Archive for the America Magazine Category

The Pope’s New Name

Posted in America Magazine, Pope Francis, Uncategorized with tags , , , on April 22, 2013 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

pope-francis_2541160bAt first glance, there are several intuitive and striking similarities between Pope Francis and the saint who inspired his new name. The news coverage of the newly elected pope has focused a lot of attention on these points, including his simple lifestyle and pastoral care of H.I.V./AIDS patients—images that evoke St. Francis’ embrace of the infirm and marginalized of his own day.

Few commentators, however, have delved into some of the more significant and challenging implications of the pope’s choice of the name Francis, motivated by the example of the poverello, the “little poor man,” of Assisi. There are at least three important aspects of the life of St. Francis that are often lost amid romantic depictions of the saint standing in birdbaths or taming wolves. And these underappreciated dimensions of the saint’s legacy could make all the difference in the church of the 21st century.

A Renouncer of Power

Paying attention to St. Francis’ love of poverty is not unwarranted. Indeed, the medieval man from Assisi sought to “follow in the footprints of Christ” in the most authentic way possible. For him this meant that one should, like the poor Christ who proclaimed he had “nowhere to lay his head” in this world (Lk 9:58), dispossess oneself of those material things that inhibit living the Gospel to the fullest.

This did not mean, however, that St. Francis advocated abject poverty. Like Gustavo Gutiérrez, O.P., who in his classic book A Theology of Liberation makes a distinction between abject and evangelical poverty, St. Francis embraced the Gospel virtue as a means to an end, not an end in itself. The means was what St. Francis calledsine proprio, or “living without anything of one’s own,” the vow Franciscans still profess today. The end was unencumbered relationship with God, with others and with the rest of creation.

 At the core of St. Francis’ obsessive focus on evangelical poverty was his renunciation of power. This radical dimension of St. Francis’ way of life is frequently overlooked. Instead there are caricatures of a nature-loving proto-hippie or a gentle, popular preacher. Yet St. Francis’ conviction was grounded in the belief that like Jesus Christ, all human beings are called to be in relationship with their sisters and brothers. This helps explain the distinctive, twofold quality of the newly emergent Franciscan way of life.

On the one hand, St. Francis eschewed the traditional religious cloisters of the monastic religious and the separated lifestyle of the secular clergy of his day. His desire was to remove all barriers between himself and others. On the other hand, St. Francis’ refusal to participate in the emerging market economy and activity of the rising merchant class of medieval Italy reflected his prescient fear of the monetary valuation of goods, labor and even people themselves. He recognized early on what we continue to witness in our own age: women and men treated according to their wealth or social class and status. For this reason he forbade his fellow friars from “receiving coins or money in any form,” insisting they renounce that way of relating to others.

The French medieval historian Jacques Dalarun makes the point, in his book Francis of Assisi and Power, that, “with Francis, there is less of a merely visible break with the world; at the heart of his life there is instead more intransigence toward any compromise with the world and its powers.” Poverty was the most overt sign of St. Francis’ renunciation of power and of all those dehumanizing facets of his time that stood in the way of an unmitigated embrace of others.

A Reformer Who Loved the Church

Some have attempted to paint a picture of St. Francis as a radical reformer and something of a rebel. Others, like Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, have sought to present the poverello as an unwaveringly loyal son of the church. Both views are correct, but neither is complete. St. Francis was a man whose primary loyalty was to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But he also recognized the importance of remaining a loyal member of the church, a point he reiterated frequently in his writings and actions. In his Rule, or way of life, St. Francis explains that “the Rule and Life of the Lesser Brother is this: to observe the Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ by living in obedience, without anything of one’s own, and in chastity.” He then “promises obedience and reverence to our Lord Pope Honorius and his successors canonically elected and to the Roman Church.”

From the very foundation of St. Francis’ community, ecclesiastical approval was sought at the local level (first from the Bishop of Assisi) and at the universal level (from Pope Innocent III in 1209). In the 13th century there were many penitential reform movements, a number of which were eventually denounced as heretical. St. Francis always and explicitly expressed his commitment to the church and never wished to step outside of communion with it.

This did not prevent the saint, however, from performing what might anachronistically be called acts of “ecclesiastical disobedience,” akin to civil protests against unjust laws. The best-known example is St. Francis’ peace mission to Sultan Malik al-Kamil during the Fifth Crusade. Against Pope Innocent III’s instruction for the universal church’s support of the effort and, as some legends suggest, against the explicit instructions of the ecclesiastical representatives on the crusaders’ front line, St. Francis made history by engaging with the Muslim leader in what is remembered as a peaceful and fruitful dialogue.

