.:[Double Click To][Close]:.

Year C 4th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Readings: Jer 1:4-5.17-19; Ps 71: 1-6.15-17; 1 Cor 12:31-13:13; Lk 4:21-30

As Christians we talk about love all the time because love is fundamental, not just for our lives, but for all of reality. After all, love is the reason there is something rather than nothing. When we speak of love we often do so by way of a reduction. Very often we repeat from Scripture, "God is love" (1 John 4:8.16). In his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict points this tendency out and attributes it, at least in part, to the poverty of our language. In English we have one word, "love," that we use across a vast range of meaning. In koine Greek, the language in which St. Paul composed his letters, we encounter three distinct words that we translate as "love": philia, agape, and eros. Philia refers to a particular kind of love between friends, exalted by Greek philosophers, like Plato and Aristotle. The word eros, as we know, means something like the "love between man and woman which is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon" them (par. 3). This brings us to agape, the word that St. Paul wrote about in our second reading, which is the same word used in 1 John to describe the divine nature of God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In western Christianity, taking Latin as our normative language, agape becomes caritas and, in turn, charity.

As with the word love, charity takes on many meanings, perhaps the most common of which in our day is bound up with being something of a do-gooder. Hence, our reduction is often revealed to us when a person we try to help says, "I don’t want or need your charity." This rejection is understandable and arises from a well-intentioned effort that fails to take full account of the humanity of the person we wish to help. In short, people cannot be the objects of a charitable act because true charity involves only subjects. It is precisely Jesus’ refusal to be reductive in today’s Gospel that causes him refuse to perform miracles in his home town in order to prove the truth of the messianic declaration he made in the synagogue, namely that the words of the prophet Isaiah, which he read to them at worship, were fulfilled in their hearing that very day. What was the messianic declaration of Isaiah? Let’s look back at last week’s Gospel: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord" (Luke 4:18-19). Without getting too cute with this passage, because in reality, even prior to his return to Nazareth, especially in Capernaum, he did restore sight to the blind, make the lame walk, and the deaf hear, we ask who are the poor, the captives, the blind, the oppressed? In this passage it is those who were there present. Their blindness is manifest by the fact that they do not recognize Jesus as the anointed one, the Messiah. They become infuriated that he refuses to demonstrate his claims with physical healings and other great signs to the point of trying to kill him. Jesus’ refusal shows that he has no ego-centric need to prove his identity.

Msgr. Luigi Giussani makes a distinction between charity and generosity. According to his view, "[g]enerosity arises from within you and therefore is like an escape valve" (Is It Possible to Live This Way?, Vol. 3 pg. 61). As such, it is an attempt to meet your own need and is not primarily concerned for the person you seek to help. For example, if you don’t give to the earthquake relief effort in Haiti, you feel cheap, and so you give. Looking at things like this if you give $1,000 instead of $100, you feel as though you have done more. When we act out of caritas, it works contrary to generosity: caritas "arises from without, from a presence in front of you," a person "who moves you and asks you" (ibid). Stated simply, "[c]harity poses itself in the relationship with another when there is no reason, no calculation" and can often only be done by us with great difficulty, which makes it a sacrifice acceptable to God (pg 38). This is the lesson of the widow, who we will encounter later in St. Luke’s Gospel, whose "two small coins" amounted to more than the contributions of the all the wealthy people combined because, while the wealthy "made offerings from their surplus," she gave "from her poverty," thus offering "her whole livelihood," everything she had (Luke 21:1-4). Charity always requires sacrifice.

Fr. Leonardo Grasso, a missionary sent from Venezuela to Haiti after the earthquake, when asked what he found upon his arrival in Haiti, said he "found people who are not as they are reflected in the current news, where they are portrayed as desperate, a prey for violence, and who are looting the aid. This is not true." He says that in his daily interactions with people he does not see, nor do people complain about all the conditions reported in the media. Rather, Fr. Leonardo says that because the Haitians "are people who have suffered greatly" that "they are also capable of facing conditions which seem impossible… They are able to recognize, in the circumstances of the catastrophe, a strength that comes from a relationship with God and with others. Haitians know the difficulties that confront them and embrace them in an extremely positive way." He says that "[i]nto the disaster, they breathe the desire to start over." One piece of reportage has stayed with me throughout these past few weeks came via Twitter from one Troy Livesay, who was in Port au Prince on the very night of the quake: "Church groups are singing throughout the city all through the night in prayer. It is a beautiful sound in the middle of a horrible tragedy." Charity always includes prayer through which we acknowledge the One who is our hope, the LORD who tells Jeremiah, "I am with you to deliver you" (Jer. 1:19). In all of this we see that God does not so much deliver us from circumstances, but through them.

Reflecting on love in light of the Gospel, I see that if my actions derive from something dictated to me, which gives rise to a felt need of my own, then I am engaging in child’s play, a kind of mechanical calculation. If, however, my actions arise "from the awareness moved by the presence of a [person] destined for the eternal, it’s no longer child’s play" (Is It Possible to Live This Way? Vol. 3 pg. 60). Without reference to Christ, I cannot help but reduce the humanity of those I try to assist as well as my own. Returning to the encyclical Deus Caritas Est, we read that "[s]eeing with the eyes of Christ, I can give to others much more than their outward necessities; I can give them the look of love which they crave" (par. 18). Hence, I can never look at another person "with the eyes of Christ" and see a problem to be solved. Indeed, our greatest need is to be loved, which is why St. Paul can confidently say that love "endures all things" and "never fails" (1 Cor. 13:7c-8a).

Finally, let’s look at the devastation wrought by the spread of HIV throughout much of sub-Saharan Africa. It is not uncommon to hear the response that we must make condoms more widely available, but this response ignores the humanity of those we want to help. What is the more charitable way? Rose Busingye, who runs Meeting Point International, a place in Kampala, Uganda for women infected with HIV and those with full-blown AIDs, many of whom are victims of rape and violence, tell us that we must "start from the fact that we need to be educated" and that "education primarily concerns the discovery of self: the person who is conscious of himself. He knows that he has a value that is greater than everything. Without the discovery of this value - for themselves and others - there is nothing to hold." Therefore, if we start, as those who think the distribution of condoms is either the only way, or merely the primary way, of combatting the spread of this deadly virus, from a negative hypothesis- that people in Africa, or anywhere, like teenagers in high school, will inevitably behave in an irresponsible manner, we fail to take seriously their humanity. Dear friends, as disciples of Jesus Christ, we must recognize that charity always trumps mechanics, be they physical, psychological, or even moral. Our ability to do this can only arise from our awareness of first being loved, which love gathers us here and makes what we do Eucharist, which moves us from what is partial to what is perfect.

