Catégories
Vie de l'église

Grammy-winning band boygenius models friendship for the end times

Last July was the hottest month ever measured, and in late June my friends and I were drenched in sweat. The apocalyptic weather was miserable, but nothing could damper our excitement to see boygenius live at Centennial Park in Nashville, where from our seats in the grass we could see a full scale replica of the Greek Parthenon. 

The replica was built for the 1897 Centennial Exposition primarily because of Nashville’s nickname, « The Athens of the South. » It has the grandiosity of a temple, with massive columns that bear the weight of its ornate roof, meticulously designed with the stories of Greek myths. But get too close, and you’ll notice it’s made of pebbles and concrete, hardly marble. It reminds me of my great-grandma’s driveway in Mississippi. This is, after all, not Greece. It’s a stop on the « Sites of Nashville » bus tour. Still, it was an impressive backdrop to one of the best rock shows I’ve ever seen.

Boygenius is a supergroup composed of three indie rockers: Phoebe Bridgers, Julien Baker, and Lucy Dacus. The band had a remarkable year; they released their debut album, aptly titled « The Record », graced the cover of Rolling Stone, gave an iconic Coachella performance and took home three Grammy awards for best rock song, best rock performance and best alternative music album. Each artist has incredible discographies in her own right, but together their synergy is magnetic. 

« What are they wearing? » I asked my friends, squinting to make it out. « Are they in drag? » Sure enough, boygenius took the stage to perform that night costumed in drag as a protest against Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee’s « drag ban, » a bill he had signed that March, that would prohibit drag performances from happening on any public property in the state. (In early June a judge ruled the law unconstitutional.) In a bizarre twist, a photo of Bill Lee himself dressed as a woman circulated earlier that year, around the time he signed the legislation.

Maybe it was the heat cooking my brain, or that despite a recent school shooting, Gov. Lee could only talk about how drag queens were the most dangerous thing facing Tennessee’s children; or maybe it was that the Nashville Parthenon felt like a portrait of our country, an empire that daily feels more like a facade. A roadside attraction. Whatever was to blame, I found myself overcome with the sense that we are all languishing. We’re living at the end of something, it seems; the end of an empire, capitalism or maybe the planet itself. 

This nagging feeling holds a prominent place in boygenius’ music, particularly their newest album.

« The Record » is deeply honest, not just about the state of the world but also about the complicated feelings and relationships young people are figuring out while navigating the state of the world. The empire might crumble, but we still have breakups; we still have to find peace with the decisions we’ve made and discover who we were meant to be.

All of that coalesces into an album that feels like an intimate conversation between lifelong friends. Even the flow of the album models a conversation. At times, Bridgers, Baker or Dacus will hold an entire song, illustrating the details of what they’ve gone through for the others. On other tracks, the vocalists will each take their own verses, bouncing off each other and adding to the conversation.

In « Satanist, » the three wonder if they were to take their beliefs to their extreme ends, would their friends still be around? Each imagines a caricature of themselves living just past what people in their lives might be comfortable with. It’s a great, fun rock song. But just like those kinds of conversations, the song ends in quiet harmony, agreeing that differences in belief over time can grow into a « seismic drift » impossible to come back from and that the three are worried that the world that is radicalizing them more and more each day will isolate them. There’s that feeling again.

To see boygenius live is electric. The three bounce around the stage, hugging each other and rolling around. They’re unsupervised kids playing rock stars in their garage. Their genuine love for each other and the music is palpable. There’s a sense that Lucy Dacus is speaking directly to her bandmates in « True Blue » when she sings, « It feels good to be known so well/ I can’t hide from you like I hide from myself. »

Trying to explain friendship is like trying to explain a joke; it just ruins it. « The Record » has that inexplicable quality. Boygenius has created an album that will go down as one of the best rock albums of our time — with the Grammys to prove it — but on the other hand, boygenius is a group of three friends who thought it would be fun to start a band, go on tour and lose their minds on stage together every night. 

It’s that balance between existentialism and revelry that boygenius does so well. The Swiss Jungian psychologist Marie-Louise von Franz once said, « It’s easy to be a naive idealist. It’s easy to be a cynical realist. It’s quite another thing to have no illusions and still hold the inner flame. » 

If the impending ecological disaster, the ever-revealing cheapness of our temples and institutions or the absurdity of our government officials is more than you can bear, boygenius gets it. But in all of that, boygenius reminds us we still have a life to live. Even if the world is ending, you should still start that band, go on that road trip, find the people who get you — and love them. 

Catégories
Vie de l'église

The Catholic Church needs to play a positive role in this year’s election

This year’s U.S. presidential election is going to be of historic importance for both America and the world, and the Catholic Church in the United States is uniquely positioned to help foster nonpartisan conversation.

By Catholic Church, I do not mean just Catholic bishops. All Catholic citizens, and even ex-Catholics, can make a difference.

Catholics are important because there are lots of them. They are both Democrats and Republicans, and some of them are swing voters.

Catholics make up 21.4% of the U.S. population (12.6% are white Catholics, 8.6% Hispanic Catholics), according to the Public Religion Research Institute. Another 13% of adult Americans are ex-Catholics, according to the Pew Research Center. Altogether, that is about a third of the country.

