Barry Hudock's Blog, page 4

“A climate deal Francis would approve?”: New from OSV

My new article for Our Sunday Visitor considers the question, “Would Pope Francis approve of the U.N. climate deal brokered in Paris last month?” My work on this one was particularly interesting and enjoyable.

That’s probably because the initial reaction of most folks — including me — would probably be, “Of course he would.” But the ways the deal differs from (and even ignores) Francis’s approach are as interesting as the ways the two are aligned.

The whole thing is here. Have a look.

“A climate deal Francis would approve?”: My new article from OSV

My new article for Our Sunday Visitor considers the question, “Would Pope Francis approve of the U.N. climate deal brokered in Paris last month?” My work on this one was particularly interesting and enjoyable.

That’s probably because the initial reaction of most folks — including me — would probably be, “Of course he would.” But the ways the deal differs from (and even ignores) Francis’s approach are as interesting as the ways it’s aligned.

The whole thing is here. Have a look.

New from OSV: My article on the revised rite of matrimony

Our Sunday Visitor has published my new article on the revised Order of Celebrating Matrimony, recently approved by the U.S. bishops for use in the United States. It includes a full run-down of what’s new, what’s not, and, interestingly, what the bishops wanted included but was nixed by the Vatican. The article is here.

(Do yourself a favor and skip the comments. I can’t say many of them reflect well on the OSV readership.)

“A resounding success”: new review from the Catholic Historical Review

The autumn 2015 issue of The Catholic Historical Review includes a new review of my book, Struggle, Condemnation, Vindication: John Courtney Murray’s Journey toward Vatican II. Here’s the full text of that review, written by Thomas O’Brien, associate professor of religious studies at DePaul University.

This reviewer was both intrigued and skeptical when the author claimed in the introduction that “this is a theological adventure story” (p. xxiv). It is difficult to imagine the quiet, scholarly, and scrupulous John Courtney Murray as the subject of an “adventure” in the more common understanding of the term. Nevertheless, by the end of this concise and readable account of Murray’s life, Hudock’s characterization is convincing. Those who have worked with the Murray corpus for decades are all too familiar with Donald E. Pelotte’s authoritative biography, and many might have questioned the need for another historical survey of Murray’s life and work. However, this book represents a substantially fresh perspective on Murray’s archival record from someone who was not a contemporary. It is a contextual reading of Murray from the vantage point of several generations removed from the events described and from the controversies that arose around Murray’s work in the last two decades of the twentieth century.

For this reason, one could argue that this book has the advantage of understanding Murray and his work from a sufficient historical distance, and for this reason, the controversies and scandals of those eras have much less influence on the way the story is told and the way the theology is interpreted. Although the book does not claim to be breaking new ground in Murray research, it is a treasure trove of information about Murray and his opponents, especially Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Redemptorist priest Francis Connell, and Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. Hudock excels at reconstructing the conversations on both sides of the Catholic religious-liberty issue—before, during, and after the Second Vatican Council. It is particularly illuminating when it reviews and analyzes the personal journals and confidential correspondence of those immersed in these conversations.

So, although the author is forthcoming that the purpose of the book is not to introduce new archival information on Murray’s life or offer a novel interpretation of Murray’s work, it nevertheless presents  he reader with a remarkably lucid introduction to the life and work of the most influential American Catholic theologian For this reason, the book might be used with students and other uninitiated readers to give an overview of Murray’s life and career, and introduce the various theological themes and controversies that were the hallmarks of his life’s work.

The weaknesses of the book are minor in comparison to the previously mentioned virtues. One shortcoming is the thin treatment of Americanism regarding how it both deeply influenced Murray and dogged him as a convenient condemnation of his work. The dismissal of Murray by his opponents via the category of Americanism was personally vexing for Murray, and he expended a great deal of time and effort trying to demonstrate that the Church, in many ways, had always tacitly endorsed what he called the American proposition.

