I had a conversation the other day with a good friend, a Jewish woman, who I've blogged about on these pages before. She is very upset and fears that the release of Mel Gibson's movie will unlease an uprise of anti-semitism. We talked about this for some time and at the time while trying ally her fears--I really felt that she was over reacting. Until, of course, I recall her personal history.
She grew up a young Jewish girl in very Catholic Poland in the 1930's and 40's. Surrounded by Christians, she witnessed first hand the complicity of many who willingly handed over their Jewish neighbors to the nazis. She and her family survived through the help of other Catholics--who gave them a "Catholic" cover; fake baptism certificates, allowed them into their churches and ultimately saved their lives. But one only has to put themselves in the place of a twelve year old who knows they are being hunted down sitting in a church and looking up at the stations of the cross and seeing the passion of Christ in an entirely different light.
So then armed with some compassion, I revisit this issue again. It bothers me that Mel Gibson cut the scene with Caiphas yelling, "His blood be upon and our children." It after all is a line from the Gospels. I would have rather he had kept the scene in and interwoven a scene from the Exodus where Moses sprinkles the blood that has been sacrificed to ratify the covenant upon the heads of the people. Then, the scene becomes one of the priests unwittingly invoking salvation upon the Jewish people, not giving bigots and ignorant people a blank check to disregard the entire Gospel message of love and to use it as a reason to hate anyone.
After all, the same Gospel that some used to fuel hatred for the Jewish people--of which Jesus and his Blessed Mother were members of that same chosen race, enabled some Catholics in Poland to shield and protect Jews during the shoah. Obviously, it is a matter of clearly understanding the Gospel and its demands for a radical response of love.
So who killed Jesus, might better be asked by who continues to kill Jesus? This puts the ball in our court--"when I was hungry, when I was naked, when I was in prison, when I was a stranger," etc. (Matthew 25)...it could well be us!
The Gospels portray the religious and world leaders turning against the innocent Christ...it wasn't something that was specifially "Roman" or Jewish" but rather something that was a "world' event and when it comes to reliving the Passion of the Christ it is always us, not any race of people, who stand in the crowd screaming "crucify him" and we can only hope that his redemptive blood will be upon us and our children.
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Saturday, February 14, 2004
Bishop Takes Public Stand Against Notre Dame
Good for Bishop D'Arcy! Unfortunately not only is Notre Dame having a performance of the V-Monologues but also is having a "Queer" film fest.
I know many good and holy alumni of Notre Dame. Is this what you remember about your alma mater? The Bishop's stand will mean more if you the alumni of Notre Dame back him and threaten to cut off all support. Notre Dame's prestige comes from its being the premier Catholic University in the United States--but because of weak leadership from within its days as a "Catholic" university may be numbered.
From A Statement by the Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend:
"Also, what possible advantage can this text have to the common good of society or of the church? I have dialogued on this matter with Father Edward Malloy, CSC, most recently in an exchange of letters initiated by me this past summer, in which I shared with him my pastoral concern. Such quiet dialogues on difficult matters have always been my modus operandi with Notre Dame and the other Catholic institutions of higher learning in our diocese, especially on difficult issues. This is in the spirit of Ex Corde Ecclesiae which calls for a spirit of friendship between bishops and university leadership through close personal and pastoral relationships characterized by mutual trust, close and constant cooperation and continuing dialogues. But a bishop has an obligation to teach, and there comes a time when the young people at Notre Dame, many of whom, along with their parents, have written to me over the years about this text, need to know the judgment of the bishop on a moral question at a time when clarity about the teaching of the church is required. A bishop can never refuse to exercise this responsibility so central to his vocation.
As an example of a sound moral choice within the context of true academic freedom, I would like to refer to Portland University, a sister institution of Notre Dame, also under the Congregation of Holy Cross. There, Rev. David Tyson, CSC, at that time president of Portland, after reading the text and consulting his deans, who also read the text, determined that it was inappropriate to the mission of a Catholic university, and the play was cancelled.
