The Vatican today released a statement aimed at refuting an Italian press report that the Apostolic Constitution on the Anglican ordinariate was delayed because of debates over the celibacy conditions. In the course of clarifying the Vatican released the text of the clauses relating to celibacy and Anglican priests, current and future. The text appears–to me–to confirm reports of recent days that dispensation from celibacy will be very limited, primarily for currently married Anglican priests (and bishops, who would be demoted to the lower clergy) and perhaps for married seminarians. But others interpret this the exact opposite, saying it allows for married Anglicans to come in beyond the “grandfather” clause. How do dotCommoners read this statement?

There has been widespread speculation, based on supposedly knowledgeable remarks by an Italian correspondent Andrea Tornielli, that the delay in publication of the Apostolic Constitution regarding Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church, announced on October 20, 2009, by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is due to more than “technical” reasons. According to this speculation, there is a serious substantial issue at the basis of the delay, namely, disagreement about whether celibacy will be the norm for the future clergy of the Provision.

Cardinal Levada offered the following comments on this speculation: “Had I been asked I would happily have clarified any doubt about my remarks at the press conference. There is no substance to such speculation. No one at the Vatican has mentioned any such issue to me. The delay is purely technical in the sense of ensuring consistency in canonical language and references. The translation issues are secondary; the decision not to delay publication in order to wait for the ‘official’ Latin text to be published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis was made some time ago.

The drafts prepared by the working group, and submitted for study and approval through the usual process followed by the Congregation, have all included the following statement, currently Article VI of the Constitution:

§1 Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42 and in the Statement “In June” are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1.

§2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.

This article is to be understood as consistent with the current practice of the Church, in which married former Anglican ministers may be admitted to priestly ministry in the Catholic Church on a case by case basis. With regard to future seminarians, it was considered purely speculative whether there might be some cases in which a dispensation from the celibacy rule might be petitioned. For this reason, objective criteria about any such possibilities (e.g. married seminarians already in preparation) are to be developed jointly by the Personal Ordinariate and the Episcopal Conference, and submitted for approval of the Holy See.”

Cardinal Levada said he anticipates the technical work on the Constitution and Norms will be completed by the end of the first week of November.

At the CNS blog, John Thavis writes:

In announcing the plan, Vatican officials made it clear that Anglican priests who are married may be ordained Catholic priests, but that married Anglican bishops would not be allowed to function as Catholic bishops. They also indicated that married Anglican seminarians would be allowed to be ordained.

The Vatican clarification confirmed that married former Anglican ministers would be admitted to priestly ministry, on a case by case basis. It said the question of married seminarians would have to be worked out jointly by the personal ordinariate and the local bishops’ conference, and would be submitted for approval of the Vatican.

Is this a change from current practice under the Pastoral Provision?

According to the Vatican.

Appropriately for this liturgical season, my graduate seminar has been reading Joseph Ratzinger’s great work, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life. Here is a passage:

In all human love there is an implicit appeal to eternity, even though love between two human beings can never satisfy that appeal. In Christ, God enters our search for love and its ultimate meaning, and does so in a human way. God’s dialogue with us becomes truly human, since God conducts his part as man. Conversely, the dialogue of human beings with each other now becomes a vehicle for the life everlasting, since in the communion of saints it is drawn up into the dialogue of the Trinity itself.

This is why the communion of saints is the locus where eternity becomes accessible for us. Eternal life does not isolate a person, but leads him or her out of isolation into true unity with their brothers and sisters and the whole of God’s creation.

Congratulations to America‘s editor and Commonweal‘s friend Jim Martin, SJ–who’s about to take his final vows–after spending about the same amount of time in the Jesuits that a married couple would beginning planning their silver anniversary!  How can that be?   In this account, he explains how it all works.

“Should US Troops in Iraq be held Hostage to the next Election?”
Juan Cole has followed U.S. efforts in Iraq knowledgably and closely. Here is what he has to say about the current election impasse (October 30).
http://www.juancole.com/2009/10/should-us-troops-in-iraq-be-held.html

From New York’s Archbishop Dolan:

The following article was submitted in a slightly shorter form to the New York Times as an op-ed article. The Times declined to publish it. I thought you might be interested in reading it.

