How could she possibly say Yes to this? It was beyond her small frame, her youthful age. Yet that did not matter to her. The enormity of it was nothing. Why?

"He does everything."

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Bishop John D'Arcy on Obama Invitation

2009-03-25T13:25:00.003-05:00

STATEMENT CONCERNING PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA SPEAKING AT UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME GRADUATION AND RECEIVING AN HONORARY NOTRE DAME LAW DEGREE

by Bishop John D’Arcy, Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend

March 24, 2009

On Friday, March 21, Father John Jenkins, C.S.C., phoned to inform me that President Obama had accepted his invitation to speak to the graduating class at Notre Dame and receive an honorary degree. We spoke shortly before the announcement was made public at the White House press briefing. It was the first time that I had been informed that Notre Dame had issued this invitation.

President Obama has recently reaffirmed, and has now placed in public policy, his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred. While claiming to separate politics from science, he has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life.

This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our President, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words - but by his actions.

My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.

I have in mind also the statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops in 2004. “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” Indeed, the measure of any Catholic institution is not only what it stands for, but also what it will not stand for.

I have spoken with Professor Mary Ann Glendon, who is to receive the Laetare Medal. I have known her for many years and hold her in high esteem. We are both teachers, but in different ways. I have encouraged her to accept this award and take the opportunity such an award gives her to teach.

Even as I continue to ponder in prayer these events, which many have found shocking, so must Notre Dame. Indeed, as a Catholic University, Notre Dame must ask itself, if by this decision it has chosen prestige over truth.

Tomorrow, we celebrate as Catholics the moment when our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, became a child in the womb of his most holy mother. Let us ask Our Lady to intercede for the university named in her honor, that it may recommit itself to the primacy of truth over prestige.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Marching on Mason Slidell and All Other Infidels

2009-03-21T17:13:00.004-05:00

I just have to post this picture. It makes me look so holy. And don't worry, this is the only time I wear a cassock, when I'm doing sodality/CLC events. This is an 8th grade group and we pray a rosary every Friday together. Very impressive gang of boys. Keep us in your prayers.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Obama at Notre Dame

2009-03-21T14:09:00.004-05:00

The Cardinal Newman Society has begun a petition to Notre Dame president Fr. John Jenkins, CSC not to allow Obama to give the commencement at Notre Dame:

“It is an outrage and a scandal that ‘Our Lady’s University,’ one of the premier Catholic universities in the United States, would bestow such an honor on President Obama given his clear support for policies and laws that directly contradict fundamental Catholic teachings on life and marriage,” the petition reads.

I tend to waffle on this one, but I don't think inviting the President of the United States is an outrage or scandal for a Catholic University. Other offices, sure, an argument can be made there. But the President is a symbol of national unity and of one's country, and I don't think the culture war for life will be won by this form of entrenchment policy. Rather, the pro-life movement will win its cause when it can reach out to the president, work with him, and also challenge him. Notre Dame should issue a clear statement that it does not agree with Obama's pro-choice policies and positions. The university can call on him to change his positions in a statement, but can also welcome him, I think, as President of the United States. Inviting him to speak is not the same as an endorsement of his policies. I don't think the tension between prophetic witness and striving for common ground is necessarily compromised by this invitation.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

In Solidarity With Gaza

2009-03-21T14:03:00.002-05:00

From Gaza. Let us keep them in our prayers this Lent. I think I'll join this priest in giving up bread. We must show some form of solidarity with this awful situation. The full text of the letter is here:

I summarize my letter to you by lifting our suffering to God and to you. Our people in Gaza are treated like animals in a zoo, they eat but remain hungry, they cry, but no one wipes their tears. There is no water, no electricity, no food, but fear, terror and blockade … Yesterday the bakery refused to give me bread. The reason being that the baker refused to feed me with flour that is not worthy of humans so that he will not disrespect my priesthood. The good flour had finished, and what flour he had was inappropriate for human consumption. I have avowed to not eat bread for the duration of this war.

We want you to raise your continuous prayers to God, and not to hold a mass or service without remembering the suffering of Gaza before God. I am sending short messages from the Bible to our parishioners to increase the hope in their hearts. We have all agreed to pray this prayer at the top of every hour: “O Lord of peace rain peace on us, O Lord of peace, grant peace to our land. Have mercy, O Lord, on your people and do not keep us in enmity forever. Please stand with us now and sing this prayer with us.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Human Dignity: Beyond Mathematics, Logic & Scientific Experimentation

2009-03-19T11:21:00.003-05:00

Some wonderful words of the Holy Father from his address to Cameroon's Muslim Community.

Cameroon is home to thousands of Christians and Muslims, who often live, work and worship in the same neighborhood. Both believe in one, merciful God who on the last day will judge mankind (cf. Lumen Gentium, 16). Together they bear witness to the fundamental values of family, social responsibility, obedience to God’s law and loving concern for the sick and suffering. By patterning their lives on these virtues and teaching them to the young, Christians and Muslims not only show how they foster the full development of the human person, but also how they forge bonds of solidarity with one’s neighbors and advance the common good.

My friends, I believe a particularly urgent task of religion today is to unveil the vast potential of human reason, which is itself God’s gift and which is elevated by revelation and faith. Belief in the one God, far from stunting our capacity to understand ourselves and the world, broadens it. Far from setting us against the world, it commits us to it. We are called to help others see the subtle traces and mysterious presence of God in the world which he has marvelously created and continually sustains with his ineffable and all-embracing love. Although his infinite glory can never be directly grasped by our finite minds in this life, we nonetheless catch glimpses of it in the beauty that surrounds us. When men and women allow the magnificent order of the world and the splendour of human dignity to illumine their minds, they discover that what is "reasonable" extends far beyond what mathematics can calculate, logic can deduce and scientific experimentation can demonstrate; it includes the goodness and innate attractiveness of upright and ethical living made known to us in the very language of creation.

Mason Slidell

The End of Civil Marriage

2009-03-17T19:56:00.012-05:00

Same sex marriage is on the march. It is the law in Connecticut and Massachusetts, with Vermont very likely to follow in the next few months. Some variation of same sex civil unions are the law in the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. The big enchiladas of California and New York seem to be only a matter of time.

I am ready to advocate for a political compromise in order to salvage what remains. The state can issue a civil union license to any two individuals regardless of gender. Civil marriage would cease to exist. The term is an odd construction anyway. After all, there is no such thing as civil baptism or civil anointing of the sick. But beyond that, the battle for the preservation of civil covenant marriage is dead. Though the murderer is not proponents of same sex marriage, but the blunderers who allowed for no fault civil divorce beginning in the 1960s. Heterosexual men and women who wanted easy commitment and even easier disillusionment dealt the fatal blow to civil covenant marriage.

The enduring legacy of the no fault generation has been the political indoctrination that marriage is just another contract, nothing more and nothing less. Natural Law appeals to the teleological order of the family or a rights/duties ethic are completely beside the point. The American understanding of a right is simply the evolving standard of what society in the given moment sees as inalienable. The longer we have tolerated the debasing of marriage to mere contract, the more momentum built (especially among the young) to see nothing whatsoever wrong with easy marriage for everyone as a civil right.

The Christian approach to dealing with homosexuality has only exacerbated the problem. When it comes to homosexuality, many Christians lose their common sense and devolve into irrational fear. Instead of dealing calmly with the moral and cultural issues like we would deal with any other matter of sin or imperfection, we instead held the homosexual in pure disgust. We advanced the ludicrous notions that all homosexual men want to molest boys or that homosexuals are twisted, vile perverts living on the outskirts of society. It became the greatest of all sins to be ostracized because of the bile that ran through their black hearts. How stupid! As the homosexual rights movement mainstreamed in the 1980s and 1990s, young people (especially my generation) found out that our parents had lied to us. Homosexuals were as normal as any of us. They had jobs and were influential members of society and even sometimes had a sense of humor! Not only that, but we found out that they were our brothers and sisters and cousins and life-long friends and we were horrified to learn that they had suffered physical and emotional abuse because we tolerated them being labeled as something a little less than human. By distorting who homosexuals actually are (that is normal, fallen people who are in need of Christ and the Church), Christian parents laid the foundation for the young's rejection of their teachings about homosexuality.

