A blog by the magazine's editors and contributors


dotCommonweal Blog

Process & Reality (UPDATED)

Updates below.

ROME—In one of my favorite scenes from the Mel Brooks classic, History of the World: Part I (there was no second part), Moses descends from Mt. Sinai to deliver God’s laws, carrying not two but three stone tablets. “I have these fifteen”—he announces, just as one tablet crashes to the ground—“oy…ten commandments!” That came to mind as the day’s major synod news—that thirteen cardinals had signed a letter to the pope more or less calling the entire process into question—went from looking like a potential threat to Francis’s project to a strange episode that could leave the synod’s critics looking disorganized.

To those of you who haven’t been playing along at home, a recap: Early this morning, veteran Vatican journalist Sandro Magister—who lost his Holy See press credential for leaking a late, but not final draft of Laudato si’—reported that thirteen cardinals, several with senior positions in the Vatican, signed a letter criticizing key features of the synodal process. According to Magister, the list included Cardinal Pell, Cardinal Dolan, Cardinal Müller, and Cardinal Napier, among others. High-energy church observers such as Damian Thompson soon announced that the synod was on the verge of a breakdown: “The seniority of the signatories shows how close the church is to civil war.” But reports of the synod’s collapse appear to have been exaggerated. Because by late this afternoon, four of the thirteen alleged signatories had denied signing the letter: Cardinals Erdő, Piacenza Scola, and Vingt-Trois.

Read more

Now Live, Our Fall Books Issue

Our Fall Books issue is live, and right now we’re featuring Marilynne Robinson’s “Awakening,” an essay excerpted from her soon-to-be-published collection of new writing, The Givenness of Things. Robinson writes she has come to realize that, after America’s First and Second Great Awakenings, there followed a third in the latter half of the twentieth century. “[What] I would call the third great awakening was led by the black church,” she writes, “and sooner or later had the support of all the major denominations. But it was not, and is not, understood as an essentially religious movement, though, as I have said the distinction between civic and religious is never clear, and was certainly not clear in this case.” She continues:

I was in high school and college when the civil-rights movement emerged. That was a very troubled time, and it was for me a deeply important education. I came from a strongly conservative background. I can truly say that I was schooled in generosity and optimism by the great movements of that period. I understood them as an essential America bursting the bonds that had distorted and constrained it. We hold these truths to be self-evident. Nothing has ever persuaded me to think less of these movements or otherwise about them. Therefore the fact that they seem sometimes to be at risk of following precursor movements into collapse and oblivion alarms and appalls me. The word “liberal” has been effectively stigmatized, as the word “abolitionist” was and is. As if generosity were culpable. As if there were some more reasonable response to slavery than to abolish it. As I write, the Voting Rights Act is being challenged before the Supreme Court. If American civil religion can be said to have a congregation, I was a member in good standing—until certain shifts became apparent in the meaning and effect of religion in America. These changes made me realize that I had indeed allowed my culture to instruct me in my religion—to my benefit, during a period that was singularly worthy of the confidence I placed in it. This is to say, it was worthy as other periods, quite reliably, are not.

You can read the whole thing here.

Also in our Fall Books issue: Jonathan Stevenson’s profile of the late Robert Stone, author of “big, political novels—novels of ideas whose protagonists seek to put those ideas into action, and usually get them wrong when they try.” Plus, Rand Richards Cooper reviews Jonathan Franzen’s Purity, Paul Moses discusses a new biography of political journalist (and Commonweal Catholic) Mary McGrory, and Mollie Wilson O’Reilly writes on security checks at events during the recent papal visit to the United States--and what the willingness to wait in long lines says about our acceptance of the authority of the security state. Of course, there’s more, which you can see in the full table of contents.

Whose Synod Is It, Anyway? (UPDATED)

ROME—Previously, at the XIV Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops:

Last Monday, in remarks opening this three-week meeting on issues related to family life, Pope Francis urged the two hundred seventy synod fathers to remain open to the workings of the Holy Spirit, to allow themselves to be "guided by God who always surprises, by God who reveals to the little ones that which he has hidden from the wise and intelligent.”

Moments later, Hungarian Cardinal Péter Erdő, the synod’s general relator, delivered a seven-thousand-word address that, in part, urged the assembly not to be guided by arguments for readmitting some divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to Communion. “The integration of the divorced and remarried in the life of the ecclesial community can take many forms, [but that] is different from admission to the Eucharist,” he said. He ruled out the “law of graduality,” used by some to discuss how the church might talk about couples in “irregular relationships.” Gradualism holds that moral decision-making develops over time. “We cannot always have 100 percent,” as Cardinal Reinhard Marx, chairman of the German bishops conference put it during last year’s synod.

