In the post below, Peter Steinfels writes about the “More than a Monologue” conference at Fordham.  He wonders whether the conference would have been better had it included a representative of official church teaching on same-sex relations-raising the question whether it is actually possible to have a dialogue on neuralgic issues pertaining to sexuality.

I wonder what Peter would say about the conference held under the sponsorship of the bishops’ conference on the “New Evangelization,” in which tenure track Catholic theologians under the age of 40 were invited to a conference designed to further the partnership between the bishops and theologians in handing on the faith. Here is Michael Sean Winters’s report. I think you could say that on ethics at least, it was a mirror-image to the Fordham conference.

Needless to say, it is impossible to cover every topic in a one-day symposium. And many of the talks looked extremely interesting. I note, however, that the only moralist on the program–and indeed, the only woman, was Janet Smith, who has been an indefatigable opponent of contraception for many years now, and an enthusiastic proponent of the “theology of the body.”

It’s easy to Monday Morning quarterback.  And no one, I think, would expect the bishops to make room for voices advocating change in church teaching at a conference they themselves sponsor.  At the same time, it would have been possible for the bishops to highlight more fundamental matters. After all, sexual ethics is only one of a number of areas of  special topics in ethics that Catholic moralists have to deal with in teaching.

So I guess I wonder why the bishops thought that the” theology of the body”  –and the prohibition against artificial contraception is the most important “good news” pertaining to Christian life to communicate to young theologians? What about more foundational topics (say, the relationship between action and virtue in Aquinas, or more scripturally based topics (the Beatitudes or the Magnificat for that matter)?  Does not Catholic social teaching merit a mention?

But back to Peter’s post–and my question. How, exactly, would a young moral theologian go from the Bishops’ conference to the Fordham conference without getting whiplash?  Has anyone out there tried it?

I was the moderator for the evening session of “Learning to Listen: Voices of Sexual Diversity and the Catholic Church,” the first of the series of “More Than a Monologue” events discussed below. I had nothing to do with planning or organizing this conference at Fordham or the coming programs at Union Theological Seminary, Yale, and Fairfield. As far as I could tell, I was invited to be a moderator because I had a reputation, deserved or not, of being even-handed in religious controversies. I accepted the invitation with some serious reservations and only after considerable conversation with the Fordham planners.

Here are my reflections on the Fordham gathering and the series.

The agenda: Is it to challenge—or more realistically to modify—church teaching? With absolutely no inside knowledge of the planners’ intentions and deliberations, I have no problem accepting the statement of Paul Lakeland that challenging church teaching is not the agenda (my italics) of the series.

I’m pretty confident, however, that at least some, probably many, of the planners and organizers would like to see church teaching regarding homosexuality, to some degree or another, changed, and pastoral practice all the more so. What probably unites this diverse group of planners and organizers is a common conviction that Read the rest of this entry »

The Vatican has yet to comment on the Palestinian Authority’s plan to request full membership in the United Nations for Palestine, but some Catholic organizations are weighing in.

The Caritas blog carried a statement from the organization’s general secretary in Jerusalem, Claudette Habesch:

At Caritas Jerusalem, we have seen the ravages of the occupation on the people for the past 44 years. There is the destruction of houses and crops, the discrimination for access to resources and services, the fear of random arrest and the creeping despair that eventually we might lose the our land to Israeli settlers. The feeling of injustice and humiliation is in every heart. If Palestine becomes a UN member, Palestinians will regain their dignity. They will be considered as equals in peace negotiations and when defending their cause in the UN forum. They will have access to the International Court of Justice to protect the rights of their land. They will finally believe in a peaceful future in Palestine for their children.

Read the rest of this entry »

Today be National Talk Like a Pirate Day.  And since me Somali be a bit rusty, I will do me best to imitate that immortal actor what’s his name from the movie Treasure Island.

So riddle me this.  All over this great continent of ours, white collar workers will be talkin’ like pegged-legged parrot-bearing old salts like meself.  What do ye think about these kinds of “let’s have fun at th’ corporation” holidays?  Be they real?  Or be they just a distraction from th’ awful truth?

Ye get extra points fer talkin’ like a pirate.

Shiver me post-modern timbers!

Tom Friedman: “This has also left the U.S. government fed up with Israel’s leadership but a hostage to its ineptitude, because the powerful pro-Israel lobby in an election season can force the administration to defend Israel at the U.N., even when it knows Israel is pursuing policies not in its own interest or America’s….”

Now do you believe Mersheimer and Walt? Times, September 18

And Friedman concludes: …”Unfortunately, Israel today does not have a leader or a cabinet for such subtle diplomacy. One can only hope that the Israeli people will recognize this before this government plunges Israel into deeper global isolation and drags America along with it.”

Now do you believe me?

UPDATE: Stephen Walt comments on Tom Friedman’s Sunday op-ed; here is Walt’s conclusion: “The elephant has been in the room for a long time, but now it has the spotlights on it and it’s wearing a pink bikini too. It’s hard to miss, in short, which is surely why Tom Friedman wrote what he did.” Headline: “Well, Duh…”

MORE UPDATE: A blow-by-blow account of the Obama-Netanyahu relationship giving details on Obama’s efforts to back Netanyahu. Bottom line: With a friend like Netanyahu, Obama doesn’t need any enemies. New York Magazine.

