Archive for September, 2007

Our Fellow Bloggers in Teheran


This morning’s infamous New York Times has the following from our fellow bloggers in Iran. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/opinion/30parker.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Does it confirm the view that in their distinctive ways Misters Bush and Ahmadinejad still have a lot in common, including the puzzlement of their citizens about what the hell they think they’re doing?

Freedom’s march.

Posted by

Iraq was just the beginning:

Founded this summer by a dozen wealthy conservatives, the nonprofit
group  [Freedom's Watch] is set apart from most advocacy groups by the immense wealth of
its core group of benefactors, its intention to far outspend its rivals
and its ambition to pursue a wide-ranging agenda. Its next target: Iran
policy.

Next month, Freedom’s Watch will sponsor a private forum
of 20 experts on radical Islam that is expected to make the case that
Iran poses a direct threat to the security of the United States,
according to several benefactors of the group.

(…)

One benefactor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the
group was hoping to raise as much as $200 million by November 2008.
Raising big money “will be easy,” the benefactor said, adding that
several of the founders each wrote a check for $1 million. Mr. Blakeman
would not confirm or deny whether any donor gave $1 million, or more,
to the organization.

Since the group is organized as a
tax-exempt organization, it does not have to reveal its donors and it
can not engage in certain types of partisan activities that directly
support political candidates. It denies coordinating its activities
with the White House, although many of its donors and organizers are
well connected to the administration, including Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary.

(…)

Mr. Fleischer said: “After the president announced the surge, and even Republicans
started getting nervous, there was a palpable fear among several of us
that this fall Congress was going to cut off the funding and the Middle
East would explode and America would likely get hit. It really wasn’t
much more complicated than that.”

That may be the best description of this drumbeat so far. Read the whole story in today’s New York Times.

Tidbits from Taylor

Posted by

Since its arrival by the friendly Amazon express, I’ve been browsing Charles Taylor’s monumental, tantalizing, and repetitive magnum opus: A Secular Age.

Happily, the author states at the outset: “I ask the reader who picks up this book not to think of it as a continuous story-and-argument, but rather as a set of interlocking essays, which shed light on each other, and offer a context of relevance for each other.”

This makes it possible to excerpt passages or pages, and also potentially misleading, since the whole context does matter. But obtaining some sense of the whole context requires the careful reading of more than 850 pages, including end notes.

On the way to the eschaton, I was struck by this paragraph whose immediate context concerns certain writers of the eighteenth century, but whose contemporary avatars abound.

Unitarianism, like the Arianism which inspired it, can be seen as an attempt to hold on to the central figure of Jesus, while cutting loose from the main soteriological doctrines of historical Christianity. What is important about Jesus is not that he inaugurates a new relation with and among us, restoring or transforming our relation to God. That is not what salvation can mean. What it properly amounts to is our acceding to rational principles of conduct in law and ethics, and our becoming able to act on these. Jesus’ role in this is that of a teacher, by precept and example. His importance is as an inspiring trailblazer of what we will later call Enlightenment. For this reason he doesn’t need to be divine; indeed, he had better not be, if we want to maintain the notion of a self-contained impersonal order which God in his wisdom has set up, both in nature and for human society. Incarnation would blur the edges of this (p. 291).

Archbishop Burke and Communion Redux

Posted by

Archbishop Burke has just published a scholarly article entitled “The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Preserving in Manifest Grave Sin.”

It’s implications are not entirely clear to me, but he seems to be saying that each individual minister of communion (lay as well as ordained) has an obligation to refuse communion to Catholics in manifest grave sin, including pro-choice politicians. He argues that Eucharistic ministers are “held, under pain of mortal sin, to deny the sacraments to the unworthy.” Here’s an article about it in The Pew Forum, pithily entitled “Ministers Must now be Communion Cops.”

I’m not sure what’s going on in the article, so I have some questions about how this is supposed to work in practice:

1. Is Archbishop Burke trying to encourage priests and lay ministers in dioceses other than his own to adopt this policy, in the face of different procedures in place adopted by their bishop? Assuming his account of the norms themselves are correct (I’m not a canon lawyer) there is still the question of jurisdiction. Does canon law provide for who constitutes the supreme interpretor of canon law within a particular dioceses? Assuming that canon law provides that the bishop of that diocese is the definitive interpreter, is Archbishop Burke encouraging widespread ecclesiastical civil disobedience on the part of priests and Eucharistic ministers in dioceses which do not approach the communion issue in his way?

2. As Archbishop Burke notes, canon law requires potential communicants to be warned before being denied communion. How is this all supposed to work, if each individual Eucharistic minister has to make up his or her own mind about who is worthy? The question of the relationship of law and morality is complicated under the best circumstances, always dealing with the art of the possible. Church teaching on, say, cooperation with evil and legislation is not easy to understand. Who decides if a politician’s explanation is good enough–that he is acting in good faith–or that he has been given sufficient chance to reform — each and every communion minister?