Erdő disagrees with that approach. “Between truth and falsehood, between good and bad, there is no graduality,” he said last Monday. Likewise, Erdő ruled out comparing traditional marriage with gay relationships: “There is no basis for comparing or making analogies, even remotely, between homosexual unions and God’s plan for matrimony and the family.” As for those who frame the challenges facing families as primarily questions of circumstance—war, poverty, environmental degradation—Erdő thinks something more important is working against traditional marriage: “anthropological change,” that is, moral relativism. The cardinal’s speech, described by some as conservatives’ “first strike” at this synod, seemed designed to shut down the more progressive proposals—which included not only a possible opening to some divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, but also the idea of finding more welcoming ways of speaking about gay people—that came up during last year’s synod. The mere discussion of such proposals occasioned a good deal of public pushback during the year between the two synods—from lay observers and bishops alike, including cardinals who are participating in the synod discussions. Something resembling a conspiracy theory emerged. Had the pope rigged the synod, as Edward Pentin suggested?

Pope Francis seemed to answer that question last Tuesday.

Read more

Sex and the Synod

What is the Synod on the Family really about? At First Things, R.R. Reno suggests an answer: "the underlying issue is Catholicism’s relation to the sexual revolution." Reno ranges widely in the article, and while I don’t want to simplify his position, this passage stands out as a useful summary of it:

The Church is the only major institution in the West that has not accepted the sexual revolution. The official resistance provides an important witness, even when combined with widespread accommodation in ­practice. The sexual revolution has a ruthless quality. It ­allows no dissent. The mere suggestion of teaching chastity to fifteen-year-olds in school is enough to unleash furious denunciations. That the Church has not allowed herself to be dictated to and intimidated by the sexual revolution inspires.

Humanae Vitae’s intransigence sustains us in our overall struggle against the dictatorship of relativism. Even among people who transgress, the resistance reassures. We’ve deregulated a great deal of personal life. Who, today, needs permission? Catholicism stands for something, a moral standard that’s inconvenient and countercultural.

I think it’s possible to bracket, if for a moment, whatever particular disagreements I might have with Reno and ponder the above as a style of thinking. Consider the abstract quality of the term “sexual revolution”: It stands in for concrete issues like divorced and remarried Catholics’ ability to take Communion, or the roles women are permitted to have in the church. It removes the human element from all these situations. (Reno briefly mentions divorced Catholics and gay culture, and gestures at "the sexual free-for-all" unleashed by the sexual revolution, but largely avoids particulars, at least in this article.) The sexual revolution is invoked almost as a monolith we must either accept or reject; the effect is to obscure the particular realities Catholics are facing with a shorthand code for moral chaos, perversion, and hedonism. 

This especially matters because it is in the actual lives of those who faced longstanding discrimination that we see the sexual revoluton's complexity—and its necessity.

Read more

Mirth à la Mode

At the risk of philistinism, I’m going to indulge in some casual fun about high fashion, some mirth at la mode.

Did you happen to catch last week’s roundup of the newest from the fashion runways of Paris? Browsing through what presumably represents the best of the world’s best designers, I found myself at a loss for words (well, for a few minutes at any rate), and rushed to show the newspaper to my wife – as if merely being a woman might equip her to decode the formidable hermeneutics of high fashion.

One way to comprehend and justify the lunacy of these outfits might come from science and literature, disciplines in which strange and unfettered actions on the outer boundaries of reality often do, in time, yield results back on earth. Many useful daily technologies trace their lineage to pure scientific research; and in literature, while nobody reads Gertrude Stein – or did even in her lifetime – her eccentrically minimalist prose yielded up a lode of mainstream fiction that ran from Hemingway to Raymond Carver and still informs American prose today. Might some similar trickle-down dynamic be at work with fashion, so that an echo of today’s bizarro breeches will be found in tomorrow’s business attire?

Read more

Public Spaces and the Common Weal

Every now and then I find myself recalling a long-ago morning in the midsized German city I once called home. My girlfriend and I lived in the section of town that housed students, artists, pensioners and foreign “guest workers.” On that morning I sat on our tiny balcony and watched repairs being done to the street below. It was a cobblestone street, and a stone mason was replacing a section of it. He was using differently sized stones, placing them at variable angles to create a floral pattern that spread around the sidewalk corner. I watched him kneeling there, painstakingly tapping stones a centimeter this way, a centimeter that way, to get the pattern just right.