Continue reading this article at America magazine…

1 Comment »

From Boston to Beyond: The Unspeakable

Posted in America Magazine with tags , , , , on April 16, 2013 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

Boston MarathonThe events on Monday afternoon that have left three dead and more than one-hundred people injured near the finish line of the Boston Marathon are what the Trappist monk Thomas Merton might describe as “The Unspeakable.”

Merton meant several things when he used this term as the title of a collection of essays titled, Raids on the Unspeakable (New Directions, 1966), he was talking about the categorical violence that we recognize in the horrors like those witnessed on Monday in Boston, as well as those more subtle ways in which systems of injustice — often quite subtle and unpronounced in our societies — are perpetuated in silence and unrecognition.

I thought of Merton yesterday because there are times when our encounter with something so terrible and terrifying pushes us to the edges of the effable, leaving us unable to speak. Such experiences of sin and violence in our world are concrete experiences of The Unspeakable. Merton explains in part what he means in Raids on the Unspeakable:

It is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said…It is the emptiness of “the end.” Not necessarily the end of the world, but a theological point of no return, a climax of absolute finality in refusal, in equivocation, in disorder, in absurdity, which can be broken open again to truth only by miracle, by the coming of God…for Christian hope begins where every other hope stands frozen stiff before the face of the Unspeakable (4-5).

What can one say in the face of such scandalous violence in one’s own backyard? I live in Boston and, quite fortunately, was not anywhere near the explosions yesterday afternoon. Yet, the saddened atmosphere of a city that is otherwise transformed by the positive enthusiasm of one of its long-standing and community-building traditions struck me no less. What does one do when encountering an experience that is so Unspeakable?

Like Merton, Cardinal Seán O’Malley, OFM cap, the Archbishop of Boston, encouraged us to turn to the source of true hope. O’Malley wrote in a statement yesterday: “In the midst of the darkness of this tragedy we turn to the light of Jesus Christ, the light that was evident in the lives of people who immediately turned to help those in need today.”

During this Easter Season we continue to celebrate new life in the Risen Christ, life that is greater than death, life that proclaims in the Resurrection that indeed death does not have the last word. There is no justification for the senseless, unspeakable suffering in Boston yesterday, but as a people of faith we turn to God in prayer recognizing that, as Merton reminds us, “Christian hope begins where every other hope stands frozen stiff” in the face of the bombings yesterday.

In addition to prayers for the victims and their families in Boston, my thoughts were led to think about all the thousands of children, women, and men around the world that live in the face of The Unspeakable violence we encountered in the United States yesterday. Marketplaces, buses, houses of worship, schools, and neighborhoods all affected by the terror of violence and fear that we in the United States cannot begin to imagine.

My prayers today go out to those in Boston and those beyond who encounter this sense of the Unspeakble absurdity of suffering and loss, fear and death, terror in the heart of their home.

This was also published at America Magazine.

Photo: Pool

 

4 Comments »

Papal Housing Arrangements that Would Please St. Francis

Posted in America Magazine, The Papal Watcher with tags , , , on March 26, 2013 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

Pope_Francis_in_March_2013

One of the many outbursts that St. Francis is remembered to have exhibited during the early years of the Franciscan Order centered on the Saint’s concern about the stability of the friars. I should point out that this was about the “stability” of housing, not to be confused with one’s “mental stability.”  Although, even during Francis’s lifetime, the pope intervened to impose a “year of probation” or the novitiate on the new Franciscan Order because Francis wasn’t actually all that concerned with the mental health of aspirants to his way of life and would let any person, stable or not, to join the community. This obviously led to a number of community-centered problems that the curial intervention sought to rectify. In any event, stability here has to do with Francis’s belief that the friars, following in the footprints of Jesus Christ, should live sine proprio (“without anything of one’s own”) — and this included housing.

The brothers were permitted to dwell in simple places, which had to be on loan to them for they were forbidden by virtue of the vow to live sine proprio from owning anything. And, these dwelling were to be simple. The particularly colorful outburst of Francis that comes to mind occurred when he came across a community of friars living in what we might think of as a rectory, replete with a non-leaky, yet basic roof. Francis climbed up on the roof and started ripping up the tiles and throwing them down onto the ground, incensed that the friars had sought the stability that his understanding of Gospel life prohibited (following Jesus’s own admittance in the Gospel of Matthew that “the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head”).

Pope Francis has, yet again, appears to demonstrate a sense of simplicity and the spirit of sine proprio that would make his namesake proud.

