HeadlineBistro

Islam's Vatican II moment?

When it comes to covering the on-going protests in Egypt, the religious angle is impossible to ignore. That's why it's so fascinating to read through this 22-point list -- published last week on the website of the Egyptian magazine "Yawm al-Sâbi" -- on how Islam can experience renewal from within, in order to progress in dialogue with the other main world religions. The contributors? Twenty-three prominent Muslim scholars and clerics, including the former grand mufti of Egypt and the brother of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Sandro Magister has posted a translation of the "Document for the renewal of religious discourse" on his blog, Chiesa. The provocative list provides a glimpse at the challenges faced by those seeking to reform Islam from -- as Magister puts it -- "a superficial and external practice of it to a more authentic and essential one." It includes:

• Find a new practice of the concept of interaction between the sexes.
• Clarify the Islamic view on women and find convenient forms for marriage rights.
• Explain the Islamic concept of jihâd [inner and outer holy war], and specify norms and obligations that regulate it.
• Separate religion from the state.
• Formulate the virtues common to the three revealed religions.
• Purify the heritage of the first centuries of Islam (Salafism), eliminating the myths and aggressions against religion.
• Give guidelines on Western customs, and eliminate incorrect behaviors.
• Clarify the relationship that must exist among members of the different religions through schools, mosques, and churches.
• Recognize the right of women to become president of the republic.
• Combat sectarian claims, [emphasizing] that the flag of Islam [must be] one.
• Invite the people to go to God through gratitude and wisdom, and not with threats.
• Recognize the right of Christians to occupy important positions [including] the presidency of the republic.
• Separate religious discourse from power, and reestablish its connection with the needs of society.

Magister also links to commentary from Jesuit theologian Father Samir Khalil Samir, who describes this call for a renewal within Islam "truly revolutionary." (Father Samir has also written before on Pope Benedict XVI's vision for dialogue between Islam and Christianity). Writing on AsiaNews.it, Father Samir notes that the list was published one day before riots broke out in Egypt, underscoring the intertwining of politics, economics and religion in the unfolding events.  

"[T]here is an intellectual current that is fed up with the Islam that has spread in the last 30 years in the country, an 'externalized' Islam that puts the emphasis on external things (clothing, beard, veil, etc. ..)," Father Samir writes. "This shows that there is a global movement - both spiritual and political - in Egypt that wants to transform the country. And since it is a leading country in the Middle Eastern world, one can expect that the changes in act in Cairo will spread throughout the region."

While the reaction to the document has been overwhelmingly negative and outright hostile, Father Samir notes that such a declaration from this caliber of Muslim theologians is unprecedented. Also impressive is how quickly -- and to what extent -- the article has been distributed. Magister reports that by the night of its publication, the document had been posted on more than 12,000 Arab websites.

"The path of renewal will be long and require much time and effort," Father Samir writes.

Four years ago, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of Islam as having reached a defining moment -- and even more, that the the Catholic Church can empathize with the decision that lies ahead:

The Muslim world today finds itself facing an extremely urgent task that is very similar to the one that was imposed upon Christians beginning in the age of the Enlightenment, and that Vatican Council II, through long and painstaking effort, resolved concretely for the Catholic Church. [...]

On the one hand, he continued, people of faith must stand opposed to the "dictatorship" of a secular ideology that excludes God from society. On the other hand,  there is the necessity of upholding human rights, particularly religious freedom.

"Just as in the Christian community there has been lengthy inquiry into the right attitude of faith toward these convictions – an inquiry that certainly will never be concluded definitively – so also the Islamic world, with its own tradition, stands before the great task of finding the appropriate solutions in this regard," the pope observed.

Is Islam ready for a "Vatican II moment"?  Only time will tell -- but watching current events in the Middle East, the answer to that question will deeply influence the faith and politics of this volatile region of the world.

-- Elizabeth Hansen

Creating A New "Courtyard of the Gentiles"

To create a “courtyard of the Gentiles” – that’s the impetus of a new initiative by the Vatican to reach out to and dialogue with non-believers, beginning with a cultural symposium in Paris this March.

A Vatican communiqué released this week by the Pontifical Council for Culture described the project as "a new permanent Vatican structure to promote dialogue and encounter between believers and nonbelievers." The Paris event will take place March 24-25 under the theme “Religion, Enlightenment, Common Reason,” and will culminate with a gathering for young adults in front of the famed Notre Dame Cathedral. According to Zenit, the gathering will feature “artistic creations, music, drama, light shows, and time for meeting and reflection,” with the cathedral itself being open to all for meditation and a prayer vigil.