I was astonished, even a bit mesmerized. Such attention to detail!  Back in the States you’d only find this level of care, design, and craftsmanship – and expenditure – at a private club, or at the homes of the wealthy. Yet here it was, a public street in the poorer part of town. Tap, tap, tap, tap. Such was the case in Germany generally, with its immaculate parks and train stations, its crowded but tidy town squares and gleaming public conveyances. Here, as elsewhere in Europe, was a country that nurtured the common weal with well-appointed, well-run, and well-maintained places and amenities.

Read more


Just in time for today's announcement about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Paul Theroux writes in the Times about the hypocrisy of billionaire philanthropists:

Every so often, you hear grotesquely wealthy American chief executives announce in sanctimonious tones the intention to use their accumulated hundreds of millions, or billions, “to lift people out of poverty.” Sometimes they are referring to Africans, but sometimes they are referring to Americans. And here’s the funny thing about that: In most cases, they have made their fortunes by impoverishing whole American communities, having outsourced their manufacturing to China or India, Vietnam or Mexico.

Next, two pieces from the current issue of Dissent, which includes twenty-some "arguments on the left" from leftists of just about every description. One of these is by the editor emeritus of Dissent, Michael Walzer, who argues it's time for the left to turn its attention "back to class":

In recent years, the politically significant and effective insurgencies in the United States have all been particularist in character, reflecting the politics of difference: the key examples are the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, and the movement for gay rights. Each of these has been victorious—or, better, each of them has been a partial success, like all our successes. They leave a lot of work still to be done (as the militants of Black Lives Matter can tell us), but, still, we have won important battles on behalf of women and black and gay Americans. And the United States has become, with regard to each of these groups, a more egalitarian society than it once was. At the same time, however, with regard to the overall population of the country, we have become less egalitarian, more radically hierarchical. Inequality has grown in the very years in which we were winning greater equality for particular groups of Americans—and despite the fact that these are very large groups. Significant numbers of women and black and gay Americans have moved up the social hierarchy, but the hierarchy has gotten steeper.[...] 

Each of the particular movements was founded by people who felt the urgency of their own oppression—and demanded change in their own name, for themselves. And they were right. The particularist movements were and still are necessary and important. So each of the movements...deserves our support; their victories will make life better for people who need, right now, a better life. But, again, their victories will not produce an egalitarian society.

It is time to think about class.

In Jedediah Purdy's contribution to the forum, he proposes "An Environmentalism for the Left." Does that sound redundant? It shouldn't, as Purdy explains:

Although modern environmental politics emerged in the radical ferment of the early 1970s, leftists were suspicious from the outset of its easy mainstream appeal and its elite constituency. The same doubts persist today. The venerable Nature Conservancy’s close partnerships with corporations and focus on “ecosystem services” that can be monetized are just one reminder that environmentalism’s institutional mainstream fits comfortably with neoliberalism. Consumerist appeals to eco-consciousness (think of the local-sourcing policies and the prices of anti-union Whole Foods) suggest that environmentalism is about image and market choices. Despite decades of talk about environmental justice, the movement remains disproportionately white, elite, and motivated by romantic attachment to high mountains, old forests, and charismatic animals. Even treating climate change as an “environmental” question obscures issues of global justice—the ways that the world’s rich are much more responsible for, and less vulnerable to, the problem than the poor.

Elizabeth Johnson: "Is God's Charity Broad Enough for Bears?"

At the Maryknoll Mission Center on Sunday (appropriately the feast of St. Francis of Assisi), theologian Elizabeth Johnson spoke to an audience of about 200 priests, brothers, sisters, and laypeople on whether “God’s charity is broad enough for bears.”

The question comes from a story about the American explorer John Muir. One day Muir came across a dead bear, still bleeding, in the middle of the woods in Yosemite National Park. That night in his journal he wrote a biting criticism against religious folks he knew who made no room in heaven for such noble creatures: "Not content with taking all of Earth, they also claim the celestial country as the only ones who possess the kinds of souls for which that imponderable empire was planned"—that is, do humans think they are the only ones with souls?

“Theology,” Johnson began her address “calls the natural world 'creation' because of its relationship to God… and it’s under threat now.” We stand sickened at the deadly damage being done to the world. We know about it through headlines: ice caps melting, air and water being polluted, species becoming extinct by the tens of thousands per year. We know now that our planet has become “unfit for life,” and we know that ecological damage leads to social damage: poor people suffer the most from environmental destruction.

