The Vote In Opposition

I would encourage folks to take a look at the vote tally on the Wall Street bailout bill and skim through the "nay" votes. You will see Democrats and Republicans who are the most stringent in their respective ideological positions. Men and women who could not be more different - a Latte liberal from Thousand Oaks, California (Brad Sherman) and a Bible thumper from Dallas, Texas (Jeb Hensarling), a hippie college professor from Hawaii (Neil Abercrombie) and a Lutheran ladies gun league member from Minnesota (Michelle Bachmann), a Hispanic from the border (Henry Cuellar) and an African-American from the inner city (John Conyers), even a Libertarian-leaning OBGYN (Ron Paul) and a Socialist-leaning polka dancer (Dennis Kucinich).

What does this tell us? That good, old-fashioned populism still thrives among the poor and middle class of all ideological and ethnic backgrounds. Usually the financial barons hide quietly in the shadows, preferring the political focus to be on foreign entanglements and social mores. But every now and then, their greed reaches such a level of explosive irresponsibility that the people focus in with righteous indignation. God help the paper millionaires when the masses revolt.

Mason Slidell

One Vast Dishonorable Muddle

In light of the recent disaster in the stock market, I am reminded of Peter Maurin's oft-quoted phrase to the effect of "do not make money with money." Rather he would often remind people who would turn to him for counsel:

"Earn a living by the sweat of your own brow, not someone else's. Choose a work that can be considered honorable, and can be classed under the heading of a Work of Mercy, serving your brothers, not exploiting them. Mans work is as important to him as bread, and by it he gains his bread. And by it he gains too, because he serves his brother."

Maurin, as also Dorothy Day, was an avid reader of Chesterton, who wrote concerning usury and investments in stocks:

"As modern investments are made, almost anybody may have his money in some sense in an armament firm, or a business financing and assassination firm, for all the individual investor knows about it. Now this sort of anonymity and anarchy...is obviously nothing more than one vast dishonourable muddle."

What a great description for what we find ourselves in now.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

The Great American Debate Between The Living Dead

So, round one is over. I think these debates are, in so many ways, a waste of time. Questions from moderators who don't press the point. Scripted policy positions and one-liners. Men who stand formal and lifeless - as if they have no humanity left. The only reason I watched was to see if John McCain would have a senior moment or if Barack Obama would play the race card. Maybe next time.

But for those of us who engage in amateur political analysis, the debates do provide some insight to the psyche of these candidates. After all, there are only three times in the whole campaign in which they have to be on the same stage with each other. The pressure is no doubt intense as each man has to monitor his composure and responses, as well as attempt to rattle your opponent in a cool and collected manner.

I thought Obama came off stronger than McCain, mainly because Obama makes lifelessness look erudite. He proved he was just as informed as McCain on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Russia, which is big. McCain played the seasoned statesman well, but seemed a bit dated as he brought up as examples of his judgment during the Lebanese mission in 1982 and various quips about the Soviet Union, Gorbachev and Glasnost (pop quiz for the youngsters: what is glasnost?). On the whole, I thought it was a draw, which in this environment is a win for Obama. The first debate, however, is likely to be the least consequential of the three, so McCain will have another day.

Mason Slidell

A Further Look at Weigelian Politics

George Weigel is at his careful neoconservative politicking again:

Thoughtful Catholic voters will thus want both to pose serious questions to both the principal presidential candidates.

Of course his questions are typically Weigelian, using "Catholic" as a semantic code for having a neoconservative "pro-life" position. His questions to Obama show his disingenuousness:

QUESTIONS FOR SENATOR BARACK OBAMA:

1. Do you regret your vote against a partial-birth abortion ban when you were an Illinois state senator?

2. During your service in Springfield, you opposed a bill that would give legal protection to infants who survive an abortion. Was that a choice you would like to revisit? If so, why? If not, why not?

3. What precisely did you mean when you said you wouldn’t want one of your daughters “punished with a baby,” should they find themselves in the dilemma of unwanted pregnancy?

4. You have a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America. Is there any matter of public policy on which you and NARAL differ?

5. Would support for Roe v. Wade be a litmus test for candidates you would nominate to the Supreme Court?

Of course Obama is a pro-death candidate and I have no interest or intention in defending him in this matter. His position is indefensible. However, asking leading questions or already answered questions do not further the goal of actually getting to the heart of whether or not a candidate accepts parts of the complete Catholic social package or not. For instance, Obama has answered as to what he meant when he said one of his daughters should not be "punished with a baby."

The Obama campaign responded:

"What Senator Obama said and what he believes is clear -- children are "miracles," but we have a problem when so many children are having children. As Senator Obama said on Saturday -- and on many other occasions -- parents have a responsibility to teach their children about values and morals to help make sure they are not treating sex casually. And while he understands the passions on both sides of this difficult issue, Senator Obama believes we can all agree that we should be taking steps to reduce the number of teen pregnancies and abortions in this country."

So, Weigel, we have an answer. You don't have to believe Obama, but you have an answer. Just setting up questions like this is hardly good sportsmanship.

And what about for McCain? Weigel lobs "Catholic" softballs to him:

QUESTIONS FOR SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN:

1. You have a strong pro-life voting record during your congressional service, yet some pro-lifers are nervous about you. Why? Where do the life issues rank in your list of priorities for America’s future?

2. You and Mrs. McCain adopted an infant at the request of Mother Teresa; has that experience shaped your views on the life issues?

3. Would you favor Supreme Court nominees who believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided?

4. As you know, many pro-life groups opposed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, arguing that it unduly burdened issue advocacy organizations. Have you re-thought your approach to campaign finance reform in light of those criticisms?

Good Lord, why don't you just go to bed together. Why are some pro-lifers nervous? Well, that could be answered first my mentioning McCain's continued support for embryonic stem cell research, despite the tremendous advances in Induced Pluripotent stem cells that have come about. How about asking him about this statement:

When asked whether recent advances in nonembryonic stem cell research would change his stance, McCain replied, "I have not changed my position yet."

