I don't know much about Jean Vanier. When I was doing my novitiate in the last century we were shown a documentary on his work founding L'Arche, an organization dedicated to assisting people with intellectual disabilities. It was, obviously, a very positive presentation of the work he and his followers were doing. I forgot about Vanier and L'Arche soon after I saw the program. I must confess, we saw a documentary on the Taizé movement (very different) around the same time, and for a while I often got them confused in my mind. For many around the world though the work he did, and the personal example he projected made a lasting impression that impacted their lives profoundly.
When he died last year Vanier, a layman, was hailed as a prophet and a saint. This week an investigative report was released claiming that he had sexually abused 6 adult, non disabled women. The abuse was in the form of using spiritual direction as a ruse to groom his victims into having sexual intercourse. He was assisted (practically mentored) in this by his own priest-spiritual director.
There is much to contemplate here. Even though I had no personal devotion to Vanier, it was heartbreaking to see the responses of those who looked up to this man, in some cases to the point of naming their children after him. There were feelings of bewilderment, betrayal and shame. I get it. I was confirmed as a boy by Theodore McCarrick, and a number of my confreres were ordained either deacons or priests by the now disgraced, laicized bishop. What were very special events in our lives have been tainted, and it can be hard to think about it.
My standard response in situations like this is to remind people that there is one savior, Jesus Christ. We put our faith in Him, and no one else. Even canonized saints fell short sometimes during their lives. Think of Peter denying the Lord three times.
The difference is that true saints get up, with God's grace, and continues on the journey. Through suffering they allowed the Lord to purify their intentions so that their will eventually conformed perfectly to that of God's. By suffering I mean that they accepted the daily crosses, big or small that come their way with patience, courage and, most of all, love.
It isn't that they became incapable of sinning, or that what is sinful for the rest of humanity somehow became permissible for them, as Vanier tried to persuade his victims. It's that choosing to do the right thing became a deep seated habit, what we call virtue. True love, which at its core is sacrificial, dominated their actions. To paraphrase St. Paul, the saints no longer lived for themselves, but it was Christ who lived in them (Gal 2:19-20).
What are to we make of Vanier and his like? I can't say in this particular case: as I wrote before, I'm not familiar enough with his life. What we can say in general is some times people begin serving the poor, for instance, with good intentions. They begin to make a name for themselves and start believing their own publicity. Slowly the desire for money, power or sex creeps into their lives. In making sacrifices for the Lord, they convince themselves that they deserve this or that pleasure, since the promise of Heaven isn't enough.
Others start sincerely in the spiritual life, but don't experience the quick "pay off" they expected. There are no visions, no ecstasies, just the unbearable silence of the chapel. So either cynically or sincerely, they seek their consolation in other ways. They abandon a regular prayer life, making material or emotional desires the center of their lives. I knew a bishop who spent his final years in penance for his sins (I'm convinced the man died a saint). He warned us that those who impatiently seek spiritual ecstasy run the danger of falling into alcohol or drug abuse, and those frustrated with their efforts for union with God run the danger of falling into sexual sins.
There is nothing wrong with profound religious experience (though I would argue it shouldn't be sought so much as gratefully received) or seeking union with God - the latter is what the spiritual life is all about. What we have to remember is that the spiritual journey is run by God's clock not our own. God sometimes denies us these experiences for a time, maybe for an extremely long time, to make sure we are motivated in all we do by love, and not what we're "going to get out of it."
Of course there are also those who had bad intentions all a long, using religion as a means of getting what they want. In many places in the world becoming a priest, or working in the Church in some other capacity, is still a way to climb the social ladder. Vows are made, but not taken very seriously.
The answer is not that we shouldn't have heroes. Yes, we're taking a risk. A reason the canonization process usually takes a long time is that the Church wants to make sure beyond any doubt that the candidate died united with God, freed from all attachment to sin. We wait for a miracle attributed to the saint's intercession as a Heavenly confirmation that he or she actually is enjoying the beatific vision.
As for heroes of the un-canonized variety, I always advise caution. Even satan can disguise himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). But don't grow cynical. Continue to look for good examples. Continue to strive to be that good example yourself. In everything remember that whatever good we do begins with God's inspiration, is guided by His grace, and ends with the fulfillment of His will, for His greater glory.
Thursday, February 27, 2020
Is Fake Meat Still Meat - As Far as the Lenten Regulations are Concerned?
The short answer is YES, they fulfill the requirement, if they are truly vegetarian or vegan products. The director of the Office of Divine Worship for the Archdiocese of Chicago agrees, adding the caveat that it may not fulfill the "SPIRIT" of the regulation in question.