I know many good and holy alumni of Notre Dame. Is this what you remember about your alma mater? The Bishop's stand will mean more if you the alumni of Notre Dame back him and threaten to cut off all support. Notre Dame's prestige comes from its being the premier Catholic University in the United States--but because of weak leadership from within its days as a "Catholic" university may be numbered.
From A Statement by the Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend:
"Also, what possible advantage can this text have to the common good of society or of the church? I have dialogued on this matter with Father Edward Malloy, CSC, most recently in an exchange of letters initiated by me this past summer, in which I shared with him my pastoral concern. Such quiet dialogues on difficult matters have always been my modus operandi with Notre Dame and the other Catholic institutions of higher learning in our diocese, especially on difficult issues. This is in the spirit of Ex Corde Ecclesiae which calls for a spirit of friendship between bishops and university leadership through close personal and pastoral relationships characterized by mutual trust, close and constant cooperation and continuing dialogues. But a bishop has an obligation to teach, and there comes a time when the young people at Notre Dame, many of whom, along with their parents, have written to me over the years about this text, need to know the judgment of the bishop on a moral question at a time when clarity about the teaching of the church is required. A bishop can never refuse to exercise this responsibility so central to his vocation.
As an example of a sound moral choice within the context of true academic freedom, I would like to refer to Portland University, a sister institution of Notre Dame, also under the Congregation of Holy Cross. There, Rev. David Tyson, CSC, at that time president of Portland, after reading the text and consulting his deans, who also read the text, determined that it was inappropriate to the mission of a Catholic university, and the play was cancelled.
Feast of St. Cyril and Methodius
But most will celebrate the lesser saints of the day, choose one of the three St. Valentine's commemorated today. Most of us have learned stories that combine all three into one.
From CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Valentine:
"At least three different Saint Valentines, all of them martyrs, are mentioned in the early martyrologies under date of 14 February. One is described as a priest at Rome, another as bishop of Interamna (modern Terni), and these two seem both to have suffered in the second half of the third century and to have been buried on the Flaminian Way, but at different distances from the city. In William of Malmesbury's time what was known to the ancients as the Flaminian Gate of Rome and is now the Porta del Popolo, was called the Gate of St. Valentine. The name seems to have been taken from a small church dedicated to the saint which was in the immediate neighborhood. Of both these St. Valentines some sort of Acta are preserved but they are of relatively late date and of no historical value. Of the third Saint Valentine, who suffered in Africa with a number of companions, nothing further is known.
From CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Valentine:
"At least three different Saint Valentines, all of them martyrs, are mentioned in the early martyrologies under date of 14 February. One is described as a priest at Rome, another as bishop of Interamna (modern Terni), and these two seem both to have suffered in the second half of the third century and to have been buried on the Flaminian Way, but at different distances from the city. In William of Malmesbury's time what was known to the ancients as the Flaminian Gate of Rome and is now the Porta del Popolo, was called the Gate of St. Valentine. The name seems to have been taken from a small church dedicated to the saint which was in the immediate neighborhood. Of both these St. Valentines some sort of Acta are preserved but they are of relatively late date and of no historical value. Of the third Saint Valentine, who suffered in Africa with a number of companions, nothing further is known.
Four Nuns Kept off Flight
Obviously, we're talking about four nuns in habits.
From CNN.com - Nuns among six passengers kept off American flight - Feb. 12, 2004:
"Four California nuns say they were among six passengers kept off an American Airlines flight in January after crew members complained of a sulfur smell in the cabin and ordered passengers off the plane.
'I felt discriminated very much, because the four of us were taken out from that group, kept us aside, not telling us why we were there,' said Sister Tessy Pius, the principal of Mary Immaculate Queen School in Lemoore, California. She and the three other nuns are natives of India and are employed at the school.
The nuns were among the group of passengers held in Dallas, Texas, for additional screening before being allowed to board another flight to Fresno, California, January 2, American Airlines spokesman Tim Wagner told CNN.
