HeadlineBistro

Quote of the day

"The focus of the world is no longer specifically on Jewish- Christian amity. We must, for so many reasons, involve the third of our Abrahamic siblings... Islam."

 -- Rabbi Richard Marker, chairman of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultation, on the need to extend interreligious dialogue to Muslims

Elizabeth Hansen

Jindal and Gingrich Agree: America is Threatened by Secularism

Two leading figures in the Republican Party, who also happen to be converts to the Catholic faith, are making headlines with their comments on the secularization of US society. Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana and Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker who is contemplating a 2012 presidential bid—are both seen as powerful voices in the current debates over faith, politics and the future of America. 

In a profile appearing in the Sunday edition of the New York Times, Gingrich is portrayed as a pundit eager to inject faith into his frequent appearances at conservative venues. Having recently produced, along with his wife Callista, a documentary film on Pope John Paul II’s role in the fall of Communism, Gingrich sees similarities between the Soviet attempts to separate Polish Catholics from the faith of their forefathers and modern efforts to strip US culture from its religious roots. In an address to an Ohio Right to Life banquet, he did not mince his words, saying:

“To a surprising degree, we are in a situation similar to Poland’s in 1979. In America, religious belief is being challenged by a cultural elite trying to create a secularized America, in which God is driven out of public life.”

Bobby Jindal echoed a similar theme in an interview with Christianity Today. However, he said fighting the forces of secularism is ultimately the responsibility of families.

“There are ways the government can create a more receptive environment in the public square. We can make sure our kids are educated in the foundations of Western civilization. But the primary responsibility shouldn't be on our government's shoulders, but on our shoulders as parents and Christians to make sure we're teaching our children foundational values."

Concern over the spread of secularism is nothing new. That leading voices are speaking this forcefully, and gaining traction, can only assist in efforts to restore sacrosanct teachings on human life and the dignity of marriage. 

--David Naglieri

Putting aside childish things

Kay S. Hymowitz, writing for The Wall Street Journal, asks an important question: “Where Have The Good Men Gone?” Hymowitz describes a state of extended adolescence, or “pre-adulthood,” among young men. Whereas many men of earlier generations had achieved the milestones of adulthood – such as financial independence, marriage, and fatherhood – in their twenties, Hymowitz contends that today “most men in their 20s hang out in a novel sort of limbo, a hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance.” 

These observations are far from new. Many social commentators have offered similarly sweeping generalizations and overly simplistic analyses of the men of the Millennial, or Gen. Y, generation. Ultimately, the conversation shifts to the battle of the sexes, with women declared the victors. As Hymowitz notes, 

What also makes pre-adulthood something new is its radical reversal of the sexual hierarchy. Among pre-adults, women are the first sex. They graduate from college in greater numbers (among Americans ages 25 to 34, 34% of women now have a bachelor’s degree but just 27% of men), and they have higher GPAs. As most professors tell it, they also have more confidence and drive. These strengths carry women through their 20s, when they are more likely than men to be in grad school and making strides in the workplace. In a number of cities, they are even out-earning their brothers and boyfriends.

Hymowitz makes the familiar argument that the rise of women has displaced men from the workplace and caused confusion about gender roles – a sentiment evidenced by the title of her new book, Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys. She continues,

It’s been an almost universal rule of civilization that girls became women simply by reaching physical maturity, but boys had to pass a test. They needed to demonstrate courage, physical prowess or mastery of the necessary skills. The goal was to prove their competence as protectors and providers. Today, however, with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles – fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity – are obsolete, even a little embarrassing.

“Husbands and fathers are now optional”? Virtues are “obsolete, even a little embarrassing”? This sort of thinking is at the root of the problem, not the ascendancy of women in the workplace.

Let us be clear. Husbands and fathers are not optional, if the desired outcome is the healthy development of children. There are numerous studies that link father absence to poor academic performance, failure to graduate from high school, drug and alcohol abuse, serious delinquency and incarceration.

There is additional research that suggests that extended adolescence is derived from the absence of positive male role models. In Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men (Harper, 2008), Professor Michael Kimmel observes that in the absence of a father or positive male role model, young men turn to their peers for social affirmation and an example of masculine behavior. In this search for true manhood, the blind lead the blind. Often, this quest for peer affirmation is expressed through destructive behaviors like binge drinking, violent hazing, and the sexual exploitation of women. Young men in this stage of development are styled as “guys” – they are “males who are not boys or men but something in between.”