Ok, well then, when will you change your position? That is a good question Weigel. Then of course another softball in regards to his adoption. How about instead asking about his flip-flopping on the position of judges. In 1999 McCain seemed fairly ambiguous about his own position. McCain was quoted in the August 20, 1999, San Francisco Chronicle saying:

But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.

An August 25, 1999, Chronicle article noted that on August 23, "McCain's campaign released a clarification: 'I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as president, I would work toward its repeal.' " McCain's comments, according to the article, drew criticism from Republicans, who claimed McCain "appeared to be trying to please both sides on an issue that has been at the top of the political radar in California in recent elections."

On the June 19, 2005, broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, McCain took yet another position, claiming that he agreed "to some degree" that Roe v. Wade should be overturned:

So which is it? That would be a good questions Weigel: Do you or do you not, Mr. McCain, believe that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned.

Then of course, we have all the questions that Weigel as a neoconservative is not interested in asking. What about torture? What about American terrorism throughout the world? What about McCain's happy trigger finger? Actually, a great "pro-life" question would be:

Mr. McCain, when you sang the words "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to an old Beach Boys song, or when you joked that sending them cigarettes was a good way to kill Iranians, how exactly did this contribute to the culture of life that you propose to support?

Obama is slimy, and McCain is an outright liar. Let's make them both know that we are not satisfied with either of them, and that Faithful Citizenship is far from either of their agendas. Please Weigel, for once be fair. Maybe take your cue from Fr. John Kavanaugh, SJ this time, here and here. At least he's being an honest Catholic.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

I am regularly blown away by the number of people who have never heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. So today, after just one more person had never heard of it, it frustrated me enough to mention it here. Yes, it floats in the middle of the ocean, is twice the size of Texas, is basically an island, and is over 80% plastic. Read about it here:

In the broad expanse of the northern Pacific Ocean, there exists the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, a slowly moving, clockwise spiral of currents created by a high-pressure system of air currents. The area is an oceanic desert, filled with tiny phytoplankton but few big fish or mammals. Due to its lack of large fish and gentle breezes, fishermen and sailors rarely travel through the gyre. But the area is filled with something besides plankton: trash, millions of pounds of it, most of it plastic. It's the largest landfill in the world, and it floats in the middle of the ocean.

The gyre has actually given birth to two large masses of ever-accumulating trash, known as the Western and Eastern Pacific Garbage Patches, sometimes collectively called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. The Eastern Garbage Patch floats between Hawaii and California; scientists estimate its size as two times bigger than Texas [source: LA Times]. The Western Garbage Patch forms east of Japan and west of Hawaii. Each swirling mass of refuse is massive and collects trash from all over the world. The patches are connected by a thin 6,000-mile long current called the Subtropical Convergence Zone. Research flights showed that significant amounts of trash also accumulate in the Convergence Zone.

The garbage patches present numerous hazards to marine life, fishing and tourism. But before we discuss those, it's important to look at the role of plastic. Plastic constitutes 90 percent of all trash floating in the world's o ceans [source: LA Times]. The United Nations Environment Program estimated in 2006 that every square mile of ocean hosts 46,000 pieces of floating plastic [source: UN Environment Program]. In some areas, the amount of plastic outweighs the amount of plankton by a ratio of six to one. Of the more than 200 billion pounds of plastic the world produces each year, about 10 percent ends up in the ocean. Seventy percent of that eventually sinks, damaging life on the ocean floor. The rest floats; much of it ends up in gyres and the massive garbage patches that form there, with some plastic eventually washing up on a distant shore.

And no, no one is doing anything about it. Sadly, in our world, unless you have something to profit from it, or unless it begins to bother some really important person, things will remain as they are. Maybe just starting to recycle is not a bad idea. And start cutting back on non-organic materials, starting with plastic. Just a few starters.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Just a Regular Joe

I get asked a lot: "Well, if one can't vote for either of the major candidates based on their disagreements with Catholic moral and social teaching, who is there to vote for?" Just offering a possibility here so that people are aware that there are other options out there. Meet Joe Schriner:

Policies

Hispanic Immigration
~ amnesty for illegal immigrants and family reunification.
~ living wage, optimal working conditions, benefits, adequate housing for all new arrivals.
~ “temporary worker program,” with border check points, etc., for those who want to work here, but keep their citizenship south of the border
~ Help Latin America Drive! Mobilization of much more help (humanitarian aid, Peace Corps, Sister City projects) for countries south of the border to help them with sustainability. (Many people don’t want to leave country, family, culture… but their kids are hungry, or the political oppression has gotten to be too much)
~ Establishment of a “North American Union” (NAU) between Canada, the U.S., Mexico and Central America, similar to the evolving European Union (EU). This would be for the purpose of inspiring more joint environmental conservation projects, more joint business ventures, more tourism (especially eco-tourism) to help boost poorer economies, more cultural exchange and, most importantly, it would promote much more general camaraderie between nations

Healing the family
~set of multi-dimensional, community programs to foster and support emotional health
~”Healthy Community Projects” (like the model we researched in Glendive, Montana) in towns across America
~”Take A Stand for Kids” programs (like the one we researched on the Monterey Peninsula in California) in towns across America
~expanded and improved tiered systems of recovery options (state and federally funded) in each county
~establish “Collaborative Medical Models” (like the one we researched in Grand Junction, Colorado, at the Marrilac Clinic) that combines medical work with psycho-social assessments and referral
~regular classes (k-12) on the dynamics of healthy families
~regular parenting classes at a high school level

Agriculture
~ increase local food production for local consumption
~ ban health and eco-system damaging farm chemicals
~ increase organic growing significantly
~ create more farm labor jobs at “living wages"
~ convert to smaller farms and smaller farm technology
~ teach farming classes in country and city schools
~ heighten focus on farmland preservation
~ implement more “urban farming”
~ develop more permacultures, including on the White House grounds
~ phase out subsidies for “conventional farming” and redirect money toward more organic start-ups, farmland preservation and the development of more small, non-polluting farm implement technology
~ shift society back to an agrarian based one

