At Long Last, Mary Magdalen Gets a Promotion

Mary of Magdela,

Apostle to the Apostles

This book by Susan

Haskins is one of a number

of books which up date

this inspiring woman

for a modern audience

Madeline Mancini was my godmother at Baptism. She had been my mother's sponsor at Confirmation and maid of honor at her wedding. Madeline was an Italian immigrant who reached the rank of assistant to a top New York City couture designer and later built her own fashion business in California. My baptism was rushed because she was dashing to the west coast with only $500 in her pocket and a dream urging her on.

Her name was chosen for my middle name and she seemed in my childhood to be a fairy godmother who would infrequently and unexpectedly fly east to drop into our lives with beautiful gifts and sophisticated news. She was good and she was wise and she was always generous.

July 22, the day set aside in the Roman calendar in honor of St. Mary Magdalene, has special significance for me not only because of my godmother but also as the day I entered religious life. She became my patron. But as I studied scripture and read her story and learned of how her reputation had been maligned through the ages, I became even more respectful of her position among the closest of Jesus' followers and dismayed at a lack of due respect.

Recently Pope Francis raised the commemoration of St. Mary Magdalene on July 22 from that of a simple memorial to the level of feast. It has been reported by CRUX that "liturgically speaking, the decision by Pope Francis....puts Mary Magdalene's feast on par with the celebrations of the male apostles, with a Vatican official hailing her as 'an example and model for every woman in the Church.' " Finally, Mary of Magdala is getting the recognition she requires because she was, as St. Thomas Aquinas named her, "Apostle to the Apostles." During the Solemnity of the Easter Feast and the octave that follows one is impressed with the number of times her name appears in the scripture readings for Mass.

Most in our Church are not aware of the subtle differences in liturgical celebration between a commemoration, memorial, feast and solemnity. Sacristans are usually the most knowledgeable about what each level of celebration requires. Often priests don't often realize the requirements. Therefore, most Catholics need some catechesis or explanation of the true significance of this decision apart from the formal rules of liturgical celebration. What is of real importance are the facts at the heart of this change and their meaning for the People of God.

I hope that on July 22 priests and catechists will find a way

to let people in on the not so secret secret that Mary Magdalen held an important place in the most intimate circle surrounding Jesus; that it is probable she was a leader among the woman who traveled with him and saw to his needs as well as those of the men who followed him.  This group of women supported the ministry from their own means and took, in some cases, considerable risk in demonstrating their loyalty to this itinerant preacher. How did Mary Magdalen achieve this position, after all she was an outsider, a woman who seemed to be of some means and whose personal story is not revealed in scripture. Yet we have received in great and unusual detail the moving  account of her devotion to the crucified Lord; the effort at the dawn of day to anoint his body in death and the astonishing reward of encountering Him risen and glorified pronouncing her name.

Scripture scholarship encouraged by the Church over the last 75 years has brought us to new understanding of who Mary Magdalen was. A great effort has been made to correct a thousand years of popular Christian culture which had conflated or mistakenly combined the accounts of three women in the Gospel stories and identify the result as Mary Magdalene. Art, popular literature and poor teaching lumped the woman caught in adultery, the sinful woman who anointed Jesus at Bethany and Mary Magdalene, "from who seven demons had been driven out." Scholars uniformly tell us that these are three separate woman. There is also no hint at all about the nature of Mary Magdalene's demons. We do know that in Jesus' time any physical infirmity or abnormal behavior was attributed to the evil work of demons dwelling within the person. So Mary may have suffered from some physical illness or disability or some mental illness that we might label as a personality disorder or depression among others.

So what might the Church be teaching us when they describe St. Mary Magdalene as "example and model". It is clearly not an image of repentant sinner, as she has so often been depicted. Rather she is a model of dedication and devotion, courage and conviction and very great love. These gifts enabled her to contribute to Jesus' ministry, to support Him on the path to Jerusalem, and to work well with others in the effort. Not to be forgotten is the scene at the foot of the cross; she steadfastly remained rooted in face of horror still supporting her Lord as well as his agonized mother.

