Scully, legendary Dodgers broadcaster and 1949 Fordham graduate, will receive a Presidential Medal of Freedom in a special ceremony at the White House this afternoon. The medal is presented to individuals who have made extraordinary contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.

Scully joins an illustrious list of recipients, including philanthropists Bill and Melinda Gates; basketball player Kareem Abdul-Jabbar; NASA scientist Margaret H. Hamilton; and actor Tom Hanks.

“The Presidential Medal of Freedom is not just our nation’s highest civilian honor—it’s a tribute to the idea that all of us, no matter where we come from, have the opportunity to change this country for the better,” President Obama said in a statement.

“From scientists, philanthropists, and public servants to activists, athletes, and artists, these 21 individuals have helped push America forward, inspiring millions of people around the world along the way.”

Watch the live ceremony starting at 2:55 p.m.

President Barack Obama has named former federal judge Arthur J. Gonzalez, GABELLI ’69, LAW ’82, to the oversight board created by Congress to address the economic crisis in Puerto Rico, the White House has announced.

Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the New York University School of Law and former chief judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, is one of seven people appointed to the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico. The board was created on June 30 to restore economic opportunity in Puerto Rico by helping the U.S. territory restructure its debt and control spending.

Gonzalez grew up in Brooklyn, earned a degree in accounting from Fordham, and worked as a New York City public school teacher for 13 years before earning his Fordham law degree in 1982.

After serving in the IRS Office of Chief Counsel and working in private practice, he started his 17 years of service as a bankruptcy judge in 1995. He handled some of the nation’s largest and most high-profile bankruptcy cases, including those of Enron, WorldCom, and Chrysler, and was awarded the Medal of Achievement from the Fordham Law Alumni Association in 2012.

In a 2007 profile in FORDHAM magazine, he credited Fordham’s Jesuit tradition for the role it played in his career success. “Jesuit education encourages thinking, analysis, and generally provides a good foundation for understanding the subject matter while encouraging a commitment to community and service,” he said.

The new policy delineates the role that government agencies will play going forward in preventing and responding to potential as well as active cybersecurity incidents, said Lisa Monaco, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism. She made her remarks at the opening session of the International Conference on Cyber Security (ICCS), cosponsored by Fordham and the FBI.

“[The policy] commits to unifying the government’s response across agencies, and it emphasizes that our response will be focused on helping victims of cyber incidents recover quickly,” Monaco said.

“This directive establishes a clear framework to coordinate the government’s response to such incidents. It spells out which federal agencies are responsible. And it will help answer a question heard too often from corporations and citizens alike—in the wake of an attack, who do I call for help?”

The FBI will lead responses to any immediate threat (just as it does in cases of terrorism, Monaco said) to find out whether those responsible are terrorists, other countries, or criminals.

The Department of Homeland Security will assist the victims of an attack or intrusion, supplying federal resources to aid recovery and providing technical assistance to protect the attacked organization’s assets, bring systems back online, and decrease vulnerabilities.

Finally, the newly formed Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center (CTIIC), which operates under the Director of National Intelligence, will serve as the point agency for all cyber-related intelligence. Having a single entity integrating and analyzing this information will allow for more rapid and streamlined efforts to disrupt threats, Monaco said.

“In all these efforts, the framework we apply when considering the use of cyber operations is quite similar to how we approach other operations in the physical world. Any actions we take must be consistent with our values, and after we assess the potential for collateral damage and consider other potential options. We consider the likely reaction of the target, our allies, and other countries who may be affected, and we consider whether the effects of a cyber operation could lead to escalation and greater conflict,” she said.

“I believe we can do this. Humans invented cyberspace and we can manage the challenges it generates. Over the past seven and a half years, we’ve made tremendous progress. The framework and actions we’re putting in place today are another strong step forward.”

Monaco’s announcement followed the keynote address from James Trainor, assistant director of the FBI’s cyber division, who stressed the importance of collaboration in the face of cyber threats.

Trainor cited the U.S. Intelligence Community’s annual Worldwide Threat Assessment, which for the last three years has ranked cyber threats as the No. 1 danger to national and economic security—a “bigger [threat]than standard forms of espionage and bigger even than terrorism,” Trainor said. “From where I stand, the issue is getting worse by the day.”

For this reason, it is critical to form strong partnerships among law enforcement, government agencies, and the private sector. The faster that a cyber threat or attack is reported to the FBI, the faster that those responsible can be caught and evidence preserved.