Our energy is ill spent defending civil marriage from homosexuals, especially since we do not defend it from heterosexuals. As part of the compromise for universal civil union license, a law would also be passed that would require respect for the decision of many churches, synagogues and mosques not to grant religious ceremonies for homosexual unions. And hopefully an added benefit would be for religious organizations to encourage the couples that it marries to have stricter civil union contracts with the hope of giving greater opportunity for the stability of the marriage.

In the future, I hope we learn the lesson that demonizing in order to alleviate irrational fears will always distort our ability and credibility to teach truth in love.

Mason Slidell

Faith and Science: A Question

2009-03-16T19:28:00.002-05:00

I have a question in the realm of theology and science. Perhaps one of you can help me. I am a teacher of sacred scripture, and one of my intentions while teaching the book of Genesis is to instill in my students the idea that there is no contradiction between faith and science, the myths that make up the creation accounts, and evolutionary accounts of the origins of life. I have many ways of doing this. One is to explain that the word "day" in Hebrew, "yom" frequently means several other periods of time for Hebrew speakers as it means 24 hours. Also, the mythic poem that makes up Genesis 1 actually follows our understanding of the evolving formation of the universe, progressing from the creation of inanimate forms, to vegetative life, to animal life, and finally human life. No contradiction there. I also point to the second creation account beginning in Genesis 2:4b, and how the author speaks of God taking from the muck of the earth. Why are we ok with being formed from muck but not from an ape ancestor? If we understand that muck to be a reference to a nonhuman ancestral life form, then we can reconcile the idea of evolution with God breathing his spirit, an immortal soul, into them, thus separating them from other creatures like them. So far so good.

My question is with the idea of one Adam and one Eve. My text book makes it very clear that the Church teaches that all human beings descend from one set of human parents who sinned, thereby passing on to all of their descendants the original deprivation we call original sin. This teaching is taken primarily from the encyclical letter Humani Generis, which as far as I know has never been revoked as teaching. In particular, one paragraph applies here:

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Apparently, we cannot accept polygenism to be true. But if this is the case, I feel faced with several dilemmas. First, if we are unwilling to allow for multiple sets of first parents who sinned, then how did the human race progress? The usual fundamentalist answer goes something like this: Many rabbinic sources claim that Adam and Eve had 30 children. These children married one another and eventually spread out across the known world. There is as yet no prohibition against incest, so this was not an issue, since the very idea of incest was impossible when you are the only human beings alive. The difficult scripture passage usually raised against this position comes from Genesis 4:16:

Cain then left the LORD'S presence and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain had relations with his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch.

It appears that Cain leaves and finds another wife. Thus, there must have been other human beings alive. But that is easy to answer, I suppose, by pointing out that the text never says that Cain found a wife in Nod. It says he left and settled in Nod and then slept with his wife. It is just as plausible that he took her with him as that he found one in Nod. No problem there it seems.

But the problem is that this has a hard time squaring with evolutionary theory. According to basic Darwinian evolution, evolution effects gene pools and therefore groups of populations. According to a general understanding of the theory:

The more orthodox definition of evolution is as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. In defining evolution as a change in the gene pool it means that evolution is a population level phenomena. Therefore, only groups of organisms evolve. Individual organisms do not evolve.

Francis Collins agrees in discussing this point in his book, The Language of God:

Genetic analyses suggest that approximately ten thousand ancestors gave rise to the entire population of 6 billion humans on the planet. How, then, does one blend these scientific observations with the story of Adam and Eve? In the first place, the biblical texts themselves seem to suggest that there were other humans present at the same time that Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden.

He goes on to mention the case of Cain and his wife. So, is there a real disagreement between faith and science here? Humani Generis, consistent with Catholic teaching on the question, reaffirms:

Whatever new truth the sincere human mind is able to find, certainly cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God, the highest Truth, has created and guides the human intellect, not that it may daily oppose new truths to rightly established ones, but rather that, having eliminated errors which may have crept in, it may build truth upon truth in the same order and structure that exist in reality, the source of truth.

Is this one of those case? There have been quite a few reformable declarations made by the Holy See that have been modified over time. The case of Dignitatis Humanae at Vatican II could be considered one. This was not a rupture with past teaching, but a coming to terms with a different historical understanding of the consistent teaching of the Church concerning religious freedom of conscience in a different world situation. Another example could be the prohibitions against positions such that Isaiah may have been written by three authors. For a time, the Church made this declaration, presumably to protect the holy scriptures from being interpreted out of relevance. But over time, a more balanced approach to discoveries concerning multiple authors was reached. So is this one of those cases? Can we say that we understand the first chapters of Genesis to no longer prohibit an understanding of a group of first human ancestors who all fell into sin, and that Adam and Eve represent "Man" and Woman" as a group who at the dawn of time fell away from God? Otherwise, how do we reconcile faith and science in this very concrete case? It seems to me that it is such concrete cases that we must be able to answer to show that Truth is truly One.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Neoliberalism: Boooo

2009-03-13T13:08:00.002-05:00

Stanley Fish on neoliberalism. Which he actually endorses. But he also makes a good argument against it. Read the whole thing here.

What I’ve learned (and what some readers of this column no doubt already knew) is that neoliberalism is a pejorative way of referring to a set of economic/political policies based on a strong faith in the beneficent effects of free markets. Here is an often cited definition by Paul Treanor: “Neoliberalism is a philosophy in which the existence and operation of a market are valued in themselves, separately from any previous relationship with the production of goods and services . . . and where the operation of a market or market-like structure is seen as an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide for all human action, and substituting for all previously existing ethical beliefs.” (“Neoliberalism: Origins, Theory, Definition.”)

In a neoliberal world, for example, tort questions — questions of negligence law — are thought of not as ethical questions of blame and restitution (who did the injury and how can the injured party be made whole?), but as economic questions about the value to someone of an injury-producing action relative to the cost to someone else adversely affected by that same action. It may be the case that run-off from my factory kills the fish in your stream; but rather than asking the government to stop my polluting activity (which would involve the loss of jobs and the diminishing of the number of market transactions), why don’t you and I sit down and figure out if more wealth is created by my factory’s operations than is lost as a consequence of their effects?

As Ronald Coase put it in his classic article, “The Problem of Social Cost” (Journal of Law and Economics, 1960): “The question to be decided is: is the value of the fish lost greater or less than the value of the product which the contamination of the stream makes possible?” If the answer is more value would be lost if my factory were closed, then the principle of the maximization of wealth and efficiency directs us to a negotiated solution: you allow my factory to continue to pollute your stream and I will compensate you or underwrite the costs of your moving the stream elsewhere on your property, provided of course that the price I pay for the right to pollute is not greater than the value produced by my being permitted to continue.

Notice that “value” in this example (which is an extremely simplified stand-in for infinitely more complex transactions) is an economic, not an ethical word, or, rather, that in the neoliberal universe, ethics reduces to calculations of wealth and productivity. Notice too that if you and I proceed (as market ethics dictate) to work things out between us — to come to a private agreement — there will be no need for action by either the government or the courts, each of which is likely to muddy the waters (in which the fish will still be dying) by introducing distracting moral or philosophical concerns, sometimes referred to as “market distortions.”

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Mark Shea on the Fifth Commandment

2009-03-13T12:46:00.002-05:00

From here:

Another trick we often use to justify the taking of innocent human life is the Minimum Daily Adult Requirement approach to Catholic moral teaching. This involves that notion that the Ten Commandments describe the uppermost limits of human achievement. So, for instance, when a nation is in the grip of war fever (as ours was in 2003), just war requirements (which are intended to make it extremely difficult to go to war) get treated as a sort of imprimatur and blessing on war, instead of what they are: a set of hard-to-satisfy requirements that aim to fill us with very grave doubts about the wisdom of ever taking this horrible step.