Although she has written theology about ecology and eco-justice for years, Johnson has never had the degree of papal support for her theology that she does now. She called Laudato Si'' “the most important encyclical written in the history of the Catholic church,” because of its broad scope—economic, political, social, scientific, psychological, spiritual, theological, and ethical—because it is corrective to past failures of church teaching, and because it ends on a note of joy, that we can be introduced to a new way of being human that will strengthen all parts of creation with diminishing any.

In Laudato sí, Francis calls for a conversion to this new way of being human—and conversions are usually met with resistance. Yes, we may resist converting to a more ecologically sustainable way of living because of hard-to-break habits of consumption, waste, and greed—especially those of us who live in powerful, wealthy, and developed nations like the United States. But Johnson focused her talk on a deeper problem: the theological resistance to conversion toward the earth, present in Christianity. John Muir’s story “crystallizes” this problem because Muir, in criticizing his religious friends, criticizes their God. And rightly so. Johnson says that we need to ask ourselves: “Is the God I believe in madly in love with bears?” And trees, and dandelions, and river currents, worms, and sparrows? How can we weave the natural world into our religious preaching in ways that will promote its flourishing? How can we foster a spirituality that makes love of nature an intrinsic part of faith in God, and not just an add-on to it?

Read more

Meanwhile Back in the Middle East

President Obama seems a bit put out by the incursion of Russian military into Syria and by the judgement of President Vladmir Putin that the U.S.-led coalition has made a mess of things in Syria. Russia after some days of bombing has made its way from what have been called moderate Syrian rebels to the edges of ISILs occupied Syria. These reports and claims remain hazy at least in the public realm, but the Russians are certainly doing something. But what? We shall see.

Putin's motives are not exactly clear, but are they as mysterious or as destructive as Washington sees them? Are all the residual anti-Russian feeling stirred up reasonably enough over Ukraine blinding Obama, McCain, Clinton, etc. to a clear-eyed analysis of what could be done to end the carnage in Syria and Iraq, a feat that the current coalition has failed to achieve.

In the meantime, this piece by Stephen Lee Myer at the NYTimes offers a coherent account of Putin's views especially about state sovereignty as background to Russia's actions in Syria.

"...At the heart of the airstrikes is Mr. Putin’s defense of the principle that the state is all powerful and should be defended against the hordes, especially those encouraged from abroad. It is a warning about Russia, as much as Syria.

“Nations shouldn’t be forced to all conform to the same development model that somebody has declared the only appropriate one,” he declared at the United Nations. The Soviet Union, he said, had once sought to export “social experiments, pushing for changes in other countries for ideological reasons, and this often led to tragic consequences and caused degradation instead of progress.”


To See What is in Front of One's Nose

We now have at least some clarity from the Vatican about the nature of Pope Francis's meeting with Kim Davis, the county clerk from Kentucky who stopped issuing marriage licenses after the Obergefell decision in June. (For those just joining us, it was revealed on Tuesday that the two met while he was in the States.) Here's the explanation Father Federico Lombardi, SJ, the head of the Holy See Press Office, gave for what happened:

Pope Francis met with several dozen persons who had been invited by the Nunciature to greet him as he prepared to leave Washington for New York City. Such brief greetings occur on all papal visits and are due to the Pope’s characteristic kindness and availability. The only real audience granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with one of his former students and his family.

The Pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects.

And, ahem, this further detail from Fr. Tom Rosica caught my attention: "The priest also said Francis had personally approved Friday's press statement after a meeting with Lombardi on the issue."

In short: no, this apparently was not an endorsement of Kim Davis or her claims about religious liberty, or a symbolic gesture of any kind. And no, this doesn’t seem to have been initiated by the pope – this was not Francis reaching out to make a statement about how to understand the rights of conscience or religious liberty. Unless Kim Davis or her handlers produce actual evidence to the contrary, I’ll believe the press statement issued today. It certainly makes more sense than the shifting story of her lawyers.

But here’s what must be emphasized: we didn’t need this press statement to find the claims of Davis and her legal team to be rather dubious. The entire episode seemed radically out of character with the rest of Francis’s visit, both substantively and logistically. (Read Michael O’Loughlin’s helpful and revealing juxtaposition of the way the Davis meeting unfolded compared to, well, everything else that happened during the Francis visit, including his visit with the Little Sisters of the Poor.) This dubiousness is not because of panic and bewilderment from being "disappointed" that Francis isn't a doctrinaire, American-style progressive; it’s because the entire Davis episode so obviously seemed to have something amiss about it. I don’t think it’s a sign of respect for this Pope to passively accept the version of events peddled by Davis’s lawyers at the right-wing Liberty Counsel.

