Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?

By Julie Robison

Last Tuesday evening, I saw ‘Of Gods and Men’ at the only theater in Cincinnati showing the excellent French film, based on a 1995 true story. There were only three other people in the theater with me, and none of them cried like I did during the latter half of the movie. The monks’ triumphs over their own desires, and their overpowering love of God through darkness and desert, brought true grace to flow in a desperate situation.

"love is eternal hope" --five stars, see it.

‘Of Gods and Men’ is about a small group of Trappist monks who live in Algeria, serving a mostly Muslim village by providing health care and friendship. Their very familiarity with the people is what prompts more disruption in the community when radical Muslim terrorists begin inflicting terror and killing Croatians, Muslim women not wearing the burqa, and those who protested against their regime. The scene of Christmas night, the fateful night when the terrorists went to the monastery, showed the true caliber of the monks. In an effort to reach common ground, one monk referenced the Qu’ran to remind the leader that Christians and Muslims are brothers under one God, not enemies.

The monastery’s relationship with the government was significantly less cordial, and the “might makes right” attitude pervades the actions of the overly aggressive military force against the peaceful monks. When one monk prays over the body of one of the Muslim terrorists whom he is being forced to identify, the disrespect for the dead and human life is evident through the passive-aggressive anger of the government official. It cannot be surprising, then, that the monks’ lives were not respected either.

It is no coincidence, in my mind at least, that Osama Bin Laden was killed on May 1, 2011. In the Roman Catholic Church, May 1 was Divine Mercy Sunday—and who can be more in need of God’s divine mercy than the mastermind behind the ruthless attack on September 11, 2001, affecting thousands of souls? The celebrations of the man’s death prompted P. Fredrico Lombardi, the Director of the Holy See Press Office, to release this statement:

Remembering Reagan's Compassion

The Hauenstein Center--September 17, 2010

By Barbara J. Elliott

For the past 15 years, I have been involved with philanthropy in America – as a philanthropic advisor to donors, as a social entrepreneur, a nonprofit leader, and advisor to leaders of faith-based organizations that serve the homeless, prisoners, recovering addicts, and at-risk children.  I also collaborated with the efforts of the Bush Administration’s Faith-Based Initiative.

In a previous phase of my life, I had the honor of being appointed by President Ronald Reagan to serve in The White House in the Office of Public Liaison, where I was responsible for the White House briefings on the economic program for the business community.  From that vantage point, I got a bird’s eye view of the Administration’s efforts to revitalize the America’s public and private sectors. I was in the thick of it, putting on briefings day in and day out, with cabinet secretaries and their deputies as spokesmen, as well as key White House staff.  In the first year everybody wanted to meet with the President--- and everybody had an agenda, as we discovered.   

Ronald Reagan came to the presidency with a body of knowledge and convictions honed during his years as a spokesman for General Electric, where he gave hundreds of talks on all manner of subjects, long before he entered the political arena.  He had a deep and abiding faith in the prudence and wisdom of people at the grass roots level to manage their own lives well, if left free from government intrusion.  We know a lot of his thoughts from the handwritten commentaries he wrote in preparation for his radio broadcasts in the 1970s, published in the book:  Reagan In His Own Hand. For his critics who claimed he was a “great communicator” because Peggy Noonan and others put great words in his mouth, this book is a rebuke. These are vintage Reagan talks--- all written in his longhand—and they tell us a lot about the contours of the heart and mind of Ronald Reagan long before he became president. 

Review of Arthur C. Brooks' "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism America’s Charity Divide – Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why it Matters"

By Barbara J. Elliott

 

We live in two Americas: “America the Selfish” and “America the Charitable,” according to Arthur Brooks. If one maps these two Americas, their boundaries align closely to the political blue and red states: the red states give more. The bright line that delineates the charitable from the selfish is their convictions, both political and religious. And research shows that conservative people of faith put their money where a secular liberal’s mouth is.

Brooks is a professor of public administration at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University, and a consummate cruncher of numbers. When he received his first results, he did not believe them—or did not want to. So he ran them again. He had assumed that the people who are most vociferous about socioeconomic inequality would give the most to alleviate it. He was shocked to find that is not the case. Brooks came up with some eye-opening conclusions:

·      Despite their reputation as “caring,” political liberals give less of their income to charitable causes than conservatives.

·      People who mistrust big government give more of their money and time as volunteers to take care of the poor themselves.

·      Government spending displaces private dollars to charities, weakening their ability to garner private support.