By numbers alone, Catholics matter, but in addition many of them are in battleground states. 

A majority of Catholics usually vote for the winner in presidential elections.

From 1928 to 1968, Catholics voted solidly Democratic in presidential elections, with perhaps one exception: Gallup says they voted Democratic in 1956, while the National Election Studies says they voted Republican.

In 1972, a majority voted for the Republican candidate, Richard Nixon, and in the following few decades, they tended to vote Democratic but were not as reliable as they had been for the party of FDR and LBJ. Most importantly for election results, some Catholics could be counted among the swing voters who can determine the outcome of an election.

More recently Catholics have been split, with nearly equal shares going to each party. A deeper analysis finds that a majority of white Catholics identify as Republicans, while a majority of Hispanic Catholics are Democrats.

This is very different from white evangelical Christians, who are predominantly Republican, and Black Protestants and Jewish voters, who are predominantly Democratic.

The partisan divide among Catholics is a challenge and an opportunity for the church.

It is a challenge for Catholic preachers when their congregation is spit politically. What can they say without alienating half their congregation?

As a result, Catholic preachers avoid politics in their sermons. Only 41% of Catholics heard at least one sermon that mentioned the 2020 election, according to Pew, as compared with 71% of evangelical Protestants and 63% of Black church and mainline Protestants.

Although the partisan divide makes preaching difficult, it also provides an opportunity for the church to model proper civic behavior for the rest of the country.

Unlike white and Black church Protestant ministers, Catholic bishops and priests have traditionally not endorsed political candidates or parties. You might see them giving a prayer at a national convention, but not giving campaign speeches. (Full disclosure: My brother, who is a friend of the McCain family, said a prayer at the 2008 Republican Party convention.)

Protestant clergy could avoid a lot of problems if they followed the example of Catholic clergy by not endorsing candidates.

The Catholic bishops also have a document, « Faithful Citizenship, » which discusses issues and encourages political involvement and dialogue.

The combination of official nonpartisanship with a congregational mix of Democrats and Republicans could make Catholic churches a unique location for civic conversation, where diatribes and hate speech are not allowed. The methodology of synodal conversation would work well to keep the temperature from boiling over into partisan rancor.

For this election especially, Catholics in the pews and in the hierarchy need to stick to facts and adhere to the values presented in « Faithful Citizenship. » The bishops should not retreat from their affirmation that the 2020 election results were legitimate and fair. They have no need to avoid issues like global warming, which have been raised by Pope Francis. How to respond to these issues is open to debate, but the moral obligation to support human rights, seek the common good and protect the planet is absolute.

The 2024 election will be crucial to the future of our country and the world. As citizens, Catholics must be part of the solution and not the problem.

Catégories
Vie de l'église

Can we stop treating politics like a game?

In 1887, the W. S. Reed Toy Company, based in Massachusetts, published a board game titled « The Game of Politics or, The Race for the Presidency. » According to the instructions, two teams would compete to become president by winning elections to various offices on the way to capturing first the nomination and then state electoral votes. The first team to win the majority of electoral college votes won the presidency and, therefore, the game.

Since then, similar board games have been produced and marketed, but it is only in recent years that the intersection of presidential elections and the spirit of playing games has appeared to leap off the board and enter the real world.

Like so many others, I have been trying to make sense of the current state of politics in this country for some time. It can be easy to blame one person or set of people or political party or branch of government, but the truth is that several converging factors have contributed, resulting in people treating political elections without the seriousness they deserve and as if they were games. 

This is not a column about which candidate is better than the other or which political party is less terrible. Instead, now that the 2024 primary season is well underway, I want to zoom out a little and look at the contemporary context of presidential politics more broadly.

First, it’s worth recalling what the Catholic Church has to say about the purpose and function of politics. In the Second Vatican Council’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, we are told that political and juridical structures that order society and the human community are a good thing. 

Furthermore, we are reminded that all citizens « should be mindful of the right and also the duty to use their free vote to further the common good, » and that those who serve in elected offices on behalf of their fellow citizens are worthy of praise and support.

Unsurprisingly, it is the church’s clear position that the purpose of government — and therefore the political process — is always about the promotion and protection of the common good. It is everyone’s responsibility to contribute to this effort. « Citizens must cultivate a generous and loyal spirit of patriotism, but without being narrow-minded. This means that they will always direct their attention to the good of the whole human family, united by the different ties which bind together races, people and nations. »

Gaudium et Spes continues:

All Christians must be aware of their own specific vocation within the political community. It is for them to give an example by their sense of responsibility and their service of the common good. In this way they are to demonstrate concretely how authority can be compatible with freedom, personal initiative with the solidarity of the whole social organism, and the advantages of unity with fruitful diversity. They must recognize the legitimacy of different opinions with regard to temporal solutions, and respect citizens, who, even as a group, defend their points of view by honest methods. Political parties, for their part, must promote those things which in their judgement are required for the common good; it is never allowable to give their interests priority over the common good. …

With integrity and wisdom, they [politicians] must take action against any form of injustice and tyranny, against arbitrary domination by an individual or a political party and any intolerance. They should dedicate themselves to the service of all with sincerity and fairness, indeed, with the charity and fortitude demanded by political life.