Tempo de refazer pontes: Obama respondeu aos congressistas republicanos

A few thoughts on reality, memory, and experience

Something real happens to all of us everyday, all day long. If we pay attention, we will be humbled into true spirituality. God preserves everything that happens, whole and complete, which is why we purify memory by being unreservedly honest about what happens. It is just what JPII called for at the turn of the milennium with regards to how Christians have treated Jews, but extended to other times when we were untrue to the Lord. Confession is how we purify memory in our own lives, by being unflinchingly honest about what we do and what motivated us to do what we know is wrong. Not to be honest in confession reveals pride and a lack of trust in God's infinite mercy given to us in Christ Jesus.

Prior to confession we examine our consciences so that when we confess we will recall our lives as accurately as we can. Since we are not able to have total recall, God's mercy makes up for what we unintentionally leave out, which spares us the vice of scrupulosity and the neurosis that accompanies this spiritual affliction. At end of the day, all we do has to be dealt with; the choice is ours to reconcile now or we can wait for the day of reckoning. To think for one moment that we can skip over the bad parts is an exercise in self-deception. In other words, my limited consciousness can only preserve some of the past via memory, but I don't remember everthing, even what I remember I do not recall perfectly. God preserves everything that happens, whole and complete, which is why we purify memory by being honest about what happened.

All of the above is sketchy and probably skewed in some way. It began with Sandro Magister's summary of philosopher Robert Spaemann's presentation as part of the God today conference held in Rome back in December, specifically this: "The proposition 'in the more remote future it will no longer be true that we had gathered together this evening' is nonsense. It cannot be thought. If one day we will no longer have been, then in fact we are not real now either, as Buddhism concludes. If one day the present reality will no longer have been present, then it is not real at all...The only answer sounds like this: we are forced to think of a consciousness that preserves everything that happens [not obliterates it], an absolute consciousness""

Who gives best witness to Christ? Not political leaders, not generals, not even popes or bishops, or priests or deacons necessarily, but the saints. All that Mother Teresa did, all her sisters continue to do, is in the name of Christ. Christianity can account for the evil doing of its adherents, which shows how much we all need God's mercy and healing, which was effected in the world by the Incarnation of His Son, who is not a myth but a real person. His life, His passion, His death, His resurrection are facts in the world, like the genocide in Rwanda, the on-going situation in Darfur, et. al. Reality cannot be denied if we are to acknowledge and maintain our humanity. The world is not overcome by mythical beings.

It is important to note that one cannot adhere to a system called Christianity, but only to Jesus Christ. Among the most misunderstood aspects of Christian faith are original sin and post-baptismal concupiscence, both of which are necessary in accounting for the whole of reality, especially that part of reality that is my own life! It is necessary to account for reality, something we cannot do by rejecting language, politics, and all of the other factors that make up reality. To reject any factor that constitutes reality is not an answer to anything and leads to a kind of paralyzing fixation on one's self and to fear. Reflecting on the writing and life of J.D. Salinger offers us an actual glimpse of what a person who seeks to reject a great deal of reality looks like.

Just as I was finishing this post my dear friend Fred brought this post to my attention: For the Soul of David Foster Wallace by Webster Bull.

John Edwards e Elizabeth Anania separam-se



Fonte próxima do ex-candidato presidencial em 2004 e 2008 já confirmou a informação aos 'media' americanos: John e Elizabeth vão separar-se, na sequência do caso extraconjugal mantido por John com a realizadora Rielle Hunter, que trabalhou na sua campanha, e do qual resultou um filho cuja paternidade John desmentiu, durante um longo período de tempo.

É mais um capítulo da história da queda em desgraça de John Edwards -- que em 2004 muitos acreditaram poder vir a ser o novo JFK. Na política americana, John é 'finito'.

in memoriam: J.D. Salinger

I am still reeling a little from the death of J.D. Salinger, which was made public yesterday. Of course, Salinger's most famous book is Catcher in Rye, which really created a genre in English fiction. The book was controversial for its language, especially for its use of the F-word:

"But while I was sitting down, I saw something that drove me crazy. Somebody'd written 'Fuck you' on the wall. It drove me damn near crazy. I thought how Phoebe and all the other little kids would see it, and how they'd wonder what it meant, and then finally some dirty kid would tell them - all cockeyed, naturally, what it meant, and how they'd all think about it and maybe even worry about it for a couple of days..."

Salinger's well-played F-bomb put me in mind of a line by Spencer Tracy from Inherit the Wind: "I don't swear for the hell of it. Language is a poor enough means of communication. We've got to use all the words we've got. Besides, there are damn few words anybody understands." Hence, I see Salinger's obsession to maintain youthful innocence as misguided. It is misguided because it is more of an inevitability than a virtue, especially in a broken world that is our path to destiny. To paraphrase something Pope Benedict XVI said in one of his Christmas Urbi et Orbi addresses: we are not saved despite our humanity, but precisely through it.

With Salinger's passing, there are three deaths of artists over the past roughly year-and-a-half that have affected me deeply because their works touch my deeply, wound me with beauty, and show me what in means to be human in all of its awe/some/ful/ness.

My friend, Lisan offered a beautiful synthesis of how I feel today: "Apropos to say that deep feeling is beautiful like God's grace. When do childlike observations stop and blindness begin?" Indeed, Salinger saw growing up as being swamped by the world, having your I's eyes poked out, as it were. In his brilliant assessment of Salinger's work, David Skinner lights upon this as the primary concern of all of Salinger's fiction, which limitation is precisely what gives it meaning. Salinger's concern about this loss of innocence was not confined to fiction, but was the main preoccupation of his life. Loss of innocence is not a blinding, but seeing reality according to the totality of its factors, having your eyes opened. While what we see is not always pretty, it is reality and no amount of wishing will make it otherwise. In order to engage reality, I must first see it for what it is, which is certainly more than the two dimensions I observe, or even the third of which I am aware. This is why the power of positive thinking is foolishness and why a life without regrets is not a human life.

Towards the end of The Sentimental Misanthrope, Skinner writes:
"The reason for his silence is not found in [Salinger's] life, but in his fiction—the work that captured perfectly the adolescent who has discovered the world is corrupt. Salinger's compounding of misanthropy and sentimentality was always smart. He knew that the problem is not children but adults, just as he knew that the solution involves God somehow. That's why his late stories filled up with saints and seers and sages and holy fools. But he never quite figured out how it worked, and his stabs at second innocence kept falling back into first innocence. In raising his children too high—in making childhood not just innocent but wise—Salinger damned his adults forever and ever."
I am grateful that I have figured out, albeit to a very limited extent, how the solution involves God: the Incarnation, which is a solution akin to trying to light upon the repeating number in Pi if you relegate it to an intellectual problem to be solved instead of a life to be lived.

