This morning, even before the birds were up but not before my wife drove away to school at 5:00 a.m., I sat in the kitchen with a cup of coffee reading the Washington Post, whose front and editorial sections are still heavily focused on the Tucson shootings. There was a déjà vu quality to the reporting, like I had been there before. And, I had – and so have you.
So, I put the paper down and began to list from memory the number of major political figures I can recall in the last 150 years or so of American history who have been killed, injured, or shot at …. Undoubtedly, with a Google search, the list would be even greater. But here is my top-of-the-head list.
•Presidents assassinated: Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William&; McKinley,and John F. Kennedy.
•Presidents injured by gunfire: Former President Theodore Roosevelt running as Bull Moose candidate in the 1912 campaign; and President Ronald Reagan.
•Presidents who were the targets of overt failed assassination attempts:President-elect Franklin Roosevelt (Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak took the bullet instead); President Harry Truman, the target of Puerto Rican terrorists at the Blair House where the President was living while the White House was being renovated; and President Gerald Ford.
•Presidential candidates or hopefuls who were killed or seriously injured by gunmen: Governor Huey Long of Louisiana; Senator Robert F. Kennedy; and former Alabama Governor George C. Wallace.
•Major political and/or religious leaders who were killed: Martin Luther King, Jr. And, now U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords is struggling for her life in a Tucson hospital after being shot in the head, and a U.S. District Court judge and a 9-year old girl lie dead.
•On top of this, in a 2009 book IN THE PRESIDENT’S SECRET SERVICE, author Ronald Kessler says that threats against President Obama had increased 400 percent from the 3,000 or so per year under President George W. Bush.
Frankly, I cannot think of any other major country that has had nearly that many political assassinations or attempted assassinations over roughly this same period. Can you? For the sake of argument, let’s go through a partial list: England, France, Germany, Spain, Greece, Portugal, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries….
What does this list say about us as a people, as a country? Scholars and pundits — of which I am neither — are struggling with this same question. But, when you couple these political shootings with the high-profile incidents at Columbine, Virginia Tech, the Holocaust Museum, the shootings at the Capitol, and the more recent rampage at a Millard, Nebraska, high school, it suggests to me — at a minimum — that WE have a serious problem, and eventually WE have to do something about it.
And, I would suggest, we should start by SERIOUSLY discussing the ready availability of hand guns and automatic weapons, and the climate of political hatred from both Right and Left that makes the use of these weapons more likely. Neither of these is a fresh or novel recommendation, to belabor the obvious, but entrenched political positions on all sides, touting free speech and the 2nd Amendment, ultimately prevent us from doing anything about them. In fact, it seems this country has a problem these days having a serious, civil discussion of almost ANY major issue.
This latest shooting is another wake-up call, but I fear the current political climate is anything but favorable for effective follow-up. So, we’ll probably keep kicking this can down the road until the next shooting, the one after that, and the one after that….
Meantime, any country that considers itself the greatest nation in the world and fashions itself a shining city on the hill while ignoring this issue is deluding itself.
Gerald E. Lavey
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
The Continuing Embarrassment of Uncle Harry
Every family has one — let’s call him Uncle Harry: A family member whom everyone wants to see go away, but he shows up at every family gathering, loud, full of himself, and usually drunk. Although largely irrelevant for years, he is the only one who doesn’t know it. He’s one of those know-it-alls who won’t change his mind and won’t change the subject. A major family embarrassment, whom the family puts up with because … well, he’s family.
This image occurred to me as I picked up the latest issue of the National Catholic Reporter and saw where Bishop Thomas Olmstead of Phoenix is back in the news. You may recall, as reported here (“Power Corrupts; Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely”), the bishop declared Sister Margaret Mary McBride automatically excommunicated when she and other Catholics at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix assented to terminating an 11-week pregnancy. The decision was made when it was determined the woman’s life was in mortal danger if she continued the pregnancy
Bishop Olmstead is having none of this. He is now demanding the hospital agree with him in writing that the procedure was an abortion and comply with other demands. If the hospital doesn’t fully comply, he says, he will strip the hospital of its Catholic status. There is no “tie in this debate,” the National Catholic Reporter reports the bishop as saying. “Until this point in time, you have not acknowledged my authority to settle the question.” He says his action is necessary “to repair the grave scandal to the Christian faithful that has resulted from this procedure.”
