Elsewhere: Dom Mark Daniel Kirby on the Holy Ghost

descent-of-holy-spirit-on-the-apostles-1885MikhailVrubel

“The Descent of the Holy Spirit,” Mikhail Vrubel. 1885. (Source).

Dom Mark Daniel Kirby of Silverstream Priory has a phenomenal piece out today about the cosmic and intimate indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Imagine Teilhard de Chardin, but without all the heretical bits. Just a great, poetic doxology of praise for the Third Person of the Trinity.

The Holy Ghost impels apostles and missionaries in every age;
He is the invincible faith of the martyrs;
the shining light of doctors;
the incandescent purity of virgins;
the joy of monks;
the abiding friend of solitaries;
the consoler of the bereaved.
The Holy Ghost is a father to the destitute;
a storehouse of infinite resources for the penniless;the uncreated Light all ablaze where no created light shines.

Read the whole thing here.

Elsewhere: More on Julien Green’s Life, Death, and Love of God

KlagenfurtChurch

St. Egid Church, Klagenfurt, Austria. (Source)

Pater Edmund Waldstein O.Cist. was kind enough to mention my recent post about Julien Green on his superlative blog, Sancrucensis. But what’s more, he built off of my essay in a really wonderful way. In his post, you can find more information on Green (particularly his later years, death, and entombment) as well as a wonderful homily he wrote incorporating elements of Green’s life and spirituality. I highly recommend a view.

JulianGreenKlagenfurt

The tomb of Julian Green and his adopted son, Jean-Eric Green. (Source)

The only thing I’ll add is only tangentially related to Green. St. Egid Church, where Green is interred, is also host to one of the most remarkable chapels in existence. The Austrian artist Ernst Fuchs, a Catholic whose work draws upon the best of the Western visionary, symbolist, and esoteric tradition, was commissioned to create a chapel in the crypt. The result is…something. Although I’m a fan of Fuchs generally, I’m not convinced that his was the best approach to sacramental space. And…a clear altar?

KlagenfurtApocalypseChapel

The Apocalypse Chapel, by Ernst Fuchs. St. Egid Church, Klagenfurt, Austria. (Source)

It’s a bit too psychedelic for a temple of God, I think. But hey, I’d rather attempt to worship in this overabundance of color and image than, say, a vaguely imposing and tomb-like structure that leaves its visitors depressed. I must emphasize that Fuchs’s art really can be mystical, even sophianic. Perhaps I’ll write a post on it some time soon.

 

apocalypse-chapel

Those really are a rocket and the Statue of Liberty. Really. (Source).

And perhaps I’ll someday have the chance to visit St. Egid Church, make the pilgrimage to pray for Green at his tomb, and see the chapel myself.

Elsewhere: The Return of the Silverstream Podcast

StBenedictOraLabora

St. Benedict, his sons, and his rule. Source.

Rejoice! The best Catholic podcast has returned to the best Catholic blog. Over at Vultus Christi, Dom Mark Daniel Kirby of Silverstream Priory has announced that the podcast once again lives. I can’t recommend it highly enough. Dom Mark’s preaching, and that of his sons, is some of the most spiritually nourishing wisdom you can find online. Check it out.

Elsewhere: Daniel Mitsui’s New Blog

screen-shot-2017-02-28-at-8-20-29-pm

“Our Lady of Walsingham,” by Daniel Mitsui. Available at http://www.danielmitsui.com

Exciting news for anyone who follows the Catholic art world. Daniel Mitsui, the artist famous for his intricate, lively drawings of Christ and the Saints, has just announced that he has a new blog. The new site promises to be aesthetically and spiritually enriching. Check out his new, great project, the Summula Pictoria. I look forward to seeing what Mr. Mitsui will produce for us in the future.

And his new piece depicting St. Philip Neri is lovely, as always.

UVA’s Honor Referendum is Undemocratic

rotunda1

I took this photo of the Rotunda on Feb. 12 of this year, shortly before sunset.