These days Catcher in the Rye, which provocatively appears on the Barnes & Noble banned book table at a certain time of the year, remains a cause célèbre because it features what Fr. John Montag, SJ says "is the best-placed F-bomb in all of literature." I think Skinner gets to the heart of what Salinger's writing is all about, which does not demean it, but gives it meaning. Besides, I grew up with and around foul language. So, it has never bothered me. To that end, I'll conclude by going all Holdin Caufield: What bothers me are people who bad language bothers and who make a big deal about it. I hope for their sakes that such people are better than I am, but the fact that they wouldn't say shit if they had a mouth full of it is not the basis of any supposed moral superiority.

Tempestade perfeita


Texto publicado na rubrica «Histórias da Casa Branca», do site de A Bola, secção Outros Mundos:


«E, subitamente, parece ter-se gerado uma «tempestade perfeita» na Administração Obama. A perda da supermaioria no Senado, depois da incrível derrota de Martha Coakley no Massachussets, transformou os últimos dias numa espécie de pesadelo para o Presidente.

O que se passou no Massachussets foi mais uma prova de que, na política americana, nunca se deve festejar antes do tempo. Vicky Kennedy, viúva de Ted, tinha avisado, a poucos dias da votação: «Este não é o lugar dos Kennedy: é o lugar do povo. Teremos que o merecer.» A campanha eficaz do republicano Scott Brown fez o resto.

É certo que os democratas ainda têm uma enorme maioria na câmara de elite. Como lembrou Paul Begala, estratega democrata e antigo conselheiro de Bill Clinton, «convém não esquecer que o Partido Democrata passou da melhor situação de sempre para a segunda melhor situação de sempre no Senado».

O problema é que, na política americana, o lado simbólico tem muita importância. Sem a capacidade de travar um 'filibuster' (minoria de bloqueio) republicano, a bola deixou de estar do lado dos democratas – e temas mais fracturantes, como a Reforma da Saúde, correm o risco de ficar na gaveta.

Nancy Pelosi, ‘speaker’ do Congresso, passou os últimos dias a tentar refazer as condições políticas para que uma versão mais modesta da Reforma da Saúde ainda possa ser aprovada – mas há quem garanta que a derrota do Massachussets transformou esse sonho dos liberais num caminho sem saída.

Jobs, jobs, jobs
O tom e o conteúdo do primeiro discurso sobre o Estado da União foram um reflexo de que Obama procura encontrar uma nova estratégia para a sua Presidência.

A insistência na tecla da criação de emprego ('jobs, jobs, jobs') é reveladora: será essa a prioridade no segundo ano de mandato.

Barack acenou aos independentes, que depois de o terem apoiado na eleição presidencial estão a abandoná-lo mais rapidamente do que se esperava. O «spending freeze» é um piscar de olho aos centristas que se preocupam com os gastos excessivos, mas, ao mesmo tempo, Obama tenta recuperar o entusiasmo de sectores progressitas, ao falar da «melhoria das condições da classe média».

Horas antes do seu discurso no Capitólio, Obama reforçava, em entrevista à ABC, a sua visão crítica sobre a rapidez com que os estados de espírito mudam em Washington: «Quando estás em queda nas sondagens, és um idiota. Quando estás em alta, és um génio. É assim que os ‘media’ e os ‘pundits’ funcionam na América. Há uma tendência em Washington para achar que a função de um Presidente a cumprir um primeiro mandato é trabalhar para a reeleição. Mas eu não fui eleito para procurar a reeleição. Fui eleito para melhorar a vida dos americanos».

A Administração Obama passa, indiscutivelmente, por um mau bocado. Mas o percurso político do Presidente desaconselharia a que se fizessem já apostas sobre o seu falhanço.»

"There's a time device inside of me..."



The Kinks' Destroyer is this week's Friday traditio. Why? Because I heard it on the radio this week and remembered what a strange and catchy song it is, the sequel to Lola. I remember I went through a Kinks phase way back in the early '80s. Remember friends, "it's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world," including Lola.

By way of Quaerere Deum "Grace is a gift, and it is not given for innocence nor withheld for sin" from The Cloud of Unknowing.

Estado da União (V): 78 por cento de opiniões positivas ao discurso de Obama



MUITO POSITIVAS: 48%

LIGEIRAMENTE POSITIVAS: 30%

LIGEIRAMENTE NEGATIVAS: 15%

MUITO NEGATIVAS: 6%

(sondagem CNN/Opinion Research Corporation)

Estado da União (IV): recuperar apoios dos segmentos descontentes


Um artigo de John Harris, no Politico.com:

«President Barack Obama on Wednesday night tacked to the right with appeals for tax cuts for small business and new investments in off-shore oil drilling and nuclear power. He tacked to the left with renewed vows to let gays serve in the military and to get U.S. troops out of Iraq.


He sounded at times like a Bill Clinton-style centrist, at others like a bank-bashing populist. He taunted Republicans, and also presented himself as a lonely tribune of cooperation and bipartisan civility in Washington.


In a favorable light, his State of the Union speech may have revealed the mind of a leader who has never cared much about traditional ideological categories and is determined to create his own results-oriented composite of ideas from across the spectrum.


Less charitably, the address could be interpreted as the work of a president who is desperately improvising by touching every political erogenous zone he and his advisers can think of.


Under either judgment, however, it was inescapable that his 69-minute speech — for all the rush of words and policy ideas — was a document of downsized ambitions for a downsized moment in his presidency.


It was presented to the Congress and a national audience with all of Obama’s usual fluency and brio. There were flashes of wit, as when he noted ruefully that “by now, it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics.”


And there were flashes of defiance, with Obama delivering what the White House clearly intended to be the headline quote: “We don’t quit; I don’t quit.”


But there was no mistaking throughout this box-checking, loosely bundled speech how different the political context in the winter of 2010 is from the winter of 2009.


Obama came into office promising to shatter expectations of what was possible in Washington. The talk then was of a presidential “big bang” — health care, global warming, and financial reform legislation all in one year — and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel boasted that his motto was to “never let a serious crisis go to waste.”


With the big-bang strategy officially a failure, Obama’s speech revealed in real-time a president groping for a new and more effective one. The speech was woven with frequent acknowledgements that the laws of political gravity applied to him after all.


The first and most pressing legislative goals he identified were a comparatively small jobs bill that has passed the House but is languishing in the Senate, and a Bill Clinton-style menu of tax incentives for business.


Health care, the consuming issue of 2009 and the one on which Obama aides insisted they should be judged, did not show up until more than halfway through.


