Her name means “The Blessed Virgin Mary of Solitude”, speaks about her Catholic Faith, from the Sioux City Journal:
In 1998, she traveled to Cuba to cover Pope John Paul II’s historic visit. She recalled that people thought the visit would be a turning point for those who wanted to practice their religion freely.
“I was looking for my mother’s old apartment and had a chance to talk with some people in the building,” she said. “They asked me, ‘What is it like to practice your religion?’ and I had never thought about that. It amazed me.”
O’Brien said now that she is a mother, she is more cognizant of the message children receive from adults.
“What values of life do we live and not just state,” she asked. “And what values as a nation do we have? It’s both terrifying and freeing to realize the future is in our hands.”
O’Brien quoted President John F. Kennedy’s reference that “the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.”
“People willing to be a lone voice even when it’s not OK is important,” she said.
“People often define you by your job,” she noted. “Jobs come and go. What defines you as a human being is more important.”
Filed under: CNN, Soledad O'Brien
Mr. Dubruiel,
I have an interesting observation on your last three posts. Each has a strong element of discussion of the national government’s involvement in the life of the faith. The first two: Jogues and Gaspar, have contrasting relationships to the French central government, one a clear emissary in which the promulgation of the faith was a clear element in the subjugation of the Indians in the New World by France (whose subjugation was noted to be both a fair and occasionally oppressive action). Gaspar was rejected by a tyrannical subsequent French government. And O’Brien reflects on practicing religion in the environment of oppressive atheism.
I am both fascinated often and highly critical of the way central governments seduce religion as an element of its policy, claiming that Jogues had this occur (history suggests this)-without denying his sanctity and I wonder in this current materialistic atheistic environment, how much co-option has occurred. (Actually, I claim that co-option by Republicans is the routine, and at least the Democrats are honest about their exclusive worship of power and wealth.)
On the flip side, at least there is tolerance of my faith in the sense of very broad freedoms to practice it, talk about it, and prosetylize (spelled well? I’m too lazy to look up spelling now). To act on behalf of the poor, organize on their behlaf and with them, something that the upcoming season of El Salvadoran martyrs prepares me (Dec 2-the death of the four churchwomen, and Nov 19th is the death of the UCA martyrs) to recognize that this is not a universal arrangement.
Which also brings me to the thoughts of the sanctity of martyrs, the reputed need for political ideological purity, and the slow acceptance of the martyrdom of the Central American priests and bishops as martyrs in the conservative elements of the Church. Romero needed to be cleared by the CDF before advancing his cause. When did this requirement occur, since we just had a torturer beatified, and celebrate in the Roman calendar a heretic who was martyred for the faith?
Government relations form a clear feature of certain determinations of an individual saints relationship with the Church. The determination seems to depend on the approval stamp on the oppressive government in question.
The role of governments and our detachments with regard to them, as well as their political programs and ideology is a critical step in our development as a global Church. Why should we be attached to a government that supported and promoted the deaths of other Catholics and priests in Central America? And we create hagiographies around the architects of these activities and approaches to oppression.
What is the role of the Church in a center of power like the US? Is it like the Church described by the Gospel of Mark-a Gospel written under oppression in Rome? In which one of the demons is named “Legion?”
How do nationalistic approaches or political party ideologies rupture the Body of Christ?
While I have clear thoughts (hypothetical approaches really) on the matter, I offer the questions.