Core:
noun, the most important part of a thing, the essence; from the
Latin cor, meaning heart.
Volume 1.8
Front Page
April 1, 2002
The Views Featured Webpages
(links to offsite pages)
Columns, essays, and news articles
We
shall not fear (David Warren)new
We hang not on the Cross, but on Christs Resurrection.
At the centre of all Christian doctrine and according to
Christians, at the centre of everything is this one moment.
It is not understood as a miracle, but as the miracle at the heart,
explaining all miracles before and after. It was, or rather it is,
the grand intersection between the eternal and our own transitory
world of space and time. Everything in nature and in ourselves was
is transformed by it. It casts backwards through history
as well as forwards, it gathers together every strand of meaning,
into one knot, into one flame, and is of the moment with the Creation.
And in prayer, and contemplation, the Christian apprehends, through
the fact of the Cross, and shining through the Cross, the Resurrection.
It is the lifting of the burden, the weight of sin, of mortality,
of fate. Christ, according to the Gospels, came into the world to
abolish death. To abolish the tyranny over us, to free us from our
greatest fear. In the moment of contemplating Christs Resurrection,
we know the truth, and the truth has set us free.
Bogus
bias at MIT (John Leo)new
The sad truth is that MIT, one of the world's great centers
of scientific education, has now produced and accepted two astonishingly
unscientific studies of its own administrative behavior. In response
to these studies, nobody on campus has spoken out. The people
on the gender committees control the airwaves on this story, and
nobody will speak up, Steiger says. And with good reason.
If they speak, they will be branded as misogynists, and their careers
will be in jeopardy. Worse, the culture of MIT is being changed.
Gender equity has replaced scientific merit as the value administrators
will be judged by. And as always in preference schemes, women on
the faculty will now come under suspicion as people who wouldnt
be there except for politics. And all without any real discussion
or open debate. Amazing.
Listening
for the Voices of Women (NYT)new
In the two decades since she wrote In a Different Voice
and went on to identify a crisis of confidence in adolescent girls
a phenomenon Ms. Gilligan famously dubbed losing voice
her work has attained the status of public gospel, inspiring
pop psychology books, feminist lobbies and op-ed columnists, and
galvanizing policy makers. Ms. Gilligan is often cited as an impetus
behind the 1994 Gender Equity in Education Act, which, with an eye
toward improving girls test scores, banned sex-role stereotyping
and gender discrimination in the classroom.... Meanwhile, social
scientists were busy challenging her research. In a Different
Voice was attacked almost as soon as it appeared. Some researchers
rejected Ms. Gilligans claim that women were more likely to
consider their obligations to others (what she called an ethics
of care) in making moral decisions, while men were more
likely to rely on abstract principles of fairness (what she called
an ethics of justice). Ms. Gilligan was accused of using
unorthodox interview methods, of lacking control groups and of failing
to publish her data in peer-reviewed journals. In a 1983 article
in the journal Social Research, Debra Nails, now a philosophy professor
at Michigan State University, dismissed In a Different Voice
as social science at sea without anchor. Since then,
trying to replicate Ms. Gilligans findings has become a virtual
social-science subfield, employing a small army of researchers
with little success.
What
You Say Reveals How You Think (David Stolinsky)new
The same paper, like most papers, takes great care to refer
to anyone who has not yet been convicted of a crime as an alleged
or accused murderer or rapist. This wording avoids lawsuits,
and more importantly, it follows the American tradition that one
is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So why is it that this
paper began a story about child abuse in the Catholic Church with
the front-page headline Mahony Wont Name Abusers.
Not one of these priests had been charged with a crime, much less
convicted, or their names would already be a matter of public record.
But those Cardinal Mahony didnt name were not referred to
as alleged abusers. Somehow the fear of lawsuits, and
the devotion to civil liberties, were forgotten in the rush to condemn
the Catholic Church and, by extension, Christianity in general.
Accused murderers and rapists in jail awaiting trial are alleged,
but priests not formally charged with anything are abusers.
How inconsistent. But how revealing.
The
slyer virus: The Wests anti-westernism (Mark Steyn)new
The Arabs say America is to blame for the Middle East. And
Britain and America dont disagree, not really. The Durban
Syndrome the vague sense that the Wests success must
somehow be responsible for the rests failure is a far
slyer virus than the toxic effusions of the Chomsky-Sontag set,
and it has seeped far deeper into the cultural bloodstream. At its
most benign, Durban Syndrome manifests itself in a desire not to
offend others if one can offend ones own instead. We saw this
after September 11 in the incessant exhortations from government,
public service announcements, the nations pastors and vicars,
etc., that the American people should resist their natural appetite
for pogroms and refrain from brutalizing Muslims. Ninety-nine-point-nine-nine-nine
percent of Americans had no intention of brutalizing Muslims but
they were sporting enough to put up with being characterized as
a bunch of knuckledragging swamp-dwellers, understanding that diversity
means not just being sensitive to other peoples but also not being
too sensitive about yourself. Similarly, at airports across the
continent, eighty-seven-year-old grannies waited patiently as their
hairpins were confiscated and their bloomers emptied out on the
conveyor belt, implicitly accepting this as a ritual of the multicultural
society: to demonstrate that we eschew racial profiling,
we go out of our way to look for people who dont look anything
like the people were looking for.... I am woman, hear me roar!
Say it loud, Im black and proud! Were here, were
queer, get used to it! The one identity were not encouraged
to trumpet is the one that enables us to trumpet all the others:
our identity as citizens of a very particular kind of society, built
on the rule of law, property rights, freedom of expression, and
the universal franchise. I am Western, hear me apologize!
A
Turn from Tolerance (WP)new
Long before Sept. 11, many white Europeans had deep-running
concerns that their countries were involuntarily becoming multicultural
as guest workers and refugees, mostly Muslim, established themselves
in residence. There are about 15 million Muslims in Europe, making
Islam the the continents largest non-Christian religion. The
post-Sept. 11 concerns underscored a paradox that has cycled through
European politics for years: The continent needs foreign workers
to gird an aging workforce but is queasy about accepting them, especially
if they are Muslim. There is this fear for national identity
combined with a fear of Muslims that has fueled this debate on immigration,
said Jan Niessen, director of the Migration Policy Group, a research
organization in Brussels.
As
the Web Matures, Fun Is Hard to Find (NYT)new
Just 11 years after it was born and about 6 years after it
became popular, the Web has lost its luster. Many who once raved
about surfing from address to address on the Web now lump site-seeing
with other online chores, like checking the In box. What attracted
many people to the Web in the mid-1990s were the bizarre and
idiosyncratic sites that began as private obsessions and swiftly
grew into popular attractions: the Coffee Cam, a live image of a
coffee maker at the University of Cambridge; the Fish Tank Cam from
an engineer at Netscape; The Spot, the first online soap opera;
the Jennicam, the first popular Internet peephole; the Telegarden,
which allowed viewers to have remote control of a robot gardener;
and the World Wide Ouija, where viewers could question the Fates
with the computer mouse. The Web was like a chest of toys, and each
day brought a new treasure.... The problem facing the Web is not
that some of these particular sites have come and gone there
are, after all, only so many times anyone can look at a coffeepot,
even online but that no new sites have come along to captivate
the casual surfer.
Whats
news for the experts is common knowledge to most (Kay Hymowitz)new
Not so long ago, everyone knew that children boys and
girls were cruel, aggressive, Darwinian creatures who needed
adults around to teach them self-restraint. William Goldings
classic 1954 novel Lord of the Flies, a disturbing
story of English private school students deserted on an island after
an airplane crash, illustrated the point most dramatically. It was
common knowledge that, while girls didnt often resort to fisticuffs,
they were prone to back-stabbing, manipulation and scheming, a fact
known to everyone from William Thackeray, who created the infamous
Becky Sharpe in the novel Vanity Fair to Charles Schultz,
inventor of Charlie Browns nemesis, Lucy. But in the late
1960s, development experts began revising the commensense view of
childrens natural ethical state. This was partly because of
the influence of the liberation movements of the time, partly to
address changes in the family such as divorce and working mothers
that made autonomous children a necessity.... But after a dramatic
rise in juvenile crime and bullying, a slew of suburban school shootings,
and just the daily grind of adult-child warfare, this theory was
bound to disappoint.
