Our parish men’s group was meeting yesterday and reflecting on the readings for the First Sunday of Advent.  Perhaps not surprisingly, most of us seemed to interpret the command to “be alert” in the context of our own personal salvation.  Are we going to be among the sheep or the goats when judgment day comes?

I wonder whether there are risks in reading this text in such an individualistic way.  The coming of the Lord-which should be a source of joy and hope for Christians-becomes a source of anxiety, as in the famous bumper sticker from the 1970s: “God is coming and boy is she pissed!”It may be helpful to remember that the coming of the Lord’s judgment is also the coming of the Lord’s justice, the justice that restores exiles to their home, rebuilds ruined homesteads, and provides hope for the widow and orphan.  It is about the definitive triumph of God over sin and evil.

Perhaps one of the reasons that such a coming fails to fill us with joy and hope is that we have become too attached to our lives as we currently live them.  As the Franciscan spiritual writer Richard Rohr once observed, to be able to pray “thy kingdom come,” we must also be able to pray “my kingdom go.”  I know that my own life is one of relative peace and prosperity, especially when compared to people outside the United States.  It’s not surprising that I might feel anxiety over the loss of this way of life.

One hermeneutical principle I try to follow is to read a difficult biblical text through the eyes of those who are poor or oppressed.  I suspect it is easier, for example, for those living through the unending war in the Congo to pray “come Lord, and do not delay” than it is for me.  When we look at some of the more intractable examples of evil and suffering in this world, it is easy to despair of the ability of human beings to set them right.

Some will see this as an invitation to ignore our responsibility to work for what peace and justice may be obtainable in this world.  That is not my intent.  There is always, however, a shadow side to human progress.  The same technology that has given us our high standard of living can be used to slaughter millions living in a modern city or a sole child in her mother’s womb.  The wheat of civilization and the weeds of barbarism grow together until the harvest.

At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves whether we need Christ or not.  Do we long for a world transformed by His coming or would we prefer that He tarry a little longer?  Our relatively comfortable lives can make it hard to think clearly about these questions.  Ultimately, it is only when we come to a deep appreciation of the grip that sin and evil has on our world-and on ourselves-that we can make Isaiah’s prayer our own: “Oh that you would rend the heavens and come down!”

Over at The New Atlantis, Christine Rosen has a very interesting piece on the differences between reading a printed text and reading digital text on a screen.  (You can read the entire piece here.)  She also takes some shots at Amazon’s e-reader, called the Kindle.  Here is a snippet:

“The Kindle will only serve to worsen that concentration deficit, for when you use a Kindle, you are not merely a reader—you are also a consumer. Indeed, everything about the device is intended to keep you in a posture of consumption. As Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has admitted, the Kindle “isn’t a device, it’s a service.”

In this sense it is a metaphor for the experience of reading in the twenty-first century. Like so many things we idolize today, it is extraordinarily convenient, technologically sophisticated, consumption-oriented, sterile, and distracting.”

I wondered what my students would say about the piece, so I assigned the article and then borrowed a Kindle from the County library to let my students try.  They loved the device, but that may just reinforce Rosen’s point.  I have been using it for a couple of weeks now, and I, too, really like it.  The NY Times is delivered wirelessly to the device every morning and it is much easier to read on the Kindle than on a computer, but not as gratifying as reading the print version.  (I miss the news print on my fingers.)  Given the apocalyptic tone of Rosen’s piece, I thought it would be appropriate to download Cormac McCarthy’s The Road and read it on the Kindle.  I previously read the book in hardcover and have not found reading the digital version any less compelling.

I’m guessing that many Commonwealers will be naysayers, but you might want to give a Kindle a try.  The only problem I encountered was that I could not find the work of any regular Commonweal contributors in the Kindle store.  By the way, you can subscribe to some magazines on a Kindle.  Perhaps Commonweal should be on the list.

In the current issue of Commonweal, I look at the web of legal opinions, administrative statements, and permission engendered by the Bush Administration. These “legal” but probably unconstitutional scraps cover a range of issues, most notably the detention and interrogation of terrorists and illegal combatants, but also warrantless wiretapping, etc. Members of the Obama administration, probably in the Department of Justice, will have to spend some time ferreting these out and revising their legal status, lest these practices continue.

The larger question of criminal prosecution for war crimes by administration leaders, notable Cheney, Addington, and Bush, looks to be a non-starter for various reasons, good and bad. There is a growing discussion about how to pursue justice and to make public the contents of many of these classified documents.

