A Christian Political Mythology

Being back at Quincy for a few days, I thought a blog post might be in order...

A while back I was reading a blog post and got to thinking about how we, as Christians, view the world. Is this life a place of exile or a pilgrim land, through which we merely pass? If we are merely passing through, we would do well to ignore the world, even hide from it, and focus on the end goal, our return (reditus or nostos) to the Lord. On the other hand, if this present life is a gift from the Lord, then it should not only be noticed, but cherished. How we understand the Christian response to politics is largely colored by our understanding of our present state. (I have recently been reading Lloyd Alexander's Westmark trilogy, which has perhaps fueled my interest in legitimacy, law, subversion and such questions.) So what exactly is our present state? I have been trying to piece together a few archetypal insights into what you might call a Christian political mythology. Here it is:


Once upon on time there was a great and glorious kingdom, ruled by an ancient and wise King. Though His dominions were vast and rich, one day He decided to create a new land for His kingdom. Yes, create. Somewhere in the distant seas He decided to raise an island. He drew up plans, dispatches the greatest engineers and landscapers in the kingdom and a lavish island world was made. Legend had it that some of the most spectacular wonders of this land were the product not of His servants' hands, but of the King's own mental powers.

On this island He chose to settle some of His leading citizens. But in spite of choosing only the finest of settlers, and in spite of the lavish world He had created for them, the island settlers revolted against the King. And so, He decreed, their island home would no longer be a place of privilege, but of exile.

As the years passed, the distant King became increasingly relegated to the stories of legend. There were rumors among the islanders that at some distant time His armies had come and smashed the greatest wonders of their island home. But many of them doubted that these stories were true. They began to doubt that there were other lands, a splendid capital city with streets of gold, or a great and benevolent King Who ruled there. Some of the islanders even began to doubt that there were such things as greatness or benevolence.

But then a very curious thing happened: the King returned to His island. At least, that is what certain small gatherings of people began to claim. First they whispered it in the dark, but soon some were shouting it in the streets. He had returned, showing Himself to those of His subjects who were still faithful. He assured them that greatness and benevolence and love were indeed real, and He was the embodiment of them all.

But then something as curious as the King's return occurred (or so the story was told). He left. The King left the island once again. He had ordered those willing to listen to live as His faithful subjects and then He had left. But not without promising to return again (and this time, He said, there would be no confusion: He would come in power and might with all the royal armies). Moreover, He promised that those who remained faithful citizens of the kingdom, who proved themselves in the midst of this rebellious land, would be taken with Him back to His capital city, where they would rule with Him.

But what, the faithful asked, were they to do in the meantime? Should they seize control of the island, making war on their fellow islanders? Many doubted that had been the King's intention. Indeed, from time to time secret messages would be smuggled back and forth between the King, on the mainland, and His faithful subjects on the island. Though He exhorted them to love one another and remain faithful to Him, He never spelled out exactly how the island should be governed. While a handful of the islanders proclaimed themselves to be in open rebellion against the King, most simply doubted His existence. Some even stated publicly that they wished there was a King beyond the seas, but - alas - they were convinced there was none.

Some of the small number of open rebels, denouncing the tyranny of the King, demanded a government of the people, a democracy. The vast majority, doubting there ever had been a King, did not see themselves as rebels, but nevertheless thought this a good idea. Could they too, the faithful wondered, enter into such a government? Or would it be treason, a betrayal of their beloved King? Some said they should have no dealings with rebels. Other insisted that by sitting in council with the doubters, perhaps the faithful could win them over. And, after all, the King had left no governor to rule the island in His stead. Was it really treasonous to form a democracy, which might try to govern according to His will, in His absence? Some insisted the faithful should band together in one corner of the island, where they might live according to the King's laws, abandoning the rest of the island to the rebels. Other thought the King would want them to extend His reign across the whole of the land.


