In recent weeks, we have witnessed increased public attention and signs of meaningful action in America in response to the ongoing genocide in Darfur in the Sudan, which have been manifested in several encouraging ways. This is a crucial time, so don’t let this moment pass without having your voice heard as well, at least by our own government if not that of the Sudan.
First, in late March, the Sudanese government paid a million dollars to run an eight-page advertising supplement in the New York Times touting the purportedly peaceful climate and democratic culture in the Sudan, while aggressively marketing business and investment opportunities in that oil-rich nation [link here]. Still, even in the course of this public relations offensive, the Sudanese government was forced to acknowledge the ongoing tragedy in Darfur, if only by way of dismissal. The New York Times advertisement says that government “Ministers are frustrated that coverage of Sudan in the international media has focused almost exclusively on the fighting between rebels and Arab militias in the western province of Darfur.” Sudanese officials further are quoted as complaining that Darfur is not all there is to the Sudan.
How frustrating indeed it must be for the Sundanese government that the pesky international media (not to mention human rights groups and international organizations) would let a thing like genocide occupy so much attention. Importantly, this episode—in which the Sudanese government felt compelled to mention the situation and insist that it would be properly addressed—demonstrates that international efforts to restore human dignity for all people in Darfur are being heard. And they are being heard in the Sudan. Now is no time to rest but instead to redouble efforts.
Second, to follow-up up on an event whose planning I had reported in a prior posting, dozens of protestors, many from the Catholic Workers movement, marched to the Sudanese embassy in Washington, D.C. on March 29 to highlight the injustice in Darfur. As I said previously, I tend to be quite critical of the use of civil obedience, not in its traditional form to refuse to obey an unjust law, but instead as a strategy to secure public attention by law-breaking. Still, if there were a cause that justified attention-getting-by-law-breaking, this would be it and the place to do it would be at the Sudanese embassy. And from reports of the event last week, it appears that the law enforcement agents making the arrests saw it that way as well, offering supportive and admiring words to the protestors, even as the officers did their job in arresting and processing them. You can read more about this event, and why some of the protestors believe being arrested during the demonstration was justified, on the website of the Catholic Workers in Worcester, Massachusetts [links here and here].
And I cannot leave unmentioned an additional dimension to this story, which says much about the heart of the Catholic Workers involved in this and other demonstrations about Darfur. While the protestors have left no doubt as to their fervent opposition to the policies of the Sudanese government, they simultaneously have demonstrated their respect and love for the human beings employed at the embassy. This of course only strengthens and makes concrete the protestors’ insistence upon honoring the dignity of every person. How have they done this? Well, by making a direct human connection. Last summer, the Catholic Workers volunteered to assist with landscaping improvement on the front grounds of the Sudanese embassy, working side-by-side with an embassy staffer. At last week’s protest, the Catholic Workers were pleased to see that the lawn remained in the new and improved state as they had left it (and to warmly greet the embassy staffer as well). [link]
[Side Note: Perhaps to the bemused surprise of my friends on the Mirror of Justice and elsewhere in the Catholic academic community, where my deserved reputation is rather conservative, I have to say that these Catholic Worker folks are growing on me. Not only have I found myself writing now on this blog for a second time about their efforts to promote human rights in the Sudan, but others have reported on this blog about the group that followed up the John Paul II conference at St. John’s last month by attending an anti-war poetry reading at the Catholic Worker house. While no one has yet “outed” me, I’ll go ahead and admit here that, yes, I was one of that small band that was shepherded by David Gregory from Queens to the East Village to spend a Friday night with the Catholic Workers. No, I’m not ready to join up, but I am pleased to find common ground on many things. And for us as Catholic legal thinkers to be a contradiction to our society, refusing to adhere to general ideological categories and reaching across arbitrary lines to each other, is an essential part of our mission here at the Mirror of Justice.]
Third, pending before Congress this month is an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill that would add $175 million for peacekeeping efforts in Darfur. This would be used to bolster the thin line of African Union troops trying to restore order and protect humanitarian efforts in that devastated region.
Fourth, and related to the third point, the Save Darfur Coalition is promoting this week (April 2-9) as a week of prayer and action. Further information can be found at SaveDarfur.org. The Coalition seeks to bring a million voices to bear on this issue, through an on-line postcard to President Bush (takes only a few seconds to include your voice). In addition, take a moment this week (or next) and send a message to your representative in Congress, urging additional funding for a multinational force to end the genocide in the Sudan. And as you go to Palm Sunday Mass, dedicate it through your prayers to the people of Darfur.
I appreciate Rob's link to the piece in Commonweal by Maurice Reidy, "Catholicism on Campus: How the Faith is Presented at Secular Schools." I think the article and the phenemenon it describes are interesting and important.