Crime
~ More creative, and extensive, programs to curb alcohol and drug addiction (significant numbers (as much as 60%) of prisoners committed crimes under the influence)
~ Vast array of programs to end poverty
~ More "Community Oriented Policing" programs, and more Citizen Crime Prevention programs (Crime Alert, Crime Stoppers)
~ Peace time military to aid inner city police (in gang zones, etc.)
~ Increased focus on "Restorative Justice" prisoner rehabilitation, instead of 'dead-end' warehousing

U.S. Department of Peace
~Establish a cabinet-level U.S. Department of Peace
~Four year Peace Academy on a par with military academies
~Study panels to assess causes of: war, terrorism, inner city violence, domestic violence
~Commitment to worldwide social justice, public health, environmental sustainability
~Stepped up Peace Corps work
~Promotion of many collegiate level (and other) "Cross Cultural Emersion Experiences"
~"Adopt a Country" programs for students grades 7-12
~Bolster American Field Service; U.S. People Ambassadors, International Student Exchange
and similar existing peace-building programs
~Teach about non-violent direct actions and increase grassroots peacemaking efforts.
~Inspire multi-dimensional models to build much more peace in families, schools and on the
streets of America
~Lobby for a decrease in American offensive weapons (including nuclear weapons)

Military
~ adhere only to "just war" criteria.
~ Make military more field proficient and cost effective
~ U.S. takes the lead in nuclear disarmament.
~ More help for those who have served.

Energy Policy
~ Sign Kyoto Protocol, and spark a grassroots "Energy Reduction Movement" in America
~ Way more clean, renewable energy (solar, wind, wave action, "no" to nuclear)
~ More: clean biomass fuels, alternative vehicles, mass transportation, "Walkable Communities"

Native Americans
~ a heartfelt formal apology to Native Americans for past atrocities
~ Land give backs and Native American relocation moratorium
~Creative land give-backs (for instance, subsidies to help finance Native American land restoration projects like the White Earth Land Recovery Project in Minnesota)
~ Much improved healthcare and alcohol and drug treatment on the Reservations
~ More programs to reverse poverty and establish sustainability on the Reservations
~ Spark a nationwide “Native American Renaissance”
~ Native American Commission to revise history books
~ Many more grade school and high school classes on Native American history and culture
~ Collegiate level minors and majors in Native American Studies
~ National “Native American History Month”

Gotta love that part about adhering only to "just war" teaching. So no more saying there are only two options.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

McCain = Nixon

First, Sarah Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention was excellent. She was folksy and biting. She also took up with relish the traditional position of the Vice Presidential candidate as chief attack dog. She passed the first test, but now she has to match Joe Biden. That is no small task as Biden is both well informed and politically savvy. She will have to use the interim to prepare well. Stay tuned.

John McCain’s speech was good, one of the better speeches I have seen him give. His personal story as a POW in Hanoi is political gold, providing a tangible story of devotion to country and comrades-in-arms. He struck a note of conciliation and gracefulness, reaching out to moderate Democrats and Independents. He did not provide much in the way of policy, but understandably so, as the more he gets into issues, the more he looks like Bush III. He looked and sounded dignified and I think came off as someone who could be a sound administrator of the public trust.

He reminded me very much of Richard Nixon. Consider these two men in relation to the Republican party. Neither man was or is a GOP insider. Each was and is uncomfortable having to be tied to a party and the party was and is less than comfortable with their maverick sensibilities. An uneasy alliance was forged in both cases. Each man had and has supreme confidence in himself and simply desired and desires to be good governors remembered for their statecraft and willing to be accepted as mediocre politicians. The question remains: is McCain going to be Nixon ’60 or Nixon ’68.

Mason Slidell

"Where Monsters do Live"

Thought this description of a wild band of horsemen in Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian sounded a bit like the Society of Jesus:

For although each man among them was discrete unto himself, conjoined they made a thing that had not been before and in that communal soul were wastes hardly reckonable more than those whited regions on old maps where monsters do live and where there is nothing other of the known world save conjectural winds.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

The Subject, the Church, and The Pope as Existential Indubitable

Time to have some theological and philosophical fun with Henri de Lubac and Jean-Luc Marion.

The receptivity of the Church is a receptivity that reveals. It is in this sense that Henri de Lubac often speaks of her as the antitype of the Word and the Eucharist. She transcends them as the res ultima of which they speak. She is not the head. She is the body who speaks with Christ’s name and with Christ’s authority. Her nature as subject of divine revelation is only as the Gifted One, the subject that for Marion comes after the Transcendental Ego.

One of the fundamental projects of Jean-Luc Marion's Being Given is to relieve the subject of its status as self and to return this status to the phenomena that give. The self of phenomena is a self in a primary sense, while Marion will concede that the self of the receiving subject is a self only of “second rank, by derivation.” Christ is the head of his Church. He is the single transcendent self, pure givenness in the act of Revelation who gives himself from himself. All priority resides on the side of the selfhood of that which gives. The Gifted subject, on the other hand, had no existence of itself or from itself. The Gifted, the Called one, experiences itself always primarily as summoned. The Gifted or the Called is characterized by response and by surprise, or even by seduction. According to the hermeneutical circle within which the Gifted and Called always finds himself, the call is heard only by the receiver. The nature of the call is such that “it arises so originarily that no nearing can in advance outline a horizon of manifestation for it, since, as paradox (saturated phenomenon), it makes an exception to every possible horizon.” The Gifted is the horizon of visibility for the paradox that gives itself.

There is a necessary delay between the saturation of the paradox and the Gifted subject who receives and shows. This delay can never be entirely overcome until the eschaton because of the finitude of the subject who receives. There is never a full equating of the I = I that is the dream of transcendental philosophy. This is so since “its finitude essentially determines the gifted, it cannot by definition adequately receive the given such as it gives itself – namely without limit or reserve” until the eschatological fulfillment of the mystery of the Church. There will always be a certain delay, a distance within the very self of the I between the saturated phenomenon of Revelation that gives and the capacity of the Church to receive. The privileged status of the subject in the nominative is now designated to the dative, the “to me” rather than the nominative “I” that constitutes.

