Hillary Clinton's Global Agenda

As many observed, Hillary Clinton's Africa trip flew mostly under the radar, emerging only with a gotcha moment when she snapped at someone asking about Bill (or they weren't asking about Bill, or they were asking about Bill after all, depending on which report you believe -- I've now typed his name three times as much as hers thus far, gosh, why does that happen?).

Clinton is doing something important, and new: placing women's concerns at the forefront of U.S. policy toward the world -- not just as "development," but as a formal part of economic and security policy.

Sister, and all her sisters

I was in Stop n' Shop yesterday afternoon, buying bananas, and ran into Sister Julianna, a patient and wise woman who taught at Fairfield for years, and is now retired. We chatted about various developments at school. She asked about my children and I gave her the official update.

As we parted, I wanted to turn back, and ask for her prayers for one of my kids (the official update was not quite accurate), but then thought not to burden her, probably everyone faced with that grace-filled countenance blurts out some secret sorrow or worry.

So I kept going but, had I asked, she would certainly have responded.

Sister always does.

This was in mind as I read Sr. Mary Ann Walsh's gentle description of the hall of mirrors that is the life of women religious in 2009 [h/t: James Martin at the America blog via Gibson]. Whiplash is probably not all that new for women religious, recall that they have both led large organizations and been servants to male clerics for centuries.

But there is something new, a visitation that is questioning their fidelity to doctrine that seems less about celebrating their generosity and more about shutting down any hint that women religious have similar questions to most Catholics in the pews -- not convinced about the ban on ordaining women, unsure that punitive legislation is the way to address the question of abortion, and struggling to reconcile the Church's official story on homosexuality with the witness of gay and lesbian Catholics.

Walsh doesn't go there, her reference to the visitation is oblique, all she's saying is that it's a ... well ... complicated ... time to be a woman religious. Part of the complication is the never-ending treatment of women, particularly women religious, as third-class citizens in our Church. She rightly takes umbrage at the latest report (from my own diocese), that a whistle-blowing priest was threatened by his bishop with being sent "to live with nuns" for having asked real questions about a huge financial scandal. The diocese has denied this, a lawsuit, brought by another whistle-blower, is ongoing. Apparently Walsh is not convinced.

Others DO go there on the subject of the visitation. Ken Briggs, in an essay in the National Catholic Reporter ("U.S. Women Religious Leadership, at a crossroads"), sees it as a serious threat to the progressive Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which he finds to be "the last organizational remnant of Vatican II."

There are reasonable questions that can and should be asked about any organization in the Catholic Church, and women's religious orders are no exception. It's one thing to ask for a conversation about broad themes in christology, if this is done with theological competence and a sensitivity to context. [UPDATE: Beyond Jesus?]

But a witch-hunt, guys, is something different.

And finally, one little quibble with NCR. Right after I got the email alert about Briggs' essay, I got another, this time about John Allen's latest column "Hope Stirs in Religious Life." Dueling perspectives," I thought, "this will be interesting!"

But Allen's column is about a conference of male religious. So, what's the editorial deal here, NCR? That "male" is the norm for "religious"? And female religious are other than "normal?"

Just askin'.

UPDATE: For several links and an overview of the Vatican visitation of women's religious orders, see Rose Marie Berger, "Save a Nun: The Vatican's Investigation Into U.S. Catholic Sisters."

Congratulations, Ambassador Díaz!

Rocco Palmo (Whispersintheloggia) has the news -- Miguel Díaz was confirmed by the Senate last night as Ambassador to the Vatican. Here is my blog entry from the announcement of his nomination in May, "Miguel Díaz, the next ambassador to the Vatican?"

Knowing the drill, Rocco also notes that when Díaz arrives, Pope Benedict XVI will "offer a public address on the Holy See's assessment of things American, highlights and lowlights both."

And yes, this will bear watching.

Pope Benedict: Let's get rid of the veil...

[re-posted from late Saturday...]

[pix: H/T Paulson at the Globe, see below]

This is just embarrassing... and no, I have no desire to feature the picture of Michelle Obama with a veil.

Let's think about this. First of all, we note that, in the past, it was customary for Roman Catholic women to wear some kind of veil, often lace, to mass. I did this as a child.

In some traditionalist parishes, this custom is now revived and enforced. Fine. Whatever.

But to have as part of "official" Vatican protocol that women should cover their hair -- their hair?

Check out the pix, from Michael Paulson's blog at the Boston Globe... HERE ... the only one that doesn't look TOTALLY DORKY is the Queen, and she's not wearing a veil, but a hat with some net (plus she's the Queen, she signed up for this kind of thing). But the rest ... well, what's the point here? The veil adds nothing to the dignity of the occasion and, as it's obviously worn under duress, it just gives the impression that the Pope needs to manipulate the women that come into his sight, even the foreign dignitaries.