Why “Courtyard of the Gentiles”?

The name of the initiative refers to the portion of the ancient Jewish temple that was set aside for non-Jews who wished to pray, despite their being excluded from the Jewish rites and the rest of the temple. In the Gospel story of Jesus overturning the moneychangers’ tables, it is in this courtyard that the cleansing of the temple takes place – so that, free from extraneous distractions, “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples,” as he explained to his disciples.

This theme, in turn, has been picked up by Pope Benedict XVI, who in his 2009 Christmas address to the Roman curia used the expression while reflecting on the skeptical, atheistic climate he encountered on his trip to the Czech Republic that year. Stressing that the Church must not dismiss others’ disbelief, he said:

Even the people who describe themselves as agnostics or atheists must be very important to us as believers. When we talk about a new evangelization, these people may become afraid. They do not want to see themselves as an object of mission, nor do they want to renounce their freedom of thought or of will. But the question about God nonetheless remains present for them as well, even if they cannot believe in the concrete nature of his attention to us. … As the first step in evangelization, we must try to keep this search [for God] alive; we must take pains that man not set aside the question of God as an essential question of his existence. Take pains that he accept this question and the longing concealed within it.

Pope Benedict firmly believes that, despite the ways modern culture obscures God’s presence, atheists and agnostics grapple with the question of faith and existence of God – and that the Church should walk with them in this time of seeking answers.

Thus, the idea of a new kind of “court of the gentiles” can provide a place of open dialogue, “where men can in some manner cling to God, without knowing him and before they have found the entryway to his mystery, which the interior life of the Church serves,” the Holy Father explained.

In our dialogue with other religions, he continued, the Church “must above all add today a dialogue with those for whom religion is something foreign, to whom God is unknown, and who nonetheless would not like simply to remain without God, but at least to approach him as the Unknown.”

It will be fascinating to see how the discussions, lectures and artistic events in Paris will play out – and how the “Courtyard of the Gentiles” initiative will resonate in the birthplace of the Enlightenment itself. Perhaps event organizers might look across the Atlantic to another recent event open to the public in invitation to dialogue and discover the fullness of faith.

Held over the MLK weekend in Manhattan and hosted by the international, Catholic lay movement Communion and Liberation, the “New York Encounter” was truly a cultural event to behold – as the crowds that packed the venues would attest to. Among the notable lectures and discussion topics was the daughter of the scientist who discovered the gene that causes Down syndrome, who spoke on her father’s belief in the unity of faith and science. The arts were also well represented, with a performance of French playwright Paul Claudel’s “The Tidings Brought to Mary,” as well as the grand concert finale – a lively ensemble of New York City street performers – hosted by accomplished saxophonist “Blue Lou” Marini.

According to the event website, the Encounter’s goal is “to foster, in a friendly and welcoming setting, interest in the full spectrum of reality and appreciation for what is beautiful, true, good, and worthwhile in various expressions of human life.”

“This openness and desire,” it continues, “are the fruit of the education received in the Roman Catholic Church.”

“That willingness to stand up and bring their religious faith into public view stands out,” noted the editor of Catholic New York, who went on to quote the event’s organizer, a member of Communion and Liberation named Maurizio Maniscalco.

“We know who we are,” Maniscalco said. “We are not afraid of welcoming others who are not Catholic.”

When young adults – believers and non-believers alike – gather this March in the expansive courtyard in front of Paris’ Notre Dame, they will stand below the magnificent, Gothic cathedral’s western rose window – at the center of which stands Mary, holding out her infant Son to the city. Christ comes to meet us, no matter where we stand. It’s the Church’s task to welcome those who linger in the courtyard, and invite them in to the banquet that waits inside.

- Elizabeth Hansen

Has any good come out of the 'Tiger Mom' debate?

An interesting parenting debate has surfaced around the “Tiger mom” phenomenon, thanks to Amy Chua’s new book Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, which has sent shock waves throughout America and launched many Western mothers in venomous attack mode. The debate boils down to: Which parenting method is more effective in rearing successful children? Is it the Chinese mother’s future-oriented mode that demands discipline and tangible achievements now; or the Western mother’s present-oriented approach that upholds the happiness and independence of children?

