Columbus Day

If I were still living in New York, it’s quite likely that I would be beginning this day by concelebrating at the Archbishop’s annual bi-lingual (Italian-English) Columbus Day Mass at the Cathedral of St. Patrick.

Columbus Day has long been an occasion for Italian-Americans to focus on their ethnic heritage and show pride in their role in the history and life of our country. Of course, Christopher Columbus crossed the ocean as Cristobal Colón, sailing in the service of Their Most Catholic Majesties, King Ferdinand of Aragón and Queen Isabela of Castille. So this holiday is also rightly observed by Spanish-speakers around the world as el Día de la Hispanidad. (Thus, in New York, there are now two parades – the Italian parade on the legal holiday, and the Hispanic parade on the previous Sunday.)

The first recorded celebration of Columbus Day in the United States was in New York in 1792 to mark the 300th anniversary of Columbus’ first landing in the New World. In the aftermath of the American Revolution, perhaps this may been one way to connect with the broader (not just British) story of the exploration and settlement of the American continent. In any event, Catholic (and especially Italian) immigrant communities quickly adopted it as an occasion for celebrations. (In the 19th century, opposition to Catholicism caused some anti-immigrant groups to oppose Columbus Day). Eventually, after effective lobbying by the Knights of Columbus, President Roosevelt proclaimed Columbus Day a national holiday in 1937. It remains a federal holiday today (although, like so many of our other American holidays, now no longer on its proper day).

Columbus Day, however, for all the Italian-American pride appropriately connected with it, is much more than just another ethnic holiday and an occasion for yet another ethnic parade. What happened on October 12, 1492, in the definitive meeting of the eastern and western hemispheres, was surely one of the most significantly transformative events in human history, the beginning of the globalized one world which we now know today.

At the same time, that first planting of the Cross on the beach at San Salvador (appropriately on the Spanish feast of Nuestra Señora del Pilar) also marked the effective beginning of the evangelization of this American continent. Heroic missionaries from many different nations eventually came to this new land to share the Good News with the native populations and to minister to the continually increasing numbers of immigrants from the Old World. As a result, almost half of the world’s Catholics now live in North and South America.

This annual remembrance of the Catholic faith’s arrival on these shores should stimulate us to concentrate our efforts on behalf of the continued evangelization both of our own country and of this entire continent – the “new evangelization” to which Pope John Paul II repeatedly challenged us throughout his 26-year pontificate. In his Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in America in 1999, the late Pope wrote: “The greatness of the incarnation and gratitude for the gift of the first proclamation of the Gospel in America are an invitation to respond readily to Christ with a more decisive personal conversion and a stimulus to ever more generous fidelity to the Gospel. … Conversion leads to fraternal communion, because it enables us to understand that Christ is the head of the church, his mystical body; it urges solidarity, because it makes us aware that whatever we do for others, especially for the poorest, we do for Christ himself. Conversion, therefore, fosters a new life, in which there is no separation between faith and works in our daily response to the universal call for holiness.”

Installation Eve

Tomorrow, Sunday, the Most Reverend Bishop of Knoxville will come to Immaculate Conception and officially install me as the 24th pastor of this historic downtown Knoxville parish. (I will be the eighth Paulist pastor at Immaculate Conception since the Paulists came to Knoxville in 1973). The Rite of Installation begins after the homily with the Bishop formally informing the people that I am to serve as their pastor and reminding both pastor and people of our mutual commitment to one another in this new relationship. The Bishop will then ask me three questions, highlighting the proclamation of the Word of God, the celebration of the Sacraments, and the building up of the Church and service to those in need, followed by three parallel questions to the people. Then, all will recite the Nicene Creed together, after which, with my hand on the Gospels, I will recite the Oath of Fidelity and then sign it on the altar. Finally, the bishop will present me with seven "Symbols of Pastoral Responsibility" - a Parish Register (containing the names of those now entrusted to my care), a Parish History recounting how this parish has lived the Gospel in the past and striven to be Christ in the midst of this community), a Vessel of Holy Water (a reminder of Baptism, whihc incorporates us into the Church), the Rite of Penance (the sacrament which reconciles us to God and one another), the 3 Holy Oils (the Oil of Catechumens, the Oil of the Sick, and the Holy Chrism), the Book of the Gospels, and the Sacred Vessels for the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Altar.