Scott Horton, who has long followed the Guantanmo issues, believes that a congressionally appointed bipartisan commission should be established to throw light on these opinions and the practices they permitted, but does not see war crimes charges coming—unless one of the principals is arrested overseas.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/12/0082303    (subs required)

Charles Homans argues that rather than an independent commission, current congressional investigations should be allowed to run their course, perhaps having the salutary effect of showing how implicated some in Congress may prove to be.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0811.homans.html

Jack Goldsmith, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel, became a severe critic of the Yoo-Bebee memos permitting enhanced interrogation. (He also prevented Andy Card and Alberto Gonzalez from getting the bed-ridden AG John Ashcroft to sign off on more of the same—so a good guy in the Bush Administration, if there is one.) He argues in this op-ed piece that the CIA and DOJ, which are likely to be the center of these investigations, will be demoralized and undermined by any thorough-going investigation. He seem to think we should let the whole thing go away.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/25/AR2008112501897.html

What about war crimes trials? What about declassifying and airing the arguments in favor of torture and indefinite imprisonment? What about repentance and reconciliation commissions? What are the unforeseen consequences of just letting this shameful chapter fade away? Views?

Pope Benedict XVI is planning a trip to Israel and the West Bank – possibly for the second week in May, according to Haaretz. It’s still under negotiation, but just the possibility of it is a reminder of how much the world has changed since John Paul II made his pilgrimage there in March, 2000, full of millenial fervor.

It was a more hopeful time; the outbreak of a new intifada was still months away. Peace seemed possible.

News coverage is focusing on the potential obstacles to a papal trip, such as the beatification of Pope Pius XII.  There were obstacles in 2000, too, such as a dispute over a government-sacntioned plan to build a mosque adjacent to the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth.  But John Paul was determined to go, and whatever obstacles there were fell by the wayside. He insisted, also, on a series of dramatic gestures that suggested inter-religious reconciliation.

This is a  different time, with a  different pope. It will be interesting to see if a papal trip to Israel and the West Bank can clear the current squabbles and, if it does, what form it takes.

The classic WKRP turkey drop. Look out below. And happy Thanksgiving.

You could try to respond seriously to the over-the-top war on the “War on Christmas” highlighted Mollie Wilson O’Reilly’s post below. Or you could make fun of it–as Toby Keith does on Stephen Colbert’s Christmas special. At least I think he’s making fun of it.

It seems to start earlier every year, doesn’t it? I mean, we haven’t even celebrated Thanksgiving yet, and the War-on-Christmas rhetorical drumbeat has already started.

I sometimes wonder whether the whole War-on-Christmas thing is a game to see who can advance the most ludicrous argument with a straight face. If I’m right, then I think the 2008 holiday season may already have a winner. In the Nov. 20 installment of his aptly named “Wonder Land” column, Wall Street Journal editor Daniel Henninger boldly goes where no Culture Warrior has gone before.

This year we celebrate the desacralized “holidays” amid what is for many unprecedented economic ruin — fortunes halved, jobs lost, homes foreclosed. People wonder, What happened? One man’s theory: A nation whose people can’t say “Merry Christmas” is a nation capable of ruining its own economy.

Think the economic crisis is  the result of a complicated chain of causes and effects? Nonsense. As we all know, saying “Happy Holidays” at this time of year is more than just a misguided effort to acknowledge the existence of (a) multiple Christian holidays and (b) multiple non-Christian holidays that occur over the course of several days. It is also an assault on religion itself, or at least on the only religion that matters. And without (Christian) religion you have no morality, and without morality you have unchecked greed. So, as Henninger’s editorial argues, failing to say “Merry Christmas” with abandon as you go about your business in the secular world can only result in total economic collapse. I hope you’ll keep this in mind as you try to stretch your budget to allow some holiday cheer this year: all of this could have been avoided, if only “Northerners and atheists” — and you know who you are — hadn’t permitted this country to slide into “Christmas”-less amorality.

Read for yourself, but I think we have a winner. Please: no others need apply.

According to the Sun-Times:

The Rev. Andrew Greeley, author and Sun-Times columnist, is now recovering at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, weeks after he fell and suffered a head injury, a spokeswoman for the Catholic scholar said Tuesday.

Great news. Updates available here.