One of the more balanced articles on Amy Chua is by Annie Murphy Paul of Time magazine, who paints a far more human portrait of “the heartless monster” than most. Paul reveals a mother who bestows a fierce rather than gentle love upon her daughters and has committed to upholding the work-ethic tradition her parents instilled in her as a child.  At one point, Chua even acknowledges that her method is not entirely successful, that not all children can be made to practice the violin for three hours a day (her own youngest having rebelled against the system) and that some incidents in her book were, in part, sensationalized (like when she rejected a birthday card from her daughter, telling her it wasn’t good enough and simply unworthy of her).

As many writers, journalists and bloggers point out, the reactions to Chua’s book say more about the way we in the West are raising our children than about the value of Chua’s method.
Kevin Ryan, founder the Center for the Advancement of Ethics and Character at Boston University, writes:

Particularly in the US, which has been the great Dewey-eyed apostle of child-centred education, there has been a growing realization that we are on the wrong course. The alarm bells have been sounding for two or three decades, as one set after another of scores on international assessment test of math and science have revealed American students to be mediocre or worse. Then there is US youth’s world leadership in out-of-wedlock birth rate and the rate of STD infection, in obesity, anorexia, drug and video-game addictions, cheating and in what will surely be tomorrow’s unpleasant revelation.

Another important point Ryan brings up is that the method by which Chua’s book was received came in direct correlation with the United State’s uncertain economy and the worry that American children will soon be working for the Chinese.

Given both the timing of Chua’s book release and the sentiments that ensued, one could argue that this is perhaps a good wake-up call for the American parent – but one that, according to Mary Hasson of Mercatornet, should be examined more closely.

Hasson asserts that if the measure of successful parenting lies in whether or not children achieve their full potential, “then both Chua and her critics have something to teach us.”  However, while achievement is great, “it’s not the end game,” writes Hasson. “It’s an inadequate measure of human success or flourishing.”

She adds:

Great achievement, without an underlying vision for character development and deeper human purpose, can be the product of narcissistic drives, greed, or self-absorption. And there’s nothing good about that. Missing from Chua’s work—and the comments of her critics—is any sense of a fuller purpose to human life. The measure of our parenting success is not what our child does or achieves, but what kind of person he or she becomes. It’s more about “being” and less about “doing.”

Hasson goes on to name what successful parents should be striving for: Raising children who are determined to be good, moral human beings; teaching them right from wrong; grounding them in the rules that limit and govern human behavior; teaching them the virtues; helping them forge strong relationships built on love, service, and respect; and lastly, helping them orient their talents, decisions, and achievements towards the common good.

Ultimately, one very positive thing to come out of this debate is the self-examination it has inspired in many parents. Perhaps some will be encouraged to instill more discipline, others to find more balance in family life, and others still to ensure their children build their lives on a set of Christian values while establishing in them a sense of purpose and mission. In the end, if this debate has driven many to at least consider Hasson’s markers of success, which for Christian parents can perhaps be summarized in the question – “Am I doing everything in my power to lead my children to heaven?” – then we have one mother tigress to thank.

Michele Nuzzo-Naglieri

The Pope's Take On Social Media

Pope Benedict has just released his message for the 45th World Day of Social Communications.  In a letter titled "Truth, Proclamation and Authenticity of Life in the Digital Age," the pope addressed changes in our ways of communicating with one another that are as momentous in their effects, in his view, as the Industrial Revolution.

His message was an exhortation to stay grounded in our Catholic identity and call to love our neighbor, even while suspended in the artificial cyberspace of the digital age where everyone, and no one, is your neighbor.

The pope is not a stranger to the digital arena. Though he writes long-hand and is not a regular computer user, he has explored the web, and the papacy’s communications efforts include a YouTube channel, as well as Facebook.

The pope, however, did not sugar coat the dangers and pitfalls of living more online than in personal interaction with others. He warned that even if we accumulate hundreds of  online “friends” through MySpace, Facebook or other platforms, we always run the risk of then forgetting who our “neighbor” is: those people whom we encounter in our actual lives that the Gospel commands us to love and care for as Christ did:

This is a great opportunity, but it also requires greater attention to and awareness of possible risks. Who is my "neighbor" in this new world? Does the danger exist that we may be less present to those whom we encounter in our everyday life? Is there is a risk of being more distracted because our attention is fragmented and absorbed in a world "other" than the one in which we live? Do we have time to reflect critically on our choices and to foster human relationships which are truly deep and lasting? It is important always to remember that virtual contact cannot and must not take the place of direct human contact with people at every level of our lives.