Overall, the book is a resounding success at offering the Murray neophyte a current, lucid, and extremely well-written overview of Murray’s life and work. It also offers the seasoned Murray scholar a fresh interpretation of Murray within the context of mid-twentieth century American Catholic theology and its impact on the proceedings of the Second Vatican Council.

 

This is exciting and gratifying. I also happen to agree with the criticism mentioned in the penultimate paragraph. My thanks Professor O’Brien for his gracious words.

 

On the cover of America!

It was a thrill to see the cover of the brand new issue of America magazine:

The issue features my article, “The Fight for Religious Freedom: John Courtney Murray’s Role in ‘Dignitatis Humanae'” (which is, as America makes clear, actually an except from my recent book Struggle, Condemnation, Vindication: John Courtney Murray’s Journey toward Vatican II).

America has been one of my favorite periodicals for a very long time, so this is a delight and an honor. Thank you to all the folks there!

It is, in fact, the second time I’ve had this thrill. Back in August of 2012, America published my article on Cesar Chavez and made that it’s cover feature as well.

I’m glad this came out yesterday, because without such a positive moment, I’m not sure how I’d have weathered, on the very same day, having my very own tweet called “ridiculous” by a real, live U.S. congressman.

U.S. Congressman calls my tweet ridiculous

I’ve been disappointed by the strong movement to push for the U.S. government to halt acceptance of Syrian refugees in the wake of the terror attacks in Paris. This seems to me to be allowing fear to overtake our humanity, compassion, intelligence, and common sense.

Let’s be clear: It is obvious that no one can guarantee that no single terrorist will slip in along with the tens of thousands of refugees, fleeing terror themselves.

But there are many risks no one can guarantee to protect us from that we reasonably open ourselves every day to by our laws, policies, and practices.

Every time I fly I see hundreds of people skipping security checkpoints to pass through the TSA “pre-check” route. Sure, they’ve been officially vetted in the past, but you can’t guarantee they haven’t been radicalized since then. Of course, common sense tells us the chances are that are so small, it’s worth the “risk” to speed up the process for everyone.

Many schools are installing metal detectors at their doors to protect students. But they’re not putting bars on the windows to prevent the bad guys from coming in that way! This is taking a risk. But there’s only so much one can reasonably do to eliminate risk without sacrificing other important values, right?

One example that seemed to me to be especially worthwhile is this one: We’ve seen a lot of terrible gun violence in the United States. Deranged or evil people have successfully gone after elementary school students, college students, movie-goers, black church-goers, and more. And statistics make clear that this problem, while not exclusively American, is predominantly American, here in this country with our very permissive guns laws. Time and time again, leaders and activists have called for reasonable restrictions on access to guns, only to be dismissed and mocked by many on the right, who criticize their willingness to sacrifice our freedoms in an abundance of caution.

So like I said, I thought that was an especially apt analogy when considering the current move to “pause” the influx of refugees out of an abundance of caution. I chose to make that point this week to several of our lawmakers via Twitter, including those who sponsored the “American SAFE Act,” a bill that passed handily in the House of Representatives to do just that.

One of those I tweeted was U.S. Representative Richard Hudson, a Republican from North Carolina, who co-sponsored the act.

I tweeted: “.@RepRichHudson: Funny, I don’t remember your call for a #pause on permissive gun control regs after Sandy Hook or Umpqua.”

And to my surprise, Rep. Hudson tweeted back! Taking time out of his busy congressional schedule, he (or one of his communications people) wrote to me: “I will blame your iPhone for that ridiculous Tweet. #ThinkAboutIt”

Maybe I should be embarrassed to admit it, and I suppose it’s the result of my wonky, civics-loving nature, not to mention a hearty respect for our government and its leaders, but my first and strongest reaction has been that I’m just delighted that a U.S. congressman chose to tweet to me at all, despite the fact that he did it to say my comment was “ridiculous.”

Of course, being called ridiculous by a congressman is a little disheartening, once you get thinking about it. And it’s hard not to wonder about taking it so personally that I’d not want to vote for members of his party in the future, though I’ve cast plenty of votes during my adult life for Republicans in the past. But I know that would be an over-reaction.

