In All Things

Here is Archbishop Rowan Williams in an extensive statement on religious freedom, biblical literalism, zealotry, ordaining gays and lesbians (and women), the Christian concept of freedom and social rights, as well as on divisions within the Anglican Communion.  This is from his presidential address to the London Synod on Feb. 9.  It's quite clear and direct.  "The basic conflict was not between a systematic assault on Christian values by a godless government on the one side and a demand for licensed bigotry on the other.  It was over the question of how society identifies the point at which one set of freedoms and claims so undermines another that injustice results."  More:

Something of that ‘tragic’ awareness is hard to avoid when we look at the decisions that face us in our Church.  Most hold that the ordination of women as bishops is a good, something that will enhance our faithfulness to Christ and our integrity in mission.  But that good is at the moment jeopardised in two ways – by the potential loss of those who in conscience cannot see it as a good, and by the equally conscience-driven concern that there are ways of securing the desired good that will corrupt it or compromise it fatally (and so would rather not see it at all than see it happening under such circumstances).  And for both many women in the debate and most if not all traditionalists, there is a strong feeling that the Church overall is not listening to how they are defining for themselves the position they occupy, the standards to which they hold themselves accountable.  What they hear is the rest of the Church saying, ‘Of course we want you – but exclusively on our terms, not yours’; which translates in the ears of many as ‘We don’t actually want you at all’.

Read the rest here.  Listen to it here.

James Martin, SJ

The last several years have been exceedingly unkind to Scientology. In 2007 the Belgian State Prosecution Office announced that it thought the organization should be prosecuted for crime. In late October, 2009, a French court found Scientology, France guilty of severe fraud in “cheating” vulnerable members of their meager life savings. The Court fined Scientology 600,000 euros and placed Alan Rosenberg, the head of Scientology, France on a two-year suspended sentence. Scientology claims religious persecution in the case and pledged to appeal, if necessary to the European Court of Human Rights. Scientology, following its doctrine of  “fair game” has been notoriously litigious over the years. “Fair game” got so defined, in the words of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology: “Those who seek to damage the church may be deprived of property or impaired by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”

Recent allegations about Scientology rely less on the organization’s belief system, which represents a strange amalgam of pseudo-psychology; a Gnostic claim to reach a stage above the possibility of human sin or frailty; reliance on a pseudo-scientific machine that is supposed to detect human lies or negative blockages and, a long process of auditing to remove blockages toward achieving the desired stage of being  “clear.” The process can cost anywhere from $25,000 to the neighborhood of $1 million. The recent attacks on Scientology focus mainly on its behaviors, many of which are distasteful but may be legal; some of which are, arguably, criminal.

The St. Petersberg Times published a series of articles in 2009, recounting some of the alleged internal practices of Scientology: a internal culture of systematic physical violence; its dis-connection policy (isolating Scientology recruits from family or outside influences); an “ecclesiastical justice” system that involves public confessions, isolation, forced imprisonments; claims that the organization coerces abortions among the women members of its elite Sea Org., a  near monastic sub- set of volunteer workers. The Times articles, relying on testimony of defectors, recount horror stories of physical abuse, families being ripped apart, forced isolation. One famous case of forced isolation, Lisa McPherson, led to her death in mysterious circumstances, after 17 days of isolation.

What is not entirely clear, even to sociologists of religion who have studied the group, such as David Bromley from Virginia Commonwealth University, is how much of the behaviors of Scientology recruits are voluntary or coercive, therapeutic or punitive. A Times editorial printed Nov. 6, 2009 asked: “Why are government authorities looking the other way? The Internal Revenue Service has ample reason to reconsider the decision to grant Scientology exempt status as a religion. Law enforcement ought to investigate whether the church’s restraint on members’ free movement crossed a legal line.”