Even then, it was on a notably defensive note. He acknowledged of his signature domestic proposal that “the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became,” adding that, “I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people.” Despite a year of presidential speeches and legislative maneuvering, he said, many people are asking themselves, “What’s in it for me?”


Legislators should pass what he called good policy even if it is bad politics, he asserted. But Obama offered no clarity at all on exactly when or how this would happen after the stalemate caused by the Republican capture of Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat in Massachusetts.


His tepid rallying cry: “As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed.”


That line fit the theme of the night. This president was in a political jam when the evening started. And it was hard to see how he was in any less of a jam when the evening ended.


In many ways his tone belittled the speech’s substance. There were only a few of the rhetorical acrobatics and lyrical flights that mark Obama’s most cultivated speeches. Instead, the language was more straightforward, more informal, more accessible — the words of a realist rather than a romantic.


But if the speech reflected his cramped circumstances, it probably did nothing to alter those circumstances.


The president and his aides have been awash in advice for the past few weeks, and the speech sounded as though they had decided to serve up a buffet of all of it.


For those who thought he needed to take a step to the right and show more outreach to Republicans, there were calls for the parties to transcend “pettiness” and “work through our differences.” He bragged about how he had cut taxes for most families and talked up a spending freeze.


For those who thought he needed to show he was listening to the liberals who were most excited about the original promise of his presidency, there was his vow to act on his campaign promise of ending discrimination against gays in the military. He promised that he would move ahead with energy legislation, which includes the politically volatile “cap and trade” provisions to limit carbon emissions, though he did not try to rebut the widespread analysis that there is virtually no chance these will pass the Senate this year.


For those who thought he needed to stand up to special interests and tell big bankers where to get off, he did just that. He promoted a proposed new fee on banks and crowed, “I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.”



For those who thought Obama needed to be more modest and contrite, he delivered just that — saying he “deserved” some of his “political setbacks.” He did the same for those who thought he should be less detached and project a more human connection to the lives of real people. There were references to the letters from average Americans he reads nightly and to the struggles of Allentown, Pa., and Elyria, Ohio, and Galesburg, Ill.

It was overwhelmingly a domestic policy address. Though the president was absorbed for months in 2009 with his review of policy in Afghanistan, where 100,000 U.S. troops now serve, the war there was dealt with in two paragraphs.


Iraq also came at the end, with a reference that was brief but resounding about his long-term goal: “But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.”


A speech with parts to satisfy so many different constituencies and perspectives could not fully satisfy very many people. This was reflected in the early reaction.


Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) criticized the president for continuing to express willingness to work with Republicans, arguing that Obama should have been more forceful about calling the Republicans out for obstruction.


"The fact is, we have an opposition determined to bring him down," McDermott said. "I don't know when he's going to get the message. ... They're not going to help him at all. Watch. I've been doing this a long time."


On the other hand, Rep. Joe Wilson — the South Carolina Republican who gained notoriety last year by shouting “You lie!” during an earlier Obama speech to Congress — was staying positive.


“On the issue of national security, I was pleased that the president reiterated the value of sending 30,000 more reinforcements to Afghanistan," Wilson said. "I very much respect the president’s decision to listen to our commanders on the ground. ...”


Another conservative was much less complimentary. On POLITICO’s Arena feature, the Heritage Foundation’s Rory Cooper complained that the speech “seemed to have dozens of authors as it contradicted itself and his policies often and emphatically.


“He said he didn't want to relitigate the past, when the primary focus of the address was exactly that,” Cooper said. “He said he didn't want to penalize bankers, right after he gloriously announced his punitive tax on bankers who have paid back the U.S. Treasury in full with interest. He said he wanted to control spending, and then rattled off a laundry list of liberal investments.”


Also on the Arena, Obama got an assist from Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the 2004 Democratic nominee, who said his work with Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut shows that progress on energy legislation is realistic this year.


“The inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom that this issue has stalled is dead wrong,” Kerry said.


Obama knows his challenge is to get other Democrats to share Kerry’s optimism, not just on energy legislation but on the larger promise of the administration. “To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills,” Obama said.»

Estado da União (III): os principais momentos de um discurso feito em momento muito difícil para a Presidência Obama

Estado da União (II): o primeiro discurso de Obama

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Haiti is a people

While driving from work to my parish last night I listened to a story on All Things Considered about the people in Haiti who are desperately trying to find work, to be employed for wages in order to make a living. As I listened to the story I thought "Well, surely after the earthquake there is plenty of need for people to help with recovery operations, with the distribution of food, water, and setting up temporary shelters, burying the dead, etc." Beyond the immediate aftermath, there is a lot of work to be done rebuilding Port au Prince and outlying towns and villages, along with what little transportation infrastructure there is. Then I thought how the relief efforts are much like the hundreds of billions of dollars in aid that have flowed into Haiti just since the Clinton Administration, which, like so much aid given to desperately poor countries, seems to have no effect beyond enriching the corrupt elites.

I think much of what economist Dambisa Moyo set forth in her book of a few years ago, Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa, is applicable to Haiti, too. At the end of the day, we have to take the humanity of the Haitian people into account, just as we do anybody we would deign to assist in any way. While people rushing to Haiti and donating generously are, on the whole, good things, we must coordinate and distribute in such a way that we do not ignore the humanity of the people of Haiti.

What helped me to synthesize all of this today is an interview for Il Sussidiario, which appears as part of their Diary Haiti series, with Fr. Leonardo Grasso, who is a missionary priest that went from Venezuela to Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake. When asked what he found upon his arrival in Haiti, apart from the devastation caused by the earthquake, he said "I found people who are not as they are reflected in the current news, where they are portrayed as desperate, a prey for violence, and who are looting the aid. This is not true." He says that in his daily interactions with people he does not see, nor do people complain about all the conditions reported in the media. Rather, Fr. Leonardo says that because the Haitians "are people who have suffered greatly" that "they are also capable of facing conditions which seem impossible. These people are also very religious. They are able to recognize, in the circumstances of the catastrophe, a strength that comes from a relationship with God and with others. Haitians know the difficulties that confront them and embrace them in an extremely positive way." Most importantly, he contradicts the passivity and resignation with which the people of Haiti are portrayed, insisting that they "are responding with great initiative. Into the disaster, they breathe the desire to start over." For me this means we need to be careful not to break our arms patting ourselves on the back.

Above all, Fr. Leonardo states that there is reason for great hope in the midst of this disaster. I thought his perspective surfaced something that seems to be ignored and shunted off to the side, the Haitian people themselves. Our Lady of Perpetual Help- pray for us!

