By the second April 10, as the African Synod opened in Rome--the official title for this meeting is 'The Special Assembly for Africa of the Synod of Bishops"--details had just reached the outside world of the slaughter in Rwanda. Among those killed in the wave of "ethnic cleansing" were 19 Africans gathered at the Jesuits' Christus Centre in the Rwandan capital, Kigali: nine young Rwandan sis¬ters of the congregation "Vita et Pax"; the Rwandan cook; a Rwandan social worker who had apparently sought refuge there; five Rwandan diocesan priests meeting at the center, and three Rwandan Jesuit priests.
At Jesuit headquarters in Rome, African bishops who had arrived for the synod joined the Jesuits' superior general and young African Jesuits studying in Rome to pray for all the victims of ethnic violence in central Africa and for the restoration of justice and peace. The Jesuits who died were remembered precisely for their work at the Christus Centre, which was dedicated to ethnic reconciliation and the protection of the vulnerable.
The term "ethnic cleansing," as we know all too well from former Yugoslavia, is a European coinage. There is nothing specially African about either the euphemism or the reality. As in the Balkans, so in Rwanda, efforts to understand what is happening fall back on terms like "ancient hatreds" and "historic grievances," but there is nothing predestined or inevitable about it. As in the Balkans, so too in Rwanda, unscrupulous and weak-minded politicians--in this case, not hard-line Serbs but hard-line Hutus--have seized upon an unsettled moment to grab more power for themselves and their party by killing off political opponents, mostly Tutsis, but also Hutus working for political reconciliation. Waving the ethnic banner, as in the Balkans, the hard-liners have unleashed ignorant men to massacre the "others," and by
For America's centennial celebration in 2009 James T. Keane, S.J., and Jim McDermott, S.J., authored a series of articles on pivotal episodes in the magazine's history.
"A Man of Independent Character: John J. Wynne and the founding of America Magazine,"
The helicopter that lifted Richard Nixon from the White House lawn nearly three years ago seemed an angel of mercy, rescuing the nation from the long, painful nightmare of Watergate. As it turned out, however, the bad dream had its afterglow, and books and articles by the dozen promised the inside story of the final days and a psychological profile of the man at the center of the scandals. The former President has till now maintained a dignified distance from Watergate post-mortems.
The silence could not last. Richard Nixon is a personality both born and destroyed in the media. His series of conversations with David Frost, on reflection, was inevitable. He has always been compelled to bring his case directly to the people, from the time he defended his campaign expenses in the "Checkers" speech in 1952 to his long and tortured explanations of Watergate. Now, once again, he is confronting the cameras in an attempt to salvage his reputation and, perhaps, even begin a retum to public life.
The careful staging of the media event points out once more that tragic lack of a sense of propriety which seems to haunt the man and those he chooses as his associates. In fact, he is allowing his potential confession to be marketed by the show-business entrepreneur, David Frost, in the same way he allowed his Presidency to be marketed by admen, Messrs. Haldeman, Erlichman and Ziegler. None of the networks would air the series, since "checkbook journalism," the competitive bidding for personality news, is generally thought to devalue news departments. When commercial sales lagged, a few leaks hinted at startling new revelations, and the spiciest segment, dealing with Watergate, was moved from the last of the four evenings to the first, to generate press coverage and advertising revenue. It succeeded. Mr. Nixon will earn close to $1 million and Mr. Frost about twice that amount. Time, Newsweek, The New York Times and CBS all gave feature space to the series.
Beginning in Advent of 2011, the U.S. church will be using a new English translation of the Roman Missal. The current translation was promulgated in 1973, and for the past past several years the International Commission on English has been working on a new text. The controversy surrounding this translation, including the decision not to use a text proposed by an earlier iteration of ICEL, has been well documented in America. Here we offer a selection of our coverage from both our print and online editions. Cardinal Roger M. Mahony's essay on the new Missal, "A Graced Moment," appears in the May 23 issue.
"Liturgists Worry About Upcoming Implementation," Signs of the Times, February 14, 2011
"An Open Letter to the U.S. Catholic Bishops," Anthony Ruff, O.S.B., Web Only
"Bringing Liturgy to Life," Steven P. Millies, February 7, 2011
"For You and Who Else?" Paul Philibert, January 3, 2011
Examples of the new texts, Web Only
"Liturgists Prepare for Coming Changes in Mass Text," Signs of the Times, August 2, 2010
"Welcoming the Roman Missal," Arthur J. Serratelli, March 1, 2010
"Defending the New Missal," Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Web Only
"What If We Said, 'Wait'?" Michael G. Ryan, December 14, 2009
"How Accessible Are the New Mass Translations?" Donald W. Trautman, May 21, 2007
"The Quest for Authentic Liturgy," Donald W. Trautman, October 22, 2001