3. What happens if there’s a mess? Suppose a communion minister in another diocese denies communion to a politician whom he believes is acting in grave sin about life/marriage issues (say there’s a disagreement about whether domestic partnership health benefits undermines marriage). To whom can the politician denied communion appeal? The bishop? But what if the communion minister doesn’t recognize his authority, since he wasn’t sound enough on life issues, since he didn’t replicate Archbishop Burke’s denial of communion policy. Would justice require a public apology in the diocesan newspaper? Who should issue the apology? The bishop? He didn’t deny communion. The Eucharistic minister? He doesn’t think he did anything wrong. He read the Catechism. And after all, he’s under “pain of mortal sin” to protect the sanctity of the Eucharist.

4. How does civil law enter into this? Suppose a person denied communion claims that it was done as part of a personal vendetta on the part of Eucharistic minister, and tat the denial constitutes the tort of defamation. How would such a law suit proceed, and what would the church state implications be?

5. What about other sins? As Archbishop Burke’s article seems to state, the provisions he invokes contemplate refusing communion to a whole range of public sinners,not merely politicians. It is his own prudence, it seems to me, that limits denial of communion to these cases. But others might have different prudential judgments about who constitutes a recalcitrant public sinner? Do we want each and every communion minister deciding who’s a sufficiently public sinner in the range of cases discussed in the article? See question about defamation above.

Further thoughts on “Plan B”

Posted by

The Connecticut bishops have reversed themselves and will now allow Catholic hospitals to dispense emergency contraceptive pills, known as “Plan B” pills, to rape victims. See the Hartford Courant story here. This has naturally caused many tongues to wag. The Catholic World News story quotes a bishops’ spokesman as saying that the hierarchy had undergone ”an evolution in thinking.” Beyond that, there is not much. One wonders how and why their thinking changed, and how this will affect many similar debates, or even what Rome thinks. Illumination welcomed.

Fun with Polling Data

Posted by

For those of you who are interested in such things, Gallup has done some interesting subgroup breakdowns of support for the leading Democratic and Republican candidates for President.  Hillary Clinton, for example, leads among virtually every single sub-category among Democrats one can think of.  Rudy Giuliani has strong leads in most of the Republican categories, but he appears more vulnerable in the South and among older voters.

Here is the data point I found intriguing.  Roman Catholics are contributing significantly to Giuliani’s strong lead.  Among Protestants, Giuliani leads Fred Thompson by a mere six points, less than his eight point lead in the overall poll.  Among Catholics, however, Giuliani crushes his nearest rival (Fred Thompson again) 44% to 18%.

There is no question that there are probably other factors at work than religion alone (e.g. class, geography, ethnicity, church attendance etc.) in explaining Giuliani’s strong support among Catholics.  But this is still an interesting data point.  Catholic Republicans appear to be supporting Giuliani in large numbers despite the well-known tensions between his positions and that of the Church on a number of issues.  I’d be very interested to know what the numbers look like for those who attend mass weekly.

The Catholic identity aggregator.

Posted by

America magazine has posted a slew of letters they received in response to Fr. Miscamble’s article on Catholic identity at Notre Dame. Keep an eye out for a few Commonweal and dotCommonweal regulars. (Registration is required.)

And don’t forget:

  • John McGreevy’s response to Miscamble in Commonweal.
  • His dotCommonweal post on that piece: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/post/index/1285/Catholic-hiring-redux
  • Peter Steinfels’s post on the issue: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/post/index/1287/Hiring-CatholicHiring-for-Mission

(Sorry for the dead links. Technical difficulties.)

Faith, Sex, Catholicism and College Students

Posted by

An interesting white paper on some of the issues we discussed below, produced by St. John’s University and the College of St. Benedict.

Banned Books Week


Banned Books Week starts Saturday, an occasion many public libraries use to help patrons understand intellectual freedom issues and why their tax dollars purchase books they may find personally offensive.

As a former advocate for our state library association and library trustee, I have tracked the American Library Association’s 10 most challenged books of the year since 2000.

Some observations: The majority of books challenged are aimed at “young adults”–older teens in library parlance. Some are on high school reading lists, which perhaps explains the “unsuited to age” challenge.

Occasionally, an adult classic finds its way onto the challenged books list: Maya Angelou’s “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men,” “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” by Mark Twain, and “Beloved” by Toni Morrison.

Books are most often challenged for offensive language or sexual content (often both). An increasing number of books are being singled out for homosexual content, including four on the list released this year.

Challenges for violence seem to be dwindling. Back in 2001 seven books were cited for violence. This year, only two, though “Beloved” is one of the most violent books I have ever read. “The Bluest Eye,” also by Morrison, has been challenged for violence in the past, but not this year.

Satanism and the occult challenges are also declining as grounds for challenges. Just one this year, Alvin Schwartz’s “Scary Stories.” The “Harry Potter” series was usually challenged on the grounds of magical themes. It topped the list four years running, but fell off the list entirely in 2004.

Racism and insensitivity are also decreasing reasons for book challenges.

The perennial favorite (or un-favorite in this case) book is Robert Cormier’s “The Chocolate Wars,” which has been on the list since 2000, though this year it’s in 10th place.

Two other frequently cited books are the “Alice” series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor (sexual content and offensive language) and “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” by Stephen Chbosky.

“Captain Underpants” also makes frequent appearances on the lists, but not this year.

I encourage people to read through this year’s list and those from previous years (search “most challenged books” plus the year on the ala.org site). You’ll find those you love (for me it’s “Huck Finn,” “The Giver,” “Of Mice and Men,” and “Harry Potter”) and hate (“Catcher in the Rye” and “Captain Underpants”).