The battle of the sexes is not a zero-sum conflict. Most men aren’t keeping score, anyway. The social dysfunction of young men, as expressed in extended adolescence, is not a consequence of the academic and economic success of young women. This is a red herring.

The current crisis of masculinity is due to an absence of virtue. Young men need male role models and mentors who can set high standards and hold them accountable. “Guys” are able to persist in a self-centered, irresponsible lifestyle because their parents, friends and co-workers tolerate and enable the behavior. Parents need to expect maturity and self-reliance from their sons. Women need to challenge the “guys” in their lives to be better men.

We may ask “Where have the good men gone?” A better question is “What can we do to help the ‘guys’ in our lives become the men God is calling them to be?”

-- Michael Brewer

Of Gods and Men: Christ in the Atlas Mountains

Of Gods and Men" opens today in New York and Washington, D.C., with more theater openings planned across the country next month. The film -- which took the second place Grand Prix award at last year's Cannes Film Festival -- tells the true story of a community of Cistercian monks caught in the grip of Algeria's violent civil war in the 1990s.

Here's the trailer -- it's hauntingly beautiful.

A review in yesterday's New York Times is well worth the read. And after explaining the monks' situation -- risk death and stay with the village it has ministered to (and indeed, become part of) for over a century, or follow the advice of authorities to flee -- it also subtly reveals our culture's modern reaction to the premise of faith so imbued in men's souls. The review notes:

The monks are clearly risking their lives — as nocturnal visits from armed militants make clear — but martyrdom is not part of the Cistercian creed. What motivates Christian and the others is rather an almost fanatical humanism, strict adherence to an idea of compassion that leads Luc to treat a wounded jihadist and Christian to pray for the soul of a murderer and to pre-emptively forgive his own likely assassins.

[The film's director,] Mr. Beauvois, an actor who has directed and written a handful of features, is clearly fascinated by the radicalism of the monks, an expression of religious zeal whose extremism lies in its insistence on preserving peace and dignity in all circumstances. But though his sympathy for the Trappists is evident, the film does not treat them as saints, or as mouthpieces for any particular theology. Rather, “Of Gods and Men” works to balance the two terms of its title and treats the relationship between them as a grave and complex mystery.

The theme may be piety, but Mr. Beauvois and his cast do not address it piously. ...

Fanatical humanism? My guess is that the real-life Brother Christian -- the prior of the monastery -- would say he and his brother monks were merely living out Christ's call to love and forgive their enemies, albeit under drastic circumstances. Their willingness to continue their Christian witness in the midst of war, and even to pray for their future murderers, is not the result of rigid fundamentalism, religious "extremism," or "strict adherence to an idea of compassion."

Rather, their actions spring out of a life dedicated to and centered on Christ -- Love incarnate, whose example of suffering, compassion and sacrifice has sustained their quiet, simple life of prayer all these years.

This idea is expressed in the opening of Pope Benedict XVI's first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est -- God is Love.

"We have come to believe in God's love: in these words the Christian can express the fundamental decision of his life," he wrote. "Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction."

In the trailer, we see one monk take another by the shoulders in a gesture of brotherly affirmation and encouragement: "Love endures everything," he tells the other -- and we see a glimpse of that "new horizon" towards which the monks have set their course.

"Of Gods and Men" won't win an Oscar -- it wasn't even nominated. Yet the New York Times has a point: heroic Christian virtue, even when hidden in a monastery in the Atlas mountains, is radical, beautiful and inescabably compelling...with or without an Academy Award.

Elizabeth Hansen

 

Friday's Rule

"All Guests who present themselves are to be welcomed as Christ, for he himself will say: I was a stranger and you welcomed me (Mt 25:35).  Proper honor must be shown to all, specially to those who share our faith (Gal 6:10) and to pilgrims....Great care and concern are to be shown in receiving poor people and pilgrims, because in them more particularly Christ is received; our very awe of the rich guarantees them special respect."  (RB 53.1-15)

Benedictines are known for their hospitality, and this passage is what animates it. 

It's also important to consider what the term "guest" means here.  St. Benedict is not referring simply to expected, invited guests coming for the weekend or for your Oscar watch parties, but rather those that "present" themselves who, in St. Benedict's time,  may likely have been travelers or "pilgrims" passing by monasteries on their journies.  The expectation that the monks welcome both friends and strangers alike as Christ poses an interesting challenge to us and our reception of guests.

