In All Things

Just returned from a preview of Book of Eli. (Thank you, Grace Hill Media.)  The story: A superfast, supersensitive Denzel Washington wanders through post-apocalyptic USA, trying to shepherd the last remaining Bible to a place where it will make a difference. (Note to the writer: the developing (i.e. likely to be overlooked in case of a nuclear war) parts of the world actually have Bibles, too.)

Flash Review —  Some fantastic action sequences — remind me never to get in another bar fight with D.W. (“Another”: long story.)  A captivating world.  And it’s Denzel — so of course he’s come to save the world (and the movie).

But just enough religion to make people say it’s “religious”, and not enough to actually mean anything (i.e. to make you think about the way you live your life). And the red pill: “redemptive violence”.  Not since the book of Joshua have so many people been killed to get God’s work done.  In Denzel’s hands it goes down smooth, (as does quite a plot point…), but when the flick’s over, you might wonder whether that was actually Kool-Aid you just drank.

Ranking: 2 Mad Maxes out of four.

Jim McDermott, S.J.

popculturepriest.tumblr.com

The LA Times reported at 7:29 this evening that Shepard Fairey, the artist associated with the now famous Obama HOPE painting, has admitted that he knowingly attempted to deceive the Associated Press about which photograph he had used as a reference for the painting.  As the AP had originally claimed, his piece is a conscious duplicate of the photo by photographer Mannie Garcia.  

I wonder, what might be the philosophical implications lurking around the edges of a painting calling for hope that turns out to be a ripoff? Cynicism would be an obvious response -- but my God how tired is that?  Hey, I'm a blogger with a snarky, cynical take on things.  Wow, yeah, that's new.  Maybe they'll even take the names of two people and put them together, too! I just want to pat them on the head and give 'em a cookie.   

We've known it since the 5th grade dance where we thought that aquamarine tie with the flat end was really going to kill and instead the kid with the Shaun Cassidy haircut who could throw the football with a perfect spin gets all the eyes: Everyone wants to be noticed. And not everyone is.

The temptation to cross ethical lines, step all over people or just be obnoxious to overcome anonymity -- been there, done that, got the shame to show for it.  We call it pride, arrogance, selfishness, OMG SO FRUSTRATING, etc., but look for the baseline and I'd say we're looking at a temptation to hopelessness. The girl with the red hair is never going to notice me if I do things fair and square.  I can give up and just go back to letting Lucy pull the ball out... AGAIN (not that I feel a deep and painful emotional connection to Charlie Brown, or have ever been told I resembled him when my head is shaved).  Or, I can cut a couple corners and let her know it's actually me who wrote Linus' music -- and I've just given up in another way. 

God, you are my God, for you I long, for you my soul is thirsting.  But there's a pretty awesome pond over here to my right, so dude, what gives? 

Hope: awesome -- quite literally; and therefore, not easy. 

Jim McDermott, SJ

Sunday in the New York Times columnist Frank Rich added his voice to the growing number of analysts seeing little substantial change in the way politics is doing business since Barack Obama took office last January.  Rich's particular concern, like that of Thomas Frank in the Wall Street Journal last week, is the way in which lobbyists continue to run the table, using old boy connections (and lots of cash) to kill or maim legislation that could affect their big business clients, to the detriment of the American people.    

While Rich and others directly or indirectly set this issue at the feet of the President, I wonder if the real problem is -- to use a religious term -- a lack of proper conversion on the part of the Democratic party.  While Obama, who came into the national spotlight from the outside of federal politics, preached change and a new way, most of the Democrats around him, many of whom had spent far, far longer in national office, had watched the Republican leadership shut them out at virtually every turn, and -- no small point -- supported party warrior Hillary Clinton, arrived at January 20, 2009 with a different momentum and trajectory.  To say they were simply eager for "their turn" -- at the trough, at getting their way and at getting in their licks -- would seem an oversimplification. Yet, consider their actions very long and this theme does emerge.  

