Now live on the website, the new issue of Commonweal.

Among the highlights:

Kathleen Sprows Cummings on the “torturous” path to sainthood of Native American Kateri Tekakwitha, a process that took more than a century and that offers an “illuminating glimpse into American Catholic history”:

U.S. Catholics attributed their lack of a patron to a dearth not of holiness but of influence. They argued that the “modern” process of canonization, implemented in the seventeenth century, disadvantaged those Catholics living on the church’s periphery, far from its center of wealth and power. “Without monarchs or wealthy communities to undertake the long and often expensive investigations demanded at Rome,” one American Catholic grumbled, it was little wonder that no one north of the Rio Grande had ever even been proposed for canonization. One American priest, Rev. Edward McSweeny, suggested that the Vatican appoint a special group of cardinals to glorify the “hidden saints” of countries whose people were too poor to sponsor a cause.

There was no such simple remedy for the second obstacle U.S. Catholics saw thwarting them in their search for a native saint: anti-Catholicism in their own country. In seeking to elevate one of their own to the altars, North American Catholics would have to contend not only with a daunting and costly process but also with a Protestant supremacy that held them in contempt. Many outspoken anti-Catholics reserved special scorn for sainthood and viewed the prospect of an “American saint” as a travesty. In 1841, the politician and Presbyterian minister Robert Breckinridge had “beseech[ed] God” that “no American papist may ever be corrupt, debased, and infamous enough during his life, to be esteemed by Rome worthy of being a saint in her calendar after his death.”

And indeed, the 1884 petition on behalf of Tekakwitha set off warning bells in some Protestant circles. Recognizing that the United States was now a step closer to a canonized saint, the editors of the Methodist Review warned that if Catholic immigration continued apace, American Protestants would soon have to tolerate not only the canonization of “an inconspicuous Indian maiden” but also an abundance of U.S. saints drawn from among “the present superstitious masses of our country—[Catholics] of Irish or Italian extraction.”

Read it all here (subscription required).

Also, Matthew Ashley reviews Jacques Dupuis Faces the Inquisition, which “documents the travails and the courage of the late Jacques Dupuis, the Jesuit priest and theologian whose work on what he called ‘a Christian theology of religious pluralism’ drew scrutiny from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during the last decade of his life.” From the review:

…Dupuis’ approach to a theology of religious pluralism, while deemed insufficiently radical by many seminarians and theologians in India, was viewed in Rome as going too far. This negative reaction, first signaled by a 1992 book review of Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions in Civiltà Cattolica, culminated in an investigation of Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism by the CDF that began in June 1998; three months later, Dupuis received a notification that his book contained “grave errors and doctrinal ambiguities on doctrines of divine and Catholic faith.” …

In response to the notification Dupuis composed and submitted almost two-hundred pages of text; seven months later, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger responded that Dupuis’ answers were considered inadequate “for preserving the doctrine of Catholic faith free from errors.” More questions were posed, which Dupuis answered with another sixty pages. There followed many months of silence; then, in September 2000, Dupuis was summoned to the offices of the CDF, where he was asked to sign a draft of a notification that asserted propositions to be affirmed and errors to be rejected—errors imputed to his book without quotations or page references. The signed notification would have been published simultaneously with the CDF’s own statement on the relationship between Christianity and other religions, Dominus Iesus. … The apparent goal was a potent one-two punch intended to warn off theologians, such as Michael Amaladoss, Peter Phan, and Paul Knitter, who went further than Dupuis was willing to go.

Dupuis found himself unable to sign. While he could agree to the positive statements he was required to affirm (noting, however, that they required further interpretation—with the implication that in so doing one could arrive at his theology) he noted that the alleged errors “either misrepresented what I wrote or interpreted it in a way that went against my intention and meaning.” The meeting ended in an impasse. A second draft, sent in December, stated its charges somewhat more temperately, downgrading “grave errors and ambiguities” to “grave ambiguities” and “ambiguous formulations or insufficient explanations” that could lead the reader into “erroneous opinions.” Reluctantly Dupuis agreed to sign, but included an explanation that his signature indicated he would later “have to take into account the text of the declaration Dominus Iesus and of the notification.” The CDF would have none of that, and when the signed notification was published in L’Osservatore Romano it included an additional paragraph that Dupuis never saw, specifying that in signing “the author committed himself to assent to the stated theses, and in his future theological activity and publications, to hold the doctrinal contents indicated in the notification.” Observing the difference between “take into account” and “assent” and “hold,” Dupuis reflected, in typically understated fashion, that this procedure was “of course, questionable.”

You can read the whole thing here (subscription required).

Also posted today, E. J. Dionne Jr. on how dissatisfaction and the erosion of engagement suggest there may be something “especially flawed” with our democracy:

Citizen dissatisfaction is hardly surprising in the wake of a deeply damaging economic downturn. That doesn’t make the challenge any less daunting. We should consider whether democracy itself is in danger of being discredited. Politicians might usefully disentangle themselves from their day-to-day power struggles long enough to take seriously their responsibility to a noble idea and the systems that undergird it.

Read the whole thing here.

