ARE WE IN THE MIDST OF A CULTURAL REVOLUTION?

Since the 1960s, the U.S. has become a more inclusive country. This necessarily meant that white men lost some part of their privileged positions in education, employment and entertainment. By the 2000s, in the wake of the “Black Lives Matter” movement, anti-racism books were on the best sellers list, major corporations were examining their hiring and promotion policies, and educational institutions were beginning to address structural racism. The backlash has been intense. Using his “Project 2025” blueprint, following his election, President Trump and company have been more than eager to rewind the clock to before the various civil rights movements, back even to before the Fourteenth Amendment that added “Birthright Citizenship” to the Constitution in 1868. The intensity of the administration’s attack on dominant values and structural elements of our society has convinced analysts and observers that its objective is to dramatically reshape our cultural norms – in fact to create a cultural revolution. The term “Cultural Revolution” is most closely associated with China’s Proletarian Revolution, spearheaded by Mao Zedong between 1966 and 1976, and Iran’s Cultural Revolution from 1980 to 1987 – two radical movements that upended institutions, targeted intellectuals and reshaped society to fit ideological purity tests. These revolutions led to the purging of educators, the rewriting of history, and the persecution of those who refused to conform. President Trump is currently involved in executing a cultural revolution as thoroughgoing in its ambitions and potential destructiveness as what Mao unleashed in China during the mid-1960s. During its revolution, China purged its intellectuals, universities were gutted, professors were publicly humiliated, research was shut down, and expertise was replaced with ideological loyalty. Similar patterns are emerging in the U.S. Although from a different ideological angle, we are beginning to observe a resurgence of ideological purges in education. Books are banned in dozens of states, from works on race and civil rights to literature about LGBTQ+ experiences. Universities are being defunded, and research grants are disappearing. Professors are targeted for their political beliefs. Teachers are being dismissed or intimidated for teaching so-called “divisive” subjects like systemic racism, gender studies and the history of oppression. Words like diversity, equity and climate change are erased from curricula. Entire academic fields are under attack for being “woke.” And the Department of Education is likely to be axed. Educators now face losing their jobs for acknowledging historical truths that some find uncomfortable. Federal employees have been directed to report colleagues engaged in D.E.I. initiatives, with warnings of “adverse consequences” for non-compliance. Team MAGA wants a “second American Revolution” that roots out all vestiges of progressivism, liberalism and secularism, which, according to Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, “will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” President Trump and his supporters borrowed some of their strategy from his good friend Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary, who turned his country’s political system from being based on liberal principles into a patronage system run along illiberal lines, meaning a system where individual rights are no longer protected. Orban’s compliant legislature allowed him to concentrate power in the executive, deconstruct the Hungarian political system from the inside by stacking the courts, suppressing civil society and controlling right-wing media. The Trump administration is doing an admirable job emulating Orban’s “accomplishments.” During China’s Proletarian Revolution between 1 and 2 million people lost their lives. We are certainly not there. However, many thousands have already unceremoniously lost their livelihood and we are only a little more than four months into this process. Sit tight! Theo Wierdsma

WILL POPE LEO ADDRESS A PERENNIAL QUESTION?

With American-born Cardinal Robert Prevost's elevation to the papacy, Pope Leo XIV, elected to lead the 1.46 billion Catholics world-wide, a number of significant reemerging questions are bound to surface. The first, and presumably significant indicator of the new pope's predilection on how to guide the Church's religious and political policy was about the selection of the new pontiff's choice of by what namesake he will be known going forward. Popes are not required to change their name. However, every pontiff for the past 470 years has done so, usually choosing the name of a predecessor to both honor him and signal their intention to emulate his example. Cardinal Prevost's selection of Leo XIV was significant because it indicated that the newly elected pontiff's policies appeared to promise to stick fairly closely to those of his predecessor, Pope Francis. Historically, many observers tend to focus on the reputation of Pope Leo XIII, who was known for producing his 1891 encyclical "Rerum Novarum," translated as "new things," or "revolutionary change." His document addressed the social and economic conditions of the Industrial Revolution, affirming the rights of the poor and obligations for those more fortunate. Pope Leo's adopted namesakes developed impressive historical notoriety for other reasons as well. Pope Leo I - "The Great" - became known for meeting face to face with Attila the Hun in 452, and persuaded him to turn back from his invasion of Italy. Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne, King of the Franks, as Emperor of the Romans - a symbolic act that significantly impacted the relationship between the papacy and the emerging Western empire. In 1521, Pope Leo X excommunicated Martin Luther as a heretic, excluding him from participating in the sacraments and services of the Church. While this historic legacy will be much to live up to for the new pontiff, one of the contemporary issues that will again confront the new Papal administration is the perennial topic of female priests in the Church. A year or two before my mother passed, she adamantly, and perhaps proudly, pronounced that The Netherlands now had female priests - "priestesses" - running the symbolic rituals of Catholic worship celebrations. I was not terrifically surprised. After all, the Dutch Church had shown its independence for years. One of my brothers had even been appointed to a committee assigned to confirm the suitability of new bishops the Vatican proposed to select for the country. Eventually, my mother's funeral was officiated by this "priestess" who I addressed as "pastor" during my eulogy. When I discussed this turn of events with friends who identified with "Opus Dei," a conservative Apostolate in the Catholic Church, I was told that there existed no such thing as female priests. Upon reflection, it may well be that my mom's "priestess" was essentially a Deacon ordained to serve her bishop and perform multiple procedures, including assisting at Mass, baptisms, funerals, and witnessing marriages, but not intended to lead a parish or religious order focusing on sacramental celebrations. While Pope Leo XIV's predecessor Pope Francis appeared to crack open the door for LGBTQ+ people, allowing them to be baptized under the same conditions as other believers, he continued to reaffirm the "men-only" rule for the priesthood. He confirmed the veracity of the declaration issued after the "Congregation for the doctrine of the faith" was issued in 1976, which for doctrinal, theological and historic reasons, the Church did "not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination." This ruling was reinforced by Pope John Paul II in May of 1994 in his apostolic letter "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis." Nevertheless, a growing movement, focused on changing the Vatican's edict on women priests, seems to be very much alive. With the advent of new papal leadership, this movement appears to sense an opportunity to push for their voices to be heard. Just recently, in a podcast, they received support from Swiss Bishop Markus Buchel of Saint Gallen, who openly advocated for the inclusion of female priests, arguing that the Church has a "consecration emergency." More and more women in this movement are defying Catholic Church tradition by actually becoming priests. Many of these are not part of the institutional Roman Catholic Church, but rather subscribe to the Roman Catholic Women Priests (RCWP) organization. On July 29, 2002, a group of seven women from Germany, Austria, and the U.S. were ordained to the priesthood by a Roman Catholic bishop, Romulo Antonio Braschi, on a ship cruising the Danube. The seven women were not recognized as valid by the Vatican, and Bishop Braschi and some of the women were excommunicated. However, the movement continues to ordain women to the priesthood, and it has expanded internationally. The Vatican continues to forbid the process, citing the Bible's record that Jesus only chose male apostles and almost 2,000 years of precedent. Nevertheless, research done by the "New Yorker" and "The Nation" identified almost 200 women that have been ordained in various unauthorized ways, considering themselves legitimate priests. Unless he chooses to hide behind centuries of tradition, Pope Leo XIV will likely, at some point, be forced to address this perennial question again. Theo Wierdsma