How do we welcome those strangers who present themselves in our life.  Certainly no stranger - at least I hope - is knocking on our doors asking for lodging or for food, but strangers, or maybe even unexpected friends in unexpected ways, will knock on the door of our lives from time to time seeking shelter, seeking comfort, seeking compassion.  How will we answer?  As if they are a nuisance?  As if they are an inconvenience?  Will we ignore the knock altogether?  Or will we welcome them in to join us and share all that we have as if they were Christ Himself?

~ Matt St. John

A priest in Mosul responds

Last week I wondered what Christians in Mosul would have to say about remarks by Iraq's ambassador to the Holy See that Western media is exaggerating -- or, at the least, taking out of context -- the plight of Christians in the war-torn country.

This week, the Catholic News Agency provides an answer in an interview with Father Firas Benoka, who ministers to Syro-Catholics in this hotspot of violent persecution of Iraqi Christians.

“Amid all this should the world have been silent? Should such a miserable and humiliating position be tolerated?" Father Benoka asked. “The mass media have not exaggerated in their judgment of the situation. ... Actually, they have missed many of the injustices that continually take place in the villages of Christian majority populations.”

He also scoffed at the ambassador's assertion that Christians enjoyed equal rights under Iraq's Constitution, as well as special protection because of their minority status -- recognizing Islam as the state religion, Father Benoka argued, creates "the biggest obstacle to religious freedom of all the non-Muslim religions.”

It's worth the read for the other side of the story.

Elizabeth Hansen

 

Hollywood Goes to Confession 2: Pope Benedict & Oscar nominee "The Confession" (2011)

Between The Da Vinci Code and the upcoming vampire sci-fi The Priest, Catholics know that how the faith is portrayed matters more than the mere number of Roman collars in a film.

So how Catholic is Oscar nominee The Confession?

I think Pope Benedict gave us a good guide for evaluating The Confession last year:

“Even though it is necessary to speak out strongly against the evils that threaten us, we must correct the idea that Catholicism is merely ‘a collection of prohibitions.’ Sound catechesis and careful ‘formation of the heart’ are needed here.”

With that in mind, here's my take:

Sacramental accuracy: A-

For the most part, The Confession keeps true to the ritual of confession, and additionally expresses—albeit morosely alla Baltimore Catechism—facts like God’s omniscience and the need to confess all your sins. 

But beyond ritual accuracy, The Confession’s brings to life the reality experienced by millions of Catholics: confession as a powerful and desirable answer to our need for forgiveness and healing. And poignantly, the priest's role in confession is made more profound, precisely because those who are wronged are unable to forgive.

This alone sets it leagues above the last short film by the same name, The Confession (2008) by Thomas Hefferon; in that film, the priest takes names and even banns a boy from attending Mass—merely as penance. (Just a few problems there).

At times, however, artistic license does obscure accuracy by not telling “the whole truth.” Some doubts and half-truths expressed by the boys are not corrected. E.g. their fear that the priest would tell their sins. (FYI: breaking the seal of confession by a priest is one of the few sins that can only be forgiven by the Holy See.)

Unfortunately, too, the boys’ catechesis leans more on “fear of God” than on “love of God.” As a consequence, it risks simply rehashing the stereotype of “fire-and-brimstone” Christianity.

Meaning of the Confession Scene: B+

When Sam’s first confession finally arrives, Toom nails a difficult combination: the fear of confessing, and the enormous desire for reconciliation.

Of course, some reviewers only see it as “the early onset of Catholic guilt.” But aside from the Catholic lingo, there is nothing specifically “Catholic” about the remorse the boys feel. Few adults—Catholic or not—would feel guilt-free if they caused the death of a young family or or of a friend.

The difference is that Catholics have a place to take this, and be healed after spiritual injury. Toom gets the audience begging for it to come.  

Plot and Believability: B

To put it mildly—the initial premise of the movie is preposterous.

I doubt any child approaching first confession plans to sin, just to have something worthy of confessing—even though one reviewer left "with questions about what faith can lead people to do.”

But that "preposterous" beginning only makes the rest of the movie stronger.

It’s a movie about technically reaching  “the age of reason”— when a child is considered able to make first confession and first communion—but still struggling with making reasonable decisions about right and wrong.

What is believable—and riveting—is the boys’ actions after the prank morphs into tragedy and coverup.

The Take Away: B+

Don't expect The Bells of St. Mary's. But if you want something thoughtful, go see it.

Judging by his other movie, "The Second Coming" (2008), director Toom likes to examine flawed, or irrational faith. The Confession both appreciates Catholicism (its sacraments, faith, and symbolism), and also challenges Catholics.

Because, in the end, the real tragedy doesn’t come from “Catholic guilt” or what Catholics do. 