The pope also admonished that so-called “likes”, numbers of clicks and followers, and general popularity, do not necessarily correlate with truth. “We must be aware that the truth which we long to share does not derive its worth from its "popularity" or from the amount of attention it receives. We must make it known in its integrity, instead of seeking to make it acceptable or diluting it. It must become daily nourishment and not a fleeting attraction.” 

We must make sure that the Gospel is influencing the web, and not the other way around. In the fast and loose online world, the Gospel must be handled with reverence and deliberation. As the pope noted, “the truth of the Gospel is not something to be consumed or used superficially; rather it is a gift that calls for a free response.”

The most important take-away from the pope’s message went to the very heart of what social networks and their popularity are truly signaling: “In the final analysis, the truth of Christ is the full and authentic response to that human desire for relationship, communion and meaning which is reflected in the immense popularity of social networks.”

In essence, the exploding popularity of social media reflects a yearning for meaning and personal connection that the Church must be particularly attuned and responsive to if it is to truly live its mission. Catholics, lay and religious, can’t ignore it and hope to remain effective and engaged as communicators of the Gospel. The challenge is to use it as an effective tool, while remembering that it is in fact a tool in service of authentic human interaction, and never a substitute for it. 

- Paul Ciarcia

Coming Soon: 'The Rite'

The buzz is starting to build for “The Rite,” a new contribution to the exorcism film genre, which stars Anthony Hopkins and opens at a theatre near you on January 28. The film is loosely based on Matt Baglio’s 2009 book The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist, a factual work that profiled Father Gary Thomas, an American priest who travels to Rome in order to study the Church’s rite of exorcism in a newly formed “school for exorcists.” Exorcism and the devil have long fascinated Hollywood. From the 1970s box office smash “The Exorcist” to more recent commercial successes such as “The Exorcism of Emily Rose,” moviegoers have made it clear that portrayals of demonic possession make for gripping cinema. But do these films capture accurately the rare, yet all too real, phenomenon of exorcism?

A recent CNS article examined that question in a piece detailing the burgeoning public interest in the devil and possession. The article featured an interview with Fr. John Horgan, a leading scholar on exorcisms who served as a consultant to the 2005 movie "The Exorcism of Emily Rose.” Horgan warned that Hollywood depictions of exorcisms are oftentimes over the top interpretations. He cautioned that "being chained and tied up has nothing to do with the Catholic rite of exorcism. Ours is very sober, reverent.”

Judging from trailers for “The Rite,” fans of horror films are unlikely to be disappointed. In an appearance on “Live with Regis and Kelly,” Anthony Hopkins said the film was scarier than “Silence of the Lambs," the hair-raising 1991 Oscar-winner in which Hopkins delivered an unnerving but virtuoso performance as the serial killer Dr. Hannibal Lecter. "It's a really scary movie," Hopkins said.  "It's not a gory movie, but it's psychologically more scary than ‘Silence of the Lambs.’"
In “The Rite,” Hopkins plays Fr. Lukas, an unconventional priest and exorcist who takes on a skeptical seminary student to serve as his apprentice. Viewers intrigued by the film’s subject matter may want to ignore any Hollywood excesses. Still, there are already voices praising the film’s depiction of the priesthood and the faith. 

Father Gary Thomas, who inspired the apprentice character in the film and who served as an on-set adviser during the film’s production, told Catholic News Agency that “The Rite” is a witness to the power of faith. “The human side of the priesthood is very well developed,” he said, adding that the portrayal of “the institutional Church comes out very positively.”

Over the next few weeks millions of movie-goers will flock to see “The Rite.” While exorcism films may not be ideal sources for evangelization, who’s to deny the potential for God to work in the heart of an individual, even through a psychological thriller. Look no further than Matt Baglio himself. Before setting out to work on “The Rite,” Baglio was a self-described fallen-away Catholic. However, delving into the history and theology of demonic possession actually served to rekindle his faith. In an interview with Salt and Light TV in 2009, he recounted his experience:

I think for me this experience was edifying and helped me to restore my faith. Not so much because I was thinking about demons, but because I was able to meet some incredible people such a Gary. Also getting into the theology and finding the roots of exorcism and reading some of the great minds that were in the church. It was absolutely a very edifying and moving experience to reconnect to that side of the church.