This, it seems to me, is the basic place of the Christian: we live in a world which was once a gift, became an exile, but has been transformed into a rite of passage, a preparation for some great reward and responsibility to come. How do we, Christians, live in the midst of a secular world? Do we abandon the political realm to the secularists? Do we try to seize government to impose virtue upon the unbelieving? Can we compromise with those do not share our moral views?

Insofar as the world is in rebellion against God, we are subversives in such a world. But we are also restorationists, traditionalists, loyalists trying to defend the monarchy of Christ the King. We are revolutionaries, insofar as we are called to change the world. But we are also pilgrims, ever called to remember that something greater lies beyond this world, and in our future.

These, it seems to me, are the conundra of Christian political philosophy. Relating them in a single story does not solve them but it does, I hope, at least bring the questions into slightly sharper focus, by bringing them into relation with one another.

Saints through the Ages

Some time ago I started the exercise of naming a few favorite saints, with at least one from each century. Some centuries were a little easier than others - the 16th, for example, seems to have been a great time for being a saint - but what was really exciting was to see that in every age, men and women have answered the call to love and serve God. Though we hear time and again that you can be a saint today, this list makes that proposition just a little bit easier.


1st century: St. Stephen (d. c. 33)

2nd century: St. Polycarp* (69-155)

3rd century: St. Lawrence of Rome (225-285)

4th century: St. Ambrose of Milan (340-397), St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430)

5th century: St. Benedict of Nursia (480-547)

6th century: St. Columba (521-597)

7th century: St. Bede the Venerable (672-735)

8th century: St. Boniface (672-754), pictured

9th century: Sts. Cyril & Methodius (827-869 and 826-885, respectively)

10th century: St. Adelaide (931-999)

11th century: Sts. Robert of Molesmes (1028-1111), Alberic of Citeaux (d. 1108) and Stephen Harding (d. 1134)

12th century: St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153)

13th century: St. Clare of Assisi (1194-1253), pictured, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

14th century: Bl. Julian of Norwich (1342-1423)

15th century: St. Thomas More (1478-1535), pictured

16th century: St. Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556), and St. Francis Xavier (1506-1552), St. Teresa of Avila (1515-1582), St. John of the Cross (1542-1591)

17th century: St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621)

18th century: Bl. Junipero Serra (1713-1784)

19th century: Ven. John Henry Newman (1801-1890), Bl. Charles de Foucauld (1858-1916)

20th century: Bl. José Sánchez del Río (1913-1928), St. Gianna Molla (1922-1962), John Paul the Great (1920-2005), pictured

"pious fictions": St. Julian the Hospitaller**


* Yes, I could have gone with Our Lady, one of the Apostles or Gospel Writers. But that kind of felt like a cop-out.
** I'm really hoping that I'll get to the Pearly Gates and find St. Julian there, confounding all the historians.

2008 University of Dallas Commencement Address

Commencement Address
University of Dallas
May 18, 2008
By John Lenczowski

Chairman Cruse, President Lazarus, Bishop Farrell, Bishop Vann, Trustees, Faculty, Administration, Clergy and Religious, Graduates, Parents and Friends:

I am honored to be given the opportunity to address you on this most felicitous occasion. I am an enormous admirer of the University of Dallas. It has been my conclusion, after considerable study, that there is no better liberal arts college in America.

You, the graduates of 2008, have received an extraordinary gift: an education in the most important sense of that term. I dearly hope that you understand how special and precious that education is, because a lot is at stake for our country and civilization, and for your own lives.

This University has faced an uphill challenge to give you this education. In a national atmosphere of declining educational standards, it has been to define what constitutes an authentic and inspiring Catholic higher education.

Fulton Sheen once noted that the prime purpose of an education is the making of a person – and it is impossible to make a person without giving him the purpose of being a person. To study the purpose of life is to study philosophy and theology, to examine what is ultimately true, and to search for truth in the various aspects of God’s creation.