Rather than seeing the just war requirement as a massive restraint intended to remind us of the gravity of war, we labor to jerry-rig arguments (often very specious ones) to show that just war requirements are "satisfied" -- and then, once we have skated past these, we go to war with alacrity and eat popcorn while boasting about the cool "shock and awe" visual effects on the nightly news. Those who are eager to go to war are fairly easy to spot: They tend to be itching to fudge the definitions, to claim that Special Circumstances make it okay to ignore this or that particular criterion, and to be quick to make much the same sort of appeals about the need to bring just war doctrine "up to date" as abortionists do when they talk about "updating" our definitions of "innocent," "human," and "life."

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

"The World will look up and shout 'Save us!' And I’ll whisper 'No.'"

2009-03-12T16:13:00.009-05:00

I first read Watchmen while in college, shortly after completing another graphic novel by Alan Moore entitled V for Vendetta. I was immediately drawn to its dystopia, initially because of the Nietzschian phase we all go through in college (or was that just me). As I have grown older, I am still a fan of Watchmen and I thought the film adaptation was a wonderfully precise piece of cinema that, frame by frame, captured the gritty essence of the story.

I find that essence to be simple: the superhero cannot save you. Watchmen restores the balance for me in dealing with the superhero phenomenon in American literature. I admit it: I normally have disdain for the superhero genre. The superhero serves as an all too human Savior who has the inner strength and the outer resiliency to face the greatest evil and conquer it. The romantic portrait of humanity makes me gag. I know! I know! I can hear the accusations already – I am revealing my closeted Jansenism. Well I say balderdash! The superhero, in his traditional portrayal, is an anti-Christ. Our human nature is generally corrupt, but not fundamentally corrupt, as the story goes. There is one man (or two or three men or women) who is capable of rising above, nay, conquering this human nature to combat the forces of evil. Is such a thing possible? Well, grace can surely perfect nature, but grace is non-existent in the superhero world. Christian themes are just not present.

And this is why I like Watchmen. Moore takes the genre to its natural end. The Watchmen form as masked vigilantes with the best of intentions, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with (besides the skulls of bishops). The demigod Doctor Manhattan resembles the nonchalant coldness of Zeus. Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II are adrenaline junkies rendered lifeless (both existentially and sexually) without “crime fighting.” Rorschach is a psychopath yearning for someone to compromise his inability to compromise (and gets his wish). And Ozymandias – well that one is obvious. The only vigilante both aware of his severely deformed character and even slightly remorseful at the end of his life is the Comedian.

It’s all a joke. Absolutely! Salvation of the world by power, murder, elitism and manipulation is very much a joke. This is the redeeming value I find in Watchmen. It is not nihilistic, but bleak and rightly so. It is an examination of our inability to save ourselves and a meditation on our willingness to accept the vilest of horrors in order to gain a little temporary safety.

Mason Slidell

Your Comments, With de Lubac as Model

2009-03-12T15:42:00.005-05:00

Well, again I am thankful for many of the comments sent. I know that at least some of us Jesuits have read them and welcome the transparency that they generate among ourselves and those who work with us and know us.

What I am doing in this post is putting together some of the more helpful comments that you sent so that they can be read all together. I want to begin with an e-mail I received and have permission to post here in part. This is from a Jesuit Father in the Philippines, and I was profoundly moved by his e-mail. He informed me first that he knew Fr. de Lubac from his time in Paris, and so I asked him to relate some of his stories from the last days of de Lubac. As you all may know, for both Mason and myself, de Lubac is a model and example of what it means to be a good priest and academic. This e-mail puts us in a position I think to look very seriously at the question of reform and what it means to be a holy priest of God. Thanks to the Jesuit who sent this to me:

Be very demanding with yourself for your intellectual (and spiritual) formation. The Church needs very well trained priests because the secular world is very serious about the formation given to all professions. Read by yourself, it is the best way, since many courses are not consistent or orthodox.

Father de Lubac was indeed a very humble and wonderful man. I started to visit him when I was a young philosophy student at La Sorbonne. At the time, he was not cardinal and had been put aside by the French jesuits who were so liberal, because he was critical about the way the clergy was using wrongly Vatican II to cover up their infidelities. For many years I visited him at least once a week. One of the most touching and impressive memories is when I publicaly defended my doctoral dissertation at La Sorbonne in 1981, just before entering the novitiate. I had informed him about it but I was not expecting him to attend. The defense is a difficult moment, lasting for several hours, under the fire of an agressive jury of professors. It is part of the game. The room was packed. Father de Lubac, suddenly , made his entrance, being late. He was very well known and it impressed the jury in my favour! Such a kind and friendly gesture from this old father, just to show his support to the young lay man I was.

I was not able to attend the ceremony when he was created cardinal since I was a scholastic in the US. For my ordination as a priest, he would have liked to be present, in France, but he just had a stroke from which he never recovered. Little by little he lost his ability to write and to speak. Terrible trial for such a man.

And then, I accompanied him during his last days on earth. He was staying at the Little Sisters of the Poor in Paris. I was a young priest, teaching philosophy at the Seminary of Paray le Monial. When his secretary told me it was the end, I went to Paris to stay with him. He died so peacefully, so well prepared. The funeral was beautiful at Notre Dame, presided by Cardinal Lustiger. He was buried in one of the Jesuit tombs in one of the cemeteries of Paris, near his good friend Cardinal Danielou SJ. I received many items from him after his death : his latin breviary (the one I am using every day), his latin Missal ( I use it to celebrate Holy Mass), his red baretta... I lost a real father. It was one of the greatest friendships I ever experienced in my life. The superiors disliked the fact I was closed to him but it did not, does not affect me. It was such a grace to be close to him.

Real friendship, the one in which you can share your very soul, your spiritual and intellectual interests, is very precious and it can be a gift you will find in the Society of Jesus. I pray that you will have such a grace.

This sent chills down my spine when I first read it. I do have real friendship in the Society, and it is a tremendous gift. But I have also had the very similar experience of being with a close Jesuit friend and mentor, Fr. Rick Thomas, as he was approaching death. The opportunity for us to be taught by our elders in the Society is tremendous. To be that close to such a holy man (de Lubac), a man who was silenced by the Church for a time before he was reinstated as one of the preeminent theologians at Vatican II, what a gift. This was the man who wrote "The Splendor of the Church" while he was silenced. Such an attitude of obedience is something I believe the Jesuits must return to.

Yet let us not forget that first he was silenced. De Lubac was not afraid to do theology, to pursue the truth even when it got him into trouble. These are the "frontiers" that Benedict XVI referred to. Many Jesuits at that time: Danielou, de Lubac, both Rahners, Lonergan, von Balthasar, often vehemently disagreed with one another. Yet at what other time since our founding have we had such intellectual powerhouses? And at what other time have we done such good for the Church, in large part responsible for the aggiornamento of Vatican II. There was a Spirit at work there that was not afraid of disagreement, yet (at least in the case of de Lubac) was willing also to listen to the cautionary words of the Holy Father, even when it was clear that various forms of politics were at play. Such is the human and divine aspect of the Church, the paradox, that he wrote so often about.

Now, to some of your comments:

Let me start with the positive: most Jesuits are not the ideologues that the majority of orthodox Catholics think. Most seem to be fairly middle of the road men, who are happily Catholic, but maybe a little lukewarm. Others, those in love with the Exercises and who promote Ignatian spirituality, are on fire. It's contagious. I mean here Ignatian spirituality in the original sense, ie not reducing the examen to my day's "high and low.