The vision of political life and governance articulated by the highest authority in the church — an ecumenical council — reflects what Scripture has long contended about the manner in which the human family is invited to live according to God’s will. Our politics is meant to reflect a community of interdependence, support, fairness, charity and so on — all of which is contained in the term « common good. »

However, there is little today in our political climate that looks or feels anything like what the church describes here. Instead, we have individuals, communities and political parties that view politics as a zero-sum game, which can have only one winner and winning is the singular goal. 

This mode of thinking is reinforced by language many politicians use to describe their own vision for what America should be, which often stands in direct contrast with the vision of the common good at the heart of Catholic teaching. The effects of this sort of rhetoric have been shown in academic studies to undermine « support for participatory inclusiveness and political equality » among certain voters.

The mentality expressed by this kind of rhetoric reflects not only the most cynical takes on citizenship or governance, but also a focus on tribal belonging and domination of so-called « enemies. »

There is no longer acknowledgement of legitimate but respected differences between politicians and voters, let alone any effort to see where there may be overlapping interests and values. In a zero-sum game, there cannot be two or more winners or a community of thoughtful compromise and interdependence. Instead, those who do not « win » are « losers » and should expect to be treated as such.

How did we get here? While I don’t have an absolute answer, I do know that those who are most politically engaged, in any party, tend to spend a lot of their time online. 

That everyone spends so much time on the Internet — for work, entertainment, communication with family and friends, etc. — has certainly affected the way people see the world and relate to others. While politics have always been partisan, there used to be a more human dimension to them, which was tied to face-to-face encounters and interaction with others.

Today, social media and other technologies mediate our engagement, removing the valence of complex and diverse humanity. They replace real people with caricatures, and authentic dialogue across difference with echo chambers of self-referential certitude. 

Studies have shown that Republicans and Democrats alike find it increasingly difficult and stressful to talk about politics with those who disagree. Thus, fewer and fewer people are talking to anyone outside their narrowly defined affinity group or partisan tribe.

This dynamic has resulted in a kind of « video gaming » of the political process in the United States. If most of what we can call contemporary political discourse is being mediated through social media, the real stakes and actual humanity of others can be increasingly difficult to see. People who are not on « my team » are then more easily dehumanized and seen only as opponents to be defeated.

This reminds me of other digitally mediated phenomena that do not always feel real by those experiencing them, but do in fact have very real and often dire consequences.

People who are not on ‘my team’ are more easily dehumanized and seen only as opponents to be defeated. 

Tweet this

For example, think about online gambling, which is often literally presented as a game. Oftentimes, there is real money on the line and many people, especially those who struggle with addiction, can suffer terrible consequences because it may be easy to forget about the real-world stakes.

Another example that comes to mind is modern drone warfare. Some military personnel, frequently located thousands of miles away from their « targets, » talk about the video-game-like interface involved in piloting these weapons of war that kill actual human beings. The moral challenges this kind of technology poses are just beginning to be examined.

It seems to me that, for many people, politics in a digital age has felt like a game in a similar way. And the results have been more polarization, tribalism and dehumanizing rhetoric. 

Additionally, as the world witnessed on Jan. 6, 2021, this is not something that merely exists online, but like gambling debts or those killed by drone strikes, there are real, material and physical consequences arising from reducing politics to a game.

Despite the conditions that have contributed to contemporary politics feeling like a game, it remains deadly serious and important. Instead of blindly cheering on one’s political tribe as if the election were a football game and we were all just fans, we ought to think deeply about real issues, good governance, responsible leadership and accountability. 

We need to stop treating politics like a game because the stakes are high, and the consequences are real.

Catégories
Vie de l'église

Catholic college faculty vote ‘no confidence’ in president after program cuts, layoffs

Citing declining enrollment and structural deficits, the new administration at one of New York City’s longest-running Catholic colleges has moved this year to eliminate several academic programs and slash faculty positions. More than 25% of faculty have been terminated over the past seven months, according to the student newspaper.

Among the programs that stand to be eliminated by Manhattan College, located in the Bronx and first established by the De La Salle Christian Brothers in 1853, is the institution’s religious studies major.

Catholic higher educational institutions in the Northeast and other regions are dealing with similar demographic and fiscal challenges, but the manner in which the Manhattan College administration has gone about implementing the board of trustees’ directive to « rightsize » the college has alienated a large swath of students, alumni and professors.

« The administration doesn’t want to discuss the situation as equals. When the faculty asks questions, they seem to respond with threats, » Adam Arenson, a Manhattan College history professor, told NCR.

Frustrations boiled over in late January as faculty members approved a no-confidence vote in Manhattan College President Milo Riverso, a longtime business leader in the construction industry who assumed his leadership post in July 2023. Faculty leaders notified the college’s board of trustees chairperson and vice-chairpersons of the no-confidence vote in a Jan. 29 email obtained by NCR. 

« President Riverso’s management style has cultivated an atmosphere of uncertainty, distrust, and fear among faculty, staff, and students, » faculty leaders wrote in their email in which they reported that 89% of 147 participating professors voted to express no confidence in Riverso. 