U.S.
maintains the upper hand (David Warren)new
As I reported in this newspaper on Friday, the jailing,
or rather probationing of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has been
taken over from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, by U.S. Vice-President
Dick Cheney. It is an extremely significant step, not because it
disempowers the Israelis, but because it puts the United
States forward directly in the role of Israel's protector, negotiating
on Israels behalf. While lost on the western media, the point
has been taken in several capitals of the Arab world: Mr. Arafat
and his terrorist groups are no longer simply confronting Israel.
They are now confronting a United States that is increasingly aware
of their international connections. Mr. Cheney set the conditions
for a meeting between himself and Mr. Arafat in Cairo yesterday,
which did not take place because Mr. Arafat did not meet them. The
essential, verifiable condition was that Mr. Arafat would deliver
a public address, to his people, in unambiguous Arabic, demanding
an immediate end to all terrorist strikes against Israel, and be
seen delivering like orders to all the Palestinian militias under
his ultimate command. Instead, he appeared on Palestinian TV looking
as if he were a hostage reading a prepared statement by his kidnapper.
He condemned, after the fact, only one particular suicide bombing
in Jerusalem. This was 11 eggs short of a dozen.
Stranglehold
on Speech (Robert Samuelson)new
Free speech is not selective speech, respectable speech or
popular speech. Free speech does not exist unless it can include
speech that you and perhaps most people despise. People
must have, as individuals and as groups, the routine right to express
themselves, even if their expressions offend. Somehow these truths
escape the supporters of campaign finance reform, whose
crusade threatens free speech.... In the final 60 days before the
2000 election, more than 135,000 political advertisements were run
by sponsors who werent candidates or the political committees
of candidates, reports the Brennan Center for Justice at New York
University. The new campaign finance legislation known variously
as McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan after its main Senate and House
sponsors aims to remove many (if not most) of these ads by
non-candidates from the air. Unless political advertisements arent
speech, this represents a massive suppression of free
speech.... Free speech must be a concept that ordinary people can
grasp in most ordinary circumstances. It must not become a lawyerly
collection of qualifications, footnotes and regulations, and that
is where the campaign finance crusade is leading.
Bleak
future looms if you dont take a stand (Dan Gillmor)new
This is a quiz about your future. Its about how you
view some basic elements of the emerging Digital Age. 1. Do you
care if a few giant companies control virtually all entertainment
and information? 2. Do you care if they decide what kinds of technological
innovations will reach the marketplace? 3. Would you be concerned
if they used their power to compile detailed dossiers on everything
you read, listen to, view and buy? 4. Would you find it acceptable
if they could decide whether what you write and say could be seen
and heard by others? Those are no longer theoretical questions.
They are the direction in which America is hurtling. Media conglomerates
are in a merger frenzy. Telecommunications monopolies are creating
a cozy cartel, dividing up access to the online world. The entertainment
industry is pushing for Draconian controls on the use and dissemination
of digital information.
The
Great Terror (Jeffrey Goldberg)new
Gosden believes it is quite possible that the countries of
the West will soon experience chemical- and biological-weapons attacks
far more serious and of greater lasting effect than the anthrax
incidents of last autumn and the nerve-agent attack on the Tokyo
subway system several years ago that what happened in Kurdistan
was only the beginning. For Saddams scientists, the
Kurds were a test population, she said. They were the
human guinea pigs. It was a way of identifying the most effective
chemical agents for use on civilian populations, and the most effective
means of delivery. The charge is supported by others. An Iraqi
defector, Khidhir Hamza, who is the former director of Saddams
nuclear-weapons program, told me earlier this year that before the
attack on Halabja military doctors had mapped the city, and that
afterward they entered it wearing protective clothing, in order
to study the dispersal of the dead. These were field tests,
an experiment on a town, Hamza told me. He said that he had
direct knowledge of the Armys procedures that day in Halabja.
The doctors were given sheets with grids on them, and they
had to answer questions such as How far are the dead from
the cannisters? Gosden said that she cannot understand
why the West has not been more eager to investigate the chemical
attacks in Kurdistan. It seems a matter of enlightened self-interest
that the West would want to study the long-term effects of chemical
weapons on civilians, on the DNA, she told me. Ive
seen Europes worst cancers, but, believe me, I have never
seen cancers like the ones I saw in Kurdistan.
The
good, the bad and the Gallic shrug (Mark Steyn)new
Countries A and B may be at war, but there is no good side
and no bad side, just two parties trapped in a mindless
cycle of violence that threatens the peace process.
The peace process tends to be no peace and lotsa process,
in which Western panjandrums have invested considerable amounts
of their prestige. Thats why in Paris this weekend most of
my dining companions were outraged not by the deaths of Palestinians
or Israelis but by the shelling of Palestinian Authority buildings.
These buildings, one indignant Frenchman told me, were
built with money direct from the Union! i.e., the European
Union. We have given billions, and now it is rubble.
Oh, your money's perfectly safe, I said. Its sitting
in the Hamas bigshots numbered bank accounts in Zurich.
.... Forget the cycle of violence and the peace
process. History teaches us that the most lasting peace is
achieved when one side preferably the worst side is
decisively defeated and the regimes diseased organs are comprehensively
cleansed. Thats why National Socialism, Fascism and Japanese
militarism have not troubled us of late.
Households
Divided (Jean Bethke Elshtain)new
Wilson argues that the destructive features of a world without
fathers are by now so well documented that they are beyond challenge.
No responsible person wants to see that world expand, given its
clear and present dangers. But how did it come about, and how are
we to bring the second nation closer to the standard of the first
in order to ensure that, in the parlance of the moment, no child
is left behind? Wilson reminds us that when Sen. Daniel Patrick
Moynihan first alerted the country in 1960 to the troubles looming
on the horizon as the world of fatherlessness and rising out-of-wedlock
birth was coming into view, he was denounced, accused of everything
from racism to sexism to cultural imperialism, even as many people
within the black community were saying the same thing that
a leap in fatherlessness was a pathology. But that made
no difference to the mainstream media or scholarship. As a result,
it was easy for the first nation, irresponsibly, to ignore the problem
of the second. Forty years later, facing an epidemic in teenage
motherhood by 1995, three out of every four births
to all teenagers were to unmarried girls; for black girls, it was
nine out of ten the alarm bells finally went off as
politicians and social analysts converged on the same point: This
trend cannot continue, as too much measurable harm is being done
to children. As the evidence piled up, even those most resistant
to the notion that fatherlessness as an independent factor generated
risk factors for children, whatever the familys socio-economic
status, were forced to acknowledge the data. Children in one-parent
families, compared to those in two-parent ones, are twice as likely
to drop out of school. Boys in one-parent families are much more
likely than those in two-parent ones to be both out of school and
out of work. Girls in one-parent families are twice as likely as
those in two-parent ones to have an out-of-wedlock birth.
How
Oscar Ghettoized Poitier (John Podhoretz)new
The spin on the evening was that it made history because two
black performers won Best Actor and Best Actress on the same night
that the first black movie star, Sidney Poitier, received an honorary
Oscar. But there was something terribly retrogressive about the
way all this was treated. The Oscar show worked overtime to make
us think of Denzel Washington, Halle Berry and Poitier not as unique
and remarkable talents but rather as tokens. Why were only black
actors and actresses given a chance to speak in the three-minute
film tribute to Sidney Poitier? Did Poitiers career really
have meaning only to black performers? Of course not. His extraordinary
dignity and power gave the lie to the racist idea that white audiences
could only respond to white performers and white stories. In a magnificent
speech that was the highlight of the otherwise-unspeakable ceremony,
Poitier himself paid a powerful and modest tribute to the directors,
producers and studio heads who made history by casting him in the
films that made him a star. They were all white. So is Poitiers
wife Joanna. Poitier had two daughters with Joanna, who are therefore
both black and white. He is an integrationist not only professionally,
but personally. For him to be seen as an inspiration only
to black people is to ghettoize an extraordinary man who simply
refused to accept the limits of race.
