Kakistocrat

I was drawn to an interview with an American Catholic theologian who was recently (although now it’s several years old) asked: "Who do you think has the most to teach us about being Catholic, about being the Church, as we move into the 21st century?" After reflecting on the difficulty of answering, the theologian answered that Jean Vanier would have the most to teach. The theologian said: "He’s written such beautiful tihngs about his life with the mentally handicapped. I think he has so much to teach us about the patience and gentleness of God, about bearing each other’s burdens, and the joy this kind of openness brings."

Jean Vanier (born in 1928), the son of George Vanier (the famed Governor General of Canada), is the founder of the L’Arche community homes which seek to bring together those with developmental disabilities and those who assist them.

Serving both in the Royal Navy (British) and then the Royal Canadian Navy, Vanier, in 1950, pursued in doctoral studies in Philosophy at the L’Institute Catholique de Paris. Through a friendship with a Dominican priest, Vanier became aware of the living conditions of those who had been institutionalized because of their developmental disabilities. Feeling led by God, he invited Raphael Simi and Philippe Seux (patients of a particular institution) to leave and share their lives with him in his own home. Today, many decades later, there are such community homes in every continent.

Though there are over 100 such communities, Vanier stepped down in the late 1970’s  from the administrational side of his duties so that he could spend more time offering his services in a particular community. He still makes his home in the original community which is situated in Trosly-Breuil, France.

He is also the co-founder of Faith and Light which is similarily composed of people with developmental difficulties along with their own families and friends. Faith and Light brings such people together regularly for prayer and discussion about their hopes and difficulties.

Vanier’s life is one of service to those who have been marginalized in our world, and he believes that when confronted by a broken world, people can find solace in a God whose love is without limitation. In a beautiful tribute, Pope John Paul II stated that Vanier, through his life and work, has "grown to become a dynamic and providential sign of the civilization of love."

Vanier relates a story in which he and a number of members of his commuinty made a pilgrimage to Rome and were granted an audience with this same Pope.

While we were waiting for him to arrive, Fabio, a young man with disabilities, walked up and sat down in the Pope’s chair. It was obviously the best chair in the room, which is why Fabio felt so attracted to it.

It is a lighthearted story, producing an interesting image of such a Papal audience, but it does fit in with one of Vanier’s larger theme’s whic calls for individuals to break from a conformity to societal expectations. It also asks that the limitations society imposes on a person have no effect on those with developmental disabilities. They have less of the trappings that are sometimes contained within our own persons, and perhaps in this manifestation, they greater refelct the image of God. Vanier’s own act of starting such homes defied conformity to societal expectations as well.

It would seem that the Christian life be seen as being centered around granting allowance to God, allowance that God transform us into the persons that he want us to become, rather than simply the ones that those around us would prefer to see.

While Vanier’s life is one of service, it is also one of demand to those around him. He does not ask that dignity be bestowed upon those whom society often feels are disposable, rather he takes initiative and calls for others to do the same. Considering the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-21), or that of the Last Judgement (Matthew 25), where what seperates the saved from the unsaved is the act of love, I can understand why the Pope would say that Vanier’s life and work has "grown to become a dynamic and providential sign of the civilization of love."

K.

Some of Vanier’s thoughts can be found at this blog in the posts Eucharist and The Disabled.

Tony Campolo. Letters to a Young Evangelical. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2006. Pp. 280.

Campolo’s latest work is a series of 21 letters, addressed to two young Evangelicals, Timothy and Junia. Campolo admits the inspiration for such a concept (and the names too) lie with the Apostle Paul, who wrote for the same reason that he, Campolo, now writes today: "to keep [such individuals] from being swept up in movements within the church that distorted the Gospel…" Campolo’s biggest concern here, and it is one he has been talking about for years, is the rediscovery of what it means to be Evangelical, a discovery that has been overshadowed by the fac that  "American Evangelicalism today, in the minds of many, has become synonymous with the Religious Right."