“We need to use indictments, engagements with foreign partners, diplomatic pressures, sanctions, technical disruption operations, and even actions taken at the World Trade Organization-level with trade operations,” Trainor said.

“In my view, pressure works… Our adversaries know we will come after them in more ways than one. The FBI is doing everything it possibly can at every level to make it harder for cyber criminals to operate. I believe that many of them are starting to think twice before putting their fingers on the keyboard.”

The sixth annual ICCS conference opened July 25 at Fordham’s Lincoln Center campus. Visit our news page for ongoing coverage, and read the full transcript of Monaco’s remarks here.

A week ago, we celebrated the 240th anniversary of the adoption and promulgation of the Declaration of Independence. As is always the case, we celebrated the Fourth of July in a particular American way. That is to say, we didn’t observe our nation’s birthday with military parades, but with barbecues, baseball games, long lazy days at the beach, and with fireworks displays accompanied by patriotic music. In other words, we celebrated in a way worthy of a peaceable nation of neighbors.

Sadly and tragically, however, the feel-good experience of the Fourth of July was followed by a series of incidents that made it clear that the experiment in creating a new nation that was conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are equal heralded by our forebears was not working as they intended it to. Indeed, the tragic and senseless deaths of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, and of Philando Castile‎ in suburban Minneapolis, and of Officers Lorne Ahrens, Michael Krol, Michael J. Smith, Brent Thompson, and Patrick Zamarripa in Dallas revealed racial and socioeconomic fault lines that both divide us and threaten to create a permanent state of interracial distrust in our nation.

In the immediate aftermath of the deaths of Mr. Sterling and Mr. Castile, President Obama rightly pointed out that, “When incidents like this occur, there’s a big chunk of our fellow citizenry that feels as if because of the color of their ‎skin, they are not being treated the same. And that hurts. And that should trouble all of us. This is not just a black issue. It’s not just a Hispanic issue. This is an American issue that we should all care about. All fair-minded people should be concerned.”

I believe that there are contained within the President’s words both an honest admission of a troubling truth about American society (that we can wrongly and all too frequently think that racial issues are issues only for members of the African-American, or Hispanic, or Asian-American communities) and a challenge/invitation for all Americans to own and address the tensions that have boiled over so violently in the course of the past week (and in the course of the past year).

Before we could adequately process and respond to the President’s words, the Dallas shootings occurred. A nation that was already reeling from the deaths of Mr. Sterling and Mr. Castile was brought to its knees ‎by the deaths of the five officers. Faced with the unspeakable horror of this latest event, President Obama spoke out once again, and once again his words were as honest as they were eloquent, and once more they contained both a challenge and an invitation: “There is sorrow, there is anger, there is confusion about next steps. But there’s unity in recognizing that this is not how we want our communities to operate. This is not who we want to be as Americans.”

As you might imagine, I reflected (indeed meditated) on the President’s words all weekend. As I did so, I asked how the Fordham family could and should respond to the challenges that the events of past week have presented to us. Of course, we will pray for the repose of the souls of those who died last week in Baton Rouge, Minneapolis, and Dallas. We will also pray for those whose lives were forever changed by their deaths, especially their wives and life partners, their children, and their parents. Moreover, in company with other colleges and universities, we will also recommit ourselves to the work that is proper to us as an academic community. That is to say, we will recommit ourselves to the work of educating for justice and to doing all we can to figure out how our beloved nation, to paraphrase President Lincoln, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal, has allowed itself to stray from the ideals upon which it was founded (and which we celebrated with such heartfelt pride just a week ago).

As I have told you before, I believe that the issues that divide and challenge our nation are not merely political or social issues. Rather, at heart they are moral issues. Therefore, I believe that precisely because we are a Jesuit institution, we have a special responsibility to reflect on the events of the past week and on the challenges that they have created for our nation in particular moral terms. Since I am a Jesuit, you will both understand and forgive me if I say that I think that the Fordham community is invited in a special way to reflect on these issues in the light of the Gospel. ‎My conviction was strengthened when I read the Gospel that Christians throughout the world heard proclaimed Sunday in their worship services: the parable of the Good Samaritan. A much-loved parable, the story hinges on a simple question put to Jesus by one of his opponents: “And just who is my neighbor?”

