Month: April 2002

Michael Barone shares my faith in Bush’s Middle East strategy. It’s the Saudis who should be worried, not us.

It’s not the finest hour for the church when its leading guardian of orthodoxy – the man who wrote the document that calls gay men “intrinsically disordered” – petulantly slaps a reporter’s hand for daring to ask questions about a close ally of the Pope who is credibly accused of being a serial sexual molester of boys. Ratzinger’s fit of pique is a function of his past. He isn’t used to any serious questioning or dialogue. He pronounces doctrines that affect the lives of millions, but when one of his close allies (and one of the current pope’s closest confidants) has been accused of hideous sexual abuse, he buries and ignores the charges, and then is offended even to be asked about them. The Vatican official thus accused, Father Maciel, denies the allegations. You can see why the Church must hope he’s telling the truth. After these charges were made and buried, the Pope appointed Maciel as his special representative to a conference of Latin American bishops. Maciel’s case links this scandal directly to the papacy itself. Hence Ratzinger’s rattled response. The theoconservatives will be leery of touching this one – because it might taint their theological hero, Ratzinger, a man who is second only to the Pope in his influence on the current direction of the Church. At some point in the next few months, my prediction is that this scandal will indeed hit Rome. Indeed, one reason the Vatican is resisting any peremptory discipline for the American cardinals is the precedent. What do they do if a more senior cardinal is discovered to have shielded serial molesters of children? What happens if the pope himself is implicated either directly or by association? These men are terrified. If you had shielded minor abusers for years, wouldn’t you be?

BURUMA DISMEMBERS ROY: Whatever you do, don’t miss Ian Buruma’s as usual superb dissection of Arundhati Roy’s facile anti-Americanism in the latest New Republic. here’s a strikingly acute passage:

There is one verbal tic that keeps recurring in Roy’s writings that may help us to understand her feelings–for that is what they are, more than coherent thoughts. She refers a great deal to India’s “ancient civilization,” usually to show how humiliating it is for an ancient people to defer to a jumped-up, uncivilized place such as the United States. About President Clinton’s visit to India, she observes: “He was courted and fawned over by the genuflecting representatives of this ancient civilization with a fervour that can only be described as indecent.” This speaks of the same snobbery that informed Roy’s remark on American television about Mickey Mouse and the mullahs. Rich, rampant America shows up the relative weakness and backwardness of India. This is hard to take for a member of the intellectual or artistic elite, educated by nationalist professors, whose thoughts were often molded by British Marxists from the London School of Economics.

Yes, it all comes to down to ressentiment. It’s true in the Middle East as well. How must those failed Arab polities feel when they look at tiny little Israel, a country that started from scratch, is minuscule in comparison in population and land-mass, and yet has left all its Arab neighbors in the dust. Talk about humiliating. And what more familiar panacea for humiliation than envy and violence? It was ever thus, and ever will be. But it doesn’t make it any more defensible. Or any less pathetic.

CARDINAL LAW’S CONTEMPT: Say this for Bernard Law. He knows where his power comes from. Who knows what deal he has done with his mentor, Pope John Paul II? Rumor has it that he will soon be given a high-class sinecure in Rome – as a reward for sheltering child-abusers. (I believe the rumors.) In return, he reminds us that any final policy on sexually abusing priests will be up to Rome, and that any thought of lay people having more input into the Church is verboten. As the New York Times reports,

In a letter faxed to priests in the archdiocese by one of his top aides, Cardinal Law said that a proposed association of parish councils organized by lay Catholics would be “superfluous and potentially divisive.” Instead of organizing themselves, laypeople must live “within the hierarchical structure of the church,” said the letter, which was sent by Bishop Walter J. Edyvian, vicar general of the Boston Archdiocese. Priests should not “join, foster or promote this endeavor among your parish pastoral council members or the community of the faithful at large,” Bishop Edyvian wrote.

Then there’s new evidence that Law is still daring, through hideous legalese, to blame children for their own abuse. I’m beginning to think that all the dire predictions about what all this will mean for the Church are wrong. It’s not worse than we think. It’s far, far worse.