It promises to be a beautiful and joyful celebration, a fitting intro to the 125th anniversary of the present parish church, which will be celebrated in 2011. Even before the building of the present church, from the days of its first pastor, Fr. Henry V. Brown, Immaculate Conception Church has stood on Summit Hill as an important presence in this city’s skyline and a vital resource of faith and community for downtown Knoxville - a vibrant sign of the Church’s outreach to all who live or work or visit in the shadow of its spire. It will be both my privilege and my joy to serve as its pastor, as this community faithfully continues the ministry of this historic parish.

In the words of Servant of God Isaac Hecker (1819-1888), founder of the Paulist Fathers: Let us be united in doing His will, and in letting it be done in us (from a letter written August 2, 1864).

"The Social Network"

One of my High School English teachers once asserted that one cannot compose an “epic” about the Beatles. He was, of course, quite wrong – on both counts. He was wrong, first of all, because (contrary to what he was trying to claim) the Beatles were a major musical and creative cultural phenomenon, eminently suitable for an “epic.” Secondly, he was wrong because even events and people of less than world-historical significance can be the subject of an epic-quality story. The new film about the founding of Facebook and the unraveling of the relationships among that story’s protagonists does indeed tap into universal human themes. Other than the obscenely enormous amount of money involved, however, the players in the drama are hardly epic-level heroes. The movie that has been made about them, however, is certainly up there - quite apart from the degree to which it may have (as has been widely alleged) distorted the actual story .

Full disclosure: I am personally a fan of Facebook. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is a legitimate question, but a subject for another discussion. Not only do I enjoy checking Facebook and have over time gradually gotten over my initial reticence about posting on it, I even administer a Facebook “Business Page, the latest weekly report for which appeared on my Blackberry as I was walking back from the movie theater!

The movie is very well made and the acting is great. The film finally succeeds, however, I believe, because of how (like any “epic”) it taps into important and universal human themes. Greed, obviously, is one such theme. But money wasn’t what Facebook was about at the outset and was never (at least as he is portrayed in the movie) what Zuckerberg was fundamentally interested in. What he was looking for, rather, was “coolness” – something everyone else in the story also seems to want (including those who already are - or think they are - very "cool" indeed). The pursuit of “coolness” is essentially a contemporary variation on the perennial pursuit of popularity, status, friendship, and, of course, sex. If The Social Network is to be believed, people never get – or never think they get – enough of those primordial social goods.

The story is told through the prism of two legal actions against Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg – one on the part of the Winklevoss twins and the other on the part of Zuckerberg’s putative best friend and founding partner, Eduardo Saverin. The Winklevoss twins are everything Zuckerberg (as portrayed in the movie) isn’t but would like to be. They are rich, well-connected, good-looking jocks, who belong to one of the best clubs on campus. (When Zuckerberg goes to their club to meet with them, he cannot cross the threshold of privilege and is only allowed into the “bike room”). The Winklevosses are attractive and hence have already more than their fair share of the good things this world has to offer. Of course, they want more, which is why they seek Zuckerberg’s assistance in the first place. Perhaps one of Zuckerberg’s best lines in the movie is when he observes that the twins are angry at him because for the first time something hasn’t gone their way, hasn’t gone the way everything in their social reality has conditioned them to expect. That line alone ought to redeem the nerdy, socially awkward Zuckerberg from some of the opprobrium his character (as portrayed in the film) otherwise deserves. Having met and known any number of Winklevoss-types in my lifetime, I couldn’t help but root for Zuckerberg against them.

Eduardo Saverin is a different story. Although, unlike Zuckerberg, Savarin has real access to money (although presumably less than the Winklevosses), he comes across as a largely sympathetic figure. He really is Zuckerberg’s friend and remains loyal a lot longer than he probably should. That’s what being a friend means, of course; and it is obvious that when the friendship does break up, it is experienced as a serious loss by both men. An attractive, ambitious undegraduate, Savarin wants what everyone else in the story wants -popularity and status (including membership in one of Harvard’s exclusive clubs), friendship (with Zuckerberg), and, of course, sex. Still, as a serious business student, Savarin offers an alternative reality – and an alternative path to success which he vainly tries to get Zuckerberg to follow. Zuckerberg, however, is seduced by a “cooler” model of success – personified by Napster founder, Sean Parker (the tempter in the Garden, perfectly played in all his attractiveness and dangerousness by Justin Timberlake).