Because the parable is so widely known and the Good Samaritan has achieved status as a remarkable example of compassion in action, the challenging part of the parable is sometimes lost. In order to get a handle on just how challenging the parable is, we have to remember that the Samaritans were a despised group for the people to whom Jesus was speaking. Not to put too fine a point on it, they were seen as both ethnic outsiders and heretics. Therefore, the lawyer who posed the question to Jesus would have been deeply offended by Jesus’ very positive presentation of the figure we have come to know as “The Good Samaritan.” And then there’s the poor man who fell among robbers. He, too, would have been challenged by the fact that he was abandoned by the priest and Levite, the holy men of his own tradition, but saved, consoled, and cared for by a hated outsider. Both cases (the case of the lawyer posing the question and the victim assisted by the Samaritan) are used by Jesus to challenge His hearers to an examination of consciousness and a conversion of heart. In both cases, Jesus invites his audience to see people through God’s eyes and to respond to those who suffer with God’s heart.

And so we have in Sunday’s Gospel a strong hint as to what we, as a Jesuit university community, can and should bring to the national conversation on the events of the past week. What do I mean? Just this: We can remind our students (and ourselves) that ‎the situation in which the nation now finds itself is one that requires us to engage in an honest examination of conscience and consciousness so that we can be what God wants us to be, and what President Obama calls us to become once again: “who we want to be as Americans.” If we are willing to engage in this examination of consciousness, we will be able to take the first step toward the conversion of heart that will free us from the bondage of anger, frustration, and suspicion that holds us back.

Before concluding, I would like to share with you some of the reflections on the parable of the Good Samaritan delivered by Pope Francis (that champion of the poor and marginalized) Sunday as part of his Angelus address in St. Peter’s Square. Although he was not directly addressing our nation’s condition, I believe that his words offer us a way forward. May God our Lord bless our efforts as we seek peace, justice, and healing for America and all of its citizens.

Sincerely,

Joseph M. McShane, SJ

‎Pope Francis on The Good Samaritan

We too can ask ourselves this question: Who is my neighbor? Whom do I love as myself? My relatives? My friends? My fellow countrymen? Those of the same religion?…Who is my neighbor?

It is not up to us to try to categorize people, to see if they count as our neighbors. Rather, the decision to be, or not be a neighbor, depends on us. It depends on me. It depends on me to be or not be a neighbor to the person I meet who has need of my help, even if he’s a stranger, or even hostile. And Jesus concludes: “Go and do likewise ‘(v. 37). It’s a great lesson! And He says to each of us: “Go and do likewise,” especially to the brother or sister you see in trouble. “Go and do likewise.’” Do good works, do not just say words that go to the wind. A song comes to mind: “Words, words, words.” No. Please, do. Act. And by the good works that we do with love and joy for others, our faith grows and bears fruit. Let us ask ourselves – each of us responding in our heart – let us ask ourselves: Is our faith fruitful? Does our faith produce good works? Or it is rather sterile, and therefore more dead than alive? Am I ‘the neighbor’ or do I simply just pass along? Or am I among those who select people according to their own pleasure? It’s good to ask ourselves these questions and often because, in the end, we will be judged on the works of mercy. The Lord will say to us: ‘But you, you remember that time on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho? That man was me half dead. Do you remember? That hungry child was me. Do you remember? The migrant who many want to drive out it was me. Those grandparents alone, abandoned in nursing homes, it was me. That sick person alone in the hospital, that no one goes to see, was me.’

Chirico, chairman and chief executive officer of Phillips-Van Heusen (PVH Corp.), will serve as a member of the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations. The committee provides advice on trade matters to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and considers trade policy issues in the context of the overall national interest.

Born and raised in the Bronx, Chirico has often returned to Fordham to share his expertise with students and alumni of the Gabelli School. He and his wife, Joanne, have been consistent supporters of Career Services at Fordham. Their sons Michael and Vincent are both Gabelli School graduates.

Chirico was named Person of the Year by MRketplace magazine in 2013 and best CEO in the apparel, footwear, and textiles industry by Institutional Investor magazine in 2012. Since 1993, he has held several leadership positions at PVH Corp., one of the world’s largest apparel companies, with a portfolio that includes Calvin Klein, Van Heusen, IZOD, and Arrow. Chirico is a former member of Fordham’s Board of Trustees and the University’s President’s Council. He currently serves on the boards for Save the Children and Dick’s Sporting Goods.

Raymond Kuo, PhD, an assistant professor of political science who joined Fordham in September, focuses his scholarship on international relations, with a focus on security and grand strategy. Before working in academia, Kuo worked for the National Democratic Institute as a program officer overseeing political party development projects in the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, and Africa. He also worked for the United Nations and the Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan as a foreign policy analyst and organizational strategist.