The selfhood of that which gives now has priority over the gifted who receives. Christ remains the true subject of his Revelation. Yet by means of his Revelation, he called into existence a secondary subject, a Gifted, who is the horizon of receptivity of that Revelation. The Church is the Flesh of reception, the “milieu of manifestation” of the pure givenness of Revelation. The Church, as the body of Christ, continues to say “I.” While the Church as the Gifted one is a “me of second rank, by derivation,” deprived of all transcendental status, for Marion the ego and so the Church “keeps, indeed, all the privileges of subjectivity, save the transcendental claim to origin.” She has no origin of herself; she is purely gifted. Yet, she continues to say “I,” and to speak thus in the name of Christ. As a person, she is a derived self, yet a self who mysteriously, like all human beings, can still speak a conscious, reflexive “I,” though only humbly, and relieved of transcendental status.

I propose that the capacity to say “I” is precisely the place of the Pope in the Church. The de-centered subject of Marion’s philosophy necessarily discovers a distance within itself that can never be completely covered. This distance is the bringing to full phenomenality of that which gives, a showing that is not fully possible for a finite, human, subject. Yet such a subject can still say “I.” The paradox of this statement is brought out clearly by Gabriel Marcel, upon whom Marion often implicitly relies. If there is any “touchstone” of existence, he says, a place to which one can go in order to ascertain one’s position on this trail of life, Marcel points to this as the “existential indubitable,” that single aspect that cannot be doubted. This is, he says, “myself, in so far as I feel sure that I exist.” Yet, one must be careful with this affirmation. “If,” cautions Marcel, “we are, as I think we are, in the presence here of a key datum… we should also acknowledge from the first that this datum is not transparent to itself; nothing could bear a smaller likeness to the transcendental ego.” There is no transparency in the ability to say “I.” It is a derived function, a gifted function, received from the Event and the Icon, within the Flesh, the milieu of manifestation, that is myself. Yet the Flesh gives to me an I that can say “I.”

This is the paradox of the role of the Pope. He says an “I” that has no self-substantiated or generated content, yet which paradoxically is the “existential indubitable” of the existence of the Church. Without this I the Church has no concrete existence as the visible body of Christ. And yet this I is empty and itself completely derived. For this reason, the Flesh that gives the I, though unable to say “I” with authority, maintains pre-eminence over the I that speaks itself. The emerging importance of the role of the sensus fidelium within the Church points to this absolute necessity and paradox. The Flesh is the I of the “I am,” yet the Pope alone has the authority to say “I” on behalf of the whole. Yet this I is not transparent and has content only by virtue of the Flesh that is the sensus fidelium. The Pope has the speaking role of the Gifted I, gifted with the authority it receives from its Flesh – the Church, given by the Event – Christ’s passion and resurrection – daily in the Icon – the Eucharist – to speak a de-centered and non-transparent, yet authoritative “I” on behalf of the whole Church. He is the “existential indubitable” of the third body – the Flesh of the Church – as it awaits the final closing of the gap of distance within itself in the eschatological coming of the full Christ.

(I screwed up footnotes, so they don't appear. If you want to know any of the citations, just ask me.)

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

The Hurricane

Before time runs out on this, a few thoughts on Gustav.

I couldn't help remembering as I hunkered down outside, evacuated from New Orleans, in my first hurricane, and awed by the flying branches and snapping trees, Benedict's words in Barangaroo, Australia:

What do we discover? Perhaps reluctantly we come to acknowledge that there are also scars which mark the surface of our earth: erosion, deforestation, the squandering of the world’s mineral and ocean resources in order to fuel an insatiable consumption. Some of you come from island nations whose very existence is threatened by rising water levels; others from nations suffering the effects of devastating drought. God’s wondrous creation is sometimes experienced as almost hostile to its stewards, even something dangerous. How can what is "good" appear so threatening?

The sentiments exactly, I imagine, of quite a few people here in God's beloved South. Maybe not from island nations, but parts of the U.S. below sea level. So, how can what is good appear as so threatening?

Ultimately of course, the answer is sin. Benedict points to the movement of the Holy Spirit over creation, and the need for the earth's stewards, us, to recover our place as respectful caretakers of the world. Unless we are in tune with the creative impulses of the Spirit, even as we govern the earth, we will only hurt her. As Hopkins' eloquently wrote:

O if we but knew what we do

When we delve or hew-

Hack and rack the growing green!

Since country is so tender

To touch, her being so slender,

That, like this sleek and seeing ball

But a prick will made no eye at all,

Where we, even where we mean

To mend her we end her.

Walker Percy had his own answer to hurricane season in The Last Gentleman. Near the beginning of the novel, he introduces his theory:

Take hurricanes, for example, certainly a bad environment if ever there was one. It was his impression that not just he but other people too felt better in hurricanes -- though it must be admitted that he had studied only four people and one hurricane, evidence hardly adequate to support a scientific hypothesis. On real robin does suggest a spring, however.

The narrator describes a time with a girl, Donna, in Newport. During a hurricane, they hear the crying of a baby and for two hours spend time caring for and feeding it, sustained by a certain inner euphoric feeling. During this time when time condensed into the sacrament of the moment, "everything was yellow and still and charged with value." These are moments, I would guess, that we have all experienced, moments when disaster suddenly sharpens us sensually, for sure, so that we, as the father and son in McCarthy's The Road, experience the taste of peaches as a flavor beyond their wildest imagining. But also spiritually, so that our hearts and spirits are brought to bear on those nearest to us, and on that which is most needed in whatever the dire circumstance is. Such moments become "charged with value."

Now, whether or not we accept Percy's explanation rather than Job's or anyone else's, his point is that while the terror that comes from a hurricane may be the result of sin and evil, with the cross as our paradigm, it is now conversely most often within these terrible moments that love and concern and peace and many other human values often shine through. As Gordon Wenham has taught us in his careful chiasm of the flood narrative in Genesis, the central point of the entire narrative is in 8:1, "But God remembered Noah." While floods may come as the result of evil, God remembers us. And his memory of us, which alone maintains us in existence, also draws us towards that proper stewardship for which we were created.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

The Truth (Sinister Music) Behind Gregorian Chant

Just for fun today on the feast of Gregory the Great, a little of the history of what is often called Gregorian chant:

Much music at the time, 6th and 7th century, even in the west, was in Greek, which reigned for a while. 