The rest is on his new blog.

Polarization in the hierarchy! From the press office of the New York archdiocese:

Cardinal Justin Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia, and Archbishop Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, have placed a friendly wager on the outcome of the 2009 World Series.

These two long-time friends spoke on Tuesday evening to settle the terms of the bet.  If the Phillies win, Archbishop Dolan will ship a dozen bagels to the City of Brotherly Love; if the Yankees prevail, Cardinal Rigali will send a box of Tastykakes to the Big Apple.

Archbishop Dolan said, “Cardinal Rigali is one of my closest and dearest friends; for several years he even served as my Archbishop so I feel a particular loyalty to him.  I know he has exquisite taste in most matters. I just wish he had better taste in baseball teams.”

Cardinal Rigali said, “I have great esteem for Archbishop Dolan.  He is a gifted spiritual leader who has been a true friend for many years.  That is why I am so sorry he will be disappointed when the Phillies successfully defend their World Championship.  We have the cream cheese ready for the bagels that I know will be arriving shortly after the Repeat in the City of Brotherly and Sisterly love.”

“Sisterly” love? I trust His Eminence isn’t in charge of liturgical translations. But nice sentiment. Wish I could get on board with the Tastykake offer. I mean, Dolan seems more like a cheesesteak guy. And bagels? No lox? Kinda chintzy. Suggestions to sweeten this pot?

PS: Awesome game last night. Archbishop Tim might want to start making his way to H&H.

If Maureen Dowd’s column –syndicated as it is– reaches the average Joe and Jane, then Stephen Colbert reaches, well, younger- than- average Joe and Jane.

This isn’t just the show, folks –this is also youtube.

David Leonhardt, economics columnist, thinks giving social security recipients an extra $250. is money badly spent. “A Drop in the Wrong Bucket”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/business/economy/28leonhardt.html

And in LA, over 65s are being asked to return for their H1N1 vaccine after priority persons have had their “shots” and after more vaccine becomes available: “Anxious Crowds Meet Ad Hoc Swine Flu Police”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/health/28flu.html?ref=us

Both seem like reasonable ideas. Let’s hear it from the unreasonable!

A press release from the University of Florida reports on an interesting new study that contradicts  the “God gap” theory in American politics – the widely accepted idea that  religious, white Christians   are conservatives who favor the Republican Party.

The study found that prior  research defined who is religious with traits that lean toward evangelical Protestants, who tend to vote Republican.  (These traits include Scripture reading and regular church attendance.)

But, according to researcher Ken Wald,“We sensed there was a style of religious attachment that is less individualistic and more focused on the social and communal aspects of people’s lives.”   These Christians had a more sacramental outlook, and placed “helping others” over “avoiding sin.” Catholics and mainline Protestants, of course, and more likely to be part of the religious left.

The study, done by researchers from the University of Notre Dame, University of Cincinnati  and University of Florida, says that this has political implications. According to Wald, “Having a strong communitarian view of faith is associated with voting for Democratic candidates. Because of favorable political circumstances, we’re in an age where we’re likely to see a flowering of the religious left.”

In the Oct. 23 issue of Commonweal, I reviewed Mary Karr’s third memoir, Lit. Karr, for those who don’t know, is a poet and a celebrated memoirist; her first two autobiographical books, The Liars’ Club (1995) and Cherry (2000), were bestsellers. They also set a high literary standard for memoirs of childhood and adolescence, respectively. Lit, to be published next week, is the story of her adult life: how she became a writer, how she overcame addiction, how she survived a divorce and, thanks to her relationship with her son, made peace with her own mother. What intrigued me most, however, was the story of her conversion to the Catholic faith. She first wrote about becoming a Catholic in Poetry magazine in 2005, in her irreverent and insightful essay “Facing Altars: Poetry and Prayer.” (Longtime dotCommonweal readers may recall that Fr. Imbelli wrote about it here in April 2006.) That essay is a compressed account of the journey she traces in Lit, with a particular emphasis on how her experiences with poetry inform her concept of prayer, and vice versa.