LET THEM SPITE JEWS: Chris Caldwell’s report from France on the surge of racism – from right and left – makes some excellent points. It helps me understand France’s desire to appease Islamo-fascism. Their own country is a hotbed of Muslim hatred; and appeasement is always the default French position. Then there’s a strange and distressing collusion of interests between the anti-Jewish Muslim fascists and the left-leaning intellectual classes for whom criticism of anything from the Third World is unthinkable. Chris is too crude, I think, by labeling this Jew-hatred part of the “left.” Those terms are a little pointless when talking, for example, of passionate, indoctrinated, Islamist ideology. But he’s sharp on how hatred of Israel and Zionism, demonization of the strong and vibrant Jewish nation, is a new sublimation of an old hatred, cleansed by the thought that now the Jews are no longer the victims. I liked this point particularly:

For anyone who inhabits Western culture, the Holocaust made that culture a much more painful place to inhabit–and for any reasonably moral person, greatly narrowed the range of acceptable political behavior. To be human is to wish it had never happened. (Those who deny that it did may be those who can’t bear to admit that it happened.) But it did. If there’s a will-to-anti-Semitism in Western culture–as there probably is–then the Arab style of Judeophobia, which is an anti-Semitism without the West’s complexes, offers a real redemptive project to those Westerners who are willing to embrace it. It can liberate guilty, decadent Europeans from a horrible moral albatross. What an antidepressant!

It’s still an amazing achievement to me that France is able to sustain a wave of both anti-Arab and anti-Jewish sentiment at the same time. Who says they’re not still a great power?

STATISTICS FOR THEOCONS: “As a mathematician, I’m certain that purgatory isn’t a place; it’s a class. Purgatory is a course in statistics for theocons. Theocons claim that the higher incidence of same-sex molestation of post-pubescent minors by priests is “by definition” a homosexual problem. However, a statistical experiment can only demonstrate preference if it presents an alternative. As a statistical experiment, Catholic culture presents no such alternative. During relevant decades for the sexual abuse crisis, Catholic secondary education was sexually segregated. Priests taught at all-boys schools; there were no girls to molest. There was no choice between mal
e and female victims. Among the post-pubescent minors victimized by priests, the preponderance of males relative to females cannot be said to be a matter of sexual preference. Rather, it is a matter of opportunity – just as the rape of men in prison is a matter of opportunity for the rapist. Therefore, the statistics on priestly molestation can never be said to support the conclusion that homosexual priests are more prone to molest than heterosexual priests.” – this and defenses of Paul Krugman and virginity, all on the Letters Page.

DOES WEIGEL WANTS EXCEPTIONS FOR STRAIGHTS?: Another piece from the theocons, glibly equating the abuse of minors with homosexuality. How can I put this simply: just because the vast majority of these priestly sexual abuse cases have been (so far) between men and post-pubescent male minors, it doesn’t follow that the problem is homosexuality. The problem is abuse. I just cannot understand why this isn’t obvious. The only way in which it isn’t is if you believe that gays are more likely to molest minors than straights. There’s no evidence of that whatsoever, as theocon George Weigel concedes in this piece. So why this insistence? My suspicion is that these theocons really do believe that all gays are prone to pedophilia, but even they feel a little ashamed to pass on this argument in print. I just wish they’d be honest and say it instead of getting into these bizarre contortions of logic. My favorite example is in this piece. Weigel doesn’t seem to want zero-tolerance for abuse cases, and backs the Cardinals’ fudge. But the tough case he uses to illustrate his point for leniency is the following:

[S]hould such a “one strike and you’re out” policy extend to a priest who had a brief consensual affair with a woman a quarter-century ago and has led an exemplary life since? Most Catholics would probably say no, and they would be right.

Huh? The issue is not sex with adults; it’s sex with minors. It’s the old theocon bait-and-switch technique again. Or maybe Weigel is implying that breaking celibacy is forgiveable of you’re straight but not if you’re gay. Or maybe Weigel honestly sees no moral difference between sex with an adult and sex with a minor. I guess if all sex is wrong, why distinguish? I wonder what his view would be on zero-tolerance of non-celibacy if the consensual affair was with another adult man? And what would his view be if the affair were with a minor girl? My suspicion is that Weigel is okay with straight sinners but not with gay ones. My other suspicion is that he considers abuse of a male minor worse than that of a female minor. If he believes that, he should say so, and explain why. If he doesn’t, he needs to say so.

KRUGMAN – HOME AT LAST: Which European newspaper would reprint Paul Krugman’s recent column in which he compared le Pen’s strong showing in the recent French elections with president Bush’s electoral success? Le Monde, no less. And on Monday’s front page! Well, they would, wouldn’t they?