Today I’ve posted my final installment of the Cammino attraverso la Commedia over at Verdicts. Thanks to everyone who has followed along, and special thanks to Helen and Flavia who performed intellectual works of mercy (you didn’t know there were intellectual works of mercy, did you?) by commenting on each post. (They will certainly get time off in Purgatory for that!) Although Mary was in the upper room with the apostles, Bernard’s hymn to Mary isn’t a perfect match for Pentecost. But it is May, and the hymn is beautiful, and I couldn’t fit it into my post, so I’ve posted it below. If you would like to find all the posts on Dante, you can click here. Of course, feel free to comment. Read the rest of this entry »

If Jesus is the mediator between God and humanity, the Spirit is the medium in which God’s transforming action takes place.

The Love in which the Father and the Son are united is the divine We. Yet it reaches beyond itself to include the we of all believers in its embrace. As the last breath of the Crucified (John 19:30) and the first breath of the risen Lord (John 20:22), the Spirit is Christ’s gift of the divine Love-life he has come to share.    (Anthony Kelly, God is Love: the Heart of Christian Faith)

maybe you haven’t paid much attention to Keystone XL, the pipeline destined to bring Canadian heavy oil through the U.S. to refineries and ports in Louisiana (where some of you do live) and Texas (anyone there?). Nebraska rose up to prevent the pipeline from running through a major aquifer and stalled its construction while President Obama thinks about it.

One of the by-products of the refining process is something called “petroleum coke,” left when the oil is released from the tar-like substance that is heavy oil. Where does that petroleum coke end up?  At the moment, a huge pile of it is sitting in Detroit, the leavings from a nearby refinery that began processing Canadian heavy oil last winter. According to a story in the New York Times, the pile will eventually be shipped to China and Mexico where it is burnt in lieu of coal. Who owns that pile? The Koch Brothers (yes, those Koch Brothers). The stuff makes a hefty contribution to the pollution in both countries. And how many U.S. refineries will be sitting on piles of it. Detroit today! Tomorrow???  Story here. See photo below.

UPDATE: Continuing on the environment, a story in the Times about the aquifer under Kansas being depleted by over-irrigation use, in particular to produce more corn for ethanol additives to gasoline. What once seemed a reasonable idea is now producing unintended consequences in high prices to farmers for corn and depletion of the water table. You’d think they’d have some self-interest in rethinking their crops.  Story includes a good graphic of Midwestern water table and its states of depletion.

Like most Italian words they roll off the tongue and sound great; but they disguise destructive fruit. Or so says Pope Francis in this morning’s homily, the latest example of his “sermo humilis” style.

Idle and aimless chatter (chiacchiere) and gossip (pettegolezzo) poison the spiritual environment.

“We all chatter in the Church! As Christians we chatter! The chatter is hurtful? We hurt one another. It is as if we want to put each other down; instead of growing one makes the other feel small while I feel great. That will not do! It seems nice to chatter … I do not know why, but it looks nice. Like sweetness of honey, right? You take one and then another, and another, and another, and in the end you have a stomach ache. And why ? The chatter is like that eh? It is ‘sweet at first and it ruins you, it ruins your soul! Rumors are destructive in the Church, they are destructive … It’s ‘a little’ like the spirit of Cain who killed his brother, his tongue; it kills his brother!”

Clearly, not the tongues of Pentecost. And in a passage of the homily not reported by Vatican Radio, Francis added: ” il diavolo vuole quello!” — “it’s what the devil desires!”

Commonweal editor Paul Baumann’s review of George Weigel’s Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21^st Century Church is now available at the website of The Nation. Excerpts follow:

When President Obama was invited to give the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame in 2009, more than eighty bishops condemned the university. That a duly elected president of the United States should be regarded as a moral monster unworthy of being given a hearing—especially at a school as steeped in American patriotism as Notre Dame—is bizarre. The uproar and the bitter recrimination that followed Obama’s speech revealed how deeply divided and directionless the once formidably cohesive American Catholic Church has become. And if George Weigel’s new book is any indication of where the church’s hierarchy is headed, the divisions promise to grow deeper. Indeed, a good deal of the blame for the bishops’ belligerent public posture can be laid directly on the desk of the author of Evangelical Catholicism. …

According to Weigel, the evangelical Catholicism of his book’s title represents a necessary departure from the “Counter-reformation” or so-called tribal Catholicism of recent centuries. In his view, a Catholicism held together by ethnic affinities possesses neither the fervor nor the missionary commitment needed to meet the challenges of postmodernity. In place of the bricklayer bishops who built a Catholic subculture of schools, hospitals and civic associations across America, what’s needed today are bishops like the late John Paul II, men who speak of their faith in compelling, adamantine and fearless ways. These bishops will be disciplinarians, unabashed in demanding doctrinal obedience from priests, women in religious orders and those in the pews. Theologians and politicians who publicly dissent from church teaching must be told that they are no longer Catholic in “any meaningful sense.” Catholics who do not believe everything the church teaches should leave. (It will be interesting to see how this “new breed” of priests and bishops responds to the leadership of the recently elected Pope Francis, who seems to take a less confrontational approach to secular culture than Weigel does.) …

Why would Weigel assume that the “deep reform” of the Catholic Church is relevant to the political and cultural life of most Americans? Because he thinks that, as with Poland under communist domination, America’s fate is now intimately linked to that of Catholicism. “The Catholic Church is now the world’s premier institutional proponent of human rights and democracy,” he claims—by which he means that the church’s “social doctrine offers a principled framework” for the preservation of the West’s failing democracies. As far as Weigel is concerned, no other options are available.