Jesuits are painted in a number of ways, and often it is the most well known ones who give us our reputation, for good or bad. Sadly, this ignores the incredible number of men in this very large order who are serving Christ humbly and faithfully.

Most Jesuits I know do not celebrate Mass daily. They attend one, without even concelebrating. In the biographies of saints, many times it stresses the fact that out of his great devotion he celebrated Mass daily.

I think if the Jesuits put Christ and Eucharist back at the center of things, the rest will follow.

The Mass; the Eucharist. These must be the center of our lives. No one questions that, I don't think. It is a matter of following and applying.

Don't water things down..speak the TRUTH! America makes excuses all the time for behavior...enough! Jesuits are so well educated and are so equipped to teach on Catholic teachings, scripture, etc. To whom much has been given, much will be expected.

We are well equipped, but I think this comment raises a good point. Unfortunately, sometimes this education is used to deconstruct belief rather than to build it up, especially in our institutions of higher education. Deconstruction is at the service of belief, in order to strengthen belief, not to render the poor student with nothing to fall back upon. We can advocate searching in our classrooms without destroying the foundations of faith.

What I think the Jesuits need is a return to the roots of the order, a simplification and a revitalization.

For too many liturgical abuse, decent from church teaching, hostility to the Church and the hierarchy is the norm rather then the exception. Now I am not saying the society as a whole is like this.

Liturgical abuse is rather prevalent in the Society. This was a frequent comment, and the fact that it is widespread is no secret. Without being liturgical nazis, it is important for many Jesuits to realize that most people, at least young people, are not going to mass for a performance. The personality of the priest is not important. Before the reforms in the liturgy, who ever heard of going to this mass or that mass because of the personality of the priest? The liturgy has its own rhythm to it, and that rhythm should drive the priest, not the priest the rhythm.

Sadly, the attitude of hostility toward the hierarchy is also found in the Society. But I do believe that dialogue is possible without dissent, and many of you point to this need in the Jesuits. We must stop appearing as a rival magisterium, and more as an Order of service to the mission of the Church.

From my own experience: most Jesuits are straight and usually we are too busy being Jesuits to be having long discussions of what people's sexual preferences are. The focus on this issue doesn't relate to my lived experience.

Enough of the silliness about the "gay mafia" running the Jesuits. Let's get on with the work of the Gospel.

Later, although I did not believe in Christ, I picked up a used copy of Ignatius exercises to give to my mother given that it accorded with her beliefs. Yet I was compelled to read it. Could not wait to get home. It was then, when I opned it and started reading, that Christ unequivocably manifested himself. I was not expecting this.

The Spiritual Exercises are the heart and soul of the Jesuits. Proficiency by each and every Jesuit in offering the spirituality of the Exercises is a must.

Jesuit bashing is often a favourite pasttime of some diocesan seminarians and priests. It is unfortuate, precisely because there are just so many good Jesuits.

Please, all you diocesan seminarians out there. I know you love bashing Jesuits. But please, keep it good humored. Otherwise people believe you and think we are evil. Let's work together to humbly build up the Church. I don't mind good-humored bashing, but much that I got at Steubenville and now from diocesan seminarians is not good-humored.

For the new Jesuits, the best thing that you can do for your community and the church is to perservere, striving to be the best Jesuit you possibly can be.

Amen.

Once upon a time, the “learned clergy” was a cornerstone of the Church and could be found throughout the US. Nowadays because of the crunch to get priests into parishes, if a bishop can afford to send his priests for anything beyond the M.Div. (a professional degree, not an academic one), he sends his brightest to get canon law degrees (likewise professional and not intellectual) so that they can serve on tribunals. I don’t mean to cast aspersions on congregations or dioceses, I just mean to highlight an important commitment that the Society of Jesus.

Ditto.

I’ve been disheartened too many times by Jesuits who dabble in this and dabble in that and who developed a kind of entitlement about what they deserve and what they ought to be allowed to do. This sense of entitlement comes off very poorly among lay people who don’t have the straightforward resources like money and time at their disposal the way Jesuits do.

Self-entitlement is a great problem among those who consider themselves elite, and sadly, that spirit is still found in the ranks of Jesuits, especially toward the hierarchy. Many of you mentioned this as well. We must be the humble, poor men that the Exercises call us to be.

I think the Jesuits need to reform in the same way the Redemptorist (my Congregation) and many others need to reform: by returning to our charisms as expressed by our founders in our individual original rules. We were all founded for a particular reason and we fulfilled that reason, more or less, until the chaos of the 60's of which the changes in the Church are only a part.

Let's get to our task of combatting atheism and building bridges of dialogue around the world.

There is a culture of abuse in our Church, and by that I don't just mean 'only' sexual abuse. It comes from the left and the right, takes on various forms and postures and infects from many sides, attacks the Spirit, attempts to fragment and push Christians and non Christians away from Jesus Christ.

This culture of abuse, from both the Left and the Right, results in a lot of hard feelings among Catholics. Just as Republicans and Democrats are increasingly forming into ghettoes around the U.S., so too Catholics. Less and less I feel are people who disagree talking with one another about their differences, accepting criticism, and trying hard to enter into the perspective, the skin, of the other, as Atticus tells us in "To Kill a Mockingbird." With this attitude, the Church will remain visibly fragmented, even if ontologically One.

Not only the Jesuits need to return to the personal encounter with Christ in the Eucharist and to approach Him with absolute humility, sincerity and the willingness to place Him and the ALL of the mandates of his gospel above all things, if we are to remain the salt of the earth.

Jesuits are great when the faith is strong and they have a legitimate target to attack. But like any great weapon if they develop a fault in their guidance system they can be incredibly self-destructive. In my opinion their greatest fault lies in their unwillingness to take criticism and criticise each other.

Our target is not one another or certain kinds of Catholics. Our target is not human persons, but rather one person, the devil and his angels, and the ideas they disseminate.

In my part of the world, at times the Jesuits appeared to be more interested in creating assembly lines for the production of a Catholic middle class than in the salvation of their charges. Never mind the heavy stuff like the mystical nature of the Eucharist; the basics like knowing the difference between right and wrong seemed less valuable than being proficient in the game of Rugby Union. As Chesterton wrote, we Christians have known all along that a duke might be damned - at times, it felt as if you would be damned if you didn't achieve good exam results, or perform well in the Glasgow University Bursary Competition. This was the priority.

This is another criticism I have heard from many corners. It is not always justified, but may often be. There is a great story told about Father Rick Thomas when he was a Regent. He took one of his classes of students to the race track to look at how the race horses were cared for. They had their stables cleaned out several times daily, were groomed regularly, and extremely well fed. Then he took them to some projects to see how people there lived. The lesson was not lost. With that kind of education we can't go wrong. At least if we keep churning out lawyers and doctors, they will have the option for the poor at heart.

I think that the Jesuits are victims of a dissonance (largely of their own making) between public expectations and the reality of their vocations. To many American Catholics, even (or perhaps particularly) among those with no personal experience with members of the order, the perception of the Society of Jesus is still that of an elite cadre, the "Navy Seals" of the religious. They train for decades to become black belts in theology, philosophy, and science; they have profound mystical insights derived from intense spiritual exercises; they mold children into men; and they are zealous in their defense of Mother Church. Of course, even the most casual acquaintance of an actual Jesuit priest knows that this is a grossly inadequate caricature.

We are just men trying to serve Christ according to our charism. At this time, there is still a lot of recovery taking place. But the above comment is a common experience that many Jesuits resent and others foster.

So, the crisis is not one of the Jesuits failing absolutely at their mission -- although the astute comments here reveal places where improvements can be made. If the church is semper reformanda, then so are the orders of religious.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Economics Benedict Style

2009-03-07T13:21:00.006-06:00

If you have not read this, you need to read it. We have long anticipated Benedict's new social encyclical, and unfortunately, it has been postponed again. But maybe some of the nuggets have been leaked out in a recent dialogue that took place on February 26. Here it is (along with my interruptions).