“Facing Altars” is included in Karr’s 2006 volume of poetry Sinners Welcome. The poems in that collection touch on many of the themes explored in Lit (and I see a paperback edition has been prepared to coincide with the publication of the new memoir). She returns again and again to the “carnality” of the Catholic faith, the Eucharist, and the Passion, and she meditates on the Blessed Mother from her own perspective as the mother of a son. There is much to admire in that collection — Fr. Imbelli has already quoted my favorite line, from “Disgraceland”: ” You are loved, someone said. Take that / and eat it.” Still, I find I like Karr best as a writer of prose, and the part of Lit that takes us through her path to conversion is rich and deep in a way the 2006 essay only hints at. I highly recommend it.

New Yorkers can catch Mary Karr reading from Lit at the Lincoln Triangle Barnes & Noble next Tuesday, November 3. I’d like to attend, but I have a prior commitment — to my parish’s RCIA group. I’m sure she’d understand!

UPDATE: A couple more places you can find Karr’s thoughts on her craft and her faith: First, a transcript, in PDF form, from a 2007 forum at Fordham (thanks to Peggy for the link). Reading that led me to this opinion piece Karr wrote for the New York Times in 2006, after the James Frey scandal.

In her October 24 column, Maureen Dowd links the Vatican investigation of US women’s apostolic religious communities to the welcome extended to disgruntled Anglicans.

Money quote: “As the Vatican is trying to wall off the “brides of Christ,” Cask of Amontillado style, it is welcoming extreme-right Anglicans into the Catholic Church — the ones who are disgruntled about female priests and openly gay bishops. Il Papa is even willing to bend Rome’s most doggedly held dogma, against married priests — as long as they’re clutching the Anglicans’ Book of Common Prayer.
‘Most of the Anglicans who want to move over to the Catholic Church under this deal are people who have scorned women as priests and have scorned gay people,’ [author Kenneth] Briggs said. “The Vatican doesn’t care that these people are motivated by disdain.”

Thoughts?

“WASHINGTON — A former Marine who fought in Iraq, joined the State Department after leaving the military and was a diplomat in a Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan has become the first U.S. official to resign in protest of the Afghan war, the Washington Post reported early Tuesday.

“Matthew Hoh said he believes the war is simply fueling the insurgency. ‘I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan,’ Hoh wrote in his resignation letter, dated Sept. 10 but published early Tuesday. ‘I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end.’”

Read more, including his letter of resignation, here.

UPDATE: The lead story in the NYT (10/28/09) in which the U.S. military seems to be taking after the U.S. CIA makes you wonder if we aren’t fighting ourselves in other places besides Washington. “Brother of Afghan Leaders is said to be on CIA payroll,” and he runs the drug business, etc. Anyone remember the Diem brothers? And Madame Nhu!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html?_r=1&hp

Update 2: And the story of those who went before: “Transcripts of Defeat”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/opinion/29sebestyen.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Bishop Trautman of Erie, PA, former chair of the bishop’s liturgy committee, has just delivered a lecture criticizing the current draft of the new translation of the Missal. An article about his talk can be found here. An excerpt from the article:

He said the “sacred language” used by translators “tends to be elitist and remote from everyday speech and frequently not understandable” and could lead to a “pastoral disaster.”

“The vast majority of God’s people in the assembly are not familiar with words of the new missal like ‘ineffable,’ ‘consubstantial,’ ‘incarnate,’ ‘inviolate,’ ‘oblation,’ ‘ignominy,’ ‘precursor,’ ‘suffused’ and ‘unvanquished.’ The vocabulary is not readily understandable by the average Catholic,” Trautman said.

“The [Second Vatican Council's] Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy stipulated vernacular language, not sacred language,” he added.

Liturgical matters are minefields — I”m smart enough to know that. But may I just ask a few questions?

Does anyone else out there feel a little uncomfortable with the good bishop’s remarks about “the average Catholic”?

I suppose Bishop Trautmann would also criticize the following words: “abolish,” “forebears,” “subversion,” “sovereign,” “eradicate,” and “tribulation” — but then the average American couldn’t have been expected to understand President Kennedy’s inaugural address, right?

As someone who cares a great deal about the linguistic health of the Church and the culture, I confess that I don’t find his list that terrifying. Some of the words are even suffused with a certain grace.

There is a persistent strain of verbal iconoclasm in our culture that is not fundamentally different from the impulse that once led to the smashing of statues and looting of reliquaries.