Compare your loves and hates with your neighbors, friends, co-workers and spouse. I guarantee arguments! It’s a good lesson in why libraries try to offer a wide variety of books and prevent citizens, however well-intentioned, from banning them from the shelves. It’s a good reminder that guiding our children’s taste and morals is our job, not the library’s.

The ten most challenged books in 2006 were:

  1. “And Tango Makes Three” by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, for homosexuality, anti-family, and unsuited to age group
  2. “Gossip Girls” series by Cecily Von Ziegesar for homosexuality, sexual content, drugs, unsuited to age group, and offensive language
  3. “Alice” series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor for sexual content and offensive language
  4. “The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big Round Things” by Carolyn Mackler for sexual content, anti-family, offensive language, and unsuited to age group
  5. “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison for sexual content, offensive language, and unsuited to age group
  6. “Scary Stories” series by Alvin Schwartz for occult/Satanism, unsuited to age group, violence, and insensitivity
  7. “Athletic Shorts” by Chris Crutcher for homosexuality and offensive language
  8. “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” by Stephen Chbosky for homosexuality, sexually explicit, offensive language, and unsuited to age group
  9. “Beloved” by Toni Morrison for offensive language, sexual content, and unsuited to age group
  10. “The Chocolate War” by Robert Cormier for sexual content, offensive language, and violence

Is “craziness” contagious?


The lead paragraph from today’s infamous NYTimes:

Like Mohamed ElBaradei, we want to make sure what he calls the “crazies” don’t start a war with Iran. We fear his do-it-yourself diplomacy is playing right into the crazies’ hands — in Washington and Tehran.  Read the rest:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/opinion/27thur1.html

“Prisons to Restore Purged Religious Books”

Posted by

The NYTimes went and did it again. First their secret campaign to help MoveOn.org was unmasked, leading to embarassment and a shift in focus from President Bush’s war in Iraq to the Liberal Media–the real threat.

Now the Times’ story from Sept. 10 about the banning of religious books from federal prisons has actually led to a reversal of that policy, according to this piece. Prisoners can now read books like “Imitation of Christ.”

That obviously can’t be what the Times intended. Can it? 

How Can You NOT Like Him?

Posted by

An interview in Parade Magazine with Stephen Colbert

“Hail Mary” Pass?

Posted by

The Episcopal House of Bishops ended its six day meeting in New Orleans yesterday with the almost unanimous approval of a Statement responding to the requests of the Anglican Primates.

Reporters for the Boston Globe and the New York Times seem to have reached somewhat different assessments of the probable success of their endeavor.

Michael Paulson writes for the Globe:

The Episcopal bishops of the United States, attempting
to head off a schism over gay rights and biblical interpretation,
yesterday promised to “exercise restraint” by not approving more gay
bishops and not authorizing a formal ritual for blessing same-sex
couples.

The statement is expected to have little practical impact in the
United States. Priests in many dioceses around the country, including
Massachusetts, are already blessing same-sex unions without a
nationally authorized rite, and that practice will not stop. And even
before yesterday’s statement, several bishops had said the Episcopal
Church was unlikely to approve another gay bishop anytime soon because
of the uproar that greeted the 2003 approval of an openly gay priest,
V. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire.

The pledge, part of an eight-point statement issued in the final
minutes of a six-day meeting in New Orleans, reduces the likelihood
that the Episcopal Church will be ousted from the 77 million-member
global Anglican Communion, according to many US church officials. Only
one of the approximately 160 bishops in attendance could be heard
voting against the measure, although several of the most conservative
bishops had left the meeting Friday.

“I think it lessens the possibility of schism,” said Bishop M.
Thomas Shaw of Massachusetts. “I think this is going to meet the needs
of the archbishop of Canterbury, and it shows how much we want to be
part of the Anglican Communion.”

The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts
Schori, referred to the statement as a clarification of positions
already articulated by the US bishops, but said she hopes that “our
sacrificial actions and united actions” will help stave off schism.

However, Neela Banerjee of the Times writes:

Bishops of the Episcopal Church
on Tuesday rejected demands by leaders of the worldwide Anglican
Communion to roll back the church’s liberal stance on homosexuality,
increasing the possibility of fracture within the communion and the
Episcopal Church itself.

After nearly a week of talks at their semiannual meeting in New
Orleans, the House of Bishops adopted a resolution that defied a
directive by the Anglican Communion’s regional leaders, or primates, to
change several church policies regarding the place of gay men and
lesbians in their church. But the bishops also expressed a desire to
remain part of the communion, and they appeared to be trying to stake
out a middle ground that would allow them to do so.

Still, up to five American dioceses led by theologically
conservative bishops may try to break with the Episcopal Church and
place themselves under the oversight of a foreign primate in the coming
months, said the Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon, a conservative Episcopal
strategist.

“We’ll have the chaos here increase as more individuals, parishes
and dioceses begin moving,” Mr. Harmon said. “What will happen is that
we will see more of the disunity here spread to the rest of the
communion.”

In a voice vote, all but one bishop supported a resolution, called
“A Response to Questions and Concerns Raised by Our Anglican Communion
Partners.” Several conservative bishops who are considering leaving the
Episcopal Church were not in attendance.