In the religious life, the awareness of one's own resistance and sinfulness is a major step on the path of conversion. But that's not to say it comes easy. Denial, as they say, ain't just a river in Egypt.Over and over on the campaign trail, President Obama said that the path he was proposing would not be an easy one. Everyone clapped and cheered; but now, as the challenges of that path become clearer, his party's willingness to face them seems shaky, at best.   

For the last 8 months pundits have talked often, whether positively or negatively, about the president's willingness to reach across the aisle to Republicans.  But if real change is to happen, his most immediate task may not be winning the hearts of his opponents, but harrowing the hearts of his own.  

Jim McDermott, SJ 

Last week New York Magazine published a great profile of well-known author Gay Talese, who is writing a new book about his 50-year marriage to Nan A. Talese, a long-time publisher at Random House.  Talese gained particular notoriety after publishing Thy Neighbor's Wife, a provocative expose on the changing sexual mores of Americans in the 1970s.  As research for the book Talese involved himself in many different sorts of sexual liasons, which put great strain on his marriage and also did tremendous damage to his reputation as a writer.  Decades later, Talese is revisiting this terrain, trying perhaps to put it finally to rest. And visiting with him, Nan and their children makes for an interesting, well-drawn journey in New York writer Jonathan van Meter's hands.

I highly recommend it.

Jim McDermott, SJ

I’ve found the conversation on Mary Ann Glendon very interesting, and wanted to follow up on some of the points made.   Hopefully my comments will clearly respect the points of view of those who shared them; that’s certainly my intent. 

I completely appreciate Professor Glendon’s right to withdraw, and as I said, I think Notre Dame made some serious blunders in the way it treated her. I guess my question is, what does she add to the conversation through her withdrawal? Her principled voice against President Obama’s position on abortion?  Ok, yes; though she expresses the same set of arguments any number of others have taken, her stand brings new momentum because it's her doing it.  

Yet in refusing to be present to the occasion, she tacitly accepts the us vs. them mindset that dominates the issue.  And I wonder whether there wasn't another way of proceeding in which she could have embraced the plight she found herself in, rather than rejecting it, and brought the conversation to a place where some sort of progress could be made. The lady is a former ambassador and a Harvard professor of law, after all. As we used to say as kids, she's got skills. Maybe the circumstances weren’t right, or Notre Dame just went too far; but it's a disappointment, I'd say. 

And my question to those who disagree: if you think the conversation is really “getting somewhere” through the ongoing litany of condemnation, what is the progress you see being made? 

A number of commenters thought I was arguing semantics when I said President Obama has not been uncompromising on abortion. Yet I find much evidence to support my claim.  Despite being pro-choice Mr. Obama has actually been critical of the pro-choice movement, and has repeatedly spoken of abortion as a serious moral question. So at the democratic forum at Messiah College in April of 2008 he said: “There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that’s a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.”

During the campaign he also argued that no one (including himself) thinks abortion is a good thing -- a position one hears almost no one in the pro-choice movement make; and he has spoken out against partial-birth abortion, saying as long ago as October 2007, “I think there is a large agreement that late-term abortions are really problematic and there should be a regulation. And it should only happen in terms of the mother’s life or severe health consequences.” He reiterated the point a year later at the third presidential debate. What's more he has spoken out in favor of abstinence, adoption, education and even the idea that people considering abortion should speak first to clergy -- which again, did not go over terribly well among some who are pro-choice.

I would suggest a more conciliar, balanced approach from a pro-choice politician would be hard to find.  And that’s why I think Professor Glendon's comments are indeed unfair. 

Since before he began his run for the presidency Mr. Obama has expressed a willingness to reach out to those whose points of view he doesn’t agree with. Indeed, many of his speeches during the campaign argued that the polarizing divides among us are not the last word, that beneath what seem intractable disagreements lie important but forgotten underlying sources of connection and agreement. So in his presidential acceptance speech, he could

It was announced yesterday that Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law professor and former U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, has now declined to receive the Laetare Medal from Notre Dame at graduation in May, out of concerns arising from the school's decision to invite President Barack Obama to speak.  Here is the text of Glendon's letter to Notre Dame:  

Dear Father Jenkins,

When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.

Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.

First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:

• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”

• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.

It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.

Yours Very Truly,

Mary Ann Glendon

It seems clear from the actual text of the letter t

The Audit Bureau of Circulations released its spring figures on newspaper circulation for the six months ending March 31, 2009.  And they are scary, particularly for some of the newspapers that are already in trouble.  The Boston Globe daily dropped 13.6%, to 302,638; its Sunday decreased 11.2% to 466, 665.  The Chicago Tribune lost 7.4% of its daily circulation, to 501, 202, while its Sunday circ dropped 4.5% to 858,256.  The San Francisco Chronicle showed a lost of 15.7% in its daily, to 312,118; the Philadelphia Inquirer shed 13.7%, to 288,298; and the daily Atlanta Journal-Constitution fell nearly 20%, to 261,828.  The overall average for the 395 newspapers reporting was 7%.  

Speaking last week about the Boston Globe at the New York Times Company shareholders' meeting, chairman Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., expressed his hope that the Globe will not be shut down, as has been promised if the papers' union does not find $20 million in concessions in the next few weeks.  Sulzberger did not go on to expand on this.  

Sulzberger and the future of the Times are also the subject of an in-depth Vanity Fair piece this month.  As much as Sulzberger insists that his job is to "keep the Times on course," author Mark Bowden wonders whether he understands that today "staying on course means turning the ship around."

In the circulations audit, while the Daily News and the New York Post both posted huge losses, 14% and 16% respectively, the New York Times did better than the average, showing a better-than-average 3.5% drop to 1,039,031 for the daily and a mere 1.7% drop in Sunday circ, to 1,451,233. Crosstown rival The Wall Street Journal actually showed a small increase of 0.6% in its daily circ, to 2,082,189.  

Jim McDermott, SJ

In Australia and New Zealand April 25th is Anzac Day, a moment in which Australians and New Zealanders remember the sacrifice made by their soldiers in their ultimately failed attempt to overcome the Turks at Gallipoli during World War I. It's a day of solemnity in some way similar to our own Veterans' Day or Memorial Day.  

This Anzac Day in the Australian Jesuit Magazine Eureka Street, rather than reflect specifically on the cost of that battle for Australia, author Nick Toscano looks instead at how Gallipoli functioned as the first step in the Turkish efforts to exterminate the Armenian people.  

...At the Gallipoli landing, the Turks conscripted hundreds of Armenians in the momentous battle for nothing more than cannon fodder. As they ran unarmed into our troops' firing line, it was mass-exeuction. 

The Ottoman government execut ed 600 of the Armenian educated-elite in Istanbul on 24 April, the very day before the Gallipoli landing, and, immediately afterwards pursued the rest in the Anatolian highlands.... 

Toscano goes on to describe in detail the crimes perpetrated upon Armenians in the years that followed.  It's a harrowing account.  Click here for the full story.  

Jim McDermott, SJ

Everywhere I look this week, all I hear about is Susan Boyle, the British woman who wowed the judges of "Britian's Got Talent" with her performance of "I Dreamed A Dream" from Les Miserables.  She's got a great voice, a nice story and a wonderfully pleasant, funny personality.  

But that's not why we're talking about her.  There are lots of great singers with great stories on these sorts of shows. No, we're talking about her because her performance revealed our prejudice, namely that ordinary or unattractive people have nothing to offer. Ms. Boyle, as we all know by know, is not your normal talent/reality show contestant; she's not 20 with pre-whitened teeth, porcelain skin and perfect hair. She is 47 and very ordinary -- like most of us, really.  And when we first saw her we assumed she was a joke. 