At the time, airlines were acting under strict security rules because the national threat level was orange, or high. When the Department of Homeland Security raised the threat level December 21 from yellow to orange, it warned that al Qaeda may use international flights to launch attacks on the United States. "
From CNN.com - Nuns among six passengers kept off American flight - Feb. 12, 2004:
"Four California nuns say they were among six passengers kept off an American Airlines flight in January after crew members complained of a sulfur smell in the cabin and ordered passengers off the plane.
'I felt discriminated very much, because the four of us were taken out from that group, kept us aside, not telling us why we were there,' said Sister Tessy Pius, the principal of Mary Immaculate Queen School in Lemoore, California. She and the three other nuns are natives of India and are employed at the school.
The nuns were among the group of passengers held in Dallas, Texas, for additional screening before being allowed to board another flight to Fresno, California, January 2, American Airlines spokesman Tim Wagner told CNN.
At the time, airlines were acting under strict security rules because the national threat level was orange, or high. When the Department of Homeland Security raised the threat level December 21 from yellow to orange, it warned that al Qaeda may use international flights to launch attacks on the United States. "
Friday, February 13, 2004
Dad of Kerry Intern, "I think he's a sleazeball."
I heard Kerry on Imus this morning, lot of coughing, didn't sound well. He denied that there was anything to this story.
From The Sun Newspaper Online - UK's biggest selling newspaper:
"PRESIDENTIAL hopeful John Kerry was branded a "sleazeball" last night by the parents of a young woman he allegedly tried to woo.
Alex Polier, 24, was named as the woman at the centre of a scandal that threatens to damage Democrat Kerry's bid for the White House.
Her mother Donna claims Kerry, 60 -dubbed the new JFK - once chased Alex to be on his campaign team and was "after her".
There is no evidence the pair had an affair, but her father Terry, 56, said: "I think he's a sleazeball. I did kind of wonder if my daughter didn't get that kind of feeling herself.
"He's not the sort of guy I would choose to be with my daughter."
Terry, of Malvern, Pennsylvania, added: "John Kerry called my daughter and invited her down to Washington two or three years ago.
"He invited her to be on his re-election committee. She talked to him and decided against it."
From The Sun Newspaper Online - UK's biggest selling newspaper:
"PRESIDENTIAL hopeful John Kerry was branded a "sleazeball" last night by the parents of a young woman he allegedly tried to woo.
Alex Polier, 24, was named as the woman at the centre of a scandal that threatens to damage Democrat Kerry's bid for the White House.
Her mother Donna claims Kerry, 60 -dubbed the new JFK - once chased Alex to be on his campaign team and was "after her".
There is no evidence the pair had an affair, but her father Terry, 56, said: "I think he's a sleazeball. I did kind of wonder if my daughter didn't get that kind of feeling herself.
"He's not the sort of guy I would choose to be with my daughter."
Terry, of Malvern, Pennsylvania, added: "John Kerry called my daughter and invited her down to Washington two or three years ago.
"He invited her to be on his re-election committee. She talked to him and decided against it."
Priest's Warnings About Bishop went Unheard
From Berkshire Eagle Online - Headlines:
The Rev. James Scahill, a longtime critic of Dupre and his handling of the clergy sex abuse scandal, counseled the mother of one of the boys. He said he spoke with Reilly after he left an urgent message for O'Malley in November.
But O'Malley never returned his call, and Reilly "said that if the victims were willing to come forward, he would prosecute to the full extent of the law," Scahill said.
Ann Donlan, a spokeswoman for Reilly, confirmed that the attorney general met with Scahill in November to discuss the allegations against Dupre.
"The identity of the victim was not passed on," Donlan said. "The attorney general made it clear that the matter would be referred to the district attorney's office if the victim came forward."
Donlan said Scahill was not obligated to report the suspected abuse to police because the alleged victims are now adults.
Attorney Eric MacLeish, who has counseled both alleged victims of Dupre, said both men wish to remain anonymous.
Before he called Reilly, Scahill said he left a message for O'Malley, saying he needed to discuss "a dire matter that concerned the entire well-being of [the] church."