Dumbing
Down the SAT: The very existence of intelligence differences in
America is about to become a forbidden truth. (Stanley Kurtz)new
There was a time when Americans believed that finding and
training the countrys finest minds was in the national interest.
Certainly, all American children ought to have access to quality
education. But, ultimately, it is to our collective advantage as
a nation to have a way of identifying students of high aptitude.
And it is fairer to students themselves especially those
from lesser schools to have a way of recognizing intellectual
potential that has not yet come to the surface. The irony is that
support for destruction of the SAT test comes from a liberal elite
that is itself the product of our educational meritocracy. Guilt
about success combines here with a hidden craving for moral superiority
over the benighted middle classes. Those in the middle and
many minorities as well still believe in the principles of
liberty and equality that created the meritocracy in the first place.
But once again, the liberal elite, in a conversation amongst itself,
is managing to turn our most basic values and practices inside out
with nary a peep from a public that would fight these changes
if they were honestly told what is happening.
Of
conscience & cowardice (Robert Going)new
I happen to believe in the sanctity of human life from conception
to natural death. While perhaps a minority view, it is generally
not considered an extreme position except by those who take delight
in yanking babies feet first three quarters of the way out of their
mothers wombs, sticking a needle in the head and sucking the
brains out. Those people would doubtless find my views radical.
Still, if I had written what Ive just written, or said it
aloud in a public place at any time from 1985 when I first became
a candidate for judicial office until I left the bench in 2001,
I would have been subject to discipline, even removal, by the Commission
on Judicial Conduct. Some members of that commission and its staff
have even gone so far as to state that accepting the nomination
of the Right to Life Party is judicial misconduct.... After I became
a county-level judge, the death penalty was restored in this state.
As a cross-assigned judge I was offered the opportunity to take
special training that would allow me to sit on capital cases. I
declined, and wondered what I would do if such assignments became
mandatory. Most of us dont give a lot of thought to the death
penalty. I never did, truthfully. But when faced with the real possibility
that you might someday decide who lives and who dies, youd
sure better start thinking about it. I likely would have ended up
as one of those who should have resigned rather than follow the
law. But would I have? I believe in the sanctity of human life from
birth to natural death. Its such an easy thing to say. Now.
But
Seriously, Folks (Larry Miller)new
But, you see in all of American life there has, for a long
time, been a battle of sorts to define what is serious and what
is not, and all the wrong people are consistently winning. No matter
how stupid, wrongheaded, or immoral some of our leaders and representatives
have been over the years, if they can affect an appearance of troubled
thoughtfulness when they address our problems, if they speak in
a measured way, if they look around and nod with gravity, and if
they use coy, calculated gestures biting a lower lip, say
they will always be considered serious people,
and theres no telling how far they can go. And I just dont
get it. P.J. ORourke has created some of the most immensely
funny things in the history of immensely funny things, and I consider
his work to be wise, large, insightful, and practical; in short,
serious. The problem for me, you see, is that I dont know
what to call the serious people of today, because I
dont think they are. When Mr. Daschle holds forth on our war
effort, everyone thinks hes serious, he certainly thinks hes
serious, but all I see behind those unblinking blue eyes is a man
thinking, Boy, I sure would look good stepping off that big,
green helicopter and saluting. The support Messrs.
Daschle, Leahy, Biden, et al. have given to our war effort has the
same sincerity of the wrestling bad guy who spends two minutes gouging
the face of his opponent with an awl and then, when confronted by
the referee, slips the iron into his shorts and holds up his hands
like a Vegas dealer going on his break.
The
1930s, Again: A hard rain is going to fall. (Victor Davis Hanson)new
And so we Americans, like those 70 years ago who so wanted
a perpetual peace, pray for a return of sanity in the Middle East.
We chose to ignore horrific stories of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia
the embryo of 9/11. We are more amused than shocked that
madrassas have taught a generation to hate us. When mullahs
in Iran speak of destroying Israel we wince, but also shrug. We
want to see no real connection between madmen blowing themselves
up to kill us in New York and the like-minded doing the same in
Tel-Aviv. We put our trust in peace with a killer like Mr. Arafat,
who packs a gun and whips up volatile crowds in Arabic. All the
while, no American statesman has the guts to tell the Arab leadership
that statism, tribalism, fundamentalism, gender apartheid, and autocracy
not America, not Israel make their people poor, angry,
and dangerous.... I dont listen any more to the apologies
and prevarications of our whiney university Arabists, our equivocators
in the state department, and the really tawdry assortment of oil
men, D.C. insiders, bought and paid for PR suits, and weapons hucksters.
The truth is that a large minority of the Middle Eastern world wishes
a war with America that it cannot win and much of the rest
is apparently either indifferent or amused. So we should stop apologizing,
prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and accept this animosity
just as our forefathers once did when faced by similar autocrats
and their captive peoples who threatened us in 1941.
New
Analysis Says Womens Studies Prism Emits a Distinctly Feminist
Coloring (FOXNews)new
The modern woman is plagued by stereotypes imposed by a male-dominated
society, which keeps her relegated to rearing children, keeping
home and working in low-paying, menial jobs. That is the universal
claim found in womens studies textbooks on college campuses
today, according to a critical analysis by the Independent Womens
Forum, a womens group that has often tangled with the traditional
feminist establishment. The treatise, set forth by Christine Stolba,
a senior fellow at IWF, has already drawn fire from scholars who
see Stolba as an ultra-conservative with an ax to grind
against traditional feminists.... She said many of the textbooks
ignore the advances women have made in order to push an anti-male,
liberal agenda that is rooted more in the stone age of gender relations
than in 21st-century culture. It is a truth universally acknowledged
in womens studies textbooks that women have been and continue
to be the victims of oppression, wrote Stolba. Womens
studies textbooks support a large number of factual inaccuracies.
Many of these are deliberately misleading sisterly sophistries.
Keyes
challenge: Return nation to principles (Pensacola News Journal)
The people of faith in America bear a special burden to return
the nation to its founding principles, Ambassador Alan Keyes told
a crowd Friday in Pensacola. God Bless America? Yes, but I
keep hearing the question, Keyes said. Why? Afghanistan
terrorist Osama bin Laden did not introduce America to evil on Sept.
11, he said. Dont think you can escape responsibility
for your own. The moral challenge is simple, he said: Cease
to do evil, and learn to do good. .... We do not stand
on the same ground the nation was founded on. We do not stand on
the same principles the countrys strength was built on,
Keyes said. It reminds me of the old cartoons we used to see
when I was a kid. Roadrunner would get halfway across the abyss,
and he would suddenly realize where he was. I sadly believe that
in one respect, thats where we are in terms of our freedom.
Theres nothing underneath us anymore. .... We
have made the name of God obscene in our public schools. In ancient
Greece, obscene was something you could not show in public. The
name of God has been an obscenity in our government-run schools
for the last 30 or 40 years. Dont say it, dont show
it, dont speak it. Thats all been run out by this auspicious
principle of separation (of church and state) they're always telling
us about.... The most terrible departure... is the fact that
we have embraced an understanding of our rights that now encompasses
the lie that the most fundamental right which is the right
to live at all is not a matter of Gods will, but of
human choice. In the Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court
told us the right to life for each human being... comes from human
choice. How do we think we can have it both ways? I dont understand
this contradiction. It cant be Gods choice and my choice,
too.
What
Hollings Bill Would Do (Wired News)
If Hollywood and the music industry get their way, new software
and hardware will sport embedded copy protection technology. A bill
introduced by Senate Commerce Chairman Fritz Hollings would prohibit
the sale or distribution of nearly any technology unless
it features copy-protection standards to be set by the federal government....
Anyone selling or creating and distributing digital
media devices may not do so unless they include government-approved
security standards.... It would be unlawful to import software or
hardware without government-approved security standards.... Network-connected
computer systems may not delete markers indicating a file is copy-protected.