For a calm and serious look at the threat posed by FOCA, check out Commonweal columnist Melinda Henneberger’s article for Slate. As usual, she offers sensible analysis alongside her personal take. It’s all very helpful, especially as it appears in a forum where abortion rights is generally taken for granted as a women’s-rights issue. But if you think you’ve heard enough already, I’ll just sum it up with the big finish:

At the very moment when Obama and his party have won the trust of so many Catholics who favor at least some limits on abortion, I hope he does not prove them wrong. I hope he does not make a fool out of that nice Doug Kmiec, who led the pro-life charge on his behalf. I hope he does not spit on the rest of us—though I don’t take him for the spitting sort—on his way in the door. I hope that his appointment of Ellen Moran, formerly of EMILY’s List, as his communications director is followed by the appointment of some equally good Democrats who hold pro-life views. By supporting and signing the current version of FOCA, Obama would reignite the culture war he so deftly sidestepped throughout this campaign. This is a fight he just doesn’t need at a moment when there is no shortage of other crises to manage.

UPDATE: Also see the latest Commonweal editorial, just posted online, for our take on the USCCB’s focus on FOCA.

I haven’t read the decision yet.  Has anyone else?  HT:  Whispers in the Loggia

Note: Grant Gallicho beat me to the punch in citing the Ross Douthat column below.  I feel I need to give him credit for being first to the blog with it!

————- 

In the wake of the election, I’ve been pondering the future of conservatism–both philosophical and political–in the United States.  In the wake of the election, some conservatives took comfort in the idea that the United States was a “center-right” country and that there would be a backlash if Obama tacked to hard to the left.

Much depends, of course, on what one means by “center-right.”  Over the last half century, the Republican coalition has been held together by a combination of anti-Communism (recently replaced by anti-Terrorism) in foreign policy, anti-tax populism, and social conservatism.  That combination proved durable enough to win the majority of the last few presidential elections and to secure majorities in the House and Senate for a reasonable chunk of the last two decades.

It has been argued by better minds than mine that all three of these elements have come under severe strain.  The debacle in Iraq has discredited the Republicans’ foreign policy credentials.  Taxes will never be popular, but faced with events like Katrina and the current economic storm, a large number of voters seem to be of the opinion that government needs to have sufficient resources and authority to do its job.  While some elements of the social conservative program do inspire strong passions among the electorate, the long term trend seems to be what Alan Wolfe once called-accurately or not-”moral freedom.”

People of faith who are political liberals may be inclined to rejoice at these developments, particularly those who suffered attacks from their conservative co-religionists during the most recent election cycle.  I would suggest, though, that political liberals who take their religious convictions seriously need to understand that those convictions often stand in tension with key features of contemporary liberalism: a deep–at times almost idolatrous–faith in human reason (and science in particular), its tendency to value the claims of the individual over that of the community, and its suspicion of tradition.  A state suffused with these values does not co-exist easily with religious communities who operate from a different set of premises, a point raised by thinkers as diverse as Charles Taylor and Cardinal Francis Stafford. 

While my personal political leanings are generally more to the (moderate) left than to the right, I would suggest that American culture needs a strong conservative strain to keep the liberal state from becoming imperial and totalizing.  The conservatism we have may not be the conservatism we need, however.  A conservatism married too closely to a muscular foreign policy easily becomes an apology for social engineering on an international scale.  A conservatism tied too closely to populism undermines one of its central claims, i.e. that certain values do not depend on the will of majorities.  Even the defense of tradition–surely a central conservative task–can fail if it blinds us to legitimate claims of justice that can also claim deep historical roots.

It will be interesting to see what new voices emerge from the wreckage of contemporary conservatism to take up this challenge.  One that I am keeping an eye on is a young man named Ross Douthat who is an editor at the Atlantic Monthly and, incidentally, a Catholic (Paul, make a note).  The author of two books, he also writes a weblog that is worth adding to your daily reads.  Douthat–whose pro-life convictions are certainly not in doubt–recently took George Weigel to task for a column in which Weigel blamed the GOP’s loss of Catholic voters on “settled patterns of mindlessness” and “tribal voting.”  Here is Douthat’s assessment of that analysis:

In 1980, ’84 and ’88, Republican (and pro-life) Presidential candidates managed to capture nearly all of the Midwest and the Northeast, “settled patterns of mindlessness” notwithstanding. Now here we are twenty years later, with FDR and JFK even further in the rearview mirror – and yet Weigel wants to chalk up the Republican Party’s horrible showing in these regions to mindless “tribal voting” among Catholic Democrats? This is self-deception, and it ill-behooves pro-lifers to engage in it. John McCain did not lose this election because the Catholic clergy failed to anathematize Barack Obama loudly enough, or because Pennsylvanians and Michiganders thought they were voting for Roosevelt or Truman. He lost it because his party flat-out misgoverned the country, in foreign and domestic policy alike, and because of late the culture war has mattered less to most Americans than the Iraq War and the economic meltdown. And pro-lifers who see the GOP as the only plausible vehicle for their goals have an obligation to look the party’s failures squarely in the face and work to fix them, instead of just doubling down on the case for single-issue pro-life voting.