Scahill said he also spoke with a woman at the archdiocese, but did not give her any details about the abuse allegations. He said no one from the archdiocese called him back.
"I said it was very urgent that he contact me because of the importance of the matter," Scahill said.
Mary McGeer, a nun in Scahill's East Longmeadow parish, said she was in the room with the priest when he made the call. "He certainly got his message across that this was very serious," she said.
O'Malley's spokesman, the Rev. Christopher Coyne, said neither the archdiocese nor its attorney on sexual abuse matters has any record of receiving a phone call or letter from Scahill concerning allegations of abuse by Dupre.
"Anyone who knows the policies and procedures for handling matters like this would know that a phone call of this type is not the way to do it," Coyne said.
He said Scahill should have gone through the proper channels by calling the diocese's Sexual Misconduct Delegate's office and following up with a letter.
"That's the way you do it," Coyne said. "An unsolicited phone call of such an ambiguous nature is not the way you handle serious matters such as this."
Scahill said he didn't write a letter or follow up on his call because "I felt I did what I could."
"I'm so used to this system of denial that I felt I did all I could do to fulfill my obligation, and that was it," Scahill said.
Accusations of clergy sex abuse have plagued the diocese during Dupre's tenure, but have been overshadowed by reports of widespread abuse in the Boston Archdiocese, where MacLeish and other attorneys brokered an $85 million settlement between the church and more than 550 victims.
The allegations against Dupre are the first public claims that the bishop himself may have abused children.
The Rev. James Scahill, a longtime critic of Dupre and his handling of the clergy sex abuse scandal, counseled the mother of one of the boys. He said he spoke with Reilly after he left an urgent message for O'Malley in November.
But O'Malley never returned his call, and Reilly "said that if the victims were willing to come forward, he would prosecute to the full extent of the law," Scahill said.
Ann Donlan, a spokeswoman for Reilly, confirmed that the attorney general met with Scahill in November to discuss the allegations against Dupre.
"The identity of the victim was not passed on," Donlan said. "The attorney general made it clear that the matter would be referred to the district attorney's office if the victim came forward."
Donlan said Scahill was not obligated to report the suspected abuse to police because the alleged victims are now adults.
Attorney Eric MacLeish, who has counseled both alleged victims of Dupre, said both men wish to remain anonymous.
Before he called Reilly, Scahill said he left a message for O'Malley, saying he needed to discuss "a dire matter that concerned the entire well-being of [the] church."
Scahill said he also spoke with a woman at the archdiocese, but did not give her any details about the abuse allegations. He said no one from the archdiocese called him back.
"I said it was very urgent that he contact me because of the importance of the matter," Scahill said.
Mary McGeer, a nun in Scahill's East Longmeadow parish, said she was in the room with the priest when he made the call. "He certainly got his message across that this was very serious," she said.
O'Malley's spokesman, the Rev. Christopher Coyne, said neither the archdiocese nor its attorney on sexual abuse matters has any record of receiving a phone call or letter from Scahill concerning allegations of abuse by Dupre.
"Anyone who knows the policies and procedures for handling matters like this would know that a phone call of this type is not the way to do it," Coyne said.
He said Scahill should have gone through the proper channels by calling the diocese's Sexual Misconduct Delegate's office and following up with a letter.
"That's the way you do it," Coyne said. "An unsolicited phone call of such an ambiguous nature is not the way you handle serious matters such as this."
Scahill said he didn't write a letter or follow up on his call because "I felt I did what I could."
"I'm so used to this system of denial that I felt I did all I could do to fulfill my obligation, and that was it," Scahill said.
Accusations of clergy sex abuse have plagued the diocese during Dupre's tenure, but have been overshadowed by reports of widespread abuse in the Boston Archdiocese, where MacLeish and other attorneys brokered an $85 million settlement between the church and more than 550 victims.
The allegations against Dupre are the first public claims that the bishop himself may have abused children.
Debunking the Da Vinci Code...Who's at the table with Jesus?