On the Feast of St. Mary Magdalene may we be inspired to working well with others to speak as Jesus spoke supporting His teaching of love and mercy wherever we find ourselves. May we learn to be remain rooted at the foot of the Cross as we struggle with our own suffering and that of our poor world. And may we carry in our hearts the hope offered to her in the garden so that we too may declare, "I have seenthe Lord".                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

"The West Wing" As Corrective Civics Lesson

Notes on Instructive Television

Two factors have driven me to the ranks of Amazon Prime and Netflix users. In 1961, Newton Minow, one of the seven Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under President John Kennedy, famously labeled commercial television "a vast wasteland" in a speech before the National Broadcasters Association. More than fifty years later his observation is no less true. More channels are available than ever before but the quality of programming seems only to decrease with quantity. The second factor is my personal need to update myself in the area of cultural literacy. Older nuns speak of "the black out years" of their early religious life when TV and newspapers were often strictly forbidden. Although things were very different in my experience, there still was not much TV and certainly no cocktail party conversation about the latest media.

Wanting to watch something worthwhile and fill the gaps in my cultural literacy, I have been binge watching "The West Wing". Wikipedia reports "The West Wing is an American serial political drama television series created by Aaron Sorkin that was originally broadcast on NBC from September 22, 1999, to May 14, 2006. The series is set primarily in the West Wing of the White House, where the Oval Office and `offices of presidential senior staff are located, during the fictitious Democratic administration of Josiah Bartlet (played by Martin Sheen)."

Some may be commenting, "Poor Hilda, is she really reduced to that?" But I have found that this awarding-winning television series offers a brand of dignity, righteousness and patriotism which makes the current political scene in our country look like the worst of vulgar situation comedies.

Wikipedia also commented:

Despite acclaim for the veracity of the series, Sorkin [creator] believed, "our responsibility is to captivate you for however long we've asked for your attention." Former White House aide Matthew Miller noted that Sorkin "captivates viewers by making the human side of politics more real than life—or at least more real than the picture we get from the news." Miller also noted that by portraying politicians with empathy, the show created a "subversive competitor" to the cynical views of politics in media. In the essay "The West Wing and the West Wing", author Myron Levine agreed, stating that the series "presents an essentially positive view of public service and a healthy corrective to anti-Washington stereotypes and public cynicism.

Dr. Staci L. Beavers, associate professor of political science at California State University, San Marcos, wrote a short essay, "The West Wing as a Pedagogical Tool". She concluded, "While the series' purpose is for-profit entertainment, The West Wing presents great pedagogical potential." The West Wing, in her opinion, gave greater depth to the political process usually espoused only in stilted talking points on shows like Face the Nation and Meet the Press.... In Beavers' opinion, a critical analysis of the show's political views can present a worthwhile learning experience to the view.

Although admirable for other reasons, the later popular political drama series moved into a much darker place presenting totally disillusioning stories of nefarious political motivations and downright evil in "House of Cards." And then came "ABCs "Scandal" where the adjective depraved may be most apt.

So this reviewer highly recommends viewing "The West Wing" as a valuable civics lesson for the uninformed or merely jaded. You may find it restorative in its hopeful reality and in observing the better angels of our nature play their part on behalf of the interests of this democracy and all its people.

"Where did our wages go?"

Discontent of the Electorate

Driving Movement to the Fringe

They are still asking "Why?" Why is it that Donald Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States while Bernie Sanders is giving Hilary Clinton a run for her money." I continue here to provide at least one answer. Keep this answer in mind when you think about how you will vote in the election. Keep in mind who or what is more responsible for wealth inequality in our country. And by all means, get out there and VOTE.

Reliable statistics support the conclusion that 80% of the workers

in this country are either voicing or have quietly eating away at them the belief that their take home pay today gets them no further than it did any number of years ago. We could go back even thirty years and that would be a fact.

In 2014 the Pew Research Center reported, "...for most US workers, real wages - that is, after inflation is taken into account - have been flat or even falling for decades, regardless of whether the economy has been adding or subtracting jobs." 2014 wages had the same purchasing power as 1979.

In 2014 Fortune Magazine published an article entitled Wealth Inequality in America: It's Worse Than You Think written by Chris Matthews. Extrapolating from the Pew statistics he wrote, "In real terms average wages peaked more than 40 years ago: the $4.03 an hour average rate recorded in 1973 had the same purchasing power as $22.41 [an hour average] would today."