·      People who are religious give more across the board, not only to religious causes but to non-religious charities as well.

·      Charity isn’t just a rich man’s activity: The working poor give a greater proportion of their income than the middle or upper classes.

·      Americans give far more money and volunteer much more frequently than Europeans.

·      Charitable giving fosters not only personal happiness, but economic growth and prosperity.

Who gives in America? About three out of four families give charitable gifts each year. The average amount is $1,800, or 3.5 percent of their income. Brooks finds that the most generous donors have four key traits: religious faith, skepticism about the government in economic life, strong families, and personal entrepreneurism. Where these converge, dollars flow freely toward charitable causes.

The Conservative call to be the Good Samaritan

By Brittany Baldwin

This summer, as Barbara Elliott graciously brought me along to a banquet for a charity in Houston, one thing struck me as particularly sobering: While the two Democrat representatives were present, not one Republican representative made an appearance. Why is it that Democrats have complete reigns on the issue of poverty? It is quite legitimate for Republicans to discourage and oppose public funds, but if they are adamantly opposing public funds, they must be willing to promote private charities.

I do not dare equate Republicans and Conservatives, for we all know that in this day and age they often diverge more than they intersect, but if the Republican party is in fact the more Conservative of the two, why are they neglecting poverty issues? As Russell Kirk often highlights, liberty must be married to order, rights must correspond with duties, and capitalism must have a conscience.

The conscience of capitalism is essential for a flourishing society. It is the moral root that grounds our society, and reflects the generous hearts of the people, rather than self-centered greed. Our Founders understood this, and wrote about it often. In a letter to Mercy Otis Warren, John Adams wrote, “Public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics. There must be a positive Passion for the public good…established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real liberty… Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private Pleasure, Passions and Interest, nay, their private Friendships and dearest Connections, when they stand in competition with the Rights of Society.”

"A positive passion for the public good." Is this something that is evident in the Republican candidates of 2010? Do we see free market advocates promoting charity just as much as they promote hands-off government? If the government removes their hand from public poverty, the free market conservatives must be the ones willing to reach into their pockets and give to the hungry, the orphaned, and the sick. This is not to say that many conservatives do not already donate much time and money to people in need, and often do it quietly and humbly, but it is to say, that public conservatives must take a stand on the issue, instead of being content to let the Democrats have that one, while they convert more and more inner city communities and factory workers and poor agrarians to the socialist policies of the liberals because the needy see no alternative. We conservatives must give them an alternative, and we must do it with boldness and compassion. We must step out of our SUVs, finely furnished homes, and comfortable communities, and walk into their world for a moment. We must befriend those in need, provide ways to bring them out of poverty, and serve them with our resources, our time, and our hearts.

Hospitality: An Invitation to Love

I have witnessed both Christ-like hospitality and Southern hospitality, which often echoes Calypso more than Eumaios, especially as I waver between residence at a hearty Midwestern college, and the quasi-southern quasi-international metropolis of Houston, my family’s home. But, in the midst of having found genuine people in both settings, I have discovered that I have the opportunity to awaken others to the beauty of the transcendent. It is not because I am a saint, for I am not, but because I understand one simple concept which equips me to serve and welcome others—hospitality. This word hospitality plays a vital role in the reflection of the human heart. From Eumaios’ care for the old man to Plato’s welcoming of intellectual discussion, as he invites others to join him in his quest for truth, from Abraham’s welcoming of the Divine to Christ’s open arms in heaven, from Babbitt’s feast to the shepherds sacrifice for Father Valiant in Cather’s "Death For the Archbishop", true hospitality never ceases to reveal some aspect of the Divine. As individuals welcome friends and neighbors, coworkers and intellectuals, into their homes, they have the opportunity to manifest Christ’s sacrificial love—to give up their own comfort in order to give others a real sense of Christ’s love.

Russell Kirk and his wife, Annette, have always exuded this Christ-like hospitality, as they welcomed refugees, hobos, professors, students, and curious individuals into their home, which is why Piety Hill seems to be such a fitting name for that rather majestic house in Mecosta, Michigan. For, Russell Kirk knew what it was to be a Conservative because he understood the cult--that is, the community's reverence for the Divine--to be the center of life on earth. He lived this transcendent ideal in his quaint, Gothic-style, catholic home. He was a host to Conservatism, both in the books he wrote and the life he lead, and we must aspire to open our doors in order to rekindle the cult.