Knowingly removing copy-protection markers from digital content
is prohibited.... It would be unlawful to knowingly distribute or
send someone any digital content that has been purged of its this-is-copy-protected
marker.... One part of the bill overrides a landmark lawsuit that
said the Rio MP3 player did not violate copyright law.
Frances
Bloody Hands (NYP)
France is hardly in a position to lecture the United States
about justice, the death penalty or civil rights. The last time
that France was involved in a major terrorist campaign, in Algeria
from 1954-62, French security forces routinely tortured rebel suspects
while murdering uncounted thousands in summary executions.
Only recently, retired French Army Gen. Paul Aussaresses published
a sensational memoir calmy recounting his own role in these atrocities,
which were carried out with the approval of French government figures
such as future President Francois Mitterand. Even today,
the French criminal justice system is so weighted against defendants
that the accused is practically guilty until proven innocent....
In any case, its one thing for France which has officially
abolished the death penalty at home to register its unhappiness
at the prospect of Moussaouis execution, but its quite
another for this ally to threaten non-cooperation with
the Sept. 11 investigation. It is early in this war against terror,
but you can be sure the United States will not forget the countries
which stood beside her. And those that let her down.
Religious
leaders waste their energy (Bill Wineke)
The question I have this morning is whether Jesus Christ went
to the cross to encourage us to drive Saturns. Because Sunday is
Palm Sunday, the first day of the Christian season of Holy Week,
I dont think thats an impertinent question. Yet, I have
on my desk a letter signed by 48 Wisconsin Religious leaders
telling me that God wants sport utility vehicles to get better gas
mileage and Im asking myself, why does the church keep
doing this? .... Among other conservation measures, the letter
calls on the senators to support policies to raise substantially
vehicle fuel economy across the board in the shortest feasible timeframe,
and require SUVs, minivans and passenger cars to meet the same standard.
But the letter doesnt stop there. It also calls for more investment
in wind, geothermal and biomass technologies, regulation of carbon
dioxide emissions and greater energy efficiency. It is signed by
leaders from liberal Protestant, Jewish, Roman Catholic and, even,
Zen religious bodies. For whatever its worth, I agree with
most of the ideas expressed in the letter. What I dont understand,
again, is why religious leaders are issuing such exhortations in
the name of God.
Saudi
newspaper editor apologizes for Purim blood libel (Jerusalem
Post)
A Saudi Arabian newspaper editor yesterday issued a backhanded
apology for a column published last week which resurrected the medieval
blood libel against Jews by claiming they use the blood of Christian
or Muslim mature adolescents to prepare special Purim
pastries. Al-Riyadh editor-in-chief Turki al-Sudairi wrote that
the article, written by Umayma Ahmed al-Jalahma of King Faisal University,
was not fit to print. The paper had been sharply criticized
by the US government before Al-Riyadh published the apology. On
Monday, the Voice of America aired an editorial praising Saudi Arabia
for its peace initiative, but criticizing it for not doing more
to reduce Israel-Arab tensions. In the meantime, said
VOA, there is something that Saudi Arabia and other countries
could do right now to ease tensions in the Middle East. They could
stop newspapers and radio and television stations, especially those
controlled by the state, from inciting hatred and violence against
Jews.
The
fundamentalist question (Josie Appleton)
So why did radical Islam begin to emerge in the West in the
1990s? The emergence cannot be explained by the strength of the
doctrine of radical Islam. Rather, the reasons some young Muslim
men began to be gripped by anti-Western religious dogma should be
sought in changes within Western society. The key factor in the
rise of fundamentalism in the West was the end of the Cold War in
1989. This effectively unfroze politics dissolving the left-right
axis that had structured political and social identities for much
of the twentieth century. With the collapse of the left, the right
could no longer sustain its coherence and in Europe and the
USA, right-wing governments tumbled. Society was left increasingly
atomised and directionless. This malaise was compounded by the erosion
of long-standing institutions which had helped tie individuals into
society, including the family, the church, the monarchy and civic
organisations. The ideology of Islamic fundamentalism grew stronger
in this vacuum left by the end of the Cold War. Where post-Cold
War politics seemed uncertain and unconfident, Islamic fundamentalism
promised firm rules, a coherent sense of identity, and a sense of
belonging to a global Islamic community.
Epidemic
of fear (Frank Furedi)
Since 11 September, speculating about risk is represented
as sound risk management. The aftermath of 11 September has given
legitimacy to the principle of precaution, with risk increasingly
seen as something you suffer from, rather than something you manage.
Of course, taking sensible precautions makes a lot of sense. But
continually imagining the worst possible outcome is not an effective
way to deal with problems. Allowing speculation to dominate how
we think about risks may even distract us from tackling the everyday
problems and hazards that confront society. We dont need any
more Hollywood-style brainstorming. We need a grown-up discussion
about our post-11 September world, based on a reasoned evaluation
of all the available evidence rather than on irrational fears for
the future.
The
Social Psychology of Modern Slavery (SciAm)
To many people, it comes as a surprise that debt bondage and
other forms of slavery persist into the 21st century. Every country,
after all, has made it illegal to own and exercise total control
over another human being. And yet there are people like Baldev who
remain enslaved by my estimate, which is based on a compilation
of reports from governments and nongovernmental organizations, perhaps
27 million of them around the world. If slaveholders no longer own
slaves in a legal sense, how can they still exercise so much control
that freed slaves sometimes deliver themselves back into bondage?
This is just one of the puzzles that make slavery the greatest challenge
faced by the social sciences today. Despite being among the oldest
and most persistent forms of human relationships, found in most
societies at one time or another, slavery is little understood.
Although historians have built up a sizable literature on antebellum
American slavery, other types have barely been studied.... Human
trafficking the involuntary smuggling of people between countries,
often by organized crime has become a huge concern, especially
in Europe and Southeast Asia. Many people, lured by economic opportunities,
pay smugglers to slip them across borders but then find themselves
sold to sweatshops, brothels or domestic service to pay for their
passage; others are kidnapped and smuggled against their will. In
certain areas, notably Brazil and West Africa, laborers have been
enticed into signing contracts and then taken to remote plantations
and prevented from leaving. In parts of South Asia and North Africa,
slavery is a millennia-old tradition that has never truly ended.
The
Social Life of Paper (Malcolm Gladwell)
Computer technology was supposed to replace paper. But that
hasnt happened. Every country in the Western world uses more
paper today, on a per-capita basis, than it did ten years ago. The
consumption of uncoated free-sheet paper, for instance the
most common kind of office paper rose almost fifteen per
cent in the United States between 1995 and 2000. This is generally
taken as evidence of how hard it is to eradicate old, wasteful habits
and of how stubbornly resistant we are to the efficiencies offered
by computerization. A number of cognitive psychologists and ergonomics
experts, however, dont agree. Paper has persisted, they argue,
for very good reasons: when it comes to performing certain kinds
of cognitive tasks, paper has many advantages over computers. The
dismay people feel at the sight of a messy desk or the spectacle
of air-traffic controllers tracking flights through notes scribbled
on paper strips arises from a fundamental confusion about
the role that paper plays in our lives.
Propaganda
at its best (Cal Thomas)
Last week, ABC News allowed entertainer Rosie ODonnell
to take over two hours of airtime for a one-sided infomercial promoting
gay adoptions. All of the elements required for breaking
down what few social norms remain regarding the family structure
were present on Primetime Thursday. First, the celebrity
factor. In our postmodern, post Christian, post objective truth
generation, celebrity equals credibility. Celebrities have replaced
God. When they speak, some people think the rest of us should listen....
Rosie is right because she says so. She says President and Laura
Bush are wrong when they say that the ideal setting for a child
is in a home with a mother and father. End of discussion. The celebrity
goddess has spoken.... There are credible scientific, legal and
religious arguments against gay adoptions. ABC didnt
present them because if they had, Rosie ODonnell would not
have appeared on Primetime Thursday. This was journalism
at its worst but propaganda at its best.
