Get Ready

Today is the Solemnity of the Annunciation. From today until Christmas is exactly nine months (for those of you who like to get “holiday” preparations underway early!). Today Jesus’ Life began. Over the next several months, I’d like to remind readers on the 25th of just how Our Lord’s Life is progressing, which should make us also sensitive to the sacredness of the lives of the least of His brothers and sisters. Keep an eye open here.

Wednesday is also the first anniversary of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse (for more, see here). In seconds, six men lost their lives. Remember them in your prayers and remember, too, that life is not just sacred but also fragile.

Confused Catholicity

Over at Commonweal, Massimo Faggioli opines that Catholic colleges and universities are threatened by the Trump administration’s approach to higher education (see here). As in most instances where charges of “big orange man is doing bad things” arise, specificity is usually lacking. Faggioli suggests one threat may be that the administration does not appreciate liberal arts. I worry about that, too, but given that lots of parents treat tertiary education as rather expensive vocational school, the sentiment may not be limited to the current administration. The real kicker is his claim that Catholic universities might imperil their identity by foregoing DEI (a claim Georgetown Law made). Faggioli writes, “While it is true that DEI programs have often been developed in the absence of a significant theological component, it is equally true that asking Catholic universities today to renounce DEI-type programs is equivalent to asking them to renounce their Catholicity” (emphasis mine). If committing to DEI or reverse discrimination makes a school “Catholic,” we desperately need to hire some new “Catholic Identity and Mission” people, because I don’t think Newman imagined DEI part of his idea of a university. (For a theological argument why DEI is discriminatory and thus contrary to Catholic principles, see here and here.)

Uncommon Non-Civility

Matt Royer is president of the Virginia Young Democrats, hailing from Herndon, a town in northern Virginia, the part of the state that churns out blue votes. Tweeting about President Trump’s order to shut down the Education Department he began, “this is f—ked.” Tiring of that mandatory vocative of the Left, I called him out, asking whether “f-k” in all its conjugations is appropriate to adult civil discourse. His response was to send me five F’s. The Left harps about the “lack of civil discourse” and “absence of norms” in public life. Call me old, but when as a first grader I first saw the “f” word scrawled on my school’s wall, I came home and asked my mother what it meant. I was promptly told never to repeat it again. And when you know that it normally referred to violent sex imposed on a woman by a stronger man, you wonder why it’s become the go-to expletive of the so-called “party of women.” To the degree that Catholics still traffic with that party, wouldn’t it be appropriate witness to call out these crude people whenever they give their vulgarity voice?

Other Voting Dilemmas

Two stories reported March 20:

Bernie Sanders counsels “progressives” not to run as Democrats but as “progressives.” For him and AOC, it’s a question of sifting the woke wheat from the sometimes curbed chaff. This should not be encouraged; it’s a device for keeping the Left in power. Bernie is elected as an “independent” (like Sen. Angus King in nearby Maine) but reliably votes with Democrats to run the Senate and enact policy. Consider the relationship between the Liberals and the New Democrats in Canada: The latter is nominally in opposition but — no matter what deals they strike with the Liberals — they can be relied on to keep the Conservatives out of power. Two Left parties will not dilute the liberal vote in America. They will rather give the mushy middle opportunities to default to the left while ensuring one’s left hand does not know what one’s lefter hand is doing.

Also: The New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, struck down a New York City ordinance allowing foreigners to vote in municipal elections. I can see the Left’s usual reaction: the judges must have changed out of their black into white robes (and hoods) to do some cross burning! The idea that elections are how nations (which consist of citizens) decide their fates is so xenophobic. 

Permanent Foreigners

Lawfully admitted immigrants to the United States receive something called “legal permanent residence” (LPR), for which the “green card” is proof. LPR status entitles a person to remain indefinitely in the United States. “Indefinite” does not mean “without any rules.” If a person leaves the United States for an extended period — two years maximum — he will lose LPR status. Immigration can ask even if you’re away six months. Being a legal permanent resident means, after all, that you reside here. LPR status is also prerequisite to becoming a citizen. In most cases, you have to be an LPR (typically, five years) and physically present here at least half that time to be naturalized. That is what’s required to apply. But you are not required to apply. You can remain an LPR until you die, as long as you follow the rules.