According to John Thavis, the former Catholic News Service Rome chief and Vatican insider, and recently confirmed by a recent CNS story, Pope Francis has decided to live in the guest quarters on the papal property in lieu of the more palatial apartment reserved for the Bishop of Rome. Thavis explains:

Word comes from the Vatican today that, as speculated here last week, Pope Francis is opting to stay in the Vatican guest house rather than moving into the papal apartment  in the Apostolic Palace — at least for now.

The reasons seem clear: Francis likes simplicity, and his quarters at the Domus Sanctae Marthae are much more simple than the 10-room apartment on the other side of St. Peter’s Square. He also likes being with people, and at the Domus he’s been much less cut off than in the Apostolic Palace. He celebrates Mass with groups every morning, shares meals with other guests in the dining room and sometimes goes outside to walk.

This means the new pope will be “commuting” through the Vatican Gardens to his office area in the Apostolic Palace, where he generally meets with aides and visiting guests. But that’s the way he wants it, and it’s his decision — after all, he is pope.

There is no need here to fear the ghost of the Poverello climbing up on top of the Papal guest house to throw roof tiles to the ground. I have a feeling the Saint from Assisi would be quite pleased with this decision, even if it is — as most of the new pontiff’s actions have been so far — more symbolic than anything else. The symbolism is greatly appreciated. It’s nice to see a bit of regal papal stability replaced with the foolishness of Gospel living.

This was also published at America Magazine.

Photo: Pool

8 Comments »

Tuesday of Holy Week: Fools for the Kingdom

Posted in America Magazine, Franciscan Spirituality, Uncategorized with tags , , , , on March 26, 2013 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

fool_for_christAs we move closer to Easter during Holy Week I thought it might be good to reflect a little on the model of St. Francis of Assisi for all Christians. While the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord is, on the one hand, of the greatest importance and seriousness, reflection on Christian life is not on occasion for us to “take ourselves” too seriously. This is part of the wisdom of St. Francis gleaned from the Scriptures — we need to risk being seen as foolish in the eyes of the worldly “serious” to follow in the footprints of Christ.

Contrary to popular opinion, I think it’s sometimes good to be a fool. Most people approach foolishness in one of two ways. The first is to avoid any such scenario at all costs. The specter of failure and embarrassment haunts the professional, emotional and social lives of millions, quietly hindering people from sharing their opinions or speaking up in front of others.

The second is to exploit one’s potential foolishness to an extreme degree. While those who wish to avoid appearing foolish might recoil at the thought of public humiliation, hundreds of people have risen as stars of YouTube, reality television and daytime talk shows by acting as foolish as possible.

Neither of these approaches shows well what I have in mind—something that could be called evangelical foolishness, becoming “God’s fool,” a term applied to St. Francis of Assisi. There is perhaps no better time for a Franciscan friar’s first column in America than the issue dated April 1, the traditional day of fools, right after the election of the new pope, who will be known as Francis. St. Francis might rightly be regarded as the patron saint of fools. He might also offer us a surprising, if uneasy, Christian virtue between two foolish vices…

Read the rest of the article over at America

Photo: Stock

Leave A Comment »

Christianity and Repealing the Second Amendment

Posted in America Magazine, Social Justice, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on February 22, 2013 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

gun_violenceIt is quite astonishing how some of the most radical and justice-based ideas of the last two-and-a-half centuries have elicited some of the most vitriolic responses imaginable. That no human beings should be treated as chattel, to be owned and sold, abused and dehumanized. That women should have the right to vote and participate in society as full citizens. And now, that private gun ownership should be prohibited apart from a few reasonable exceptions for hunting and certain sporting activities.

Each of these things sought to be overturned were previously enshrined in the Constitution of the United States: Slavery was legal; women could not vote; private citizens had the right to not have their ownership of firearms infringed. That last one is, of course, in order to keep a “well regulated militia” and the type of “arms” that were described muskets and not semi-automatic handguns, but that’s getting ahead of myself.

Last week the editors of America magazine published a bold editorial titled, “Repeal the Second Amendment.” In it they unmask a number of unsightly truths that gun-ownership advocates wish to ignore or deny. One is the (il)logic of popular constitutional and social perception, which leads to a circular sense of problem-solution responses summarized by the editors in the following way:

 The culture of violence in America has spawned a deadly syllogism: Guns solve problems; we have problems; therefore, we need guns. Yet consider the tragedy in Aurora. Imagine if just 10 other people in that movie theater had been carrying guns. In the confusion of the onslaught, would fewer people or more people have died when those 10 other people opened fire in the dark? More important, is this really the kind of world we want to live in, a world in which lethal power can be unleashed at any moment at any corner, in any home, in any school?