Estado da União (I): Obama - «Nunca sugeri que a mudança viesse a ser fácil»

State of the Union

On this day of the president's annual State of the Union address, I think the title of Andrew Wilson's Spectator article this morning sets us up nicely for what we'll hear: Coming Tonight: The Mythic Tale of How Barack Obama Averted the Next Great Depression. Of course, this is the argument being used to secure a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve for Ben Bernanke. At the end of the day this really amounts to saying, "It coulda been worse." It could always be worse, but not much worse. The other barb being levelled at those, like myself, who think Benanke should not be given a second term, is that we are engaging populism, which is a peculiar form of demagoguery.

I like the counter-argument made yesterday by Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, who resonded to the "it coulda been worse" argument by accepting it at face value: "After the house has burned down you don't need a fireman, you need a carpenter." Here's a fun game we can play during the speech, keep score as to how much new, deficit expanding, government spending is proposed and how many times he still blames President Bush for the mess we're in. Add the new spending to all the other expensive initiatives, like cash for Toyota and Honda and the $787 billion non-stimulating stimulus, which are wholly creations of the current administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress. The non-stimulating stimulus does not even meet Pres. Obama's benchmarks for success, like keeping unemployment at or below 8%, etc. Pay no attention to yesterday's announced freeze on domestic discretionary spending, the savings to be realized by this freeze only amount to $100 billion more than the $150 billion jobs bill, which is in addition to the $787 billion non-stimulating stimulus, which the CBO is now saying will cost an additional $75 billion, thus making the savings in domestic discretionary spending only $25 billion. I agree with the editorial in today's Wall Street Journal: "stop spending more now: Drop the health-care bill, cancel the unspent stimulus spending from last year, kill the $150 billion new stimulus that has already passed the House, and bar all repaid bailout cash from being re-spent. Everything else is marketing."


Something I read a long time ago, during the administration of the first Pres. Bush, from P.J. O'Rourke's book Parliament of Whores, comes to mind: "giving money and power to Congress is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." This time-tested axiom was as true when the Republicans controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress, as it is now that the tables are turned and the Dems are in power. We need to get beyond the myth of gridlock, which states that unless one party controls everything nothing gets done. In the first instance, there are a lot of cases where getting nothing done would be excellent. Secondly, there needs to be opposition that has to be taken seriously, like having control of at least either the House or the Senate. Otherwise, we'll get more reckless spending that benefits almost everyone except those it supposed to benefit, everyday people. Even before tonight's announcement of many new, expansive and expensive programs, we are already beyond the realm of even any kind of rational Keynesian construct. The recent Supreme Court decision permitting no limits on what corporations can spend on elections goes a great distance to perpetuating this fiscal insanity. Apparently, change you can believe in is a variation on the old theme, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

As Pete Peterson pointed out in his insightful book, written quite a few years ago now, the thesis of which is captured in the title, there is only one true bi-partisan activity: Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It. There is reason for optimism, the kind of revolt that took place in Massachusetts last week, which I do not see in partisan terms. It was a time when elections worked the way they are supposed to work. Even though Pres Carter infamous malaise speech effectively marked the end of his presidency (and rightfully so), his observation that the people of the United States will never have a better government than they deserve is true. It is a provocation that challenges us.

Random thought for a snowy morning

It occurred to me the other day as I was re-reading parts of Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution, in which one of his main concerns is to explain why and how the material dialectic caused the communist revolution to occur in backwards ass Russia instead of in one of Europe's industrialized countries, as Marx believed (Trotsky is bold and creative in his effort to explain, but ultimately unconvincing), that if I had been a communist in those early days I probably would have been a party theorist. Only then did it occur to me that, as a result, I probably would've been one of the first people marched into woods and shot in the head.

Yes, these are things I think about, which explains why I have a hard time replacing door knobs and other practical chores.

Hierarchy update

Keeping up the fervent pace sustained through last year, it was announced this morning that the Holy Father appointed His Excellency, Bishop Joe Vasquez, an auxiliary bishop for the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, as the new bishop of Austin, Texas. Bishop Vasquez is 52 years-old. Vasquez's assignment marks the Holy Father's second episcopal appointment for the U.S. this new year. Prior to being named an auxiliary bishop, he was a priest of one of my old stomping grounds, where I did a bit of my pre-ordination internship: San Angelo, Texas. Bishop Vasquez and I have the same middle name- Stephen! Bishop Vasquez succeeds now- Archbishop Gregory Aymond, who was returned home last year as the archbishop of the Big Easy. His job now being to root and pray the Saints to victory!

As with the appointment of Bishop-elect William Mulvey to Corpus Christi last week, Bishop Vasquez's appointment to Austin creates no new vacancies. So, there are now five vacant Latin Rite sees in the United States: Springfield in Illinois; Scranton, PA; Ogdensburg, NY; LaCrosse, WI; Harrisburg, PA. The Syrian Eparchy of Our Lady of Deliverance, headquartered in Newark, NJ, is also vacant after Archbishop Younan was selected by the holy synod of that church last year to be their patriarch. Along the lines of Eastern Catholic Churches, I was very happy to see this heading in yesterday's Vatican Information Service bulletin: ACTS OF THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES. Presently, there are two archbishops (i.e., Beltran of Oklahoma City and Brunett of Seattle) and two bishops (Higi of Layfayette, IN and Skylstad of Spokane) serving past age 75. I am hearing some credible rumblings, a few whispers in the loggia, as it were, regarding Seattle.

As always, one cannot give too much credit to Catholic Hierarchy.

'Who is Barack Obama?'


Numa altura em que uma boa parte dos americanos que votaram em Obama começa a duvidar da escolha feita a 4 de Novembro de 2008, um interessante artigo de Bob Herbert, no New York Times:

«Americans are still looking for the answer, and if they don’t get it soon — or if they don’t like the answer — the president’s current political problems will look like a walk in the park.

Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map: the anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist.

Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won’t be able to close it.

Mr. Obama’s campaign mantra was “change” and most of his supporters took that to mean that he would change the way business was done in Washington and that he would reverse the disastrous economic policies that favored mega-corporations and the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

“Tonight, more Americans are out of work, and more are working harder for less,” said Mr. Obama in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008. “More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can’t afford to drive, credit card bills you can’t afford to pay, and tuition that’s beyond your reach.”

Voters watching the straight-arrow candidate delivering that speech, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Depression, would not logically have thought that an obsessive focus on health insurance would trump job creation as the top domestic priority of an Obama administration.

But that’s what happened. Moreover, questions were raised about Mr. Obama’s candor when he spoke about health care. In his acceptance speech, for example, candidate Obama took a verbal shot at John McCain, sharply criticizing him for offering “a health care plan that would actually tax people’s benefits.”