What to make of these grandiose claims? In one sense, Weigel is repeating what the Catholic Church has always taught. Conversion is what Christianity is about, and so Catholicism, often married to Aristotelian and Thomist notions of natural law and natural rights, remains a vital force in the American political tradition. But the resources of that tradition are broader than the abstract and self-evident truths, invoked by the Declaration of Independence, on which Weigel places such emphasis. The tradition has made use of a variety of philosophical resources, including Enlightenment rationalism, civic republicanism, secular liberal rights theory and pragmatism. It is unlikely we will succeed in forging a more perfect union if we do not make use of all the political resources at our disposal.

You can read the whole thing here. (Update: We earlier noted the inclusion of a link at the end of The Nation‘s online version of the review; that link has since been removed.)

Just when you thought things couldn’t get worse for the Obama administration, Dr. Donohue drops another bombshell:

The problems with the IRS extend beyond playing politics with conservative groups seeking a tax-exempt status. I have never made this public before, but given the heightened interest in the way the IRS has conducted itself, the time has come to disclose what happened. 

Just weeks after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, I was notified by the IRS that the Catholic League was under investigation for violating the IRS Code on political activities as it relates to 501(c)(3) organizations. What the IRS did not know was that I had proof who contacted them to launch the investigation: Catholics United, a George Soros-funded Catholic organization.

The IRS was contacted on June 5, 2008, to launch a probe of the Catholic League, and the letter sent to me was dated Nov. 24, 2008.

Does the Obama administration have no shame? Are there no depths to which it will not — wait, what’s that? Obama wasn’t inaugurated until January 2009? So this actually happened under George W. Bush? And Catholics United never made a secret of its concerns about the Catholic League’s tax status? Nor is the group really funded by George Soros? And Donohue has a history of complaining to the IRS about liberals?

Oh. Never mind.

“Nothing threatens America’s national security more than the perception that we are at war with Islam,” I wrote four years ago in this magazine.

It was a follow-up (“Disgrace“) to a longer piece about the role that perceived abuse of religious items and symbols played in the memories of former Guantanamo detainees (“The Secret Weapon“). To my knowledge, those two articles still remain the most thorough treatment of the place of religion in U.S. detention facilities during the so-called war on terror. (A version with footnotes can be found in this excellent volume affiliated with the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.)

Unfortunately, the false perception that the United States has some kind of official, national anti-Muslim stance has persisted, despite the efforts of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Just like the detainees I wrote about in 2008, the hunger strikers at Guantanamo — eighty-six of whom were cleared for release years ago — have claimed that the event catalyzing their activism was the mishandling of a Qur’an. And before you say So what?, recall, as I and many others have argued, that the proper Christian analogy of the Qur’an is not the Bible, but the person of Jesus Christ.

And now today CBS News reports that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev left a note in the boat where he was hiding.

“Basically, the note says … the bombings were retribution for the U.S. crimes against Muslims in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and that the victims of the Boston bombing were ‘collateral damage,’ the same way innocent victims have been collateral damage in U.S. wars around the world,” said CBS News reporter John Miller, who is a former spokesman for the FBI. … The note summed up with the idea that “when you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims,” CBS News reported.

As I pointed out in my previous articles, there were several ways in which the United States did intentionally abuse the symbols and ritual practices of Islam in the early years of the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” These abuses were later cited by others as justifications for retaliation against U.S. troops and citizens.

Granted, those who engaged in such un-American activities are no longer in charge of detainees, and as far as we know, the worst of the practices has ceased.  But the wars of perception go on much, much longer. History has shown that the collective memory of religiously themed violence endures for generations.

The very notion that a country could be at “war” with a religion of over 1 billion people that takes diverse forms and covers most of the globe is absurd. But we must continue to fight against that perception — if not for a noble reason, then only for self-interest.

Today Attorney General Eric Holder enjoyed a relaxing day on Capitol Hill, where he engaged in mutually enriching dialog with the House Judiciary Committee at a hearing on “Oversight of the United States Department of Justice.” During a particularly warm exchange with Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), the two got into a friendly disagreement about the quality of the FBI’s work in its investigation of the Boston Marathon bombers. When Holder claimed that Gohmert might not have full command of the facts, the gentleman from Texas didn’t take it very well, and he accused Holder of casting aspersions on his…well, just watch:

Full video here.

A brief story from Vatican Radio notes that a meeting of Catholics and Orthodox will take place this week in Istanbul to mark the 1,700th anniversary of the so-called Edict of Milan in which the emperors Constantine and Licinius ordered that all citizens be permitted to worship God as they saw fit. The instruction freed Christianity from the threat and reality of persecution and ordered that confiscated Christian buildings be restored. A translation is provided below. It will be noted that the toleration is granted to all religions. It does not represent an establishment of Christianity, which would come later in the century with the edict of Theodosius I, also given below.