No, social conservatives aren’t the problem for the GOP. But they haven’t been the solution, either: Too often, on matters ranging from the Iraq War to domestic policy, they’ve served as enablers of Republican folly, rather than as constructive critics. And calling Catholics who voted for Obama “mindless” and “stupid” is a poor substitute for building the sort of Republican Party that can attract the votes of those millions of Americans, Catholic and otherwise, who voted for the Democrats because they thought, not without reason, that George W. Bush was a disastrous president whose party should not be rewarded with a third term in the White House.

Of course, Douthat’s judgment is not infallible.  Several months ago, he urged John McCain to consider a relatively unknown Alaska governor as a possible vice-presidential pick…:-)

As mentioned in a recent thread, George Weigel’s latest column declares: “this year’s election cycle clarified decisively…that the great public fissure in these United States is between the culture of life and the culture of death.” How does he know? To wit:

• Washingtonians overwhelmingly supported a ballot measure legalizing physician-assisted suicide.
• Michiganders voted to allow embryos “left over” from fertility treatments to be donated for scientific/stem-cell research.
• Californians rejected (not overwhelmingly) a ballot measure that would require a forty-eight hour waiting period and parental notification before a minor could have an abortion. 
• Oh, and Barack Obama was elected president.

(Never mind the failed Colorado ballot measure that would have defined a fertilized egg as a legal person from conception–which the Colorado bishops prudentially decided not to support. And don’t dwell for too long on the difference between voting for a ballot measure and voting for a candidate).

How did that happen?

This year, the pro-abortion candidate carried every state in what Maggie Gallagher calls the “Decadent Catholic Corridor” — the Northeast and the older parts of the Midwest. Too many Catholics there are still voting the way their grandparents did, and because that’s what their grandparents did. This tribal voting has been described by some bishops as immoral; it is certainly stupid, and it must be challenged by adult education. That includes effective use of the pulpit to unsettle settled patterns of mindlessness.

As Ross Douthat points out, not really.

In 1980, ’84 and ’88, Republican (and pro-life) Presidential candidates managed to capture nearly all of the Midwest and the Northeast, “settled patterns of mindlessness” notwithstanding. Now here we are twenty years later, with FDR and JFK even further in the rearview mirror – and yet Weigel wants to chalk up the Republican Party’s horrible showing in these regions to mindless “tribal voting” among Catholic Democrats? This is self-deception, and it ill-behooves pro-lifers to engage in it. John McCain did not lose this election because the Catholic clergy failed to anathematize Barack Obama loudly enough, or because Pennsylvanians and Michiganders thought they were voting for Roosevelt or Truman. He lost it because his party flat-out misgoverned the country, in foreign and domestic policy alike, and because of late the culture war has mattered less to most Americans than the Iraq War and the economic meltdown. And pro-lifers who see the GOP as the only plausible vehicle for their goals have an obligation to look the party’s failures squarely in the face and work to fix them, instead of just doubling down on the case for single-issue pro-life voting.

Note the headline on Douthat’s post: “The Moral Obligation to Read Exit Polls.” MSNBC’s data are here. Be sure to read the rest of his post right here.

Since election day, failed GOP contender and true-blue (or is that red?) evangelical, Mike Huckabee, has been settling some scores, as this TIME magazine piece on his new book shows.

Now it has gotten ugly. In the latest New Yorker, Huckabee tells Lauren Collins he was a bit cheesed that McCain picked Sarah Palin over him:

“I was scratching my head, saying, ‘Hey, wait a minute. She’s wonderful, but the only difference was she looks better in stilettos than I do, and she has better hair.’ It wasn’t so much a gender issue, but it was like they suddenly decided that everything they disliked about me was O.K. . . . She was given a pass by some of the very people who said I wasn’t prepared.”

Well, if Huck gets some hair plugs and a new wardrobe, perhaps he can do better next time. After all, a Gallup poll of GOP voters posted by Mark Silk shows Huckabee a close third among preferred candidates for 2012, behind Mitt Romney and, of course, everyone’s favorite No. 1, the divine Miss Palin. Then again, these voters probably don’t go in for cross-dressers, so Huck may want to be careful. Oh, and the sexism thing could be dodgy, too. (And here I thought it was a problem of the liberal media elite.)