The only scandal, in my mind, is the rock-headed authoritarianism of the bishop who is a continuing affront and embarrassment to many Catholics around the country, including this one. To her credit, Sister Mary Margaret McBride is maintaining her silence. She doesn’t need to say anything. He’s said it all.
Once again the Catholic Church is made to look foolish, and that is not the Catholic Church many of us still believe in despite the continuing idiocies of many of the hierarchy. The Catholic Church I choose to focus on is the one recently touted in a USA Today article (“Why Catholicism is Good for America”) by non-Catholic Tom Krattenmaker, a Portland based writer who specializes in religion in public life.
“Under the weight of these problems and others, some are probably more convinced than ever that it's time for the Catholic Church to fade into history. But as a non-Catholic paying attention to the church's travails, I am struck, too, by the steadfast faith of the Catholics I know, and the principled public witness of the Catholics on the ground — the nuns, community activists, volunteers and everyday parishioners who keep on keeping on in the face of adversity.”
Gerald E. Lavey
This image occurred to me as I picked up the latest issue of the National Catholic Reporter and saw where Bishop Thomas Olmstead of Phoenix is back in the news. You may recall, as reported here (“Power Corrupts; Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely”), the bishop declared Sister Margaret Mary McBride automatically excommunicated when she and other Catholics at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix assented to terminating an 11-week pregnancy. The decision was made when it was determined the woman’s life was in mortal danger if she continued the pregnancy
Bishop Olmstead is having none of this. He is now demanding the hospital agree with him in writing that the procedure was an abortion and comply with other demands. If the hospital doesn’t fully comply, he says, he will strip the hospital of its Catholic status. There is no “tie in this debate,” the National Catholic Reporter reports the bishop as saying. “Until this point in time, you have not acknowledged my authority to settle the question.” He says his action is necessary “to repair the grave scandal to the Christian faithful that has resulted from this procedure.”
The only scandal, in my mind, is the rock-headed authoritarianism of the bishop who is a continuing affront and embarrassment to many Catholics around the country, including this one. To her credit, Sister Mary Margaret McBride is maintaining her silence. She doesn’t need to say anything. He’s said it all.
Once again the Catholic Church is made to look foolish, and that is not the Catholic Church many of us still believe in despite the continuing idiocies of many of the hierarchy. The Catholic Church I choose to focus on is the one recently touted in a USA Today article (“Why Catholicism is Good for America”) by non-Catholic Tom Krattenmaker, a Portland based writer who specializes in religion in public life.
“Under the weight of these problems and others, some are probably more convinced than ever that it's time for the Catholic Church to fade into history. But as a non-Catholic paying attention to the church's travails, I am struck, too, by the steadfast faith of the Catholics I know, and the principled public witness of the Catholics on the ground — the nuns, community activists, volunteers and everyday parishioners who keep on keeping on in the face of adversity.”
Gerald E. Lavey
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
We Would Make Our God Too Small
When I read about the caricature of Catholicism represented by William Donohue, president of the so-called Catholic League, in the controversy over the exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery, I have increased sympathy with our brothers and sisters in Islam who have seen their faith hijacked by their own brand of extremists.
Granted, Catholic extremists no longer behead their apostates and enemies as some Taliban and Islamists still reportedly do — and, as we once did, let us not forget. Instead, in this kinder, gentler version of Christian elimination, they disenfranchise, marginalize, and, when the official hierarchy gets involved, excommunicate them. Same result, except they still have their heads — a considerable advantage, to be sure.
What sparked this is the brouhaha over the exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington called “A Fire in My Belly.” In case you missed it, the exhibit didn’t make the news until a couple of weeks ago when a four-minute excerpt was removed from the larger exhibit because of an 11-second segment depicting a crucified Christ with ants crawling on him. The excerpt was deleted because of objections from conservative Christians, with William Donohue leading the charge.