They continue from this point, after already laying out other statistical evidence that begs our need to question the maintenance of outmoded and, frankly, dangerous right that I personally associated with the “right to own slave” and the “right of only men to vote.” Gun ownership made sense in a seventeenth-century milieu at a time when this fledgling colonial rebellion was reacting to threats that can never be the concern of the only imperial superpower currently present on this planet.

The editors summarize their proposal here:

Both Australia and Britain, for example, experienced gun massacres in 1996 and subsequently enacted stricter gun control laws. Their murder rates dropped. Yet in the United States, the birthplace of pragmatism, our fundamental law proscribes practical, potentially life-saving measures.

Americans must ask: Is it prudent to retain a constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms when it compels our judges to strike down reasonable, popularly supported gun regulations? Is it moral to inhibit in this way the power of the country’s elected representatives to provide for the public safety? Does the threat of tyranny, a legitimate 18th-century concern but an increasingly remote, fanciful possibility in the contemporary United States, trump the grisly, daily reality of gun violence? The answer to each of these questions is no. It is time to face reality. If the American people are to confront this scourge in any meaningful way, then they must change. The Constitution must change. The American people should repeal the Second Amendment.

I agree entirely.

By way of full disclosure I should acknowledge that I am a staff columnist for America magazine, however I am not an editor nor on the editorial board, so I first read this editorial when everybody else had occasion to do so. Not everything expressed in the magazine’s editorials always reflect my personal opinion, just as not everything I write reflects that of the editorial board’s opinion. Nevertheless, on this point I’m in full agreement!

The editorial brings up very good points as far as constitutional law and the history of amendment and repeal are concerned. For example, the editors, having acknowledged the gravity of their proposition, explain:

The Bill of Rights enumerates our most cherished freedoms. Any proposal to change the nation’s fundamental law is a very serious matter. We do not propose this course of action in a desultory manner, nor for light or transient reasons. We also acknowledge that repeal faces serious, substantial political obstacles and will prove deeply unpopular with many Americans. Nevertheless, we believe that repeal is necessary and that it is worthy of serious consideration.

Our proposal is in keeping, moreover, with the spirit in which the Constitution was drafted. The Bill of Rights belongs to a document that was designed to be changed; indeed, it was part of the genius of our founders to allow for a process of amendment. The process is appropriately cumbersome, but it is not impossible. Since its adoption in 1787, the American people have chosen to amend the Constitution 27 times. A century ago, leaders like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson raised serious questions about the Consti-tution. Amendments soon followed, including provisions for a federal income tax, the direct election of U.S. senators, women’s suffrage and the prohibition of alcohol. The 21st Amendment, which repealed prohibition, established the precedent for our proposal.

Yet, despite their absolutely legitimate point about the possibility of such repeal, albeit a far chance in our contemporary political and social climate, what I find most convincing is the truth that I have often times reflected on here on this very blog: Whether or not all people can agree in a pluralist democratic society to repeal the second amendment (or at least pass stricter gun-control laws), Christians have no choice in the matter — to be Christian is to be nonviolent and that Gospel commitment to nonviolence bears certain practical implications that we must peacefully pursue.

This is something that Roman Catholic bishops have reiterated time and again. The editors remind us that, “In the most comprehensive statement on gun violence to come from the U.S. bishops’ conference, in 1975, a committee identified ‘the easy availability of handguns in our society’ as a major threat to human life and called for ‘effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society’ with ‘exceptions…for the police, military, security guards’ and sporting clubs.”

Furthermore, in recent times, prominent Catholic leaders have reiterated this point, as the America editors explain:

In a recent interview, Tommaso Di Ruzza, the expert on disarmament and arms control at the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, explained that an individual does not possess an absolute natural right to own a lethal weapon: “There is a sort of natural right to defend the common interest and the common good” by the limited use of force, but this applies more to nations with an effective rule of law, not armed individuals. In the wake of Newtown, Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan said that “the fight for greater gun control in the country” is a pro-life position. “The unfettered access to assault weapons and handguns, along with the glorification of violence in our ‘entertainment’ industry…is really all part of a culture of death,” Cardinal Dolan said.

I can say a lot more and in the future I have no doubt that I will, here on DatingGod.org and elsewhere. For the time being, I wanted to officially go on the record to offer my support and explicit endorsement of this proposal. I, too, feel that the Second Amendment should be repealed. Those who have already leveled their uncharitable remarks at me for informal allusions to this proposal have, it seems, made the Constitution and the Second Amendment of that document into an idol. They have replaced the right of a nation-state to self-govern with the right to defend one’s self (from what exactly?) at any cost. They have replaced, as Stanley Hauerwas and other theologians have so keenly pointed out, the God of Jesus Christ with the “god of America.”