My kids told me I should look on the bright side: all the Democrats who see that will think I’m really cool. There is that.

If they do, maybe some of our lawmakers on that side of the aisle will be willing to hear me out on abortion. I’ll need to take a breath before that conversation, though. One can only be called ridiculous so often.

U.S. Congressman on my ridiculous tweet

I’ve been disappointed by the strong movement to push for the U.S. government to halt acceptance of Syrian refugees in the wake of the terror attacks in Paris. This seems to me to be allowing fear to overtake our humanity, compassion, intelligence, and common sense.

Let’s be clear: It is obvious that no one can guarantee that no single terrorist will slip in along with the tens of thousands of refugees, fleeing terror themselves.

But there are many risks no one can guarantee to protect us from that we reasonably open ourselves every day to by our laws, policies, and practices.

Every time I fly I see hundreds of people skipping security checkpoints to pass through the TSA “pre-check” route. Sure, they’ve been officially vetted in the past, but you can’t guarantee they haven’t been radicalized since then. Of course, common sense tells us the chances are that are so small, it’s worth the “risk” to speed up the process for everyone.

Many schools are installing metal detectors at their doors to protect students. But they’re not putting bars on the windows to prevent the bad guys from coming in that way! This is taking a risk. But there’s only so much one can reasonably do to eliminate risk without sacrificing other important values, right?

One example that seemed to me to be especially worthwhile is this one: We’ve seen a lot of terrible gun violence in the United States. Deranged or evil people have successfully gone after elementary school students, college students, movie-goers, black church-goers, and more. And statistics make clear that this problem, while not exclusively American, is predominantly American, here in this country with our very permissive guns laws. Time and time again, leaders and activists have called for reasonable restrictions on access to guns, only to be dismissed and mocked by many on the right, who criticize their willingness to sacrifice our freedoms in an abundance of caution.

So like I said, I thought that was an especially apt analogy when considering the current move to “pause” the influx of refugees out of an abundance of caution. I chose to make that point this week to several of our lawmakers via Twitter, including those who sponsored the “American SAFE Act,” a bill that passed handily in the House of Representatives to do just that.

One of those I tweeted was U.S. Representative Richard Hudson, a Republican from North Carolina, who co-sponsored the act.

I tweeted: “.@RepRichHudson: Funny, I don’t remember your call for a #pause on permissive gun control regs after Sandy Hook or Umpqua.”

And to my surprise, Rep. Hudson tweeted back! Taking time out of his busy congressional schedule, he (or one of his communications people) wrote to me: “I will blame your iPhone for that ridiculous Tweet. #ThinkAboutIt”

Maybe I should be embarrassed to admit it, and I suppose it’s the result of my wonky, civics-loving nature, not to mention a hearty respect for our government and its leaders, but my first and strongest reaction has been that I’m just delighted that a U.S. congressman chose to tweet to me at all, despite the fact that he did it to say my comment was “ridiculous.”

Of course, being called ridiculous by a congressman is a little disheartening, once you get thinking about it. And it’s hard not to wonder about taking it so personally that I’d not want to vote for members of his party in the future, though I’ve cast plenty of votes during my adult life for Republicans in the past. But I know that would be an over-reaction.

My kids told me I should look on the bright side: all the Democrats who see that will think I’m really cool. There is that.

If they do, maybe some of our lawmakers on that side of the aisle will be willing to hear me out on abortion. I’ll need to take a breath before that conversation, though. One can only be called ridiculous so often.

“Not like in the USA, you know?”

It took Donald Trump just over 48 hours from the Paris terrorist attacks to insist that less restrictive gun control laws in France would have left the people of Paris safer on November 13. From Politico:

“Had there been some guys with a gun, there would have been a shootout and probably the primary people that would have got whacked would have been the killers,” Trump said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” “You can’t any tougher than Paris, and you can’t get any tougher than France” on gun control, he continued. “They just said, come here, boom, come here, boom…shot these people at will.”