According to the Washington Post, the deal that got Arafat out of Ramallah and Israel’s terrorist targets firmly in jail was the result of Bush’s efffective if quiet private diplomacy. Who knows for sure? Beats me. Besides, it’s no big news that Bush is most effective utilizing the quiet personal touch, as well as tackling issues privately away from the megaphone of his office. The deal is a tiny advance, but a defensible one, and a sign that a breather may be in store for a short while. On a related matter, I sympathize with Israel’s reluctance to let the prejudiced U.N. commission go into Jenin to find evidence of a massacre. Charles Krauthammer’s Friday column was entirely persuasive on this point:

Three people have been chosen by the United Nations to judge Israel’s actions in Jenin. Two are sons of Europe, and one of those is Cornelio Sommaruga. As former head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Sommaruga spent 12 years ensuring that the only nation on earth to be refused admission to the International Red Cross is Israel. The problem, he said, was its symbol: “If we’re going to have the Shield of David, why would we not have to accept the swastika?”

Neverthless, some independent body really must investigate – and soon. It does Israel no good to be seen to be covering up an alleged atrocity, esepcially if Israel is innocent of the charge. Fight the composition of the team, Mr Sharon, not its existence.

FRONT-PAGE EDITORIALS: Can someone see the difference between Patrick Tyler’s “News Analysis” piece in today’s New York Times and an actual editorial? I sure can’t. Nothing wrong with that (the piece makes its points well), but maybe the Times should simply say more clearly that it is putting editorials on the front page to accompany news stories. On the website front page, the description of the piece even has an imperative tense: “The Bush administration must now get the Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table, where expectations for U.S. pressure remain high.” The drift toward didacticism disguised as “analysis” accelerates.

“FATHER, I’M READY NOW”: It was a phenomenal issue of the New York Times yesterday on the Church’s sex abuse scandal. Particularly fine, I thought, was Garry Wills’ comparison of today’s Church leaders with St Augustine, who dealt with a far less grave brouhaha centuries ago. But the piece I still cannot get out of my head is Paul Hendricksen’s account of his time in an Alabama seminary years ago. Among one of the rituals he and apparently dozens of other seminarians would undergo weekly was the following:

I’d go in, sit in a green chair beside his desk, unzipper my pants, take up a crucifix (it was called the Missionary Cross, and it had a tarnished green skull and bones at the base of the nailed savior’s feet), begin to think deliciously about impure things and then, at the point of full erection, begin to recite all of the reasons that I wished to conquer my baser self and longings. “Father, I’m ready now,” I’d say. Having taken myself at his prompting to a ledge of mortal sin, I was now literally and furiously talking myself down, with the power of the crucified Jesus in my left hand. My director was always there, guiding me, urging me, praying with me.

This is a fascinating case, in its way, because the spiritual director never touched the seminarians, and the exercize was designed to overcome “impure thoughts” rather than indulge in them. Hendricksen still refuses to see his old seminary as a depraved place. In fact, he still thinks of it as holy ground. So where do we put this kind of experience in the discussion we’ve been having about the role of sex and sexual abuse in the current Church?

SEX AS A HUMAN GOOD: Perhaps the biggest delusion we currently have about the sexual dysfunction gripping the very core of the church is that we have two clear alternatives before us: the choice of successful celibacy on the one hand and simple wantonness on the other. The truth is clearly more complicated. It seems clear to me, for example, that the horror of sex, the fixation upon it as the source of so much evil, the kind of obsessive concern with sexual “impurity,” is surely a contributory factor to the abuse. A priest, simply by taking a vow of celibacy, cannot humanly take a vow that ends his sexual being. He is ordained, not castrated. The sublimation of all this sexual desire can, in some, be a wonderful way to express a relationship with God and his people alone. But in human terms, it would be quite remarkable if this suppression of sexual intimacy, the restriction of sex to purely fantasist or asocial or masturbatory expression didn’t lead to some pretty warped personalities. It’s those personalities who can end up committing abuse; and just as importantly those personalities, motivated by shame and identification, who cover it up.