Now Mr. Obama favors a plan that would tax at least some people’s benefits. Mr. Obama also repeatedly said that policyholders who were pleased with their plans and happy with their doctors would be able to keep both under his reform proposals.

Well, that wasn’t necessarily so, as the president eventually acknowledged. There would undoubtedly be changes in some people’s coverage as a result of “reform,” and some of those changes would be substantial. At a forum sponsored by ABC News last summer, Mr. Obama backed off of his frequent promise that no changes would occur, saying only that “if you are happy with your plan, and if you are happy with your doctor, we don’t want you to have to change.”

These less-than-candid instances are emblematic of much bigger problems. Mr. Obama promised during the campaign that he would be a different kind of president, one who would preside over a more open, more high-minded administration that would be far more in touch with the economic needs of ordinary working Americans. But no sooner was he elected than he put together an economic team that would protect, above all, the interests of Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the health insurance companies, and so on.

How can you look out for the interests of working people with Tim Geithner whispering in one ear and Larry Summers in the other?

Now with his poll numbers down and the Democrats’ filibuster-proof margin in the Senate about to vanish, Mr. Obama is trying again to position himself as a champion of the middle class. Suddenly, with the public appalled at the scandalous way the health care legislation was put together, and with Democrats facing a possible debacle in the fall, Mr. Obama is back in campaign mode. Every other utterance is about “fighting” for the middle class, “fighting” for jobs, “fighting” against the big bad banks.

The president who has been aloof and remote and a pushover for the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, who has been locked in the troubling embrace of the Geithners and Summers and Ben Bernankes of the world, all of a sudden is a man of the people. But even as he is promising to fight for jobs, a very expensive proposition, he’s proposing a spending freeze that can only hurt job-creating efforts.

Mr. Obama will deliver his State of the Union address Wednesday night. The word is that he will offer some small bore assistance to the middle class. But more important than the content of this speech will be whether the president really means what he says. Americans want to know what he stands for, where his line in the sand is, what he’ll really fight for, and where he wants to lead this nation.

They want to know who their president really is.»

Toque a rebate: David Plouffe regressa à equipa de Obama e vai coordenar as campanhas eleitorais dos democratas nas intercalares de Novembro

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Ideology cannot move us, part 2

The anniversary of Roe vs. Wade is always observed by a massive pro-life march in our nation's capital. It is a peaceful demonstration and it is, without a doubt, a good thing to see hundreds of thousands of people, citizens of a free country, exercising their rights to free speech and free association in support of the worthiest of all causes: human life. To paraphrase something Pope John Paul II said over and again: without the right to life all other rights do not really matter. Nonetheless, we can't just leave it there because it is very easy to get together with a large group of like-minded folks to march with banners and chant slogans in the service of a cause that is just and true.

Beginning last Saturday I began to see the following on Facebook: "Yesterday, January 22, 2010 marked the 37th anniversary of the day abortion became legal. Since that day 50,000,000 human beings have lost their lives. 3,500 abortions are performed each day, adding up to over a million abortions a year. If you want to take a stand for life, post this on your page and leave it as your status for at least one hour." I did not post this as my status at all. Why? Because it strikes me as very abstract. I can't really see the humanity in this statement, factually accurate and disturbing as it is in its own way. I stand for human life unambiguously. With regard to the statement above, I ask, what good does it do, especially if we are content to remain in the realm of ideology? For somebody who takes the opposing view, I imagine their response would be to say "Ho-hum," then to stretch and yawn.

My own experience in pastoral ministry has taught me that the part of being pro-life that consists of opposing abortion requires me to reach out to and to pray for women who find themselves pregnant, alone, scared, and uncertain, who feel unloved and unwanted themselves, more than it means being politically active. Political posturing with a lot of bon homme and hot chocolate is easy, whereas it is quite difficult to love because love requires a lot from me and is often inconvenient and always means not being in control. I cannot love an abstraction. I can only love a person. Humanity, humankind, mankind, etc., is an abstraction, the woman looking at me through tears who is scared and alone is not just a concrete reality, but someone of infinite worth. She is also, if I am honest, very often someone I would rather not face. The part of being pro-life that opposes abortion also means recognizing that whenever I teach or preach on this important issue, I must do so knowing full well that there are women who have had abortions listening to me. Many of these women carry a lot of guilt, their choice remains for them an open wound, like the woman with the hemorrhage who needed Jesus' healing touch (Mark 5:25-34). So, if all I offer is ideology, condemnation, and a reaffirmation of something too many of them might already believe, namely that they are beyond the reach of God's love, I am not in the service of Christ, in whom and through whom God brings life from death.

Cutting to the chase, yet again: it is not a matter of having the correct ideology, the one that opposes the ideology set forth in my previous post, it is recognizing once more that ideology cannot move us. If anything, ideology hardens us. With each day that passes I am more convinced that the Eucharist is where we resist the "annihilation of the human subject," which does not mean politicizing the Eucharist. It means verifying through experience that we are accompanied by His presence and seeing how we are called to make Him present to everyone we encounter in whatever circumstances we find ourselves.

Today we observe the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. The Apostle's encounter with our resurrected and living Lord moved him beyond the narrow confines of religion as ideology- "For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors... God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me..." (Gal. 1:11-16a NRSV).

I also want to acknowledge the fifteenth anniversary of the episcopal ordination of Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco. He was ordained 25 January 1995 in The Cathedral of the Madeleine. Roger Cardinal Mahony was his principal consecrator who was assisted by then-Archbishop William Levada, and Bishop Tod Brown- though it might make him chuckle at this point: Ad multos annos!

The Diocese of Salt Lake City has 21 new permanent deacons

The Diocese of Salt Lake City now has 21 new permanent deacons. Deacon Greg has piece on them over at The Bench, which he links to the very nice article in The Salt Lake Tribune by Kristin Moulton- Utahns answer the call to serve as Catholic deacons. As we say in Utah, with our inability to conjugate the verbs to be and to see in the past tense plural, not to be ignernt or anything- "We was there. We seen it."


Photo courtesy of the Salt Lake Tribune


Ms. Moulton observes that being a ordained a permanent deacon today is little different from when the first men were ordained permanent deacons in "the 1970s and '80s, when parishioners and priests alike treated deacons with suspicion..."

"It was a new thing for everybody," Deacon Silvio Mayo told Moulton. "No one would call you 'Deacon'," he continues, "[n]ow it's like it's your first name." Of course, Silvio, who serves as Chancellor of our fair diocese, was ordained in the first class of deacons way back in 1975 by Bishop Joseph Lennox Federal, who eagerly ushered in the diaconate as a permanent order of ministry for our local church in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI's Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem, and the subsequent permission granted by the Holy See for deacons to be formed and ordained in the U.S.