In a climate where most Catholic universities have distanced themselves from their Catholic identity and abandoned not just the core liberal arts curriculum but precisely the study of philosophy and theology the University of Dallas has set the highest standard of a genuine education, both in terms of content and academic rigor. How you have been educated, and how you will use your education has enormous implications for the future of our country and the future of your eternal souls.

Having worked in the field of foreign policy and national security, and having had to mind the lessons of history, I have been struck by the fragility of civilization. The last century witnessed the rise of totalitarian regimes that perpetrated more murders of innocent people within their own borders than the accumulated death toll from all the contemporaneous wars. We saw the Nazi slaughter, the Soviet Gulag, the Maoist Cultural Revolution and its own still-existing network of slave labor and death camps – the Lao Gai. These monstrosities happened not only in lands of oriental despotism, but in lands that were once part of Western Christendom. The story of the Holocaust is well known.

But how many are aware of the unprovoked massacre of 7,000 bishops, priests, nuns, and monks by the anarcho-communists in Western, civilized, Spain in 1936? How can such things happen within living memory in our civilized world, in a world with so many nice people?

They happen when society has weakened in achieving its central mission – the educational task of passing on the principles that underlie a sound civilization to the next generation, and when its leaders have failed to be courageous and vigilant. Invariably, this is a moral breakdown. It occurs when too many people, particularly in leadership roles, let ego and thirst for power dictate their own “moral code” which is at variance with the Natural Moral Law and ultimately the Divine Law. It is where moral relativism triumphs and whatever shifting moral standards are set for one’s own personal convenience undermine those standards that are necessary for a healthy society. It is where selfishness and the temptation to be one’s own god smother the essence of a good civilization and a truly free society – and that essence is love and self-sacrifice.

The ancient historian, Livy, once taught that the surest way to defeat an enemy is by spreading among his population the ideas of selfishness and hedonism. When a society becomes overtaken by selfish pleasure-seeking, it renders itself incapable of self-defense. It telegraphs its culture to its enemies and projects what we in the national security world call “provocative weakness” – the kind of cultural and ultimately physical weakness that encourages foreign adversaries to take aggressive action against a tempting, conquerable target. That is why, ultimately, the costs of the moral breakdown of a society are often paid in war.

Today we live in a dangerous world. We face certain well-known external threats such as terrorist movements and their penetration of Western societies, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, a resurgent, revanchist Russia with policies based on an active imperial nostalgia. We also face the rise of China, a country with the largest military buildup on the face of the earth, with a new and rising global strategic presence, with territorial claims on most of its neighbors, with 10,000 spies in the United States, and with a mercantilist economic policy that has developed enormous leverage over our economy.

Our ability to meet these external challenges will depend on sound national strategic leadership. But ultimately, there is no external threat that America cannot handle so long as our culture retains some modicum of health.

In the struggle for the health of our civilization, the battle front is everywhere. It is in our cultural institutions. It is in our universities. It is in our scientific laboratories and in our governmental institutions. It is in our businesses and in our elementary schools. It is in our own homes and in how we raise our children. It is even in the Church.

So, what are you going to do with the education and moral formation that you have received? You will pursue many professions. But the real question is: What kind of person will you be? What kind of defender of civilization will you be?

If you go into business, will you uphold the highest standards of honesty so that American business can be conducted in an ever greater climate of trust? If our business community fails at this and trust melts away and the cost of a transaction becomes as much one of legal protection as of the intrinsic value of the transaction, the result will be an ineluctable erosion in our ability to create wealth.

If you go into political life, will you be there principally to benefit your own ego or to serve the common good? Will you serve honestly, and courageously resist the forces that are tempted toward corruption – a corruption whose consequence around the world has been unremitting poverty and human misery?

Wherever you go, will you live a life of virtue and be part of the fabric of a healthy society and thus a defender of a civilization of love and the realization of the highest of human possibilities?