In his classic work “The Screwtape Letters,” C.S. Lewis makes an interesting observation about the devil. He wrote, “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devil. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.” Films like “The Rite”, inasmuch as they remind us of the reality of evil, can play a role in reinforcing our knowledge of Satan and all his works. However, an obsession with the cartoonish violence and gross exaggerations that have become part and parcel of exorcism films should be a warning that one has violated C.S. Lewis’s wise counsel. 

- David Naglieri 
 

Walking with Mary on the March for Life

Just as Our Lady of Guadalupe stepped into a culture of death in 16th century Mexico, so now she guides our steps as we confront a culture of death in 21st century America. A culture of death is a culture that has lost its hope, its vision for the future. The pro-life movement, by contrast, is young, alive, forward-looking. Ever the Mother of Christ who is our Hope, Mary helps us not only to engage in the necessary political action that is our right as citizens but also to bear witness by word and deed to a message of hope, the message that no human being is an accident, for as Pope Benedict proclaimed, no one of us ‘some casual and meaningless product of evolution… each of us is the result of a thought of God…each of us is willed, each of is loved, each of us is necessary’ (Benedict XVI, Inaugural Homily).

… Walking with Mary we bear witness to the Gospel of Life not only by what we say but also by the love we show for unborn children and their expectant mothers, for the poor, the needy, the stranger and the outcast, for the frail elderly and the handicapped – all whose lives are threatened. Joined to Mary, the Mother of the Living, Our Lady of Guadalupe, and sustained by the prayers of Pope John Paul the Great, and united to Pope Benedict XVI, may we indeed be messengers of love and builders of a culture of life!

-- Archbishop William Lori of Bridgeport
Homily at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception
Jan. 24, 2011
March for Life

Abortion in the news

This Saturday marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and the following Monday, of course, will see hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers from across the country converge on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Every year, the scene of the massive crowd is peaceful, prayerful and – most striking of all – youthful, as even abortion advocates have been unable to ignore.
 
This year's March for Life takes place in the context of several recent events – some heavily publicized, others barely noted by mainstream media – that reflect how abortion is discussed in our national conversation.

For one, the horrific case of Kermit Gosnell  shocked the country this week when  the Philadelphia abortion provider was charged with seven counts of murder, two counts of infanticide, 33 counts of performing illegal late-term abortions and several more criminal and health violations. Notable in the litany of charges was the death of a young woman who sought out Gosnell for a late-term abortion and went into cardiopulmonary arrest after he prescribed an overdose of medication.

Pro-lifers and abortion advocates alike expressed their outrage over Gosnell's actions and negligence, though the latter have been quick to distance themselves by proclaiming that what Gosnell practiced (including the delivery of live, viable infants before severing their spinal cords at the neck with a pair of scissors) was not, in fact, abortion, and that for the sake of women's safety, late-term abortions should still be kept legal and accessible across the nation.

Yet that argument overlooks the very reason why Gosnell's actions elicit such a visceral reaction, regardless of one's views on abortion. We know, at a gut level, that Gosnell was doing something horribly wrong – not just because he was a surgeon with "bad technique," as TIME magazine so underwhelmingly puts it, and not just because he treated his patients like the waste that filled his filthy clinic – but because he undeniably slaughtered defenseless babies.

"There is a very clear line, and Gosnell crossed it," one pro-abortion blogger wrote.

Yet just where, to abortion supporters, is that line drawn? Recent polling has found that more than eight in 10 Americans favor much tougher restrictions on abortion – up to making the procedure illegal past the first trimester. Only a slim percentage – six percent – wish to see abortion available at all stages of pregnancy, completely unrestricted.

The case of Kermit Gosnell brings America face to face with the reality of the victims of abortion – both women and children.  Those who will march in Washington next week will witness to that.

Much less publicized than the Gosnell case is the story of another former worker in the abortion industry, Abby Johnson, who less than two years ago was a Planned Parenthood clinic director in Bryan/College Station, Texas.  Johnson, who left her post after witnessing an ultrasound-guided abortion, recently released a book entitled "Unplanned: The dramatic true story of a former Planned Parenthood leader's eye-opening across the life line." In it, she details the profit-oriented atmosphere at the clinic where she worked, as well as the powerful impact of a peaceful, compassionate pro-life witness. Johnson, who will be accepted into the Catholic Church this year, is a speaker at this weekend's Walk for Life West Coast in San Francisco.