Also, can anyone explain to me what this distinction between “sacred” and “vernacular” language is? If he’s talking about Latin vs. vernacular languages I think he’s already on shaky ground, but let’s not debate Sacrosanctum Concilium again. Rather, my fear is that he’s saying something that’s vaguer and more disturbing.

Isn’t the liturgy where we encounter the sacred?

It seems a sad day to me when the sacred is equated with elitism.

I can hear some of the counter-arguments being formulated — a sacred language is the province of an elite that maintains a hegemony over the poor; I’m too young to remember the liturgy before Vatican II, etc.

But I just don’t believe in the opposition between the sacred and the common man, any more than I believe the medieval peasant secretly wanted to throw a rock through the rose window in Chartres.

Anyway, since we’re debating how the English language should be used, it is all vernacular. Capturing the sacred in liturgical language is not simply a matter of using big words; it includes syntax, metaphor, cadence, and more.

Dante broke with literary tradition and wrote in his own vernacular, Italian. And butchers and bakers could be seen walking around Florence with the Divine Comedy in their hands, big words and all.

By all means, let’s debate liturgical changes, translations, etc. But let’s do so without patronizing people or treating the sacred as if it is a problem to be avoided.

The liberals have been clamoring for another council. Be careful what you pray for. Here is the  news, via the Vatican Information Service (my highlight in bold):

“On Monday 26 October in the Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio, headquarters of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, the study commission made up of experts from “Ecclesia Dei” and from the Society of St. Pius X held its first meeting, with the aim of examining the doctrinal differences still outstanding between the Society and the Apostolic See.

“In a cordial, respectful and constructive climate, the main doctrinal questions were identified. These will be studied in the course of discussions to be held over coming months, probably twice a month. In particular, the questions due to be examined concern the concept of Tradition, the Missal of Paul VI, the interpretation of Vatican Council II in continuity with Catholic doctrinal Tradition, the themes of the unity of the Church and the Catholic principles of ecumenism, the relationship between Christianity and non- Christian religions, and religious freedom. The meeting also served to specify the method and organisation of the work”.

Funny, I thought those issues had been settled by the Second Vatican Council. Just goes to show–the Church can change.

But seriously…The SSPX (and Benedict) have made it patently clear that the divides are too great to be bridged. Which seems to leave two options: One, they argue that it depends on what the meaning of “is” is. Or the meaning of a council, or Vatican II in particular, or the texts versus the spirit, etc. Two, Benedict offer the SSPX another exemption along the lines of a personal prelature. That’s what Bernard Fellay, head of the schismatics, says is under discussion:

Asked about the speculation that the Society of Pius X could be made into a personal prelature similar to Opus Dei, Fellay responded, “There is a lot of truth to that. I think the Vatican is moving towards that kind of canonical solution.”

Almost seems, well, relativistic…I do have to think that is wishful thinking by Fellay, but as we’ve seen stranger things have happened.

PS: Yes, there is a third option–conversion, though the work of the Holy Spirit in this ecumenical dialogue, given time.

UPDATE: Via First Things, canonist Ed Peters has this observation:

In any case, the idea of a “personal ordinariate” is another sign of the (I think) inevitable trend away from purely territorial jurisdictional units in the Roman Church and toward greater use of personal jurisdiction. This trend has been evident in western canon law at least since the late 1960s (see, e.g., 1967 Synod of Bishops, “Principles Guiding the Revision of Canon Law”, no. 8) and is reflected in the 1983 Code (e.g., 1983 CIC 372, 518). Provided this shift is pursued in an orderly manner, I think it a step in the right direction for people who are coming to see themselves as less identified with various locales, and more with social groupings. Certainly several other groups in the Church will be watching the Anglican project with an eye to applying innovative structures in their own spheres.

This seems to have historical antecedents (which you can always find in Catholicism), and also seems plausible. But, I would argue, it is also disturbing in that it fosters a kind of “free association” with whomever you find most agreeable. That seems more like the church shopping phenomenon of modern consumer Christianity, not to mention dreaded Protestantism!

I spent the weekend in Tucson, Arizona, where my family was marking my father’s 80^th birthday.  It was a wonderful weekend, particularly because my father is in excellent health, having recently returned from a tour of the coasts of Greenland, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.