Since then it seems the whole Western world has gotten swept up over her performance. Commentators everywhere are swooning over what Ms. Boyle's performance can teach us.  Generally, these musings wander through the innocuous life-affirming daisies of how we're all beautiful and loved by God, we all have gifts, we are all Susan Boyle, etc.  All nice, all good. 

But most of which avoids the dark and important underbelly of the whole thing: that we consciously or unconsciously conflate value with ability. People are worthy of my attention insofar as they are attractive; otherwise they aren't even on my radar, or they're a set-up for a joke.  And rather than challenge that notion, the way Ms. Boyle's performance is being presented actually reinforces it.  Why are we paying attention to her, after all? Because she, too, has a talent. She can sing.  

I admit, I'm the wet blanket at this post-resurrection sunshine picnic beach party. I just think it's important to see, the story here is not just about Susan Boyle or God or whomever else we might want to use to whitewash things; it's about us. And it's not a pretty picture.  

But seeing that is the only way to change. 

Are you wondering whether you can have your Catholic wedding outside?  Trying to figure out how to get your special day in the church of your dreams (even though you're not registered there and have no desire to go there ever again)? Are you frustrated that some old priest whose most contemporary musical acquisition is Beethoven's 5th won't let you walk down the aisle to "Stand by Me"? 

Now that the snow has finally abated (well, mostly), 'tis the season for these and a hundred other wedding-related questions.  And if you're looking for some cheeky but interesting conversation on the issues, the online series "The Princess, the Priest and the War for the Perfect Wedding" is the show for you.  A feature of Busted Halo, an online magazine for young adults, in "Princess", prospective brides send in video clips of their questions, and then over the course of five minutes show hosts Dr. Christine Whelan, a social historian, journalist (and recent bride herself), and Fr. Eric Andrews, CSP, pastor of a parish in Knoxville, bat back and forth.  Dr. Whelan usually stands in for the couple, pushing Fr. Andrews on why priests approached about weddings can be such "jerks" at first, or why the beaches of Kau'ai aren't appropriate for our day of days, while Fr. Andrews, who says that he prefers funerals to weddings (a position held by many priests), tries to present and make sense of the liturgical positions of the church.  The advice ranges from the perfunctory to the marvelously funny and practical. After going back and forth about outdoor weddings, Dr. Whelan and Fr. Andrews come up with a list of good reasons to avoid outdoor weddings that includes some things you might not think about, like BUGS, heat, accessibility for grandma in a wheelchair; and above all, rain. 

If you're getting married soon or know someone else who is, "The Princess and the Priest" is a good, fun show asking the questions young couples wonder about.  I can't guarantee you'll get the answers you want --  I know Les Mis is a great show, but you can't have a song from it as your communion meditation. Not even "I Dreamed a Dream." Not even with Susan Boyle singing it.   But you will understand, it's not just because the priest hates Broadway.  

IIn a recent meeting with Mexican government officials, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attributed the growing violence in the country to aggressive druglords, and announced that the United States would stand "shoulder to shoulder" with Mexico against them. "The criminals and kingpins spreading violence,” she said, “are trying to corrode the foundations of law, order, friendship and trust between us that support our continent,"

Within Mexico, however, another picture of the violence is emerging, one that pits not the druglords but the federal government as the main cause.  In a recent interview with America, Fr. Luis Arriage Valenzuela, S.J., director of a human rights center in Mexico, reports an explosion in human rights abuses and violence stemming from the growing militarization of the country.  “When [Mexico’s President] Felipe Calderón Hinojosa started his administration in Dec 2006 he said his priority would be to combat drug dealers. And in that context, today the military goes out into the streets to fight. The problem is, they’re not trained  for civil encounters. Their mentality is war, to combat an enemy; they can’t differentiate between interactions with civilians and military encounters. As a result, ordinary civilians are having their human rights violated.”

In the last year, Valenzuela’s center has received hundreds of human rights abuse cases, including civilians who are harassed, arrested, assaulted or tortured by federal soldiers for protesting government policies, or just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time; and others who have been killed without explanation. 

Click here for the full interview.