Today is the first of four events in a series called: “More Than a Monologue. Sexual Diversity and the Catholic Church.”

The series website is here, and the Facebook page is here. Jamie L. Manson describes the initiative in NCR here.

Manson cites Fairfield University’s Prof. Paul Lakeland, one of the organizers of the series. She writes:

For Lakeland, none of these conferences has as its agenda to attack the church’s teaching on homosexuality. “All of these conferences are addressing issues that are left open by the church teaching,” he said. Though the hierarchy is explicit in its understanding of same-sex relations, he said there are questions that arise out of its teaching that have not and will not go away.

Other events in the series will be held at Union Theological Seminary (October 1,) Yale Divinity School (Oct.22,) and Fairfield University (Oct. 29).

So–anybody at Fordham today? How’s it going?

Michael Desch, professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame wants the U.S. to abstain in the Security Council next week.

“Obama should threaten to abstain in this matter if the Netanyahu government continues to drag its feet in fully embracing the two-state solution, Israel’s only hope for remaining Jewish and democratic.

“Putting an end to the Israel-Palestine conflict would be good not only for the Palestinians and the Israelis; most importantly it will also advance U.S. interests. We tend to dismiss al Qaeda’s (and other radical states’) embrace of the Palestinian cause as cynical rhetoric. But there is no doubt that the continuing Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands anti-U.S. sentiments, hindering our war against terrorism. Also, as the Arab Spring gives the Arab Street a great voice, it is clear that this issue resonates broadly.”

HT: Stephen Walt:

Juan Cole gives a reasoned and sober account of PA President Abbas’s announcement to seek recognition from the UN Security Council.

“The big problem of the Palestinians is that, being stateless, they lack moxie. Even Americans can go tomorrow to the West Bank and steal Palestinian land and resources, aided by an enormous US aid package for Israel and by unthinking, knee-jerk approval by the US government of virtually anything Israel’s rightwing government does, no matter how illegal in international law.

“If Israeli squatters move in, claim Palestinian fields, and dig deep wells that cause the Palestinian’s wells to dry up, what recourse do Palestinians have? They mostly can’t sue in Israeli courts because those courts are premised on Zionist principles of appropriating Palestinian land and denying Palestinians statehood.”

Most Americans, including those who comment here at dotCommonweal, don’t seem to grasp how dangerous the situation is for the United States, for Israel, and obviously for the Palestinians. A U.S. veto in the Security Council makes us a pariah state along with Israel.

Patrick Lang, retired U.S. army officer and former official of the Defense Intelligence Agency, is a bit more direct:

“The truth is that our Israeli masters fear and hate the Palestinians as tribal enemies and do not intend to ever deal fairly with them.  All else is lies and mirrors.

“In humble service to the hegemon we will vote this week to destroy whatever hope there might be for American influence in the Islamic World.  After that we should prepare for whatever new wars Israel may want us to fight for them.”

The State of Play: “RAMALLAH, West Bank — The Palestinian decision to apply for full United Nations membership at the Security Council, announced Friday by President Mahmoud Abbas, was the most viable of the only options possible: surrender, return to violence or appeal to the international community, a senior Palestinian official said Saturday.”

In my younger days I took an unholy pleasure in devastating reviews–as when The Village Voice entitled a review of a film by Barbra Streisand: “A Bore is Starred,” or when a reviewer complained, “O’Dets, where is thy sting?” This may be what attracted me to Sydney Smith (1771-1845), a clergyman in the Church of England perhaps best known as one of the founders of and regular contributors to The Edinburgh Review, as a champion of Catholic Emancipation, and as perhaps the greatest wit since Jonathan Swift. The Wikipedia article is a good introduction, and you can find works of his on-line here and here. Below are several examples of the sharpness of his pen, beginning with this one:

There is an event recorded in the Bible, which men who write books should keep constantly in their remembrance. It is there set forth, that many centuries ago the earth was covered with a great flood, by which the whole of the human race, with the exception of one family, were destroyed. It appears, also, that from thence, a great alteration was made in the longevity of mankind, who, from a range of seven or eight hundred years, which they enjoyed before the flood, were confined to their present period of seventy or eighty years. This epoch in the history of man gave birth to the twofold division of the antediluvian and postdiluvian style of writing, the latter of which naturally contracted itself into those inferior limits which were better accommodated to the abridged duration of human life and literary labour. Now, to forget this event–to write without the fear of the deluge before his eyes, and to handle a subject as if mankind could lounge over a pamphlet for ten years, as before their submersion–is to be guilty of the most grievous error into which a writer can possibly fall. The author of this book should call in the aid of some brilliant pencil, and cause the distressing scenes of the deluge to be portrayed in the most lively colours for his use. He should gaze at Noah, and be brief. The ark should constantly remind him of the little time there is left for reading; and he should learn, as they did in the ark, to crowd a great deal of matter into a very little compass. (Sydney Smith on Characters of the Late Charles James Fox.) Read the rest of this entry »

Reuters reports that Edward Daly, Retired bishop of Derry, has made a forceful call for a serious discussion about ending mandatory (diocesan) clerical celibacy. Money quote:

I feel now that celibacy is damaging to the church and I do feel now that we have to look at that issue very profoundly at this point in time and quite urgently.