Although my parents have only lived there for a few years, I must admit that I have fallen in love with the Sonoran Desert.  It is a landscape unlike anything else I have encountered.  The plant life, in particular, is very distinctive: the green bark of the Palo Verde, the twisting trunk and feathery branches of the Mesquite, and—of course—the majesty of the tall Saguaro cactus, some of which are more than a century old.

While suburban sprawl from Phoenix and Tucson continues to encroach on the desert, there is still a sense that human beings live here on sufferance. I remember getting out of our van one night at the hotel and seeing a large feline form walking in front of us next to the wall of the hotel.  Without much time to react, I immediately pushed my children behind me, thinking that it might be a mountain lion.  It turned out to be only a large bobcat who, it must be said, did not seem particularly afraid of us.

A couple of years back my family went hiking in the Catalina Mountains, including a wide, dry wash that can turn into a raging torrent during the rainy season.  A couple of days later we read that two hikers, who had followed the wash farther up the mountain, had been killed when a rainstorm on the other side of the mountain had sent water cascading down the wash.  Such events are far from uncommon here.

If you want to live in the desert, you must do so on its terms.  There should still be a few places left in this country where nature can kill you if you are stupid or careless enough.  It is a reminder that there are forces at work in the world that are larger than ourselves, to which the proper response is awe and humility.

the world’s newest Phillies fan.

In the most recent issue of Emmanuel Magazine, the “editorial” includes a quote from Cardinal Newman:

So again, they who enter Holy Orders promise they know not what, engage themselves they know not how deeply, debar themselves of the world’s ways they know not how intimately, find perchance they must cut off from them the right hand, sacrifice the desire of their eyes and the stirrings of their hearts at the foot of the Cross, while they thought, in their simplicity, they were but choosing the quiet easy life of “plain men dwelling in tents.”

The editor, Paul Bernier, SSS, admits he does not have the quote’s original provenance. Can any Newmanians be of assistance in that regard?

As Catholics consider the consequences of more Anglicans entering into full communion with the Church, Cathy Kaveny raises some interesting questions below with regard to how well the strictures on contraception will sit with these newly minted Anglo-Catholics.  These questions are made even more timely by the USCCB’s consideration of a new pastoral letter on marriage and family, which reiterates that contraception is “intrinsically evil.”  NCR has a copy of the proposed draft here.

Interestingly, there is also a story on the NYTimes website about a bill currently making its way through the Filipino Congress that would provide reproductive healthcare for the 70% of the population that is too poor to afford such services not currently included in the state’s government run healthcare program.  The bill, which would provide contraception (among other services) is being opposed by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines.

For those of us who appreciate at least the ideal of the separation of church and state in America, I found the following quote from Rev. Melvin Castro, the spokesman for the Bishops, to be a pretty good summary of what’s wrong with the pro-life movement:

“The Constitution is very clear that the state should protect life from conception up to its natural end,” Father Castro said. “Regardless of their religion, Filipinos are God-fearing and family-loving. This bill will change that culture.”

So, no matter what religion, all people of faith are God-fearing?  What about Buddhists?  Secondly, how does providing birth control to those who are unable to provide for the children they already have lead directly to a non-family-loving culture?  Presumably, some parents don’t want more children because they love the ones they already have too much to deny them basic material needs.  One couple who have been victims of scarce family planning resources are “barely able to buy vitamins for their youngest child, let alone send more than two of their older children to school.”  I wonder what Father Castro would say about contraception if he had 8 children to support on a fraction of his salary.

In the midst of the comment thread on  “PR Masterstroke?” Bob Imbelli invoked Cardinal Kaspers’s “somber words ” about the impact that ordaining women as bishops would have on Anglican-Catholic relations.  In response, Crystal Watson pointed to Anglican Bishop Wright’ somewhat pointed rejoinder to Kasper.  Both are, IMHO,well worth reading, so I’m bumping them up here.

Cardinal Kasper

Bishop Wright

A friend of mine, a former Anglican actually, brought up an issue that I hadn’t thought about with respect to the new Anglican rite:  contraception. In 1930, the Lambeth Conference declared that contraception was not always immoral, and could be used (for serious reason) to regulate the number of children that a married couple had.  That declaration prompted a negative response from the Roman Catholic Church–the encyclical Casti Connubii, which declared that the use of contraception was never morally permissible.  As most people know, that stance was reaffirmed by Humanae Vitae.