In the end, the boys’ fears and decisions come from something much more damning: silence, and what the Catholics in the film don’t do.

It about a story of two young consciences, undergoing a type of moral bootcamp. Without good training, they jeopardize their sanity, their lives, and their souls in the process.

This is what makes it clever. Ultimately, what begins as a movie about committing a sin worthy of confession, becomes a movie about sins of omission—the moments when not doing anything is the worst thing you can do morally, whether it is not helping car-crash victims, not speaking up about what they witness, and eventually whether to confess or not.

And adults aren't innocent, either: from the chillingly silent family dinner, to the classroom of silent, obedient children who only regurgitate the latest lesson, the failure of constructive and relevant communication is rampant.

So perhaps the characters—and the movie as a whole—would have been stronger if Pope Benedict’s advice about “formation of the heart” were explored.

But overall, the piece brilliantly, beautifully, and thought-provokingly explores the power of Catholic confession through exploring what it means to be human.

-Maureen Walther

"... That Thou Art Mindful of Him"

The IBM supercomputer Watson recently attracted considerable media attention after defeating champions Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter in a Jeopardy! tournament. Jennings humorously recounts his experience in the exhibition match for Slate, in an article titled “My Puny Human Brain.”

In his written response to the final question, Ken Jennings conceded defeat: “I, for one, welcome our new computer overlords.” Consequently, this victory of a computer system over two human contestants has sparked conversation about artificial intelligence and human obsolescence.

Luddite doomsayers have half-jokingly indicated that it is only a matter of time before the machines become self-aware and rise up to annihilate us (à la Skynet in the Terminator series), enslave us (à la V.I.K.I. in the film I, Robot) or use our bodies for bioelectricity (à la The Matrix).

Ben Zimmer, writing for The Atlantic, debunks these hyperbolic assertions in “Is It Time to Welcome Our New Computer Overlords?” The Jeopardy! exhibition match has exploited the “man vs. machine” trope – calling to mind the chess games between Garry Kasparov and Deep Blue, or the folk tale of John Henry and the steam-powered hammer. As Zimmer observes, this approach has been an effective marketing strategy: “It certainly makes for a better storyline than, say, ‘Check out the latest incremental innovations that Natural Language Processing researchers are making in the field of question-answering!’” Ultimately, Zimmer concludes that humans have little to worry about:

We're still dealing with the limited task of question-answering, not anything even vaguely approaching full-fledged comprehension of natural language, with all of its “nuance, slang and metaphor.” If Watson had chuckled at that “computer overlords” jab, then I'd be a little worried.

While we may have little to fear from a robotic uprising, John Markoff, writing for The New York Times in “A Fight to Win the Future: Computers vs. Humans,” predicts far-reaching social and economic change as a result of Watson’s victory. He observes,

I.B.M.’s executives have said they intend to commercialize Watson to provide a new class of question-answering systems in business, education and medicine. The repercussions of such technology are unknown, but it is possible, for example, to envision systems that replace not only human experts, but hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs throughout the economy and around the globe. Virtually any job that now involves answering questions and conducting commercial transactions by telephone will soon be at risk. It is only necessary to consider how quickly A.T.M.’s displaced human bank tellers to have an idea of what could happen.

Referring to statements made by Pattie Maes, a computer scientist at M.I.T., Markoff contends, “Not only do designers face ethical issues… but increasingly as skills that were once exclusively human are simulated by machines, their designers are faced with the challenge of rethinking what it means to be human.”

I am troubled by this statement. The development of new technologies may certainly make some jobs obsolete and lead to economic change, but it is a mistake to suggest that this obvious reality requires “rethinking what it means to be human.” Perhaps Markoff or Maes has a utilitarian worldview, one which assigns value and dignity to the human person based on his contribution to the economy – in other words, each of us is merely a cog in the works of a great social machine. If one’s definition of “what it means to be human” is so pitifully limited, then it definitely merits reconsideration.

Human beings are relational, not merely transactional. To fully understand what it means to be human, one must appreciate that human beings are creatures, made in the image and likeness of a Creator. This revelation is the basis of human dignity.

While computers may be able to simulate the skills of people with dazzling efficiency – to wit, consider the calculator – they will never be able to replace human beings. They may displace people from certain jobs or transactional roles, but they can never replace them. As the confused understanding of human nature articulated by Markoff attests, we don’t know or understand enough about ourselves to be able to engineer a suitable replacement.

-- Michael Brewer

Paging the Doctors, Week Four

Earlier today, Pope Benedict continued his series on the Doctors of the Church, speaking about Saint Robert Bellarmine in his weekly audience.