I imagine most folks (including the dreaded Neuhaus / Weigel / Novak neo-con troika!) would agree that Catholicism on secular campuses should be presented in a full and rich way, and not in a way that creates or feeds mistaken (or, in some cases, intentionally inaccurate) images of the Church's teaching and engagement with the world as "conservative." And, few would disagree with (certainly, I would not) Cathy Kaveny's statement, in the piece, that students at Princeton -- and everyplace else! -- should be "made aware of the breadth and strengths of the Catholic tradition." (Indeed, this should happen even without the help of Catholics or chaplains, but simply as part of any well rounded education).
That said, the piece is, I think, not really fair to Robert George and the James Madison Program. True, the article takes care to recognize that the question whether the Program does a good job at countering the campus's and the faculty's pervasive and stifling (and un-university-like) ideological homogeneity (it seems to me that it does) is different from the question whether the Program "reflect[s] the legitimate diversity within Catholic thinking." (Again, that "legitimate diversity" should be presented . . . by someone.) But, I'm not sure it's fair to put too much responsibility for presenting that diversity on the Madison Program -- it's not as if the Program does not have a pretty full plate "countering" all kinds of things -- or to pull out the "it's funded by Olin and has ties to people with ties to Opus Dei" card. And, I'm pretty sure it is not fair to quote uncritically an anti-George hit piece in the Nation (not exactly an outlet known for balanced presentations of opinion):
In a recent article in the Nation, Max Blumenthal wrote that the Madison Program “functions in many ways as a vehicle for conservative interests, using funding from a shadowy, cultlike Catholic group and right-wing foundations to support gatherings of movement activists, fellowships for ideologically correct visiting professors, and a cadre of conservative students.”
Please. Plenty of politically progressive scholars have participated in and enjoyed the Madison Program's activities and debates. And, for Max Blumenthal to suggest that the employment of an "ideological correctness" criterion -- assuming that Madison does employ one -- somehow distinguishes the Madison Program from, say, the entire academy is, well, to make a funny.
In any event, check out the piece. (There are also interesting comments about the issue over at the Commonweal blog.
I would like to respond to Rick’s posting of the news about Father Jenkins’ decision at Notre Dame that will facilitate the performance of Eve Ensler’s Monologues on that campus. I am saddened by and regret his decision.
Is it because I blindly follow those reports appearing in various sources that condemn the Monologues? Is it because some of those who have publicly criticized the Monologues are my friends and I want to agree with them? Is it because the title sounds dangerously suggestive and merits censorship?
No.
My sadness and regret are based on the fact that I read all of the Monologues four years ago—those in the 1998 original edition and those in the 2001 revised edition—and I cannot accept the justifications that Father Jenkins has presented in support of his decision. To ensure that my recollection of them was accurate, I reread them today before writing this posting. In spite of the claims concerning free inquiry, free speech, academic freedom, fostering engagement with other perspectives, the enhancement of knowledge within the Catholic intellectual tradition, respectful intellectual exchange, and the promotion of a fruitful dialogue between Gospel and culture (all of which I support within reason), the Monologues serve none of these noble goals that might otherwise merit serious consideration. The one substantive justification that I have heard elsewhere is that performances of the Monologues elevate consciousness about violence against women and girls. After reading and rereading all the Monologues, that justification is found lacking. It is a myth and quickly evaporates. It escapes me how the performances of the Monologues on a Catholic campus can nurture the atmosphere in which the Church does its thinking. If a person were to see or hear a performance or read the text, he or she should conclude that there is nothing to think about in the series of sensational, coarse, and vulgar assaults that overwhelm the senses and the intellect in a harsh and brutal fashion.
Father Jenkins does not say if he read the Monologues or watched or heard any part of a performance. He states that he spoke with many people about the matter, but he does not disclose any personal contact with reading or viewing or hearing the Monologues themselves. For the time being I will assume that he did not. But even if he did, his decision about Ms. Ensler’s notorious work, I believe, would still remain one to be lamented. RJA sj
The Christian Science Monitor examines a booming new industry in India: surrogate motherhood. Christianity Today weighs in:
This mechanical approach to procreation has been widely repudiated, and for good reason. Its logical extension would be the use of animal wombs (which could become possible), the use of an "artificial" womb (on which there has been work for many years), and indeed gestation in a man. The radical separation of biological parenting and gestation—like all efforts to sunder the genetic, birth, and social mothers of a child, three roles that should be in one woman—strikes deep into the Christian understanding of procreation.