I’ve asked: Why? Is it a good idea that we have “permanent foreigners?” For various reasons, “assimilation” has gotten disconnected from “immigration.” “Immigration” becomes an end-in-itself, while acquiring citizenship seems an optional extra. Should it be? Should LPR status be a terminal condition or a temporary transition to the final completion of immigration: aggregation to one’s new country through the commitment of citizenship? A person who is a legal immigrant has cast his lot with this country. Why not cast it fully? Is America just an economic opportunity and a safe national roof over one’s head?

I’ve proposed (here) changing the law so that one can only be an LPR for a limited period of time, say, ten or 12 years. After that, they should either move on to citizenship or lose LPR status. Sure, some exceptions would have to be built into the law, e.g., elderly people who might not learn English well or mentally limited ones who cannot grasp civics. But the average immigrant (and that means most) should be able to transition to citizenship.

I raise this idea because, in the wake of accelerated Trump deportations, we hear stories about “the woman who lived here 37 years and has been deported to another country where she hasn’t lived since infancy,” etc. In that particular case, she also came to Immigration’s attention after serving time in jail for interstate trafficking of marijuana. Clearly, she had time to figure out how to ship pot from the Midwest to California but not how to declare her allegiance here. Should that be the case?

I suspect many bishops will grimace, hem and haw about “complications” and “impact” and all manner of “problems,” because, at root, they seem quite content with our “broken immigration system.” But Catholic teaching is also clear that a recipient nation has a right to expect that those who come to it join its political body. Could capping LPR status be a nudge in that direction?

Family-Friendly?

The March 31 New Yorker’s cover depicts a woman struggling with a baby stroller down a New York City subway staircase. The message is presumably asking how family-friendly we are as a society. I’ll say: not much. There’s a certain coterie, on the Left and Right, that despises “pro-natalism.” For the Left, motherhood is slavery; for the Ayn Rand libertarians, children are simply a “private interest” that should not burden the community. What really disturbs me is data Brad Wilcox (from the National Marriage Project) has been highlighting for more than a decade and a half showing the number of years the average American spends with a minor in the house is at its lowest points.

A case study: My last child was born in 2008 and, within five months, I took up an assignment in Switzerland. Switzerland accommodated kids well and, while generally reserved, they liked having kids around. We were there until 2011, then returned to Virginia for a year. Northern Virginia’s receptivity to kids was “meh” — you would not write home about it. (A local politician regularly told me I must have been surprised to become a father at 49, which to him meant — contrary to my thoughts — “oops, sorry!”) The really striking experience was the next year, which I spent in Taiwan. A chubby little Polish kid was the center of attention on every Taipei bus and tram. Karol got so used to hearing “hen ke ai” (how very cute!) that, by a certain point, he just turned his cheeks to the grandma announcing it for the obligatory squeeze.

Fertility is not just a personal matter. It is supported by a culture — or not. That‘s what we have to rebuild.

Liturgy Research Question

I don’t have a vast collection of liturgy books, so I can’t check this question out immediately myself. Knowing lots of our readers are at least amateur liturgy sleuths, maybe somebody can answer it?

Listening to John’s Gospel yesterday (Third Sunday of Lent, Scrutiny Readings) about the Samaritan woman, I was struck when the deacon left out mention of the lady’s multiple husbands. I grabbed the missalette (I don’t generally “read along” with the celebrant) and noticed that the passage was bracketed, i.e., available for omission for “pastoral reasons,” like the passage is too long or says something too uncomfortable.

I’ve been listening to that Gospel in Lent for years and never heard that omission. Maybe it’s because all the celebrants to date read it all, or maybe it’s a more recent change. Can I ask anybody with older copies of the Lectionary (e.g., from the 1970s right after Vatican II and then later) if John 4:16-19a was always bracketed off as optional or if this is something more recent? I’m just curious if allusion to Catholic teaching about divorce bothered some liturgists from the start or only more recently. If you learn something, please contact me via the NOR website’s contact form here.