The late 16th/early 17th century Italian Cardinal and Jesuit theologian wrote a brief catechism and defended Catholic theology against protestant criticisms and challenges.

Towards the end of his life, St. Bellarmine, wrote several spiritual works, Ignatian in spirit, which emphasize "meditation on the mysteries of Christ and the loving imitation of the Lord."

Closing his English-speaking message, the Holy Father challenged the faithful to learn from St. Bellarmine's example, saying: "May the example of Saint Robert Bellarmine inspire us to integrate our work and our pursuit of Christian holiness, to grow in closeness to God through prayer, and to contribute to the Church’s renewal through our own inner conversion to the Lord and the truth of his word."

The Holy Father also addressed the earthquake in New Zealand, saying:

"A new and powerful earthquake, even more devastating than the one last September, has struck the city of Christchurch, in New Zealand, causing considerable loss of life and the disappearance of many people, to say nothing of the damage to buildings. At this time, my thoughts turn especially to the people there who are being severely tested by this tragedy. Let us ask God to relieve their suffering and to support all who are involved in the rescue operations."

St. Robert Bellarmine, pray for us.

~ Matt St. John

Death of Dr. Bernard Nathanson Reminds Faithful of the Power of Forgiveness

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the prominent New York physician who played a key role in the crusade to legalize abortion only to later experience a change of heart and become a passionate pro-life leader died on Monday.

For many, Nathanson’s life will be viewed strictly through the lens of his involvement in the cultural debate over abortion.  However, his story of conversion to the Catholic faith offers a powerful testimony that should not be lost amidst the focus on his long and storied career on both sides of the abortion divide.

I first began to piece together the story of Nathanson’s conversion when I read Karl Stern’s The Pillar of Fire, an autobiography penned by the world renowned psychiatrist and professor at McGill University in Montreal. I was gripped by Stern’s account of growing up as a Jew in Nazi Germany and later discovering peace through his conversion to Catholicism. 

One of Stern’s best students during his years as a prominent professor in Montreal was a brilliant young Jewish-atheist from New York City named Bernard Nathanson. Stern developed a close relationship with this young man and later offered him a prestigious fellowship to continue his studies in psychiatry. However, Nathanson passed on the opportunity and instead pursued specialties in gynecology and obstetrics. Years later Nathanson was one of the founding members of NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws), and as the director of the largest abortion clinic in the United States, he was directly responsible for more than 75,000 abortions.

In the late 1970s, Nathanson was transformed by the advent of new technologies such as ultrasound which confirmed the reality of human life in the womb. He quit the abortion business and went on to become a leader in the pro-life movement. He also thought back to his close friend and mentor Dr. Karl Stern…and picked up a copy of The Pillar of Fire. He read these lines which must have seemed as if they were written directly for him:

“There is only one way: Jesus Christ. If we are concerned with the suffering of those innocent ones, we have first to look at Him. If we are concerned with the Evil which has brought it about, we have first to look to ourselves. Everything else is deception. If I want to renew the world I have to begin right in the depth of my own soul.”

Thus began Nathanson’s spiritual conversion.

On December 8, 1996 Dr. Bernard Nathanson was baptized into the Catholic Church by New York’s John Cardinal O’Connor. One of the guests that day was Chuck Colson, of Watergate fame and, following his own conversion, now a prominent evangelical leader. He penned these eloquent thoughts which capture once again the spiritual forces at work in struggle for human life…and ultimately for human souls:

“This week I saw fresh and powerful evidence that the Savior born 2000 years ago in a stable continues to transform the world. Last Monday I was invited to witness a baptism in a chapel of St. Patrick’s cathedral in New York City. The candidate for baptism was none other than Bernard Nathanson, at one time one of the abortion industry’s greatest leaders, a man who personally presided over some 75,000 abortions, including the abortion of his own child…I watched as Nathanson walked to the altar. What a moment. Just like the first century–a Jewish convert coming forward in the catacombs to meet Christ….I looked at the cross and realized again that what the gospel teaches is true: in Christ is the victory. He has overcome the world, and the gates of hell cannot prevail against His church…And this is the way the abortion war will be won, through Jesus Christ changing hearts, one by one. No amount of political force, no government, no laws, no army of Planned Parenthood workers can ever stop that. It is the one thing that is absolutely invincible…That simple baptism, held without fanfare in the basement of a great Cathedral, is a reminder that a holy Baby, born in a stable 20 centuries ago, defies the wisdom of man. He cannot be defeated.”

 

--David Naglieri