Critics say Riverso and his leadership team have acted unilaterally without consulting faculty leaders and curriculum committees while disregarding contractual obligations pertaining to tenured professors. They also accuse the administration of employing high-handed tactics and not being honest or forthcoming with information about the college’s finances.

« All [the administration is] basically saying is that they’re running a deficit, so they need to fire faculty, » said Mike Judge, a biology professor who will leave Manhattan College in December after teaching 31 years there. 

By this summer, 62 faculty positions at Manhattan College will have been eliminated through layoffs and buyouts, according to The Quadrangle, the student newspaper. Twenty majors and minors, most of them in liberal arts programs like religious studies and philosophy, will no longer be offered.

« If we really do have financial issues, faculty should be playing a role in the elimination of programs, but [the administration doesn’t] want to hear that at all. They just want to eliminate programs, » said Judge, one of 23 professors who during the Fall 2023 semester accepted the administration’s « voluntary separation agreement. »

Spokespersons for Manhattan College did not return several messages from NCR seeking comment for this story.

On Feb. 2, Stephen Squeri, chairman of the Manhattan College board of trustees, defended Riverso and his decisions in a letter he sent on the board to leaders of the Council for Faculty Affairs and Faculty Welfare Committee at Manhattan College. Squeri wrote that the board « respectfully disagrees » with the reasoning behind the no-confidence vote. He added that the board « unanimously stands » by Riverso’s decisions and his plan to « ensure the long-term financial stability of the College and its ability to pursue its mission for generations of students to come. »

« We understand that not everyone will agree with the outcome, but we believe that the steps the administration has taken were appropriate and necessary, » Squeri wrote in his letter, a copy of which was obtained by NCR.

Among those who disagree are the more than 2,900 current Manhattan College students, alumni and others who have signed an online petition objecting to the administration’s plan to eliminate tenured faculty positions. The petition’s organizer, Teresa Ramoni, accused the administration of betraying the college’s Lasallian values, especially those pertaining to providing a quality education and showing respect for all people.

« Everyone is aware of how damaging these decisions are, especially in light of broader cultural trends that are devaluing the liberal arts, » said Ramoni, who graduated from Manhattan College in 2020 with an English degree and a minor in religious studies.

Meanwhile, a GoFundMe page has collected over $30,000 to pay for legal expenses for the faculty to « defend tenure rights at Manhattan College and to stop a dangerous precedent for the erosion of tenure across the country. »

« We have lawyers now who are negotiating with [the administration] to see if they want to reach a settlement, but we want to keep our options open, » said Arenson, who set up the GoFundMe page.

The no-confidence vote in Riverso followed months of turmoil, covered by local media outlets and The Quadrangle, where students and alumni held protests on campus, and faculty members petitioned administrators for answers they said were not provided. 

« The administration claims there are deficits, but they haven’t provided enough information for faculty or other members of the campus community to make their own alternative suggestions, » Arenson told NCR.

Witnessing the pending elimination of liberal arts majors like religious studies prompted some faculty members and alumni to say they are concerned with the Catholic college’s current direction. 

They noted that the renowned Catholic theologian St. Joseph Sr. Elizabeth Johnson earned her master’s degree in theology from Manhattan College. Judith Plaskow, a pioneering Jewish feminist theologian, taught religious studies at Manhattan College for more than 30 years. The National Honor Society for Religious Studies and Theology began at Manhattan College in 1976.

« I don’t think [Riverso] understands how academia works, » said Ramoni, who is now pursuing a master’s degree in English at Rutgers University. 

Riverso, an alumnus of Manhattan College who previously served on its board of trustees and taught as an adjunct professor in the civil engineering graduate program, offered a window into his thinking in a Dec 18 letter he wrote to students and parents regarding the structural changes at the college.

Employing language from his business background, Riverso said the administration had used a « highly data-driven » approach that he said uncovered « certain structural imbalances » and diminishing returns in programs where the college had been « focusing resources. » He said some classes and major programs only enrolled a handful of students.

« We were also trailing comparable benchmarks in terms of efficiency of our faculty and classes offered, » Riverso wrote.

In his letter responding to the faculty’s no-confidence vote, Squeri said the college’s board of trustees « specifically chose » to elect Riverso as president due to « his unique skillset, long-term vision for the College, and his ability to help Manhattan College address the challenges we and other similar institutions continue to face as a result of the effects of the pandemic. »

« Dr. Riverso’s plan, which was presented to and endorsed by the Board, includes a number of difficult but necessary steps to put the College on solid financial footing and focus our resources on the areas that are delivering the greatest value for our students and the entire College community both now and in the future, » Squeri wrote.

In his Dec. 18 letter, Riverso said his administration would look to provide opportunities in 2024 for « an open and ongoing dialogue » around those changes. But faculty members told NCR that Riverso’s promise of dialogue has not materialized.

In a Jan. 16 campus-wide email,  Riverso said the administration had made « the difficult decision to eliminate a limited number of faculty and staff positions » in part to « better align » the college’s resources.

Also in January, the administration moved forward with plans to consolidate the college’s six schools into three, a process that led to the business and engineering schools being preserved but the schools of liberal arts, science, health professions and continuing and professional studies being merged into a single school.

« It seems like every week [the administration is] throwing something new at the faculty, » said Ramoni, who said she is in frequent communication with and receives regular updates from her former professors at Manhattan College.