The reason we abstain from meat is predicated on the idea that meat is more expensive than other protein sources. We are supposed to eat more simply during Lent, taking the money we save and giving it to the poor. There are other reasons as well, but to focus on this one aspect - economic solidarity with the poor - the question I would ask is, are the plant based meat substitutes less expensive than the real thing? It's not a rhetorical question: I've never had then or priced them. In the same way, lobster is permitted under the current rules, but does it really fulfill the spirit of what the Lenten abstinence is for?
So, be sensible. We also deny ourselves during Lent to unify our sufferings with those of Christ who died on the Cross. Paul writes of his own sufferings as making up for what is "laking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body...the church." (Col. 1:24). This is not to say the Jesus' sufferings weren't enough, but that He allows us, by our sufferings, to share in the spiritual good that His passion brought about. We are all part of the Body of Christ, so that the prayers, fasting and alms giving of one part of the Body has positive effects, both practically and spiritually, for other members of the Church, and the world.
So, if eating a fake hamburger helps you in that, go for it. If it doesn't, then avoid it.
Wednesday, February 26, 2020
A Brief Ash Wednesday Reflection
In my experience, not all Lents are equally intense. They usually begin the same, with a lot of good intentions. Once it gets going the observance either deepens, helping to form good habits that endure after the Holy Season has ended, or things dissipate, and I'm simply holding on to the bare minimum the Church asks of us. Once Easter arrives, in that case, I'm pretty much in the same place I was when the ashes were smeared on my forehead.
This year I feel a special pull make this Lent "count." The Lord has made me aware of deeply imbedded attachments that are harmful to me. It's not that I was unaware of these disordered attachments before, but that I feel a particular frustration with them, and with my self for allowing them to remain in my life for so long.
The first thing to remember always is that God is the one doing the work. The fasting, the extra prayers, the almsgiving and other works of charity and justice are meant to open the way for the Lord to mold our hearts. They are meant to take us out of ourselves and our self-centeredness to hear the voice of God within, as well as Him speaking through others.
The other thing is that Lent is 40 days. I have no illusion that this project will be done by Easter Sunday. Can it be? Sure, if that's what God wants. What's more to the point is planting seeds that will continue to grow beyond the liturgical time, forming habits that will become a regular part of our life. So, the only advice I'll offer is that whatever you choose to as a Lenten penance, make it a good habit that will continue after Lent ends, not only a deprivation that will stop after the Easter Vigil. Giving up soda pop, for instance, is good - I don't want to discourage anyone from doing something like that, especially children. But making a positive changes in your life like forming better eating habits or volunteering at a soup kitchen will instill virtues that remain all year long.
I'm not going to broadcast my Lenten penance; that will be between the Lord and me. What I will say is that I'm not giving up social media. Many people do, and I'm not knocking it. But part of my resolution is to use social media more as an evangelizing tool. It takes time to write these posts, even stream of consciousness pieces like this. I waste a lot of time. I know I need to use my time better to get the things done I have to. Also, I want to use what spare time I have in some productive pursuit. Thus what I'm doing right now, writing these words for you.
This year I feel a special pull make this Lent "count." The Lord has made me aware of deeply imbedded attachments that are harmful to me. It's not that I was unaware of these disordered attachments before, but that I feel a particular frustration with them, and with my self for allowing them to remain in my life for so long.
The first thing to remember always is that God is the one doing the work. The fasting, the extra prayers, the almsgiving and other works of charity and justice are meant to open the way for the Lord to mold our hearts. They are meant to take us out of ourselves and our self-centeredness to hear the voice of God within, as well as Him speaking through others.
The other thing is that Lent is 40 days. I have no illusion that this project will be done by Easter Sunday. Can it be? Sure, if that's what God wants. What's more to the point is planting seeds that will continue to grow beyond the liturgical time, forming habits that will become a regular part of our life. So, the only advice I'll offer is that whatever you choose to as a Lenten penance, make it a good habit that will continue after Lent ends, not only a deprivation that will stop after the Easter Vigil. Giving up soda pop, for instance, is good - I don't want to discourage anyone from doing something like that, especially children. But making a positive changes in your life like forming better eating habits or volunteering at a soup kitchen will instill virtues that remain all year long.
I'm not going to broadcast my Lenten penance; that will be between the Lord and me. What I will say is that I'm not giving up social media. Many people do, and I'm not knocking it. But part of my resolution is to use social media more as an evangelizing tool. It takes time to write these posts, even stream of consciousness pieces like this. I waste a lot of time. I know I need to use my time better to get the things done I have to. Also, I want to use what spare time I have in some productive pursuit. Thus what I'm doing right now, writing these words for you.