In the past, however, and allegedly more recently, evidence exists of actual criminal behavior by high-placed Scientology operatives.  In 1979, Mary Sue Hubbard  (wife of the founder) and ten other Scientologists were convicted in U.S. Federal Court for conspiring to steal government documents (related to Scientology) and obstructing justice. In December 2009, Rex Fowler, a Scientologist minister, murdered his business partner in Denver who had threatened to expose Fowler’s illegal donations to Scientology. On November 16, 2009, Senator Nick Xenophon, a member of the Australian upper house, entered a parliamentary motion asking for a criminal investigation of Scientology in Australia.

Xenophon’s intervention (which prompted the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd to comment to the press that the charges were grave and that many Australians had serious questions about Scientology) introduced evidence from former Scientology members containing allegations of false imprisonment, coerced abortions, embezzlement of church funds, destroying evidence about suspicious deaths, cover-ups of child sexual abuse and murder. A young Australian, Edward Mc Bride, who had gone through a large amount of borrowed money to pay for his Scientology auditing, committed suicide. The day before his suicide (there are many suicides among Scientologists), he was harassed by Scientology members. The Scientology file on him was removed from Australia and the government unable to access it. Scientology, typically, responds to its critics by claiming religious persecution. Xenophon responded by calling Scientology a “criminal organization which hides behind its religious beliefs.”  “Ultimately, this is not about religious freedom. In Australia, there are no limits on what you can believe. But there are limits on how you can behave. It is called the law and no one is above it.”

In Italy, in the late fall of 2009 the Daughters of Saint Paul published a book by fourteen ex-Scientologists, The Courage to Speak Out. They had earlier published a book by Maria Pia Gardin, an ex-Scientologist. Scientology tried to block the publication and is now suing Gardin for libel. Clearly, Scientology’s record on freedom of speech is quite spotty. When You Tube put on the web an embarrassing video of Tom Cruise making exaggerated claims about Scientology’s superiority, Scientology, claiming a copyright infringement, forced its removal. This attempt at censorship of free speech evoked a new response to the organization by computer nerds and an internet network called Anonymous.  Throughout 2008 and 2009, Anonymous protested against Scientology’s scorn for free speech, its policy of dis-connection, its financial exploitation of the vulnerable. Anonymous may well, itself, have crossed a legal line in hacking into Scientology sites on the internet or taking them down.  The group also organized many protests in front of Scientology offices all over the world.  Scientology, which is notorious for using the confession material of its members to blackmail or disgrace them if they defect, set up a web site, Anonymous Facts, which put on the web names and personal information of several supposed Anonymous members. Eventually, You Tube suspended that Scientology account for its dubious behaviors of spreading such personal defamation.

What to make of all of these allegations? Scientology tends to defend against its detractors (especially defectors) by reminding the public of the sour grapes of disgruntled former employees and devotees. There is some truth to that rejoinder but simply too many allegations, from a multiple number of former Scientology members (many of whom held high posts in the organization), recounting similar stories of forced abortions for female Sea Org members, doctoring or destroying of internal documents etc. Clarity should be maintained between genuine religious freedom to believe what one wants and allegations of criminal or legally unacceptable behaviors. For me, religious liberty implies complete freedom of exit from religion. Scientology makes it difficult for disgruntled former members to leave, except on its own long-drawn out terms involving confessions that the member is harmful to the church and promises not to sue Scientology. Just leaving on one’s own is punished by being hounded by private investigators. I suspect with so much smoke, somewhere there must be a real fire. While the organization hates the term, it is a totalitarian “cult.” It just may also be criminal.

John Coleman, S.J.

Hoy la traducción español de My Life with the Saints, llamado, naturalmente, Mi vida con los santos, está disponible. Y créame, el español en el libro es mucho mejor que el español en esta blogpost.  Espero que el libro pueda ayudar a muchos hispanos en sus viajes a sentir bien a santos, y encontrar entre los patróns y los compañeros de los santos.  Usted puede comprarlo aqui y aqui.  Gracias!

Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan is pushing back hard against the politicization of counter-terrorism efforts. He especially objected to the recent controversy over the handling of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the foreign national who tried to blow up a plane on Christmas Day as it landed in Detroit. Republicans have criticized the administration for "Mirandizing"Abdulmutallab, informing him of his rights and procuring a lawyer for him, although it was recently revealed that he is cooperating with authorities now. The issue became an applause line for Sen. Scott Brown in his surprise win in Massachusetts.

Brennan appeared on "Meet the Press" this past Sunday and his criticism of the politicians was straightforward: "I am just very concerned on behalf of the counter-terrorism officials throughout the government that politicians continue to make this a political football." Brennan, it should be clear, is a lifer in the intelligence business having worked most of his life for the CIA, then appointed by President George W. Bush to 2004 to be the first head of the National Counterterrorism Center, and finally appointed by President Obama to be Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security. He is not, in short, a political hack.

The Republican attacks on the administration’s handling of the Detroit bomber have been especially obnoxious seeing as the Bush administration handled their shoe bomber in almost exactly the same fashion. Their attacks on the administration’s efforts to close Guantanamo and bring as many inmates there to justice as possible are similarly hollow when you recall that they have used civilian courts to try no less than Zacarias Moussaoui, a man who was actually complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

The Democrats, however, deserve not an ounce of pity. They have failed to erect the legal architecture that terrorism has made necessary. In this age of suicide bombers and mass murder, we need to find ways to prosecute terrorists, but we also have to find ways to protect innocents from attacks, even if that means that some of the standards of traditional jurisprudence should be set aside. The Left needs to realize that you can’t treat a terrorist like a common thief just as the Right needs to realize that the only way the Jihadists can win their war is if we abandon the standards of civilized, legal behavior that are one of the West’s most glorious achievements.

In the event, there is a blueprint for such a legal architecture. If the Democrats on the Hill or at the Justice Department would go to their local bookstore, they would easily find a copy of Ben Wittes’ "Law and the Long War: The Future of Justice in the Age of Terror." Wittes, who is a Fellow at the Brookings Institution, lays out the issues involved in prosecuting terror suspects in ways that will make both the Left and the Right uncomfortable. His book has received widespread critical acclaim across the political and ideological spectrum, but so far no one on Capitol Hill or in the Administration has championed the effort to create new laws to deal with this new threat. Instead, both parties argue for solutions that reflect their biases, but which also reflect the ways in which they fail to grasp the unique challenges terrorism presents to our legal culture.

Brennan’s interview was powerful. I hope his friends in the White House listened as intently as his critics on Capitol Hill. And, I hope he can convince them that it is time that both parties recognize that putting new wines into old juridical skins is only a recipe for the continued politicization of an issue that surely should transcend petty politics.

Michael Sean Winters

Took some last minute shuffling of flights owing to Washington winter storm wipeout (and more is on its way), but I have arrived at the annual Catholic Social Ministry Gathering. The event brings together diocesan and parish-based directors and supporters of social justice and peace offices for some motivational recuperation, capital hill lobbying and general information sharing. They also pore over the domestic and international issues that will be on the agenda in the coming year for folks working in Catholic social ministry. They will have plenty of time to do so this year as we are about to all be snowed in for the week.

I’m particularly sorry to have missed John Carr’s keynote because I wondered if he would respond personally to the attack campaign being launched by the American Life League and confreres (and eagerly embraced by right wing Catholic bloggers) regarding his past participation as board chairman with the Center for Community Change, a national community organizing advocacy, training and support organization. Carr left CCC in 2005 and since then it has adopted some rhetoric and positions at odds with Catholic teaching. Additionally a number of Catholic Campaign for Human Development funded community groups are listed as “partners” by the CCC, though that relationship indicates little more than they may have received CCC training or worked with CCC on specific anti-poverty campaigns, not that they endorse all CCC statements or campaigns.