Pope Benedict’s response to Fr. Giampero Ialongo during a talk with the priests of the Diocese of Rome in Vatican City, February 26, 2009:

[...] I would distinguish two levels. The first is the macroeconomic, which realizes itself and reaches the last citizen, who feels the effects of a mistaken construction. Naturally, it is the duty of the Church to denounce this. As you know, for a long time we have been preparing an encyclical on these points. And on the long road I see how difficult it is to speak with competence, but if it is not undertaken with competence, a certain [assessment of] economic reality cannot be credible. And on the other hand, it is also necessary to speak with a great ethical awareness, let’s say [one] created and awoken by a conscience formed by the Gospel. So there is a need to denounce these fundamental errors that are now shown in the fall of large American banks, basic errors. In the end, it is human greed as a sin, or, as the Letter to Colossians says, greed as idolatry. We must denounce this idolatry that is against the true God, and the falsification of the image of God as another God, “mammon.” We have to do it with courage but also with concreteness. Because great moralism does not help if it is not based on an understanding of realities, which helps also to understand what can be done concretely to change the situation. And naturally, to be able to do this, the knowledge of this truth and the good will of all are necessary.

The Pope raises a strong challenge to those who would attempt to fix the current economic problem. It will not be easy, and the tools required by the physicians must be more than just economic theory. First, an awareness that maybe there are fundamental flaws in the whole construct. Second, economic competence. Third, great ethical awareness. A truly formed conscience with great ethical sensitivity. Fourth, knowledge of truth and good will. Not an easy set of qualities to find in many people.

Here we are at a crucial point: does original sin really exist? If it doesn’t, we can make an appeal to clear reason, with arguments that are accessible and incontestable to each, and to the good will that exists in everyone. In this simple way we can progress well and reform humanity. But it is not so: reason — even ours — is darkened; we see this everyday. Because egoism, the root of greed, is to want the whole world for myself. It exists in all of us. This is the darkening of reason: it can be very learned, with beautiful scientific arguments, and it can even be darkened by false premises. So it goes with great intelligence and with great steps forward along mistaken roads. We can also say that the will is bent, as the Fathers say: it is not simply ready to do the good but seeks itself above all or the good of its own group. So to actually find the road of reason, of true reason, is not an easy thing; it develops itself in a dialogue. Without the light of faith, which enters in the darkness of original sin, reason cannot progress. But faith meets the resistance of our will, which doesn’t want to see the road that is also a road of renunciation of itself and a correction of the will in favor of the other and not for itself.

This paragraph is the heart of the matter. We cannot, says Benedict, "make an appeal to clear reason, with arguments that are accessible and incontestable to each." What? Is this the Pope of the Regensburg lecture? Yes, but remember, a very balanced and brilliant Pope. When speaking to Islam, Benedict emphasized the importance of reason in the pursuit of truth. Indeed, there is no such thing as faith without reason, since it is reason itself that gives assent to the propositions of faith based upon certain premises (historical, cultural, familial, etc), whether or not Islam will admit to this.

But there is also, according to Benedict, no reason without faith. Every act of reason is a decision made a.) with insufficient knowledge, since we are beings limited by space and time, and b.) by an act of interpretation of the meaning of various pieces of information data, and c.) dependent, in the situation of the human social condition, on the testimony of others. This last one is the most important one. All human reason is based on testimony, which colors every act of reason that we make. And so, reason does not have a firm foundation of its own. Human reason is finite and culturally conditioned. And even worse, it is clouded by Original Sin.

So, just as Benedict spoke to Islam about the need for Reason, he speaks to Economists and proponents of various forms of Globalization; to Neo-Conservatives and to those who still believe that history has come to an end; to all Neo-Hegelian Rationalists: "In this simple way we can progress well and reform humanity. But it is not so." Sadly, it is not so. Or else we have no need for a Savior. "Because egoism, the root of greed, is to want the whole world for myself." Aristotle already told us as much: "the soul is, in a sense, all things." The soul, in an act of knowledge, takes in the universal form of a thing, and thus becomes all things. Does this then mean that God gave us an imperfect spiritual and intellectual structure to work with? No.

What happened was a reversal. The body is taught to absorb all things to itself. This is how it preserves itself in existence. It takes other material things, and it turns them into itself. But Reason in the soul is to turn itself into other things. It is to become all things, not absorb all things into itself. That would be Kantian reason: to create all things into the image and likeness of my mental categories. But the Thomistic model is for the mind to become all things. Because of Original Sin, the proper activity of the mind, to essentially be an inbuilt tool of Solidarity, has instead been usurped by the the lower part of the person (by the material rather than the personal), and turned into an instrument of absorption. And because the Will is also darkened, it can do nothing to direct Reason away from attempting to control all things, absorb all things. "It can be very learned, ... and be darkened by false premises." Left to itself, Reason does not know where to begin. Reason cannot simply know the Truth.

"We can also say that the will is bent, as the Fathers say: it is not simply ready to do the good but seeks itself above all or the good of its own group. So to actually find the road of reason, of true reason, is not an easy thing; it develops itself in a dialogue. Without the light of faith, which enters in the darkness of original sin, reason cannot progress." The Will seeks the good of its own group. Evolution requires it to be so. And so the soul, created directly by God, gets usurped into the evolutionary model when Original Sin comes along. To find the role of Reason, then, paradoxically requires dialogue and Faith. Reason cannot begin reflection by sitting in front of a fire (unfortunately), Cartesian style. Philosophy is not a solipsistic enterprise. Kant never traveled more than 60 miles from his home his whole life. And it is reflected in his philosophy. The fact that Descartes developed his philosophy while sitting alone is also reflected in his thought. Without dialogue, truth cannot be found. Reason is too limited. Faith, paradoxically in our world, opens Reason up to become all things by alerting it to its universal pretensions, not to absorb all, but to become all. The act of understanding is an act of service, not an act of domination. True Reason must be cruciform, stretching out its arms to enfold the whole world. A true act of Reason is, as Paul says, to become "all things to all men." Faith also meets the resistance of the Will, and helps it to see the Good which it seeks as outside of its own group and its own selfish desires and as residing in the good of the other, and the Other, as a whole.

So I would say that we need the reasonable and reasoned denunciation of errors, not with great moralism, but with concrete reasons that are understandable in the world of today’s economy. The denunciation of these errors is important; it has always been a mandate for the Church. We know that in the new situation created by the industrial world, Catholic social doctrine, beginning with Leo XIII, seeks to make these denunciations — and not only denunciations, which are not sufficient — but also to show the difficult roads where, step by step, the assent of reason, the assent of the will, together with the correction of my conscience, the will to renounce in a certain sense myself in order to collaborate with the true meaning of human life and humanity, are required.

Economists must take up their crosses as well.

Having said this, the Church always has the duty to be vigilant, to search with all its might to discover what is the reason of the economic world, to enter into this reasoning and illuminate it with faith which liberates us from the egoism of original sin. It is the duty of the Church to enter into this discernment, into this reasoning, to make itself heard — also at different national and international levels — in order to help and correct. And this is not easy work, because many personal and national group interests oppose a radical correction. Maybe it is pessimism but it seems realistic to me: so long as there is original sin we will never arrive at a radical and total correction. Still we must do everything toward at least provisional corrections, enough to let humanity live and to block the domination of egoism, which presents itself under the pretenses of science and the national and international economy.