Constantine himself, however, certainly favored the Church with his patronage; and before the year 313 was over, he would be asked by Donatist bishops in northern Africa to intervene in their disputes with Catholic bishops, and he showed no reluctance to include arbitrating such disputes among his imperial duties and rights. A fatal entanglement ensued. Read the rest of this entry »

This morning the Vatican released a curt statement announcing that Cardinal Keith O’Brien, who recently resigned as Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh — before the mandatory retirement age of seventy-five — after admitting improper sexual conduct, will be leaving Scotland for a while to think about what he did. Weeks before the conclave, you’ll recall, three priests and a former priest accused the cardinal of sexual misconduct, including a long-term affair — allegations he initially denied. O’Brien skipped the conclave. It was thought he would skip town too, at least for a spell. But then he was seen moving into a seaside home about thirty miles east of Edinburgh. “It’s a nice little place,” he reportedly said. “My plan is to move here ultimately to relax and enjoy my retirement.” Pope Francis had other ideas. Not only will O’Brien be leaving Scotland to do penance for his admitted “sexual conduct [that] has fallen below the standards expected of me,” but, as the Vatican statement makes clear, the pope will be keeping tabs on him. “Any decision regarding future arrangements for His Eminence shall be agreed with the Holy See.”

So this is how Francis handles bishops who engage in inappropriate sexual conduct. Still waiting to see how he deals with bishops who fail to handle their own priests’ misdeeds.

Jonathan Chait: “The Facts Are In and Paul Ryan Is Wrong“:

Changes in the way we think about the world are not “news” in the classic sense — they occur gradually, without discrete events to signal them. But they matter. Two such developments have come together recently, both reported in the New York Times. The first is the collapse of intellectual support for the notion that immediate austerity can boost economic growth. The second is a growing consensus that health-care-cost inflation is slowing for deep structural reasons, rather than having undergone a mere temporary dip from the recession. These trends have something in common: They blow to smithereens the intellectual foundations of the Obama-era Republican policy agenda.

Peter J. Leithart: “What’s Wrong with ‘Family Values’“:

The most penetrating conservative analysts of family life have always recognized the cultural contradictions of capitalism and of technological society. They have always recognized the costs (as well as the gains) of separating work and home; of geographic, vocational, and social mobility; of the indisputable wealth-generating power of capitalism. On the ground, though, conservatives look the other way when told that our economic system or our technological progress might inhibit the formation of what [Wendell] Berry describes as an economy that “exists for the protection of gifts, beginning with the ‘giving in marriage.’”

The editors of n+1: “Cultural Revolution“:

Local symptoms of the unfolding global crisis aren’t just the further destitution of the American poor, the culling of the middle class, and the somehow uninterrupted concentration of wealth among parasitic financiers. Inside the general disaster, a crisis in the principal institutions of intellectual life — academia and publishing — has been deepening. One tenure-track opening exists for every four new PhDs; the figure is worse for the social sciences, and still worse for humanities. Hundreds of applicants vie for jobs at third-tier colleges paying barely middle-class salaries; the losers end up as adjuncts or “course managers,” tossed two or three grand per semester-long class. Many a promising young person goes to graduate school in flight from a brutal labor market — only to encounter the same beast, grown more ferocious during the interval, a few years down the line. Now you’re well qualified to teach “Insecure: The Cultural Politics of Neoliberalism” (a course offered by the CUNY English Department in the spring of 2011), if only they would let you. Tenure-track professors meanwhile fear that cost-free MOOCs  — massive open online courses — will before long administer the coup de grace to the professoriate that a thousand right-wing screeds against tenured radicals could never quite accomplish.

Margaret Sullivan, the Public Editor of the New York Times, has a blog post in which she addresses readers’ complaints about the Times’ coverage of the  targeting of conservative groups by the IRS. She writes:

In essence, these readers believed The Times gave too little prominence to the story initially in Saturday’s paper and placed emphasis on the wrong aspect of the situation – the apology and the politics rather than the problem itself.

Her conclusion:

I agree that The Times seemed to play down the story originally, placing it inside the paper and emphasizing the second-day angle of the apology rather than the misconduct itself. In Monday’s paper, the headline, as Mr. Greenfield noted, emphasized the Republicans seizing on the issue rather than the widening problem. A Wall Street Journal front-page headline, by contrast, read, “Wider Problems Found at IRS.”

Many on the right – as noted last week in my blog posts about Benghazi – do not think they can get a fair shake from The Times. This coverage won’t do anything to dispel that belief.

WSJ 1 NYT 0

Stephen Walt is calling Barak Obama a buck passer when it comes to foreign policy. Is this a criticism in a country where presidents are supposed to announce “the buck stops here!” or is it, as Walt argues, a sound policy that has been undermined by what he consider “self-inflicted wounds” in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Walt writes: “[Obama] is a buck passer. And despite my objections to some of what he has done, I think this approach reveals both a sound grasp of realpolitik and an appreciation of America’s highly favorable geopolitical position.”

He goes on, “the greatest risk we face as a nation are self-inflicted wounds like the Iraq and Afghan wars or the long-term decline arising from a failue to invest wisely here at home. Recognizing these realities, Obama has reacted slowly and in a measured way to most international events. He takes his time, remains calm, and prefers to pass the buck to others whose interests are more directly affected. Unrepentant neocons and liberal imperialists scorn this approach, because they never lose their enthusiasm for new and costly crusades, but most Americans don’t seem to mind. Why? Because they recognize what the foreign policy establishment can’t admit: What happens in Syria, Mali, most of Central Asia, and even the Korean peninsula just doesn’t matter that much to the United States, and the outcome in most of these places won’t make Americans poorer or less safe unless Washington does something stupid (like intervening with military force).” Read it here.