They
Died for Lack of a Head Scarf (Mona Eltahawy)
The fire was a tragedy that could have struck anywhere. Fifteen
girls between ages 13 and 17 were trampled to death and 52 others
were hurt when a blaze swept through their school.... Firefighters
told the Saudi press that morality police forced girls to stay inside
the burning building because they were not wearing the head scarves
and black cloaks known as abayas that women must wear in public
in that kingdom. One Saudi paper said the morality police stopped
men who tried to help the girls escape the building, saying, It
is sinful to approach them. Girls died because zealots at
the gate would rather see them burn than appear in public dressed
inappropriately.... What kind of virtue is it to allow girls to
die in a fire because of what they were not wearing? Whose Islam
is it that allows these men to dilute the faith I and millions of
others cherish for its teachings of compassion and justice to nothing
more than a dress code and sexual segregation? I grew up learning
God is merciful and that faith was based on choice you could
not force actions on anyone in the name of religion.
Zero
tolerance means educators cannot practice what they teach (Dave
Lieber)
I keep waiting for Rod Serling to pop out in the story of
L.D. Bell High School student Taylor Hess and tell us it is another
episode from his old television show, The Twilight Zone. Hess was
expelled from school because his grandmothers bread knife
was found in his pickup parked on school property.... What
theyre trying to do is incomprehensible, Robert Hess,
Taylors father, told me. I just cant believe it.
Zero tolerance doesnt mean zero brains. You have to use your
judgment. .... This is so sad, what our public education system
has been reduced to, as administrators and teachers try to cope
with the very real threat of student violence. We have taken away
from them the very concepts that we try to teach our children. We
have removed their ability to use their own good judgment, their
reasoning powers and their ability to make decisions on a case-by-case
basis. If justice is not examined on a case-by-case basis, then
it is not true justice.
Youre
the Doctor: Whats as Easy as ABC? Only a Little Farther Up
the Alphabet? A PhD. (WP)
These days, PhDs are like opinions and pie holes pretty
much everybodys got one. You can earn a PhD: in human nutrition
at Michigan State University; in social work at the University of
Texas; in recreational studies at the University of Florida; in
family studies at the University of New Mexico; and in fashion merchandising
at Texas Womens University. A candidate for a PhD in creative
writing at the University of Georgia can submit poems instead of
a dissertation. At the University of Michigan you can get a PhD
in literature without reading Shakespeare.... In fact, all kinds
of people are picking up PhDs. This year about 42,000 people will
earn doctorates in the United States, according to the University
of Chicagos National Opinion Research Center, which conducts
research for the National Science Foundation and five other federal
agencies. Most striking is a trend toward more PhDs in the humanities
up more than 11 percent between 1999 and 2000.... Candidates
in the past were required to possess a breadth of knowledge bearing
on a given subject. Often they had to study additional languages.
And their labor which usually took years of intense study
in required courses was subject to review by outside scholars.
In many cases, the requirements have been eased.
Mein
Kampf for sale, in Arabic (London Telegraph)
An Arabic translation of Hitlers Mein Kampf
which has become a bestseller in the Palestinian territories is
now on sale in Britain. The book, Hitlers account of his life
and anti-Semitic ideology written while he was in prison in the
1920s, is normally found in Britain in academic or political bookshops.
But The Telegraph found it on sale in three newsagents on Edgware
Road, central London, an area with a large Arab population.... Copies
of the translation are understood to have been distributed to London
shops towards the end of last year and have been selling well. In
the preface, Luis al-Haj, the translator, states: National
Socialism did not die with the death of its herald. Rather, its
seeds multiplied under each star. The book was on sale alongside
newspapers, magazines, cigarettes and sweets at a newsagents
kiosk.
Web
Critics Take Aim at Old-Style Publishers (FOXNews)
A small but growing contingent of amateur and semi-professional
media critics are taking aim at newspapers and periodicals, picking
up where those papers ombudsmen (if they have them) leave
off. One of the first to appear was SmarterTimes.com, a site that
painstakingly points out flaws in The New York Times. Since then,
similar sights have cropped up that skewer the Los Angeles Times
(LAExaminer.com) and the San Francisco Chronicle (Chronwatch.com).
There
is No Time, There Will Be Time
(Peggy Noonan)
Forbes ASAP (November 18, 1998)
When you consider who is gifted and crazed with rage... when
you think of the terrorist places and the terrorist countries...
who do they hate most? The Great Satan, the United States. What
is its most important place? Some would say Washington. I would
say the great city of the United States is the great city of the
world, the dense 10-mile-long island called Manhattan, where the
economic and media power of the nation resides, the city that is
the psychological center of our modernity, our hedonism, our creativity,
our hard-shouldered hipness, our unthinking arrogance.
Networks
Need a Reality Check: A firsthand account of liberal bias at CBS News
(Bernard Goldberg)
Wall Street Journal (February 13, 1996)
There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network
news, and one of them, Im more convinced than ever, is that
our viewers simply dont trust us. And for good reason. The
old argument that the networks and other media elites
have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that its hardly worth
discussing anymore. No, we dont sit around in dark corners
and plan strategies on how were going to slant the news. We
dont have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.
A brilliant parody:
Transgressing
the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
(Alan Sokal)
Social Text (Spring/Summer 1996) There are many natural scientists, and especially physicists,
who continue to reject the notion that the disciplines concerned
with social and cultural criticism can have anything to contribute,
except perhaps peripherally, to their research. Still less are they
receptive to the idea that the very foundations of their worldview
must be revised or rebuilt in the light of such criticism. Rather,
they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony
over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly
as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties
are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity
as a whole; that these properties are encoded in eternal
physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit
imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the
objective procedures and epistemological strictures
prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.
... and, in explanation, ...
A
Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies
(Alan Sokal)
Lingua Franca (May/June 1996)
For some years Ive been troubled by an apparent decline
in the standards of rigor in certain precincts of the academic humanities.
But Im a mere physicist: If I find myself unable to make heads
or tails of jouissance and differance, perhaps that just
reflects my own inadequacy. So, to test the prevailing intellectual
standards, I decided to try a modest (though admittedly uncontrolled)
experiment: Would a leading North American journal of cultural studies
whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric
Jameson and Andrew Ross publish an article liberally salted
with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors
ideological preconceptions? The answer, unfortunately, is yes....
Whats going on here? Could the editors really not have realized
that my article was written as a parody?
The Doomslayer
(Ed Regis)
Wired
(February 1997)
The world is getting progressively poorer, and its all
because of population, or more precisely, overpopulation.
Theres a finite store of resources on our pale blue dot, spaceship
Earth, our small and fragile tiny planet, and were fast approaching
its ultimate carrying capacity. The limits to growth are finally
upon us, and were living on borrowed time. The laws of population
growth are inexorable. Unless we act decisively, the final result
is written in stone: mass poverty, famine, starvation, and death.
Time is short, and we have to act now. Thats the standard
and canonical litany.... Theres just one problem with The
Litany, just one slight little wee imperfection: every item in that
dim and dreary recitation, each and every last claim, is false....
Thus saith The Doomslayer, one Julian L.
Simon, a neither shy nor retiring nor particularly mild-mannered
professor of business administration at a middling eastern-seaboard
state university. Simon paints a somewhat different picture of the
human condition circa 1997. Our species is better off in just
about every measurable material way, he says. Just about
every important long-run measure of human material welfare shows
improvement over the decades and centuries, in the United States
and the rest of the world. Raw materials all of them
have become less scarce rather than more. The air in the US and
in other rich countries is irrefutably safer to breathe. Water cleanliness
has improved. The environment is increasingly healthy, with every
prospect that this trend will continue.
An
Explosion of Green
(Bill McKibben)
The Atlantic
(April 1995)new
In the early nineteenth century the cleric Timothy Dwight
reported that the 240-mile journey from Boston to New York City
passed through no more than twenty miles of forest. Surveying the
changes wrought by farmers and loggers in New Hampshire, he wrote,
The forests are not only cut down, but there appears little
reason to hope that they will ever grow again. Less than two
centuries later, despite great increases in the states population,
90 percent of New Hampshire is covered by forest. Vermont was 35
percent woods in 1850 and is 80 percent today, and even Massachusetts,
Connecticut, and Rhode Island have seen woodlands rebound to the
point where they cover nearly three fifths of southern New England.