At first glance the connections drawn by the ALL et al depict a deep ignorance about the nature of community organizing in the United States or its history and offer the kind of head-scratching guilt by association that would be familiar to folks who can remember Sen. Joe McCarthy and the regular House and Senate inquisitions during the Red Scare of the 1950s. Instead of lists of unidentified communist enemies, ALL and allied groups wave embarrassing CCC statements and attempt to backtrack them to assorted USCCB staff. I’m told John Carr only briefly touched on the controversy during his annual keynote speech opening the gathering but other voices from the USCCB have already stepped forward to defend Carr and by extension the USCCB and CCHD.

Carr told me some time after his speech: “I’ve spent my whole life trying to bring together social justice and pro-life, so to be attacked as somehow having undermined that is both unfair and hurtful.”

He was reluctant to say much else about the internet flame war erupting around his reputation except: “I would distinguish between those who have a real concern for the poor and wonder if we’re doing this the right way, those who simply disagree with the priorities and methods of CCHD and [those] who frankly have been attacking the bishops, the conference, the CCHD, and now me and they’ve never found anything good to say about the church’s [anti-poverty] work.

“The idea that the American bishops are soft or lax in their defense of unborn children is just ridiculous. You go down to the march for life . . . and you take away Catholic parishes, Catholic schools, Catholic bishops, its not a march it’s a small rally. For people that know me, the idea that I’m a secret agent for a prochoice issue . . .  and the idea that the America bishops are funding abortions and soft on gay marriage is just ludicrous.”

Carr worries the style of the attack suggests that “polarization in public life is now coming over to Catholic life.”

“We don’t need war rooms and attack ads in our community of faith,” he said. “We ought to give each other the benefit of the doubt. We ought to have civil discourse and not assume the worst of each other.

“Their new thing after four days of attacking me is that ‘this is not about John Carr.’ Well, I think that is insightful: This is not about John Carr, this is about the priorities of the poor and whether or not we are going to act on them. . . . When you do bottom up organizing instead of top down, it doesn’t always fit the neat categories, but my wish is that people would see what actually happens to people’s lives and communities as a result of this work.”

Kevin Clarke

Forgive the New York-centric nature of this post, but the fate of St. Vincent’s Hospital has ramifications far beyond the isle of Manhattan. Founded by the Sisters of Charity, St. Vincent’s is the last Catholic hospital in the city and is now in danger of closing. A local health care consortium had offered to buy the facility and turn it into an out patient facility, but that offer was withdrawn late last week. The state floated a loan to help St. Vincent cover its operating budget, but a temporary injection of funds may not be enough to insure the hospital’s long-term stability.

Just a few years ago, there were as many as eight Catholic hospitals in New York, but for a variety of complicated reasons that number was reduced to one in just over a year. That story was largely untold until Daniel Sulmasy reported it in our pages last March. Dr. Sulmasy listed five reasons for the demise of Catholic health care in New York, including what seems like the most pressing fact for St. Vincent’s right now: “the market is a harsh environment for faith-based institutions.”

Catholic schools have been roundly supported by donors, but why have Catholic hospitals (and adoption agencies) not received the same loyalty from the Catholic community? Perhaps the time has come to let these institutions pass away? To focus our money and energies on smaller causes, ones less tied to brick and morter institutions? Sulmasy disagrees:

Personally, despite all the obstacles, I continue to be convinced that Catholic institutions (and, in particular, Catholic hospitals) are worth fighting to save. Catholic institutions help to nourish the faith of those who work in them and are served by them. Our Catholic hospitals also provide a vehicle for proving that our moral convictions are compatible with 21st-century technology, and they embody the ideal that service institutions ought to have service missions. In health care, patients and practitioners alike are becoming alienated from the health care delivery system. Hospitals that treat patients with true respect, recognize their dignity, attend to their spiritual needs, value people over technology and value service over the bottom line are precisely the remedy that people need. Given their mission, Catholic institutions should be leading the way.

But in our current health care environment, can Catholic hospitals that value "people and service over the bottom" line survive? It doesn't look good. The demise of St. Vincent's is one more sign that the health care system as it exists now is in drastic need of an overhaul. 