Sure, I don't think the Pope is going to come out and say: "Listen, an economic model that is no longer wedded to self-interest and the profit motive is one that I advocate." Most Catholic economists would become atheists. As would most Catholic businessmen. However, to likewise claim that the Pope has no problem with an economics of enlightened self-interest, but only with greed, is naive and a misreading. This is a common claim of the Theo-Conservatives. But Benedict makes it clear here that he is looking for a "radical correction" of a "mistaken construction" as he says in the first line of the response, provisional as this correction may always have to be. This correction must "block the domination of egoism," which is stimulated, as he has already said, by Reason under Original Sin. Let us get this straight. Under Original Sin: Reason = Ego = Greed = Domination = Pretense (at the service of manipulation by the most powerful). I don't see how we can avoid this reading of Benedict here. Therefore, "enlightened self-interest" (read: "rational" self-interest) is masked egoism under Original Sin. Authentic solidarity will have no place in this model; only absorption to the ego. And since relationships are never devoid of power dynamics, self-interest is all about manipulation of the other. Such is the Gift-Structure of humans under Sin. It becomes an Absorption-Structure. Pseudo-Dionysusian self-difussion loses out. The formula must instead be: faithful self-interest (with the interest of the truly rational self being the interest of the whole, since this is the ultimate goal of reason). Only a cruciform economics will acknowledge that power distorts the equality of the self-interested market and will never allow it to be truly Free.

This is the first level. The other is to be realists. And to see that these great objectives of marcoscience are not realized in microscience — marcoeconomics in microeconomics — without the conversion of hearts. If there are no just people, there is no justice. We must accept this. So education in justice is a priority, we can also say the priority. Because St. Paul says that justification is the effect of the work of Christ, it is not an abstract concept, regarding sins that do not interest us today, but it refers to justice as a whole. Only God can give us it, but He gives it with our cooperation at different levels, at all possible levels.

So the Jesuits have the right idea at least. We need a faith that does justice, and teaches others to do so. But there is only one person that did justice, and that person was Christ.

Justice cannot be created in the world solely with good economic models, which are necessary. Justice is realized only if there are just people. And there are no just people if there is no humble, daily work that changes hearts and that creates justice in hearts. Only like this is corrective justice spread. Therefore the work of the parish priest is so fundamental, not only for the parish, but also for humanity. Because if there are no just people, as I said, justice remains abstract. And good structures will not be realized if justice is opposed by the egoism of competent people.

Our humble, daily work is fundamental to achieve the great objectives of humanity. And we must work together at all levels. The universal Church must denounce, but also announce what can be done and how it can be done. Episcopal conferences and bishops must act. But all of us must educate in justice. It seems to me that the dialogue of Abraham and God (Genesis 18:22-33) is still true and realistic today, when the former says: Would you really destroy the city? Maybe there are 50 just people, maybe ten just people. And ten people are enough to save the city. Now, if there are not ten, even with all the economic doctrines, society will not survive. So we must do what is necessary to educate and guarantee at least ten just people, but if possible many more. With our call we can make it so that there are ten just people and that justice is truly present in the world.

"Now if there are not ten [just people], even with all the economic doctrines, society will not survive." Wow, I can't say I've read a one-liner that hit me like that in a while. Who but Benedict can take the story of Abraham's dialogue with God and apply it to contemporary global economics? That is good biblical scholarship. And, he returns us to that word again: Dialogue. Reason is non-existent without dialogue. But so is Faith. Faith requires dialogue with God and others, but especially continual dialogue with God in a conversation that constantly threatens our presumptions about his will. We usually call this prayer.

In effect, the two levels are inseparable. If, on one hand, we do not call for macro-justice, the micro does not grow. But, on the other, if we do not perform the very humble work of micro-justice, the macro also does not grow. And always, as I said in my first encyclical, with all systems that can grow in the world, beyond the justice that we seek, charity remains necessary. To open hearts to justice and charity is to educate in the faith, it is to lead to God.

Amen.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Thanks

2009-03-06T18:56:00.003-06:00

By the way, I just wanted to thank all of you who commented on the need for Jesuit renewal and what forms it should take. I asked the question for very selfish reasons: because I wanted to know how I need to change in order to meet the needs of God's people. Nothing quite like having someone else tell you about yourself as a great way to learn a lot at least about how you come across. And Jesuits don't always come across very well.

I also think that all the other Jesuits who read this were probably both somewhat chastened, like myself, by your comments, and also heartened by your encouragement. We are trying to reform. I know this to be true from many many conversations. But we want to do it right, not accepting a shortcut as the real deal. The dangers of doing that are apparent in all simple solutions to complicated questions. Nor is an enforced external uniformity usually the best way to do things. Our uniformity should come, not from ourselves, but from the mission given to us by the one we serve. So thanks for the patience.

On the subject of the undivided heart, we have occasion to reflect and be afraid. The undivided heart is a good thing, as long as you love somebody. In fact, a divided heart that loves someone is better than an undivided heart that loves nobody – the latter would actually be undivided egoism. It would mean having one’s heart full, but with the most corrupting thing there is: oneself. Of this type of virgin and celibate, unfortunately none too rare, Charles Peguy has rightly said: ‘Because they do not belong to someone else, they think they belong to God. Because they love no one else, they think that they love God.

Raniero Cantalamessa, OFM Cap, in "Virginity"

Nope, we're always serving someone. And too often we believe we belong to Christ, when we actually belong to "academia" or "the cause of justice" or "orthodoxy." None of those are people. And part of the problem is that the post-modern world has had as devastating an effect upon Jesuits as upon everyone else. The Order fragmented. But the best hope for the Jesuits is not a re-integration through external compulsion -- though correction from Rome is fine, of course. Lasting change will come simply by belonging to God again, and to nothing else. At the heart of Ignatian spirituality is freedom from all attachments. ALL attachments. To belong to God. So thanks for your help in pointing this out to us. I suppose I should move on to new topics now. Poor Mason has had to put up with my Jesuitical diatribes.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

"Three Jesuits Speak"

2009-03-06T18:48:00.004-06:00

I think I may have mentioned somewhere before that "Three Jesuits Speak" by de Lubac is one of my all time favorite spiritual works. Maybe I just read it at a good time, but every time I return to it, it continues to offer depths of insight that particularly help me affectively, opening my heart to new desires. The following long quote is, I think, a good explanation of the whole point of the Spiritual Exercises, as well as the whole goal of the spiritual life, and definitely the goal of Lent. Maybe it will help you.

“Oh my dear friend, I want to give myself to you in a personal way, I want to enrich you, though I am myself so poor, with what is most truly, most inherently myself. It is not my body that I want to surrender to you but rather my soul. But here is an insuperable problem here: I am irremediably walled up in myself: How could the two of us ever be able to say ‘I’ together? Tell me, are we not spiritually imprisoned? Nevertheless, I want to escape into you. My only way to escape is to take possession of what can be possessed in you. I assume your gestures, your expressions, your voice and make them my gestures, my expressions, my voice. I assume your knowledge, what you have read and experienced, your struggles, your falls; I make them my own. And if I delve into your nature like this, my dear friend, as one digs down into a mountain, it is not through covetousness, nor is it because I want to take possession of what I find or to assimilate you into myself. Rather, I am looking for a passageway. I am digging a trench. Please try to understand what I am doing by the very direction my efforts take. I am going from superficial skin into the depths of your soul. If I therefore try to assume your gestures, for example, it is because I really want to reach your heart. And I want to possess you heart in order to take the measure of your desires. And I want to possess your desires only in order to reach you will. And I want to possess your will only in order to reach the source, your freedom, in other words, your person, hidden there at the source. My dear friend, if ever I should succeed in this, if ever I should touch you, bring me into yourself!” Charles Nicolet, SJ, quoted in "Three Jesuits Speak" by Henri de Lubac

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

2009-03-06T11:33:00.003-06:00

The film adaptation of Watchmen is finally here! The reviews are mixed, but Roger Ebert dug it, so I am all in.

Mason Slidell

So, In Your Opinion, What Reform do the Jesuits Need?

2009-02-27T13:58:00.005-06:00

So, what do you think that Jesuits need to change? What kind of reform do we need? Please, readers, weigh in. I would like to hear from you, at the beginning of this Lent, what you think is the primary kind of renewal that we need. I have often been curious about how outsiders view us. Positions are often so extreme -- intense love and intense hatred. So I thought this would be a beneficial activity for us. Please offer your experiences and observations in the comment box. Thanks.