Finally, the issue of federal funding for abortion is once again taking the national stage, with the House of Representatives pushing forward the No Tax-Payer Funding for Abortion Act in what House Speaker John Boehner says is a top priority in the legislative year. If passed, the bill would codify the Hyde Amendment, which currently bans the federal funding of most abortions but must be renewed every year. As New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith – the bill's main sponsor – has pointed out, two-thirds of taxpayers oppose the public funding of abortion. You can bet this issue will be at the forefront of pro-lifers' minds when they seek out their representatives this Monday in D.C.

Perhaps it's fitting that the miracle attributed to Pope John Paul II – opening the door for his beatification this May – involved the healing of a French nun whose religious order is dedicated to the care of pregnant women.

This is, after all, the pope who challenged our nation with the following:

The best traditions of your land presume respect for those who cannot defend themselves. If you want equal justice for all, and true freedom and lasting peace, then, America, defend life! All the great causes that are yours today will have meaning only to the extent that you guarantee the right to life and protect the human person.

On this weekend's anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and the March for Life to follow in Washington, D.C., let us invoke the prayers of the soon-to-be Blessed John Paul II – that our faithful, loving witness to the dignity of life will convert hearts and bring change to our nation.

Elizabeth Hansen

Sargent and Eunice Shriver; the American Vaniers?

As a young Catholic who considered service in the Peace Corps before settling on a different volunteer path, I was moved and again inspired upon reading the countless obituaries this week on the life of Sargent Shriver. No matter the publication, no one could leave out Shriver's dedication to his Catholic faith, which in turn paved the path of his public life. Likewise, another inseparable element of that life was his wife, the late Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who shared both his faith and cherished vision for a world built on upholding the dignity of all people.

Of all the obits, I was most struck by Father Raymond DeSouza’s in the National Post. Father DeSouza quoted Shriver’s biographer Scott Stossel, who once wrote: “Sarge regards serving Eunice and serving God; Eunice regards Sarge as her spiritual and intellectual anchor. Theirs is a formidable marriage.”

Father DeSouza also paraphrased Shriver’s former speechwriter and friend, Colman McCarthy, “who has suggested that one day Sargent and Eunice Shriver will be canonized as saints. It’s the right category to consider his legacy, for the true platform of Shriver’s life was the Gospel.”

He emphasized how Shriver lived his life as God intended:

A faithful husband and devoted father, he applied his considerable talent and influence on behalf of the weak and the poor. He knew the glamour of the spotlight, but worked for those in the shadows.

It was then that it struck me how the life of this high-profile Catholic duo, this “power couple” par excellence, deeply paralleled that of another married couple just north of the border -- a couple who is, in fact, on the path to sainthood.

“Soldier, diplomat, vice-regal representative-- and probable saint,” is how Father DeSouza (in a much older column) described the late Georges Philias Vanier, governor-general of Canada from 1959 to 1967.
To quickly recap a long and impressive history (with a little help from Wikipedia), Vanier was born in Quebec, earned a law degree and went on to serve in the Canadian army during WWI. On the battlefields he was severely wounded and lost a limb, but was commended for his actions with a number of decorations from the King. He remained active in the military, commanding troops on the home front until 1945.

Following the fall of Vichy France in 1944, Vanier was posted as Canada's first ambassador to France. While serving in that role, he toured the just-liberated Buchenwald concentration camp and, on a return trip to Canada, delivered a speech expressing his shame over Canada's inaction. Back in Paris, he and his wife Pauline continued to help the refugees who arrived at the embassy, arranging for them food and temporary shelter. The couple, with the assistance of numerous others, eventually pushed the government of Canada to revise the regulations of immigration, and more than 186,000 European refugees settled in Canada between 1947 and 1953. In 1959, he was appointed governor general of Canada, a post he occupied until his death in 1967.

As soon as Vanier took residence in Ottawa as governor general, he asked that a bilingual sign be placed at the main gates of the residence and that a chapel be constructed on the property, two requests that reflected Vanier's driving forces: religion and unity. An ardent defender of the peaceful co-habitation of Anglophone and Francophone Canadians, Vanier was also known for his piety and love of humanity, his wife becoming one of the first Companions of the Order of Canada for her outstanding humanitarian work.