The resolution affirmed the status quo of the Episcopal Church, both theological conservatives and liberals said.

The full text of the Statement is here.

I confess that my eyes grow dim when I encounter bureaucratic legalese, but to my Catholic “sensibilities” it looks like a “Hail Mary” pass, wafted aloft in the hope that Rowan’s outstretched arms can haul it in.

Discernment

Posted by

A post below, on the resignation of his office by Episcopal Bishop Jeffrey Steenson, elicited a long and fascinating thread.

Now Bishop Steenson has addressed the House of Bishops and given some of the personal and theological reasons for his choice.

He said:

Our spring meeting this year at Camp Allen was a profoundly disturbing experience for me. I was more than a little surprised when such a substantial majority declared the polity of the Episcopal Church to be primarily that of an autonomous and independent local church relating to the wider Anglican Communion by voluntary association. This is not the Anglicanism in which I was formed, inspired by the Oxford movement and the Catholic Revival in the Church of England. Perhaps something was defective in my education for ministry in the Episcopal Church, but, honestly, I did not recognize the church that this House described on that occasion.

This sent me to reflect further on that crucial text from Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium: “Many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside the Church’s visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamic toward Catholic unity.” If this is true, then what we say and do as Anglicans ought to be directed toward the goal of reunification with the Catholic Church. The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission strove valiantly to bring this about, and it once seemed that Anglicanism might offer itself, even sacrificially, for the sake of authentic Christian unity. It is much to be regretted that its 1998 report, “The Gift of Authority,” has been largely forgotten in our present conflicts, especially its call for the re-reception of the historic ministry of Peter within Anglican life.

He goes on:

From time to time it seems necessary for some to embark on these personal journeys as a reminder that the churches of the Reformation were not intended to carry on indefinitely separated from their historical and theological mooring in the Church of Rome. I believe that the Lord now calls me in this direction. It amazes me, after all of these years, what a radical journey of faith this must necessarily be. To some it seems foolish; to others disloyal; to others an abandonment. I once thought that it would be a simple matter of considering the theological evidence and then drawing a rational conclusion that surely would be self-evident to reasonable people. But faith is also a mystery and a gift, and this ultimately becomes a journey of the heart.

Towards the end he says:

My old teacher, Dr. Mark Noll, writes in Is the Reformation Over? of his surprise at reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church and finding himself stopping to pray. That is exactly it, the experience of giving your heart to Jesus Christ again because you have encountered his words anew, now embodied in his ecclesial Body at its source. I do want to assure you that I have tried to follow the Ignatian principle of discernment, to make no important decision while in a place of spiritual desolation. I have especially sought to give no place to that anger which darkens understanding and clouds judgment.

,
I think his appeal to “The Gift of Authority,” an Agreed Statement of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) has particular relevance, with its call for a “re-reception” of the Petrine Ministry.

The full text of Bishop Steenson’s Statement is here.

Unionbusting 101

Posted by

In These Times gives us this inside look at a seminar on how to prevent your workers from unionizing.  (HT Kevin Drum)  Here’s a sample:

Once the seminar got underway, I learned that all of us were doing
the right thing in resisting unions. “We believe that the union is
irrelevant for the 21st century,” declared Lotito. Unfortunately,
“unions have new weapons.” To make his point, he waved a clipping from
the New York Times describing some recent public relations woes
of Wal-Mart. “The risk for some organizations is not that you’re going
to be organized from within,” he advised us. “It’s that you’re going to
be organized from without.”

My fellow students, of whom there were about 20, came from various
parts of the country. We got to know one another a little when Lotito
invited us to share our reasons for taking the course. It became like a
support group. “We want to go to union-free, but we’ve got a bullseye
on our back,” explained Martin, a tough-looking distribution supervisor
for a food services company. “It’s a big threat.”

Donna, a human resources manager for a discount chain store with a
gung-ho manner, was more upbeat. “I’ve never dealt with unions, and I’m
dedicated to making sure that we keep them out of our distribution
center,” she vowed. “It’s my mission!”

Sex & Christianity: How Has the Moral Landscape Changed?

Posted by

I thought I’d open a thread on Charles Taylor’s cover article in this week’s issue.

Hiring Catholic–Hiring for Mission?

Posted by

I followed the earlier discussion of hiring Catholics at Notre Dame with great interest.  Now John McGreevy has shed further light on the issue in Commonweal and asked for reactions here.

My own thoughts on “hiring for mission” in Catholic higher education are spelled out at length in A People Adrift.  I have repeated and elaborated on them in talks to faculty groups, administrators, and trustees on any number of campuses—and I have benefited greatly from the feedback I’ve received.

I’ve tried and failed several times to distill my thoughts to a blog-appropriate length, but I’ll try again.

First, I disagree strongly with any suggestion that the loss of a specific Catholic identity to Catholic institutions of higher education would be unimportant—or that it can take care of itself without a deliberate strategy to resist powerful forces of secularization built into the society and academia.  Miscamble, McGreevy, and Leslie Tentler in her recent review in Commonweal say the same.

Second, at least for most major Catholic universities, the strategy of assuring that Catholic identity by hiring Catholics is Dead on Arrival.  Instead, they must pursue the strategy of “hiring for Catholic mission.” 