This was called Byzantine chant. 

When Augustine brought chant to the west, he was imitating chant from the East. 

Ambrosian chant, derived from Byzantine chant, was preserved in the south of Italy as Beneventan chant. 

This gave way to Old Roman chant around the beginning of the 7th and 8th centuries. 

The legend is that Old Roman chant was started by Gregory. 

He codified it and so it was called Gregorian chant. 

However, Old Roman chant is not Gregorian chant.

Gregorian chant comes only from the 9th and 10th centuries and onward. 

It is not "Gregorian" at all but is Carolingian chant and comes from the Frankish kingdom and was resisted in Rome. 

Old Roman was more Byzantine in sound. Gregorian was more plain.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

On a New Grassroots Pro-Life Movement

At the recent Democratic National Convention, Bob Casey made up for the slight against his father in 1992 by speaking at the invitation of Barack Obama. He made their disagreement clear:

“Barack Obama and I have an honest disagreement on the issue of abortion,” he said. “But the fact that I’m speaking here tonight is testament to Barack’s ability to show respect for the views of people who may disagree with him.”

They do not agree on abortion. Yet there is something else that Casey sees in Obama, beginning of course with his very openness to allow Casey to speak. He further elaborated on this at his speech to the Democrats for Life at the convention, another meeting which got a fair amount of press. His main point:

Many pregnant women who face pregnancy, regardless of income and circumstances, for whatever reason are “in crisis,” Casey said. He argued that government and society should show solidarity with such women through government assistance. "We’re not doing that now,” he said. “In my judgment, neither party is doing enough on this issue.”

The question is one regarding offering as complete a package of help to pregnant women and young mothers as they may need in order to raise their child. In other words, to cultivate a child friendly culture, which it certainly is not now.

He continued:

Since current law grants the right of women to have abortions, Casey argued, “We ought to make sure that she also has the option to carry that child to term. We’ve got to help her, okay? This isn’t her problem, it’s our problem.”

My point here is that Casey, at the invitation of Obama, historically made up for what was denied to his father. We live in a different political environment. Recently I debated with a friend as to whether one could in good conscience vote for Obama over McCain. His main concern, as is mine, is, despite all the arguments that link abortion to poverty, despite the claims that abortions were lower during Clinton's administration than during the Bushs', and despite arguments that when balanced out, more innocent lives would probably be lost during a McCain administration than during an Obama one, that still, to simply vote pro-life in this country remains important, if only to preserve abortion as a relevant issue. I see this argument. Abortion is hardly a relevant issue in Europe anymore. The grassroots pro-life movement in the United States has been tremendously successful at keeping it at the forefront of the American mind.

However, this has been in many ways despite, not because of, the alliance of the pro-life movement with the Republican party. I remember back to the early years of the movement, when my dad and Father Thomas and other members of our community were getting arrested for sitting in front of abortion clinics. The days when I was carried to police cars, and dragged through parking lots. When Bishops sat next to university presidents who sat next to homeless people. The movement at that time had vitality. Joan Andrews was a hero like to Martin Luther King Jr. Protestants sat with Catholics, with atheists, with people of all religious and ethnic backgrounds. There was ingenuity and vision. There was a richness and vitality to the movement. Much of that is lost. The movement has focused my myopically on federal politics, and the wind went out of much of the early grassroots groundswell, the part of the movement that actually gave it life.

It may be that time again for the movement to re-energize at the grassroots level, and to do so by dropping all political allegiances. The pro-life movement has become too partisan, and has thereby lost its strength. I remember it being more energized under Clinton, if only because it was persecuted. But that is a negative reason. The positive reason is that there are many young people who want to enter the movement. They want to be a part of it, and make a change. But that big picture change will never, I repeat never, take place with one party. It must include both. Obama has shown himself open to allow Casey to speak, to allow Democrats for Life to appear on the national stage. I see far more hope for continued relevance and growth and effectiveness in the pro-life movement if it pushes to work across party lines and builds again at the grassroots level, where the Civil Rights movement was so effective, than if it remains with the Republican right alone. Such a strategy will not work.

Is there a danger of losing relevance if Obama is elected? Will his "progressive" appeal cause the young to lose sight of abortion as an issue? Possibly, but I don't think so. He, even, cannot lose sight of it, and he is opening a new space in his party for a new debate. This is something to take advantage of, not lament. Sticking to the old playing rules by thinking one has to vote for McCain is myopic. As pro-lifers, we do have at least two options, if not many more, and definitely not only one.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Obama = Kennedy

Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention was great. The most important goal of the speech was to demythologize himself. He had to come down from the mountain without stone tablets and instead make it clear that he is running for the earthly office of President of the United States. In doing so, he took away McCain's best talking point. No longer the Messiah come to save us, he cast himself as a Presidential candidate who exhibits the temperament and judgment needed in this time in history. He both inspired and attacked. He gave examples in the abstract and in the concrete. And he invoked his humble background and his perspective growing up as a bi-racial in America. With this speech, Obama finally became what he should have been aspiring to be - the new Kennedy.

I find this election cycle errily similiar to 1960. Kennedy and Obama represent the same call for a new frontier. Neither man had or has the credentials to be reformers, but they did and do have personality to be outsiders. Both men are elegant, calm under pressure and able to successfully avoid appearing as if the Washington game is the only thing they live to do. Both men also had and have a firm grasp on the need to give rhetorical renewal to our politics. Their language was and is hopeful, uplifting and spiritual.

McCain is nervous, and should be so. I think his selection of Sarah Palin is a bold move, but one made out of desperation. It is a gamble, and in politics, those who consider themselves safe do not gamble. The Republican National Convention has some high expectations to meet. We will have to see if the McCain campaign can regroup.

Either way, history will be made no matter what. The control of white men in the executive will be broken.