Father DeSouza wrote:

Both Georges and his wife Pauline were devout Catholics, devoting considerable time to prayer and spiritual reading, attending daily Mass in the little chapel they had built at Rideau Hall. [Georges] spoke with great ease about his Christian faith, a witness that the worlds of religion and public service are deeply compatible and, indeed, need each other. His son Jean Vanier founded the L'Arche movement, an international organization of homes for people with intellectual disabilities. After Georges's death in 1967, Pauline declined to become a society matron in Montreal and moved instead to the L'Arche community in France to live with her son, caring for the mentally disabled for the last twenty years of her life.

Some interesting parallels between both lives include Sargent’s pursuit of a Yale law degree as well as his World War II service as a U.S. Navy officer overseas. Similar to Vanier, Shriver was awarded a Purple Heart for shrapnel wounds he received during the bombardment of Guadalcanal.

In 1963, Shriver accepted President Lyndon Johnson's offer to administer the Office of Economic Opportunity, and he became known as the architect of the administration's war on poverty. Shriver later accepted the post of ambassador to France, from 1968 to 1970.

As summarized by CNS:

In addition to creating the Peace Corps, Shriver founded many social programs and organizations, including Head Start, VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action, Upward Bound, Foster Grandparents, Special Olympics (with his wife), Legal Services, the National Clearinghouse for Legal Services (now the Shriver Center), Indian and Migrant Opportunities, and Neighborhood Health Services.

In an interview with Headline Bistro contributor David Naglieri, Tim Shriver, son of the late Sargent Shriver, shared some reflections on the life of his parents:

Anybody you think doesn’t count, counts. That’s the Catholic message to me. I think my parents understood that at a very fundamental level… both of them, brought the idea of human dignity from their religious tradition ... into social and political life ... and we’re ready to fight for it.

It’s hard to ignore the similarities between the life paths and visions of these two couples. A commitment to unity and dignity stand out as the two principles which they embodied and tirelessly promoted in their respective countries. And at the center (or “centre”) of it all was an undeniable dedication to living the Gospel out loud.

 I remember proudly gazing at the stained glass reproduction of the Vaniers at the Toronto Newman Center chapel. Now, America can also boast such a remarkable couple of their own – one whose legacy should become, for all, an individual duty to carry forward.

Michèle Nuzzo-Naglieri

50 Years Later: JFK's Inaugural Address

Tomorrow, Jan. 20, will mark the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address. Its timeless, oft-quoted lines make it remembered to this day as one of the most powerful and influential speeches of any U.S. president, or any figure, of the 20th century.

Kennedy’s speech focused on the challenges the country faced at the time – and some it continues to face today. Some words were provocative: “Let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house”; while some were conciliatory: “Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.” There were also Biblical allusions, with Kennedy offering an olive branch to the nation’s adversaries: “Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah—to ‘undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free.’” 

In sweeping terms, he asked the American people to make the nation’s challenges their own. He discussed world poverty, the scourge of Communism, nuclear deterrence as well as arms control, the need for international cooperation as well as national self-determination, and how freedom is a universal human desire and right.

As one of a series of reflections offered to Columbia magazine, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver aptly summed up the speech’s lasting influence:

After so many years and so much history, John F. Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address can be hard to read. It's too pure, too strong in its simplicity, and too moving — especially for those of us who actually heard it delivered as young adults and believed in its promise. Kennedy gave one of the great speeches of American public rhetoric — maybe the greatest since Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. His words, at the same time forceful and elegant, distilled the best of the American spirit — and Kennedy clearly embodied those words.

Then there’s the recollection of Ray Flynn, a former member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, mayor of Boston and ambassador to the Holy See. Flynn, who is also a Knight of Columbus remembers his impression of Kennedy’s address, which he experienced as a student at Providence College.

“During that historic evening, we listened to President Kennedy's moving and eloquent address on television. He challenged and inspired us to give, not just take — to ask ourselves what we can do for our country and for the cause of freedom,” Flynn said. “These were among the most important words of advice that my generation ever heard.”

You can read the rest of the reflections on Kennedy’s words from the December issue of Columbia.