When a story like this breaks, it can be exploited easily by those looking for public relations victories partly because of our collective fetish for “balanced” journalism and commentary. "Balanced" journalism means treating both “liberals” and “conservatives” with a certain solicitude; the imperative here is not the search for truth, but placating the different “sides” of a story.

A kind of theologically-inflected version of this tendency took hold with the case of Kim Davis meeting Pope Francis. We were told that the Pope was being the Pope, which is to say a Christian. And that the breadth of Catholic Christianity certainly transcends American political categories! Which is true but also, it must be said, a rather shopworn platitude. (This way of approaching the Davis situation was peddled by many, but it seemed to find special favor, oddly enough, with those conservatives who just yesterday were wringing their hands over potential schism. How swiftly they seized on this episode to recalibrate their understanding of this pope!) So Francis upsets conservatives by talking about the death penalty and climate change, and outrages liberals and progressives by talking about threats to the family and the sanctity of life. Something for everyone – and something to offend everyone. How congenial. 

You can see how easy it was to fit the Davis debacle into this narrative. And whose interests it served to deploy such thinking. 

Read more

Here We Go Again

Here we go again, with another horrific campus shooting, the predictable postmortem game of blame, grief, evasion and inaction—and the President once again expressing anger and barely concealed despair at how “routine” it has all become. I’m well aware that there’s hardly a patch of American life more trampled on and muddied—and bloodied—than the quagmire of gun laws, the Second Amendment, and our nation’s high level of gun violence. But it may be worth reviewing some facts. 

The U.S. suffers about 30,000 gun-related deaths a year—per capita, around fifteen times the rate of other developed countries. In 2010, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, these deaths broke down roughly into 11,000 homicides, 19,000 suicides, and 600 accidental deaths. Half of all suicides and two-thirds of all homicides are by firearm, with handguns constituting the large majority of weapons used (rifles account for only 300 homicides per year.) Domestic violence statistics reveal that 1000 women per year are murdered by spouses, boyfriends and exes—accounting for 94 percent of all murders of women in this country—and that the presence of a gun in the household drastically increases the risk of homicide.

Read more

Whose Side Is He On, Anyway?

Like all liberals and even a few social conservatives, I believe Kim Davis’s legal case is a weak one. More importantly, I believe the moral analysis behind it is confused. As others have argued, if Davis could no longer carry out her official duties as a county clerk without violating her conscience, then she should have followed the example of Thomas More and resigned. That might have entailed a real hardship for her and her family, at least until she found another job, but the principle of religious freedom does not protect us from every kind of hardship or inconvenience. It protects us—sometimes—from being fined or imprisoned.

It is possible that Pope Francis is not familiar with the details of Davis’s case. Perhaps he only knows that she went to jail because of her opposition to same-sex civil marriage, which he, too, opposes. Then again, it’s possible that he is familiar with the details, and agrees with Davis and her lawyers, in which case I think he’s mistaken.

Now, one can admire Francis and believe he is mistaken—either about this case in particular or about same-sex civil marriage more generally. (Or about capitalism or cap-and-trade, for that matter.) It is much harder to admire Francis, however, if you believe that only a bigot could be opposed to same-sex marriage—if you believe, that is, that all the arguments against it can be reduced to homophobia. And many liberals, including many liberal Catholics, do seem to believe that. Which is one reason the pope’s meeting with Davis has caused so much panic and bewilderment. 

Some people are upset because they believe the pope, in meeting with Davis, was being used by culture-warriors. I note that this is very similar to what some conservative Catholics have said about the pope’s cooperation with environmentalists: Doesn’t he know he’s being used by the church’s enemies, by people who support contraception and abortion and socialism? (My friend Rusty Reno, the editor of First Things, has written that he finds this pontificate exhausting. What I have found exhausting during this pontificate are all the warnings that, if Francis isn’t careful, he’s going to find himself liked by the wrong kind of people.) Of course, this similarity between the response of liberals in one case and that of conservatives in another does not prove that either side is wrong. Maybe the pope is being used in one way or the other; it’s even conceivable he’s being used in both ways. But why not at least start with the assumption that Francis is a grown-up who can take care of himself, understands the implications of his actions, and means what he says. Conspiracy theories, including those that treat the pope like a puppet, should always be a last resort.*

Some have suggested that when the pope talks about economic justice and climate change, you can tell his heart is really in it, whereas, when he talks about abortion, contraception, or homosexuality, he appears to be going through the motions, saying what any pope has to say given the constraints of his office. (Once in a while he quietly signals his real ambivalence: “Who am I to judge?”) Other liberals accept that the pope really does disagree with them about some issues, but are willing to forgive him as long as he doesn’t say too much about them. They congratulate him for the Vatican’s change of emphasis and tone (so do I, by the way) and for refusing to be drawn into the “culture wars”—that is, until he went and blessed Kim Davis and her husband. Now they ask, "What was he thinking?"