Campolo says here, and elsewhere, that his intention is not to give the impression that there is anything wrong with Evangelical Christians predominantly voting Republican. Campolo however asserts that "to ally Jesus with either political party is idolatry [and that] the Jesus of Scripture will not conform to the ideologies of any party [but rather] stands in judgment of all of our political agendas…"

Hoping that Timothy and Junia will not be swayed into believing that the Evangelical faith and the Republican Party are synonymous, Campolo seeks to rediscover what it means to be Evangelical, but because of some uncertainly regarding whether the ‘Evangelical brand’ can be repackaged, he suggests instead the term ‘Red-Letter Christian’ might be more appropriate for those bothered by such an unholy matrimony. He suggests that the ‘Red-Letter Christians’ (those who focus on the red letters of the Bible [the words of Jesus]) cannot be seen as the Evangelical Left, because here again, this is no less an idolatrious claim than the ones that seek a Evangelical/Religious Right partnership.

Campolo strongly promotes what Cardinal Joseph Bernardin referred to as the ’seamless garment theory,’ one that embraces a comprehensive and consistent ethic of life. Therefore the pro-life movement, Campolo argues, cannot be confined to simply an opposition to abortion, but rather must extend itself to an opposition to war, capital punishment, euthanasia, and although (in his chapter on Abortion) he does not extend the pro-life movement to encompass a concern for health care, or the plight of immigrants who have made an illegal entry into the United States, it is hard to imagine how Campolo could view those disinterested in these matters as still being pro-life.

Campolo argues that it is high time Evangelicals overcome their homophobia (Campolo is clear that this does not mean watering down the traditional Christian understanding that homosexuality is disordered), their prejudices against those Islamic, their anti-Biblical defense of women being excluded from the ministerial ranks, and their abhorrence to caring for God’s creation.

One suspects that Campolo is not quite ready to give up on his fellow Evangelicals, and all throughout he reminds his readers that what Evangelicals have become is quite opposite to what the Early Church and early Evangelicals promoted (Jesus was a man of peace, and spoke in no uncertain terms about capital punishment, to site just two very quick examples…).

While I am not an Evangelical, and while one does not have to read and agree with Campolo 100% in order to come away a more informed person, Campolo’s central point, that the Evangelical community is not the arm of any particular political party, is a point worth defending.

The Evangelicals aren’t the first Christian community to have sold their soul in their quest for power, but in an increasingly polarized America, one with few bright spots in the near future for those more conservative, it seems quite foolish that any Church would want to hook themseles to such a sinking ship. And that’s only if we are speaking pragmatically. If we are speaking Biblically, as Campolo attempts to do, it is nothing short than idolatry.

K.

I have had a great deal of time over the last year to reaqcuaint myself with children’s literature (particularly that which appeals to those aged 9 to 13). I intentionally bypassed anything recent. An exception however is Lemony Snicket whose A Series of Unfortunate Events has brought me a great deal of enjoyment.

While each book in the Series is rather predictable (in fact, Snicket often explicitly tells in advance what will happen, as part of his continuous attempt to have the reader put down the book in favour of something less saddening), it is the process of investing something of oneself into Snicket’s characters (and particularly himself) that kept me reading through the Series. Snicket, as the narrator, leaves the occasional passing references to his rather extraordinary person life, and gives mention of a certain Beatrice. Hoping to discover more about her I read on and Snicket does not disappoint, but what I leave with you, are the dedications Snicket extends to his love.

One appears at the beginning of each book.

To Beatrice -
darling, dearest, dead.

To Beatrice -
No one could extinguish my love,
Or your house.

For Beatrice -
I cherished, you perished,
The world’s been nightmarished.

For Beatrice -
We are like boats passing in the night, particularly you.

Potential ways for discussion here could be to discuss the literary merits of the 14 books in the Series, or perhaps their moral or spiritual value, or perhaps an identification of some favourite moments, or lingering questions, or an evaluation of the film starring Jim Carrey which takes plot from the first three books, or even any questions you have about the books (perhaps if you are not familiar with them?). These are just ideas. I wonder whether anyone has read them?

I look forward to hearing from you.

K.