The University of Dallas has given you a grounding to know the purpose of your lives and to live them accordingly. That purpose, as I hope you have discovered, has something to do with your soul. This is a purpose, however, – contrary to the dogmas of those who have never studied philosophy and theology – that can be found through right reason.

Indeed, as Saint Thomas Aquinas said, you cannot begin a religion merely with faith. You have to have a reason for that faith and a motive for belief. And that reason and that motive can be found through the kind of education you have received.

In short:

because it is more likely than not that God exists, and
because it is more likely than not that Jesus Christ was who He said he was, and
because it is more likely than not that God created the world, and then created you somehow, (because it is impossible for something to come from nothing), and
because He must have had a reason for doing so, and
because He instilled in your heart a conscience and the capacity to love,

Then your purpose is:

to try to discern God’s will for you
to perfect yourself in the way that He would have you do, and
to return the love that He has given you.

As Bishop Sheen pointed out, perfecting the personality does not consist of knowing God’s plan for you – for this cannot so easily be known in advance. Rather, it consists of submitting to God’s will as it reveals itself in the circumstances of life. In doing this, you will succeed in the great task before you. You will become the builder of true civilization and of a free society – something that must be done anew by each generation.

You have been called to be the one person that makes a difference for the better – wherever you may be. You have all been called to be saints. That means you, not somebody else. And you have been called to be the Lord’s instrument in the lives of your friends and colleagues. You will succeed not only in your professions but in your quest for these higher things – so long as you remember that Christ is the vine and you are the branches. And so long as you remain connected to Him, you will bear great fruit.

We need you to be the leaders of our society in every battle front where the struggle for civilization is taking place. We cannot but depend on you. For, if not you, the products of this great university, then who?

Thank you for listening and God bless you all.



John Lenczowski is Founder and President of The Institute of World Politics, an independent graduate school of national security and international affairs in Washington, DC. He previously taught at the Georgetown University and the University of Maryland and worked in the Department of State at the National Security Council. In the latter capacity, he served as principal White House advisor on Soviet affairs to President Ronald Reagan.

The Neural Buddhists

A friend of mine sent me this article by David Brooks, who considers the how scientific advances in neuroscience will change the parameters of cultural and religious debate.

The real challenge [to orthodox religion] is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits....

In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That’s bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day.

National's Stadium

Some of the Quincy Men were at the Nationals Stadium today and saw the crews working to transform the stadium.

The excitement is building:

Bobblehead Benedict, Calm Down People!

I don't know if you all have seen the above video, but apparently it is creating some controversy. The Archdiocese of Washington asked Metro to take it down because it is somehow offensive. This type of reaction really gives Catholics a bad image. There is nothing morally objectionable in the video, so why can't we laugh at ourselves a little. I find the fact that metro went to the trouble of actually getting someone to chant in Latin somewhat impressive.

For further coverage of the whole situation you can read about it in the following locations:

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0408/509914.html
http://dcist.com/2008/04/09/morning_roundup_232.php
http://www.americanpapist.com/2008/04/arch-of-dc-requests-metro-remove.html

A Brief History of the Modern Deaconate

I stumbled upon this history today and - quite surprised by the origins of the modern permanent diaconate - thought I would share. This passage comes from the website of the Archdiocese of Washington:

The Permanent Diaconate did not surface again for more than a thousand years. At the height of World War II, a group of Catholic men imprisoned at the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau buried the remains of hundreds of people who were murdered in the infamous gas chambers. In the midst of this dehumanizing environment of pain and cruelty, these men prayed for the courage to believe. They offered support and encouragement to all the nameless and voiceless ones around them. Somehow they kept faith alive, sustained hope, and witnessed to God's unconditional love.

Through not ordained and, totally unaware that what they were accomplishing would have worldwide significance, these men in Dachau became the restorers of the modern permanent diaconate. They were true "servants in the image of Jesus." After the war ended, these men continued to meet and work for the awakening in every Christian of a commitment to justice through service and stewardship. They were called, "the Deacon Circle."