In an Oct. 17 email to faculty leaders, obtained by NCR, Riverso also mentioned the need to eliminate programs, consolidate schools, and reduce low-enrolled courses while increasing average class sizes to 25 across all departments. He solicited feedback and recommendations from faculty leaders, but said their input would « need to lead to a reduction in instructional costs and faculty lines. »

Squeri, the board of trustees’ chairman, wrote in his Feb. 2 letter that Riverso’s plan is « the culmination of directives » that the board gave to Riverso and his predecessor over the last two years to address « systemic finances that have detrimentally affected Manhattan College. »

Judge, who turns 65 this year, said he accepted the voluntary separation agreement because he thought he would be helping to save another faculty member’s job by doing so. But given recent events, Judge said he is no longer sure his decision will have that effect.

Said Judge, « If you don’t have faculty who want to be there, who feel comfortable and don’t have to look over their shoulder wondering if they’re going to lose their job next time, then you’re losing the type of faculty you want to have around engaging students. It’s penny-wise and pound-foolish. »

Catégories
Vie de l'église

El Salvador’s Bukele wins second term, as Catholic religious express fear for democracy

Sandra Patricia Lazo feared the return of violence in an El Salvador without Nayib Bukele. That’s why, on Feb. 4, she voted for him for president for a second time — even though her country’s constitution prohibits consecutive presidential reelection.

Preliminary vote counts point to an overwhelming win by Bukele, who wasted no time claiming victory and gathered tens of thousands of supporters at San Salvador’s historic city center, where he highlighted his war against the country’s criminal gangs and the alleged failure of past governments. He took shots at journalists and nongovernmental organizations, and capped his speech by playing R.E.M.’s 1987 hit « It’s the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine). »

Those like Lazo, happy with Bukele’s efforts to reduce gang violence, say their lives have changed for the better. She no longer fears being attacked or robbed walking home from Mass.

« I live in a troublesome area and there has been a change, » she said. 

As Lazo made her way through the heavy traffic of San Salvador Jan. 31, Bukele’s voice came on Radio Luz, a Catholic station, when a political ad played. It was necessary to vote for his Nuevas Ideas party, Bukele said in the ad, « so we don’t return to that past of violence and corruption. »

But other Salvadorans, such as Fr. Jesus Bonilla, said Bukele manipulated Salvadorans, preying on their fears of gangs to win an unconstitutional reelection, shutting down opposition members and denying them federal money to campaign. Many voters expressed lack of knowledge of candidates on the ballot, except for the president’s party.

« These are the most unequal presidential elections in El Salvador [after the Peace Accords] where there is a dominant propaganda — the government’s, » Bonilla said. 

Wendy Torres said even she, too, is happy with the newfound peace, but there’s an uneasiness about the dominance of one party. 

« We were just saying that in the previous elections, it was like a big party. There was an expectation between two contenders, » she said. But long before election day arrived this year, « the results were already settled and it was like, a very apathetic election. I don’t even know how to define it. »

A government promising its citizens security should be a right and not a political issue, Torres said, saying she is worried about the price of tranquility. 

Salvadoran prelates, including Cardinal Gregorio Rosa Chávez, have spoken of the high price that the country is paying for the moment of relative peace: arbitrary imprisonment without due process, the dismantling of the judicial system, and a search for revenge and not justice.

On election day, he said in his homily from St. Francis of Assisi Parish that the country’s St. Oscar Romero is « interceding for us in heaven. »

« He dreamed of a country without violence, without poverty, without injustice, » the cardinal said. « A just country … he gave his life for that country. »

More than 70,000 Salvadorans, or 2% of the population, are imprisoned and do not have the right to legal defense under the so-called « state of exception, » in place since March 2022. A nonprofit says upwards of 6,000 Salvadorans have « disappeared » since Bukele assumed power, but are not counted as dead. More than 100,000 children and adolescents in the country have suffered the effects of the hardline anti-gang measures, including by losing both parents to imprisonment, says a recent report by the Humanitarian Legal Aid and Center for Exchange and Solidarity groups. 

During a pastoral visit to his home country of El Salvador, Auxiliary Bishop Evelio Menjívar-Ayala of Washington, D.C., said in a newspaper interview published Jan. 27 that while the country’s problems must be fixed, they must be solved in a « fair » manner. « The people who have been detained have the right to a trial, since no one can be guilty if they have not been proven guilty, » he said, adding that you « can’t fight violence generating violence. »

Salvadoran Vice President Félix Ulloa has admitted on several occasions that the government has « made mistakes » in some arrests. Some of those mistakes are irreversible, say organizations like Cristosal, because they have resulted in the death of innocent people.

Others also question Bukele’s commitment against gangs since some news reports say that his government freed one of El Salvador’s most notorious gang members called « the Crook, » who was later captured by Mexican officials and extradited to the U.S. 

But for those like Lazo, the apparent peace Bukele’s policies have produced is what matters most. Her biggest worry is that it will disappear.