I worship the God of Jesus Christ, not the god of America. I recognize my baptismal vocation to follow in the footprints of Christ according to the Gospel, not defend outmoded “rights” that cause or world and society to be less-safe, more violent, and increasingly representative of a “culture of death.” I believe that Christians have no other choice but to support such a reasonable, if serious, measure. What Would Jesus Do?

Yes, repeal the Second Amendment.

Photo: Stock

6 Comments »

Why Pope Gregory XII Doesn’t Really Count

Posted in America Magazine, The Papal Watcher, Uncategorized with tags , , , on February 12, 2013 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

Pope Gregory XII, the last pope to resignAmid all the media hype and need to find out esoteric Christian historical and canonical information on short notice yesterday following Pope Benedict XVI’s announcement that he will resign from his office as Bishop of Rome on February 28, 2013, there was an understandable amount of confusion about if and when something like this had happened before. Can a pope resign? The correct answer, as most news organizations and commentators quickly discovered, is “yes, a pope can indeed resign.” As I wrote here yesterday, this has always been on the books, but was something that hasn’t been realized in several centuries.

The next question was: “Who was the last pope to do this?” And herein lies the trickier questions, the source of some foundering on the part of journalists and commentators the world over. Some said that Pope Gregory XII (d. 1417), who technically “resigned” in 1415, was the last pope to execute this papal option. He was, sort of. This is what makes the historical record a bit tricky.

Gregory XII resigned as part of the final action to help reunite a divided medieval church during what is known as the Avignon Papacy or the “Western Schism” (1378-1417). Without getting into all the details, suffice it to say that there were, during this period, two “popes” elected by a divided college of cardinals — one in Avignon, France, the other in Rome (and, to make things more complicated, from 1409-1415, there was a third “pope” in Pisa, Italy). For nearly half-a-century the church in Europe had been divided by the political affiliations forged between various sovereign rulers and the respective popes of Avignon and Rome.

When Angelo Correr was elected pope in Rome on November 30, 1406, efforts were already underway to reunite the divided church. Theologian Richard McBrien explains in his book Lives of the Popes (1997) that the soon-to-be Gregory XII had made certain vows upon his elevation to the papacy. McBrien writes:

Along with the other cardinals, the new pope had sworn during the conclave that, if elected, (1) he would abdicate — on the condition that the Avignon pope, Benedict XIII, would also abdicate; that (2) he would, in any case, not create any new cardinals, except to maintain numerical parity with the Avignon cardinals; and that (3) e would within three months enter into negotiations with his avignon rival about scheduling a meeting between the two of them.

You can see where I’m going with this. Pope Gregory XII did indeed resign, but he didn’t do so of his own volition or by personal discernment. When he was elected in 1406 he, and any of the cardinals that might have been elected in his stead, had already vowed to resign if reuniting with the Avignon line of cardinals and antipope were possible. And it was.

At the Council of Constance (1414-1418) the Pisa antipope, John XXIII (yes, same name name as the legitimate pope who called the Second Vatican Council) was deposed, the two groups of the college of cardinals (Avignon and Rome) were united, the Avignon pope Benedict XIII was declared a heretic and Gregory XII resigned, as promised. The reunited college of cardinals then elected Martin V (d. 1431), who effectively marked the end of the “Western Schism.”

So the question remains: “Was Gregory XII the last pope to resign?” Again, sort of. He did technically resign, but under conditions very unlike what Pope Benedict XVI has experienced. Benedict XVI has made this decision after long, prayerful discernment and under absolutely not external pressure — he was required to profess as much in his announcement so as to mark the legitimacy of his resignation. Gregory XII had sworn, prior to being “crowned” pope, that he would resign; in other words, it was a condition of his ascendency to the papacy.

This is why one might reasonably argue that the last pope to resign of his own free will was Celestine V (d. 1296) who resigned his office after only serving as pope for a few months in 1294. He was a man who was elected to be pope as a political “compromise candidate” during a contentious period in the church leadership, marred by family rivalries and the like. Pietro del Murrone, who would become Celestine V, was known as a simple but holy man, who lived as a prayerful hermit under the Rule of St. Benedict.

The papacy was vacant for twenty-seven months when Celestine V was finally made pope, a position that he clearly did not seek nor desire. After just a few months in office (there is debate about whether it was five or four months having to do with conflicts in the official Vatican record of this short pontificate), Celestine V abdicated his office after personal discernment and of his own free will.