Well then, perhaps he should convene a gathering of bishops who feel the same way, and present a common document to the Vatican? Some bishops might advocate such a move but might fear to be “outed” on this issue if they’re still active, not retired like Daly. So the document could be signed by name and status, or as “Anonymous, retired” or “Anonymous, active.” I will personally buy snacks for any such gathering. (Were I wealthy, I’d offer to host. One does what one can…)

An intriguing statement in the Reuters piece that took me by surprise:

Supporters of a married priesthood caused a stir earlier this year when they unearthed a 1970 appeal to ordain older married men signed by nine German theologians including the then Father Joseph Ratzinger, the present pope.

Pardon me for my lack of attention if this made headlines, but does anyone have any info on this? Did they use language of “viri probati,” i.e., deacons? And did they mean ordination, or expansion of diaconal duties beyond their current scope, but stopping short of priestly ordination?

While I’m stirring the nest, I wonder if religious orders with stable apostolates might also consider more complete inclusion of non-celibates? Yes, yes, community, but look at the deep devotion and assiduous labor of many associate members of men’s and women’s orders. I’m not at all sure that the apostolates of at least a substantial proportion of religious actually require celibacy to embody the charism of the institute.

But for now, a real push on the diocesan side is enough. And Bishop Daly, if you’re out there, let’s talk–chips and salsa? Honey roasted cashews? You name it, it’s there.

Last week I posted a clip of a GOP debate audience cheering state-imposed death. During Monday night’s Tea Party-sponsored debate, audience members applauded the idea of allowing a sick person without health insurance to die. Ron Paul was asked how an uninsured thirty-year-old who has a serious accident would pay for health care under his plan. ”That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks,” he replied. (Implying what? The hypothetical thirty-year-old should have known better than to have put himself in harm’s way?) That’s when the applause started. He continued: “This whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody…” Wolf Blitzer interrupted: ”Are you saying that society should just let him die?” More applause. (Ron Paul’s “no” is barely audible over the noise–an answer he gave for a good reason.) You can watch the clip right here.

Have these whooping Tea Partiers ever had an accident requiring medical attention? Do they know anyone who has fallen ill through no fault of his own? Or a smoker who’s died from emphysema? Maybe they haven’t given a moment’s thought to such questions, preferring instead to take Capt. Kirk’s lead. You think I’m kidding? It’s well known that the Tea Party has modeled much of its economic policy recommendations on the philosophy of certain Star Trek characters.

The observances of the 10^th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks largely focused, as they should have, on the victims of those attacks.  In showing the capacity of ordinary people to exhibit extraordinary courage, many of these individuals exemplified the best of our country and the best of the human spirit.

Nevertheless, I suspect that one of the reasons that the ceremonies and media coverage focused so heavily on the stories of the victims is that we remain deeply divided about our national response to these attacks.  With Bin Laden dead, Al-Qaeda a shadow of its former self, and the U.S. homeland free of any major terrorist attacks over the last decade one might be inclined to see the Global War on Terror as a success.

I would argue, to the contrary, that our victory over Al-Qaeda was a tactical victory but something close to a strategic defeat.  Ten years after Pearl Harbor, the United States was the most powerful nation on earth.  Working with its allies, the U.S. built durable international institutions that strengthened liberal democracy and laid the groundwork for the long twilight struggle against Communism.  Domestically, the expansion of collective bargaining allowed the prosperity of the post-war period to be broadly shared.

The contrast with the present moment is striking.

Read the rest of this entry »

It can be hard to make the Vatican look good these days, what with sex abuse victims suing the Pope for crimes against humanity and such.

But with the head of the Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, looking ready to retire next year, Nelson Jones at The New Statesman notes that the way a new Anglican leader is chosen is easily as obscure as a flock of cardinals meeting in a secret conclave in the Sistine Chapel — and the art isn’t as good:

The process of choosing bishops and archbishops of the Established church is convoluted and arcane, but its underlying philosophy (like much in Britain) seems to be that some matters are too important to be left to the vagaries of a democratic process. Technically, senior posts in the Church of England are appointed by the Queen, in her capacity as Supreme Governor and Defender of the Faith, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister (who isn’t required to have any religious affiliations at all). Some recent prime ministers, including Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, are rumoured to have intervened in the selection process. These days, however, the practice of submitting two alternative names to Downing Street has been superseded, which means that bishops and archbishops are now effectively chosen by an obscure committee.