Elizabeth Lev who teaches art history at Duquesne's Rome campus weights in on Lenardo's painting...
From Zenit News Agency - The World Seen From Rome:
"Truth be told, Leonardo da Vinci is not one of the 10 historical figures I would most like to invite to dinner. Perhaps the historical rivalry between Leonardo and Michelangelo was so fierce that one starts to take sides. Nonetheless, after 46 weeks of 'The Da Vinci Code' ensconced at the top of the best-seller lists, I felt obliged to come to the defense of his work.
A little background for the remnant still unsullied by the reading of this book: Author Dan Brown makes the incredible claim that the individual seated at the right hand of Jesus in da Vinci's 'Last Supper' is not, as commonly understood, the Apostle John, but rather ... Mary Magdalene, who would be Jesus' wife.
Although the work presents itself as fiction, it is written in such a way as to cause doubt. I have heard countless Rome visitors make comments like the following: 'I know it is fiction, of course, but it brings up some interesting questions ...'
The acute nature of the problem set in when my American students, instead of asking where the outlet stores in Florence were, began inquiring where they could see 'The Last Supper.' Then one day in the classroom, the bomb was dropped: 'Professor Lev, isn't that Mary Magdalene sitting next to Jesus?'
Now, there is a positive side to all this. The students are taking an interest in Leonardo and many are learning the names of the apostles for the first time. Unfortunately, the author stimulating these first impressions has no idea what he is talking about. The major religious and historical gaffes aside, a word must be said about Leonardo's 'Last Supper.'
Amid Leonardo's copious writings, very little reveals his personal thoughts and feelings. Artists generally do not look to be remembered through their diaries, notebooks or doodling pads. One thing for sure, nothing in Leonardo's writings suggests that the person next to Jesus is anyone other than John.
Brown capitalizes on Leonardo's soft-featured, beardless depiction of John to offer his fantastic claim that we are dealing with a woman. Of course, if St. John were really Mary Magdalene, we may well ask which of the apostles excused himself at the critical moment.
But the real problem stems from our lack of familiarity with "types." In his Treatise on Painting, Leonardo explains that each figure should be painted according to his station and age. A wise man has certain characteristics, an old woman others, and children others still.
A classic type, common to many Renaissance paintings, is the "student." A favored follower, a protégé or disciple, is always portrayed as very youthful, long-haired and clean-shaven; the idea being that he has not yet matured to the point where he must find his own way.
Throughout the Renaissance, artists portray St. John in this fashion. He is the "disciple Jesus loved" -- the only one who will be at the foot of the cross. He is the ideal student. To the Renaissance artist the only way to show St. John was as a beardless youth, with none of the hard, determined physiognomy of men. The "Last Supper" of Ghirlandaio and Andrea del Castagno show a similarly soft, young John.
Leonardo's innovation lies not in his depiction of John, but rather in the dynamism of his composition. Unlike his predecessors who showed a group of men talking around a table, Leonardo selects the most dramatic moment of the meal. Jesus has just made the announcement, "One of you will betray me." The composition accordingly registers the shockwave that emanates from this statement.
Instead of the typical 11 apostles on the far side of the table and Judas on the side closest the viewer, Leonardo places them all on the same side, so there is a ripple effect from the isolated Christ framed by a window out toward the apostles who are grouped into threes. The most important set comprises Peter, John and Judas. Impetuous Peter thrusts himself toward John, asking him to inquire of Jesus who the betrayer will be; in doing so, he pushes Judas outward toward the viewer.
The original image (it has been heavily repainted) had Judas' head turned directly toward John, whose serene countenance manifests the assurance of his own innocence. The low forehead, and dark, brutish features of the traitor Judas stand in sharp contrast to the luminous delicacy of John. The viewer is forced to think about where he or she stands (or sits) in this picture. Are we calm in certainty of fidelity, do we protest too much, or do we hide in the shadows?
Unfortunately, all these truly important questions are overshadowed by the silly speculations of Dan Brown.