Mason Slidell

On Katrina, Gustav, Markel, and Other Names

Maybe I chose Markel as my name because he, like Ignatius, experienced his conversion while lying sick in bed.  Father Zossima's elder brother in the Brothers Karamazov, he took ill with consumption while at a young age.  He was of "irritable temperament" and did not believe in God, thinking it all pure silliness.  After taking to bed with sickness, he experienced a profound transformation, one of solidarity with all of Creation in God.  I remember the first time I read the Brothers Karamazov being deeply moved by the section of the sayings of Zossima, and especially by Markel.  I will quote my favorite passage:

The windows of his room looked out into the garden, and our garden was a shady one, with old trees in it which were coming into bud.  The first birds of spring were flitting in the branches, chirruping and singing at the windows.  And looking at them and admiring them, he began suddenly begging their forgiveness too, "Birds of heaven, happy birds, forgive me, for I have sinned against you too."  None of us could understand that at the time, but he shed tears of joy.  "Yes, he said, "there was such a glory of God all about me; birds, trees, meadows, sky, only I lived in shame and dishonoured it all and did not notice the beauty and glory."  

"You take too many sins on yourself," mother used to say, weeping.

"Mother, darling, it's for joy, not for grief that I am crying.  Though I can't explain it to you, I like to humble myself before them, for I don't know how to love them enough.  If I have sinned against everyone, yet all forgive me, too, and that's heaven. Am I not in heaven now?"

I continue to be moved by this passage, and subsequent one's on the meaning of solidarity with all Creation and the need to forgive all, since our sins affect all.  

As I reflected on Markel, I also couldn't help but think of other important characters who "came to themselves," as Binx Bolling did, while sick or laid low by an injury.  Binx came to the notion of a search from just such an injury during the Korean war, as did Ignatius at Pamplona. But the character I remember most as I now search through the voluminous War and Peace trying to find the passage I want, is Prince Andrew Bolkonski.   I've found it, or rather, two passages.  In Book X chapter xxxvi of War and Peace, Prince Andrew is hit by an exploding shell.  As he watches the smoking shell in slow motion, he comes to a sudden realization: "I cannot, do not wish to die.  I love life -- I love this grass, this earth, this air."  He experiences a sudden, overwhelming love for all that is, all that exists.  

As he is carried from the field with a gaping injury in his abdomen, he sounds a lot like Markel in his meditations:  

Prince Andrew opened his eyes and for a long time could not make out what was going on around him.  He remembered the meadow, the wormwood, the field, the whirling black ball, and his sudden rush of passionate love for life.

Prince Andrew could not longer restrain himself and wept tender loving tears for his fellow men, for himself, and for his own and their errors.

Later in Book XI, chapter xxxii: 

"Yes -- love," he thought again quite clearly.  "But not love which loves for something, for some quality, for some purpose, or for some reason, but the love which I -- while dying -- first experience when I saw my enemy and yet loved him.  I experienced that feeling of love which is the very essence of the soul and does not require an object.  Now again I feel that bliss.  To love one's neighbors, to love one's enemies, to love everything, to love God in all His manifestations."

This is what Prince Andrew discovered, and I too was deeply moved by that passage.  There is something about being laid up, in discomfort, thrown off one's regular rhythm, when one begins to see life differently, and to tap into the Heart of loving solidarity around which the world revolves.  Percy always wrote that people were happier in the midst of catastrophe than when everything was working right.   In moments of disaster they saw and loved clearly.   

I pray at this time that as New Orleans remembers the third anniversary of Katrina, and experiences another need to evacuate as it anticipates the landfall of Gustav on Tuesday, that in this peril and suspense, the capacity of the human soul for a deep and sublime love will shine forth in this city.  

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ

Communion Debates Revived

I found this a pretty interesting post from Vox Nova. Does withholding communion from pro-abortion politicians just obfuscate and narrow other serious public causes of scandal by public Catholics? 

Denying the Eucharist to Torture Supporters

Recently, I decided to read the essay by Archbishop Burke in which he lays out the case for applying canon 915 to politicians who support abortion. Although I disagree with his conclusion, he certainly makes his case well. But the point of this post is not to argue the “communion wars”. Rather, it is to address a neglected implication of Archbishop Burke’s reasoning, that canon 915 should also be applied to public figures who support torture, rather than simply restricting it to abortion alone. The implication is quite obvious, yet rarely addressed.

Canon 915 states:

“Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

Archbishop Burke lays out the case that it should be applied to Catholic politicians who publicly, after admonition, “continue to support legislation favoring procured abortion and other legislation contrary to the natural moral law.” He claims that the “gravity of the sin of procured abortion and of the sins involved in the commission of other intrinsically evil acts” means that politicians who support such activities meet the standard of “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”. The reason for applying the discipline is to avoid serious scandal and to safeguard the sanctity of the Eucharist. After a detailed canonical history of the matter, he concludes:

”The discipline applies to any public conduct which is gravely sinful, that is, which violates the law of God in a serious manner. Certainly, the public support of policies and laws which, in the teaching of the Magisterium, are in grave violation of the natural moral law falls under this discipline.”

As I said, the point of this post to not to challenge Archbishop Burke’s conclusion. Rather, it is to tease out the full implications of his conclusion. On these grounds, it seems patently obvious that politicians who support torture obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin, and ought to be denied Holy Communion. After all, as noted by the US bishops in the context of the US political scene, torture is one of the intrinsically evil acts that can never be supported or condoned in the current political environment (the others are abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, destructive research on human embryos, genocide, racism, and the targeting of non-combatants in acts of terror or war). A public figure who supports torture then, by the logic of Archbishop Burke, should be refused Holy Communion.

I also think that the focus on politicians is too narrow, as in our day, “public” has broader connotations. There are many important public figures with no elected position whose voice is still important. I’m thinking of media personalities, pundits, commentators, journalists, people like that. When they speak or write something in defense of an intrinsically evil act, something that violates the natural moral law, then the very same conclusion arises, for “manifest public support” is grounds for applying the discipline. To take the torture example, that would include not only politicians who have supported and voted for Bush’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” but prominent Catholics like the National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez who publicly defend these acts, including waterboarding.