McBrien describes a situation not unlike that the world witnessed yesterday with Pope Benedict XVI. “On December 13, [1294], in full consistory, Celestine V read out the formula of abdication.” He then took off his papal insignia and urged the cardinals to move immediately to select his successor.

While Gregory XII might technically have been the last pope to resign from office, the way in which he did so are very different from what Benedict XVI is doing now. In this way, Celestine V is really the last pope to have resigned of his own free will, after prayerful discernment, and according to his conscience.

This also appears over at America Magazine

Photo: File

4 Comments »

What Canon Law Says about Papal Resignations

Posted in America Magazine, The Papal Watcher with tags , , , on February 11, 2013 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

pope_benedict No, a Pope does not have to die to leave office (I’ve been getting that question a lot this morning). Over at America magazine’s blog, In All Things, I’ve highlighted some of the canonical grounding for this decision of Pope Benedict XVI to resign from office and the reasons why it has unfolded the way it has.

For those who are interested, perhaps the best-known example of a pope resigning was in 1294 when Pope Celestine V (d. 1296) resigned from his office. Benedict XVI is the first in several centuries. According to the Code of Canon Law (CIC) this right of the Roman Pontiff falls under Canon 332, no. 2, which reads: “If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.” This helps to explain the timing of the Pope’s decision, which is an act that can only take place when he is still of sound mind and body.

As for the delivery of this news to the cardinals in attendance this morning, some canon law scholars believe this is essential in assuring the legitimacy of the resignation. According to canonist Knut Walf, “The resignation from office of the pope must be sufficiently manifested and requires no acceptance ‘by anyone.’ The recipient of the ‘manifestation’ is not specified. Some commentators are of the opinion that the college of cardinals or its dean as the competent electoral body must be informed of the resignation” (New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, eds. J. Beal, J. Coriden, and T. Green [2000] p. 438). Needless to say, this is a very important announcement of great historical significance.

The process here is not unlike the retirement of any other bishop (don’t forget, the Pope is first and foremost the Bishop of Rome, as Canon 331 refers to him: “The bishop of the Roman Church”), with the caveat that the Pope does not answer to anyone, so there is no “technical” recipient of his resignation. All other bishops resign to him.

Photo: File

4 Comments »

New Columnists at ‘America’ Magazine

Posted in America Magazine with tags , , , on February 2, 2013 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

America_Magazine_ShieldThose who receive the print edition of America magazine will soon read about the upcoming 5,000 issue of the publication (the current issue is number 4,999), the occasion for some new changes at the magazine. Among the changes is the lineup of columnists, which the editor-in-chief, Fr. Matt Malone, SJ, explains in the latest issue’s Of Many Things column. It’s provided here below. In reading his introduction to the new staff columnists, you might recognize a name, those of you who get the print edition will see that in the masthead as well…

Even casual readers will notice the changes to our masthead. The really astute reader, however, will notice something even more significant. I’ll give you a hint: Look to the top of the Contents page, just below the second uppercase T. See it? That’s right: You are holding the 4999th issue of America. That means that our next issue will be a collector’s item: so get out the cellophane sleeves and chill the champagne!

The 4000th issue was dated Oct. 1, 1988. My predecessor, George W. Hunt, S.J., wrote at the time that “we calculate that America’s 5000th issue will appear sometime in the year 2010.” Father Hunt was a typical Jesuit: a 790 on the verbal and a 510 on the math. He was right about one thing, though: He had the good sense to endorse a statement that John LaFarge, S.J., had made in the 2000th issue of the magazine. Addressing America’s readers in 1947, Father LaFarge wrote, “We know that you can help us with your thoughts, your ideas, your prayers, your suggestions. We depend on you.”

Indeed we do. America is never finished. We’re always learning, growing, seeking new ways to bring you a smart Catholic take on faith and culture. So as we head into our 5000th issue, we’re making some changes. For starters, new columnists will appear throughout the first half of 2013, beginning with our own James Martin, S.J., recently named America’s editor at large. We also welcome Michael Rossmann, S.J., a blogger for The Huffington Post and the 2007 valedictorian at Notre Dame. Margot Patterson, former senior writer for The National Catholic Reporter will also join us, along with James T. Keane, a former associate editor of America, now at Orbis Books. Colleen Carroll Campbell will join us in June; Ms. Campbell was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush and is now the host of “Faith and Culture” on EWTN.

It might seem strange that America would have one columnist who used to write for The National Catholic Reporter and another who wrote for George W. Bush. It doesn’t seem strange to us, though. America’s century-old motto is Veritatem facientes in caritate, “Doing the truth in love.” There is no faithful Catholic voice that is not welcome in these pages; there is no quarter of the church in which America is not at home.