Saturday, February 15, 2020
Querida Amazonia / Pete Rose and the HOF
Querida Amazonia_____________________________________
The not so long awaited post synodal exhortation reflecting on last October's Amazon Synod was just released (Francis wastes no time in publishing these reports). As has been the case with many documents issued during Pope Francis' tenure, commentators and critics weren't really interested in the main point, but the perceived agenda behind the agenda. The synod was supposed to be about the Church's ministry in Amazonia, exploring how we can foster an integrated vision of evangelization, respect for local cultures and environmental protection of the region. All most people want to know though is if the Pope would allow married priests and women deacons to help alleviate the clergy shortage in the Amazon. The answer was no, on both counts, with the first question not even mentioned in the text.
The official presenters of the document stated that this exhortation doesn't represent the final word on these matters.
While not the central issues tackled by the synod, they were among the topics that caused the most controversy on social media (I know, what about Pachamama? Maybe I'll get to that some other time). Traditionalist critics were afraid the synod was going to be used as an excuse to introduce changes in practice, not just in Amazonia, but in the Church universal.
The bottom line is, if we listen closely to what Pope Francis has said over the years about the possibility of married priests and, especially, ordaining women, his words or absence of words, should not surprise you. He speaks of clericalism, but he means more than just clergy who act as if they are a higher class of Christian who crave power rather submit to a life of service. He also connects clericalism with priests who try to act like lay people and laity who try to assume the role of a cleric. For Francis clericalism is more than about power, but the role each person plays and gifts they have to offer. The upshot being that clerics and laity both need to cherish and respect the gifts of the other.
Sadly there are two extreme groups in the Church right now: those, who tend to be progressive, who support the Pope no matter what, and those, mainly traditionalist, who feel he can do nothing right. What's sad is that one side forgets that many progressives never seemed afraid to criticize St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger) back in the day. I should know: I had them as professors in various Catholic colleges in the '80's and '90's. The traditionalist side is a bit more complex, because they run the gamut from sedevacantists (those who believe Francis and his predecessors going back to at least John XXIII aren't valid popes) to those who acknowledge the legitimacy of the pope but believe him guilty of grave errors. This presents a bit of a mixed bag, because some were critical of JPII and BXVI as well. But for the most part more conservative minded Catholics would have defended either of Francis' predecessors vigorously, and the idea of publicly calling out the pope would cause the vapors.
To end this overly long segment, both sides need to take a breath. Papal infallibility does not mean that everything that proceeds from the mouth of the Roman Pontiff is necessarily without error. It certainly doesn't mean that those manning the Vatican dicasteries can't make mistakes. He does enjoy the charism of infallibility when teaching on matters of faith and morals, to the universal Church, in his role as the successor of Peter. This charism is not about making new doctrines but better defining, developing and formalizing teachings that have been a part of the deposit of faith all along. He teaches infallibly also when he reiterates established doctrines of the Church when he preaches or writes. To wonder about the direction the Church is taking under Francis's leadership isn't a mortal sin. But to be overly panicked by it may show a need for renewed faith. Those who get upset with people with questions may need to grow in charity, as well as examine their own intellectual past.
Post Script...I wrote a friend this week that I thought this could be Francis' "Humanae Vitae" moment. (I was disappointed to see the Catholic Herald made the same observation. Disappointed because no writer wants to be second to publish an opinion). I also didn't think the negative response would be as severe as what happened 52 years ago.
In 1968 the expectation was that St. Pope Paul VI would modify the Church's teaching on artificial contraception, by allowing its use under at least certain conditions. The encyclical, released in July of that year, reaffirmed the traditional prohibition, causing a backlash among some theologians and bishops conferences. Those who didn't openly criticize the pope's decision did their best to ignore it. Paul, who was pope for another ten years, never wrote another encyclical (though he did issue several exhortations among other official documents), and curtailed his traveling to the point that he never made an official trip outside of Italy after 1970. Some feel that the negative reaction to HM played a large role in his relative withdrawal from public view the last decade of his life.
Today there is a backlash to Querida Amazonia, both in Germany, where the local bishops have been trying to gain more independence in doctrinal matters the last few years, and in the United States. What the long term ramifications will be is anyone's guess.
Paul and Francis are different personalities, though their similarity in approaches to the papacy hasn't been lost on some observers. In terms of personality, Paul VI is sometimes referred to as the "Hamlet" pope. He was a man of deep personal holiness, highly intelligent, but indecisive. George Weigel saw his intelligence as a bit of a hindrance, because Paul would struggle to see every issue from every side, with he constant analyzing keeping him from making clear decisions.
No one is ever going to confuse Pope Francis with Hamlet. Whatever the blow back is from Querida Amazonia, I don't think the Holy Father is going to withdraw from public life or stop writing. My hope is that critics on both sides use the Holy Father's writings as a way of judging their own beliefs, and not making their opinions, no matter how well grounded and sincerely held, the standard by which they judge the pope.