So what do you unrepentant neocons and liberal imperialists think?

UPDATE: Apropos of a discussion about Libya in the comments below, take a look at the David Brooks column today in the NYTimes. In defending Victoria Nuland, State Dept. spokesperson, in the Benghazi matter, Brooks points out how much this was a CIA operation for which the State Dept. is taking the hit. Interesting, if true.

Remember how in January, after nearly a decade of legal filibustering, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles finally made public the priest-personnel files it agreed to release as part of a 2007 settlement with abuse victims, except the files were heavily redacted, and remember how those files contained damning memos detailing the lengths to which archdiocesan officials — including Cardinal Roger Mahony — went to shield abuser-priests from civil authorities, and how soon after those memos made news, Archbishop Jose Gomez garnered praise for announcing that Mahony would “no longer have any administrative or public duties,” and how several media outlets reported that Mahony had been “barred from public ministry,” except he really hadn’t, and then he took to his blog to dress down Gomez for “not once over these past years…[raising] any questions about our policies, practices, or procedures in dealing with the problem of clergy sexual misconduct involving minors,” yet, as Mahony’s then-spokesman explained, he had “cleared his calendar of confirmation appointments this year”? Well, he’s doing them again.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

Since Easter, he has officiated at eight services, including one last week in which he anointed more than 120 youths at a Wilmington parish.

His presence has caused controversy, with some parents threatening to pull their children from the liturgies and at least one parish priest asking that Mahony not attend. It has also raised questions about why Gomez’s rebuke of Mahony, an unprecedented move that won him praise from victims and their supporters around the world, had so little lasting effect.

You don’t say. Gomez’s letter did not include anything specific about the alleged change in Mahony’s status. And, as an archbishop, Gomez does not have the authority to restrict the ministry of a cardinal. (Only a pope can do that.) But he does have the authority to say who presides over confirmations in the archdiocese. Have a look at the letter. Sorry, is that link broken? It seems the letter is no longer available on the website of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. (The L.A. Times cached a copy here.) Odd that the archdiocese’s archive of press releases includes a January 22 apology from auxiliary Bishop Thomas Curry, who played a part in archdiocesan efforts to conceal accused priests from the law (and who really did cancel confirmations this spring), along with Gomez’s statement on the release of the priest-personnel files, dated January 31 — the same date on his statement on Mahony. Did that document disappear down the memory hole?

Perhaps amnesia is going around the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. When an L.A. Times reporter approached Mahony after a confirmation he presided over, the cardinal claimed he didn’t know that his former spokesman had said he was done doing confirmations for the year: ”‘That’s news to me…. I’ve been doing them every week and I’m going to be doing them every week,’ he said, adding, ‘So go home.’”

Strange that Mahony would be so confused, considering the pains he took to defend himself after Gomez published the letter promising that the cardinal would no longer have any public duties. Certainly the cardinal could not be surprised that some parents would not be pleased to have him confirm their children — not after his series of blog posts cataloging his Lenten challenge to love his enemies, which, oddly, included a meditation on the virtue of remaining silent in the face of false accusations, and a promise to pray for God to forgive those who have expressed anger over his role in the sexual-abuse scandal.

Evidently the cardinal feels he’s been unfairly treated by the media, but if his rehabilitation tour is to have any chance of success, he’s going to have to start answering some tough questions. He might start with these: Why did you work so hard to block the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops-commissioned investigation of the sexual-abuse scandal, and why, long after the church knew of the dangers posed by abusive priests, did you attempt to hide accused priests from civil authorities? Was it about church resources? Money? If so, why was that more important than justice for victims of sexual abuse — and the safety of children?

Now on the homepage, E. J. Dionne Jr. assesses the victory of former governor Mark Sanford in South Carolina’s special congressional election:

“I want to publicly acknowledge God’s role in all of this,” declared a victorious Mark Sanford as he celebrated an unlikely political rebirth Tuesday night with a sermon praising the Supreme Being and the many “angels” who helped the once-disgraced former governor along the way.

Perhaps the Almighty did inspire those who drew the boundaries of South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District. They packed it with so many Republicans that Sanford was able to engineer a comeback in the polls by debating a flat piece of cardboard bearing the image of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Voters in the Lowcountry may have been weary of a man who made a national spectacle of himself by covering up an affair when he was chief executive and then hanging around in office. But when called to arms against liberals and spending and big government, they were prepared to forget Sanford’s hike on the Appalachian Trail, the one that never happened but was his attempt at a false alibi for being in Argentina to see his lover-now-fiancée.

Of course, Sanford’s Democratic opponent was Elizabeth Colbert Busch, who ”tried everything she could to shove party and philosophy out of the voters’ minds and keep them focused on the man they had once loathed and laughed at.” Her loss has her brother Stephen thinking of becoming a tar heel:

The Transform Now Plowshares— Greg Boertje-Obed, Sr. Megan Rice and Michael Walli—were found guilty Wednesday on two felony charges for their July 28, 2012 break-in at and protest at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, the nation’s storehouse for bomb-grade uranium.