Tim Reidy

Hindsight isn’t always 20-20, but often it is. Now that the Democrats have lost their shot at a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (which is all it ever was, really, given the two independents and the pack of Blue Dogs), they must be flagellating themselves over the obvious. Before tackling health care reform they ought to have changed the procedural rule that makes the 60 votes necessary. Had they accomplished that, nearly all Americans might be insured now, and other future reforms would be much easier to legislate. As it is, that opportunity may be irretrievable.

“May be,” because sunny President Obama still hasn’t given up his efforts to bring both parties together. And Congress may yet find some way to turn much or some of the reform measures into law.

Health care aside, the Democrats’ failure to put first things first (to put the procedural over the substantial, in this case) brings up the importance of foresight now, instead of hindsight later. Foresight is never easy, and especially today with so many global and domestic crises roiling the political waters all at once. But foresight, learning from mistakes, perseverance and building some unity where polarity threatens to divide the nation are what leadership is all about.

Consider the next Congressional election: What can be done now to ensure a fair and accurate race? Both parties ought to make certain that voting machines work in each district; that eligible voters are encouraged to vote, not dissuaded from voting by threats, misinformation or other impediments. The Supreme Court’s recent unleashing of limitless corporate money in electoral campaigns must be curtailed as much as possible. What about campaign finance reform--is that completely dead? Or can more be done? Such questions and focus are just a start for starters.

Citizens ought to demand serious actions and policy proposals, too. Not just sit back and watch political football: one team runs toward a goal and the other knocks them down. The national and international goals are too serious for such spectator-like behavior. Democracy itself is the game we’re playing.

Karen Sue Smith

Our latest video, a modest proposal from Father Jim Martin on what to do with Wall Street bonuses, is now up on our home page. Have  a look:

To subscribe to our videos visit our YouTube page.

Tim Reidy

The best part of last night’s Super Bowl was the game. But, the ads and the ceremonies that peppered the televised spectacle were more instructive about the state of our culture and the verdict they rendered was decidedly mixed.

I am generally a fan of President Obama. But, I don’t want to see an interview with the guy in the middle of my Super Bowl prep unless he is showing us a family chili recipe.

And, what is with the aging rock stars? Was anyone thrilled by the half-time show that featured the rock group "The Who"? Who knew the Who were still singing? They are ancient. Old news. Not at all hip. I am sure they were tested by market strategists and deemed safe for one of the largest national audiences of the year, and safety seemed to be the theme of both the ads during the game and the hoopla surrounding it. Another golden oldie, by Steve Winwood, "Bring me your Higher Love" was sung before the game. I remember that from high school. And the hard rock group "Kiss" appeared in an ad, their once fit bodies now clearly showing middle aged paunches. Are there no new rock groups? Is "retro rock" a cultural meme?

Of course there are new groups and edgier themes, but market researchers and ad execs like safe, as do their corporate bosses. Businesspeople prate on about innovation and risk, but they really like government subsidies, tax breaks and safe marketing strategies that are so boring they could not possibly offend. Even the controversial Tim Tebow ad about abortion was not really about abortion, in fact I am not sure what it was about except a nice looking Mom being loved by her nice looking son, which is fine, but I wonder how many people put down their buffalo wings to write down the website name of Focus on the Family that sponsored the ad. And, the Tebow ad was completely upstaged by the Betty White ad for Snickers. That was funny. Funny, too, were the E-trade ads and the Doritos ads. But, most of the ads were bizarre or boring. You have to wonder what is going on in the zeitgeist when so many ads feature people in their underwear.

Avant-garde is not an English phrase. Nor is bella figura. It is a shame. I could not help remembering the celebrations in Paris for the bicentenaire. In addition to the traditional military parade, they had a very avant-garde parade in the early evening, that finished at the Place de la Concorde. All the lights went out except for a few spotlights at the foot of the great column in the center of the square. There was American singer Jessye Norman, wrapped in a giant tricoleur, singing the French national anthem. I remember thinking what kind of outcry you would get if an American celebration of Independence Day featured a French singer? But, the whole French festivities had a, dare we say, joie de vivre, that the producers of the Super Bowl and its ads entirely lack.