Pete Rose and the Hall of Fame ___________________________
I have friends in Cincinnati from my days at Xavier who are not going to be happy with me. But I've been a pretty hard core "No" on the question of Peter Rose going into the Hall of Fame. I've softened a bit over the years, but I'm still not 100% convinced. In light of the sign stealing brouhaha Rose has applied to have his lifetime suspension lifted, which would then make his election to the Hall possible, if not certain.
On one level, I say why not? It's been three decades, and what he did wasn't worse than what many others have done. Or at least, that's the line of thought. While not unreasonable, I still have some reservations.
He denied betting on baseball and specifically on the Reds, the team he managed, for a decade and a half after the suspension came down. He had many high profile supporters like stats guru Bill James (who actually claimed to have mathematical proof Rose didn't bet on the Reds) and elder statesman sports writer Roger Kahn. He only fessed up when it was time to sell a book, in 2004. No one likes having egg on their face, especially members of the press. He ended up losing a lot of support in his bid for reinstatement after that.
In admitting to betting on the Reds, he insisted that he never beg against them. As admirable as that might be, how do we know he is telling the truth now? He wasn't before. I also think it's naive to think his gambling interests didn't effect the way he managed a given game, even the ones he didn't place a wager on. We shouldn't kid ourselves. Pete was knee deep in the hoopla. There were reports he was scared to come to New York on a road trip because he owed money to bookies. I have no doubt the pressure to win both games and bets played into decisions he made. Because Pete is a bad man? No. Because he is a human being.
The bottom line for me is the if he had told the truth from the beginning, been contrite in taking his suspension, it would have been lifted a long time ago and he'd be in the Hall today. This entire episode has been prison of his own making, to reference Rose's confessional tome.
So, in 2020, I'm not against Pete Rose's rehabilitation, but I'm not going to protest for it either.
Coming Attractions______________________________________
I was going to write something about my experiences at Catholic University, but the post was running too long for my taste. I'll be sure to get to it next time.
The not so long awaited post synodal exhortation reflecting on last October's Amazon Synod was just released (Francis wastes no time in publishing these reports). As has been the case with many documents issued during Pope Francis' tenure, commentators and critics weren't really interested in the main point, but the perceived agenda behind the agenda. The synod was supposed to be about the Church's ministry in Amazonia, exploring how we can foster an integrated vision of evangelization, respect for local cultures and environmental protection of the region. All most people want to know though is if the Pope would allow married priests and women deacons to help alleviate the clergy shortage in the Amazon. The answer was no, on both counts, with the first question not even mentioned in the text.
The official presenters of the document stated that this exhortation doesn't represent the final word on these matters.
While not the central issues tackled by the synod, they were among the topics that caused the most controversy on social media (I know, what about Pachamama? Maybe I'll get to that some other time). Traditionalist critics were afraid the synod was going to be used as an excuse to introduce changes in practice, not just in Amazonia, but in the Church universal.
The bottom line is, if we listen closely to what Pope Francis has said over the years about the possibility of married priests and, especially, ordaining women, his words or absence of words, should not surprise you. He speaks of clericalism, but he means more than just clergy who act as if they are a higher class of Christian who crave power rather submit to a life of service. He also connects clericalism with priests who try to act like lay people and laity who try to assume the role of a cleric. For Francis clericalism is more than about power, but the role each person plays and gifts they have to offer. The upshot being that clerics and laity both need to cherish and respect the gifts of the other.
Sadly there are two extreme groups in the Church right now: those, who tend to be progressive, who support the Pope no matter what, and those, mainly traditionalist, who feel he can do nothing right. What's sad is that one side forgets that many progressives never seemed afraid to criticize St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger) back in the day. I should know: I had them as professors in various Catholic colleges in the '80's and '90's. The traditionalist side is a bit more complex, because they run the gamut from sedevacantists (those who believe Francis and his predecessors going back to at least John XXIII aren't valid popes) to those who acknowledge the legitimacy of the pope but believe him guilty of grave errors. This presents a bit of a mixed bag, because some were critical of JPII and BXVI as well. But for the most part more conservative minded Catholics would have defended either of Francis' predecessors vigorously, and the idea of publicly calling out the pope would cause the vapors.
To end this overly long segment, both sides need to take a breath. Papal infallibility does not mean that everything that proceeds from the mouth of the Roman Pontiff is necessarily without error. It certainly doesn't mean that those manning the Vatican dicasteries can't make mistakes. He does enjoy the charism of infallibility when teaching on matters of faith and morals, to the universal Church, in his role as the successor of Peter. This charism is not about making new doctrines but better defining, developing and formalizing teachings that have been a part of the deposit of faith all along. He teaches infallibly also when he reiterates established doctrines of the Church when he preaches or writes. To wonder about the direction the Church is taking under Francis's leadership isn't a mortal sin. But to be overly panicked by it may show a need for renewed faith. Those who get upset with people with questions may need to grow in charity, as well as examine their own intellectual past.