We asked Kuo to share his thoughts on what The Intercept‘s findings mean for the U.S. drone program.

Fordham News: The first drone was used by the U.S. military in 2000. Why hasn’t the targeting technology improved much?

Kuo: The technology has definitely improved since 2000. In addition to arming the MQ-1 Predator (the drone we commonly associate with these strikes) with Hellfire missiles, the U.S. has upgraded its sensor and targeting platforms. But the U.S. military has stopped acquiring Predators and is focusing more on the MQ-9 Reaper, its bigger, badder cousin. It is significantly faster and larger, able to carry a larger payload, and has a substantially longer operational range and loiter time (i.e. the time it can monitor an area before it has to refuel).

However, we could think that unintended civilian deaths or “collateral damage” are a sign that the program needs improvement. But the issue is not technology, but targeting: Are we hitting the right people and avoiding killing innocent bystanders? And that requires good intelligence. The MQ-9 and other strike vehicles have impressive signals intelligence collection capabilities. However, human intelligence is just as, if not more, important in effective targeting.

But developing human intelligence is not easy nor cheap. The U.S. would either need boots on the ground or rely upon local governments and informants to provide us the targeting information, which they may not have or may not be equipped to acquire.

You should always evaluate policy in comparison to other alternatives, never in isolation. Are we as Americans willing to pay the cost of a more accurate, but costly and assertive strategy? If not, are we willing to walk away and let terrorist networks potentially grow in power and membership? If we decide that the drone program is the best way to balance these costs and benefits, then we need a clear understanding of its actual effects, as I’ll address in the next question.

FN: Aside from more accurate intelligence, and stealth technology, despite the Intercept’s report, and the ongoing protests against the usage of drones, will the U.S. stop using them?

Kuo: The short answer is no. The U.S. will continue to use drones in battlefields or countries where it has already established air superiority (either militarily or through agreement with a host government) and does NOT want to commit troops in a direct combat role.

But the deeper answer is no, the U.S. will continue the program because it seems to work. Both the Pakistani Defense Ministry and the U.S. Army War College claim that a relatively small number of civilians have been killed by the strikes. Somewhere around 3-4 percent of those killed are civilians. Now, the Intercept is correct that America’s targeting rules are far too loose. The “signature strike” policy – where we target people simply because they are male and seem to be of a certain age group – is counterproductive and ultimately harmful to our interests.

Moreover, overall the program seems fairly successful, at least in Pakistan. C. Christine Fair of Georgetown University has described how locals in that country’s tribal areas come outside when they hear drones overhead. They consider the drones to be accurate and generally targeting foreign fighters, allowing them to reassert control over their villages and get on with their lives.

So the policy is widely popular in the Pakistani districts in which it operates. Christopher Swift makes a similar finding in Yemen, and I would hope that other operations in the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula are also successful. However, the program has created enormous public backlash within the wider Pakistani public. This is a significant strategic headache for the U.S., but one which I think can be partially addressed, as I’ll discuss later.

FN: If we schedule a drone strike and it doesn’t achieve its goal, and/or kills innocent civilians, it’s not surprising if it inspires new recruits for ISIS and the like. Why doesn’t that change our tactic? Are ‘boots on the ground’ just that much less well received by the American public? [Ed. It was announced on Oct. 30 that the U.S. will be sending special ops troops to Syria.]

Kuo: Any civilian deaths in war are tragic, particularly among the wounded and children. But it’s also important to note that civilian casualties are completely allowed under the laws of war. They cannot be intentional or directly targeted, however. So if the deaths are truly accidental, the result of bad intelligence, poor targeting, or some other factor, it’s a horrible situation but they are still legally and even morally allowed. Military necessity – the desire to bring a conflict to a close sooner and potentially save even more lives – unfortunately means that civilians can be caught in the crossfire. Effective militaries want to minimize that as much as possible, but recognize that innocent deaths may occur in the course of their duties.

But you ask a deeper question about the strategic effects of strikes. Do they cause more harm than good? Preliminary results from my research suggest that strikes actually stabilize the areas in which they fall, so long as we kill the right people. The opponents of the program are correct if we only concern ourselves with “regular” militants. For each one the U.S. has killed in Pakistan, 47 civilians leave their districts, suggesting that they are moving for safer or better prospects elsewhere. However, killing a militant leader acts as an enormous brake on this outward migration. Over 1,100 people stay in their districts for each leader killed. And finally, killing a civilian means that 98 people want to stay. That is, the public seems willing to absorb a certain degree of innocent deaths so that the program can achieve its objectives.