I just finished reading Alan Lichtman’s book "White Protestant Nation" which has been my bedtime reading the past few weeks. A central theme of that work is the way our culture yearns for an anti-pluralist cultural ethic that is more than a bit dull. Lichtman shows the ways that Protestant culture, especially southern Protestant culture, intermixes with the corporate ethos to produce this dull, conservative bias in the broader culture. Or, in light of last night’s Super Bowl, we might ask: Who dat running the ad agencies (and the corporate boards that hire them) that produce so many boring ads and retro rock stars?

I caught just the tail end of this much-talked-about ad last night on the Superbowl.  It's simple and effective.  And I wonder, How could anyone object to this?  Actually, I would have preferred for it to have been even stronger on the pro-life message, but maybe understatement is the way to go.  Dave Gibson said the ad's rollout was a brilliant strategy, too.

James Martin, SJ

The Church of England's Parliament, known as the General Synod, meets this week, beginning today with an announcement on women bishops which is certain to have an impact on the numbers of Anglican traditionalists choosing to take up the Pope's ordinariate offer.

Synod voted two years ago to move towards consecrating women bishops, but is yet to come up with a formula for doing so which doesn't at the same time alienate traditionalists who oppose the move. Suggestions of an "alternative network" of traditionalist bishops overseeing traditionalist parishes -- an extension of the current "flying bishops" model -- have so far failed; and the so-called "Revision Committee" -- created to examine the various options -- will say today (a) that their work is unfinished, and will be until at least July; (b) that attempts to find a safe space for traditionalists have not succeeded. Ruth Gledhill at The Times has been leaked today's speech by the bishop in charge of the Revision Committee, whose tortuous language and stupendous opacity will give little comfort to opponents of a female episcopate.

The circle is closing on the traditionalists in other ways. Ruth writes:

The existing three flying bishop posts are to be abolished and not replaced. Instead, any women consecrated bishops will be asked to “delegate” authority to another bishop, such as a suffragan, to carry out confirmations and other episcopal duties in parishes that refuse to accept her ministry.

Does this make it more likely that C of E traditionalists will accept the Pope's ordinariate offer? Yes and no. For those that have already decided, in principle, to accept the offer and are waiting on the details, it will confirm their decision. But the view among most traditionalists I have spoken to is that an early exodus would weaken their attempts to safeguard the 'Catholic' place in the Church of England. Supporters of women bishops be able to say, in effect, "they're going anyway. Why agree to what they want?" As long as traditionalists remain in the C of E, the threat of their departure is likely to make supporters of women bishops more likely to negotiate.

Hence the decision by leading Anglo-Catholic bishops -- including those who went to Rome to ask for the ordinariate -- to postpone their response to the Pope's offer. Initially they had scheduled 22 February as the day in which they would vote on whether to accept the ordinariate offer and begin negotiations with the bishops of England and Wales. One of the "flying bishops", Andrew Burnham, told the BBC that 22 February had been designated as "an appropriate day for priests and people to make an initial decision as to whether they wish to respond positively to and explore further the initiative of the Apostolic Constitution". But this had assumed that this week's Synod would debate the Revision Committee's proposals for accommodating opponents of women bishops. Because that debate has been delayed until the Synod next meets in York on 9-13 July, the flying bishops now view 22 February "as a day of discernment and prayer, and not a day of decision".

So what was going to be a major Easter story -- a vote by most of the traditionalists on whether to explore further the ordinariate -- looks like it's been kicked into the long grass.

But my hunch is that there will still be some parishes who will vote anyway to negotiate with the Catholic bishops, because they have long since given up on Synod. They will be few in number. But what they negotiate will open up a path for the majority of traditionalists to go down after the summer, helping to assuage their fears.