Post Script...I wrote a friend this week that I thought this could be Francis' "Humanae Vitae" moment. (I was disappointed to see the Catholic Herald made the same observation. Disappointed because no writer wants to be second to publish an opinion). I also didn't think the negative response would be as severe as what happened 52 years ago.
In 1968 the expectation was that St. Pope Paul VI would modify the Church's teaching on artificial contraception, by allowing its use under at least certain conditions. The encyclical, released in July of that year, reaffirmed the traditional prohibition, causing a backlash among some theologians and bishops conferences. Those who didn't openly criticize the pope's decision did their best to ignore it. Paul, who was pope for another ten years, never wrote another encyclical (though he did issue several exhortations among other official documents), and curtailed his traveling to the point that he never made an official trip outside of Italy after 1970. Some feel that the negative reaction to HM played a large role in his relative withdrawal from public view the last decade of his life.
Today there is a backlash to Querida Amazonia, both in Germany, where the local bishops have been trying to gain more independence in doctrinal matters the last few years, and in the United States. What the long term ramifications will be is anyone's guess.
Paul and Francis are different personalities, though their similarity in approaches to the papacy hasn't been lost on some observers. In terms of personality, Paul VI is sometimes referred to as the "Hamlet" pope. He was a man of deep personal holiness, highly intelligent, but indecisive. George Weigel saw his intelligence as a bit of a hindrance, because Paul would struggle to see every issue from every side, with he constant analyzing keeping him from making clear decisions.
No one is ever going to confuse Pope Francis with Hamlet. Whatever the blow back is from Querida Amazonia, I don't think the Holy Father is going to withdraw from public life or stop writing. My hope is that critics on both sides use the Holy Father's writings as a way of judging their own beliefs, and not making their opinions, no matter how well grounded and sincerely held, the standard by which they judge the pope.
Pete Rose and the Hall of Fame ___________________________
I have friends in Cincinnati from my days at Xavier who are not going to be happy with me. But I've been a pretty hard core "No" on the question of Peter Rose going into the Hall of Fame. I've softened a bit over the years, but I'm still not 100% convinced. In light of the sign stealing brouhaha Rose has applied to have his lifetime suspension lifted, which would then make his election to the Hall possible, if not certain.
On one level, I say why not? It's been three decades, and what he did wasn't worse than what many others have done. Or at least, that's the line of thought. While not unreasonable, I still have some reservations.
He denied betting on baseball and specifically on the Reds, the team he managed, for a decade and a half after the suspension came down. He had many high profile supporters like stats guru Bill James (who actually claimed to have mathematical proof Rose didn't bet on the Reds) and elder statesman sports writer Roger Kahn. He only fessed up when it was time to sell a book, in 2004. No one likes having egg on their face, especially members of the press. He ended up losing a lot of support in his bid for reinstatement after that.
In admitting to betting on the Reds, he insisted that he never beg against them. As admirable as that might be, how do we know he is telling the truth now? He wasn't before. I also think it's naive to think his gambling interests didn't effect the way he managed a given game, even the ones he didn't place a wager on. We shouldn't kid ourselves. Pete was knee deep in the hoopla. There were reports he was scared to come to New York on a road trip because he owed money to bookies. I have no doubt the pressure to win both games and bets played into decisions he made. Because Pete is a bad man? No. Because he is a human being.
The bottom line for me is the if he had told the truth from the beginning, been contrite in taking his suspension, it would have been lifted a long time ago and he'd be in the Hall today. This entire episode has been prison of his own making, to reference Rose's confessional tome.
So, in 2020, I'm not against Pete Rose's rehabilitation, but I'm not going to protest for it either.
Coming Attractions______________________________________
I was going to write something about my experiences at Catholic University, but the post was running too long for my taste. I'll be sure to get to it next time.
Tuesday, February 4, 2020
Quick Super Bowl LIV Highlight and Lowlight
Everyone is talking about the Patrick Mahomes 44 yard pass to Tyreek Hill as the big turning point of the game, and who am I to argue? But there was a play before it, I have to admit I'm not sure when exactly it was - I haven't seen it on any highlight reels - where the Niners missed an opportunity on a potential interception around the 4th quarter. At that point Mahomes looked lost and the Chiefs doomed. After the INT that wasn't he was practically unstoppable. San Fran didn't capitalize on the last period pick they did make, so who knows if it would have made a difference. It just felt like something clicked with KC after that and there was no stopping them.