In the years that followed, additional groups emerged throughout Germany, France, and Eastern European countries. These "Deacon Circles" were the first role models for an emerging lay apostolate which Pope Pius XII urged each diocesan church to nurture as a way of transforming every aspect of society.

In 1959, an International Diaconate Circle was organized. This organization prepared the way for the eventual restoration of the diaconate by drafting a petition asking that the diaconate be restored and, that it be opened to both married and single men. The Vatican received the final petition from the International Diaconate Circle in 1962. From there several of the Council Fathers, mostly from Germany, went on to develop a compilation of thirty-nine essays, called Diakonia in Christo, which addressed various aspects of ministry which could be carried out by a modernized permanent diaconate as well as the enormous value of such an ordained ministry to the Church.

In the course of the Vatican II discussions that followed, the permanent diaconate was restored by a majority vote of the Council on October 30, 1963. The restoration of the diaconate was promulgated as part of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church which was released on November 21, 1964.

Two Cows, Catholic Style

You may have seen the two cows explanations of politics. For example, "Communism: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk." Well, someone has gone to the trouble of putting together Catholic versions of the two cow metaphor. (Some are better than others.) We reproduce them here, for your reading pleasure:


Benedictine: You have two cows. You use one to preserve the art of animal husbandry for all time. You kill the other and make intricate, colored markings on its hide.

Cistercian: You have two cows. And a more extraordinary method of procuring milk.

Trappist: You have two cows. You do not appreciate their mooing, yet require their milk to craft high quality fudge. You assign them to a novice.

Franciscan: You have two cows. Moved by the beauty of sister cow, you unleash them. Your ensuing lack of milk allows you to glory in the poverty of Christ.

Dominican: You have two cows. You feel as if you should share one with the Franciscans, but can’t bring yourself to trust them with it.

Carmelite: By concession of Pope Innocent IV, you have two cows. You don’t eat them between Sept. 14 and Easter.

Discalced Carmelite: You have two cows. You feed them by arduously dragging hay to their tough, but then you deliver it by truck. Ultimately, abundant hay falls effortlessly from the sky.

Jesuit: You have two cows, but everyone from Louis XIV to Pastor John at 1st Community Baptist believe you control the cattle industry. Admittedly, you founded many farms in the bovine tradition, but struggle with what bovinity means in the 21st century.

Salesian: You have no cows, but work to improve the welfare of calves orphaned by factory farming. You are a visionary when it comes to cattle futures.

Opus Dei: You have two donkeys, and tend to them very carefully. You never admit that you engage in this work, but are delighted to meet other covert donkey owners.

Communion and Liberation: You have two cows, and bring them to huge annual gatherings. You speak to them only in the present tense.

SSPX: You have two cows. You raise them precisely according to USDA standards, c. 1950. One cow denies that the USDA exists and runs off to take care of itself.

Visualize Encyclicals - Spe Salvi

One of the hip features of many "Web 2.0" sites are things called Tag Clouds. A Tag Cloud is a cluster of words that helps people to visualize content by giving larger sizes to words that have a greater frequency. It occurred to me that it may be interesting to take this tool to visualize a church document or two. So here you have it, Spe Salvi goes web 2.0

become being christ christian church death eternal faith freedom god himself history hope however human image jesus justice kingdom letter life living lord love man means once order others ourselves people power present progress question reason saint salvation simply something substance suffering things totally towards true truly truth world

created at TagCrowd.com

The Vatican Through an Ambassador's Eye

The Vatican Through an Ambassador's Eye

Accompanying the U.S. Envoy to the Holy See

By Elizabeth Lev

ROME, MARCH 6, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Art historians secretly dream of going back in time to see artistic masterpieces in their original environment, rather than as museum pieces. In their wildest flights of fancy, they fantasize about being part of that world.

Last Friday, this art historian lived that dream when I accompanied my mother, Mary Ann Glendon, as she presented her credentials to Benedict XVI as U.S. ambassador to the Holy See.