Dumpsters Within

I don't like to look inside.

Too many open garbage cans,

lids off, and trash spilled around.

And scrawny dogs with fevered yellow eyes

scratching through the things that were my life.

And dumpsters iron-strong, pushed up against

walls in alleys long since lost and darkened,

places where I used to curl up and sleep,

and forget I'd ever seen the light of day.

It hurts to look

within where there is now no place to dwell

except the dirty dumpsters of the past.

And a heart all but strangled that has forgotten

blood that once flowed freely from pierced head

and reddened beams upholding hands that die

and spread stretched out against a darkened sky.

(Another old college poem)

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Jesuits, Legionaries, and Reform

2009-02-27T13:27:00.004-06:00

As I was browsing around the other day, I came upon this post here:

Something weird is happening. I keep hearing about the Jesuits. And it’s from completely random, completely unconnected sources. It started about a month ago I think, and has gradually picked up steam until this past week, when I started noticing like maybe 3-4 mentions of Jesuits per day. A lot of them are really weird. I’ve found quotes about how Hitler idealized them. I’ve found quotes about their complicity with the Croatian Nazi Ustasha faction (another word which has been coming up again and again). I’ve had people mention to me their Jesuit friend. I’ve had somebody ask me conspiratorially if I was an “ex-Jesuit.” Supposedly also the prophecies of Malachy may have been forged by them in the 1600’s.

So the question I’d like to put before you all now is: What the hell is up with the Jesuits? I know very little about them, but I suspect that I ought to start finding out. Something doesn’t pop up that many times in such a freakin’ short span of time without there being a tremendously good reason.

The author asks a good questions, especially in the current climate. As I mentioned in a post earlier, because the Legionaries of Christ were often called the "New Jesuits," the fact that they are now receiving so much press means, interestingly enough, that the Jesuits are also getting a lot of press. People want to know, who is this group that they were supposedly modeled on? And with that comes a certain amount of ridicule. For instance, a comment a few weeks ago on this blog read:

You are a Jesuit for crying out loud. Your universities are the richest and most endowed in the world. The Jesuit residence at any school is a far cry from any option of the poor. You want a broken body, go live with some homeless guy that has been hit by a truck, now that is real blood and real body.....

I had written about simplicity of life, and this was the (legitimate?) response. This should not be a time for Jesuits to begin gloating about what they have, taking the demise of the Legionaries as some kind of proof of the legitimacy of their own lifestyles. Rather, especially with Lent coming on, this should be a time of serious introspection. If the Legionaries of Christ need transparency and introspection to mark the next years of their existence, then so also do we.

I remember before I entered the Jesuits having a conversation with Fr. Benedict Groeschel. He was on the board of directors of Franciscan University of Steubenville, and I chatted with him briefly after attending a meal with the board members. When I told him that I was joining the Jesuits, he looked at me squarely, and said very seriously: "Don't join the Jesuits. You'll lose your vocation." He went on to inform me that there were only a couple of good Jesuits left -- men such as Fr. Fessio and Fr. Pacwa -- and that the rest were going to hell in a hand basket. I tried to convince him otherwise, to no effect. He is a firm believer in new groups in the Church, in renewal groups such as the CFR's and, possibly, the Legion, who would do the primary work of renewing the Church. And I did visit many of these groups. I stayed with the CFR's in the Bronx and with the Companions of the Cross in Ottawa, to name a couple.

But what is it that makes so many people count the Jesuits out? I think that I could introduce many friends of mine now who are Jesuits who might change Groeschel's mind. I think there is a tremendous renewal going on within the Jesuits, and renewal is something that must happen all the time, without stop in every group. At the time I chalked Groeschel's attitude up to the fact that he was a Franciscan; that this is how Franciscans do renewal: they split off. Jesuits do not operate this way, and John Paul II made that clear to a group of Jesuits who tried to do such a thing in Spain. But I think there is more than that. Many people -- primarily "conservatives" -- count the Jesuits out. We are done, beyond redemption. I have heard conservative traditional Catholics even declare that we should be suppressed again as we were from 1773-1814. What a sentiment!

And yet who am I to just write that sentiment off? What is it about us that many people find so deplorable, so in need of renewal? I have quite a few ideas, and I think many of them revolve around the question of the structure of our daily life. There is much we could change.

For a first example, Fr. Peter Hans Kolvenbach, the previous Superior General, asked that every formed Jesuit pray for and hour and a half a day. For me, that would work out to 20 minutes at mass in the morning; 30 minutes for my two daily examens (examinations of conscience that every Jesuit must do twice a day); 20 minutes for morning and evening prayer with the breviary, and then 20 minutes for a rosary. I do like breaking up prayer like that, since I am a firm believer (with Ignatius I think) that small segments of prayer throughout the day are better than one long hour of prayer. But for many, an hour and a half is almost nothing. It seems so short. And none of it is done in common in a Jesuit house. It is all done individually.

Is this really religious life? I think a lot of people doubt. And have for a long time. A Legionary would do a lot more prayer, they would say. He would keep a very strict structure. He would have a set time for prayer; exercise; mass; meals; spiritual reading; study. Yet this is not Jesuit life. I am sitting in a coffee shop right now with shorts on. Is this really religious life?

I do agree that many things need to be modified about our daily life, possibly to make it stricter. Though Ignatius often quoted that a truly mortified man does not need more than the examen as his prayer. But that just raises the question: how does one become truly mortified? Does one require the extreme forms of living of the CFR's and the Legionaries? They were certainly attractive to my romantic temperament when I was looking at groups.

For a second example, I think many of us Jesuits watch too much TV. Would a Legionary do that? Probably not. Could we cut out a lot to make more time for prayer? Yes. So I would recommend these two to ourselves as possibly ways of beginning renewal: increasing our prayer and cutting out television. These are two things I offer to my brother Jesuits. We are in desperate need of renewal. This is no time for us to gloat at the Legion. Instead, let us look deeply into ourselves and "rend our hearts, not our garments."

But I would also like to hear from you, the readers, about how you observe the Society of Jesus. This is how transparency works. The Legion was not able to self-criticize, and so this fed into their downfall. So I think for me, Lent would be much more beneficial if I can hear some criticism about the Jesuits from you. What do we need to change? How do we need to reform? This is what I will ask in the next post.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

My Brother's Reflections on Lent (Pretty Funny)

2009-02-26T11:07:00.002-06:00

Just wanted to point you all to some Lenten reflections my brother, a current senior at Gonzaga University in Spokane, wrote in his school paper, the Gonzaga Witness:

I remember the absolute worst lent of my life back when I was about 7 years old. Back then I owned 22 stuffed animals, all of which were named, had individual personalities, occupations, voices, friends and enemies. I guess I was what you could call a "special" child (and to be perfectly honest I was 18, not 8). Thinking about it now, it just occurred to me that maybe I was homeschooled not because of the way I would be influenced by un-Jesus loving kids, but because my parents were just embarrassed of me. In which case mom and dad had to deal with all kinds of embarrassment, because my two older brothers had more stuffed animals than I did.

I had a mountain lion named Simba who was enormous but was vegetarian and ate nothing but Caesar salads (I should really introduce him to Dorothy), and a panda bear who used to be a star soccer player, but was reinjured (code for leg came off) so many times that he was now washed up and extremely bitter. I also had a dog who was incredibly, incredibly stupid; his name was Clifford and he was my favorite. Somehow I also had a penguin named Banana. (OK, quick thought about the word banana: I absolutely hate spelling it because I'm never quite sure when to stop. Attempt #1 always looks like this: bananana, at which point Spell Check flips out. Attempt #2 will look something like this: bana. Thankfully, Gwen Stefani came on the scene with "Hollaback Girl" and has solved this problem forever. Unfortunately, humanity is left with bigger problems, like what the heck is a hollaback girl?)

