Once again, the USCCB is doing the Church proud, this time opposing cuts in the Agriculture Department's budget that will adversely affect programs that help the poor. The letter, dated May 31, 2011 and signed on behalf of the USCCB by Bishops Stephen Blaire and Howard Hubbard, states: "We express our deep concerns that the current proposal calls for significant cuts to both domestic and international food aid, conservation and rural development programs. These proposed cuts will greatly affect programs that serve hungry, poor and vulnerable people in our nation and around the world."
A source in Philadelphia tells me that the chancery is all abuzz that tomorrow will see the naming of a new archbishop to replace embattled Cardinal Justin Rigali. Rigali was himself named to the post on June 8, and three of his four auxiliaries had their appointments announced on June 8, so there is something of a tradition. But, if the buzz is right about the timing, there is little consensus about the choice. Here are the leading candidates with my handicapping:
Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput has a strong track record on child protection, which seems to be the most important qualification for the post given the fallout from the Grand Jury report in February and the just-beginning trial of two priests on charges of child molestation. This morning, those priests declined a plea deal. Chaput is a lightning rod on Church-State issues, but he has some media savvy to be sure. His appointment would be seen as a victory for the conservative wing in the American Church but even his critics, like myself, must admit that he is one of the brightest bishops on the bench today.
This columnist has been known to criticize former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on many occasions. But, she is getting a bum rap now about her comments regarding Paul Revere. Yes, she conflated the facts of Revere's warning with its effects: Revere did not warn the British not to try and take the colonists' guns, he warned the colonists that the British were coming to take their guns, and they warned the British that this would provoke a fight.
I have tried to avoid writing about whether or not those boxers in the famous tweeted photo belonged to Congressman Anthony Weiner. Somehow, I had it in my mind that there were more important issues for the nation to face. With his stunning news conference yesterday, however, Congressman Weiner changed the stakes. This is no longer about boxers. It is about deceit.
"Limitrophe" is not a new word. It is an old word. But it was new to me when I encountered it a few days ago. It means "situated on a border or frontier."
I must have encountered it previously but it made no impression on me the first time. It is found in Churchill's war memoirs, the first volume, "The Gathering Storm" and it comes in a memo he gave to the war Cabinet on September 25, 1939. He wrote: "The Russians have mobilized very large forces and have shown themselves able to advance fast and far from their pre-war positions. They are now limitrophe with Germany, and it is quite impossible for Germany to denude the Eastern Front."
This is a very useful word and it is not surprising to discover it in something Churchill wrote. He is the one statesman I can think of who won a Nobel Prize for literature. When I finsihed my book and completed my duties regarding last month's Rerum Novarum conference, I permitted myself an indulgence to celebrate. I took up the memoirs to re-read them for my bedtime reading. Sometimes, I am sleepy and only consume a few pages. Other nights, I can't put them down.
Over at the Huffington Post, Sister Mary Ann Walsh takes on the charge that the John Jay Report mistakenly blamed the culture of the '60s for the sex abuse scandal, a simplistic misreading of the report to be sure.
This past weekend, Ralph Reed, of Christian Coalition and Jack Abramoff fame, hosted a conference of conservative religious leaders here in Washington. They hope to energize conservative Christian voters to turn out at the polls en masse next year, although one wonders whether some GOP leaders will look up from their copies of "Atlas Shrugged" long enough to recognize the deep intellectual schizophrenia within the conservative political ranks today.
The progressive religious group Faith in Public Life organized an event at a nearby hotel to push back against the religious right's agenda. Among others, Father Clete Kiley of the Archdiocese of Chicago addressed the group. Here is the text of his speech as prepared for delivery:
Today we are gathered here to sound an alarm. The proposed federal budget developed by Chairman Paul Ryan, and being pushed by folks at the Faith and Freedom Coalition across the street, reflects a profound crisis for American working families and American values.
The visit of Vice President Joseph Biden to the Vatican sent tongues wagging. Why was the visit "private?" Would there be a statement from the Vatican similar to that issued after then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a statement that noted the Pope had essentially scolded Pelosi for her stance on abortion? Would tehre be any pictures of Biden's visit? What does it all mean?
Biden, of course, is not a head of state nor a head of government, so it should not surprise that there are differences in protocol between his visit and that of President Obama. And, the Vatican is pretty strict when it comes to protocol.
Maureen Dowd has found her hierarchic knight in shining armor, having paid a visit to Archbishop Dairmuid Martin of Dublin. If Dowd intended to hold Martin up as the prelate who faces one of the most difficult tasks in the universal Church, governing the archbishopric of Dublin at a time when the hierarchy and clergy of Ireland are beset by a sex abuse crisis, and to praise him for his candor in dealing with that crisis, or to acknowledge his resolve to do something about it, that would be fine.
Dowd being Dowd, however, she uses her praise of Archbishop Martin to heap coals upon the heads of the rest of the Church and especially the Vatican. And, Dowd being Dowd, she is more than a little careless with her sweeping claims and her recounting of recent history.
In his article at Crisis magazine, Father Sirico does not mention the fact that the position he takes in support of cutting government programs that assist the poor is opposed by the USCCB. He is entitled to think that government anti-poverty programs do not work, but he should at least acknowledge that the bishops who oversee so much of the Church's work on behalf of the poor have concluded that those programs do help. And, there are many reasons - social, economic and cultural - to explain why the Great Society programs have not been as effective as we might have hoped. That said, I fail to see Sirico and his allies proposing alternative efforts to help the poor and the vulnerable, or are we to just throw everyone into this budding "Opportunity Society" and hope they flourish? Alas, no matter what the government does or does not do, there will be some people who do not succeed, people who do not flourish, people whose skills are limited and, consequently, are unable to explit the opportunities Sirirco's laissez-faire vision holds out to them.