« It’s so nice, » she said. « We have never experienced it. It gives you hope and it is what I would like for other generations: a place where they can grow, even if it is expensive. »

The « basic food basket, » a measurement of goods Salvadorans use to gauge the cost of food, increased by 27% during Bukele’s first presidential term. His experiment adopting bitcoin as El Salvador’s legal tender has not produced the economic panacea he promised. There are concerns about the government’s transparency, including in spending and borrowing of public money, as well as corruption allegations against members of his government. 

The government also shows little desire to cooperate with the United States, which has the largest population of Salvadorans outside the country. A group of U.S. Congress members expressed in a letter their concern about the « democratic backsliding » of the country.

Those setbacks are something that Vice President Ulloa, in an interview with The New York Times, openly confirmed, saying that in El Salvador democracy is not just being dismantled, « we are eliminating it, we are replacing it with something new. »

In his victory speech on Feb. 4, Bukele said there was no democracy to eliminate since it never existed in El Salvador. He recalled an exchange with a Spanish journalist who asked why it was being dismantled in El Salvador.

« What democracy are you talking about? » he said he asked the reporter. « [The reporter] spoke of a democracy his bosses talk about in Spain. But that’s not democracy. That would be colonialism, imperialism, elitism, plutocracy, they can call it what they want. »

Bukele asked other countries to « respect » the choice El Salvador made without mentioning the maneuvers he took to run for a consecutive term which the constitution does not allow, one that didn’t seem to bother a lot of Salvadorans. 

« We want you to come, visit us, know us. We want to be your friends, your allies, your partners. But what we won’t be is your lackeys, » said Bukele.

Catégories
Vie de l'église

What the Taylor Swift conspiracy theories tell us about sad state of democracy

« The Democrats’ Taylor Swift election interference psyop is happening in the open, » said Laura Loomer, a conspiracy theorist whom former president Donald Trump has embraced.

Fox News’ Jesse Watters raised the possibility that the pop singer could be part of a Pentagon plot to get President Joe Biden reelected, claiming « around four years ago, the Pentagon’s psychological operations unit floated turning Taylor Swift into an asset. » This gross distortion of the truth has not cost the increasingly irresponsible and unhinged Watters his primetime slot at 8 p.m.

It is notoriously tricky to deploy influence acquired in one realm of the culture, entertainment, to another, politics. Bruce Springsteen campaigned with John Kerry in the closing days of the 2004 presidential contest and it didn’t matter. Jay Z and Beyoncé, Lady Gaga and Bon Jovi, all took to the stage on behalf of Hilary Clinton in 2016 and she still lost. 

With 279 million followers on Instagram, Swift undoubtedly has an enormous reach. When Swift encouraged young people to register to vote in September, 35,000 people went to the website to which she had directed them. That is more than the margin by which Biden beat Trump in three states in 2020. 

The reason Republicans have concocted these ridiculous conspiracy theories about Swift, however, is not just because she has a reach that exceeds the other pop stars and the election is destined to be a squeaker. It is that the slice of the electorate who will decide the 2024 election is increasingly difficult to reach with any kind of standard political pitch.

Lee Drutman, in a recent Substack post, looked at the 20% of the electorate that do not fall into either partisan camp. He calls them the « Shrug Emoji » voters. 

« Disaffected from both parties, and mostly disengaged, » Drutman said. « They skew less wealthy, and younger, than the rest of the electorate. They defy easy ideological categorization. They vote sometimes, if they can be convinced the stakes are high enough to pay attention, or a new candidate breaks through and energizes them. The most pivotal are the least knowledgeable, an odd group for a democracy to empower. » 

Drutman added: « They begin with a broad cynicism towards anyone in power. If anything unites them, it is a broad anti-system animus. Establishment politicians hold an especial stink for these voters » (emphasis in original).

There is a lot to unpack there. The Founding Fathers, as well as the ancient Greeks, certainly believed that democracy could only flourish if the electorate was well informed. Americans’ fetish for consumer goods and entertainment has crowded out the amount of intellectual bandwidth available for things like assessing candidates and political platforms, so Drutman’s point about the most pivotal voters being the least knowledgeable is something to worry about long past 2024. 

Anti-establishment sentiment was baked into the American psyche from the very beginning. The Puritans fled the established order in England, complete with biblically inspired narratives to justify their opposition to king and church. Their cultural and political biases would become dominant in early America. The founders mounted a revolution, the most anti-establishment act a people can take, and subsequent political fortunes have usually needed to include some anti-establishment fervor, from Andrew Jackson’s populism to Donald Trump’s.

The reason the Republicans are worried about Taylor Swift is because she crosses the usual boundaries. Democrats go to her concerts and so do Republicans. More importantly, the disaffected « Shrug Emoji » voters go to her concerts too. Everybody seemingly loves Swift. Her romance with Kansas City Chiefs’ tight end Travis Kelce seems to put everyone in a good mood. 

Come November, neither Swift’s nor Kelce’s name will be on the ballot. As Drutman explains, the American electorate is in a deep rut. Our politics is driven not by what we want but by what we fear. Polarization has combined with social media to create a desperately divided nation. The only thing most Americans agree on is that they do not want a Biden-Trump rematch, but that is exactly what they are going to get. 