This process, which began as farmers abandoned the cold and rocky
pastures of the East for the fertile fields of the Midwest, has
not yet run its course.... This unintentional and mostly unnoticed
renewal of the rural and mountainous East not the spotted
owl, not the salvation of Alaskas pristine ranges represents
the great environmental story of the United States, and in some
ways of the whole world. Here, where suburb and megalopolis
were added to the worlds vocabulary, an explosion of green
is under way, one that could offer hope to much of the rest of the
planet.
Perfidious Priests and What Must Be Done
About Them (Part Four)
The column is also available on
This
Views Column page, without the links on the left-
and right-hand of the page.
The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord:
Arise, and go down to the potters house, and there I will let you
hear my words. So I went down to the potters house, and there he
was working at his wheel. And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in
the potters hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed
good to the potter to do. Then the word of the Lord came to me: O house
of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? says the Lord. Behold,
like the clay in the potters hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.
If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck
up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have
spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do
to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I
will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my
voice, then I will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it. Now,
therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: Thus
says the Lord, Behold, I am shaping evil against you and devising a plan against
you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your doings.
But they say, That is in vain! We will follow our own plans, and will
every one act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.
(Jeremiah 18:1-12 RSV)
Some Spots of High
Ground in the Morass
The news, which I have been reviewing extensively, is not all bad.
I mentioned last
time how Archbishop Elden Curtiss, of Omaha, wrote scolding letters
to two parishioners of the archdiocese, after each had written to a local secular
newspaper criticizing how the archbishop had handled two cases of clerical misbehavior.
I was happy to learn that Curtiss has since apologized to the two, as reported
in the Omaha World-Herald, Mar. 25:
Archbishop Elden Curtiss announced Monday [Mar. 25]
that he is apologizing for his written rebukes of two Roman Catholic parishioners
who publicly criticized his decision to reassign a priest who had viewed Internet
child pornography. I am sorry that my previous letter to you was interpreted
as being demeaning or even insulting, Curtiss wrote to Frank Ayers and
Jeanne Bast. I never meant it to be such. When informed of the
apology, which Curtiss said he mailed Saturday, Ayers said it was not necessary
for the archbishop to apologize directly to him, but I do definitely
accept it.
I will continue to pray for our church leadership and
for Father (Robert) Allgaier and most definitely for Archbishop Elden Curtiss
in these most difficult times, Ayers said. Bast said she is glad the
archbishop wrote. I thank him and I accept his apology, she said,
and I will continue to pray for Father Allgaier and the church.
.... Curtiss also attempted to explain his previous letters to Ayers and Bast.
He said his earlier letters expressed his private frustration that a fellow
Catholic would be so negative about the accusations leveled against
a young priest without knowing all the facts of the case; and negative against
me without knowing the process I was following with professional advice.
And my own bishop, Donald Wuerl of Pittsburgh, has been singled out as an outstanding
example of how cases of clerical sexual abuse ought to be handled, according
to an article
in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mar. 29, which begins with a quotation
from Wuerls homily at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, the previous day:
What has led us to where we are today in the scandal
around a number of priests who have abused minors is not so much the abhorrence
of the moral failure itself but, added to it, the sense of failure on the
part of church leadership to respond adequately to this sin, which is also
a crime. Wuerl did not speak of his own track record, which is widely
regarded as one of the best. A current editorial in the Jesuit magazine America,
which urged the bishops to make a public act of penance, singled Wuerl out
for his refusal to reinstate a pedophile when the Vaticans highest court
ordered him to do so in 1993. Wuerl has said that he has never knowingly returned
a child molester to ministry.
Yesterday, however, he tried to explain that bishops who
returned child molesters to parishes years ago did not act out of malice.
Twenty years ago society did not recognize that the desire for sexual contact
with minors was a psychological compulsion, so bishops treated it as they
would any other moral problem requiring repentance and forgiveness, Wuerl
said. He continued that his own perspective on the issue changed during his
first months as bishop, when he met the young victims of three priests, their
parents and the traumatized people of the parishes where the abuse had taken
place. While a bishop must consult with his staff representing many
disciplines, legal, financial, canonical and pastoral, he must always respond
as a pastor. ... The first obligation of a pastor is the care of those entrusted
to his care.
Wuerl is not the only bishop who has dealt appropriately with these situations,
acting primarily as a pastor of both clergy and laity. Of course not. But, as
in every other area of life, those who have botched up the job get the headlines:
bishops and priests who serve well and faithfully dont warrant much attention
from the media, just as bad parents or physicians or police officers make the
news while good parents and physicians and police officers go largely unrecognized.
I would like to single out one priest for special recognition, but unfortunately
I cannot name him nor give but a few details: I cannot find the documentation
that I thought I had saved. He eventually found himself physically attracted
to younger people, and succumbed to the temptation several times. When he finally
realized that he would never be able to trust himself around young people again,
he resigned the sacred ministry and retired to live a solitary life in a lonely
cabin in the woods, in reparation, and he resolved never to be alone with a
teenager again. I think his case of self-aware self-sacrifice is a heroic example
of courage, of which there are far too few in this whole sorry mess.
A Few Caveats
One sentence quoted above may have come as a big surprise: A current
editorial in the Jesuit magazine America, which urged the bishops to make a
public act of penance, singled Wuerl out for his refusal to reinstate a pedophile
when the Vaticans highest court ordered him to do so in 1993. After
reading, for weeks, of how this or that bishop is removing this or that priest
from his position because of sexual involvement with young people, one may wonder
how Church courts may be involved. Does not the bishop have the right to place,
or remove, a priest from a given position? Yes. And no. For priests have rights,
too, and especially a priest who is a pastor.
Though the Church is not a government (in which there may be checks and balances
between branches), theology, practice, and law have developed in response to
varying circumstances over the centuries to hinder the abuse of autocratic authority.
One of the developments is the recognition that a parish pastor has a right
to a stable ministry: neither he nor his parish and parishioners is well-served
if he is subject to removal willy-nilly by the bishop. (There are situations,
however, in which a pastor may be appointed for a limited term of office.)
Though a bishop may suspend a priest from exercising his ministry if he thinks
there is just cause, he cannot do so indefinitely if the priest objects: there
may very well be a trial, which may very well result in appeals. An entire section
of the 1983
Code of Canon Law deals with The Procedure for Removal
or Transfer
of Parish Priests. (There are also administrative acts that can
be employed, but I know little about them.)
Similarly, theologians who have been lawfully appointed or elected to certain
positions are not necessarily subject to removal summarily by higher authority,
even in the case of obvious, perhaps even deliberate, error. (My remarks earlier
on the bishops failure to discipline theologians in the wake of the promulgation
of Humanae Vitae unintentionally implied otherwise.) Again, procedures
have been established over the centuries to protect the freedom of legitimate
theological speculation and development. (See Canon 218.)
Indeed, one of the complaints raised by bishops at Vatican II was that, in
the preceding 100 years or so, progressive theologians were sometimes silenced
by Rome without a real chance to defend their positions. The pendulum, as the
saying goes, has now swung too far the other way.
One of the reasons that actions against an accused priest (or theologian, for
that matter) must be taken with care is that an accusation is not a conviction.
Ironically, this point came up in an essay,
Mar. 29, on media bias, by Dr. David Stolinsky, a retired teaching-physician
who writes on social and political issues:
The same paper [the Los Angeles Times], like most papers,
takes great care to refer to anyone who has not yet been convicted of a crime
as an alleged or accused murderer or rapist. This
wording avoids lawsuits, and more importantly, it follows the American tradition
that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So why is it that this
paper began a story about child abuse in the Catholic Church with the front-page
headline Mahony Wont Name Abusers. Not one of these priests
had been charged with a crime, much less convicted, or their names would already
be a matter of public record. But those Cardinal Mahony didnt name were
not referred to as alleged abusers. Somehow the fear of lawsuits,
and the devotion to civil liberties, were forgotten in the rush to condemn
the Catholic Church and, by extension, Christianity in general. Accused
murderers and rapists in jail awaiting trial are alleged, but
priests not formally charged with anything are abusers. How inconsistent.