The two strategies are quite different.  One is organized around the religious adherence or identification of prospective faculty hires.  The other is organized around the kind of scholarly record, teaching skills, and intellectual agenda that prospects could bring to the campus.

Most major Catholic universities have had religiously diverse faculties for decades now, and many, especially urban universities, have similarly diverse student bodies.  Any significant initiative to hire Catholic will prove offensive to non-Catholic members of the community and their Catholic colleagues.  It will require a religious test alien to the academic culture of universities and injurious to the religious presence in scholarly life that Catholic universities should represent.  It will stir from the get-go a degree of resistance that will be overcome by nothing short of top-down fiat disruptive of the university community.  

Further, hiring Catholics does not in itself guarantee that the Catholic mission of these universities will be preserved and nurtured.  There are plenty of Catholics socialized to teach and do research in ways indistinguishable from their non-Catholic peers and have no particular relation to the Catholic mission of an institution.  As McGreevy makes clear, there are plenty of outstanding non-Catholic scholars whose work and outlook is extraordinarily pertinent to questions central to the maintenance and renewal of the Catholic tradition and community.  It may even be the case that an articulate atheist willing to engage in genuine conversation about religion and, say, Chaucer studies could make a greater contribution to a Catholic university’s distinctive mission that a Chaucer expert who was a daily communicant but whose expertise in Middle English had nothing to do with religion one way or another. 

Finally, a focus on religious adherence rather than scholarly agenda and interests poses the problem inadvertently raised by Father Miscamble’s comment that the 53 percent of the Notre Dame faculty listed as Catholic may be “inflated by those who answered ‘Catholic’ on the faculty questionnaire but for whom the practice of the faith appears nominal at best.”  Appears?  How are we to know?  And what is nominal?  Perhaps the Notre Dame questionnaire should also ask those identifying themselves as Catholic whether their faith is “nominal” or not?  Or include a question about the frequency of their reception of the sacraments?  Perhaps a faculty committee could vote on this matter.  Or the provost decide.  What about once-fervent faculty members whose faith turns nominal or faculty members whose faith was nominal and then becomes reinvigorated?  Why not follow the logic of confessional colleges and demand periodic avowals of faith?

The strategy of hiring for Catholic mission is not a slam-dunk either.  But its chances of success—and I’m talking about major universities, now, not small colleges where the situation may be different—are far greater.  Hiring for Catholic mission (or more precisely for the Catholic dimension of an essentially educational mission) is also, I would wager, likely to achieve the result of adding more Catholics to the faculty but not by seeking that goal directly. 

The mission of an institution of higher education is, of course, an educational mission but the mission of a Catholic institution of higher education should have a Catholic dimension. And neither the educational-academic mission of a Notre Dame nor its Catholic dimension will be the same as that, say, of a small women’s liberal-arts college or one that has found a new niche serving non-traditional, predominantly minority students in urban settings.  So Catholic institutions need to become much clearer about what their missions are, in the first place.  A university is not going to enlist heads of departments, faculty committees, and deans—let alone boards of trustees—in any meaningful effort at hiring for mission unless the university engages in a continuing candid institution-wide discussion of the mission.  And believe me, that is a pretty unlikely discussion if hiring by baptismal certificate or church attendance is lurking in the background. 

In the absence of clarity and specifics, the void is filled with all kinds of assumptions and stereotypes.  In practice, not rhetoric, the mission for some is evangelizing students or simply protecting what faith they come with.  For others, it is simply not giving scandal by associating a Catholic institution with ideas or individuals of dubious orthodoxy or morality. For many it is honoring the founding religious order and the school’s heritage by simply becoming “preeminent,” whether among Catholic institutions or peer secular ones. 

I agree that something is very wrong when students graduate from Catholic colleges and universities without any serious exposure to or knowledge of Catholicism, its riches (and its failings), past and present.  But something is also very wrong when that is the case—and it is the case—with the 90 percent or so of the Catholic students who are pursuing higher education at state, community, and non-Catholic schools.  

When it comes to universities like Notre Dame or Georgetown or Fordham or Boston College, the part of the Catholic mission that seems to be regularly understated is scholarship.  Not just scholarship in general, i.e., peer-reviewed publications across the whole range of various disciplines but scholarship especially oriented toward maintaining and renewing the Catholic tradition and worldwide community (not infrequently by conversation with critical or alternative views) and for addressing questions that are of exceptional interest to it (here the text of Ex Corde Ecclesiae has a lot to say). 

Such scholarship can as easily be pursued and is no less necessary in the fields of history or literature or economics or political science as in theology.  It can also be pursued by individual scholars on secular campuses.  But it might well be more extensively and profoundly pursued at a Catholic university like Notre Dame because (a) it would be more apt to be valued and rewarded there and (b) it would be fostered by an environment where the questions, concerns, history and vocabulary enlivening it were more widely shared. 

And this, it seems to me, should be the critical question for “hiring for mission” (or, to repeat, for the Catholic component of an educational mission): Does this prospective faculty member have anything in her teaching and research repertoire, alongside the expected level of disciplinary skills and achievements, to contribute to this kind of scholarship as pursued in this kind of community?  It is

Starting there by no means solves all the problems or overcomes all the resistance.   But because that starting point bears a kinship with the academic questions that are normally used for defining a faculty slot, for recruiting and interviewing, and so on, it bears at least a reasonable chance of success.  At least for major universities, a campaign to “hire Catholics” does not.