The Crown Nominations Commission, as it is called, has some members elected by the General Synod, but that gives it only an indirect legitimacy. It deliberates in secret and never divulges details of its discussions. Some observers suspect that an informal “Buggins’ turn” system operates, with unofficial quotas for liberal, Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical bishops and Canterbury itself rotating. (Thus Rowan Williams was a throwback to the ceremonious fence-sitting of Robert Runcie after the somewhat more acerbic tenure of George Carey.) But this is speculation. All we can really say is that, as with the Conservative party in the days of the Magic Circle, soundings are taken and a consensus emerges.

Well, at least the Queen will have a say, which is one more woman’s vote than they’ll have in the conclave.

Cross-posted at “Sacred and Profane,” my new blog at RNS.

….the face. Those who have been following the drama of the Palestinian Authority going to the UN for some form of international recognition no doubt expect some kind of deal will be cut to keep the U.S. from having to veto the PA request in the Security Council, that will give the PA greater international recognition, and that will calm down PM Netanyahu of Israel.

In all of the twists and turns of the discussion, some members of the U.S. Congress have busied themselves with threats to cut U.S. aid to the Palestinians if they proceed with their plan (these are the congressional reps who have created a hidden constitutional amendment to make foreign policy in place of the president). 51st rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida is leading the charge.

This posturing has had a mixed reception both in Congress and within the organized American-Jewish community. It turns out that some of the current aid goes to training and beefing up PA security forces which has been good for both the Palestinians and the Israelis in reducing violence. “Elliott Abrams [of all people!], a former aide to U.S. President George W. Bush now at the Council on Foreign Relations, said ‘there are grave doubts about significant cuts in aid to the Palestinian Authority’ within American Jewish organizations.’” Senators John Kerry and John McCain have expressed skepticism about cutting funds. Haaretz, naturally, has the whole story. Stay tuned!

Update: Fall-out from the Republican victory in NY 9 spreads. Are we about to see a campaign over whether President Obama should do whatever PM Netanyahu demands? Media blathering here is to be expected, but doesn’t the US have far more to worry about (see Peter Nixon above)?

“Republicans see a chance to change [the Jewish voters preference for Democrats]… in 2012, with President Obama locked in a tense relationship with Israel’s leaders and criticized by many American Jews as being too tough on a close and favored ally. Tuesday’s Republican upset in New York’s Congressional election, they say, is a sign of bad things to come for Mr. Obama.

“Sensing trouble, the Obama campaign and Democratic Party leaders have mobilized to solidify the president’s standing with Jewish voters. The Democratic National Committee has established a Jewish outreach program. The campaign is singling out Jewish groups, donors and other supporters with calls and e-mails to counter the Republican narrative that Mr. Obama is hostile to Israel.”  Oy vey!

I don’t think I’ve ever received more reminders to do something than to vote in the special election in New York’s 9th Congressional District – better known as Anthony Weiner’s former district. The calls were constant. So were the calls from pollsters.

It certainly has surprised me that a Republican candidate, Bob Turner, won in what has always been a Democratic district. When asked to prognosticate last spring during the midst of Weiner’s travails, I wrote that any other Democrat could hold the seat. Wrong.

The quick conclusion to reach is that the vote is a rejection of President Obama. There is much evidence for that; he received 55 percent of the district’s vote in 2008, but recently polled just a 43 percent approval rating.

But there is more to it. The 9th C.D. is not exactly Obama territory. In fact, he would not be president if the rest of the country voted the way the district did in the 2008 presidential primary. Hillary Clinton won 70 percent of the vote; Obama had 27 percent.

So how did Bob Turner go from the 39.8 percent he received in 2010 against Anthony Weiner to around 54 percent against Democrat David Weprin?

2010 was not exactly an easy year for Democratic House candidates, either, but Weiner won by 20 points. Unemployment was high back then, too, and Obamacare was already approved.

Further disenchantment with Obama is a factor, but not the only one.

Following on the Weiner fiasco, the Turner-Weprin race received enormous media attention. In 2010, Turner got virtually no coverage. This year, Turner got plenty of attention and was much better able to get his message out. Plus, he had built up some recognition by running a credible campaign in 2010 – rare for Republicans in Brooklyn and Queens.

Weprin was a lackluster candidate. Based on my observation, Turner did a better job of connecting with voters on a personal level. People like him. He has an appealing story: He became fed up with Weiner after watching him on television, called a party leader and asked who he could support against the Democrat. No one was running, so Turner ran. Weprin’s story is not so appealing: He is the son of a powerful Queens Democrat, and, with his brother, has advanced as part of a family political dynasty. He doesn’t even live in the district, which made no difference to the party boss who handpicked him for the nomination. Wrong story to have in a time of anti-incumbent fervor.

Weiner, before his scandal, was on the other hand a formidable candidate. This didn’t have much to do with his liberal politics, in my opinion. He was more liberal than the district, and flourished anyway because he was known locally as an effective and energetic advocate for his constituents.

The pre-disgrace Weiner was an astute campaigner. I doubt he would have been outflanked on the question of support for Israel, as Weprin was, to his detriment in a heavily Jewish district. Israel became the 51st state in this campaign, to borrow Peg Steinfels’s phrase, with former Mayor Koch endorsing Turner to send a message to Obama that he should be more supportive of Israel. Weprin, who is Orthodox Jewish, stumbled on this.