As we donned our black mantillas at the embassy residence, we were already entering into a different criterion of beauty and worth. Covered head to toe in long skirts and jackets, all I saw were the radiantly happy faces of my mother, sisters and daughters.

Click here to read more.

Who's more Pro-Life?

My vitriol towards a particular Texas congressman's presidential bid is probably well known. However, after overhearing an absurd conversation while at work today, I feel the need to post a little bit of information. The National Right to Life organization puts together a file of how every member of Congress voted on key life issues, ranging from abortion to euthanasia to stem cell research. You can quibble with some of their selections, no doubt, but the gist of it is pretty sound.

Now John McCain scored 31 happy green check marks for pro-life votes and 11 unhappy red x's for anti-life votes. That's about what you'd expect, from what you hear in the media. The guy's pro-life on the most salient issues, but not "perfect" on some of the details.

What's interesting is that Ron Paul's record is not so different: 51 happy green checks and 16 unhappy red x's. (The disparity in totals is a result of votes which the congressmen either missed or in which they were ineligible to participate.) So in fact Ron Paul has voted against life more often than John McCain, and both of them have a ratio of about 3:1, pro-life to anti-life.

Detailed research might show that one member of congress missed more key votes in one direction than the other; it could be that one or both knew that the pro-life camp would carry the day and so they didn't mind missing certain counts. I don't know, but if you're bored you're welcome to look into the matter.

However, I think the basic point has been made. Dr. Ron Paul, deliverer of babies and champion of certain pro-life and conservative factions, is in fact not significantly different from John McCain when it comes to voting.

Muslim scholars decry terrorism

It's this sort of thing that will win the War on Terror in the long run:

An influential group of Muslim theologians in India have denounced terrorism, saying it is completely against the teachings of Islam.

Click here to read the article.

A Whole New Meaning to "Red State - Blue State"

New Springtime for North Korea?

I discovered this post, sitting around as a draft, and figured I should post it, now that it's eleven months old...


The other day my Chinese Grand Strategy professor was explaining that he though Christianity was not about to take off in China, as some have suggested. He pointed out that, while there are many bona fide Christians in China, many Chinese Christian sects are little more than cults, with charismatic leaders who are often megalomaniacs and criminals. (In one case a while ago a leader of a Christian sect was jailed for sending out hit men to kill other such leaders.)

That was all fairly interesting, but what was really interesting was that my professor said he thinks North Korea is ripe for mass Christian conversion. The Christian communities in the South, both Catholic and Protestant, are large and strong, and are already laying plans to flood the North with missionary activity should the North Korean regime collapse. Furthermore, my professor argued that the end of the regime would also mark the death of the last shaky belief system remaining in North Korea. The atheistic state-worship of the Communist regime is believed to have little traction, but has also successfully managed to stamp out all other religions. The harvest may soon be in need of laborers…

Boycotting the Beijing Games

I'm boycotting the Beijing Olympics. No, I have not been invited to participate, nor was I ever really planning on attending.

Normally I'm kind of opposed to boycotts. In the modern economy, revenue streams can be very complicated and corporations are often wholly- or partially-owned subsidiaries of some other company. The goals of many boycotts are ambiguous and the message intended to be sent and the means by which it will be sent are often unclear. Furthermore, the time span for most boycotts is vague: if the boycott's goals are not achieved in a timely manner, will it drag on indefinitely?

To address such questions, I figured I'd post a small manifesto for my Beijing Olympic boycott:

What is to be boycotted?

Coverage of the Games, in print or on television, including the opening and closing ceremonies. Any merchandise is also out.

How long will the boycott last?

The length of the Games, 8-24 August 2008.

What is the goal of the boycott?

I am under no illusion that the infinitesimal amount of money the Chinese regime will lose due to my boycott will go noticed. Nor am I under the illusion that millions will flock to my side, creating a mass movement that will in some way harm the regime. (Though I must confess that, if this happened, I would not be opposed.)