Having a dress code is not the problem, the point of protocol is to show respect for the office of the figure you are visiting.

It is certainly appropriate to dress conservatively when officially visiting religious figures or houses of worship, and to observe their religious customs to the extent that this is reasonable, thus the removal of shoes in some situations. It was also appropriate, for example, for Hilary Clinton to wear a headscarf when visiting a mosque in Cairo. [pix: New York Daily News]


But for a Vatican visit with a papal audience, does mandating that women wear the veil add ANYTHING to the story? (I know, for Michelle Obama, wearing a veil simply means that she doesn't want what she wears to be the story, she'd wear polka dot scrubs and a clown wig if it would keep the fashionista chatter from overwhelming the administration's message.)

In other words, a woman wearing a veil to the Vatican is simply saying "I'm going along with the program." But, and here's the big point: I don't think Benedict has a "program" here, in terms of veiling women. In fact, I wonder if he might welcome the chance to say something important about Christianity -- and women -- by quietly letting it be known that he does not consider the veil to be necessary.

So contact your Vatican connections, and let's get the memo to the top: women are beautiful and we see no need to veil them. Pope Benedict, let's send a serious message about the Christian story about the dignity of women, made as they are in the image of God. This is the religious story we claim, let's make it visible.

UPDATE: Melinda Henneberger weighs in, at Politics Daily, in favor of the veil. I'm not persuaded, but read it anyway... HERE.

UPDATE #2: Speaking of which, here's Michelle Gonzalez (she will speak at Fairfield University in Spring 2010) reviewing a new collection edited by Jennifer Heath, The Veil: Women Writers on its History, Lore and Politics, in the National Catholic Reporter. Link HERE.

Benedict - Barack

When Benedict Meets Barack
[my op-ed from the print edition of the Connecticut Post, Friday, July 10th]

Friday's meeting between President Barack Obama and Pope Benedict XVI promises to be a study in contrasts: tall, brown and athletic versus slight, pale and reticent. We know Obama will wear a dark suit, a light shirt, a nice tie and a flag pin. For Benedict it will be a skirted ensemble, featuring an embroidered overlay or intricate lace hem. Perhaps something in a muted brocade?

The visuals alone guarantee the world's attention. But do not be fooled, for beneath the eye-catching costume requirements, we can hear a very similar agenda -- and let's hope the world is listening. ...

Read the rest HERE.

Miguel Díaz, the next ambassador to the Vatican?

Congratulations are due to Miguel Díaz, nominated by the Obama administration to be ambassador to the Vatican.  Catch the early word from Rocco Palmo.

[More home team rooting, here -- our paths crossed at Notre Dame, where we both did our doctoral work in trinitarian theology, and he is now at the School of Theology at St. John's University in Collegeville, where I did my master's work, long ago (he also teaches in the joint College of St. Benedict/St. John's University undergraduate theology department).]

My take:  yes, it's an unusual choice.  No retired Irish anything.  No Boston.

First off, he's 45, young for a theologian and young for a post like the Vatican.  On the other hand, there's a confirmation process involved, and "young" leaves less of a paper trail for folks to pounce on, as Obama knows well.  (There's a reason that most elementary school productions of the Nativity story ignore the fifth-grade spelling stars and reach into the second grade to cast the Blessed Virgin...)   

He's comfortable in several languages, a party-trick in the U.S., essential for the Holy See.

Díaz is clearly in the Obama camp, on record as donating to the Obama campaign and vocal as a speaker for the progressive group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.  But make no mistake, he's clearly pro-life, part of the newly-energized movement of pro-life Catholics, who find Obama's policies to reflect the kind of social order this is committed to community and justice in a way that moves beyond the zero-sum calculus of the old left and the neo-con right.

Díaz' theological work is in the early stages but it would be good to remember that detailed theological discussion is not the "work" of a U.S. ambassador, even one posted to the Vatican -- there's just too much crying need out there.  (Daydreaming about Díaz and Ratzinger going mano-a-mano over the doctrine of grace?  It ain't gonna happen.) 

What's important, for this appointment, are the broad themes to which he returns, over and over, in his work.  His book, "On Being Human," brings together the particular story of experientially-focused Hispanic theological insights with Karl Rahner's broad and generous story of humanity in search of God. It's THIS broad framework, this pattern of movement 'from disparate roots to common purpose,' that is well-suited to the needs of the Obama administration as it works in concert with the global concerns that face Benedict XVI everyday.  

If Miguel Díaz can effectively serve as the face of the serious Catholic committment to a more just and inclusive world, one that is particularly attuned to the needs of the most vulnerable among us, he will do well.  Can he work "in concert" with the Vatican?  And, more pointedly, will the competing forces in U.S. Catholicism allow him to do the good work to which the Obama administration has called him?  

I hope so.  I pray so.