By the way, it is helpful to know that the Catholic League, headed by Donohue, is a “right-wing publicity mill, with no official or financial connection to the Catholic Church,” as Frank Rich helpfully pointed out in his Dec. 12 NYT column (“Gay Bashing at the Smithsonian”). Still, I don’t recall a member of the official Catholic Church hierarchy, meaning bishops and above, ever repudiating the League’s excesses either, and they have had ample opportunity. For example, Donohue is the one, as Frank Rich again points out in this same column, who defended Mel Gibson against anti-Semitism for his movie “The Passion of the Christ,” by declaring that “Hollywood is controlled by Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.”
Donohue’s surface objection to the National Portrait Gallery was that the depiction of Christ represented anti-Christian hate speech. As I have heard “A Fire in My Belly” explained, it was certainly not that, but rather a spiritual message with the depiction of the suffering Christ as identifying himself with the suffering of humanity in all its forms, including AIDS victims. The exhibit’s artist and filmmaker was David Wojnarowicz, who was raised Catholic and died of AIDS in 1992.
As it turned out, Donohue’s real objection, which apparently surfaced later in his explanation, was the exhibit’s depiction of “pornographic depictions of gay men.” Donohue has had a long history of demonizing gays, going so far as to say the Church doesn’t have a pedophilia problem; it has a homosexuality problem.
Unfortunately, homophobia is still a politically and socially acceptable form of bigotry in this country, as the debate over repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” still agonizingly reminds us. From a political perspective, it is sadly understandable: Pusillanimity is what one expects from politicians. But, from a Christian perspective, it doesn’t make sense at all unless one stakes a belief in a God whose loving embrace does not include gay men and women, and that would indeed make our God way too small.
Gerald E. Lavey
Granted, Catholic extremists no longer behead their apostates and enemies as some Taliban and Islamists still reportedly do — and, as we once did, let us not forget. Instead, in this kinder, gentler version of Christian elimination, they disenfranchise, marginalize, and, when the official hierarchy gets involved, excommunicate them. Same result, except they still have their heads — a considerable advantage, to be sure.
What sparked this is the brouhaha over the exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington called “A Fire in My Belly.” In case you missed it, the exhibit didn’t make the news until a couple of weeks ago when a four-minute excerpt was removed from the larger exhibit because of an 11-second segment depicting a crucified Christ with ants crawling on him. The excerpt was deleted because of objections from conservative Christians, with William Donohue leading the charge.
By the way, it is helpful to know that the Catholic League, headed by Donohue, is a “right-wing publicity mill, with no official or financial connection to the Catholic Church,” as Frank Rich helpfully pointed out in his Dec. 12 NYT column (“Gay Bashing at the Smithsonian”). Still, I don’t recall a member of the official Catholic Church hierarchy, meaning bishops and above, ever repudiating the League’s excesses either, and they have had ample opportunity. For example, Donohue is the one, as Frank Rich again points out in this same column, who defended Mel Gibson against anti-Semitism for his movie “The Passion of the Christ,” by declaring that “Hollywood is controlled by Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.”
Donohue’s surface objection to the National Portrait Gallery was that the depiction of Christ represented anti-Christian hate speech. As I have heard “A Fire in My Belly” explained, it was certainly not that, but rather a spiritual message with the depiction of the suffering Christ as identifying himself with the suffering of humanity in all its forms, including AIDS victims. The exhibit’s artist and filmmaker was David Wojnarowicz, who was raised Catholic and died of AIDS in 1992.
As it turned out, Donohue’s real objection, which apparently surfaced later in his explanation, was the exhibit’s depiction of “pornographic depictions of gay men.” Donohue has had a long history of demonizing gays, going so far as to say the Church doesn’t have a pedophilia problem; it has a homosexuality problem.
Unfortunately, homophobia is still a politically and socially acceptable form of bigotry in this country, as the debate over repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” still agonizingly reminds us. From a political perspective, it is sadly understandable: Pusillanimity is what one expects from politicians. But, from a Christian perspective, it doesn’t make sense at all unless one stakes a belief in a God whose loving embrace does not include gay men and women, and that would indeed make our God way too small.
Gerald E. Lavey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)