Instead, this boycott is aimed at educating fellow Americans about the evils of the Chinese regime. Inevitably there will be get-togethers to watch the opening ceremony; I plan on being in the next room telling folks why I'm not watching the TV. The list of reasons is so extensive I struggle to find the right place to start:


* The Chinese regime has supported the military junta in Burma for years; had the Chinese wanted to stop the suppression of monastically-lead pro-democracy demonstrations this year, it could have. It didn't.

*The Chinese regime conducting ethnic cleansing in Xinjiang, intentionally conducting nuclear tests upwind of population centers of Turkic Uyghur populations, releasing violent criminals into Xinjiang to help kill of the Uyghurs, and settling large numbers of heavily-armed ethnic Han Chinese to drive them out.

*The Chinese regime is destroying Tibetan culture, to such an extent that the Dahli Lama has threatened not to reincarnate himself in Chinese-controlled Tibet, so oppressive is the environment.

*The Chinese regime and its various state-owned industries stealing American commercial secrets left and right. This is not free trade, this is industrial espionage, intellectual piracy. Under the guise of winning jobs for their own people, the Chinese regime demands that most products sold in China be made in China; this allows them to copy any and every design for products made there. (And have no doubts, they are copying with a vengeance.)

*The Chinese regime routinely hacks American networks, trying to steal military and political secrets from the government and contractors.

*The Chinese regime is busy subverting South Pacific island nations, as it tries to out-maneuver Taiwan for diplomatic influence in the region. This subversion has included - but is not limited to - support for the coup in Fiji.

*The Chinese regime has armed the Taliban, thereby threatening the lives of Afghans, Americans and their other allies, and delaying democracy and development in that nation.

*The Chinese regime suppresses democracy at home, heavily censors the internet (including this website), makes use of slave labor, oppressing the Catholic Church, poisons its own rivers and engages in more abuses than I have time to type.

*Oh, yes. And the Chinese regime has displaced 1.5 million of its own people to build the Olympic Park in Beijing. And you thought use of eminent domain was out of control here...

Keepers of the Lost Ark?

A fascinating piece in the Smithsonian.

The Human Experience

It seems there are a spate of Catholic movies being made these days; I recently received an email recommend for this one.

In terms of genre it looks to be rather interesting, something that sort of fits in the category of "documentary" but really pushes the boundaries of that label in a way that began only a few years ago.

To be honest, the trailer seemed a little bit over the top, playing up the evil and inhumanity in the world in a way that, while not strictly false, came off flat. Nevertheless, that could just be the trailer. A more interesting question might be that of audience: Who is this film intended for? Because - in spite of the name, The Human Experience - the film clearly takes a Christian, even Catholic view of the world. I happen to share such a world-view, but I wonder how marketable such a film is. If they're hoping for a broad market appeal, they may have shot themselves in the foot by dropping a few too many Christian images, using too much Christian language. Still, the very fact of the film's title suggests that they understand the basic idea behind a broad appeal: it has to be on the basis of that which all men share, namely the human experience.

On the other hand, perhaps the film is really only designed for consumption by Christians. And maybe that's not such a bad thing. While the goal these days is usually to make blockbuster films that will convert the whole world, a more limited task may be called for. After all, a film that specifically aimed at touching a Christian audience and encouraged them to live out their faith in a more vibrant way would have the virtue of being able to focus on doing a single thing and doing it well. Such a film would be addressing an audience which speaks the same language as its producers, the language of Christian faith. That's not a recipe for reaching the masses, but it might be just the sort of thing someone should do.

A Speech That Never Had To Be Given

To: H. R. Haldeman, Chief of Staff
From: Bill Safire, Presidential Speech Writer

July 18, 1969

IN EVENT OF MOON DISASTER:

Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace.

These brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, know that there is no hope for their recovery. But they also know that there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice.