Those who will likely decide this election, accustomed to the comforts of our affluent society, poorly educated in civics and distracted by all the entertainments our culture has to offer, have forgotten Cassius’ observation when another, earlier republic was imperiled: « The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves. » 

Catégories
Catholisisme

God’s Remedy

(Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time-Year B; This homily was given on February 3 & 4, 2024 at Saint Augustine Church in Providence, Rhode Island; See Job 7:1-7 and Mark 1:29-39) 

Catégories
Vie de l'église

Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time: A mission for which we were made

Lots of people complain — and figure they’ve got good reason to do so. But who can compare to Job? When God bragged about how good Job was, Satan replied that it’s easy to be good when everything goes your way — when you have a secure home, a good family and a wonderful reputation. Who wouldn’t thank God for all of that? But, what happens when it all falls apart through no fault of your own? That was Satan’s gamble — let Job lose it all, and then see what he thinks of God! 

Suddenly bereft of everything that had given him identity and purpose, Job finds life a drudgery.  He can identify with people with no pride in their work as they gain a poor salary, never feeling that they are contributing to the world or expressing themselves through their labor. Growing old, Job’s life has lost its meaning and his friends, insisting that he must have deserved his misfortune, only make it worse. This is where we meet Job today.

Although few knew anything like Job’s abundance of loss, the people of Jesus’ day, like many today, shared Job’s sense of drudgery, wondering if the God of justice had fallen asleep. When Mark describes the Galilee where Jesus began preaching, it seemed that demons were overpowering the population and that a good number of those who weren’t possessed were in need of healing. No wonder Jesus started out like a whirlwind! Mark’s first chapter tells us that Jesus was baptized and went to the desert to return and immediately began to teach, call disciples, exorcize demons and heal the sick. (He performed his first healing miracle, the restoration of Peter’s mother-in-law, right after the Sabbath ended — showing that God was active among the people, no matter how wretched they felt.) 

Mark, whose narrative invented the genre of Christian Gospels, gave his work the title, « The beginning of the Gospel. » He wanted his readers to know that the times were changing — and quickly.  

Jesus announced the change and he himself was the change. But, as Mark’s title implied, what Jesus did was just the beginning. He was no Superman, flying in and pulling people out of danger all by himself. From the get-go, he called disciples, either by inviting them to follow him, or, as in the case of Peter’s mother-in-law (let’s call her Amatallah, which means « servant of God »), by restoring their ability to serve God and neighbor.  

The point of all his activity was to embody the message he preached: « This is the time of fulfillment, the reign of God is at hand, believe it and act like you believe it! » When people began to take his message seriously, it snowballed and became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more people believed that God’s reign was at hand, the more they recognized it and spread it.  

Paul puts this into the imperative as he writes to the community at Corinth. Speaking for himself, he says that knowing the Gospel impels him into mission. « Woe to me if I do not preach it! »

Paul offers a counterpoint to Job. Whereas Job tried to understand his sorry lot, Paul leads his readers to see beyond the tragedy — to see that preaching the crucified Christ proclaims not only God’s definitive victory over all the powers of destruction but gives meaning to every moment of life (1 Corinthians 1:18-25). Thus Paul, like Amatallah, is free to serve others. Their service and preaching becomes sacramental; it accomplishes what it signifies, bringing the reign of God into greater fruition. 

In his lifetime, Job complained mightily to God, demanding an answer to the injustice of life. When God finally answered him, all Job could do was admit that God’s ways were beyond his comprehension (Job 38-40). The restoration of Job’s fortune does not answer the question of suffering, nevertheless, it points to Christ and the resurrection, God’s definitive response to evil.  

Today we might not be very different from Job and Paul. We see innocent suffering in so many parts of our world and feel helpless to respond. It seems that evil and violence have the upper hand. But, if we can, like Paul, give ourselves over to belief in the Gospel, we can enter into the sacramental dynamic of the self-fulfilling prophecy that is the reigning of God.

Job would tell us, « Beware! Feel free to complain, to lament, to interrogate God, but know that you do so at great risk. » We never know when God will appear out of the whirlwind and give us a mission beyond our wildest dreams. A mission that will eliminate drudgery from our vocabulary, a mission for which we were made.

Catégories
Vie de l'église

Revisiting controversial ‘Doubt’ as it returns to Broadway

I’ve been teaching New York City high school and college students for two decades now. And for two decades, I’ve been asked the same question: « Is it OK to use ‘I’ in school writing? » The poor student has inevitably been told that first-person references weaken argumentative claims. I would actually argue that in 2024 the only thing all students — all Americans — could use a little bit more of is humility, circumspection and nuance.

In a word: doubt.

It has been 20 years since John Patrick Shanley’s explosive play of the same name premiered on Broadway, starring Cherry Jones and Brian F. O’Byrne. This February, the play returns to the Great White Way, in a revival starring Liev Schreiber as Father Flynn and Tyne Daly as Sister Aloysius. So it’s a good time to revisit this Pulitzer Prize winner (later made into an Oscar-nominated film) and the era in which Shanley wrote it. 

Over the lifespan of this very Catholic play, at the center of which is a simmering conflict between a reform-minded priest and a traditionally-inclined nun, what has happened in the American Catholic Church? Has the play aged well? Or are there moments that may now make viewers cringe — or worse?