THE MORALITY OF NON-CELIBACY: I think of the choices, for good or ill, that I have made in my life. I was completely celibate until my early twenties. It was a struggle but my faith told me it was what I had to do. But what that meant was not that sex disappeared from my life. In fact, what happened was the opposite. Sex for me became more and more abstract in my head, more fetishized in a way, more elevated, more obsessive in ways that have taken years to try and undo. At the same time, I began to exhibit all the familiar personal tics of the sexually shut down. I had swings of depression, I became neurotic and fixated on maintaining order in my life and others’, I was increasingly moody, cranky, awkward and at times miserable beyond words. I looked ahead into the decades that lay before me and was terrified by what might happen to my very soul. Cramped, frightened, neurotic, unpleasant to be around, I increasingly found my faith a source not of liberation but of white-knuckled desperation. In an emotionally and physically empty life, it became the only grim solace I had. When I have attempted to explain my subsequent gay sex life to fellow Catholics who feel that I am simply being reckless or self-serving, I’ve tried to explain how in a real life, these are not often the options in front of us. I’ve tried to describe how my life was emotionally born again in adulthood by reconnecting my soul to my body through sexual expression and physical intimacy. There is absolutely no question in my mind that I am a better, fuller person as a result. That’s not to say I’m a saint, of course. I’ve done some truly stupid things in my sex and love life; and I’m not proud of a lot. But as a simple practical matter, I know that the alternative would have been worse – not less pleasurable (diverted, obsessive, guilt-laden sex alone can be deeply pleasurable), but less humanly open to my fellow human beings, less open to God, less constructed and clogged in my soul. In the depths of my being, I know that a celibate life would, in practical terms, have been, as a practical matter a less moral life for me. Maybe it’s possible for others, and I certainly believe that celibacy can be an amazing gift for some, which is why it should always play a part in the spiritual life. But for most men, this isn’t attainable. Clinging to it for all priests (or for all gays, for that matter), insisting on it, never questioning it, imposing it without recourse, stigmati
zing and covering up lapses – all of this leads to real human sickness of the soul. Reading more and more of what has been going on in my own church for years, I’m beginning to believe that celibacy – especially how it has been enforced – is indeed a major source of the sheer sexual disorder that now cripples the insititution most of us still love. This issue must be addressed. The current sexual fixation must be changed. Or we will have treated the symptoms of this horror without even tackling the disease.

GUNS AND POSES: A reader notes the following little piece of revelation in a story in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times. It’s about the question of how on earth a gun-control culture like Germany can produce a mass-shooting. Reporter Sebastian Rotella opines that, “As crime has dropped in the United States in recent years, it has worsened in much of Europe, despite generous welfare states designed to prevent U.S.-style inequality and social conflict.” That’s a first: boost entitlements to solve crime! Why didn’t Clinton think of that? It’s Third Way nirvana.

CARDINAL SADDAM? Someone fire the guy at the picture desk!

Another odd omission on Jim Romenesko’s allegedly objective media news site. Yesterday there was no reference that I could find or see to Byron York’s story detailing CBS’ and the New York Times’ indirect sponsorship of People for the American Way. Here are some of the stories Romenesko linked to instead: Wall Street Journal thumb-nail sketches being sold on eBay, a defense of George Stephanopoulos, and the Wichita Eagle’s gaffe about Barbara Bush’s several alleged “breast sizes.” Romenesko is a must-read because he performs a very useful service in running a blog of stories about the press. But his ideological biases – perfectly defensible in a blogger – are less well-known. Just pointing them out.

CNN’S MISTAKE – AND A CORRECTION: Yesterday, I cited CNN’s official transcript for the Thursday Crossfire exchange in which David Brock allegedly said on air, “I have not been on Fox at all.” If you listen very closely to the tape rather than the transcript, across chatter and under cross-talk, you can just about hear Brock say in a near-whisper “on prime-time.” No-one on the show seemed to notice. Tucker Carlson said he couldn’t hear it. The transcriber didn’t hear it. But it’s there. Two things are worth saying: firstly, relying on several people who had heard the show and then double-checking the official CNN transcript is good faith journalism, not sloppiness. This correction is consonant with my policy of swift amendment of unintentional errors. Secondly, Brock is still spinning. As Tim Noah has pointed out, Brock chose to make this distinction in an aside, fomenting the impression that indeed he had been blacklisted by Fox. That was certainly the impression almost everyone had when hearing the show and it was the impression Brock let stand. Carville responded with the unequivocal question: “But no one invited you on?” Sotto voce asides are not the mark of candor but of a continuing attempt to spin and duck. The distinction between “Fox” and “Fox Prime Time” also strikes me as somewhat strained. For the record, I share many of Brock’s concerns about some on the far right who targeted president Clinton for all the wrong reasons. My record testifies to that. What worries me is Brock’s long record of deception and personal abuse in matters large and small. In this particular game of “gotcha,” Brock played the game like a pro, even gulling CNN’s transcriber. He’s getting as good as Clinton. But my apologies for an innocent error nonetheless.

