Author: Kleiner

An upcoming lecture of interest:

“Farewell to the Shadowlands: the Spiritual Journey of C.S. Lewis” presented by Christopher Mitchell, a theologian at Wheaton College.

Thursday, Nov 11, 7pm in WIDT 007

Since we’ve been on a bit of a political kick, I thought I would post another political comment.  Coming off a discussion of gay marriage here, it is not big secret that I am generally conservative on many issues.  I am a conservative for at least two reasons:

a) We’ve arrived at a ridiculous state of affairs where inferior intellects put themselves forth as critics of the greatest minds, books, and ideas of our tradition.  This undermines the deposit of wisdom left by the tradition, particularly in the intelligentsia.

b)  I think moderation is the most important virtue in politics.  Reform is preferable to revolution.  Our government is designed to be conservative – in virtue of having 3 branches (the legislative branch split in two), it is slow moving and inefficient, and so is reform minded instead of revolution minded.  Increasingly, the left is dominated by an immoderate desire for cultural revolution.

But I am not a conservative ideologue.  I am seriously bothered by the radical libertarian movement of the Tea Party.  I disagree with the Tea Party for three main reasons.  (i) Libertarianism depends upon a false anthropology of radical individualism.  I am an Aristotelian on this – man is a social animal.  (ii) Libertarianism is ideological and so does not allow for the practice of prudence.  (iii) There is a strident anti-intellectualism in the Tea Party movement.

I got more than a few chuckles reading this recent letter to the editor in the Utah Statesman (our student newspaper).  It concerns the upcoming vote on a county-wide public library system here in Cache Valley.  He claims that the county-wide library system is “largely viewed as a socialist power grab”.  Huh?  Here is my question: Since when did the conservative desire for limited government turn into opposition to all government at any level?

My complaint is that there is no prudence in this.  To me, the conservative principle is not limited government per se, but the principle of subsidarity.  The principle of subsidiarity is a principle that suggests that matters should be handled at the most local and smallest possible level.  At what level issues should be handled is always, then, a question of prudence rather than ideology.  Immigration reform, for instance, appears to be the sort of thing that even conservatives, in accordance with subsidiarity, should think is best handled at the federal level.  Other issues could be well-handled at a more local level.  Prudence.

But the letter to the editor that rants against the county library does not allow for prudence.  As I  understand it, most counties do have county-wide library systems because the county level is the proper level of authority – in accordance with subsidiarity – for the effective delivery of library services.

While I am not registered with either party (and have never voted a straight ticket), I hope that the Republican Party does not get co-opted by this libertarian Tea Party wing.  What they need is someone like Buckley, who rid the party of unsavory elements like the John Birchers.

Thoughts?

On November 2, from 1-3pm in the TSC Auditorium there will be a panel discussion on gay marriage.  It is called “Gays and Marriage: Religious Perspectives” and is sponsored by the Center for Women and Gender Lecture Series.  Representatives from various faith traditions will be on the panel – Episcopalian, Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, Buddhist, and Hindu.  I (Kleiner) will be the “practicing representative” of the Roman Catholic faith.

It sounds like the panel discussion was occasioned by the screening of the 8: A Mormon Proposition documentary last week.  The hope, as I understand it, is to gather together some religious perspectives with the aim of having a dialogue that does not simply throw gasoline on the fire.  The event is open to students, faculty, staff, and members of the community.

I thought this was a thought provoking talk.  Here is a summary:

ArchBishop Charles Chaput recently gave a talk in British Columbia and spoke of how the reaction to Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery” has changed over the years.  “The Lottery” is set in rural 1940s America.  The story tells of an annual ritual festival which is meant to insure a good harvest.  Everyone lines up and draws a ticket.  This particular year, Tessie Hutchinson, a young wife and mother, draws the ticket with the black mark.  It is made official, Tessie has drawn the black mark and so has been selected as the human sacrifice for the ritual.  The villagers proceed to stone her to death.

Apparently a college professor named Kay Haugaard wrote an essay a few years back on how the reaction of her students to “The Lottery” have changed since the 1970s.  Chaput’s summary:

“She said that in the early 1970s, students who read the story voiced shock and indignation. The tale led to vivid conversations on big topics — the meaning of sacrifice and tradition; the dangers of group-think and blind allegiance to leaders; the demands of conscience and the consequences of cowardice.  Sometime in the mid-1990s, however, reactions began to change.

Haugaard described one classroom discussion that — to me — was more disturbing than the story itself. The students had nothing to say except that the story bored them. So Haugaard asked them what they thought about the villagers ritually sacrificing one of their own for the sake of the harvest.

One student, speaking in quite rational tones, argued that many cultures have traditions of human sacrifice. Another said that the stoning might have been part of “a religion of long standing,” and therefore acceptable and understandable.

An older student who worked as a nurse, also weighed in. She said that her hospital had made her take training in multicultural sensitivity. The lesson she learned was this: “If it’s a part of a person’s culture, we are taught not to judge.

… Our culture is doing catechesis every day. It works like water dripping on a stone, eroding people’s moral and religious sensibilities, and leaving a hole where their convictions used to be.  Haugaard’s experience teaches us that it took less than a generation for this catechesis to produce a group of young adults who were unable to take a moral stand against the ritual murder of a young woman.  Not because they were cowards. But because they lost their moral vocabulary.”

One can read the article to see Chaput’s suggestions as to what we should do about this (in a nutshell, we need to reverse the course of things since as its stands the culture is shaping Christians instead of Christians shaping the culture).  But for our purposes here, I wonder if others think this reflection on to something.

I (Harrison Kleiner) am hosting a Newman Club table every Wednesday from 10-11am.  Actually I don’t have a table yet, and I am trying to scare up a legitimate sign.  At this point I am just sitting next to a small sign out on the TSC patio (by the fountains).  The idea is to provide some public exposure for the Newman Club, with the aim of engaging Catholic and non-Catholic students in questions related to Catholic philosophy, theology, morality, etc.

All are welcome to stop by for a chat.