These are some of the other reasons that Bob Turner will go to Congress. Much will be said about how the upset vote in a traditionally Democratic district was a rebuke of Obama. I wouldn’t say that’s wrong, but it shouldn’t be oversold.

Tomorrow, September 14th, a meeting will take place between Cardinal Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and leaders of Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X, at which will be communicated the Vatican’s summary of the results of the doctrinal conversations that have taken place between the Society and select Catholic theologians over the last couple of years.  It is not known whether the results will go beyond a clarification of the doctrinal issues and include a proposal for some sort of canonical regularization of the Society’s position vis-a-vis the Catholic Church.  Traditionalist sites have been pessimistic that any great progress has been made on the doctrinal positions, and there are more than a few suggestions that any capitulation by the Society’s leadership will be met by schismatic tendencies within the organization. Bishop Williamson clearly will reject any recognition of the Second Vatican Council. Even if there were to be some sort of accommodation, e.g., on the variety of interpretations of Vatican II, there are other issues on which many members of the Society are adamantly opposed: e.g., the beatification of John Paul II and Pope Benedict’s intention to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the gathering of leaders of the various religions at Assisi in 1986. For an example of how fierce the opposition to “the spirit of Assisi” is, read this piece by the Society’s District Superior for France, Fr. Regis de Cacqueray. It is hard to see how any reconciliation with such views could be possible.

Sandro Magister today gives the speech presented to the Napa Institute by the new Archbishop of Los Angeles, José Gómez. It reminds us of the early presence of Catholic missionaries in lands that would become the USA, a history often forgotten in favor of the later arrival of the Puritans. For the archbishop the recovery of this history might also help overcome the threat of a new nativism.

The talk reminded me of the prize-winning scholarly work of a former student at Catholic Unversity, Timothy Matovina, now director of the Cushwa Center for the Study of American Catholicism at Notre Dame, who has become not only one of the best historians of Hispanic Catholicism in the US but also a fine interpreter of its contemporary challenges and opportunities.

At the heart of the parable Jesus tells in yesterday’s Gospel is the contrast between the immense debt owed by a king’s servant and freely forgiven him by the king and the relatively trivial debt owed to that same servant by one of his fellow-servants, which he refuses to forgive him (Mt 18:24, 28).  In the Greek original the first debt is described as “ten thousand talents.” A talent was the largest unit in currency, and ten thousand was the highest figure used in ancient accounting. The combination results in such a huge debt that it would have been impossible for the servant ever to repay it. The comparatively trivial amount owed by the fellow-servant was “one hundred denarii,” a denarius being the common silver coin of the day, equivalent, we are told, to a day’s wages for a laborer.

I was struck while reading the parable at Mass that the New American Bible, which is the only translation authorized for liturgical use in the USA, departs from the literal text and offers instead an interpretive translation: The first servant is said to have owed the king “a huge amount”, while the other servant is said to owe the first servant “a mere fraction of what he had owed.” I did not like this translation at all. It turned the very concrete numbers offered into abstractions: “a huge amount,” “a mere fraction.” This in fact is the point of the two figures, but should interpretation or exegesis shunt aside the actual text?

Is this the sort of thing that is meant by “dynamic or functional equivalence”?  If so, I don’t like it here.  And it makes me wonder if that theory of translation had been used by the first translators of the Bible into English, whether our language would have been as enriched as it has been by such literal translations as the King James and Douai-Rheims versions. What is the dynamic equivalent of “the apple of his eye”?

I looked to see what other translations made of the two sums.  Many of them retained the “ten thousand talents” and “one hundred denarii” (although both the KJV and Douai-Rheims give “an hundred pence”), but here are some other efforts: “ten thousand bags of gold” vs “a hundred silver coins”; “millions of dollars” vs “a few thousand dollars” (or hundreds of dollars”; “whose debt ran into millions” vs. “a few pounds”.

What think ye all?

Headline from Haaretz: “Israeli intelligence urges return to peace talks with Palestinians”

“In recent meetings of the eight senior cabinet ministers, [Defense Minister Ehud] Barak told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the other ministers that the focus should be on Israel’s interests and not on symbolic issues like national honor. If Israel does not try to seriously move the peace process ahead, it will be seen as obstructionist by its friends in the West, Barak told the ministers.”

“By sharpening tensions with the Palestinians, we are inviting isolation on Israel,” Barak also told the octet”

UPDATE: The Saudi’s weigh in (Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former director of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services and a former Saudi ambassador to the United States had this to say in Monday’s NYTimes OpEd): “The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region.”

He also says that the special U.S.-Saudi relationship is on the line.

UPDATE II: And this from the editor of Haaretz: “New Mideast will make Netanyahu long for Oslo Accords: Opening immediate negotiations over a final-status agreement with the Palestinian state as part of a regional process is the only responsible, realistic and sane alternative to the Oslo Accords.” Akiva Eldar also details the way Netanyahu has undermined the Oslo agreement reached in 1993.

The incomparable Jim Dwyer said everything that needed to be said on the tenth anniversary.