To read the rest, go here. My only quibble is that Simba was actually my stuffed animal.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Island of the World

2009-02-26T10:50:00.003-06:00

I decided that I couldn't move on from Island of the World -- Michael O'Brien's most recent novel that I just finished -- without giving you a few quotes. As you know, I love quotes, and I'm saving the best for tomorrow, with some personal reflections to spark the beginning of lent. But first, a quote to justify my coffee addiction, on page 710:

He will leave in a moment, after just one more cuplet of coffee. Europeans know how to make it right! This is the best in the world, better than the specialty brands he experimented with in the delicatessens on Fifth Avenue. Europeans understand that flavor is not about sensory stimulation, it is about evocation. It is art and memory. It is reunion with exalted moments, and such moments are never solitary ones. In short, life without coffee is not really life.

Amen! Page 777:

It is essential to have nothing in order to keep the riches he has been given. Yes, he is rich -- he is a man who can distill sight and insight into bits of salvaged paper; he is a man who can enjoy taking the garbage down to the corner; he can chat with fishermen and carpenters and housewives, never as condescension but as the replenishment of his true self. Every day he can swim in the greatness of the ordinary. This is freedom, and he is very grateful for it. It is all good, just as it is.

Finally, from pages 789-790:

You would not hurt the tiniest sparrow -- not because you are a recidivist Hindu, but because you are so sensitive to death entering the world, and thus you do not wish to reduce the number of living symbols in our existential spectrum.... What am I saying to you? Perhaps it is only this: man does not look deeply at the world. He lives by habit and pleasure and impulse. He does not read the poetry in things. And so I say, if he must kill a creature, that is his right, but he should see its beauty before taking its life and understand its presence as language. Moreover, he must understand that blindness to the miraculousness of existence makes it easier for him to pull a trigger and end a human life. Do I exaggerate? We both know the 170 million answers to this.

About as eloquent an argument against hunting for pleasure as I've read in a while. I find that paragraph beautiful. Anyway, couldn't let Island of the World get away without some quotes. It was and excellent book. I still prefer Sophia House I think, and Cry of Stone, but I do think he becomes a better writer with every book. For you who have never read any of his novels, I would recommend them all.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

"It's About Human Dignity"

2009-02-25T20:43:00.004-06:00

Archbishop Edwin O'Brien of Baltimore is now going on the record discouraging his flock from involvement in the Legion of Christ or Regnum Christi. Here are a few key quotes from the Archbishop.

It seems to me and many others that this was a man [Father Marcial Maciel, L.C.] with entrepreneurial genius who, by systematic deception and duplicity, used our faith to manipulate others for his own selfish ends.

Finally someone has just said it! I have been less than satisfied with those who defend the Legion by saying that Father Maciel was just a troubled soul who lost his way. The evidence does not point to an otherwise holy man who went astray in the last years of his life. He was first investigated and temporarily removed as head of the Legion in 1956, with subsequent allegations coming in the '70s and '90s. As the public record on Father Maciel grows, it is a very sustainable conclusion that he was, from the beginning of public ministry, a charlatan.

While it's difficult to get ahold of official documents, it's clear that from the first moment a person joins the Legion, efforts seem to be made to program each one and to gain full control of his behavior, of all information he receives, of his thinking and emotions. This is not about orthodoxy. It is about respect for human dignity for each of its members.

For all charter members of Fortress Catholicism, please read the above quote again. It is wrong to use orthodoxy as a cover for totalitarian tendencies. “They love the Pope” should not be a justification for cult of personality. “They love the Blessed Mother” should not be a justification for psychological blackmail. “They hate the Buddy Jesus crowd” should not be a justification for vowed secrecy. We respect the life and dignity of the human person and must defend it from ALL attacks.

I hope more bishops will be buttressed by Archbishop O'Brien's words and take the necessary steps to combat these evil influences.

Mason Slidell

Only in the South

2009-02-24T14:54:00.004-06:00

Saw this while down on break in Alabama outside a Baptist church. Wish I could have heard that homily.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

The Nostos and the Corporation

2009-02-23T12:35:00.002-06:00

In his De Anima, Aristotle is unclear as to whether each individual human being has a single mind, or whether there is a world mind, or soul. The soul is spiritual, or immaterial, Aristotle almost reluctantly agrees, erring on the side of the empirical over the ethereal forms of his master, Plato. Yet he never makes it clear whether there is only one world soul, or many individual souls. In the 12th century, Averroes argues precisely to that conclusion.

Such a thesis is appears to be not untenable, given the way that American society exists, and now also many parts of the world, thanks in large part to globalization. Actually, it seems to me that the "free" market operates precisely under this assumption. Now let's be clear: there is a single human nature. This is an assumption of the free market as long as it plays to its benefit. But more important for the success of the current free market is that there is a single world soul, residing, however, external to the person. In other words, precisely the kind of soul that Judith Butler, following Foucault, describes in Bodies That Matter. Picking up on the fact that most modern individuals no longer have a nostos, a homecoming, as described in the early lines of the Odyssey, corporations have taken it upon themselves to go ahead and create this for us.

Let me explain. Free markets only work when a particular understanding of "freedom" is in place. This is primarily a negative conceptualization of human choice. Freedom is the ability to make a choice that advances one's own personal ends. There is no such thing as a primary End or Goal of human nature (hence the rejection of human nature), but only now and then aggregate individual ends that are the result of individuals grouping together. This being the case, each individual can simply choose what is offered from a list of options according to his own individual preferences. Such is the concept of the free market. No external coercion of choice = free market.

So what's the hitch. Well, when there is no ultimate goal of human nature, no primary End of human desire, desire is unfettered, unhitched, and so easily manipulated by the most powerful bidder. And so "free" markets become playpens for the libido dominandi of the strongest man.

And so we find in modern America. Corporations have become the enemy of the nostos. Since they don't want us to believe in a homecoming, a primary end of human desire, but rather intend to convince us through advertising what our true desires are, they play the role of Circes to perfection. We wake up from their clutches, only to realize that instead of five days, we have been in their arms for five years.

They are the World Soul.

They project, much like Plato's cave, our very selves onto a wall. We look at that wall, and actually take the shadow to be our image. And so the self is a constructed world soul, externally projected by corporations who have a vested image in the construction of consumers. The nostos never happens, and we become wanderers on the seas of consumerism.

The only safe boat is the Church. But how is this Church not just another manipulator, another power relation? It is a good question, especially when one has only to look around at many present day protestant megachurches to see the corporate image projected yet again even into spaces of worship. Everyone is looking for a homeland. It is not found within, since the inside has rotted out of the spiritual life. Dualism reigns supreme. American spiritual life is a Cartesian ghost in the machine. Except the ghost has long since gone, expired, since it was discovered that the pineal gland was not adequate to connect it to the body. Cast afloat, the soul and body are no longer one, and they drift apart. The ghost expires, and in its place is the corporate hologram of Starbucks, Barnes and Noble, or, less sinister, a megachurch, the projected unity that people are unable to find within themselves.

The problem with megachurches is that they too are projections, bearing too strongly the image of the culture they are meant to evangelize. No more ghosts in bodies. Just bodies. Descartes thus left a hollow space for corporations to fill, and they have, projecting holograms into the empty bodies, creating their own pineal glands, causally manipulating our choices of ends. With our personal desires unhitched, they project a soul onto the wall, and then funded advertising becomes the pineal gland. And our selves are externally created anew.

The Catholic Church alone can escape this mass projection only because of its Mass projection (pardon the terrible pun). It projects the true body of Christ, and that is the center of unity, the Eucharist held high, the body whose body we are members of. It alone can provide the end of our desires, thus shaping them according to itself, not as consuming beings, but as consumed beings, becoming the image of the love of him whom we consume.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