Hat Tip: Sarah Pulliam at CT

The focus of much of the Catholic right’s doomsday prophesying about Barack Obama, a.k.a. the anti-Christ (see Stafford, Cardinal Francis, et al) has been about the inevitability of Obama signing the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would enshrine Roe into federal law and make abortion-on-demand part of a mandated kindergarten curriculum and push the Catholic Church back into the catacombs and lead to violence against bishops, who have said they will happily be martyrs for this cause, and gosh, all sorts of things unheard of since the days before Constantine. (George Weigel had the latest from Babylon here.)

Lost in all this prophesying is any recognition that the people who would need to pass FOCA think it’s a bad idea and that it’d never pass, much less get to President Obama’s desk. NCR’s new publisher, Joe Feuerhard, has a solid take on the politics involved here, including the apt observation that Obama’s 2007 pledge to Planned Parenthood to sign FOCA was political “pandering.” Joe’s bottom line: “FOCA has as much chance of passage as the 0-10 Detroit Lions have of winning the next Super Bowl.” (Ouch.)

So why the focus on FOCA by Catholic conservatives? I’d say a couple of things: One, the election was a resounding defeat for their camp, and exposed division in the church and within the pro-life movement. While they retrench, they need to keep the focus on an enemy, and FOCA serves that purpose. The pro-life movement has largely been an opposition movement, and that dynamic is hard to change, and it could hurt fundraising at a bad time for all fundraisers. Two, the conservatives can also claim “credit” for defeating FOCA when it does not become law.

The problem of course is that this straw men and red herrings divert us all from the hard work to be done on this issue, both within the church and in the public square. Opposition to FOCA should be part of that, to keep the pressure on and pols honest. But using a phantom FOCA as a single-issue means of demonizing one’s political opponents does no good to one’s cause, or the wider society.

Here’s John Haldane’s take–it strikes me as very thoughtful — and refreshingly non-prophetic.

Any thoughts?

Also, does “British” really refer to Scotland? Anyone know?

Stephen Colbert and Willie Nelson do a Christmas duet. Nelson, who has been arrested numerous times for drug use, probably knows that pot wasn’t a controlled substance back then!

In its Fall 2008 issue, The Paris Review interviews Marilynne Robinson. The whole thing is worth reading, but one exchange is especially interesting.

It may be true that real religious experience is incompatible with a merely instrumental understanding of religion. But, as Robinson makes clear, this doesn’t mean that religious believers are unconscious or disdainful of the usefulness of religious belief and practice. Here the interviewer refers to the main character in Robinson’s 2004 novel, Gilead:

INTERVIEWER

Ames believes that one of the benefits of religion is “it helps you concentrate. It gives you a good basic sense of what is being asked of you and also what you might as well ignore.” Is this something that your faith and religious practice has done for you?

ROBINSON

Religion is a framing mechanism. It is a language of orientation that presents itself as a series of questions. It talks about the arc of life and the quality of experience in ways that I’ve found fruitful to think about. Religion has been profoundly effective in enlarging human imagination and expression. It’s only very recently that you couldn’t see how the high arts are intimately connected to religion.

INTERVIEWER

Is this frame of religion something we’ve lost?

ROBINSON

There was a time when people felt as if structure in most forms were a constraint and they attacked it, which in a culture is like an autoimmune problem: the organism is not allowing itself the conditions of its own existence. We’re cultural creatures and meaning doesn’t simply generate itself out of thin air; it’s sustained by a cultural framework. It’s like deciding how much more interesting it would be if you had no skeleton: you could just slide under the door. 

The interviewer turns to the subject of science and religion — and to Robinson’s criticism of the New Atheists. Robinson insists that science and religious faith seem incompatible only to one who has a “naive understanding of religion and a naive understanding of science.” 

INTERVIEWER

But doesn’t science address an objective notion of reality while religion addresses how we conceive of ourselves?

ROBINSON

As an achievement, science is itself a spectacular argument for the singularity of human beings among all things that exist. It has a prestige that comes with unambiguous changes in people’s experience—space travel, immunizations. It has an authority that’s based on its demonstrable power. But in discussions of human beings it tends to compare downwards: we’re intelligent because hyenas are intelligent and we just took a few more leaps.
       The first obligation of religion is to maintain the sense of the value of human beings. If you had to summarize the Old Testament, the summary would be: stop doing this to yourselves. But it is not in our nature to stop harming ourselves. We don’t behave consistently with our own dignity or with the dignity of other people. The Bible reiterates this endlessly.