The Trojan War was undoubtedly an important event in its own right and deserves the interest of historians. The reason The Iliad remains so interesting and important to us today, however, has to do with its insightful portrayal of fundamental human emotions, for which the Trojan War simply serves as a stage. The Social Network is not The Iliad. That stipulated, The Social Network has an element of “epic” quality about it, for which this fictionalized story of Facebook’s founding serves as a splendid stage. It is the perennial story of “coolness” and its discontents.

Just Doing What We are Obliged To Do

How long, O Lord? I cry for help, but you do not listen! [Habakuk 1:1]

Who hasn’t felt like Habakuk at times? Who hasn’t felt helpless and abandoned? Even saints – some of them at least – have been know to suffer through the so-called “dark night of the soul.” Some people just never seem to get a break, No matter how hard they try, things just don’t go right for them. Jobs are lost. Careers fail. Husbands and wives betray each other. Children disappoint their parents. Sickness strikes indiscriminately. Time and time again, the sheer frustration of it all takes its terrible toll.

For some, the struggle and pain of it all is a strong argument against God and an unassailable complaint about God. Habakuk too wants an answer to all the suffering he sees. For Habakuk, however, his lament is not a complain about God, but to God – an acknowledgment of God’s perplexingly mysterious power in the face of human limitations. Complaining to God, rather than about God, Habakuk becomes a spokesman for hope: For the vision still has its time, presses on to fulfillment, and will not disappoint… the rash one has no integrity; but the just one, because of his faith, shall live. [Habakuk 2:3-4]

Nice words, to be sure, encouraging words even; but what exactly does it mean that the just one, because of his faith, shall live?

Faith, famously defined in the New Testament as the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen [Hebrews 11:1], is easier said than done. Hence, even the apostles asked, Increase our faith!

Like Habakuk, Jesus spoke words of encouragement to his apostles [Luke 17:5-10], assuming that one is encouraged by the image of a mulberry tree, despite its deep and extensive root system, being uprooted and transplanted into the sea! Where, one wonders, would one ever find sufficient faith even to try to transplant a mulberry tree into the sea?

Personally, I can think of no particular reason to want to transplant a mulberry tree into the sea. Like the apostles, however, I do want to increase my at times just barely sufficient faith. At minimum, I want to have enough faith, as Habakuk says, to live.

Indeed, it’s in the living, day-in, day-out, that Jesus seems to suggest that faith is to be found, as unprofitable servants doing what we are obliged to do. Even supposing I did somehow someday miraculously transplant a mulberry tree into the sea, whom would that benefit, what difference would that make over the long haul? On the other hand, if I could at least qualify as an unprofitable servant, successfully doing what I am obliged to do, now that might make a difference!

Faith is about living daily the way we are supposed to live, becoming over time, through the kind of life one lives in response to God’s grace, the kind of person God intends one to be –striving to live by faith, surrendering to God with confident hope and love.

Perhaps living as we do now, in a culture which for decades has overdosed on image and special effects, doing what one is supposed to do may lack the spectacular drama of transplanting a mulberry tree into the sea. It is, however, in fact the real challenge of a humanly and morally worthwhile life, the real challenge that faces each of us every day.

Homily at Immaculate Conception Church, Knoxville, TN, October 3, 2010

Tea Parties - Old and New

I got my Voter Registration Card in the mail this week. Now I just have to motivate myself to vote!

Exactly who is - or isn’t - motivated is being touted as a major factor in this year’s mid-term elections. Of course, that should hardly be news. What political scientists used to (and presumably still do) call the intensity factor has always played a significant part in elections and politics in general. Still, the intensity factor – or, as it is being termed these days, the enthusiasm factor (as in the Democrats’ much remarked “enthusiasm gap”) – seems poised to play a decisive role in determining this year’s electoral outcomes.