To commemorate the historic anniversary of the first Catholic president of the United States, the Knights of Columbus has just announced the results of a survey conducted with the Marist Institute to discover how Kennedy’s words and message still resonate with the American people.

The poll captures a cross-section of sentiments from across the generations, from the Millennials (aged 18 to 29), Generation X, the Baby Boomer Generation, and the Greatest Generation.

During a time when political disagreements seem to occupy the lion’s share of media attention, it is helpful to reconsider the stated ideals of a leader who seemed to embody a patriotic consensus in a period of profound national trial.

Across all age groups polled, and even among those who are decades removed from the historic speech in 1961, Kennedy’s words continue to hold profound meaning. It should come as no surprise that approximately three-quarters of Americans considered Kennedy’s call to “ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country” as highly important.

The survey also finds that Americans rate highly the president's affirmation that “the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”

It is interesting to note that strong majorities in all age brackets would rate Kennedy as one of the country’s best presidents. Among Millennials, 82 percent consider him in the top echelon.

Kennedy, like all great leaders, was far from perfect, and also struggled with his own personal demons. The Knights of Columbus-Marist poll confirms, however, that today, as in January of 1961, his historic address has lasting meaning and continues to exemplify the very best of what it means to be an American.

- Paul Ciarcia

 

An eye on human rights

President Hu Jintao of China arrives in Washington on Wednesday for a highly anticipated meeting with President Barack Obama. Hu’s visit, which highlights the contentious but increasingly important relationship between the United States and China, will be the focus of attention around the world. Perhaps the most concerned observers will be Tibetans, the Uyghur ethnic group, Taiwan and democracy advocates, and members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement – all members of groups brutally repressed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Activists are hoping the Obama administration will follow through with its stated intentions to raise the politically sensitive issue of human rights abuses in China.

This week’s meeting between Hu and Obama comes amidst a series of growing disagreements between the two global superpowers.  The U.S. is angry about allegations that China deliberately manipulates the value of its currency to gain an artificial advantage for its exports, as well as Beijing's disregard for U.S. policy regarding the nuclear proliferation problems that Iran and North Korea pose. U.S. leaders are also wary of Chinese territorial ambitions in both the East China Sea and the South China Sea, and a lack of transparency as China rapidly builds up its military. 

Because of the strategic importance of China on the world stage, the Obama administration has taken a nuanced stand in the past with regard to human rights. In 2009, at the nadir of the global economic downturn, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton travelled to China and made it clear to the CCP that human rights was a secondary issue for the United States. Clinton reasoned, “We have to continue to press them but our pressing on those issues can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises.”

Fortunately, that attitude appears to be changing.

Last Friday Clinton delivered a major speech on U.S.-China relations in which she publicly prodded Chinese authorities to embrace human rights. She suggested that by doing so China, would be pursuing “the long-term peace, stability, and prosperity of China.”  She cited examples of this, such as the role of an impartial judicial system and the rule of law to ensure private property and guarantee the security of investors.

Clinton’s speech was widely hailed as an important preview of Obama’s message for President Hu Jintao that will be delivered this week. Last week he met privately with five advocates for human rights in China – an important step to thoroughly understand the human rights problems in China prior to this week’s encounter.
 
President Obama’s tougher stance on human rights abuses was also on display in his September address to the U.N. General Assembly. There, he emphasized the centrality of human rights in U.S. foreign policy and said economic growth cannot come at the expense of freedom. While China was not mentioned by name, the implication was clear.

This week a report issued by Human Rights Watch indicated that China’s human rights abuses are a continuing problem. The report cited the use of torture, illegal detention, censorship and other offenses. Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch, called for Obama to "lay down a marker" in his conversations with Hu:

This is the first time in several decades that we have seen a great power that stands for and promotes an alternative vision of how states should relate to their people, and that poses a threat not just to political dissidents inside China but to a whole set of values and norms that underpin the international system the United States helped build.

Senior administration officials say Obama intends to both publicly and privately call for expanded civil liberties in China. However, one staffer told the Washington Post, "The president's style in talking about human rights is different than others have used. His convictions come through strongly, but he is not interested in hectoring or lecturing or embarrassing them. He's interested in affecting how people think."

When Obama sits down with Jintao at the White House, it will mark the first time the president of the United States hosts a head of state who is currently holding a Nobel Peace Prize laureate in prison. Will he be the first president to let that blight go unnoticed?

David Naglieri