But how revealing.
Stolinsky notes, too, another peculiar aspect of reporting about the current
scandal:
Also revealing is the fact that the kids allegedly abused
are referred to as victims, accusers, teens,
youths, and other terms that leave us to guess their sex. The
word boys is rarely used. If the sex of the alleged victims had
been reported, we could judge the truth of the claim that 90 percent of them
were boys. But as it is, we can only wonder whether that claim is correct.
And we can wonder whether the reluctance to report the sex of the victims
is due to a reluctance to offend gays. Perhaps the 90 percent figure is incorrect.
Perhaps there is no bias in favor of the gay agenda. But the incomplete reporting
lends credence to our suspicions. Cant reporters and editors see this?
Or dont they care?
(No, they cant see it.)
Comedian Jackie Mason, with Raoul Felder, is another voice for restraint when
considering accusations, in a Washington Times essay,
Mar. 29:
When there is an allegation of child abuse made against
a member of the clergy, logically there are but three possibilities: The allegation
is true; the allegation is knowingly false and made for the possibility of
financial gain; the allegation is in fact false, but the accusers believe
it to be true. Yes, Virginia, believe it or not, there are people who would
make false allegations for profit. To these people, the Catholic Church in
America represents a seemingly bottomless pocket. Additionally, there is a
perception that the church would pay off on even a false claim. With lawyers
working on contingencies, it is a no-lose situation for an individual who
wakes up one morning and decides he or she was abused by a priest 30 years
ago....
The church should be held to no greater or lesser standard
than should any citizen or other responsible entity. If there is a sexual
harassment allegation by an employee against General Motors, General Motors
investigates that allegation. If the harassment rises to the point where force
or a criminal act is clearly involved, General Motors or any other organization
in a similar situation should rightfully direct and assist the complainant
in going to the criminal justice system for aid. However, for the Catholic
Church, as suggested, to immediately report every complaint to the authorities,
on a presumptively guilty basis, puts the accused in an impossible position,
and places the church in harms way in terms of civil litigation, if
the accusation is later determined to be unfounded. The Catholic Church is
an institution that represents the core beliefs of, and is the moral compass
for, tens of millions of people. It is not only unfair, it is unwise, to undermine
this relationship by a response more visceral than thoughtful.
A Few Bits of Anti-Catholic
Bias in Mainstream Media
Just as it would be unwise to accept at face value every accusation of priestly
misconduct, so is it unwise to accept at face value every report in the mainstream
media. A recent news article, and two opinion pieces, especially caught my attention.
An article
in the Boston Globe, Mar. 24, reported the following:
Thomas Blanchette, another man who alleges that [Rev. Joseph
E.] Birmingham molested him in the 1960s, said he approached [Cardinal Bernard]
Law at Birminghams funeral in 1989 and told him about the abuse. Blanchette
said Law silently prayed for him, but then instructed him to keep the information
secret.
He laid his hands on my head for two or three minutes,
Blanchette, who said his four brothers were also molested by Birmingham, said
of Law. And then he said this: I bind you by the power of the
confessional never to speak about this to anyone else. And that just
burned me big-time. ... I didnt ask him to hear my confession. I went
there to inform him.
I bind you by the power of the confessional.... Ooooh. It sounds
so mysterious... so ominous... so awful.... Im sure non-Catholics must
be wondering what it means. Catholics must be wondering what it means, too.
Because there is no such thing. It sounds, to me, like something out of the
wackier fantasies of somebody like Charles
Chiniquy. The Boston Globe, though, prints it without a second thought:
had they investigated, just a little, they would have had to leave it out.
An essay
by somebody named Johanna McGeary, in Time, Mar. 24, contains the following
remarkable passage:
The Roman Catholic Church is a stern hierarchy that has always
kept its deliberations secret, policed itself and issued orders from the top.
An obedient priest moves up in power by keeping his head down, winning rewards
for bureaucratic skills and strict orthodoxy. When Cardinals are created,
they take a vow before the Pope to keep in confidence anything that,
if revealed, would cause a scandal or harm to the church. When it came
to sex abuse, the Vatican essentially told bishops, Youre on your own.
But if saving the church from scandal was literally a cardinal virtue, then
the bishops of Americas 194 dioceses who had direct responsibility for
priestly misconduct would make it their first principle. Better by far never
to let the public know.
Lets pass by the astonishing notion that strict orthodoxy
is required for a priest to move up in power in the Catholic Church
in the USA. (One need read no further to understand that the writer is quite
clueless.)
What caught my attention was the equally astonishing notion that a cardinal
takes a vow to keep in confidence anything that, if revealed, would cause
a scandal or harm to the church. I would not waste either McGearys
time or mine to ask her for a citation. But I had seen that little bit of fantasy
related elsewhere, too, as fact, so I thought that I should point it out.
Finally, a column
by one Michael Kramer in the New York Daily News, Mar. 24, relates a quite fanciful
history of mandatory celibacy:
Ending celibacy wouldnt be heresy: A married priesthood
was the original and traditional Catholic condition for more than 12 centuries.
Until they were forced to choose between their families and the priesthood
in 1139, many Catholic clerics, including 39 Popes, were married. Its
crucial to understand that embracing celibacy did not reflect some purer interpretation
of Gods will. In fact, it was mostly about money. A string of worldly
medieval Popes had gradually worked to impose mandatory celibacy on the priesthood
to increase their political power and enrich the churchs coffers. Married
priests quite naturally left their holdings to their heirs. The Popes wanted
those riches for the church and Innocent II got the job done for good
when the 2nd Lateran Council ended optional celibacy in 1139.
Actually, what really is crucial to understand is that Kramers
history is almost entirely wrong, except for names and dates. This
made-up history this fundamentally anti-Catholic history is so
commonplace, though, historian Philip Jenkins (whose book was quoted at length
in Part
One) published an article
in the Washington Post, Mar. 31, to set the record straight:
The notion that mandatory celibacy wasnt imposed until
the 12th century, stated as fact, seems quite damning to the churchs
insistence on the practice. If true, modern Catholics would be insisting on
an innovation that has been around for less than half of the history of Christianity,
one that dates to the Middle Ages, a period that enjoys a dreadful reputation
in modern thought. Through guilt by association, celibacy seems to be linked
in many peoples minds with such horrors as witch-burning, the Inquisition
and the Crusades. Worst of all, the reasons often cited for the invention
of celibacy are not even spiritual, but rather involve land rights. According
to a scholarly myth widely held among historians, the church was just trying
to ensure that the children of priests could not become legitimate heirs to
church land. Literally, according to this story, the modern Catholic Church
is keeping alive a survival of feudal times.
This pseudo-history is wrong at almost every point. Mandatory
celibacy goes much further back than Medieval times, if not quite to the days
of the apostles. Priestly celibacy was the usual expectation in the West by
late Roman times, say the 4th century, and Medieval statements on the subject
were just reasserting discipline that had collapsed temporarily in times of
war and social chaos. Of course we can find married priests throughout the
Middle Ages, just as we can find priests committing molestation today, but
that does not mean that, in either case, they were acting with church approval.
In making this point about dates, I am not just nitpicking
in the worst academic tradition. I am stressing that priestly celibacy is
a product of the very early church. Just how early? It was celibate priests
and monks who made the final decisions about which books were going to make
up the New Testament, and which would be excluded. If, as most Christians
believe, the ideas and practices of the early church carry special authority,
then we should certainly rank priestly celibacy among these ancient traditions.
So if they were not defending land rights, why did successive
popes try to enforce celibacy? Odd as this may seem, the main reason seems
to have been the increased frequency of the Eucharist or Mass. Because of
the need to focus on spiritual rather than worldly interests, married priests
in the 3rd and 4th centuries were supposed to abstain from sex the night before
saying Mass. As Mass became a daily ritual, this effectively demanded permanent
celibacy. Out of this practical need came a whole theology of self-sacrifice.
The idea of celibacy is based less on a fear of sexuality than on a deep respect
for its power, and with proper training, a celibate could transform or channel
this power into a source of strength. Modern psychologists would later invent
the term sublimation for this complex process.