Since the year 2000 weekly wages have fallen 3.7% on average with the lowest 10% of wage earners experiencing a 3% decrease while the top 10% enjoyed an increase of 9.7%.

Matthews went on to report statistics compiled by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics. They reveal that while the share of total income of the top 1% of earners was 10% of all American wages in the 1970s, it now exceeds 20% of the total of earned wages in the US.

In terms of net family assets the top 1% includes 160,00 families each with total net assets of 20 million dollars or more. Meaning that the top 1% own more than that the 145 million families in the following 99%. As bad as the wage inequality reported may be, asset inequality is ten times worse statistically.

Why has the inequality of wages and assets increased? Saez and Sucman offer a few reasons:

Trend of making taxes less progressive since the 1970s

Changing job market (loss of manufacturing and trade agreements) forcing blue collar workers to compete with cheaper labor abroad

Deregulation of financial institutions making it easier for families and individuals to accumulate debt

Stagnant wage growth

Decreasing savings rate of the middle class

After citing the social repercussions of these disparities, Matthew's concludes: "In other words there's evidence that rising inequality and many other intractable social problems are related. Not only is rising inequality bad for business, it's bad for society too."

AND NOW, on to the Presidential Election

They Just Don't Get It

Political Commentary


The Electorate is Angry - Is It Any Wonder


How can political operatives and pundits continue to express their incomprehension of voter angst expressed in the astonishing rise of Donald Trump. Clearly they are not students of history nor, in spite of their professional positions, students of political science. In addition, they make it abundantly clear that they have no awareness of the plight of a diminishing middle class and and the resulting growth of the underclass living in poverty in our country. How can they not see it?

Recently quoted in a New York Time editorial was a Republical insider with roots in the Regan administration who stated, " I have never seen us to thoroughly screwed up." Another party official said, " Maybe we really do need time in the wilderness to figure out what we don't get about our own voters."  Time in the wilderness? How about time on Main Street with people who feel like they are getting nowhere and slogging through increasingly threatening seas?

Here are some statistics which they need to memorize as informative context for any deliberation concerning what has happened to their party and, much more importantly, to our citizens.

In 2012 the mean income of the top 10% of household wealth in the country was $1,318,000.
In 2012 the mean income of the bottom 40% of households was $17,300.

In 2010 1% of the population held 35.4% of all privately held wealth in the US.
The next 19% owned 53.5% of all privately held wealth in the US.
That means that 20% of the population owned 89% of all privately held wealth in the country.
Which in turn means that 11% of the wealth was left for the remaining 80% of the people.

In 1983 the bottom 80% of the population owned 18.7% of the privately held wealth.
In 2010 the bottom 80% held only 11.1%

More information about the top 10%:
The top 10% own 35% of all stock, 64.4% of financial securities, 63.4% of business equity.

In 2010, the bottom 90% of the population owned only 12% of the total investment assets in this country.

So the vast majority of our citizens feel as if they reside in the bottom of the toothpaste tube, having
had all they worked so hard to attain or guarantee slowly but surely squeezed out of their lives.

Next I will report about the changes in real income among the vast majority of citizens since 1980. The bottom line will be that none but the very wealthy have gotten ahead.

Voting, Your Right

Register to Vote

Much on my mind these last weeks has been how I might speak out concerning the current political climate in our country - it is a situation that seriously threatens our system of government and constitutional democracy. There is historical record of the disastrous consequences which can come to pass when citizens have not spoken out due to the mistaken judgement that "surely this aberration will go away". That is magical thinking.

ALL OF US MUST VOTE IN THE NEXT ELECTION. Registered voters who declare themselves for a particular party can vote in the NY State Primary Election on April 19. You must be registered by March 25 - this coming Friday - in order to vote in the primary. Applications mailed in must be postmarked by midnight on the 25th. You can register on line at https://www.pdffiller.com/6963321-v... can also register via the Department of Motor Vehicles Website.

My appeal is that you exercise your right to vote. Many, many have died to protect your right to do so in a free and democratic society. Do not dismiss the meaning of their sacrifice.