We will also add a new column in the Books & Culture section. Bill McGarvey, former editor of the Web journal Busted Halo, will lead off the commentary. He will be joined by Angela Alaimo-O’Donnell, professor and poet at Fordham University, and Daniel P. Horan, O.F.M., a young friar who just published Francis of Assisi and the Future of Faith. Also, longtime readers will welcome the return of the Philosopher’s Notebook, a running commentary on faith and culture in the United States. John J. Conley, a Jesuit, philosopher and playwright at Loyola University Maryland, will pen the monthly column.

One last thing: You’ll want to check out the revitalized Catholic Book Club. Each month Kevin Spinale, S.J., a teacher of English at Boston College High School, will introduce a book of special interest to Catholics. You can join that discussion at www.americamagazine.org/cbc.

Of course, change can be bittersweet. With this issue, we also bid an affectionate farewell to columnists Margaret Silf, Maryann Cusimano Love, Kyle Kramer, John DiIulio and Thomas Massaro, S.J. We are grateful for their work, which has enriched us all. We hope to see them again soon.

Whew, that is a lot of change. This much, however, will never change: our commitment to bringing you the very best of who we are, each and every week. For your loyalty and trust, we thank you. For the greater glory of God, now it’s on to 6,000!

Needless to say, I’m honored to have been invited to be a columnist at America and I’m very excited about working as part of the excellent team that makes up the editorial board, staff, and fellow columnists of this 100+ year-old publication! To view the America author page, go to: http://americamagazine.org/users/daniel-p-horan Stay tuned for more information!

7 Comments »

10 Ways to Misunderstand Vatican II

Posted in America Magazine, Uncategorized, Vatican II with tags , , , , , on January 29, 2013 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

MEETING DURING SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL FILE PHOTOThe current issue of America magazine includes an article by the eminent church historian John O’Malley, SJ, a professor at Georgetown University and author of many important books. O’Malley’s piece, simply titled “Misdirections,” is a commentary on ten ways he understands people to commonly misinterpret the Second Vatican Council, its mission, its documents, and its historical impact. It’s an important list given all the talk these days from various vantage points about the enduring legacy of the Council, which has recently marked the fiftieth anniversary of its beginning. O’Malley’s point is that far too often simplifications and post facto rationalizations have led to the misconstruing of the Council and its texts. He explains:

It is not easy to interpret any great event, so it is not surprising that today there is disagreement about how to interpret the Second Vatican Council. Here, I want to turn the issue around to indicate how not to interpret it. (Of course, astute readers will see that this is just a sneaky way of making positive points.) Some of these principles are, in fact, of direct concern only to historians or theologians. The issues that underlie them, however, should be of concern to all Catholics who cherish the heritage of the council. These 10 negative principles are simply a backhanded way of reminding ourselves of what is at stake in the controversies over the council’s interpretation.

The list of “ways not to interpret” Vatican II are as follows:

  1. Insist Vatican II was only a pastoral council.
  2. Insist it was an occurrence in the life of the church, not an event.
  3. Banish the expression “spirit of the council.”
  4. Study the documents individually, without considering them part of an integral corpus.
  5. Study the final 16 documents in the order of hierarchical authority, not in the chronological order in which they were approved in the council.
  6. Pay no attention to the documents’ literary form.
  7. Stick to the final 16 documents and pay no attention to the historical context, the history of the texts or the controversies concerning them during the council.
  8. Outlaw the use of any “unofficial” sources, such as the diaries or correspondence of participants.
  9. Interpret the documents as expressions of continuity with the Catholic tradition.
  10. Make your assessment of the council into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

To read his explanation of each of these points, check out the full article: “Misdirections” over at America‘s website.

Photo: File

1 Comment »

Do US Catholics Care about Latin America Anymore?

Posted in America Magazine, Social Justice, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on January 11, 2013 by Daniel P. Horan, OFM

NW SOA Vigil 2008My good friend, David Golemboski, a doctoral student in government at Georgetown University and a member of the Board of Directors for the nonprofit organization Witness for Peace has an excellent article in the latest issue of America magazine, “Still ‘Presente’? U.S. Catholics Should Reconnect with Latin America.” David has long worked in the field of social-justice-related concerns, most recently as a staff member of NETWORK prior to his beginning the graduate program at Georgetown. This is an essay well-worth reading, here’s the beginning of it, click the link below to read the rest on the America website.