As for the Halftime Show
Some people I know were surprised that I wasn't outraged by the halftime show. It's not that I think it was OK, it's more that it wasn't anything really new. 75% of what you saw would have been at home in a Mitzi Gaynor special from the '70's that your grandmother would have watched (if you don't know who Mitzi Gaynor is, that's what God invented Wikipedia and YouTube for). The other 25%, while being the crass objectification of women critics are complaining about, has been on television before. I'm not saying I like it, or wish they wouldn't tone it down, especially for the sake of families who want to watch the game together, but you're outraged about a horse that left the barn 50 years ago.
Yelling and screaming and stating the obvious isn't going to do anything. They don't care, and in fact that's what they want. They feel a strange vindication when people get uptight about things like this. It makes them feel righteous, like they're doing god's work.
It's better to do something than complain. Turn turn off the television. That's the thing to do, maybe. Turn off the game. I like football too, so I'm not sure I could do that, at least not yet. But we can start by turning off the halftime show. Pray a rosary as a family, play a game of Uno, plan a meal break and talk to the people you're with. Be creative. They give you a half hour break (I think this year's intermission was even longer). The networks have their ways of knowing how many eyeballs are watching the screen at a given time. So do the sponsors. And who knows? Maybe the rosary will turn into a spiritual sharing. The Uno game will be so hot you don't want to stop. The food and conversation so enjoyable that you all will forget the game. Maybe it will make a difference in the big picture, maybe not. But it will be better for you, and your soul.
As for the Halftime Show
Some people I know were surprised that I wasn't outraged by the halftime show. It's not that I think it was OK, it's more that it wasn't anything really new. 75% of what you saw would have been at home in a Mitzi Gaynor special from the '70's that your grandmother would have watched (if you don't know who Mitzi Gaynor is, that's what God invented Wikipedia and YouTube for). The other 25%, while being the crass objectification of women critics are complaining about, has been on television before. I'm not saying I like it, or wish they wouldn't tone it down, especially for the sake of families who want to watch the game together, but you're outraged about a horse that left the barn 50 years ago.
Yelling and screaming and stating the obvious isn't going to do anything. They don't care, and in fact that's what they want. They feel a strange vindication when people get uptight about things like this. It makes them feel righteous, like they're doing god's work.
It's better to do something than complain. Turn turn off the television. That's the thing to do, maybe. Turn off the game. I like football too, so I'm not sure I could do that, at least not yet. But we can start by turning off the halftime show. Pray a rosary as a family, play a game of Uno, plan a meal break and talk to the people you're with. Be creative. They give you a half hour break (I think this year's intermission was even longer). The networks have their ways of knowing how many eyeballs are watching the screen at a given time. So do the sponsors. And who knows? Maybe the rosary will turn into a spiritual sharing. The Uno game will be so hot you don't want to stop. The food and conversation so enjoyable that you all will forget the game. Maybe it will make a difference in the big picture, maybe not. But it will be better for you, and your soul.
Saturday, February 1, 2020
SB LIV Trolling, Impeachment 2020, What do you do With a Problem Like Bernie, "1917" and Nationalism
Super Bowl Trolling_____________________________________
I'm writing this on Wednesday, January 29, just to make it clear if this doesn't get published before the Super Bowl. No matter if the Niners win or loose, the Pats traded the wrong QB. There, I said it.
Impeachment 2020______________________________________
In 1974 there was a clear consensus in the nation that Richard Nixon should be impeached. It never went to trial, but it's a certainty that he would have been removed after a Senate trial if he hadn't resigned first. The process had bi-partisan support in congress as well as popular approval.
As in 1998-'99, today's process has been partisan in nature, with little real support among the people for removal. You can quote me polls, but in truth I don't trust them. Nixon's crimes were clear and easy to understand. Clinton's, while concrete (let's not forget he was disbarred in his native Arkansas and by the Supreme Court for committing perjury), the American people didn't see them as grave enough to warrant removal from office. The charges against Trump are vague and hastily prepared (It took over two years between the Watergate break-in and the drafting of impeachment articles - the Ukraine phone call only happened in August of last year and I'm not sure obstruction of congress is really a thing).
The opponents of the president need to be careful here. It's unwise to turn a process meant to be used rarely and with great caution into just another political weapon to hurt a president you disagree with, even if those disagreements are deep and sincerely held. Such a strategy is both bad for the life of the country, and for the political future of the Democrats.