MoveOn.Times

Posted by

Now that a semblance of normalcy has returned to upper Broadway, I thought it worthwhile to call attention to what some may have missed: the Public Editor’s column in last Sunday’s Times.

It begins:

For nearly two weeks, The New York Times has been defending a
political advertisement that critics say was an unfair shot at the
American commander in Iraq.

But I think the ad violated
The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the
advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to.

It continues:

By the end of last week the ad appeared to have backfired on both
MoveOn.org and fellow opponents of the war in Iraq — and on The Times.
It gave the Bush administration and its allies an opportunity to change
the subject from questions about an unpopular war to defense of a
respected general with nine rows of ribbons on his chest, including a
Bronze Star with a V for valor. And it gave fresh ammunition to a
cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the
“liberal media.”

And, in a manner reminiscent of some episcopal non-statements, this:

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times and chairman of its
parent company, declined to name the salesperson or to say whether
disciplinary action would be taken.

Bravo to Clark Hoyt for temporarily breaching the bastions.

Catholic hiring redux

Posted by

In the spirit of shameless self-promotion I’ve written a short piece on faculty hiring at Catholic universities, now free on the Commonweal site. All comments welcome and I’ll try to respond as well in a day or two.

Who moved my nukes?

Posted by

About those armed nuclear missiles that were transported by plane through U.S. airspace… The WaPost reports that it was the result of a “simple error.” One Talking Points Memo writer isn’t buying it:

So let’s see: not only did the munitions custodian officer lose track
of the warheads, but an additional two-man team failed to record the
pertinent data, and the pilots did not inspect the weapons. And now we
learn that nukes and conventional weapons are stored together
willy-nilly?

A former B-52 pilot offers the following bracing speculation on TPM:

With all of the necessary orders and paperwork required just to move
a nuclear weapon from one room in a storage facility to another, it can
be stated with some sort of certainty that this was not a casual
mistake as the Department of Defense has eluted (sic) to.

Then if the movement wasn’t a mistake, it obviously was done with some sort of purpose in mind.

The destination of the aircraft was Barksdale AFB, LA from which a
number of the strikes on the Middle East have initiated.
Speculation
would lead us to believe the weapons were being stockpiled at this
facility for a possible strike somewhere in the world. Additional
speculation would also lead us to believe the strike was to occur in
the very near future. Why else the need to forego the normal overland
transportation procedures for nuclear weapons and risk flying them to
their destination in violation of a treaty with the Russians. Also how
is it the press was aware of this movement? After all who would be
suspicious of a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base and a B-52 landing at
a B-52 base. This event goes on many times each day for practice
missions and training. Some one had to have leaked the information to
the press that the U.S. was moving nuclear weapons by air in a treaty
violation.

This leads us to two possible scenarios.

1. Whoever leaked the
information would have been someone in a position of authority knowing
what was going on and concerned the U.S. was actually attempting to use
nuclear weapons somewhere in the world and wanting to stop it by
exposing it. This someone would have had to have a security clearance
of some kind and violated the trust under which it was issued thus
being exposed to severe penalties and jail time for potential treason
etc. Facing such severe penalties someone would have to be totally
committed to his/her own conscience/moral beliefs. This preemptive
exposure would put the U.S. on a difficult footing and loss of the
surprise factor, thus potentially curtailing the mission.

2. The
other possibility would be the information on the flight was leaked on
purpose in an attempt to influence a foreign government, group or
situation to move in a particular direction. That the U.S. was “Saber
rattling” and the stakes were high enough to risk antagonizing the
Russians to accomplish it. (With the possibility the Russians were
supporting the action and willing to overlook the violation as
exemplified by their lack of response in the entire situation.)

In either case we have only seen some minor actions taking by the
Department of Defense in an attempt to say; well, by accident we left a
few nuc’s laying around on some missiles we were going to destroy and
they accidentally got loaded onto a plane that by some coincidence
happened to be going to a base other than the one it was assigned to
(we rarely fly B-52’s assigned at one station to another station).
B-52’s usually take off from their home base, fly their mission
anywhere in the world by aerial refueling and then return to the base
from which they departed. Often these flights take over 20 to 30 hours.
If this was a mistake, what is happening to the general officers in the
chain of command who would have had to issue lawful orders for the
movement of those weapons and all those in the custodial chain who
would have had to sign for each weapon as they gained possession of
them? It just doesn’t add up. Especially when there is a line item in
the budget before Congress to upgrade the missiles the Air Force says
they were about to destroy.
There appears to be too many loose ends
still dangling. In addition to all of this did anyone notice how
quickly this entire situation quieted down. Usually the press would
play on such a world shaking event for months. They do for other things
like the first birthday of Anna Nicole’s daughter. We’ve heard about
that for weeks on end. But, for a world event with treaty violation
implications, no protests from the other treaty signers or other major
world players, we get about three days of news attention and it goes
away.
It seems the exposure has played its roles and has gone away with
hopes all is forgotten.

In closing, again we are not privileged in knowing all of the facts
and undercover goings on in this matter to be fully aware of what the
real intent of this action, but it appears to be more than what the
surface information appears.

Church or Faith?