What follows is an oped submited to the Cavalier Daily several days ago. As the newspaper has yet to publish it, and the polls open tomorrow, I feel a need to make it available through my own channels instead. If the piece is printed later, I will link to that here.  

Another election season has come, and with it, another Honor referendum. Instead of directly considering the question of the sanctioning system, Nathan Gonzalez and VJ Jenkins propose that we lower the threshold for Honor constitutional amendments from supermajority (60%) to qualified majority (55%). This isn’t necessarily an unreasonable idea. As Gonzalez and Jenkins rightly note, the Honor system should be responsive to the will of the student body.

Nevertheless, the proposal as it stands is unacceptable. Gonzalez and Jenkins elide the fact that the 60% mark is not the only threshold that checks the rate of change in Honor. As the Honor Constitution currently stands, at least 10% of the eligible student body must participate in the vote. That means that under the current system, 6% of the entire eligible student body can pass a binding amendment on Honor’s constitution.

The proposed change to the system would do nothing to alter this participation threshold. It would be deeply imprudent to pass it without first ensuring a much wider field of participation. This measure would in fact enable an even smaller coterie of students to make permanent changes to the system; titling it a “Democratization” amendment is a feat of mental gymnastics.

While Gonzalez and Jenkins display a real concern for the participation of minority voices in the processes that shape honor, their admirable efforts are misplaced. The focus for Honor going forward should be widening participation in voting efforts, not breaking down prudent limits that bolster the system. UBE reports that in the elections of Spring 2015, a total of 4,290 students voted in the controversial third referendum item dealing with the implementation of a multi-sanction system. Of those students, only 18.82 % of the entire student body, a mere 2,196 voted for the measure. Perhaps enough to carry the day, but in a student body of 22,800, hardly a mandate. The other referenda that year saw similar numbers and percentages. Numbers from last year’s election are better, but still dismal. Only 34.25% of the eligible student body voted on the Honor referendum (7553 out of 22,047). Within that group, 4,447 voted for Option 2, the multi-sanction measure. That’s only 20.17% of the entire University’s student body.

Under the provisions of the new amendment, not even these pitiful numbers would be necessary to enact far-reaching change to the Honor system. If the system is truly a community of trust for all, the ethical foundation of our life in common, it shouldn’t be changed hastily. The system has been responsive to student will in the past, particularly in the recent implementation of the Informed Retraction. But to lower the vote threshold without increasing the participation requirement makes the system less democratic, not more so.

Other problems with the proposal have already been identified by Olivier Weiss, who notes that the measure is a stalking horse for the failed multi-sanction proposals of the past. He argues persuasively that “The Honor Constitution should not have its permanent requirements for change diluted in the pursuit of a specific agenda.” And the Honor Committee has helpfully pointed out that, while Gonzalez and Jenkins invoke the simple-majority amendment process of 34 states, that comparison is deeply misleading. So, too, is their disingenuous representation of the Honor Committee as “entrenched” and “stubbornly resistant to change.” Any cursory glance at the recent news out of the Honor Committee would show that both the Honor Audit Commission and the IR Working Group are busily scrutinizing existing Honor institutions in light of recent elections. Jenkins, at least, is well aware of both of these initiatives, yet chooses to ignore them in his open letter. Moreover, Jenkins and Gonzalez assume that any opposition to their proposal (and implicitly to multi-sanction) is based on “elitism…traditionalism,” and racism. Never mind the abundant reasons offered by several competent writers over the years that have nothing to do with any of those nefarious -isms. It is difficult to understate the irresponsibility of this casual, needlessly divisive accusation and its impact on our collective discourse.

Regardless, the option should fail based on its own meritsor lack thereof. It doesn’t provide for the kind of smart oversight which should accompany any shift to the system. It makes the system less democratic, not more, by enabling fewer people to enact long-lasting change. And it’s built on false narratives about the history of Honor. The only reasonable option is to vote no.