Again, these are preliminary results, and I’m still subjecting the data to more tests. But I should note that the region of Pakistan where the numbers are drawn from is an active conflict area. The U.S. doesn’t have a military presence there, and it’s difficult for journalists to make their reports. So the numbers that organizations like the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (one of the sources the Intercept report relied upon) receives come from the people on the ground. In other words, the militants themselves. So even using their numbers, we’re still seeing evidence suggesting the drone program is having a positive effect overall.

FN: Is it possible that our drone strategy would change if a Republican president were to take office in 2016?

Kuo: Drones have been used under both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. I actually don’t think the party in office matters too much to the drone program per se. The operations are in place because they are a relatively cheap option which seem to achieve some of their goals while preventing American casualties. If a more aggressive or militaristic president or Congress emerges, I suspect they’ll commit actual troops to these battlefields, rather than rely upon drones as the primary intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and strike vehicles.

But as I mentioned earlier, the program does have a substantial political drawback: It engenders extreme dislike in the wider public. But we should keep in mind that drones – for all the terror and awe they may induce – are actually pretty weak combat platforms. The Predator was originally designed as a surveillance and reconnaissance platform. Drones in general are relatively slow and unmaneuverable, which you want since they will be loitering over an area. But even a minimally competent air force or air defense network could swat them out of the sky. Drones can only operate where the U.S. has air superiority, typically by reaching an agreement with the host government.

And it is those individuals who need to take more responsibility for the program. In Pakistan and Yemen at least, the U.S. operates with the consent and even active (though hidden) support of the government. As an illustration, consider that in 2008, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani reportedly stated “I don’t care if they (the Americans) do it (the drone program) as long as they get the right people. We’ll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it.” There are even suggestions that the program has been manipulated by these groups to selectively strike at political enemies, rather than target all insurgents.

So host governments have been playing both sides: protesting against the strikes, even urging their people to do so, while secretly pushing for more drone operations. That is pure political cowardice, but it also makes political sense given the incentives these politicians face. So if (and that’s a big if) this is an important enough issue, the U.S. needs to push these individuals to be open about their decisions to deal with the general public backlash against strikes.

Learn more about, and contact, Kuo on his website.

I rose at 5 and was on line by 6:10. Although the ceremony did not begin till 9:15, the time flew by. How and why?

The crowd was remarkably upbeat. In addition, I ran into many people whom I knew (which was quite a surprise).

The crowd was diverse and spirited—and very, very gracious. Not a cross word was said by anyone in spite of the long wait. When the President and the Pope finally appeared, the already-high spirits of the crowd really soared. The talks were brief but substantive. The President and the Pope are clearly very fond of one another.

I was deeply impressed with the talks that both President Obama and Pope Francis gave. I was even more impressed, however, by the images that will remain with me forever: the images of two principled men of prayer and peace standing side by side before the whole world, the image of two Americans bearing the weight of the world’s sorrows and hopes on their shoulders, the images of a remarkably diverse and hopeful crowd on the lawn of America’s house, the unforgettable sight of the sun rising on a beautiful early fall day over the City of Washington. Most of all, however, I came away with the sense that the President and the Pope have forged a close friendship, a friendship that gives hope to the whole world.

One of the most interesting encounters I had was with a woman who approached me at the end of the Pope’s remarks and asked me if he had blessed the crowd.

Thursday, September 24, 2015 | St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York, N.Y.
Reflections on this evening’s Vespers Service at the Cathedral. Father Scirghi [Thomas Scirghi, SJ, associate

professor of theology and rector of the Jesuit community at Fordham] and I made our way to the Cathedral via Metro North. After making our way through the rather rigorous security check point, we were ushered into the Cathedral and found our way to our seats which were behind a massive pillar on the North Aisle. Alas.

During the three hours before the Pope’s arrival, we were treated to a concert, a lecture on the history of the Papacy, a short presentation on the history of the Cathedral, and the recitation of the rosary.

The recitation of the rosary ended at 6:25, at which time the television monitors in the Cathedral were turned on to keep us up to speed on the Pope’s procession down Fifth Avenue. As you might imagine, the mood in the Cathedral became electric as the Pope got closer. Finally, the great bronze doors at the Fifth Avenue entrance to the Cathedral swung open, the organ swelled, the choir began to sing the anthems that signaled the Pope’s entrance.