What Do You Do With a Problem Like Bernie ?_____________
Whether you support him or not, Bernie Sanders is to be admired. At first in 2016 he reminded me of a left wing version of Ross Perot, or maybe Steve Forbes: a one issue candidate there to push a point of view. For them actually winning wasn't the thing. They were about influencing the direction of the party (for Perot disrupting might be the better word). Like Rocky Balboa, though, who didn't realize he was supposed to play patsy to Apollo Creed, Sanders actually campaigned hard against Hillary Clinton, nearly winning the nomination, as Rocky came close to defeating Creed in the first movie.
Against all odds the septuagenarian who, if elected, will turn 80 during his first year in office, is running again, and is leading in some polls (yeah, I know, I don't trust polls - just go with it). There is some talk the party is trying to "rig" the process so that someone else, anyone else, that isn't Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang, gets the nomination.
I put rig is scare quotes because the truth is the political parties are private institutions. Contrary to popular belief primary elections aren't mandated by law, and the parties can choose their nominees anyway they want. Since the 1960's both parties have relied more on primary elections in choosing delegates for their conventions to give the impression that the process is all about democracy at work, not about backroom deal making. In reality the parties can decide how many delegates are elected by popular vote and how may are chosen in some other way. They can even decide if the delegates are bound to vote for the candidates they were chosen to poll for or not.
The Democrats have a dilemma. The party establishment believes Joe Bidden or Mike Bloomberg have a better chance against Donald Trump in November than Sanders. That may be so - I'm not sure the U.S. will elect a socialist, no matter what qualifier he likes putting in from of it.
As a self described democratic socialist, Bernie isn't a conventional Democrat, and his followers by and large have no loyalty to the party. They are ideologically motivated, caring more for doctrinal purity than adherence to a coalition platform. If it's perceived that Sanders was robbed by the Democrats he will either go third party, or sit it out. Either way the left-progressive vote is split and or stays home. I'm not sure his endorsement or active campaigning on behalf of the eventual nominee would be enough to get the more entrenched Bernie Bro's and Sis's out on election day. This makes the reelection of Donald Trump more likely, no matter who the nominee is.
1917 and Nationalism___________________________________
I caught the World War I epic 1917 over the Christmas break. I was reminded a bit of Christopher Nolan's 2017's film Dunkirk, set in WW II, which might sound funny. The latter film is a series of flash backs and forwards that plays with the timeline, culminating in all the various threads converging at the end. 1917 is filmed in a "single shot," with a completely linear sequence of events. Dunkirk deals with a specific historical event seen from different vantage points, while 1917 constructs a single narrative out of various stories told to director Sam Medes by his grandfather, a veteran of the war. What the films have in common is the they tell very intimate stories, giving the viewer an idea of what it was like to be on the ground, in the air or in the water as war is raging around you.
Both are also very British films. Neither movie is jingoistic, but both, in their own ways, offer positive images of England at war. 1917, even more so than Dunkirk, which does make some attempts to show that the English soldiers weren't all angels, serve as tributes to the men and women who served during the two great conflicts, and saved the island nation from occupation.
1917 has come under some fire for being "irresponsibly nationalistic," as Matthew Rozca in Salon put it. He may have been uncomfortable because the movie didn't do enough to show how virulent nationalism helped cause World War I, but I was uncomfortable at how Dunkirk failed to show the horrors of Naziism that was being combatted by the allies in the later conflict.
While focusing on the human element of the Dunkirk story is more than valid, ignoring the bigger picture issue of fascist aggression and racial genocide is a greater sin than Mendes' failure to get into some esoteric discussion on the evils of nationalism that has nothing to do with the story. Personally, I take both movies at face value, with Nolan's turning the Nazi's into faceless and mostly nameless shadow menaces as a minor annoyance.
1917 is unapologetically pro-British. Yes, the two times we encounter the enemy up close they are not shown in a sympathetic light. All the same the movie doesn't bash you over the head with anti-Teutonic propaganda, either.
I'm going to stop here, and take this up again next time. Rozca is placing his argument into the wider context of "Trumpism" and, presumably, Brexit. In constructing his argument he fails to draw a distinction between nationalism and patriotism, and in that lays the fatal flaw.
I'm writing this on Wednesday, January 29, just to make it clear if this doesn't get published before the Super Bowl. No matter if the Niners win or loose, the Pats traded the wrong QB. There, I said it.
Impeachment 2020______________________________________
In 1974 there was a clear consensus in the nation that Richard Nixon should be impeached. It never went to trial, but it's a certainty that he would have been removed after a Senate trial if he hadn't resigned first. The process had bi-partisan support in congress as well as popular approval.
As in 1998-'99, today's process has been partisan in nature, with little real support among the people for removal. You can quote me polls, but in truth I don't trust them. Nixon's crimes were clear and easy to understand. Clinton's, while concrete (let's not forget he was disbarred in his native Arkansas and by the Supreme Court for committing perjury), the American people didn't see them as grave enough to warrant removal from office. The charges against Trump are vague and hastily prepared (It took over two years between the Watergate break-in and the drafting of impeachment articles - the Ukraine phone call only happened in August of last year and I'm not sure obstruction of congress is really a thing).