« It’s getting harder and harder in this society to find a place for spacious, true intellectual exchange, » Shanley told The New York Times when the play was first released. « It’s all becoming about who won the argument, which is just moronic. » He added, « There is no room or value placed on doubt, which is one of the hallmarks of the wise man. » Sadly, this may be more true in 2024 than it was in 2004.

At the same time, there are moments in Shanley’s play that read quite differently today, for better or worse. Shanley has talked often about writing « Doubt » (subtitled « a parable ») during the run-up to the disastrous Iraq War. But Americans had also begun learning about and processing the worst of the church abuse scandals at the time, including The Boston Globe’s shocking 2002 revelations, on which the film « Spotlight » was based. Allegations of cover-up, and parish-hopping by predator priests, are also at the center of « Doubt, » which is set in 1964.

« What do you do when you’re not sure? » Father Flynn asks the audience in the play’s opening sermon. « Last year when President Kennedy was assassinated, who among us did not experience the most profound disorientation? » 

Shanley has called this era a time « when not just me but the whole world seemed to be going through some kind of vast puberty. » In 2004, he acknowledged that key elements of the plot of « Doubt » were rooted in personal experience.

« A child in my family was molested by a priest, » Shanley told the Times. « The parents went first to the local level, then up the chain of command to a highly placed church official, who took them by the hands and said: ‘I’m so sorry this happened to you. I will take care of it.’ And then he promoted » the abusive priest.

As similar events unfold in « Doubt, » Sister Aloysius emerges as brave, perhaps even heroic. And yet some audience members in 2024 might feel these allegations are a peripheral matter in the larger conflict between the nun and priest. 

Then there is the mother of the (allegedly) abused boy.

Mrs. Muller is African American and new to this Bronx parish, which is heavily Irish and Italian. She clearly loves her son, and wants to give him as many opportunities as 1960s America (or at least Catholic New York City) will allow. At the same time, some of Mrs. Muller’s lines fall somewhere between passive and neglectful; perhaps even complicit. Still, she gets some of the play’s most powerful moments.

« How come the priest didn’t get kicked off the priesthood? » she asks at one point. « You know why that is? … You’re just finding out about it, but that’s the way it is and the way it’s been, Sister. You’re not going against no man in a robe and win, Sister. »

As audiences and critics debate what ideas may or may not remain relevant in « Doubt, » one aspect of the stage play that is worth emphasizing — especially in light of the movie, with its expanded cast — is that only four characters appear, and three are women. These are the people who’ve faced the most adversity within a deeply unbalanced system. Perhaps for this reason, they have developed the strength and persistence to serve as a breath of fresh air, represented by the wind storms that send the Irish janitor out to the courtyard to clean up scattered tree limbs. But beware: the same wind storms, Sister Aloysius notes, « tripped » a fellow nun, who « fell on her face. »

The role of women in the church was a prominent topic at the Vatican’s recent synod on synodality. Pope Francis — himself often described as a breath of fresh air — has even called for a « demasculinized » church, as well as more listening, as opposed to more talking, pontificating.

It’s no accident that the only male character in « Doubt » is also the only one we see preaching. That is, at least, when he’s not busy conspicuously jotting down sermon ideas, even if it interrupts someone trying to relay an important point to him.

But as flawed as Father Flynn may be, no one in « Doubt » emerges as an uncomplicated hero. Which may be the most crucial — and timeless — lesson in this « parable. »

« It is doubt (so often initially experienced as weakness) that changes things, » Shanley wrote in a preface to the play. « … Doubt requires more courage than conviction does … because conviction is a resting place and doubt is infinite — it is a passionate exercise. »

This is why Sister James, the young nun and teacher, may be this play’s most important character: she carefully listens, considering the arguments both Father Flynn and Sister Aloysius make. And yet, she’s still stumped. Unsure. But Sister James keeps listening. Right up to the very end of the play, when the lights fade.

Maybe that’s one final thing we can take away from « Doubt »: That sitting quietly in the dark can still be a courageous act, a passionate exercise.

Catégories
Vie de l'église

The Francis Effect podcast: $83M judgment against Trump; papal audience with Vatican journalists; Ansel Augustine

NCR senior correspondent Heidi Schlumpf joins « The Francis Effect » podcast co-hosts Franciscan Fr. Daniel Horan (columnist for NCR) and David Dault, executive producer and host of « Things Not Seen: Conversations About Culture and Faith. » A jury has ruled that Donald Trump must pay $83 million for defaming E. Jean Carroll. Father Daniel, Heidi and David discuss that case, as well as the role of journalism in 21st-century Catholic life. Plus, Heidi interviews Ansel Augustine about the synod and experiences of Black Catholics. 

How do I listen?

Click the « play » button at the top of the page to start the show. Make sure to keep the window open on your browser if you’re doing other things, or the audio will stop.

From your mobile device:

You can listen and subscribe to « The Francis Effect » from any podcast app. If you’re reading this from an iPhone or other Apple mobile device, tap this link to listen in Apple Podcasts. If you’re on an Android, tap this link to listen in Google Podcasts.

If you prefer another podcast app, you can find « The Francis Effect » there. (Here’s the RSS feed.)

From a desktop or laptop:

You can visit The Francis Effect website here for more information on the show.

You can also find the podcast on Twitter: @FrancisFXPod.