Embarrassingly for the Dept. of Energy, the three cut through four security fences, scaled a heavily wooded ridge, and held vigil for some time at the “fortresslike Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility” before guards finally noticed and arrested them.

“Sister Rice said her only misgiving was that she had waited so long to stage a protest.  ‘My regret was I waited 70 years,’ she said. ‘It is manufacturing that which can only cause death.’

She was asked why she hadn’t felt obligated to inform the Catholic bishop in her area of her intentions.  Rice responded: ‘I’ve been guilty of many discourtesies in my life.’”

In Sister Rice’s statement one can hear echoes of the humble audacity in Dan Berrigan’s statement written 45 years ago this month on behalf of the Catonsville Nine:  “Our apologies, good friends, for the fracture of good order, for the burning of paper instead of children, the angering of the orderlies in the front parlor of the charnel house.  We could not, so help us God, do otherwise.”

Some years back I gave my Sophomores the possibility of gaining extra credit if they made the trek from Chestnut Hill to Cambridge to see the movie: “Into Great Silence.”

They arrived, bought the requisite popcorn and drinks, and settled in. The film began. Ten minutes later they became aware that the only sounds in the theater were their munching popcorn and slurping sodas.

After some embarrassment they put the junk food away and began to listen. They heard drips of water, birds chirping, tools hitting hard ground, monks laughing while sliding in the snow.

Our spiritual senses have been atrophied by over-indulgence. We fail to perceive that often silence speaks powerfully, and absence is suffused with presence.

Blessed Feast of the Ascension.

As part of the New Conversation on Marriage Initiative at the Institute for American Values, Peter Steinfels recently joined David Blankenhorn for a discussion on whether liberals will help to save marriage (the Institute’s Amy Ziettlow, an ordained pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, also took part). Peter says some nice things about Commonweal, too, before the main event gets underway. You can watch the conversation right here.

In today’s audience in Saint Peter’s Square, Pope Francis spoke of the Holy Spirit. Vatican Radio has the full text. Here is an excerpt [translation modified for the sake of clarity]:

This is the precious gift that the Holy Spirit brings into our hearts: the very life of God, the life of true children, a relationship of familiarity, freedom and trust in the love and mercy of God, which brings also a new vision of others, near and far, seen always as brothers and sisters in Jesus, to be respected and loved. The Holy Spirit teaches us to look with the eyes of Christ, to live life as Christ lived, to understand life as Christ did. That’s why the living water that is the Holy Spirit quenches our thirst because it tells us that we are loved by God as His children, that we can love God as his children, and that by his grace we can live as children of God, as did Jesus. And what of us? Do we listen to the Holy Spirit who tells us: God loves you? Do we really love God and others as Jesus did?

Claire, one of the frequent participants in our dot-Commonweal conversations, teaches catechism in France to eighth-graders, 13 or 14 years old. The other day I sent her a link to a website that specializes in catechesis. She was unimpressed by it and its materials, and, with her permission, I pass on her remarks in the hope that they might prompt a general reflection.

I’ve read a few of the texts and their proposals do not at all match the needs of my kids.

Those texts emphasize the spiritual, experiential and community aspects, but that’s what the Mass (in particular) is for. I try to prepare them so they can get more out of the Mass, but I cannot substitute for it, and I don’t want to.

Those texts downplay knowledge, but my youth are plagued by ignorance.

When last month they had confession (for the first time in several years for most of them), the preparation consisted in giving them a long list of possible actions and asking them to think about whether each was good or bad, sinful or not; and in giving them a print-out of the words to be said by them and said by the priest, like a script of the event. But the words were not really explained and the sacramental aspect not mentioned, so, although they went to confession, they had the experience but not the understanding of what they did. That’s ignorance.

When we studied the Creed, I asked them: ‘When at Mass we read the words “…and was made man”, sometimes at that point the people in the assembly do something. What is it?’, and the only ones who had an answer offered: “Yes, at that point, we beat our chest.” That’s ignorance, too. 

The last but one session, I asked them what mission Jesus had given to his disciples. The more knowledgeable kids answered: “To announce the Good News”. I asked: “And what is the Good News?” – Nobody knew, nobody could suggest an answer, even a wrong answer! That’s profound ignorance. 

So all those texts from that website, with their insistence that the catechist is not a teacher, that the dynamics are different, that there are no lessons to be memorized by the children, that catechism has completely changed and is no longer about teaching facts and doctrines, those texts do not convince me. I have many uncertainties about exactly what to teach and how best to teach it, but not about whether to teach.

Worcester, Massachusetts, Bishop Robert McManus was arrested Saturday night at his family’s vacation home in Naragansett, Rhode Island, on charges of drunken driving, leaving the scene of an accident, and refusing a chemical test.

“I made a terrible error in judgment by driving after having consumed alcohol with dinner,” McManus said in a statement. “There is no excuse for the mistake I made, only a commitment to make amends and accept the consequences of my action.”

That’s all well and good…as far as it goes. I don’t want to make more of this relatively straightforward DUI incident than necessary, but Bishop McManus’s terrible error in judgment extended beyond driving while intoxicated.  It also included his decision to flee the scene of the crime after, apparently, causing the accident by rear-ending the other driver’s car.  (A neighbor “noticed minor front end damage to McManus’s dark-colored Honda Accord the following morning.”)