Trump and his millions of fans ought to take note of another interview that aired at about the same time, this one on National Public Radio. Journalist Robert Siegel offered a view of the evening of the attacks from the experience of an emergency room doctor who treated many of the victims. The doctor — who treated 27 gunshot victims in a Paris hospital emergency room that night — mentioned that it is unusual it is for him to be called upon to treat a gunshot wound.

“Usually,” he says in his stilted English, “in the emergency department in France, you may have a car crash. Sometime, one gun, but not that type of number of patients was of gun.”

Siegel, an American, tries to help him out by clarifying that the doctor is accustomed to treating only around one gunshot wound per weekend.

No, the doctor corrects him, “One per year.” And he adds: “Not like in the USA, you know?”

What a sad statement about the United States. This is how our western neighbors view us, and for good reason.

So if it’s okay to suggest what sort of guns laws might have left Parisians safer on November 13, it’s obviously fair to ask what kinds of laws keep them safer every other day of the year? “You can’t get any tougher than France” on gun control, Trump pointed out.

Alas, Trump is right about France’s gun control laws, and the doctor is right about their results. They are indeed “restrictive” (to use the term of gunpolicy.org). In France, where liberty is the first word of the national motto, there is no “right to bear arms.” No one can even own a gun without a hunting or sporting license, which needs to be repeatedly renewed and requires psychological evaluation.

The result? Around 0.2 gun homicides per 100,000 in population annually. (That is, for every million citizens, 2 per year die by gun homicide.)

Compare that to the United States, whose laws are characterized by gunpolicy.org as “permissive.” We end up with between 3 and 4 deaths per 100,000 in population — or for every million citizens, 30 to 40 gun homicides per year.

In a word, 20 times more.

Sadly, the “boom… boom…” (to use Mr. Trump’s expression) that rang out in Paris on November 13 killed 138 innocents. That same boom, boom, so unfamiliar to Paris, rings out every night in American cities, taking lives in much higher numbers over not too much more time.

Not like in Paris, you know?

“We are called to deprive ourselves of essential things, not only the superfluous”

I love this passage from Pope Francis’s Angelus address in St. Peter’s Square yesterday:

Today Jesus also tells us that the measurement is not the quantity but the fullness. There is a difference. It is not a question of the wallet, but of the heart. There are heart diseases that lower the heart to the portfolio. To love God “with all your heart” means to trust Him, to trust in His providence, and to serve him in the poorest brothers and sisters without expecting anything in return. Faced with the needs of others, we are called to deprive ourselves of essential things, not only the superfluous; we are called to give the necessary time, not only what remains extra; we are called to give immediately and unconditionally some of our talent, not after using it for our own purposes or our own group.

Allow me to tell you a story that happened in my previous diocese. It is about a mother with her three children.  The father was at work and the family was at table eating veal cutlets alla Milanese.  Just then someone knocked at the door and one of the children – the young one who was five or six years old – the oldest was seven years old – came and said, “Mom, there’s a beggar at the door who is asking for some food.”  And the mother, a good Christian, said, “What should we do?”

“Give him some food,” they said.

“Ok.” She took the fork and knife and cut each person’s cutlet in half.

“Oh no, Mom! Not like this! Take something from the refrigerator!”

“No, we will make three sandwiches like this!”

And thus the children learned that the meaning of true charity means that you give not from what is left over but from what we need. I am certain that that afternoon they were a bit hungry, but this is the way to do it.

New in OSV: My article on the Pope’s gifts to Fidel

Before Pope Francis’s triumphant visit to the USA last month came a historic visit to Cuba. That leg of the trip included a private meeting between the Pope and retired leader Fidel Castro. Francis and Fidel exchanged books as gifts at that meeting, and the books that the Pope offered were noteworthy. Indeed, at least one of them surely evoked a strong response in Castro’s heart — exactly what kind of response, we’ll never know.

Here’s my new article from Our Sunday Visitor about the books Francis gave Fidel.