Posted by

While attention was focused on the Anglican-Episcopal meeting of bishops in New Orleans that hopes to avert schism, yet another Episcopal bishop departed from Canterbury for Rome. Bishop Jeffrey Bishop Steenson of the Diocese of Rio Grande has written a letter to his clergy informing them of his decision, and will write a letter to the diocese shortly. (HT: Amy Welborn.) He is is the process of resigning as bishop in order to clear the way for his move. Steenson is the third Episcopal bishop to swim the Tiber this year; the other two were retired.

Of course, all are welcome. But I find these conversions interesting because 1) they are all from self-styled “orthodox” Christians and 2) they all seem rooted in disaffection and disagreement with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.

Certainly ecclesiology is vitally important. But converting to Catholicism because one disagrees with the intra-ecclesial disputes of one’s own church–especially in such a “churchy” church as the Anglican Communion–seems to be only a first step on a pilgrimage rather than the final destination as it is often portrayed. What about their thoughts on, say, the Eucharist, for example? Or a host of other key questions that they had previously disputed–unless, that is, they weren’t being quite forthright all these many years as Episcopal bishops. Orthodoxy would seem to entail a great emphasis on believing the right things for the right reasons. And if these neo-converts think they’re joining a church with no disputations, well, they should check in on this blog.

I of course can’t judge anyone’s conscience. But going by the public comments of these bishops, I have to ask if these are “conversions of convenience”?

Preview of U.N. Address?

Posted by

Pope Benedict gave a short address on Friday to a gathering of participants in a meeting of the “Centrist Democratic International.”

The following paragraphs may offer a preview to his anticipated Address to the United Nations in April.

Another cause highly esteemed by all of you is the defence of religious
liberty, which is a fundamental, irrepressible, inalienable and inviolable right
rooted in the dignity of every human being and acknowledged by various
international documents, especially the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 
The exercise of this freedom also includes the right to change religion, which
should be guaranteed not only legally, but also in daily practice.  In fact,
religious liberty corresponds to the human person’s innate openness to God, who
is the fullness of truth and the supreme good.  An appreciation for religious
freedom is a fundamental expression of respect for human reason and its capacity
to know the truth.  Openness to transcendence is an indispensable guarantee of
human dignity since within every human heart there are needs and desires which
find their fulfilment in God alone.  For this reason, God can never be excluded
from the horizon of man and world history!  That is why all authentically
religious traditions must be allowed to manifest their own identity publicly,
free from any pressure to hide or disguise it.

Moreover, due respect for religion helps to counter the charge that
society has forgotten God: an accusation shamelessly exploited by some terrorist
networks in an attempt to justify their threats against global security. 
Terrorism is a serious problem whose perpetrators often claim to act in God’s
name and harbour an inexcusable contempt for human life.  Society naturally has
a right to defend itself, but this right must be exercised with complete respect
for moral and legal norms, including the choice of ends and means.  In
democratic systems, the use of force in a manner contrary to the principles of a
constitutional State can never be justified.  Indeed, how can we claim to
protect democracy if we threaten its very foundations?  Consequently, it is
necessary both to keep careful watch over the security of civil society and its
citizens while at the same time safeguarding the inalienable rights of all. 
Terrorism needs to be fought with determination and effectiveness, mindful that
if the mystery of evil is widespread today, the solidarity of mankind in
goodness is an even more pervasive mystery.

The rest is here.

Cordial But Pointed (Update)

Posted by

Michael Paulson, writing in today’s Boston Globe, reports on the crucial talks being held in New Orleans between the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and the bishops of the Episcopal Church.

Archbishop of
Canterbury Rowan Williams, in a last-ditch effort to avoid a schism in
the global Anglican Communion, spent seven hours yesterday holed up in
a posh New Orleans hotel with most of the nation’s Episcopal bishops,
many of whom tried to persuade him that it is a mistake to define the
American church solely by its decision four years ago to approve an
openly gay priest as bishop of New Hampshire.

The unusual conversation took place just days
before a Sept. 30 deadline, set by leaders of Anglican provinces around
the world, for the American church to back away from its support for
gay rights or face some unspecified form of punishment. US bishops
spent yesterday morning telling the archbishop how they see the church
in the United States, and the archbishop spent the afternoon asking
them questions.

The meetings, which resume today, were closed to
reporters, but participants described them as cordial but pointed.
Williams was scheduled to meet with the bishops again this morning and
then to depart for Armenia; next week, the bishops were expected to
decide whether they are willing to explicitly promise not to approve
any more gay bishops or a blessing rite for same-sex couples, the
actions requested by the foreign Anglican leaders.

Williams leaves today, and the House of Bishops will meet until Tuesday; presumably to fashion a response to the Primates’ request. The continuing developments will be closely watched, both here and abroad.

The rest of the story is here.

Update: “In the business of compromise:”

Michael Paulson reports on Friday’s press conference of Archbishop Rowan Williams:

Williams, with the sleeves of his black clerical shirt rolled up,
spoke to the media after a day and a half of talks with 159 Episcopal
bishops who have gathered here for their semiannual meeting. After the
news conference, and lunch, Williams departed for Armenia; he said that
next week, after the bishops wrap up their meeting, he would review the
results before deciding how to proceed. But he said requests made at a
meeting of primates, as Anglican leaders are called, in Dar es Salaam
in February – that the bishops pledge not to consecrate any more gay
bishops and not to authorize a rite of blessing for same-sex unions -
were not set in stone.