Let me end on a note of irony: the newly-formed, but predictable Catholics Against Joe Biden blog spends a lot of time discussing the worthiness of Senator Biden to receive Communion, while simultaneously giving a big shout-out to none other than Kathryn Jean Lopez. Funny they miss that.

Markel, SJ

More Walls

As always, boots on the ground give you different perspectives on different things. I was recently talking with an acquaintance about his time this summer in Iraq working with a non-profit peace organization. He said that one of the down sides of the surge has been a further ghettoization of the cities in Iraq. While more troops on the ground has definitely brought more stability, the reason for it is that huge cement walls have gone up between Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods, Kurdish and Sunni neighborhoods. Troops patrol the walls, and there is no interaction that can be helped. Under Baathist rule there is no doubt that ethnic and religious cleansing took place, primarily of the Kurdish people. The result of the surge at this point has not been to heal in any way the primarily religious division that tears Iraq to pieces. Rather, it has reinforced the divisions and is no more than a temporary solution. I was sad to hear his description of the situation and can only hope that our next president will have some new and more innovative ideas.

Markel, SJ

Fauxlympics

Good ole Rick Reilly. Seems like he may be on to something. This all definitely dampened my Olympic spirits before the games even began. They've been a little hard to stomach.

Markel, SJ

Vow Day

I recently finished Ron Hansen's novel Mariette in Ecstasy.  Wow, what a tremendous book.  I have written before about his most recent novel Exiles which was superb.  But this blows it out of the water.  As a Jesuit I recently celebrated the anniversary of my vows, August 15, just around the time when I was finishing the book.  These last words of Mariette struck me particularly:

“And still Christ sends me roses. We try to be formed and held and kept by him, but instead he offers us freedom. And now when I try to know his will, his kindness floods me, his great love overwhelms me, and I hear him whisper, Surprise me.”

That summarized my experience of vows, and still encapsulates the experience of seeking and striving and hearing small words here and there, now and then, at his convenience.

I also recently read these words in Kristin Labransdatter, and again thinking about vows I was struck:

“’Tis thus that folk deal with their children now. To God they give the daughters who are lame or purblind or ugly or blemished, or they let Him have back the children when they deem Him to have given them more than they need. And then they wonder that all who dwell in the cloisters are not holy men and maids.”

Indeed, no one wants to give God anyone anymore, sadly, never mind the blemished or extras who are no longer even brought to birth.  

And then a little further on:

“For if a man had not any yearning after God and God’s being, then should he thrive in hell, and ‘twould be we alone who would not understand that there he had gotten what his heart desired. For there the fire would not burn him if he did not long for coolness, nor would he feel the torment of the serpents’ bite, if he knew not the yearning after peace.”

The yearning remains, and as long as it does, so does the authentic call coming from God's being to man's inner being, deep calling on deep.  Let us continue to pray for vocations.

Markel, SJ

Alain Badiou Reading St. Paul

In this great year of St. Paul, it would do all of us well to be aware of his celebrity status within the philosophical world. Especially within the French speaking philosophical cosmos, the so-called "theological turn" in phenomenology has led to a fascination with the figure of Paul. From Breton to Chretien to Henri to Marion, he has become a father of philosophical thought. Alain Badiou too has tossed in his two cents in a little book entitled St. Paul: the Foundation of Universalism. It is a fascinating little work, especially from a man who has no interest in Paul's christianity per se, being himself, akin to Slavoj Zizek, something of a cultural Marxist interested in what Paul can do for his own project. Here I will lay out what he takes to be the salient aspects of Paul's thought for the contemporary world along with a few objections to his thought. This may take a few days, but hang with me.

In Saint Paul, Badiou reads Paul as a new theoretician of the universal singular. In Paul’s understanding of the Christ event, Badiou discovers a complete break with the past that inscribes within history a new understanding of universality, subjectivity, and human praxis. Here I examine these three distinct readings of Paul by Badiou. Badiou’s Saint Paul is not a linear text. It reads best by dividing the text into two parts: chapters 1-3 and chapters 4-10. Like Paul, Badiou’s text works retroactively: chapter 4 corresponds to chapter 1; chapters 5-6 to chapter 2; and chapters 7-9 to chapter 3. Chapter 10 functions as an application of Paul to his own time and to ours. The Conclusion restates these three fundamental claims by responding to objections. The Conclusion, then, will function for us as a threefold guide for reading the text.

The first objection to Badiou’s project is his understanding of the nature of Paul’s break with the past in the theorizing of a new universality. To cite Paul as the foundation of universalism for Badiou is to understand this in a specific way. In Paul, Badiou discovers a “powerful break” (107). This break, however, is not of the kind of any past form of universalism. “Real universalism” is already present, for example, in the theorems of Archimedes. Claims such as “there is a limitless succession of prime numbers” are universally indubitable (ibid). Furthermore, Paul’s claim, for “us” is a “narrative statement that we cannot assume to be historical” (ibid). But this is not a problem. Paul’s break “has a bearing upon the formal conditions and the inevitable consequences of a consciousness-of-truth rooted in a pure event, detached from every objectivist assignation to the particular laws of a world or society” (ibid). Paul does not base himself upon the production of a universal. Paul’s break is theoretical as opposed to real. For Paul, the conditions for the universal cannot be conceptual, in terms of Archimedes “real” universal theorems. This would entail the work of a philosopher. Rather, the conditions of the universal are set by the pure event, the pure act, which is a “sort of grace supernumerary to every particularity” (109).

For Paul, the event comes forth in relation to two regimes of discourse: that of the Greeks and of the Jews. He introduces his own discourse as a third by distinguishing its operations from that of the Greeks and the Jews as well as by distinguishing it from a fourth discourse that he describes as the mystical, the limit of his own discourse. The Jewish discourse is that of the sign. Its subjective figure is the prophet. This discourse is a “discourse of exception” (41) since the prophetic sign lies beyond the natural totality. It is a discourse of transcendence. The problem with Jewish discourse for Paul is that it functions as not Greek discourse. The “logic of the exceptional sign is only valid for the Greek cosmic totality” (42). The discourse of the Greeks on the other hand is a “matching of the logos to being,” knowledge basing itself on the cosmic order. Its subjective figure is the wise man.