Now, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the prohibition against contraception is not a matter of “rite” or religious practice–it is a matter of natural law, binding not only upon Catholics, but upon all persons.  So Anglicans who join the Catholic Church will be expected to conform to the prohibition  There is no such thing as a dispensation from the strictures of negative moral absolutes. It’s true, of course, that many Roman Catholics make their own decisions about this matter, and come to their own private peace with God in the “internal forum” of their conscience.  But the new influx of Anglicans will include people who will not be able to come to a purely private peace–the married members of the clergy, who will be required to follow Humanae Vitae no less than other married persons.

As far as I am aware, however, the morality of contraception under certain circumstances  has been more or less a settled issue among Anglicans–even traditionally minded Anglicans. How will this change work out?  Are Anglican priests prepared to balance the demands of a big family with the demands of a big parish? What about the wife of the priest?  I know a number of Anglican priests whose wives (and husbands, but that is not an issue here) work full-time to supplement the salary.  Are wives willing not only to convert, but to convert on the matter of contraception? Are Roman Catholics willing not only to see, but to support financially and in other ways, married priests with six, seven, or eight children?

From a theoretical perspective, this is an important question.  If Anglicans are fleeing their communion because they reject the ordination of practicing homosexuals, they need to see that the Roman Catholic Church rejects contraception for much the same grounds that it rejects homosexual acts–it’s against the natural law as authoritatively interpreted by the magisterium  –the Pope they wanted and now have. (Incidentally, what I call the “everybody’s suffering” argument has been a major defense on the part of traditionally minded Catholics to the charge of discrimination.) Anglican ethical analysis has reached a different conclusion, in my view for two reasons.  First, they tend to focus on the broader relationship between a husband and wife, and not the single acts that traditional Catholic moral theory does.  Second, they tend to give more weight to Scripture, which they view as condemning homosexual acts but not contraception.  Traditional Catholic moral theory–based in natural law–doesn’t parse the question in the same way.

Some argue that NFP is very reliable–but many have argued that it’s not.  I’ve also come across traditional Catholics who complain about the “contraceptive mentality” of their fellow Catholics in the pews, citing the fact that they only have two or three children as evidence.

Whatever problems the celibate priesthood has, at least we have been spared speculation about the contraceptive practices of our priests.

This ought to be an interesting social experiment.

Last week, my colleague, Jen Ziemke, co-hosted the first international conference on crisis mapping at John Carroll University.  If you want to see how technology is changing the way academics work and what they study, check out the website which catalogs the activities of the conference.

The emerging field of crisis mapping uses technology to map and coordinate responses to humanitarian disasters, whether natural or man-made.  There is a little too much jargon on the website for my taste—it is an emerging academic discipline after all—but the list of participants suggests that there is something important going on here.

The conference was sponsored in part by the Open Society Institute (OSI), Humanity United (HU), and the US Institute of Peace (USIP).

The Republican Party posed this question in its weekly video and radio address, no doubt hoping it will resonate much like  Ronald Reagan’s effective question to voters in the 1980 presidential campaign, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

For Catholics, this question on health care ought to be the wrong one, given our faith’s emphasis on the common good. This is made very clear in Daniel Callahan’s excellent article in the Oct. 9 issue of Commonweal, “America’s Blind Spot: Health Care & the Common Good.”

As Callahan writes, “Except for Catholics and a few others … the common good as a moral value has little purchase in American life.”  Later in the article, he writes that “Advocates of reform must now cope with the growing fear among the 80 percent of Americans who have adequate health insurance that they may have to lose some benefits, or pay more form them, in order to extend coverage to the 20 percent who lack insurance. More than fear is operating here.” And still more: “The striking feature of conservative health-care thinking is its radical individualism. The idea of a common good is entirely absent.”

The question “Will this improve your life?” takes clever advantage of Americans’ lack of  concern for the common good. It’s a phrase that could well echo through the health care debate. Should the health care debate be framed in this way? It calls for a response from Catholic leaders and opinion-makers.