But culture's about more than sex, and this pope is no less confrontational than his predecessors. In Laudato si’, he treats economic and environmental policy as moral and, yes, cultural issues, and he doesn’t seem to mind offending those who stand in the way of conversion and reform. Did you hear what he said to Congress about the arms trade? If Francis is a pope particularly committed to dialogue, he is also a pope who believes in plain-speaking.

So, if you are a Catholic who supports same-sex marriage, women’s ordination, or anything else about which this pope’s position cannot be described as liberal, you should feel perfectly free to share in the widespread enthusiasm for him. There are, after all, many reasons to admire Francis, and you don't need anyone's permission. You should also feel free not to admire him: there's no obligation, not even for Catholics. But a Catholic should at least respect Francis, and that means taking him at his word. All his words.


*For a vivid example of this tendency, see the fourth comment below.

Dorothy Day & the Gravediggers vs. Cardinal Spellman

Over at the New York Times's Taking Notes blog, Teresa Tritch has retold a fascinating episode in American Catholic history involving one of the four Americans Pope Francis upheld as examples to follow in his speech to Congress, Dorothy Day.

In the winter of 1949 some 250 gravediggers who were employed by the Archdiocese at Calvary Cemetery went on strike, demanding a forty-hour work week (they'd been working forty-eight hours) and an increase in hourly wages. Cardinal Francis Spellman repeatedly denied their requests and work stopped for months as "strikers picketed at the cemetery gates" and "unburied coffins were placed in temporary graves under tarpaulins."

The archdiocese initially responded by disparaging the union leaders and threatening to fire striking workers. Several weeks into the strike — with nearly 1,200 coffins unburied — it resorted to strike-breaking by bringing in seminarians to bury the dead. The New York Times reported that the cardinal said that the union was communist-dominated and that the strikes were “unjustified and immoral” and an affront to the “innocent dead and their bereaved families.” He said he was “proud” to be a strikebreaker because the duty to bury the dead outweighed laws against strikebreaking.

Enter Dorothy Day, who not only advocated for a raise in the gravediggers' wages but questioned the cardinal's moral judgment.

In a letter on March 4, 1949, [Day] said the strike was about the workers’ “dignity as men, their dignity as workers, and the right to have a union of their own, and a right to talk over their grievances.” She endorsed a wage high enough to help the gravediggers raise their families and meet “high prices and exorbitant rents.” She asked the cardinal to go to the union leaders, “meet their demands, be their servant as Christ was the servant of his disciples, washing their feet.”

Only after the stikers dropped their affiliation with the "communist" union (United Cemetery Workers of the Congress of Industrial Organizations) and joined the American Federation of Labor was the strike settled, with the archdiocese increasing a 3 percent raise in wages to 8 percent, and the gravediggers continuing to work forty-eight hours a week. As Tritch concludes:

An editorial in the Catholic Worker in April 1949 said that from the start, the paper had said “the strike was justified” and, despite the outcome, “we say it still.” It also noted that the strike could have been avoided if the workers had been treated “as human beings and brothers.”

The same could be said of strikers today, including the employees of federal contractors and fast food workers in the Fight for $15, who want decent pay from powerful employers and bargaining power in their dealings with them.

It is right and just for Pope Francis to urge Americans to recognize the greatness of Dorothy Day. By elevating her, he elevates her cause: dignity for working men and working women.

The whole thing is worth a read.

Did Francis Show Us 'A Better Politics'?

We should listen to the pope, Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote on Tuesday this week, for, in the words of the headline as it appears in her Nation column, “Francis shows us a better politics.” Peace, negotiation, cooperation, and, much noted for its appearance in his statements as both noun and verb, “dialogue”—the absence of these in our social, civil, and political discourse is made the more conspicuous by what many see as Francis’s employment of them. Accurately or inaccurately, dialogue has come to be understood as his default mode.

Well, there’s politics, and there’s politics; there’s dialogue, and there’s dialogue. The news (now confirmed by the Vatican and noted earlier by Margaret O’Brien Steinfels) that Francis met with Kentucky court clerk Kim Davis doesn’t seem all that surprising in light of the pope’s comments on conscientious objection during his flight home. There wasn’t a whole lot of parsing needed there; it was clear whom he was referencing, even if he didn’t mention Davis’s name. But the secrecy of the meeting, combined with the decision not to publicize it until after Francis left the United States (and then only after media requests for confirmation), prove vanden Heuvel half-right: he showed us a better politician than most have already given him credit for.