Then, something rather strange happened: although the congregation initially burst into thunderous applause when the Pope began to make his way up the main aisle, the applause soon became muted. I was taken aback by the sudden change in the volume of the applause until I realized that people had taken out their cellphones to snap pictures of the Pope as he passed by.

When he reached the sanctuary, the applause swelled again. Then, the mood changed markedly as the Pope disappeared to vest for Vespers. Ah, the Catholic liturgical decorum reigned as the Pope led us through the opening rites of Vespers.

The Pope began his homily with a heartfelt prayer for the Muslim pilgrims who had died earlier that week in Saudi Arabia. In

the body of his homily, he addressed himself to the priests and religious in the congregation. (As he did in St. Matthew’s Cathedral in Washington yesterday, he offered his support to the bishops and the American Church for the pain that they (and we) had suffered as a result of the abuse scandals of the past decade.) The high point of his homily, however, was the praise that he heaped on the religious women whose hard work had built the American Church.

He was interrupted three times with thunderous applause when he spoke to and about the nuns. As I looked around the Cathedral, I could not help but be struck by the affection that the whole congregation had for these heroic women. I was also deeply moved to see many of the nuns around me crying for joy at the Pope’s words and the applause with which his words were greeted.

Following the conclusion of the Vesper Service, the Pope made his way slowly through the Cathedral, reaching out to the infirm, the young, and the many religious women in the congregation. Then he climbed into his Fiat and sped away.

The congestion dispersed quickly, but with great joy. For my part, I would have to say that I was deeply moved by his miraculous pastoral touch and the obvious love that he had/has for the Church, and the equally obvious love that the entire congregation had for him.

It was an experience of the Church at her best: inclusive, joyful, eager to embrace and transform the world in imitation of the Lord Himself.

Friday, September 25, 2015 | The United Nations, New York, N.Y.
Pope Paul VI was the first Pope to visit the United States and the first to address the General Assembly of the

United Nations. He did so on Oct. 4, 1965, the feast of St. Francis of Assisi. I remember that day quite clearly for a number of reasons. First, my father (who was the SAC of New York for the State Department of the United States) served as the federal coordinator of security for the Pope’s visit. Second, I was honored to attend the Pope’s Mass in Yankee Stadium. Third, Paul VI’s address to the General Assembly captivated the world (and continues to be one that I find myself returning to quite often.) Finally, it was an unbelievably cold day, which made the pilgrimage to Yankee Stadium a particularly challenging one.

I guess that it was because my memories of that first papal visit to the United States and that first papal address to the General Assembly of the United Nations are so rich that I looked forward to today with such eager longing.

I rose at 4:45 and caught the 6:00 train to Grand Central. (I noticed that there was only one person awake in Campbell/Conley/Salice ‎at the time that I boarded the train for Manhattan.) When I arrived at the rendezvous spot to which I had been directed by the Nuncio’s staff, I was escorted to the United Nations and whisked through security. (The ease with which I made it through security is probably due to the fact that I was with Cardinal Turkson from both Ghana and the Roman Curia.)

After just a few minutes, I was led into the Assembly Chamber where I found myself in remarkable company:

Daniel (007) Craig, Bill and Melinda Gates, Mayor de Blasio, Commissioner Bratton, Cardinals Dolan, Turkson, and Parolin‎, two Apostolic Nuncios, the editor-in-chief of the Pope’s newspaper, and the Pope’s press secretary (both of the last two are Jesuits)—and what we were told was the largest of the leaders of states ever to attend the opening session of this General Assembly.

From the moment that the Pope first stepped foot on the UN campus, the television monitors on either side of the speaker’s podium kept us apprised of his progress toward the chamber. When he was finally escorted into the chamber, the entire crowd erupted into applause. (I noticed that the often-photographed Daniel Craig turned into an eager photographer as he snapped picture after picture of the Pope as he made his way to the front of the chamber. James Bond was not the only one taken with the Pope. Far from it. Heads of State whipped out their cellphones to capture the moment forever. And the press corps dropped all pretense of being blasé. They cheered, snapped, and stood on their tip toes with the abandon of Yankee fans—in a good year.)

When he was introduced and began to speak, Francis captivated everyone—from the most seasoned diplomat to the most fervent believer to the most wary critic. His address championed the poor and marginalized, pled for a complete ban on nuclear weapons, and wove together the themes that he wrote of so eloquently in Laudato Si. He was simply extraordinary in all he said. For my part, I was thrilled that he spoke about Paul VI’s visit to the UN 50 years ago, and even more thrilled that he made Paul’s words his own.