That the Democrats are suffering an “enthusiasm gap” is an obvious fact. Just why, however, is less than completely clear. It seems to have been lost on many commentators – and, more importantly, on the electorate at large – that the incumbent President and Democratic Congress have accomplished quite a lot (their most memorable accomplishment in my book being the Health Care legislation). In an earlier era, Democratic congressional candidates would be trumpeting this monumental accomplishment. In contrast, it seems almost as if they are embarrassed about having passed this long sought-after reform. They have, in short, been frightened by their opponents – in particular, the so-called “Tea Party.” Having let their opponents define the agenda, they are now running away from their own record. No wonder, they inspire so little enthusiasm!

Their opponents – again, the “Tea Party” people, in particular – seem exceptionally enthusiastic. With the Democrats embarrassed by their greatest accomplishment, it’s hardly surprising that their opponents feel the wind at their back and are poised for a significant victory – a repeat of 1994, perhaps, or even more promising, another 1966!

Meanwhile, much of what passes for political debate this season seems more of the same old silliness that has so often substituted for rational discourse in contemporary politics. When right-wingers refer to the health care reforms as “ObamaCare,” substituting childish name-calling for reasoned argument, they continue a tradition of silliness exemplified by Republicans who can’t bring themselves to call the Democratic Party by its proper name and call it the “Democrat Party” instead – and on the other side by Lefties who just can’t stomach calling Washington’s Airport by its proper name, “Reagan National Airport.”

There is, I suppose, a certain amount of silliness in the rhetoric of the so-called “Tea Party” Movement too. The silly-sounding name, however, is not in itself so silly at all. Its not so subtle attempt to identify a 21st century movement with an 18th century revolt in what were then Britain’s American colonies highlights the fundamental problematic at the origin of the American polity.

Traditionally estimated at around one-third of the colonial population, the 18th century American revolutionaries were never a majority, but (like the “Tea Party” today) they made up for that in intensity and enthusiasm. More to the point, like today’s “Tea Party,” they were motivated, at least initially, by an unwillingness to be taxed for government services. In the 18th century, it was the British Parliament’s expectation that the colonists should pay their proper share of the bill for Britain’s military expenditures, which had defended the colonies’ from the French and the Indians. The French having been decisively defeated in 1763, however, the colonists suddenly felt secure enough to go it alone – and hence avoid paying the bill both for that earlier victory and for the long-term benefits of an ongoing imperial connection.

Like their 18th century antecedents, the “Tea Party” (and other Americans as well) apparently just don’t want to pay taxes. Have they forgotten why we have taxes in the first place? Why we have government in the first place?

A classmate of mine in graduate school once described the United States as a polity that hates politics. In fact, however, for much of the 20th century, it was widely accepted that government had important and beneficial functions to perform for its citizens – functions that were worth paying for. In the last quarter of the 20th century, however, in part because of some conspicuous failures on government’s part, that never-completely-abandoned American suspicion of politics and government re-emerged with a vengeance. As the late Tony Judt observed in 2008 (Reappraisals: Reflections on the Forgotten Twentieth Century), it has become increasingly common to see the state “as a source of economic inefficiency and social intrusion best excluded from citizens’ affairs whenever possible” with the result that “this discounting of the state has become the default condition of public discourse in much of the developed world.”

In reality, of course, classical liberalism’s emphasis on individual freedom and corresponding suspicion of the state serves a very valuable purpose. Power does corrupt, as Lord Acton famously reminded us and history repeatedly illustrates (not least the history of the 20th century). Classical liberalism’s emphasis on individual freedom and the actual, lived experience of generations of immigrants who came to America precisely to be free (or at least more free) to live as they pleased have historically helped make this the most dynamic and most free society in the world. I say “helped make” rather than “made,” because in fact it was the felicitous combination of classical liberalism’s suspicion of state power and 19th-20th century reformist liberalism’s commitment to the use of state power on society’s behalf that produced the free and prosperous post-war society in which I grew up. The fact is there is a case to be made both for classical liberalism’s suspicion of the state and for reformist liberalism’s use of state power. The serious debate between the two and the fruitful negotiation between the two are what we need and what we seem to be losing. To quote Tony Judt again: “what is striking is how far we have lost the capacity to conceive of public policy beyond a narrowly construed economism. We have forgotten how to think politically.”

The Tea Party movement, for all its rhetorical silliness, does connect back to that original 18th century American tax revolt, but in a way which further diminishes rather than enriches the real debate we need to be having about what kind of society we want to be. As Karl Marx famously observed in 1852 (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte), history does repeat itself –“the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.”