Conscientious objection is not the same thing as (take your pick) obstructionism, narcissism, or a martyr complex, which the Family Research Council was already set to indulge with an award to Davis in Washington during Francis’s visit. The timing proved opportune, and so Davis went home with a pair of rosaries from the pope as well. “Stay strong,” he is reported to have told her after their fifteen-minute meeting.

“Francis’s words … may fall on more receptive soil than the media think,” vanden Huevel concludes, “and the candidates who vie to present the most pugnacious postures may find themselves losing, not winning, support.” She wrote a day too early. Francis’s actions, not nearly so nuanced in this case as the messages lurking in his addresses or remarks, will find a plenty receptive audience as well, if maybe not the one everyone assumed he was playing to. "Pay attention to the people Francis visits," E. J. Dionne wrote here a little over a week ago. Noted. 

Civil Disobedience, Vatican Style

On his way back to Rome, Frank the Great declared civil disobedience a human right, and at least here in the U.S. conscientious objectors to war would certainly agree. When he said this all eyes turned to Kim Davis, Rebel County Clerk, although he never mentioned her name. 

It appears that he met with her (shook hands) while in DC. According to the NYTimes story, the encounter was arranged by Vatican officials and not the U.S. bishops. Hmmmm! Wow!

Three New Features & One Theology Issue

We have a lot of new content on the website: an interview with Nadia Bolz-Weber, E. J. Dionne's latest column, a recap of Pope Francis's visit to the U.S., and the entire October 9 Theology Issue.

Speaking with Lutheran pastor and New-York-Times-bestselling memoirist Nadia Bolz-Weber about unsaintly saints, theology, and purity codes, Maria Bowler asks

You write that your fundamentalist background trained you for reading the world in black and white, but do you think both religious and non-religious have a hard time with ambivalence and ambiguity?

NBW: I think anyone who is raised in a system where you’re striving for some kind of purity—whatever that is—is going to eventually realize how much of a failed project that is. Maybe you’re raised in a super New Age-y yoga family where you believe in some sort of purity around breathing, and intention, and being super calm about things and blissed out. Any system where the message is: through your own striving you can become pure in some way, morally, ethically or politically—that’s impossible. That’s what we call being “under the law.” And when you’re under the law there are only two options: pride or despair. You’re either prideful about the way that you’re nailing it, especially if other people aren’t, or you despair that you can’t live up to it. Either way it’s not good news. But we all think the law will save us. Our political correctness, our feminist values, our Paleo diet, our whatever is going to save us.

Read more

Pope Francis, the Aftermath: Catholic Social Teaching & College Curricula

On the whole, what a wonderful visit it was! But what will Pope Francis leave us other than fine speeches, his spectacular example, and fond memories? Otherwise put, lest the question sound ungrateful, what will the legacy of his visit be?

There are, clearly, a number of possible answers to this question. The possibility that interests me here, however, is suggested by a recent “Declaration of Commitment” drafted and circulated by the Ignatian Solidarity Network. “Leaders of Catholic Higher Education Globally”—by my count, 175 college and university presidents as of this last week of September—have pledged:

  • to work together regionally and globally, through all the means available to and appropriate for our colleges and universities as institutions of higher learning, to study, promote, and act on the ideals and vision of integral ecology laid out by Pope Francis [in Laudato Si’].
  • More specifically, we commit ourselves as leaders in Catholic Higher Education globally to integrate care for the planet, integral human development, and concern for the poor within our research projects, our educational curricula and public programming, our institutional infrastructures, policies and practices, and our political and social involvements as colleges and universities.

It is an extraordinary commitment, which has rightly gotten attention in the press. My question is: What will it look like in practice, and how will it be done? More specifically, what bearing will this commitment have on “educational curricula” at Catholic colleges?

Read more

Kindergarten Redshirting

A front-page article a few weeks ago in my hometown newspaper, the Hartford Courant, investigates a pet peeve of mine: kindergarten redshirting. The state of Connecticut is looking into curtailing the practice.

For those unfamiliar with sports terminology, “redshirting” is the practice, prevalent in college football, of having a freshman repeat a year (the red shirt is a practice jersey, meaning he doesn’t play in games) so that he can grow physically, work out in the weight room, and be a more dominant player when he restarts as a second-year freshman the next season.

From college sports this practice has trickled all the way down... to five-year-olds. In my state, Connecticut, the age cut-off for any grade level is January 1st, meaning that the slightly older kindergartners are five in the fall and six in the spring, while the slightly younger ones are four in the fall and five in the spring. More and more parents whose children fall on the younger end of the spectrum (full disclosure: my fourth-grade daughter has a January birthday, so she’s on the older end) are keeping them out of kindergarten for a year, so that instead of being the youngest in class, they begin as the oldest. Some of these “redshirt kindergartners” are as old as seven by the time they finish kindergarten.

Read more

Pope Francis at the Finish Line: Openness, Openness, Openness

PHILADELPHIA—In his homily closing the World Meeting of Families, Pope Francis drew together the central themes of his historic visit to the United States: an ethic of care for the environment and the stranger, a vision of the family as a “factory of hope,” as he put it last night, and an openness to follow the Holy Spirit, even when that means facing the unfamiliar.

Francis began by noting that in today’s Scripture readings “the word of God surprises us with powerful and thought-provoking images.”  First, “Joshua tells Moses that two members of the people are prophesying, speaking God’s word, without a mandate [Numbers 11: 25-29].” And in the gospel, John warns Jesus that someone was casting out demons in his name (Mark 9:38-43, 45, 47-8). “Here is the surprise: Moses and Jesus both rebuke those closest to them for being so narrow! Would that all could be prophets of God’s word!”

A lot of people were put off by what Jesus said and did, Francis continued. “For them, his openness to the honest and sincere faith of many men and women who were not part of God’s chosen people seemed intolerable.” Many of them—including the disciples—acted in good faith, Francis said. “But the temptation to be scandalized by the freedom of God, who sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous alike (Matthew 5:45), bypassing bureaucracy, officialdom and inner circles, threatens the authenticity of faith. Hence it must be vigorously rejected.” The Spirit blows where it will. What truly scandalizes, the pope explained, is that which “destroys our trust in the working of the Spirit!” (This was an exclamatory homily—nearly half of its fifty sentences ended in exclamation points.)

Read more

Seen, Heard & Not Heard at the World Meeting of Families (UPDATED)

PHILADELPHIA — More than 15,000 people showed up for the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia this weekend. John Paul II proposed the World Meeting on the Family in 1992, the first was held in 1994, and subsequent meetings have been held every three years since. This year’s was the first to be held in North America.

Although men, women, children, priests, bishops, cardinals, and religious brothers and sisters from all over the world were in attendance, the 15,000 didn’t strike me as representative of the universal church. Conspicuously underrepresented demographics included: the poor, who likely couldn’t afford the time off, the price of tickets, or the cost of travel; the divorced; the infertile; the gay; and women who aren’t mothers, wives, or consecrated virgins. They weren’t just absent physically; their ideas, concerns, and struggles were also missing—or, if present, they were misrepresented through caricature and rhetoric about the truth of the church and the lies of secular society.

I was disappointed, not because I expected otherwise, but because hope is a necessary disposition for those of us who both love and get frustrated with the church—and my hope was misplaced. I hoped for a gesture of relative openness. Call it the Francis effect.

The World Meeting didn’t promise to be a dialogue, though; it promised to be a series of lectures and workshops. The lineup of speakers was probably an effective way to weed out any chance of dissenting attendees, as conservative champions like Christopher West, Robert Barron, Helen Alvaré, Scott Hahn, Greg and Lisa Popcak, and Janet Smith all gave presentations. Perhaps more frustrating than a lineup of expected and theologically aligned speakers was the invitation of non-Catholic (but conservative) leaders like Rick Warren and Elder Christofferson to give their thoughts on the family. It boggles my mind: How did Rick Warren get an invite to a conference covering Catholic views on the family, vocation, sexuality, while someone like Margaret Farley did not? Even if the church doesn’t support her views, she is an intellectually rigorous and ardently Catholic woman committed to deepening and broadening the spectrum of theological thinking in church. She could have been a panel member alongside some conservative counterpart, offering attendees of the conference a fruitful consideration of the effects of particular beliefs or policies.

There is space in the church for dialogue—it is the only church, I think, that is structurally and historically competent to bear diversity. Catholics can trust each other to earnestly desire what is good for the church, for each other, for the common good, and still disagree about how it comes to bear in practice. We don’t abandon the church when things don’t go our way; we dig our feet in a little deeper and, for the sake of the sacraments and the community and the traditions, we fight, learn, compromise, teach, fight some more. Under Pope Francis, conservative clergy in the American church will have to adjust to this just as liberal nuns have had to before. It’s part of being Catholic.

Read more