Since August, several workers formerly employed by General Motors in Colombia have been protesting unsafe working conditions and demanding compensation after being fired following injuries sustained on the job. Some of the protestors have launched hunger strikes, sewing their mouths shut and declaring that they are prepared to die if G.M. does not agree to a fair resolution of the conflict. The protest has received coverage in major newspapers and has expanded to include demonstrations at G.M. locations around the United States, including the corporate headquarters in Detroit and the home of G.M.’s chief executive officer outside Washington, D.C.

A number of human rights organizations and faith groups in the United States have spoken in support of the workers and organized to pressure G.M., but none of the most vocal advocates have been representatives of the U.S. Catholic community. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has not made any official statement concerning the protests. This conspicuous absence is no one-time phenomenon. Rather, it highlights a shift that has occurred in the U.S. Catholic community over the past two decades.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, great portions of the U.S. Catholic community were heavily engaged in various forms of outreach and expressions of solidarity with the people of Latin America—the land of Archbishop Oscar Romero, liberation theology and death squads. This included delegations of Americans who traveled to Nicaragua, El Salvador or other places and the establishment of sister-parish relationships between U.S. and Central American congregations. According to Christian Smith, a sociologist at Notre Dame, more than 100,000 U.S. citizens traveled to Nicaragua during this time “to observe its revolution firsthand.” At home, the sanctuary movement saw faith communities sheltering political refugees from Latin America, often illegally. Countless Catholics joined in advocacy efforts to reshape U.S. policies in Central America, the movement to close what was then the School of the Americas in Georgia being a prominent example. The growing use of Spanish songs and prayers in U.S. liturgies originated largely in the spirit of solidarity that flourished in this era.

But since the 1980s and early 1990s, this widespread and intense commitment to Latin America has waned. The annual School of the Americas protest continues (the S.O.A. is now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation), but the event is now as much an annual convocation of progressive Catholics as a targeted advocacy effort. Whereas Latin America was once a central preoccupation for the U.S. Catholic Church, it now appears to be a dwindling niche concern for a handful of aging diehards.

Should we expect that Latin America will remain a relative non-issue in the American church? Do U.S. Catholics still care about Latin America?

Shifting Priorities

The gradual eclipse of Latin America on the agenda of many U.S. Catholics has much to do with changes in geo-political dynamics and the U.S. government’s foreign policy agenda. In particular, the end of the cold war and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have had enormous consequences in shaping U.S. objectives abroad. Soviet Communism has been replaced by Islamist terrorism as the nation’s primary perceived enemy, and the corresponding “battlegrounds” have shifted as well. No longer do U.S. covert interventions and overt wars aim to stop the spread of communism, but rather to disrupt the operations of Al Qaeda and other terrorist threats. Central America figured prominently in the old struggle, but the Middle East has taken center stage in the new one. During this fall’s presidential debate on foreign policy, neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney mentioned a single Latin American country by name. As the currents of global politics have changed, the projects of global activists have evolved as well. Catholics who once protested wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador now find themselves focused on countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Syria.

This shift has coincided with a growing perception that the economic and political crises that once called for urgent attention in Latin America have abated. The civil wars that ravaged El Salvador and Nicaragua ended more than 20 years ago. Jess Hunter-Bowman, associate director of the Latin America solidarity organization Witness for Peace, believes that this has contributed to diminished interest in Latin America. “When there isn’t that front-page issue,” he says, “people turn their focus to whatever new crisis needs to be addressed.” Also, globalization is steadily, if unevenly, delivering many benefits of economic growth to Latin America. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, between 2000 and 2010, gross domestic product per capita in Latin American countries grew at nearly six times the rate that it had over the previous two decades. Only a naïf could believe that Latin America is entirely liberated from its struggles, but one is no longer besieged by the horrific reports of the kind that used to emanate regularly from Latin American countries in decades past.

But despite some positive developments in Latin America, poverty, inequality, corruption and social instability remain wide-spread. Mexico has been terrorized over the last several years by the brutality of the international drug trade and scandalized by the government’s ineffectual response. In Colombia, similarly, a U.S.-led “war on drugs” bears a share of responsibility for violence, displacement and devastation of agricultural communities. In Honduras violence and impunity have spiraled out of control since the 2009 coup that overthrew that country’s democratically elected president. According to the Committee of Families of the Detained and Disappeared of Honduras, a leading Honduran human rights organization, more than 10,000 complaints of human rights abuses by state security forces have been filed in the last three years. In early 2012 the United Nations called Honduras the world’s most dangerous nation. Responsibility for this crisis falls partly on the United States, given the Obama administration’s decision to more or less accept the outcome of the coup…

To read the rest, visit: America Magazine’s Website Here

Photo: Witness for Peace

Leave A Comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 392 other followers

%d bloggers like this: