Harry Wu: Laogai, the Chinese Labor Camps

Rimini TV: Harry Wu with John Waters

Laogai Museum in Washington, DC.

Harry Wu at Wikipedia

“Perez… that’s a very hot topic in our country right now” and ...

I have not watched a beauty pageant since I was around 7 years-old, when the Miss America Pageant was 1970s “must see T.V.” I certainly do not plan to start watching pageants now. Since it was all over the news this morning, I can’t help but laud Miss U.S.A. contestant, Carrie Prejean, a.k.a. Miss California, who, when asked by pageant judge Perez Hilton, whether she thought every state should follow Vermont and the three other states that have given legal recognition to same-sex marriage, responded: "Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offence to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you."

It was not enough to ask a baiting question and accept the answer given, Mr. Perez, who is a well-known and very vocal advocate for same-sex marriage, lambasted Prejean after the contest, saying that her answer was "the worst answer in pageant history." Why? One can only surmise that it is because she neither came out in favour of same-sex marriage, nor did she choose to be "diplomatic" and avoid answering the question directly. Isn’t this a bit like seating a V.P. of Citibank as a pageant judge and her asking contestants what they thought about Hank Paulson’s TARP legislation? In fact, it was a question about bank bailouts that Prejean’s competitor, Kristin Dalton, Miss North Carolina, who went on to be named Miss U.S.A., was asked, but not by a bank vice-president.

Being a generous man, Mr. Hilton went so far, after the pageant, to suggest an answer he would not have found offensive: "Perez, that’s a great question and that’s a very hot topic in our country right now. I think it’s a question that each state should answer for themselves because that’s our forefathers designed our government. The states rule themselves and then there are certain laws that are federal." Looking back at Carrie Prejean’s answer, I think she did state what Hilton suggested as regards what it means to live in a constitutional democracy, like the U.S. Her apparent misstep was answering his question in its entirety, a question that asked what she thought about the matter.

It is also important to note that her opinion is the opinion of a majority of Californians who went to the polls last November and democratically rejected giving legal status to same sex marriage, thus popularly overturning an edict by the California Supreme Court. It may bear reminding Mr. Hilton that the only state that recognizes same-sex marriage that has done so by anything like a democratic process (i.e., not by judicial fiat) is Vermont. In Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa it is something imposed by state supreme courts. Further, wherever same-sex marriage has appeared as a ballot initiative to amend the state’s constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, including California (and Utah), it has passed, the California vote being far and away the closest, though Colorado and Arizona passed marriage amendments with majorities of 55% and 56% respectively. I will concede that while Massachusetts began recognizing same-sex marriage as the result of a state Supreme Court ruling, subsequent attempts to amend the state constitution have been defeated in the legislature. New Jersey and New Hampshire both have civil partnership laws, like Vermont did prior to the recent vote to override the governor’s veto of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

Sadly, Hilton was not able to limit himself to dismissing her answer with prejudice. Posting a video blog he went on to call her " dumb bitch." I would expect to see feminists take issue with a gay man calling a woman a dumb bitch, just as people did when Isiah Thomas, defending himself in a sexual harassment lawsuit, claimed that it was alright for an African American man to call an African American woman a bitch, but it was not alright for a white man. Just to be clear, it is not okay for a man of any colour or sexual orientation to conduct himself in such a reprehensible manner, especially under these circumstances, in which she was merely giving an honest answer to a question he asked!

It is true that her answer likely cost her title Miss U.S.A., but that is a small price to pay for maintaining her integrity. Perhaps Perez Hilton should just stick to asking himself questions, that way he’ll always get the answer for which is looking.

I think this event is very instructive regarding the current cultural circumstance in which we find ourselves. The question for us, attending to the totality of its factors, how do we live this reality, how do we give witness to Christ in this reality? Part of the answer lies in giving honest answers to questions, questions that are ultimately about meaning and purpose, our meaning and purpose, even in the face derision and hostility.

While I am at it, note to Janeane Garofalo: just as it was not inherently un-patriotic to criticize Pres. Bush, it is not inherently racist to criticize Pres. Obama.

Being always aware of the One whose witnesses we are

It is not a question as to whether we should be reduced to practicing our faith in private or giving public witness. Without a doubt, we are to give public witness to the truth, whether it be about the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, or about the nature of marriage. So, it becomes about the nature of our public witness. This gets back to something I posted not long ago, namely an observation by the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "that for conservatives it is axiomatic 'that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society.' As one might suspect, it is an atomic truth of liberalism that politics is more fundamental and important to society than culture."

The reaction of many to the two recent dust-ups involving President Obama and Catholic institutions do nothing but prove the thesis I set forth in my earlier post, namely that in the U.S. almost everyone is liberal because we look to politics and/or political solutions, that is, power plays and assertions of will, to solve every problem. By doing this, we expend resources, effort, and energy that are better spent building up culture through education and other means. Reacting to circumstnaces in this way leads to a reduction of faith, which is a reduction of ourselves and others.