In case you missed it, Robert Mickens’s comment from Peggy’s thread below deserves your attention:

A very helpful piece by John Allen to begin the discussion.

However, in absence of the actual Apostolic Constitution it is difficult and dangerous to draw too many conclusions. We are left only with open questions.

The people at the CDF think they have cleverly “scooped” the media.

This is what happened: at 6 p.m. on Monday evening the Holy See press office announced that Cardinal Levada and Archbishop Di Noia were to hold a press briefing the next morning at 11 a.m. on a “topic concerning relations between Catholics and Angicans”. Many journalists never got the news until the next day and some of them never heard about the briefing until it was already over. The last-minute announcement of a briefing on a vague topic meant that most of journalists were not prepared to ask the proper questions. Usually, a press conference is announced a week in advanced and the topic is clear.

When we arrived at the press hall we expected to receive a document. Instead, we were given an “explanatory note” of the still unpublished Apostolic Constitution. But this was not distributed to us until the briefing got underway.

During the question period neither Cardinal Levada nor Archbishop Di Noia would provide journalists with figures or much detail — how many people are we talking about? which groups are we talking about? who was involved in the committee to draft these still unpublished provisions? were the Catholic episcopal conferences where these groups are found (e.g. England and Wales, especially) involved in the process or consulted? The responses to all these questions were vague, I pointed out at the briefing, asking for more clarity. “If we have been vague, then so be it,” was Cardinal Levada’s answer. Archbishop Di Noia refused to provide the names of people who were involved in the consultation process. He only said it included a limited number of persons and that it was important to protect confidentiality.

A public relations master stroke?

Confusion reigned at the end of the briefing. No one was quite sure what had been announced. And the news reports that have followed reflect this confusion.

Without the actual legislative text — the Apostolic Constitution — it is hard to know just what exactly is at stake.

Among the many question, add these:

1. What specifically Anglican patrimony will be allowed to remain after the “corporate reunion” of these Anglican groups with Rome? Will it include merely the “spiritual and liturgical” patrimony? Are these the only differences between Anglicans and Catholics? And are they even the most essential? There is also a distinctively Anglican ecclesiology and church order (or new elements of such) that have development over the centuries. One thinks immediately of synodality, the selection of bishops and other pastors, the role of vestries, the role of the non-ordained faithful in governance and oversight, etc… Will any of the ecclesiological part of the “heritage” be preserved? If the heritage is limited to “spiritual and liturgical”, then are we not talking about Anglicans being “absorbed” into Rome. And would this not be the establishment of a Western model of “uniatism” (to use the pejorative term).

2. The issue of married priests has left many commentators confused. Some seem to think that the new provisions would create a section within Catholicism where a married priesthood would be perpetuated. But it seems that this will depend on a steady and lasting flow of “coversions” (to use an incorrect term) of married Anglican priests to Catholicism. What type of norms will be needed to regulate this traffic? What of priests who are divorced and remarried? What of Catholics who become Anglicans, get ordained, and then come back to Rome? There will many more issues, as well…

Many, many questions — all impossible to answer without the so far nameless and faceless Apostolic Constitution (which we were told the Pope has already approved, despite the fact it is not completed).

And, of course, what does this auger for Rome’s (evolving) attitude towards and involvement in the field of ecumenism?

“NATO Ministers Endorse Wider Afghan Effort”

General McChrystal has consulted with NATO defense ministers in Brataslava. The defense ministers seem to have endorsed his plan for a troop build-up in Afghanistan. The story is careful to point out that this means little apart from the willingness of European political leaders to go along with the plan.

Some questions: Is McChyrstal lobbying among NATO allies? Is Secretary of Defense Gates, also at the meeting, encouraging McChyrstal’s views? Will a ground swell for a more robust strategy in Afghanistan end with more U.S. troops and the continuing recall of European troops? Is the Obama Administration trying to get the Europeans on board for a longer-term and stronger commitment?

Here:   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/world/europe/24nato.html?_r=1&hp

John Allen has this to say about the Vatican’s announcement on Anglicans: http://ncronline.org/news/what-vaticans-welcome-anglicans-means

“One curious twist is why the Vatican decided to make its announcement before the apostolic constitution was ready for release, seemingly a cart-before-the-horse maneuver.