Sr. Patricia Riley, a Holy Cross sister, deserves more credit than could ever be expressed for her role in leading these men through their formation. She is an exemplar of the call of all the baptized to service, to diakonia, as well as a woman consecrated to Christ and the Church through her religious profession. Hence, her legacy of service will live on in these men. It was Sr. Patricia who extended to me the great privilege of teaching a few classes to these men who now have the privilege and responsibility of being constantly at the service of the church and the world. So, to her and to our new deacons, Ad multos annos!

So, along with all of us previously ordained to this vitalizing order, I welcome my new brother deacons. Serving God's holy people is a privilege, not a burden. For a deacon it becomes your path to salvation. I am very mindful today that the sixth anniversary of my own ordination at the hands of now-Archbishop George Niederauer, one day shy of the anniversary of his ordination as a bishop, is tomorrow, 24 January. The reason I chose the picture that appears above, taken by Scott Sommerdorf for the Trib, is because it shows what I want my ministry to be, focused on Jesus and not on me. I am happy to be a blur in the frame, a snapshot in time of God redeeming the world through His only begotten Son, the perfect sacrifice, our Lord Jesus Christ.

We now have 21 new deacons who will ask with joy their hearts, smiles on their faces, and little weariness in their legs- "Is it Monday yet?"

Speaking of service, I am pleased and grateful that Il Sussidiaro published Adventures in Theodicy: the phenomenon we call life.

Perdida a supermaioria no Senado, Obama reforça: «Não vou desistir da Reforma da Saúde»

"You can feel the punishment but you can't commit the sin"



Howard Jones' classic No One Is to Blame is this Friday's traditio. It certainly does not hurt that this version was recorded as part of the tremendously funny Kenny Everett show.

"You can see the summit but you can't reach it/Its the last piece of the puzzle but you just can't make it fit/Doctor says you're cured but you still feel the pain/ Aspirations in the clouds but your hopes go down the drain."

What is hope and, assuming it is not an illusion that leads to being delusional, can I have it? I'm not trying to be cute. I have hope, which is revealed and reiterated to me whenever I have the kinds of experiences Howard sings about in this song. I mean, if your aspirations are in the clouds but your hopes are down the drain, chances are that even if your hopes, such as they are, were realized your aspirations would be greater still; you will still wind up dissatisfied because your desire, what you want, is bigger than the world! You're human and that's how we roll.

A few reflections on Catholic blogging

Blogging is always a worthy topic to address, especially for a blogger who is conscious of the perception many people have of blogging and the low regard they have for bloggers. I readily admit that given the vastness of the blogosphere, even when you break it down into discrete parts, like the Catholic blogosphere, to which I belong, it is still vast. This vastness contains blogs of many different flavors, from the well informed and informative, to the ignorant and narrow. I also recognize that a fair portion of the Catholic blogosphere is a quasi-traditionalist echo chamber, which is not say that there are not quite a few well-written and insightful blogs composed by thoughtful Catholics of a more traditional bent. I am one of those who is considered to be liberal by those more conservative that me and conservative by those who are more liberal. Frankly, I find this gratifying largely due to the fact that I find both labels practically meaningless and adhere to Archbishop Niederauer's position that to ask me if I am a liberal or a conservative is like selling me a car and asking me if I want either a brake pedal or a gas pedal. As a Christian I judge things according to a criteria that differs dramatically by those proposed by secular ideologies.

I am not really certain that there exists an equally large number of blogs that take the opposite point-of-view and that are more what Fr. Timothy Radcliffe called "Kingdom" Catholics. Of course, Catholic publications have entered the blogosphere in a big way. There is dotCommonweal, America's popular In All Things blog and the less well-known, but equally good, The Good Word: A Blog on Scripture and Preaching. First Things is host to a number of blogs, including On the Square, The Anchoress, and Postmodern Conservative. As long as this list is, it does not come close to exhausting even the blogs that exist in conjunction with Catholic print magazines. It doesn't even exhaust all the blogs you can access via First Things!

At least two archbishops, Cardinal O'Malley and Archbishop Dolan maintain blogs. One can hardly mention Catholic blogging without mentioning Deacon Greg Kandra's The Deacon's Bench, hosted on Beliefnet, Rocco Palmo's Whispers in the Loggia and Amy Wellborn, the true pioneer of Catholic blogging, who now composes Charlotte was Both. John Allen's All Things Catholic is another worthy on-line institution and anchor of the Catholic blogosphere.

I am enthusiastic about blogs that chart their own paths, like my friend Kim's Faith, Fiction, and Flannery and Image's Good Letters blog. These blogs are a refreshing break from the overly earnest Catholic/Christian commentariat, to which I belong. While not necessarily part of the Catholic blog ghetto, I loved Alice Bag's autobiographical blog Violence Girl, where she old her story. It was a compelling exercise in blogging! My dear friend Sharon, who seems to always be one step ahead when it comes to communications technology, has a truly remarkable thing going on over on Quaerere Deum.

My little endeavor pales in comparison to all the blogs mentioned above. Nonetheless, I believe that Catholic voices from the West and from smaller dioceses need to be heard and not just those that emanate from New York, Chicagoland, D.C., Irondale, et. al. I like thinking it a bit subsversive to use new media, which often has the effect of homogenizing instead of diversifying, to inject a different point-of-view, to express views from the local level and from those of us who live and move in a unique milieu. Being a Catholic in Utah and being a permanent deacon, I believe, qualifies. I am firmly convinced that those of us who venture into the public domain as Catholics have a responsibility to act like Christians, which at a minimum means being civil, but it also means being thoughtful, creative, and informed. Writing is an opportunity for the one who writes to find his/her own voice and to make a unique contribution. The last thing the church and the world needs is an echo chamber made up of either "Communio" Catholics or "Kingdom" Catholics. Being civil does not prevent one from clearly, logically, and creatively expressing strong opinions and insights, or from engaging and arguing with those who may not agree.

Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk, for whom I am praying as he battles cancer, recently wrote about his experience of a day spent listening to Catholic radio: "there are some embarrassing and ignorant goof-balls who have managed to corner an hour of Catholic radio. If anyone thinks that evangelicals or fundamentalists have a corner on this market, you are quite wrong." Consider how much easier it is to set up a blog! A blog should be judged by its content and its layout, but content trumps appearance, just as substance trumps style. Holy orders certainly does not confer the charism of clear thought charitably expressed, or the gift of being informed, or of being able to make logical arguments. It certainly does not make you infallible. Accuracy when it comes to facts, making clear and logical points, expressing experience creatively are, at least to my mind, the hallmarks of a good blog. For a good Catholic blog we must add charity: "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal" (1 Cor. 13:1). Do we go bong, bong, clank, clank, or make a beautiful and symphonic sound, or, more aptly, that of a jazz combo?