One thing is clear, during the real Last Supper, Mary Magdalene was elsewhere.
From Zenit News Agency - The World Seen From Rome:
"Truth be told, Leonardo da Vinci is not one of the 10 historical figures I would most like to invite to dinner. Perhaps the historical rivalry between Leonardo and Michelangelo was so fierce that one starts to take sides. Nonetheless, after 46 weeks of 'The Da Vinci Code' ensconced at the top of the best-seller lists, I felt obliged to come to the defense of his work.
A little background for the remnant still unsullied by the reading of this book: Author Dan Brown makes the incredible claim that the individual seated at the right hand of Jesus in da Vinci's 'Last Supper' is not, as commonly understood, the Apostle John, but rather ... Mary Magdalene, who would be Jesus' wife.
Although the work presents itself as fiction, it is written in such a way as to cause doubt. I have heard countless Rome visitors make comments like the following: 'I know it is fiction, of course, but it brings up some interesting questions ...'
The acute nature of the problem set in when my American students, instead of asking where the outlet stores in Florence were, began inquiring where they could see 'The Last Supper.' Then one day in the classroom, the bomb was dropped: 'Professor Lev, isn't that Mary Magdalene sitting next to Jesus?'
Now, there is a positive side to all this. The students are taking an interest in Leonardo and many are learning the names of the apostles for the first time. Unfortunately, the author stimulating these first impressions has no idea what he is talking about. The major religious and historical gaffes aside, a word must be said about Leonardo's 'Last Supper.'
Amid Leonardo's copious writings, very little reveals his personal thoughts and feelings. Artists generally do not look to be remembered through their diaries, notebooks or doodling pads. One thing for sure, nothing in Leonardo's writings suggests that the person next to Jesus is anyone other than John.
Brown capitalizes on Leonardo's soft-featured, beardless depiction of John to offer his fantastic claim that we are dealing with a woman. Of course, if St. John were really Mary Magdalene, we may well ask which of the apostles excused himself at the critical moment.
But the real problem stems from our lack of familiarity with "types." In his Treatise on Painting, Leonardo explains that each figure should be painted according to his station and age. A wise man has certain characteristics, an old woman others, and children others still.
A classic type, common to many Renaissance paintings, is the "student." A favored follower, a protégé or disciple, is always portrayed as very youthful, long-haired and clean-shaven; the idea being that he has not yet matured to the point where he must find his own way.
Throughout the Renaissance, artists portray St. John in this fashion. He is the "disciple Jesus loved" -- the only one who will be at the foot of the cross. He is the ideal student. To the Renaissance artist the only way to show St. John was as a beardless youth, with none of the hard, determined physiognomy of men. The "Last Supper" of Ghirlandaio and Andrea del Castagno show a similarly soft, young John.
Leonardo's innovation lies not in his depiction of John, but rather in the dynamism of his composition. Unlike his predecessors who showed a group of men talking around a table, Leonardo selects the most dramatic moment of the meal. Jesus has just made the announcement, "One of you will betray me." The composition accordingly registers the shockwave that emanates from this statement.
Instead of the typical 11 apostles on the far side of the table and Judas on the side closest the viewer, Leonardo places them all on the same side, so there is a ripple effect from the isolated Christ framed by a window out toward the apostles who are grouped into threes. The most important set comprises Peter, John and Judas. Impetuous Peter thrusts himself toward John, asking him to inquire of Jesus who the betrayer will be; in doing so, he pushes Judas outward toward the viewer.
The original image (it has been heavily repainted) had Judas' head turned directly toward John, whose serene countenance manifests the assurance of his own innocence. The low forehead, and dark, brutish features of the traitor Judas stand in sharp contrast to the luminous delicacy of John. The viewer is forced to think about where he or she stands (or sits) in this picture. Are we calm in certainty of fidelity, do we protest too much, or do we hide in the shadows?
Unfortunately, all these truly important questions are overshadowed by the silly speculations of Dan Brown.
One thing is clear, during the real Last Supper, Mary Magdalene was elsewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)