Paul has two fundamental problems with both forms of discourse. The first problem for Paul is that neither one can be universal. Each presupposes the other. The second problem is that for both, “the key to salvation is given to us within the universe” (42). Whether this is understood as nature or as the Torah, salvation is tied to things within the universe whose meanings must be read by the prophet or the wise man. These are both discourses of the Father. It is Paul’s “discourse of the son” that constitutes a break in history, so that it is neither Jewish nor Greek nor a synthesis of the two (43). Badiou points us here back to the well known passage from I Corinthians 1. Christian discourse, he insists, “legitimates neither the God of wisdom…nor the God of power” (47). Both are attributes of God insofar as they are attributes of being. But the event of Christ testifies that “God is not the God of being, is not being” (ibid). This is Paul’s early rejection of onto-theology. In it is a rejection of “knowledge” so complete, that for Badiou, even Pascal falls far short. For Paul, the event is pure beginning. It is “neither an argument nor an accomplishment. There is no proof of the event; nor is the event a proof” (49). It is precisely the lack of proof that constrains faith.

Paul’s understanding of faith and the Christ event precludes any belief in a fourth discourse. For Paul, miracles do exist, but to preach on the basis of them is to submit to the fourth discourse, the “discourse of miracles.” But “Christian discourse must, unwaveringly, refuse to be the discourse of miracles, so as to be the discourse of the conviction that bears a weakness within itself” (51). Paul will not allow the “addressed discourse” to justify itself through an “unaddressed discourse” (52). He will not allow the “ineffable” to justify the Christian declaration. There is a profound coherence here. To invoke the fourth discourse is to relapse into the discourse of sign, since a miracle is a sign. Yet there can be no proof based on anything other than the pure weakness of the event. Inverse intentionality in this case is complete: “It is not the singularity of the subject that validates what the subject says; it is what he says that founds the singularity of the subject” (53). This leads us back to chapter 1 concerning the conditions for a universal singularity. The Christian does not “preexist the event he declares” (14); he is rather constituted by it through an "inverse intentionality" akin to that of Marion and many in the field of "theological" phenomenology.

Markel, SJ

The Art of the Possible

The AP reports:

When Republican John McCain suggested his running mate could support abortion rights and Democrat Barack Obama gave an anti-abortion senator a prime convention role, both were sending a subtle message to centrist voters.

Neither presidential candidate was signaling a seismic shift in the nation's long-running if largely static debate over abortion rights. Still, their actions suggest that both political parties sense that a large, if vaguely defined, middle group of Americans would like to see abortion vanish, but not by legal decree.

Polls consistently show that most Americans strongly dislike abortion yet do not want it outlawed in the early stages of pregnancy.

In other words, it seems that we can confidently think that neither presidential hopeful is concerned with outlawing abortion, overturning Roe vs. Wade, or appointing judges with such an interest. Both are concerned with matching the American sentiment that abortion should be minimized.

Democrats had it both ways in revising their party platform ahead of this month's nominating convention in Denver. Platform-writers said the party "unequivocally" supports legalized abortion, a stronger phrase than the 2004 platform contained.

But they also bolstered the section on reducing the need for abortions. The version awaiting approval in Denver says the party "strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education." It says the party "strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and postnatal health care, parenting skills, income support and caring adoption programs."

One of the differences will be of course how each party seeks to minimize abortion. No doubt the Democratic party sees better contraception as a solution to the problem, while Republicans often point to abstinence education. Obama's support for the Freedom of Choice Act may widen such possibilities for those on Medicaid.

Democratic officials also gave a convention speaking slot to Sen. Bob Casey Jr., D-Pa., who opposes abortion rights. His father, the late Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey, was denied a coveted slot at the 1992 convention because of his opposition to abortion rights.

Meanwhile, McCain startled conservatives this week, and pleased some moderates, by suggesting he might pick a running mate who supports abortion rights, such as former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge.

Many Republicans were unsure what to make of McCain's remarks to the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, in which he said Ridge's pro-choice position would not rule him out as a running mate. While McCain said in 1999 that Roe v. Wade — the landmark Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion — should not be overturned, he otherwise has consistently opposed such rights.

He repeatedly has voted against federal funding for abortion and has opposed federal Medicaid funds for abortion even in cases of rape or incest.

Now that much of the moral backbone has dropped of McCain's campaign, third party candidates may look more appetizing than either of the top runners. It may be time for Catholics to send a message that voting for the lesser of evils, whichever side is perceived to be that lesser evil, is still voting for an obvious evil, and that they are unwilling to do so. Spending less time campaigning for McCain and more time counseling in front of an abortion clinic or becoming involved in local politics and education as the grassroots level remains the true future of the pro-life movement. That is where its strength lies.

Some conservative groups howled about McCain's comments this week. The American Family Association asked readers of its Web site what they would do if he had a pro-abortion-rights running mate. More than 5,000 people responded, with 37 percent saying they would vote for McCain as "the lesser of two evils." One percent backed Obama, 16 percent said they would not vote and 46 percent said they would seriously consider a third-party candidate.

Some less dogmatic conservatives were open to the idea. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a frequent guest on McCain's campaign plane, said he opposes legalized abortion but thinks McCain is wise to consider running mates who differ.

"Our party needs to be open-minded" about such a choice, Graham said in an interview this week on the plane. Parties that rigidly support or oppose abortion rights, he said, "are out of sync with where most Americans are."

On the Democratic front, the revised convention platform language was hailed this week by some Republicans who are backing Obama.

Douglas Kmiec, a former Reagan administration official and Roman Catholic, said the new language moves the debate beyond the "legal dead end and a moral dead end" of being for or against Roe v. Wade.

"What this does, most importantly, is to commit the Democratic Party to supply real support for the child, for the woman facing this question," said Kmiec, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University.

Kmiec, who opposes abortion, said no political party platform fits exactly with Catholic teaching. "We pursue the art of the possible, and if we move to protect even a single life, we've done a good thing," he said.

Politics is the art of the possible, whether construed on the federal or local level. If there is not much possible at the federal level, let us consolidate on the local and change hearts.

Markel, SJ