(Jenkins, by the way, is an Episcopalian.)
I have decided that it may be very instructive to show that historical documents
demonstrate the absolute correctness of Jenkins assertion about the main
reason for the rise of mandatory clerical celibacy. The Roman tradition of clerical
continence (married clergy abstaining from sexual activity) can be traced back,
demonstrably, to the end of the fourth century. Indeed, it can be traced back
specifically to a decree issued by a small group of African bishops who met
in council in June 398 who themselves were merely handing on (Latin traditio)
and reaffirming rules that had come to them from earlier times.
I quote from The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Christian
Cochini, S.J. Preceding this section, Fr. Cochini relates how the decree has
been explicitly cited and quoted by bishops and popes from the fifth century
right through the Reformation in support of clerical celibacy:
Here then is the document that was to play such a part in
the history of ecclesiastical celibacy:
Epigonius, Bishop of the Royal Region of Bulla, says:
The rule of continence and chastity had been discussed in a previous council.
Let it [now] be taught with more emphasis what are the three ranks that, by
virtue of their consecration, are under the same obligation of chastity, i.e.,
the bishop, the priest, and the deacon, and let them be instructed to keep
their purity.
Bishop Genethlius says: As was previously said, it
is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites,
i.e., those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect
continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking
from God; what the apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let
us also endeavor to keep.
The bishops declared unanimously: It pleases us all
that bishop, priest, and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from [conjugal
intercourse] with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep
a perfect chastity.
This text is interesting in many respects. Mention is made
of the clerics wives, and particularly, the wives of the hierarchys
high-ranking members: bishops, priests, and deacons. Most of those
or at least a large number were thus bound by marriage. Such men are
being asked by the African synod to give up no less than all conjugal intercourse
and to observe perfect chastity. Because they are ministers at the service
of the divine sacraments, it is deemed that marital life would prevent them
from carrying out simpliciter (in all simplicity) their intercessory
function. (p. 5)
Clerical celibacy was not an invention of greedy popes in the Middle Ages.
But thats the kind of flat-out nonsense that passes for historical understanding
in mainstream media. Clerical celibacy was a practical outgrowth of ecclesiastical
tradition and liturgical practice going back to no later than the fourth
century to the days, indeed, when the very canon of Sacred Scripture
had not yet been definitively determined.
Justice even plain and simple honesty demands that columnists
and reporters acknowledge these historical facts, not ignore or distort them.
Am I saying that dissent from Catholic faith
and life caused the outbreak of immoral priests in our midst? No.
But there is, indeed, a very good argument to be made that confusion about
Church teaching, caused by deliberate and public deception by prominent Catholic
theologians, contributed to the outbreak and justification
of immoral behavior among Catholics of all stripes.
Catholic scholar Michael Novak wrote
about this in a Good Friday meditation, Mar. 29:
After a daily diet of sexual-abuse scandals, American Catholics
came into Good Friday this year with a new way of observing Lent: mortification,
shame, and the bitter herbs of public humiliation. But also with a powerful
conviction that dissent has failed. Okay, there was a sexual revolution;
okay, there is a new morality. Problem is, had the old morality
been followed, there would be no scandals, which so many now suffer from.
Child abuse comes not from celibacy nor vows of chastity. Neither women priests
nor married clergy make it go away just examine the record of churches
that have gone that route....
The reason the American Church today stands accused of hypocrisy
is that it has been teaching one thing (semper fidelis for two millennia),
while in that deeply conflicted generation ordained during the Sixties and
Seventies (hit simultaneously by Vatican II and the sexual revolution) a small
but significant body of its priests including some bishops has been flagrantly
violating that teaching. That traditional teaching holds that our bodies are
holy, the temples of the Holy Spirit, the physical manifestation of our personalities
and of the graces poured out on us through the sacraments. We are embodied
souls; every part is body, every part is soul, there is no dualism here. Our
persons have been anointed. Our persons are sacramental. These teachings,
exemplified in the life of Christ, are the ground of Catholic thinking both
about loving sexuality in marriage and about the fire that gives celibacy
its beauty, the purposive struggle for purity of heart. To engage our bodies
in sinful acts, which slap the face of God and pierce anew His wounds upon
the cross, is a kind of blasphemy. It is a dreadful misuse of sanctified bodies,
bodies united in the Eucharist with Christs own. These acts wound the
holiness of a partner, destroy innocence, breed contempt and anger, awaken
hatred for God. They are especially horrible to contemplate when they have
injured the unspoiled and trusting young.
How can people who studied long and prayed hard before taking
vows turn in such a direction, in some cases habitually and nearly hardened
in it, with a full-scale ideology to rationalize it? How can that happen?
It could not have happened without a culture of dissent,
especially regarding the theology of the human body. Its partisans
call it dissent, which of itself is a healthy thing within a loyal
brotherhood, but in its recent American form has been a sullen, silent rebellion,
a separation of the heart from the leadership of those popes that followed
the greatly loved and much-misinterpreted John XXIII (d. 1963). Paul VI and
John Paul II have been the butt of the progressives ire. I think
the Church is being governed by thugs, one Jesuit is quoted as dismissing
them. (emphasis added)
Catholic columnist Phil Brennan traces,
Mar. 27, the roots of dissent back much further back
to the nineteenth century, in fact, and the attempt of one American priest (Isaac
Thomas Hecker, founder of the Paulists) to make the Catholic faith more palatable
to Americans:
The scandals rocking the Church in America today had their
roots in what might be called Heckerism, the ideology that gave
birth to political correctness in the Church the doctrine that insists
that if a tenet of theology gives offense to anyone it must be either toned
down or abandoned....
Slowly, covertly, the cancer variously identified as Americanization
or modernism, or simply as heresy, has eaten away at the vitals of the Catholic
Church in America. The Church in America that once
stood like a rock in the sea of uncertainty, corruption and immorality that
is modern secular society the Church which could claim to be the staunch
guardian of the immutable principles of Christianity handed down from the
Apostles has become an instrument of confusion and doubt,
a betrayer of its faithful and a haven for the worst kinds of perversion and
heresy. (emphasis added)
If professional Catholic theologians and pastors and religious
on the Churchs payroll, at all levels effectively compromise
Catholic faith and life to the point where they are becoming indistinguishable
from the prevailing secular milieu, why are these men and women not called
subversive traitors and expelled?
According to Cal Thomas, a conservative Protestant columnist, Catholic author
Ralph McInerny pegs the rejection by professional Catholic theologians of Humanae
Vitae as the beginning of the modern decline from Catholic orthodoxy,
which I have already identified as the time of the collapse of the moral
authority of the Catholic bishops in the USA. As Thomas wrote in a column,
Mar. 30:
McInerny dates the modern decline from Catholic orthodoxy
to 1968 when liberal theologians rejected the popes Humanae Vitae,
which restated certain boundaries for sexual expression. The moral theologians
who rejected the document displayed an attitude, says McInerny, which was
antithetical to Christian morality. His
point, and it is a good one, is that the leaders of the Catholic Church in
America (and one might also argue the same applies to many Protestant leaders)
were compromised because they feared the criticism of the world more than
they feared disapproval from God. The same attitude prevails in many churches
today.... Too many churches abandon doctrine at the first sign of secular
disapproval for fear of being called names and being rejected by the unchurched
masses....
Instead of orthodoxy and discipline, some in the Catholic
Church and other churches have sought the worlds approval.... What theyve
received in return is corruption in their souls and in their leadership. Too
many Catholics, as well as others who call themselves Christians, think they
should be able to create God in their image. Catholics want to remain Catholic
while at the same time rejecting some of the basic teachings of their church.
Can one be a member in good standing of the NAACP if hes a racist? Whether
the issue is divorce, or sexual expression of any and every kind, these theological
lone rangers think they are God and get to decide right from wrong.... The
best approach to solving the problem of a few priests who prey on minors,
and theological liberalism in general, is for the Catholic Church to return
to the original rulebook, Scripture, which was written and delivered for the
protection and redemption of humanity, and stop listening to the siren call
of the world, which is headed in another direction. (emphasis added)