Then, it was over. The crowd rose to applaud him. (He was typically quite humble in acknowledging the adulation of the crowd.) And once again, cell phones were whipped out and put to good use to record the event for posterity. (I snapped more than a few myself.)

Friday, September 25, 2015 | Madison Square Garden, New York, N.Y.
Mass in The Garden | A Home Run on a Basketball Court

It took hours and something akin to the patience of Job to get into the Garden. (The lines ran all the way south to 23rd Street, down 23^rd to 8th Avenue and all the way back up 8th to MSG, perched atop Penn Station.) Every bag, wallet, and belt worn or carried by the 20,000 worshipers was hand-checked.

Once inside, however, the mood of the congregation changed dramatically—and with good reason. The Garden had been transformed from arena to a peculiarly urban cathedral (New-York-style), with subdued lighting and liturgical furniture hand-crafted by local artisans. (The Garden didn’t disappear entirely, however: the concession stands remained open until an hour before Mass began, and the Archdiocese filled the three-to-four-hour period before Mass with a rich mixture of catechesis, entertainment by top-draw performers, and a bilingual recitation of the rosary.)

The long wait came to a close when the Pope arrived ahead of schedule. Once he arrived, he took two turns around the court in an indoor Popemobile. As you might imagine, the crowd roared when they spotted him. Once again, however, the initial applause and cheering eerily ended as people whipped out their cellphones to snap pictures of the Pope as he circled the floor.

Then, he disappeared and the mood turned liturgical-solemn. At least for a while. The opening hymn was properly festive; the readings were proclaimed with a quiet grace. And then Francis walked to the lectern to deliver his homily. He drew the congregation in with a combination of wisdom, humility, and a few savvy nods to the City and its moods and challenges and its quirky joys. The congregation fell under his pastoral spell and roared its loving approval as he preached. (He slyly looked up from his text. And he smiled. And that smile conquered the crowd.) Fortified by the crowd’s enthusiasm, the 78-year-old Pope grew stronger and more animated the longer he preached. Then came his capstone: the Pope assured the congregation that God lived in our City—with all of its challenges, its smogs and fogs, its joys, sorrows and moods (dark and light). That was all it took. The crowd very nearly swooned. They roared their loving approval of both the (papal) preacher and his consoling/challenging message. And the sedate urban cathedral once again became an arena—an arena of grace. What can I say? The soccer fan Pope from Argentina hit a home run on a basketball court (the world’s most famous basketball court at that).

As the Mass continued, the arena once again became New York’s new cathedral. With a nod to the universal

nature of the Church, the Eucharistic prayer was said in Latin, and the Lord’s Prayer was chanted in Latin. A happy chaos reigned at the Kiss of Peace. Twenty thousand souls received Communion. Hymns both ancient and modern were sung with gusto or solemn decorum.

After Communion, Cardinal Dolan rose to thank the Pope for the graces of his visit. The crowd, however, was not going to let the Cardinal speak for them. They interrupted his address with a series of raucous (hey, it was a New York crowd) standing ovations. (I don’t think it would be wide of the mark to say that they were delirious with joy. And they were determined to let their Father in faith know just how much they loved him. It was also clear that they simply didn’t want their moment of grace to end, and that they simply didn’t want to let Francis go.) As for the Pope, it was clear that he was touched and energized by the loving rapport that he had established with his New York flock.

All good things, however, must come to an end. Before he dismissed the congregation, the Pope departed from the solemn cadences of the Roman Rite and looked directly at his brothers and sisters (or were they his sons and daughters) and asked all of them (us) to pray for him.

At that moment, we were all transported back to the scene that unfolded in St. Peter’s Square on the evening on which he was introduced to the world—and asked the vast crowd that had gathered when the white smoke appeared over the Sistine Chapel to pray for him. He need not worry. All who were in the urban cathedral known as MSG will pray for him, the Pope who hit a home run on a basketball court (and the most famous basketball court in the world at that).

I would imagine that the Knicks and the Rangers are jealous tonight. A soccer fan stole the spotlight in their home. And New York embraced a new star. And basked in the love of a Father who called his sons and daughters to live with a new sense of purpose.

Check back here for further updates.