Adventures in theodicy: the phenomenon we call life

When arise we all awaken to news. I am always more than a little surprised to find each day that the world continues to turn when I am asleep, even though as I get older sleep does not come as easily as it used to. The news I am fixated on this morning is that Haiti was hit by an aftershock that registered 6.1 on the Richter scale, a fair earthquake in its own right. This fact tells us something important about this natural disaster and others like it; we call them natural disasters because they happen as the result of forces that are beyond our power manipulate. Haiti's earthquakes and the Asian tsunami of five years ago are attributable to plate tectonics, the shifting and moving that happens below the earth. Port au Prince sits on a fault line that extends all the way across the Caribbean to Central America. It seems a strange irony that the same geo-phyiscal dynamics that so devastated Haiti's capital also made the island of Hispañola, which the Dominican Republic and Haiti share.

Since the Haitian earthquake, I am even more conscious that my house, the very place I sit typing, is situated very near, nearer than I care to contemplate, to the Wasatch fault line, which runs north-to-south along the foothills of the Wasatch mountains, part of the chain of the great Rocky Mountains. This makes me realize that in important ways my life is not as secure as I often delude myself into thinking it is. My situation is only slightly less precarious than that of the Haitian people. I am firmly convinced that true solidarity with the people of Haiti can only arise from this awareness.

So, in a very real sense, to quote words from an old Howard Jones song, no one is to blame (i.e., "You can look at the menu, but you just can't eat/You can feel the cushion, but you can't have a seat/You can dip your foot in the pool, but you can't have a swim/You can feel the punishment, but you can't commit the sin"). Even at our most irrational we do not blame that damn old tectonic plate, at least not for more than a few seconds. As Msgr. Lorenzo Albacete surmises in his post over on America magazine's In All Things blog, whether we are people of faith or of no faith "our humanity demands that the question 'why' not be suppressed, but that it be allowed to guide our response to everything that happens. This is the only way to a possible redemption of our humanity." Indeed, why?, is the most human of all responses. It shows that as human beings we do not just seek or demand meaning, we need it, we must make sense of things. A detailed explanation of plate tectonics and geo-physical facts that contributed to the earthquake, or the tsunami in Asia do not satisfy us. So, we turn to God. This turn usually causes us to look up, to the great god in the sky, but the God of Israel is not the great sky god who manipulates the world as a puppet master. Neither is God the god of deism, who constructs the watch and lets the laws of thermodynamics run the course.

The fact that matters more that those of geo-physics, as Msgr. Albacete points out, is the Incarnation of God. Along with Lorenzo, "I cannot worship a God who demands that I tear out from my heart and my mind the question of why the suffering of the innocent happens". Hence, "I do not want an explanation for why this God allows these tragedies to happen. An explanation would reduce the pain and suffering to an inability to understand, a failure of intelligence so to speak. I can only accept a God who 'co-suffers' with me." Jesus Christ is the One in whom I place my faith. His living as a marginal peasant, His suffering and death are how I make sense of these things. More than those events, His resurrection, which, along with what we know about geo-physics, is also a fact in the world. It is the fact that gives me hope, which is not a kind of vague longing for everything to work out alright in the end, but a fact that gives me certainty that in Him and through Him the victory is always already mine! This, dear friends is the Christian faith. St. Paul shows this when he writes: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,

'For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.'

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us"
(Rom. 8:35-37).

Typically, because we want everything to be alright without passing through (often painful) experience, we leap right from verse 35a to verse 37, from which we even pass over the word "No", thus deliberately avoiding "tribulation," "distress,"
"persecution," "famine," "nakedness," "danger," "sword," "being killed all the day long," being "regarded as sheep to be slaughtered."

Why is it this way? Does it have to be this way? Why did the Father choose to reconcile the world by sending His only begotten Son to suffer a cruel and unjust death and to be expiation? Why did God tell Abraham to take his only son, Isaac, which, oddly, means "laughter," and offer him as a sacrifice? Kierkegaard didn't get it and, frankly, neither do I, really. When I ask "Why?" in such situations the words of Rich Mullins' song Hard to Get start playing in my mind, not the polished version recorded by the Ragamuffins, but the scratchy recording featuring Rich, his guitar, and an old tape player, recorded just before his own untimely death:

"And I know you bore our sorrows/And I know you feel our pain/And I know it would not hurt any less/Even if it could be explained/And I know that I am only lashing out/At the One who loves me most/And after I figured this, somehow/All I really need to know/Is if You who live in eternity/Hear the prayers of those of us who live in time/We can't see what's ahead/And we can not get free of what we've left behind."

It also reminds me What Job teaches us.

Obama é Presidente há um ano (XI): o Nobel da Paz, momento contraditório

Obama é Presidente há um ano (X): fecho de Guantánamo - decisão histórica, concretização demorada

Obama é Presidente há um ano (IX): prenda amarga de aniversário para Barack - a derrota de Martha Coakley desfaz a supermaioria democrata no Senado

Obama é Presidente há um ano (VIII): os percalços no juramento e um discurso para a História

Obama é Presidente há um ano (VII): um discurso poderoso e realista



«My fellow citizens: I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you've bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors.

I thank President Bush for his service to our nation -- (applause) -- as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often, the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we, the people, have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears and true to our founding documents.

So it has been; so it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly, our schools fail too many -- and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable, but no less profound, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met. (Applause.)

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation. But in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness. (Applause.)

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those that prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops, and settled the West, endured the lash of the whip, and plowed the hard earth. For us, they fought and died in places like Concord and Gettysburg, Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions, greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week, or last month, or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America. (Applause.)

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift. And we will act, not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We'll restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched. But this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity, on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good. (Applause.)

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers -- (applause) -- our Founding Fathers, faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man -- a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience sake. (Applause.)

And so, to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born, know that America is a friend of each nation, and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity. And we are ready to lead once more. (Applause.)

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort, even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we'll work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet.

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense. And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken -- you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. (Applause.)

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. (Applause.)

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. (Applause.)

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the role that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who at this very hour patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages.

We honor them not only because they are the guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service -- a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves.

And yet at this moment, a moment that will define a generation, it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all. For as much as government can do, and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends -- honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism -- these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history.

What is demanded, then, is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept, but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship. This is the source of our confidence -- the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny. This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed, why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall; and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served in a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath. (Applause.)

So let us mark this day with remembrance of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At the moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words to be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America: In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.»