“It’s been presented, sadly as a matter of
a set of demands, and, indeed, intrusions and impositions,” he said.
“We are, inevitably, in the business of compromise. What is brought up
before us will be something that’ll have to be scrutinized, thought
about, reflected on, digested, and it will take a bit of time.”

Although
he said there is no ultimatum, Williams made it clear he will be
watching closely how the bishops respond to remarks he and other
visiting Anglican leaders made Thursday and yesterday in New Orleans.

The rest is here.

List of books approved for prison


The New York Times today has the list of books that have been approved for federal prisons.

‘No End in Sight’

Posted by

At the Fordham forum on Iraq last night, one of many astute audience members asked whether there can be a genuine moral accounting for the injustice of the war without a mea culpa from those responsible. In that vein, have a look at the trailer to the film No End in Sight, which Andrew Sullivan dug up earlier today. I saw the documentary last week without having seen the trailer, which is itself quite stirring. But I urge you to sit through the whole thing. It’s not the feel-good movie of the year, of course, but it contains powerful, important footage and interviews. After watching the trailer, be sure to check out the NOW episode on No End in Sight, which includes clips from the film and new interviews with Paul Hughes and Omar Fekeiki.

Iran: five matters to think about


 

One of CWL’s regular commenters posted this at “Why We Might Invade Iran.” Sums up some of the horrifying possibilities.

 

Posted by
unagidon
on September 19, 2007, 4:20 pm

I have been hearing a lot of chatter in the news about Iran becoming the gravest threat to the world and I think that chances are far better than even that Bush is going to do a massive strike against them.

1. His big problem now is that the US has effectively changed sides in Iraq and the main US support seems to be with the Sunni. He thinks that hitting Iran will both weaken the Shiites and will reassure our Sunni client states.

2. While a Democratic president is quite capable of nuking Iran too, he or she won’t be doing it for the larger economic and political reasons that Bush wants to. In any case, Bush and his posse aren’t running again, so in that regard they have nothing to lose.

3. If you think about it, if the Adminstration is really and truly unilateral in their thinking, it makes sense to do it. It will change things real fast in the region and we will be locked down there for quite a while, since then the region will truly be destabilized.

4. The neocons have consistently believed that one can effect a regime change by doing something stupid like this.

5. One of our regional st ategic partners (rhymes with Schmisrael) [MOBS: I think we could just say Israel] has a government that would love to see us do it, especially since it would involve little direct risk to themselves.

 

UPDATE: And more here: IRAN: Retaliation for any Israeli Attack http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iran-Israel.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1190249402-22FbyUYQVCBQrpEVfsl6wA

 

Does anyone remember the threat/counter-threat, alliance, etc., outbreak of WWI. Well, okay we’re all too young for that. But…..

 

UPDATE: At Salon and thanks to Pat Lang: more food for chewing over.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/09/19/iran/print.html

 

“Is ‘Do Unto Others’ Written in Our Genes?”

Posted by

A fascinating article in the New York Times.

Preemptive Strike? (Update Updated)

Posted by

I may be spending too much time with theology, but today’s Times’ story (somewhat buried inside) came as a complete surprise. Here’s the opening:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 — The Sept. 6 attack by Israeli warplanes inside SyriaNorth Korea struck what Israeli intelligence believes was a nuclear-related facility that was helping to equip, according to current and former American and Israeli officials.

I presume those of you more current with other news sources may have heard of it. There wasn’t much on the brief TV news that I caught tonight. I would be interested in any further information/reflections — if you can manage the new spam-resistant comment process.

UPDATE:

There is an op-ed piece in today’s Wall Street Journal that concludes:

More questions will no doubt be raised about the operational details of the raid (some sources claim there were actually two raids, one of them diversionary), as well as fresh theories about what the Israelis were after and whether they got it. The only people that can provide real answers are in Jerusalem and Damascus, and for the most part they are preserving an abnormal silence. In the Middle East, that only happens when the interests of prudence and the demands of shame happen to coincide. Could we have just lived through a partial reprise of the 1981 Israeli attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor? On current evidence, it is the least unlikely possibility.

Today’s Boston Globe (Wednesday) takes a stand (sorta):

A strange air raid in Syria

NEAR DAWN on Sept. 6, the Israeli Air Force
conducted a raid in northern Syria. It is still not clear what the
Israelis hit or what they hoped to accomplish. What should be clear is
that the lands from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf have become
extraordinarily volatile, and there could hardly be a worse time for
Syria to be provoking Israel or for Israel to be provoking Syria.



Why the U.S. Might Invade Iran


Here is a useful, brief assessment of U.S.-Iran relations from the perspective of Shiism. The author of this article, Vali Nasr, is also author of The Shiia Revival, well worth reading.

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MayJun07/nasr.pdf

Comment spam.

Posted by

A small housekeeping matter, dotCommonwealers: We’ve been hit with our first comment spam (took them long enough), so we’ve had to implement image verification with every comment. I know it’s a pain in the neck, but spammers are a clever lot, and this is a relatively painless way to keep our blog free of their clutter.

Update: Be aware, the image-verification system is case-sensitive.

Free e-newsletter

More Information