Let's take another controversy as instructive of what it means to start from a positive hypothesis: the Holy Father's assertion that the way to prevent the further spread of HIV in Africa is not by distributing condoms, but by rehumanizing sexuality. This is not a political assertion, though it is one in conformity with the epidemiological facts. Hence, it is not an ideology, an assertion of what the church teaches against a reality that contradicts it. Rather, he begins by recognizing the humanity of the people of Africa, the fact that the human person is a direct relationship with the mystery, and by recognizing sexuality as an authentic part of being human. You become ideological when your abstractions and theories discount and reduce the humanity of others because you are asserting yourself against the fact that constitutes reality.

As Rose wisely observed: "Let us start from the fact that we need to be educated, even in living sexuality. But education primarily concerns the discovery of self: the person who is conscious of himself. He knows that he has a value that is greater than everything. Without the discovery of this value - for themselves and others - there is nothing to hold." Hence, to begin, as those who think the distribution of condoms is either the only way, or merely the primary way, of combating the spread of this deadly virus, from a negative hypothesis- that people in Africa, or anywhere, like teenagers in high school, will inevitably behave in a sexually irresponsible manner is dehumanizing. As the Holy Father said, the rehumanization of sexuality consists of "bringing a new way of behaving towards one another." As Carlo put it in a title to his post on Paper Clippings, it is a matter of putting education over mechanics.

This is the kind of witness we are called to give. Somehow I do not think shouting, marching, carrying banners, condemning to hell, etc. are ways to witness to Christ or to give witness to the sanctity of human life because they do not start from a positive hypothesis, but a negative one and are ideological expressions. It is a way to further polarize, a polarization that not only pits the church against the world, but members of the church against each other.

Is there nothing we can do? I remember Fr. Trento's declining to be made a Knight of the Order of the Star of Solidarity of the Republic of Italy, due to the government's refusal to intercede on behalf of Eluana Englaro. Why? Because it contradicted his solidarity with those whom he serves. After receiving it, he quietly returned it on his own to the Italian embassy in Paraguay, the country in which he lives and ministers. He did not call a press conference, or organize a demonstration, he did not angrily denounce or condemn anyone, he merely pointed out the contradiction of honoring someone who has devoted his life to serving many people in the same situation as Eluana. He then went back to his ministry, where he remains giving witness to the One whose presence "is the only fact that can give meaning to pain and to injustice."

A Catholic University?

I have been following the events at Notre Dame with great curiosity, and when I read what Sharon blogged (she has links to everyone else, so just read what she wrote and follow her links) on the subject, I sensed an invitation in her post. So, here I am!

Every time I began to think about the president's invitation to speak at (and to receive an honorary degree from) Notre Dame, a conversation I once overheard would run through my mind. A Catholic philosopher who was teaching at the University of Chicago was speaking to the dean of one of the colleges that is considered more orthodox and serious about its Catholic identity. The philosopher observed that he could always tell which of his students were either Catholic or Jewish from the rest of the students. The dean asked him how he could tell, and the philosopher replied, "The Catholic and Jewish students all have a sense that there are other countries in the world, that people speak other languages, that in the past there were people, people who came from cultures very different from our own, who thought great things and whose works are worthy of examination." The dean seemed bemused and then said, "Well, we know our students are Catholic because daily Mass on campus is packed with students, because they often gather together to pray the rosary, and because a majority of them major in theology, and because they engage in a multitude of pro-life activities." And that was the end of the conversation.

I think that Stephen (not my husband, but a good friend) is right that the people who now decry Notre Dame's invitation to President Obame are (more or less) the same people who have been suspicious of Notre Dame's claim to being a truly Catholic institution. It seems that this controversy provides them with a litmus test -- to judge just how "Catholic" Notre Dame is. Will Notre Dame waver under the barage of email, phone messages and letters of protest, or will she remain "Catholic in name only"?

The question about what makes a University Catholic and what makes its students Catholic seems to be the unspoken heart of the whole brouhaha. There is enormous pressure on the students to "prove" their Catholicism by protesting or even boycotting their graduation ceremony.

What troubles me is that this drive to reject a man (who is after all, our president) seems neither human nor Christian. Many of the children in my atrium pray for President Obama that he may be a good president and make good decisions. A few pray that he will stop killing babies. Both prayers indicate a commitment toward his person, toward his humanity, I think. These prayers imply a relationsionship with the man. If we want these things for him, for his ultimate good, then we must spend time with the man. Jesus spent more time with Pharisees than he did even with the poor and the lame -- at least, his conversations with the Pharisees use much more ink in the Bible. Why? Why did he spend time with them? Why did he pray with them, witness to them? Why did he forgive them from the Cross?

As Catholics, we should think hard about how we approach those who come from other worlds, who speak another language. God has placed this president in our lives for a reason. He exists and leads us for our good, to lead us to Christian maturity (as Sharon so beautifully points out). We should spend some time thinking about what is best for him, how we might help him "to be a good president and make good decisions."

Cross posted at Come to See.

Catholic Senators Vote Against Freedom of Conscience for Health Care Workers

Troubling news comes from CNA about a majority of Catholic senators voting against a conscience protection amendment yesterday that keeps health care workers from being forced to participate in abortion-related and other morally objectionable services.

Senator Tom Colburn’s amendment states, "To protect the freedom of conscience for patients and the right of health care providers to serve patients without violating their moral and religious convictions."

The amendment was voted down by a margin of 41-56, in which a majority of Catholic Senators voted against the amendment 9-16. The failure to pass this legislation now leaves the door open for the Obama Administration to rescind the law by executive order and force health workers to compromise their moral convictions.

A good number of senators voted in favor of this amendment suggesting it was a reasonable amendment.  It wasn't a matter of restricting abortion but of protecting freedom of conscience, not for some obscure cultish scruple, but in a hotly contested moral arena.  This is after Cardinal George's very public appeal to Catholics to advocate for these conscience protection rules.

It is becoming more evident that the Church is the main defenders not only of life, but of freedom.

Culture and Identity in the Current Crisis

Now I'll be almost the last to weigh in on the Notre Dame controversy, except for perhaps Suzanne (unless I've forgotten). Here's Stephen, Fred, and Deacon Scott as well as a more general observation which I thought pertinent from Conjectures, a quote from Bishop Blase Cupich of South Dakota who warned his fellow bishops that “prophecy of denunciation quickly wears thin.” I'll post here in case we take it up together since for some reason it just won't die.

I'm also (like Stephen) not shocked or particularly surprised by Notre Dame's decision. I've both attended and taught at mainstream Catholic colleges. I'm mildly curious about why Bill Clinton isn't on the list of presidents who received this honor (was he asked? did he refuse?). It would be more useful, in my opinion, to put resources to fighting the erosion of conscience protections for health care workers than to fight this battle.

Some years ago at the national diakonia in Chicago, we heard Cardinal George speak about the original immigrant culture of Catholics which really never took root in the American culture. It has been a while, so I may be overstating this observation, or not. Instead Catholics after some generations assimilated to the culture. You can find some of this thought of his in an interview with John Allen, where he said:

[W]e created alternatives to the mainstream institutions. They were never, I think, ghetto institutions, because they prepared people to take their place in mainstream society. They didn’t try to cut them off from it, but to prepare people to take their place in the mainstream precisely as Catholics. Once they succeeded, then the value of those very institutions seemed to be lessened, and the institutions themselves said it’s important for us to be mainstream, and to no longer be so identifiably Catholic. So they’re porous in ways that they weren’t before....

Notre Dame, perhaps the most prestigious Catholic institution in the country, is an example of this ambiguity, at least in respect to the current controversy.  It's certainly not true of the entire institution, as witnessed by various friends of mine.  Note that the response to such ambiguity often has been to again set up alternate institutions, separate and culturally apart.  This counter-culture is robust, though we may wonder how significantly it leavens the common culture.

What bothers me most about the current debate is the painful public lack of unity which is probably not helped by the Catholic blogosphere. Tangentially, there was the set-up with Archbishop Burke which was part of a lay campaign to remove bishops who were not aggressive enough in denying communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians.  That most saddens me, some of our finest pastors, denounced for their own pastoral approach.

The entire situation we find ourselves in today, since the November election, reminds me of the 1968 crisis Fr. Giussani spoke about in 1972 in his talk "The Long March to Maturity". Perhaps the crisis itself was quite different, but the challenge of our response is really the same.

Perhaps it is useful to remember that in the life of those He calls, God never lets anything happen unless it serves for the growth and maturation of those He has called.

This is so above all for the life of the individual, but in the final analysis, and more profoundly, for the life of His Church, and therefore, analogously, for the life of every community, be it a family or an ecclesiastical community in the broadest sense. God never permits anything to happen unless it is for our maturity, our maturation...

This, we can say, is the indicator of our faith’s truth, its authenticity or lack thereof: if the faith is truly in the foreground, or if in the foreground there is another kind of concern; if we truly expect everything from the fact of Christ, or if we expect from the fact of Christ what we decide to expect, ultimately making Him a starting point and a support for our projects and programs.

Now look at Fr. Giussani's judgment of the "Reduction of the Christian Fact", which could not sum up better the risk we take right now in our political *reactions*.  A campaign even for a good cause becomes an ideology.  As if solving the political problem would conquer the evil.

What were the consequences identifiable in the attitude assumed by this large sector of the Movement in the era we are commenting on?

a) First, as it says on the sheet: “An efficientistic conception of Christian commitment, with accentuations of moralism.” Not accentuations–with wholesale reduction to moralism! Why should anyone remain Christian? Because Christianity pushes you to action, presses you to commitment, no other reason! It’s like a father and mother who tell you, “Come on, you have to do this!” and then they leave you alone to do it yourself, as if they weren’t there. (Instead, Jesus says, “I will be with you to the end of time.”) This is a concept of incarnation in which the Christian is truly cut in half, cloven in two. And from the contingent, historic point of view, Christians still have the right to remain in the world only to the degree in which they throw themselves into worldly action: it’s ethical Christianity, that is, Christian ethics, Christian behavior, which means being Christian in the world identified with worldly commitment....

b) Second consequence (and this is the gravest thing): the incapacity to “culturalize” the discourse, to bring one’s Christian experience to the level in which it becomes systematic and critical judgment, and thus a prompt for a modality of action. It’s the Christian experience blocked in its potential for impact on the world, because an experience impacts the world only to the degree to which it reaches a cultural expression (which doesn’t mean only to the degree to which it reaches the university–this has nothing to do with it!). Cultural expression means judgment, capacity for systematic and critical judgment of the world, of worldliness, of the historic circumstance, and thus it becomes a suggestion for a modality of program and of action.

Experience that doesn’t reach this point has no face, lacks a face in history; it has no face and therefore can subsist for a long time in “pre-historic” eras, but to the degree to which the relationships in society, in human life become denser, press against that experience, it disappears, because it’s alienated in the pressures of the environment. ...

Our experience disappears.  How tragic.

So how do we respond?  What kind of campaign should we raise?

I remember being so struck by this text by Fr. Giussani when I first read it as another way to proceed:  this method, which is following, obedience, something far more solid than my own presumption.

In any case, the methodology is faithfulness to experience. I don’t know whether anyone here has remembered in this moment what it says in the premise: that Christianity spreads in the world not because of our work, but by the grace of God. So then, leaving behind our immaturity, becoming mature, is a grace of the Spirit within us. Let’s keep reminding each other! The Holy Spirit descended where they were gathered together in the Cenacle, where they were all gathered together. The Holy Spirit descends upon our communion. Therefore, for example, a “settlement” is an outcome of cultural expression, but before being an outcome of cultural expression, at least as a tendency, it’s the premise for cultural expression. In fact, our maturity is expressed in our passionate desire that the Church of God live visibly here where we are, in our striving that it be lived here, and therefore that Christian communion be built here and wherever we are, so that this “new person,” this “one body” as Saint Paul says–“in which there is neither man nor woman, neither Greek nor barbarian, neither left nor right” (“All of you are one, one person in Jesus Christ”)–may bring good to the neighborhood, university, work, parish… bring good to the world, as an incarnate presence, incarnate!

But the logic of the incarnation, that is, the logic of mission, happens entirely in us, because the incarnation in the world, in the sense of interest in and help for the world’s problems, of real collaboration in the world’s struggle for authenticity, is only a ray of light, only an inevitable consequence of those problems, of the world’s needs, of flesh and blood, of the world, of life lived as Christian community, converted, translated in terms of faith. Incarnation doesn’t mean getting involved in the labor union, the factory, or university. Incarnation, that is, mission, is living the university, the factory, etc., as communion. It doesn’t mean getting involved in this or that cultural or practical or socio-political problem, but living our whole humanity as communion.

I remember once, in a time of great trial, when we were living hard things faithfully and enduring the lack of understanding of others, thinking that "living well is the best revenge". We were certain that all would be well if we held onto the One we trust. How many psalms state just this in every situation of threat, injustice and untruth.

The only way, it seems, is to live this communion in the place where Christ is present, this living experience.  However awkward, rough, we hold to this communion which is home to this life-giving experience, a house with a necessary human structure.  It isn't for us to save the world, but to witness by our unity to One who is saving all.

A bit of a rant

Is there some course offered at exclusive country clubs about how, if you are wealthy, you don't have to pay all of your taxes? I mean Geithner, Daschle, Sebelius! So, you want to tackle the details that will lead to the long overdue and total transformation of our financial regulatory system, or even the more difficult and detailed analysis required to reform health care, but you either cannot master the IRS tax code as it pertains to personal income tax or even find an accountant who can? I realize that a post like this is a little out of skew and dramatically over-simplifies things, but come on!

How 'bout that Obama vetting team? I guess finding people who are are not tax cheats is pretty hard, which explains why all but one (the secretary) of the 23 Treasury positions that require Senate confirmation are filled. The president has only nominated two (besides the Secretary) to fill these positions. Among the many priorities we should have, perhaps simplifying the tax code should be added in somewhere.