“Climb the ladder of years, and the view from a decade up is startling. On the near ground, you can see the rubble and loss of war in a place where we had no quarrels that could not have been managed otherwise. In the distance, you can take in the earliest response to 9/11, by men and women who helped one another that morning, who used their last calls to speak of gratitude and love.

“With a single glance across time, you behold the profane and the sacred in all their contrapuntal power.”

Read the whole thing: NYTimes, September 8.

As I ponder the events of 9/11, one of the echoes in my mind is this song from Melissa Etheridge about Mark Bingham, an openly gay man who was one of those who tried to wrest control of Flight 93 from the terrorists. She points to an American who stepped up, “even though he could not marry, or teach our children in our schools,” and appeals to our nation’s best self: “Can you live with yourself, in the land of the Free, and make him less of a hero than the other three?” (Oh, the sample included in the song underscores the message–it’s from a railroad crew song picked up by civil rights (and well-known children’s) singer Ella Jenkins.)

Mychal Judge, OFM

Of course there’s also Fr. Mychal Judge, OFM, NYFD chaplain and an openly gay celibate priest, a longtime member of Dignity, who rushed to the scene on 9/11 ministering to the dead and injured until he was killed himself. “Objectively disordered”? Was he, as a gay man, “in a situation that gravely hinder[ed him] from relating correctly to men and women,” as the Vatican Instruction barring gay men from ordination insists? Or was he a challenge to all Christians to be a witness to the power and courage of Christian love, even in the face of horror? As Judge often asked, “Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to discriminate against any kind of love?”

Two heroes of 9/11 who speak to us still. One invites us to examine ourselves in light of our shared vision for America as a land of freedom and equality, the other in light of our call as Christians striving to love well, courageously, wholly and truly. In light of both visions, as the crowd shouts in Etheridge’s video “Let’s roll.”

Of the many lessons to be drawn on the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack, here is one: that religion matters. It motivates people, for good and sometimes for evil.

It seems an obvious point, and yet, I don’t think it has been fully accepted in academia, in journalism and among government policymakers even now, 10 years after 9/11. If it were, courses in world religions would be part of core curricula everywhere, religion coverage would not be cut back at major news organizations, and government officials would be less apt to see generous financial aid as the first resort toward resolving intractable conflicts.

This point was made in a more articulate way by speakers at a seminar for journalists, sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, that I attended in the waning days of August at Cambridge University (with two fellow dotCommonwealers, Peg and Peter Steinfels).

R. Scott Appleby of the University of Notre Dame, the opening speaker, said that a “secular myopia” persisted in the decades before 9/11, despite the fact that there had been many significant events with a religious dimension such as the Iranian revolution. After 9/11, he said, religion could no longer be ignored.

Scott Atran, an anthropologist who has interviewed terrorists in many parts of the world, sometimes at considerable risk, expressed a certain frustration at the way diplomats fail to recognize that many conflicts involve values the participants consider to be moral and sacred – that negotiating in a business-like, dollars-and-cents way doesn’t work. Diplomats need to deal with the sacred values first, then the dollars and cents later, he said.

It was interesting that speakers who had direct experience with young people who’d fallen under the wing of terrorists – Pakistani  clinical psychologist Feriha Peracha and Russell Razzaque, a psychiatrist from London – both determined that a lack of Islamic religious training made youths more prone to recruitment by extremists. Those well-grounded in Islam would be better able to resist the extremist version of it.

If “secular myopia” persists, we will be slow to realize the lessons of 9/11, no matter how many years pass.

This I hadn’t heard:

OREGON, Ohio — For at least a half-century, “Little Sisters of the Poor” has been used as a euphemism in college sports to describe a weak opponent. Its roots trace back to an emphatic victory by Senator Robert Taft of Ohio in his 1950 re-election, which the mayor of Cleveland compared to the “Notre Dame football team beating the Little Sisters of the Poor.”

I didn’t know “the Little Sisters of the Poor” meant anything other than, well, the Little Sisters of the Poor (I wrote about my experiences with the order and their work in 2009, when their foundress, St. Jeanne Jugan, was canonized). Ohio State President E. Gordon Gee had the opposite problem. When he used the term disparagingly and publicly while talking tough about OSU football, he found out fast who the real Little Sisters are. And the result has been a boon for the good the sisters do in areas other than college sports:

Gee will privately present a check to the Little Sisters on Saturday. Four sisters, three staff members and five residents, three of whom are in wheelchairs, will be attending the game [against Toledo this weekend] at Gee’s invitation.

More important to the Little Sisters is the awareness that Gee’s gaffe has caused, helping spread word of their work and mission.

Pete Thamel’s New York Times story is worth your time. I love the way the statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus is standing tall behind the Ohio State mascot in the main photo.

Also worth reading, from the NYT’s 9/11 coverage, is this story by David W. Dunlap about firefighters leaving their mark in the rafters of St. Patrick’s Cathedral. Don’t miss the photos.