Pope Benedict XVI gave an insight into his thinking on this topic in a letter to a friend and co-author, Marcello Pera, a philosopher and former president of the Italian senate and an agnostic (perhaps even an atheist) who has nonetheless been a great champion of Benedict’s project to protect Europe’s Christian cultural heritage. Pera is one who has responded positively to the pope’s call for unbelievers to “act as if God exists.”

Benedict’s letter to Pera was written up in the Italian papers, and now on the English-language wires and in The New York Times.

In quotations from the letter that appeared on Sunday in Corriere della Sera, Italy’s leading daily newspaper, the pope said the book “explained with great clarity” that “an interreligious dialogue in the strict sense of the word is not possible.” In theological terms, added the pope, “a true dialogue is not possible without putting one’s faith in parentheses.”

But Benedict added that “intercultural dialogue which deepens the cultural consequences of basic religious ideas” was important. He called for confronting “in a public forum the cultural consequences of basic religious decisions.”

In effect, Benedict is saying the point of interreligious dialogue is to promote peace and other pragmatic steps, rather than engaging in theological give-and-take that would go beyond presenting and arguing and defending the truths of Catholicism. This position is nothing new for Benedict; he has never been a fan of interreligious dialogue as it has been construed since Vatican II, and especially under John Paul II. (Hence Ratzinger’s longstanding suspicions and crackdowns on theologians engaged in this field.)

Ratzinger/Benedict’s view of interfaith dialogue has always seemed to me rather constricted, an “either/or” proposition that leaves little room for learning from others or truly engaging the “other,” in ways that expand one’s own faith without diluting it, and also expand one’s appreciation of God’s creation and its desire for Him. And it can, I think, lead to a kind of parochialism that sees Jesus as a “Catholic.” (Italian, of course.) John Allen calls this “dialogue with teeth.” Interlocutors on the other side of the dialogue can see it as a bared smile, not quite inviting, yet not altogether irrelevant, given the state of the world.   

Thoughts from the gallery? What is, or should be, the point of interfaith dialogue?

Humanae vitae isn’t the only thing turning 40 this fall. The Beatles’ 1968 double album (the “White Album”) is also celebrating a birthday. Historically I have tended to be more on top of Beatles lore than Vatican City trivia, but perhaps it’s a sign of maturity that I was reminded of this anniversary by L’Osservatore Romano. Or, rather, by bemused news items, like this one from the BBC, noting that the Vatican daily has published a lengthy article to mark the occasion.

I haven’t been able to find the article itself, but apparently it praises the Beatles’ creativity and dismisses Lennon’s legendary “bigger than Jesus” remark as mere boastfulness.

In a half-page illustrated article, the paper praised The Beatles for what it called their “unique and strange alchemy of sounds and words”.

The newspaper said The Beatles’s songs had shown an extraordinary capacity for survival and the White Album album remained a “magical musical anthology”.

Who says the Vatican is behind the times? I look forward to L’Osservatore Romano‘s appreciation of spiritual masterworks like Lennon’s “Instant Karma,” Harrison’s “All Things Must Pass,” and McCartney’s… er… “Live and Let Die.”

Trivia bonus: Do you know which Beatle was Catholic (by birth)? Hint: it wasn’t Lennon.

In today’s New York Times Book Review George Packer examines the already much praised and notorious “authorized biography” of V.S. Naipaul. Packer begins:

A great writer requires a great biography, and a great biography must tell the truth. V. S. Naipaul wanted his monument built while he was still alive, and, sticking to his own ruthless literary code, he was willing to pay the full price.

And ends:

Naipaul’s code of accountability lies in facing the truth, but it’s a limited truth, with no sense of agency. He cannot begin to see himself as his biographer or reader sees him, for the pain of others always reverts back to his own. And yet this bottomless narcissism, together with the uncompromising intensity of his vision, holds the key to Naipaul’s literary power. He had the capacity in his writing to pro­ject himself into a great variety of people and situations, allowing him to imbue his work with the sympathy and humanity that he failed to extend to those closest to him in life.

“A limited truth, with no sense of agency … bottomless narcissism:” sounds pretty much like the unredeemed human condition to me.

I want to take a moment to extend thanks to the members of the DotCommonweal community who agreed to pray for the candidates at the Kairos retreat that was held over the weekend of November 7-10.

