By a unanimous decision, the Board of Visitors voted to re-instate UVA President Teresa Sullivan yesterday. Clearly, it is in the best interests of the university for everyone to figure out how to bury the hatchet, but I hope, too, that the underlying issue of what is required of a university in our day will not be lost. Sullivan now has an obligation to use her new found fame to address this issue thoughtfully, and not only on the campus in Charlottesville. The thought that a board would think about eliminating classics is simply horrific and we need to ask how we got to such a situation.
Archbishop J. Augustine DiNoia, O.P. was named Vice-President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” yesterday by Pope Benedict XVI. Archbishop DiNoia served with then-Cardinal Ratzinger at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for several years, then with Cardinal William Levada, before being named Secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship in 2009 when he was also ordained titular Archbishop of Oregon City.
The Ecclesia Dei Commission was established by Pope John Paul II in 1988 to cultivate “full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Lefebvre.” As well, the commission aimed to promote the pastoral care of those Catholics who felt an attachment to the Tridentine Rites of the Church.
CNS has the news story on the appointment of Archbishop J. Augustine DiNoia, O.P., to the Commission Ecclesia Dei that oversees the discussions with the Lefebvrists. I will post on the significance of this very intriguing appointment tomorrow morning.
In the meantime, here is a video clip of Archbishop DiNoia's comments at the end of the Mass at which he was ordained an archbishop. It gives some sense of the fact, an undeniable fact, that DiNoia brings not only his extensive learning to this post, but a deeply ecclesial spirituality:
Over at The New Republic, the always spot-on Noam Scheiber notes the activities of Lockheed Martin, and how they plan to warn their employees just before the election that they could be laid off. Nice.
In the "Morning Briefing," NCR's editor, Dennis Coday, called attention to an article about Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in the Arizona case yesterday. It was stunning, even by Scalia's over-the-top standards. It was especially strange to see Scalia comment on President Obama's recent decision to give temporary work permits to undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children. I do think the President's decision reaises constitutional questions, but those questions were most certainly not before the Court yesterday. If Scalia wants to write a blog, he should do so, but he should leave such commentary out of an official document of the Court like a dissent. Perhaps it was payback for Obama's comments about Citizens United during his State of the Union speech two years ago. Vendetta is an Italian word after all. So, it "scatenato" or unhinged, and Scalia's dissent yesterday seems to exemplify it.
I am angry at myself for missing the scandal at the University of Virginia. In Connecticut for two weeks, excuse me, for a fortnight, to visit my Dad, I did not check in regularly with the Washington Post online, and I abstained from any of the cable news programs I normally watch. Sadly, the UVA scandal did not break through in Connecticut’s local papers. That makes me angry too. This is a national story with very important issues and its resolution will likely point higher education down one of two paths, only one of which is worthy and respectable.
The Supreme Court has upheld part of a controversial Arizona anti-immigrant law and stuck down other parts. Here is Politico's look at the decision.
The bad news is they upheld the provision that permits law enforcement authorities to request the immigration papers of those they pull over for other reasons, or whom they suspect are in the country illegally. But, the good news is that in writing the decision, Justice Kennedy opened the door for further litigation if the implementation results in racial profiling. The other good news is that the Court struck down other provisions of the law, such as making it a crime not to carry one's immigration papers with one. Another provision, making it a state crime to hold a job without proper work authorization was also struck down.
All in all, a narrowly tailored decision is never a bad result.
This coming Wednesday, June 27, at 7 p.m., I will be in New York City for a public discussion of the Holy Father's address to the Bundestag with Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete. The event is sponsored by the Crossroads Cultural Center and will be held in Room 905 of teh Kimmel Center at NYU, 60 Washington Square South. If you have never heard Msgr. Albacete in person, his commentary will be well worth the price of admission. Actually, admission is free, but Msgr. Albacete is always worth a trip cross town or in from the burbs. And, I will do my best. Hope to see you there.
In 2005, Mohamed Morsi was in prison and Hosni Mubarak was President of Egypt. As of yesterday, Morsi is President and Mubarak is in prison.
It remains to be seen how much power Morsi can and will exercise. The ruling military, and courts appointed by the former regime, recently disbanded parliament, asserted the rights of the military leadership, and ordered a new constitution. But, two things are clear. Had the military declared Morsi the loser, and tried to install former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq, there would have been blood instead or fireworks in Tahrir Square last night. And, Morsi delivered precisely the kind of unifying speech such a moment demanded. To be clear, it was SUCH a moment. Egypt, one of the oldest civilizations in the world, had never given the civis any say in who should lead the country. If Mosri's actions can match his words, Egypt can take a big step towards peace both within its borders and with its powerful neighbor Israel.
The jury in the trial of Msgr. William Lynn took 13 days to reach its verdict, and the verdict was clear: Those charged with oversight of clergy and who did not use that charge to protect children will be found guilty of criminal behavior -- in this case, child endangerment.