For all of the common wisdom ascribed to the hackneyed expression that “history repeats itself,” attempts to draw analogies between events in history are riddled with problems. At best, such analogies may be said to “limp” and shed little light on the very particular and complex set of circumstances they are being called upon to illuminate. At worst, the very act of analogizing might be said to replicate the violence done to and by the actors and events of the past by using them to emotionally manipulate one’s audience. Such is often the case when trying to draw analogies between present injustices and the horrors of the Holocaust. My recent attempt to call up the specific instance of the Eichmann trial and Hannah Arendt’s penetrating commentary on it, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, is not exempt from either of these criticisms. And, in order ensure that I am not trying to further some personal ideological agenda by lazily exploiting the grief of the past, I should be held accountable for using such a loaded rhetorical weapon. To that end, I would like to thank Grant Gallicho, Jim Pauwels, and others for their interventions, and I would like to apologize to those who felt emotionally manipulated by my admittedly under-determined and unadorned allusion.

Yet, I stand by the contemporary relevance of the specific example of Arendt’s Eichmann, which I defended in the understandably heated conversation that followed my post. I should have been clearer, however, as to what I was and was not saying in that original post. [After the jump: what I should have written.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Political applause lines are a dime a dozen. We hear what seems like thousands of them during State of the Union addresses. And in recent years they’ve been creeping into presidential debates. Usually they’re little more than safe affirmations of America’s superiority, or assurances of coming prosperity. But I can’t recall seeing a debate moment quite like this–and occasioned by a question put to a candidate–which occurred during last night’s presidential address on jobs GOP debate:

If a bishops conference releases a document intended to help Catholics with their voting choices but hardly anyone reads it, does it make a difference?

That’s the question U.S. Catholic bishops are asking themselves as they learn the results of a new survey commissioned by Fordham’s Center on Religion and Culture and conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. According to the findings — presented by Peter Steinfels at a Fordham forum on Tuesday — just 16 percent of Catholics remember even hearing about the most recent Faithful Citizenship statement. Three-quarters of those who were aware of the document said it had “no influence at all” on how they voted. And about the same number of respondents who had not heard of the document said it probably would have had the same effect on their political choices. (You can read the full report right here [.pdf]; it will be available on the Fordham Center on Religion and Culture Web site soon, along with the transcript of Tuesday’s forum.)

Every four years since 1976 the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has published a statement designed to help Catholics bring their faith to bear on their political choices. In recent election cycles, both the document (most recently called Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship) and the process of putting it together have been the subjects of some criticism. Conservatives accuse the bishops of leaving too much wiggle room for Catholic voters to support candidates who aren’t strong enough on the life issues. Liberals complain that the statement emphasizes abortion, gay marriage, and embryo-destructive research to the near exclusion of other key aspects of Catholic social teaching. Even if 1 percentage point of the whole sample represents about 570,000 Catholic adults, when 84 percent of them say they either were not sure whether they’d heard of Faithful Citizenship or had not heard of it at all, then is the document really worth the effort?

Read the rest of this entry »

Recent “news” stories report that former Secretary Robert Gates had run-ins with PM Netanyahu of Israel over various mutual defense matters. Before retiring this summer:

“In a meeting of the National Security Council Principals Committee… held not long before his retirement this summer, Gates coldly laid out the many steps the administration has taken to guarantee Israel’s security — access to top- quality weapons, assistance developing missile-defense systems, high-level intelligence sharing — and then stated bluntly that the U.S. has received nothing in return, particularly with regard to the peace process. …Gates argued to the president directly that Netanyahu is not only ungrateful, but also endangering his country by refusing to grapple with Israel’s growing isolation and with the demographic challenges it faces if it keeps control of the West Bank.” Whole story here

Ha’aretz offers these additional details: “An embarrassing incident between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates in July 2010 led to serious, two-month crisis between the Pentagon and the Israeli defense establishment, according to a senior Israeli official. The official said that Gates was deeply insulted by a number of claims against him Netanyahu aired in a meeting regarding the supposed breaching of bilateral agreements regarding the sale of U.S. arms to Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.”

No sitting cabinet official can publicly express complaints that go against presidential policies, so Gates had to wait until he retired. Still, a bit more transparency on the relations of the “50″ U.S. states to the “51st” might begin to loosen that death grip the 51st has on the rest of us.

Can we hope that these “leaks” from various sources are a prelude to a U.S. abstention when the Palestinian Authority goes to the UN in the next weeks for recognition of  a Palestinian state?

As part of a raft of recent economic reforms, including a limited liberalization of self-employment, the Raul Castro government has recently reiterated its plans to introduce a market for housing at the end of this year.  The reforms will permit Cuban homeowners to buy and sell their residential properties for the first time in decades.  Discussions of the planned housing reforms have often misstated the existing law and have failed to note that the Cuban government has taken similar steps before, with disastrous results.  That earlier experience suggests that, without a more ambitious transformation of the Cuban economy, these admittedly significant changes to Cuban housing law will yield the same disappointing consequences this time around.

Although commentators (including a recent article in the New York Times) often mistakenly claim that all property in Cuba is owned by the state, Cuban law has long permitted private homeownership.