These two men are laying down their lives in mankind's most noble goal: the search for truth and understanding.

They will be mourned by their families and friends; they will be mourned by the nation; they will be mourned by the people of the world; they will be mourned by a Mother Earth that dared send two of her sons into the unknown.

In their exploration, they stirred the people of the world to feel as one; in their sacrifice, they bind more tightly the brotherhood of man.

In ancient days, men looked at the stars and saw their heroes in the constellations. In modern times, we do much the same, but our heroes are epic men of flesh and blood.

Others will follow, and surely find their way home. Man's search will not be denied. But these men were the first, and they will remain the foremost in our hearts.

For every human being who looks up at the moon in the nights to come will know that there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind.


PRIOR TO THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT:
The President should telephone each of the widows-to-be.

AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT, AT THE POINT WHEN NASA ENDS COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE MEN:
A clergyman should adopt the same procedure as a burial at sea, commending their souls to "the deepest of the deep," concluding with the Lord's Prayer.

Muslim scholars reach out to Pope

Just in from the BBC:

More than 130 Muslim scholars have written to Pope Benedict XVI and other Christian leaders urging greater understanding between the two faiths. It was also sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the heads of the Lutheran, Methodist and Baptist churches, the Orthodox Church's Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I and other Orthodox Patriarchs.

The letter says that world peace could depend on improved relations between Muslims and Christians. It identifies the principles of accepting only one god and living in peace with one's neighbours as common ground between the two religions. It also insists that Christians and Muslims worship the same god.

The letter comes on the anniversary of an open letter issued to the Pope last year from 38 top Muslim clerics, after he made a controversial speech on Islam. It also coincides with the Eid al-Fitr celebrations to mark the end of Ramadan.

The letter, entitled A Common Word Between Us and You, compares passages in the Koran and the Bible, concluding that both emphasise "the primacy of total love and devotion to God", and the love of the neighbour. With Muslims and Christians making up more than half the world's population, the letter goes on, the relationship between the two religious communities is "the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world." "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes," the letter says. It adds: "To those who nevertheless relish conflict and destruction for their own sake or reckon that ultimately they stand to gain through them, we say our very eternal souls are all also at stake if we fail to sincerely make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony."

One of the signatories, Dr Aref Ali Nayed, a senior adviser at the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme at Cambridge University, told the BBC that the document should be seen as a landmark. "There are Sunnis, Shias, Ibadis and even the... Ismailian and Jaafari schools, so it's a consensus," he said. Professor David Ford, director of the programme, said the letter was unprecedented. "If sufficient people and groups heed this statement and act on it then the atmosphere will be changed into one in which violent extremists cannot flourish," he said in a statement.

The letter was signed by prominent Muslim leaders, politicians and academics, including the Grand Muftis of Bosnia and Hercegovina, Russia, Croatia, Kosovo and Syria, the Secretary-General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the former Grand Mufti of Egypt and the founder of the Ulema Organisation in Iraq.

The full text of the letter can be found in PDF on the BBC's website.

France mourns former archbishop

A funeral service for the former archbishop of Paris, Jean-Marie Lustiger, was held at Notre Dame Cathedral. Born Aaron Lustiger to Polish Jews who had settled in France before World War I, the future Cardinal Lustiger became a Catholic at the start of World War II.

The ceremonies at Notre Dame began with a reading of a psalm, followed by the Kaddish, the Jewish prayer for the dead, by Arno Lustiger, a cousin and 83-year-old Auschwitz survivor.

The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, interrupted his summer holiday in the United States to attend the funeral.

Cardinal Lustiger worked to improve Catholic-Jewish relations and was an outspoken opponent of racism and anti-Semitism, who appeared frequently on television as a commentator on current issues. His successor, Archbishop Andre Vingt-Trois, praised the late cardinal's role in "the development of relations between Jews and Christians, with the encouragement and support of John Paul II".