“Sources tell NCR that the constitution, the result of almost three years of work, still needs some canonical fine-tuning. Nevertheless, the Vatican could have waited to make its splash until the document was complete, so the question still looms: Why do it this way?…

“First, it gives Vatican officials a chance to gauge public reaction and to get a sense of the questions people will be asking, flagging potential misinterpretations and indentifying gaps in the new rules. That way, it’s possible that some of the holes can be plugged before the document appears. Second, the way things have worked out actually amounts to something of a PR masterstroke…..”

Really? This seems a pretty optimistic take. I’ve posted some questions on this point at the Washington Post.

Pascal’s bleak intuition provided impetus for the French painter, Georges Rouault’s equally dark “Miserere” series of prints.

An item in the October 19th issue of America brings further stark confirmation:

Gangs affiliated with the Lord’s Resistance Army in Northern Uganda have been crossing the border into Sudan, “crucifying” Christians during raids. Near the town of Nazra, seven recently died. On discovering the bodies, villagers described what they found as a “grotesque crucifixion scene.” The guerillas nailed the victims to pieces of wood on the ground before killing them. Bishop Eduardo Hiiboro Kussala of Tombura-Yambio blames the government in Khartoum for not increasing security in that area and has called upon the international community for help.

The Church’s Friday Morning Prayer always begins with Psalm 51: the Miserere. May we pray it for the Christifideles in many places who bear in their bodies the agony of Christ.

Not a good idea according to John Derbyshire.

Yesterday on the First Thoughts blog Mary Rose Rybak posted a video of First Things Associate Editor David Goldman’s appearance on the Larry Kudlow program. Kudlow had convened a panel to discuss the value of the U.S. dollar. “Watch FT’s own David Goldman dominate the discussion on last night’s Larry Kudlow show,” Rybak wrote. About four minutes into the interview, while Goldman was lamenting the cheap dollar, he explained that “the probability of the collapse of America’s world position and a correspondent collapse of the dollar is priced into gold at about one thousand sixty today.” Then he offered the following digression: “It’s likely to keep going up as long as Obama runs foreign policy as if it were the Special Olympics.”

“The Special Olympics!” Kudlow bellowed. “It’s like we want to be C-plus students with everybody else. That’s the part that really troubles me.”

“Yeah,” Goldman agreed. “Everybody gets a prize. Everybody’s equal.”

This morning’s lead story on the First Things homepage is written by Archbishop Charles Chaput. It’s called “Conscience, Courage & Children with Down Syndrome.”

Remember when President Obama made an offensive “joke” about the Special Olympics? Care to guess what at least two First Things bloggers had to say about that? Check it out here, here, and here.

If you missed Commonweal Conversations — our celebration of our 85th Anniversary on Monday night — you missed a great time. We gathered in an elegant space at Chelsea Piers, with a spectacular sunset view over the Hudson. All your favorite Commonweal contributors and columnists were there, along with a wonderful bunch of supporters, readers, and fans. It was a chance to put names to faces (after all this blogging, I finally met David Gibson in person!), buy a book (and have it signed!) by a favorite author, and chat about religion, politics, culture, or whatever else came up.

Mark Shields, who received Commonweal‘s Catholic in the Public Square Award in 2004, was on hand to present this year’s award to Timothy Shriver. Shriver, the Chairman of Special Olympics, spoke movingly of his parents’ deep faith, and proudly identified himself as a “Commonweal Catholic.” Shields, a Notre Dame alum, and Fr. Edward (Monk) Malloy, CSC, president emeritus of ND and the chair of the dinner, shared stories about Shriver and his witness to the faith through his work with Special Olympics. Among the more glamorous attendees were journalist and California first lady Maria Shriver, the sister of the honoree, and Vanessa Williams, singer, actress, and Special Olympics board member (we hear she posed for photos with all of our own board members!). The food was great, the bartenders were busy, and the conversation was top-notch, of course. I’d tell you about how, at one point, everyone broke out into a call-and-response from the Baltimore Catechism, but you really had to be there.

We’re grateful to everyone who came — thank you for your support and your friendship. If you couldn’t make it, we hope we’ll see you for our 90th!