Read the rest of this entry »

In the section of the magazine that last month carried a story on an average Texas high school student who ended up becoming one of the most violent drug kingpins in Mexico, the Sept 15 issue of Rolling Stone treats yet another manifestation of the “banality of evil” that most of us have come to know as the “Sex Abuse Scandal” in the Catholic Church. In a horrifying, 8-page article, Sabrina Rubin Erdely chronicles the crimes perpetrated by the leaders of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Taking a page out of Hannah Arendt, while giving plenty of gut-wrenching detail regarding the crimes committed by priests themselves, Erdely focuses on the mid-level bureaucrat charged with doing the Bishop’s dirty-work — “counseling” victims, “treating” priests, and recommending reassignments.

[I couldn't find the article posted on Rolling Stone's website, and once it is posted, I imagine it will be only available to subscribers, so I'll give a summary after the jump. Though, I would recommend picking up the issue, it will also give you an excuse to dust off those old George Harrison records, as "the quiet Beatle" graces the cover.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Poster in St. Colman’s Cathedral, Diocese of Cloyne, Cobh, Ireland.

In a detailed response, the Vatican has rejected charges made against it in an Irish government commission’s report on the cover-up of clergy sexual abuse in the Diocese of Cloyne. While “sorry and ashamed” for the victims’ suffering, the Vatican denied the report’s charge that it “gave comfort” to those within the Irish church who opposed the Irish bishops’ 1996 framework for dealing with allegations of clergy sexual abuse.

The focus is on a letter the papal nuncio sent in response to the proposed 1996 guidelines. The nuncio said the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy viewed the guidelines as an unofficial “study document.” It contained

“procedures and dispositions which appear contrary to canonical discipline and which, if applied, could invalidate the acts of the same Bishops who are attempting to put a stop to these problems. If such procedures were to be followed by the Bishops and there were causes of eventual hierarchical recourse lodged at the Holy See, the results could be highly embarrassing and detrimental to those same Diocesan authorities. In particular, the situation of `mandatory reporting’ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature”. [Cloyne Report, p. 5, pdf via Wikipedia]

The Vatican has now responded that the Irish bishops had never asked formal approval for the document, and that the Holy See did not formally reject it. It added that the Congregation for the Clergy criticized the document in an attempt to strengthen it by making sure cases against accused priests were brought within the strictures of canon law.   It continued:

Meeting canonical requirements to ensure the correct administration of justice within the Church in no way precluded cooperation with the civil authorities. The Congregation for the Clergy did express reservations about mandatory reporting, but it did not forbid the Irish Bishops from reporting accusations of child sexual abuse nor did it encourage them to flout Irish law. In this regard, the then Prefect of the Congregation, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, in his meeting with the Irish Bishops at Rosses Point, County Sligo (Ireland), on 12 November 1998 unequivocally stated: “I also wish to say with great clarity that the Church, especially through its Pastors (Bishops), should not in any way put an obstacle in the legitimate path of civil justice, when such is initiated by those who have such rights, while at the same time, she should move forward with her own canonical procedures, in truth, justice and charity towards all.”

In any case, it said, the Irish government itself did not support mandatory reporting of sexual abuse allegations at the time.

While the Vatican maintains that it wanted to improve the Irish bishops’ document so that disciplinary cases against accused priests would not be dismissed on technicalities in canon law,  its “serious reservations” over over the morality of mandatory reporting seem to suggest opposition to the guidelines rather than an interest in making them airtight. The quote from Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos simply advises bishops not to obstruct justice; it doesn’t say they should report abuse allegations to the police.

While the Vatican has offered an unusually detailed explanation of  the meaning of the nuncio’s 1997 letter to the bishops, I’m not sure it deals with  the report’s key allegation regarding Rome – that the Vatican letter  provided cover to Irish churchmen who didn’t want to follow the bishops’ guidelines. According to the Cloyne Report, this was the case in the Diocese of Cloyne, where Monsignor Denis O’Callaghan oversaw the diocesan response to sex abuse allegations, apparently with little oversight from Bishop John Magee. According to the Cloyne Report, O’Callaghan wrote in a 2008 letter that he was “more than disappointed at the policy of the Irish Bishops as a whole … The Bishops rolled over under pressure from the media. And they expected Rome to endorse them!”

Friday when Nicholas Clifford reported an ad on my post below (Obama between a Rock and a Hard Place), which offered a gorgeous Filipina single or at least a picture of one, I chuckled, and went on praying for the salvation of Bender. Saturday morning catching up on the latest comments on an earlier post “51st: Federal Largess,” I had an ad asking me if I wanted to learn more about Jews!!! Wow! I thought. How do they know?

Clicking through I find that dotCommonweal is connected to Google ads. If you click through enough, you get to a page that tells you that the ads appearing in your browser are based on your interests as expressed in your browsing history. Google seems to let you edit categories and gives you the multiple digit number of the cookie it has on your machine. You can bow out somehow, or so it appears.  I can only hope that Commonweal is making tons of money on this….

Apropos of Nicholas’s report, I just got this ad.

Commonweal: Is this such a good idea?