The retreat was held in the prison gymnasium, a very large (and also very drab) place.  Over the course of the weekend, we hung paper hands, the prayer scroll with your names on it, and other artwork and posters made by people and groups around the world who were praying for the men.  The men were amazed that so many people who did not even know them would care enough to take the time to pray for them.

One man–a man who will likely never leave the prison–said that the weekend had made him realize that he had cut himself off from other people.  “There was a poet who said ‘no man is an island’ and that is what I had become.  I don’t think we’re supposed to be islands.”

If you want to read a few more comments from the candidates, click here.

This is interesting and heartening (HT Steve Benen):

“BJU’s history has been chiefly characterized by striving to achieve those goals; but like any human institution, we have failures as well. For almost two centuries American Christianity, including BJU in its early stages, was characterized by the segregationist ethos of American culture. Consequently, for far too long, we allowed institutional policies regarding race to be shaped more directly by that ethos than by the principles and precepts of the Scriptures. We conformed to the culture rather than provide a clear Christian counterpoint to it.

David Brooks has been positively gushy about President-elect Obama’s choices for his team. In yesterday’s New York Times he wrote:

Believe me, I’m trying not to join in the vast, heaving O-phoria now sweeping the coastal haute bourgeoisie. But the personnel decisions have been superb. The events of the past two weeks should be reassuring to anybody who feared that Obama would veer to the left or would suffer self-inflicted wounds because of his inexperience. He’s off to a start that nearly justifies the hype.

And, with regard to the possible appointment of Eric Holder as Attorney General, he opined:

Conservative legal experts have a high regard for the probable attorney general, Eric Holder, despite the business over the Marc Rich pardon.

That “business” may be more convoluted and less straightforward than Mr. Brooks lets on. Here is an op-ed piece from today’s Times that should at least give some pause:

Under the rules governing pardon petitions — rules that were approved by Mr. Holder’s office — the views of United States attorneys “are given considerable weight” because of the “valuable insights” they have. And yet Mr. Holder did not consult Ms. White [United States Attorney in New York] and her colleagues about the Rich pardon petition; they did not know of it until it had been granted.

Then, on Jan. 19, 2001, Mr. Holder delivered his pardon assessment to the White House, telling Beth Nolan, the White House counsel, that he was “neutral leaning favorable” on the Rich pardon. His decision, he added, was influenced by the support of Ehud Barak, the Israeli prime minister.

The people in the United States attorney’s office in New York weren’t the only ones surprised by Mr. Holder’s decision. Deborah Smolover, his top deputy for pardon cases, did not find out about the pardon for Mr. Rich until the White House called to inform her of it after midnight on Jan. 20. (Mr. Green won a pardon, too.) After the pardon was signed, Mr. Quinn [Rich's point man on the pardon appeal and former White House Counsel under President Clinton] has testified, Mr. Holder called him to commend him on “a very good job.” Mr. Holder also asked Mr. Quinn to consider hiring two former aides, one of whom had already contacted Mr. Quinn on Jan. 2 “at Holder’s suggestion.”

Here’s my question. Who is Cardinal Stafford’s audience–and by extension, the audience of others who use prophetic rhetoric?

Whom does prophetic rhetoric convince? Whom is it meant to convince? Is it meant to strengthen the will of those who already agree? Is it meant to convince those who don’t agree? If so, how effective is it at the task?

My own hypothesis is that the rhetoric of prophetic indictment functions best to confirm those already committed to a cause, rather than to convert the uncommitted. It shores up those whose commitment may be flagging, those who are discouraged –gives them the strength to fight on. It doesn’t do well in convincing the unconvinced –in converting the opponent, that is to say. To the opponent, prophetic rhetoric just seems like insults.

My guess, therefore, is that Cardinal Stafford gave his talk to an immediate audience which was in large agreement with him –an audience who was discouraged about the election results. Prophetic rhetoric was used to shore up flagging spirits among pro-lifers, to convince them of the importance of fighting on.

It’s the reproduction of the talk outside that context that created the problem. The same thing, it seems, happened to the priest from South Carolina, who told Catholics who voted for Obama they had to go to confession. Strictly speaking, he was addressing his own parish–not the rest of us. But the rest of us sure heard about him.

So how should public figures think about the use of prophetic rhetoric in an era where they can’t be sure that their remarks won’t be you-tubed all over the world the next day?

On the one hand, I am (as most people who read this blog know) no fan of over-enthusiasm for prophetic rhetoric. On the other hand, I don’t want to see a world where all the of the rhetoric has been gently homogenized so as not to be startling, let alone offensive, to anyone. We don’t want to Kraft macaroni-and-cheesify our public discourse, either.

…Or at least that is the task that NCR columnist John Allen sets before himself in his weekly column out today. You’ll recall the outcry after the initial report of Cardinal Stafford’s remarks at CUA in Washington.

Today, Allen argues that Stafford’s remarks must be viewed in context. John has the goods, including this YouTube audio and this excerpt of the relevant passage:

“Our exploration this weekend takes place in the context of Nov. 4, 2008. On that date, a cultural earthquake hit America. Senator Barak Obama was elected President of the United States. He appears to be a relaxed, smiling man. His rhetorical skills, as I mentioned, are very highly developed. He has a way of teasing crowds, and, from all reports, even individuals one-to-one. Under all of that grace and charm, there is a tautness of will, a clenched jaw, a state of constant alertness to attack and resist any external influence that might threaten his independence. A ‘state of alertness,’ yes … that’s putting it mildly. Beneath each word he speaks, he carries on sapping operations against the enemy city. His clenched jaw was seen at his talk before the Planned Parenthood supporters July 17, 2007. There he asserted, and I’m quoting somewhat out of context but not out of his meaning: ‘We are not only going to win this election, but also we are going to transform this nation. … The first thing I’d do as president is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. … I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught constitutional law. … I don’t want my daughters punished by a pregnancy. … On this issue, I will not yield.’ Note the way the president-elect wished to describe the killing of his unborn grandchild. His daughters must not be ‘punished,’ ‘punished,’ by pregnancy. His rhetoric is post-modernist, and marks an agenda and vision that are aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic. Catholics weep over these words. We weep over the violence concealed behind the rhetoric of our young president-to-be. What should we do with our hot, angry tears of betrayal? First, our tears are agonistic. We must acknowledge that. For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden.”

Among other things, Allen argues that this shows Stafford was referring to Obama’s rhetoric, and in a particular event, not to Obama as a person. I think that’s too generous a reading by half, at least. Moreover, Stafford’s characterizations of Obama himself are–to me–worse than what was originally reported, portraying Obama as an almost predatory character, both dangerous and deceptive. But judge for yourself, reading it all here…

From Pro-Publica (HT: TalkingPointsMemo)

The South Financial Group, South Carolina’s largest bank, announced earlier this week that it had been approved to receive $347 million from the U.S. government. But the bank’s founder and longtime CEO Mack Whittle won’t be sticking around. He retired with an $18 million severance package in late October, two months earlier than had been expected. Because of the timing, he’s free from golden parachute limits (PDF) that come with accepting bailout money.

Gary Stern, the fine religion reporter for the Journal-News (lower Hudson, NY) has a column on the variety of Catholics in the US, and against easy characterizations of them.

On the topic of what counts as kooky fanaticism, The Onion has a funny editorial this week: “I’m Not One of Those ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ Christians.”

My faith in the Lord is about the pure, simple values: raising children right, saying grace at the table, strictly forbidding those who are Methodists or Presbyterians from receiving communion because their beliefs are heresies, and curing homosexuals. That’s all. Just the core beliefs. You won’t see me going on some frothy-mouthed tirade about being a comfort to the downtrodden.

(It’s a little careless about the denominational details, but what else is new.) I wonder if Janet Cosgrove, Christian, would be interested in joining us at dotCommonweal?

Last night someone told me that the rumor sailing around DC is that George W. Bush will become a Catholic upon leaving office. Anyone else heard this?

Will definitively establish us as a church of sinners!

…That’s the doubt angry conservatives are trying to sow as a way to undermine the CCHD, the principal anti-poverty program of the U.S. bishops conference, and the Roman Catholic Church in America. Some bishops are among the harshest critics, though a group oddly named “Laity for Life” (they apparently find poverty pro-life, at least for others) is leading one charge against the CCHD.

It is an ugly political fight led by the likes of Father Richard John Neuhaus at “First Things”–he has claimed that the CCHD dropped “Catholic” from its title, though that’s not true–and it derives from the ongoing internal church warfare over secular politics. The opening for conservatives was of course the revelations that the CCHD had funded ACORN, the anti-poverty community organizing group that Republicans sought to tie around Obama’s neck, as they tried to disparage “community organizing” and other forms of Christian witness as somehow un-American. God help us if that’s the case.

God help the poor too–this anti-CCHD campaign comes just ahead of the CCHD’s annual collection this Sunday. Read my take on the controversy over at “America Connects,” the web-only portion of America magazine. And don’t let false accusations and innuendo be an excuse for not donating.

Crosspost with Pontifications.