Herbert Pardes, M.D., executive vice chairman of New York Presbyterian Hospital, and Falguni Sen, Ph. D., director of Fordham’s Global Healthcare Innovation Management Center, hashed out themes in a panel discussion hosted by Graduate School of Business Administration’s Wall Street Council at the offices of Alliance Bernstein. Ted Graham, GBA ’09, moderated.

Before the panel began, GBA alumni and their guests mingled and discussed the panel’s theme “Healthcare Reform and its Impact on the U.S. Economy.” Most said that regardless of the industry, or who wins the election, healthcare reform is going to have an effect on business.

“All the industries are interrelated to healthcare,” said Serge Reda, GBA ’04. “In three months the real conversation on healthcare will just be starting and another set of these kind of panels will need to be held.”

It was a notion with which Sen agreed.

“I honestly feel whether it’s Governor Romney or President Obama, 75 percent of the act will stay as it is,” he said before sitting down at the panel. “Because its got really nothing to do with them, is has to do with a need for transformation and that process has started and it’s very difficult to stop.”

The inevitability of change, regardless of its form, was a theme that was also struck by Dianne F. Lob, chairman of Bernsteins’s Private Client Investment Policy Group. In a market overview presentation, Lob said that market reform figures strongly in any dissection of the market. Healthcare spending has risen significantly in the last 50 years, she said, and while some may argue about the percentage of the GDP spent (estimates range from 12 percent to 17 percent), the important point is how much it has grown.

“Whatever the numbers are today, an aging population is going to push that spending up even further over the next few decades,” Lob said.

Sen noted that plan will have a radical effect, and will continue to have an effect, even if challenged by a Romney administration. He pointed out that even as Affordable Care Act was being debated in the Supreme Court, most in the healthcare industry were adopting key measures, the most significant of which is accountability of both care providers and patients.

“I feel quite heartened by the emphasis on the patient, because that is one thing that takes every one of the stakeholders, from the insurance companies, to the doctors, to the hospitals, out of their narrow business models,” he said, adding that patients too will be held accountable. “That in my opinion has the potential to radically changing the medical profession.”

For his part, Dr. Pardes agreed that change was necessary and inevitable, though he said he wished the government and the healthcare industry could work better together in partnership.

When asked whether good universal healthcare can coexist with capitalism, Dr. Pardes reemphasized government and private sector cooperation. He added that at New York-Presbyterian the nearly 40 percent of capital received from private sources offset the losses sustained by Medicare and Medicaid. He said that he’d rather see healthy competition that spurs the kind of research coming out of institutions like University of Pennsylvania, Johns Hopkins, and Columbia University.

“I’m not interested in having 100 percent D-minus institutions,” he said of a healthcare landscape in which reduced competition could lower the level of innovation.

Brennan was interim director of the National Counter-terrorism Center immediately after its creation, and since 2005 has served as CEO of The Analysis Corp. Since 2007, he has served as chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance.

An intelligence officer since 1980, Brennan began his career in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations. He has served with the Department of State as a political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; in a variety of analytic assignments in the Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis in the Directorate of Intelligence; and was in charge of terrorism analysis in the DCI’s Counterterrorist Center during the Gulf War. Brennan has also served as the CIA’s daily intelligence briefer at the White House; the executive assistant to the director of the CIA, and as deputy executive director of the agency.

Brennan earned a bachelor’s degree in political science from Fordham, including study at the American University of Cairo. He received a master’s degree in government with a concentration in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Texas at Austin in 1980.

More than 100 students attended the watch party, and from 7 p.m. to almost midnight the room was abuzz with conversation, punctuated by shouts of glee (and a few groans of despair) as CNN and Fox News started calling states for the candidates. A number of students were interviewed and photographed by the Daily News and News 12 The Bronx, who were on hand to get reactions live as the results came in.

College Democrats were unsurprisingly jubilant when CNN projected Senator Barack Obama as the winner shortly after 11 p.m. Some students watching the returns on the Fox network were more subdued. The only strongly negative reaction students had was to the CNN hologram interview with rapper will.i.am—at issue wasn’t what he had to say to Anderson Cooper: students apparently thought the hologram experiment was pretty cheesy.

The event was sponsored by the Dean of Students, Residential Life, Office of Student Leadership and Community Development, the Alcohol and Other Drug Education Program, USG, RHA, CSA, College Democrats, Young Republicans, Community Service, Peer Educators, American Age and The Ram. The watch party was similar in format, and drew about the same number of students, as previous election year events sponsored by the same groups, including viewings of the first presidential debate in September, and the vice presidential and presidential debates in October.