The opponents of the president need to be careful here. It's unwise to turn a process meant to be used rarely and with great caution into just another political weapon to hurt a president you disagree with, even if those disagreements are deep and sincerely held. Such a strategy is both bad for the life of the country, and for the political future of the Democrats.
What Do You Do With a Problem Like Bernie ?_____________
Whether you support him or not, Bernie Sanders is to be admired. At first in 2016 he reminded me of a left wing version of Ross Perot, or maybe Steve Forbes: a one issue candidate there to push a point of view. For them actually winning wasn't the thing. They were about influencing the direction of the party (for Perot disrupting might be the better word). Like Rocky Balboa, though, who didn't realize he was supposed to play patsy to Apollo Creed, Sanders actually campaigned hard against Hillary Clinton, nearly winning the nomination, as Rocky came close to defeating Creed in the first movie.
Against all odds the septuagenarian who, if elected, will turn 80 during his first year in office, is running again, and is leading in some polls (yeah, I know, I don't trust polls - just go with it). There is some talk the party is trying to "rig" the process so that someone else, anyone else, that isn't Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang, gets the nomination.
I put rig is scare quotes because the truth is the political parties are private institutions. Contrary to popular belief primary elections aren't mandated by law, and the parties can choose their nominees anyway they want. Since the 1960's both parties have relied more on primary elections in choosing delegates for their conventions to give the impression that the process is all about democracy at work, not about backroom deal making. In reality the parties can decide how many delegates are elected by popular vote and how may are chosen in some other way. They can even decide if the delegates are bound to vote for the candidates they were chosen to poll for or not.
The Democrats have a dilemma. The party establishment believes Joe Bidden or Mike Bloomberg have a better chance against Donald Trump in November than Sanders. That may be so - I'm not sure the U.S. will elect a socialist, no matter what qualifier he likes putting in from of it.
As a self described democratic socialist, Bernie isn't a conventional Democrat, and his followers by and large have no loyalty to the party. They are ideologically motivated, caring more for doctrinal purity than adherence to a coalition platform. If it's perceived that Sanders was robbed by the Democrats he will either go third party, or sit it out. Either way the left-progressive vote is split and or stays home. I'm not sure his endorsement or active campaigning on behalf of the eventual nominee would be enough to get the more entrenched Bernie Bro's and Sis's out on election day. This makes the reelection of Donald Trump more likely, no matter who the nominee is.
1917 and Nationalism___________________________________
I caught the World War I epic 1917 over the Christmas break. I was reminded a bit of Christopher Nolan's 2017's film Dunkirk, set in WW II, which might sound funny. The latter film is a series of flash backs and forwards that plays with the timeline, culminating in all the various threads converging at the end. 1917 is filmed in a "single shot," with a completely linear sequence of events. Dunkirk deals with a specific historical event seen from different vantage points, while 1917 constructs a single narrative out of various stories told to director Sam Medes by his grandfather, a veteran of the war. What the films have in common is the they tell very intimate stories, giving the viewer an idea of what it was like to be on the ground, in the air or in the water as war is raging around you.
Both are also very British films. Neither movie is jingoistic, but both, in their own ways, offer positive images of England at war. 1917, even more so than Dunkirk, which does make some attempts to show that the English soldiers weren't all angels, serve as tributes to the men and women who served during the two great conflicts, and saved the island nation from occupation.
1917 has come under some fire for being "irresponsibly nationalistic," as Matthew Rozca in Salon put it. He may have been uncomfortable because the movie didn't do enough to show how virulent nationalism helped cause World War I, but I was uncomfortable at how Dunkirk failed to show the horrors of Naziism that was being combatted by the allies in the later conflict.
While focusing on the human element of the Dunkirk story is more than valid, ignoring the bigger picture issue of fascist aggression and racial genocide is a greater sin than Mendes' failure to get into some esoteric discussion on the evils of nationalism that has nothing to do with the story. Personally, I take both movies at face value, with Nolan's turning the Nazi's into faceless and mostly nameless shadow menaces as a minor annoyance.
1917 is unapologetically pro-British. Yes, the two times we encounter the enemy up close they are not shown in a sympathetic light. All the same the movie doesn't bash you over the head with anti-Teutonic propaganda, either.
I'm going to stop here, and take this up again next time. Rozca is placing his argument into the wider context of "Trumpism" and, presumably, Brexit. In constructing his argument he fails to draw a distinction between nationalism and patriotism, and in that lays the fatal flaw.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)