There are far bigger crimes and errors in judgment that occur in the church and the world every day, but it is at least somewhat troubling that neither Bishop McManus nor anyone on his staff seems to have grasped the extent of his errors in the immediate aftermath of his arrest.

If there are any Commonweal readers across the pond, please stop by to say hello!

Burying the dead is among the corporal works of mercy. One brave funeral director agreed to prepare the body for a Muslim burial, but it is Tamerlan Tsarnaev, terrorist number 1. There are protests. So far no cemetery has agreed to take the body. Carry on Worcester, Massachusetts; do the right thing. The man is dead. Story here.

UPDATE: Ruslan Tsarni, the uncle of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, arrived in Worcester on Sunday to wash the body of his nephew according to Islamic custom. After completing this task with friends who assisted him, he had this to say, ” “A dead person needs to be buried — that’s what tradition requires, that’s what religion requires, that’s what morals require.” Yes, indeed.

Still no cemetery available.  Story here.

End of story: He was finally buried on May 9 or 10 in a small Muslim cemetery in Virginia.

When being constantly outraged and on the attack is how you make your living, you’re bound to get a little sloppy with the details now and then. We’ve seen before what happens when the Catholic League’s William A. Donohue, PhD, starts out with a complaint and then has trouble backing it up with actual evidence, and it isn’t pretty.

When it comes to the church’s sex-abuse crisis, Donohue’s got his reactions all set, regardless of the facts. Is a bishop being criticized for mishandling accusations against an abusive priest? The bishop must be defended; he’s done nothing wrong; the media (and/or leftist Catholics) are plainly out to get him.

Sometimes, though, the facts just don’t line up with Donohue’s interpretation. The recent case of Newark’s Archbishop John J. Myers and Fr. Michael Fugee was a tough one; to maintain that Myers was a good guy getting an unfair rap, Donohue was forced to play lawyer — a lawyer who doesn’t know what the word “or” means. Thus, as Mark Silk explained yesterday, Donohue resorted to insisting that the New Jersey Star-Ledger had smeared Myers by calling for his resignation “because he allegedly did not hold Fugee to the terms of the agreement. As will soon be disclosed,” Donohue said, “this accusation is patently false.” And therefore “the entire editorial board of the newspaper should resign immediately.”

But Donohue’s argument that the accusation was false rests on an obviously erroneous reading of the archdiocese’s court agreement to keep Fugee away from minors. Donohue insists that “the court agreement expressly allowed Father Fugee to have contact with minors, provided he was supervised.” Here’s what the court order actually says:

It is agreed and understood that the Archdiocese shall not assign or otherwise place Michael Fugee in any position within the Archdiocese that allows him to have any unsupervised contact with or to supervise or minister to any minor/child under the age of 18 or work in any position in which children are involved. This includes, but is not limited to, presiding over a parish, involvement with a youth group, religious education/parochial school, CCD, confessions of children, youth choir, youth retreats and day care.

Now, we know Donohue sometimes has trouble understanding things he reads through his fog of resentful fury. But he wants to insist that the above plainly states that Fugee is permitted to do any of the itemized activities as long as he’s being “supervised,” when in fact there are a number of “or”s after that initial phrase about “unsupervised contact” that make it very clear the restriction is not thus limited. Is it even possible to read it that way in good faith?

Let’s say Donohue really did think he was making a good argument. He knows now how wrong he was, not just because people like Silk have carefully, patiently explained his errors to him, but also because the Archdiocese has now admitted that yes, Fugee was in violation of that agreement. (Previously they had said he wasn’t.) So here was what should have been a moment of truth for the Catholic League: in trying to protect a bishop from calumny, they have actually smeared an entire newspaper editorial board and muddied an important issue with a lot of false assertions and bad arguments. And that document in which Donohue’s argument was so totally wrong? He’d bragged about how widely he’d distributed it — he didn’t just send it to “every bishop in the nation”; he also bothered “over 200 employees at the [Star-Ledger], including those who cover ‘food news’ and ‘soccer.’” A big-time screwup like this could really hurt Bill Donohue’s credibility, right? And it could really embarrass the bishops he’s so eager to defend — especially the ones who’ve gone out of their way to cheer him on without reservation. It could make them all look like they’re much more invested in playing identity politics and stoking Catholic persecution complexes than they are in being honest and living up to their promises to protect children from abuse. So the only thing to do is issue a straightforward retraction and apology, right? Read the rest of this entry »

Not awkward. Catholic Memes has the poster.

John Thavis has the analysis:

None of this consultation should cause a crisis in the church. On the contrary, I think it will help the church better understand the papacy, more as an office and less as a sacred status. Benedict set that office aside and is no longer pope, and whatever advice or reflections he may offer today come from a “private citizen,” so to speak.

So why Pope Benedict’s insistence that he will be “hidden from the world”? Because I think he also understands that whatever his working relationship with Pope Francis, he’ll have to greatly limit his other encounters, his public statements and even, perhaps, his published writings.

Benedict is keenly aware of how information travels through back channels at the Vatican and through electronic media around the world. Even an offhand remark by the retired pope – say, to a group of German Catholics or to a cardinal over tea – could echo within the hierarchy or across the blogosphere, and possibly be construed as criticism or divergence from the current pope.

Allegiance to Benedict still runs strong in some church circles, and there are those who would not hesitate to invoke the retired pope’s supposed opinion to impede or slow the projects of Pope Francis. Precisely to cut off that possibility, I expect Benedict to be true to his word and maintain a prudent silence.

What’s intriguing is that there is still no attempt to codify any of this, and no official job description for a retired pope. Benedict is doing it his way, but the next time may be quite different.

Yeah, interesting, as far as it goes. But Andy Borowitz has the inside scoop:

Over the past few days, several limbs of conservative media have been vibrating with the fear that the Department of Defense was about to hatch a dark plot to persecute military personnel — including chaplains — for “sharing their faith.” Some critics found those claims unpersuasive. But yesterday, news outlets began reporting a new Pentagon statement allegedly banning “proselytizing,” under threat of court martial. And those who predicted the military was about to bar Christians from obeying Jesus’ command to “preach the gospel” declared that they were right all along. Today, however, in response to my queries about the earlier statement, the Department of Defense has clarified that there is no ban on faith-sharing in the military.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Wisconsin congressman with national ambitions has apparently evolved, and I don’t think that bodes well for the hierarchy’s efforts on these issues. From Roll Call:

In a town hall meeting with constituents in Wisconsin on Monday, the House Budget Committee chairman said he has changed his mind on the adoption issue, even though his opinions on other aspects of gay rights have remained unchanged…

…“Adoption, I’d vote differently these days. That was I think a vote I took in my first term, 1999 or 2000. I do believe that if there are children who are orphans who do not have a loving person or couple, I think if a person wants to love and raise a child they ought to be able to do that. Period,” Ryan said in a video posted by the liberal website Think Progress. “I would vote that way. I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, we just respectfully disagree on that issue.”

…In the past, Ryan has opposed almost every equality measure, getting a “0″ on the Human Rights Campaign’s most recent Congressional scorecard. He opposed the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” supported the Defense of Marriage Act and voted against the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Protection Act, which expanded federal hate crime laws to protect the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

In his remarks Monday, Ryan said he has “always supported” civil unions. Though there is no evidence to support that, it’s a clear sign that the politics of the issue have changed and that even the most conservative Republicans need to appear more hospitable to gays and lesbians in order to expand their voting bloc.

So if you lose Paul Ryan, who’s next? Then again, a lot of Catholics said he’d lost them with his Randian version of subsidiarity.

Sadly enough, it’s true:

PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona cities and counties that hold community gun buyback events will have to sell the surrendered weapons instead of destroying them under a bill Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law Monday.

The bill was championed by Republicans in the GOP-controlled Legislature who argued that municipalities were skirting a 2010 law that was tightened last year and requires police to sell seized weapons to federally licensed dealers. They argued that destroying property turned over to the government is a waste of taxpayer resources.

Democrats who argued against the bill said it usurps local control and goes against the wishes of people who turn over their unwanted weapons to keep them out of the hands of children or thieves.

One of the most memorable seminars I ever attended as a student was in a political philosophy course, in which one week covered debates about wealth stratification in ideal and real societies. We students were to submit short position papers about what we thought would be the ideal ratio of income inequality in a society. That is, how much gap would be necessary to inspire innovation, excellence, and risk-taking, while also not being so large that it would lead to societal breakdown, unjustifiable poverty, dangerous concentrations of power, or, at worst, armed revolution.

“No, no, dear. It’s only 20 times more than yours.”

As I recall it, the most left-wing students in the class were in the 10-to-1 range (200K income vs. 20 K income), and the more libertarian students rejected the very notion of an ideal ratio (“let the market do its thing, and let the people revolt if necessary”). There were lots of folks in the middle (20-to-1 or even 100-to-1).

The real ratios of income inequality in the U.S. have become basically unimaginable since then (as in, I have real trouble imagining the fact that the one Walton family has as much wealth as the bottom 35-40% of our country). Discussion of these ratios has recently focused instead on individual companies.  The data is easier to imagine and is, I think, more meaningful, since all the members of a company are, in some sense, working toward common goals and have very clear rewards for working toward them together.

Yesterday Bloomberg news put out an excellent story and data infographic of current CEO-to-worker pay ratios. (Fortune did a smaller graphic last year.)  In short, the ratio has grown by 1,000% since 1950. Many of us already knew that.  What I did not know was that it has even grown since the financial crisis and Great Recession — up 20% since 2009.

The attention-grabbers are the top ratios, with J. C. Penney winning the inequality award at 1,795-to-1. (That’s one loaf of bread vs. the Empire State Building, to help you imagine it.) The story profiles a sales employee as contrasted to the ousted C.E.O.

But it’s the overall picture that is worth pondering. Most real people do in fact retain drive for innovation, excellence, and risk-taking with much lower ratios than companies currently have. I have no doubt some of CostCo’s employees are working hard to innovate and excel, even though they only have the “low” ratio of about 50-to-1.

For those who often pine for the 1950′s, the relatively low income inequality of that era should be remembered as a central aspect of overall stability. And the unprecedented income equality in our own era should be considered a bellwether of further instability.