An additional source of concern is the "exploitation inherent in the economic disparities, which are grossly underlined in the case of outsourcing to a developing country with many, many poor women," especially because "renting a womb" amounts to a "prostitution of the human body" akin to selling organs and tissues.
Rob
In Commonweal, Maurice Reidy explores whether conservatives have captured the "Catholic" label for themselves at elite universities like Princeton:
According to Donald McCrabb, the former director of the Catholic Campus Ministry Association, many chaplains are adopting more traditional models of ministry. Williams College and Columbia University are some of the places where the voice of conservative Catholics is now dominant. Both for “cultural” and “ecclesial” reasons, McCrabb said, chaplains on non-Catholic campuses are increasingly taking something of a “ghetto approach.” “We do a little more circling of the wagons,” he said. “The benefit of that is that it helps people to form a strong identity; the disadvantage of that is that they’re unable to engage others.”
Rob
Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Last week the Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, president of the Chicago Theological Seminary, gave a speech to a prayer breakfast sponsored by the Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board in which she argued that abortion restrictions are evidence that America has "lost its soul." (HT: Mere Comments) Rejecting the suggestion that ensoulment occurs prior to birth, her view is that "to be human is to be able to seek normative or transcendent value and purpose beyond sheer physical survival." That seems to leave quite a few on the outside looking in, especially in light of her subsequent statement that "ensoulment is a lifelong project but individuals and nations can not only gain their souls but lose it." I'm hoping that particular assertion was a rhetorical flourish, but as the speech goes on, one gets the sense of an ever-shrinking human community.
Rob
Notre Dame's president, Fr. John Jenkins, has released this statement, outlining the process, arguments, and principles underlying his announced decision not to prevent the performance of the "Vagina Monologues" at Notre Dame. Here is a bit:
Over the past ten weeks, I have met, talked to, and heard from hundreds of men and women—faculty, students, and administrators; alumni and friends. I have met individually with department chairs and faculty; attended a forum put on by the College of Arts and Letters; and participated in meetings of the Faculty Senate, the Student Senate, and the Graduate Student Council. I have read the e-mails sent to me, and I have carefully and faithfully read the news coverage and opinions in The Observer. I thank everyone who took the time to share their thoughts; I have been impressed by the passion, intelligence, and civility of this debate.
Some of the individuals I’ve talked with are adamantly opposed to the performance or expression on campus of a work, play, book, or speech that contradicts Catholic teaching. To them, we must say, with all respect: "This is a Catholic university." We are committed to a wide-open, unconstrained search for truth, and we are convinced that Catholic teaching has nothing to fear from engaging the wider culture.
Others I talked to were appalled that we would raise any question about the content, message, or implications of a work of art, drama, or literature here on campus. To them, we have to say, with the same respect: "This is a Catholic university." It is founded upon our belief that love of God and neighbor are eternal teachings that give context and meaning to our search for truth. As I said, Catholic teaching has nothing to fear from engaging the wider culture, but we all have something to fear if the wider culture never engages Catholic teaching. That is why the Catholic tradition must not only inspire our worship and our service on campus; it should help shape the intellectual life of the university. Our goal is not to limit discussion or inquiry, but to enrich it; it is not to insulate that faith tradition from criticism, but to foster constructive engagement with critics.
Like any university, we have a responsibility to foster intellectual engagement with various perspectives and forms of knowledge, but as a Catholic university, we have the added responsibility of fostering engagement among these perspectives and forms of knowledge with the Catholic intellectual tradition. As Pope John Paul II wrote, the Catholic university is "a primary and privileged place for a fruitful dialogue between the Gospel and culture" [Ex corde ecclesiae, 3.34].
Grounded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Catholic intellectual tradition develops through this dialogue with culture, as it encounters new questions and discoveries; as it speaks on emerging social questions; as it applies the truths of the Gospel to complex situations wrought by advances in science. How our ancient but evolving Catholic tradition expresses itself in the future depends to a large extent on the work of this and other Catholic universities. After all, a Catholic university is where the Church does its thinking, and that thinking, to be beneficial, must come from an intellectually rigorous engagement with the world.
For these reasons, I am very determined that we not suppress speech on this campus. I am also determined that we never suppress or neglect the Gospel that inspired this University. As long as the Gospel message and the Catholic intellectual tradition are appropriately represented, we can welcome any serious debate on any thoughtful position here at Notre Dame. . . .
Marc DeGirolami has posted his review of Marci Hamilton's book, God vs. the Gavel. He argues that the vision of the public good she "advocates is ambiguous, unstable, and frequently merely a stand-in for her policy preferences on a variety of issues," and that "Hamilton’s profound disillusionment with religion has led her to vest an unjustifiably high degree of trust in the legislature to determine moral worth." (HT: Solum)
Rob