Say this for People For the American Way. They’ve been doing a terrific job lately. Almost single-handedly, they killed the Pickering nomination and almost certainly will be central in any upcoming judicial fights. (I should say here that, despite many political differences, I’ve been good friends with some PFAW staffers and admire the professionalism of their work, however much I deplore their partisanship. Hey, politics isn’t everything.) But I’m a little taken aback that several media organizations have been indirectly funding this left-group, including CBS and the New York Times. Byron York has the skinny. CBS and the Times, of course, have no political agenda in their reporting, and their news organizations remain strictly neutral. It’s just that they help fund some of the most partisan liberal groups in Washington.

You know that Paul Krugman is devastated to find out that the economy seems to be recovering quite handily. Bob Kuttner must be so depressed to see people getting jobs and seeing their incomes rise again. But the dark-linings-on-a-silver-cloud award must surely go to the New York Times’ Washington Memo today. The headline is priceless: “Economic Revival Poses A Problem For Bush.” Sure, the piece makes some good points, but the editorial impulse is mistakable: how can we spin this story against Bush? And before the good news comes out? (Update: Just saw that Mickey Kaus beat me to the punch on this one. Blogger Blissfulknowledge beat both of us. It’s getting more competitive these days, innit?)

On CNN’s Crossfire last night, Tucker Carlson confronted David Brock with an anecdote parlayed by Brock in his recent book, “Blinded By The Right.” The anecdote was about something Carlson allegedly said to Brock. Carlson simply denied it outright and accused Brock of being a bald-faced liar. “Ought you not be embarrassed, making this up and facing me on the set?” Carlson asked. “Looking me in the eye and saying you really said that?” Brock responded, “I will look you right in the eye. That is exactly what you told me.” Who to believe, huh? Luckily, that exchange was followed by the following friendly chat with James Carville:

CARVILLE: …because we’re going to post it on the much ballyhooed grand web
site mediawhoresonline.com. And this is what they had to say… “Conservative media outlets…have tried to ignore Brock’s truthful revelations, putting him on what looks like a blacklist, refusing to review his book, refusing to have him appear on their broadcasts, hoping that he and his book will just GO AWAY.” Does that ring true to you, David?
BROCK: Yes, absolutely. As I was saying to Tucker, the conservative magazines have not reviewed the book. Conservative dominated talk shows that love my previous work won’t talk about it. And I think the conservatives are in denial.
CARVILLE: How many talk shows have you been on let’s just say the Fox network?
BROCK: I have not been on Fox at all.
CARVILLE: But no one invited you on?
BROCK: No.

This one, actually, is not that hard to figure out. Brock is lying. Here’s a link that will actually show you a photograph of Brock being interviewed on Fox News about his book on March 18. Who are you going to believe? David Brock or your own lying eyes?

“[T]o live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often.” – Cardinal Newman.

A CASE OF SEPTEMBER 11: Peggy Noonan has a rather telling insight into Karen Hughes’ departure from the White House today. Well, certainly more telling than the tedious hand-wringings over what it means for feminism. (Short answer: nothing.) Noonan’s view is that it’s about clinging to life, in its normalcy and ease and day-dreaming:

I realized, again, that Sept. 11 had given me a case of Judith Delouvrier. Judith Delouvrier was a wonderful woman who was my friend; our boys went to school together and she was a fine mother and a happy spirit and she loved her husband and they’d just left their apartment and bought a house in my neighborhood. She had a million plans. She jumped on a plane one summer day and never came back. It was TWA 800.
It was all so impossible, so jarring, so unnatural. And in the months and years after her death, if I was walking along and saw something nice–an especially cute dog, a sweet moment between humans, a pretty baby, a beautiful pair of shoes in the window–I’d feel my usual old mild pleasure. And then I would remember that Judith couldn’t see this boring common unremarkable thing. And it made the boring common unremarkable thing seem to me more like a gift, more precious and worthy of attention and appreciation, and even love.
So Sept. 11 did to me what Judith’s death did, only deeper and newer.

I think I know what Peggy means. I discovered it in a different way, when a doctor told me almost nine years ago that I could be dead in a few years. I got a beach-shack; I wrote a book; I got a beagle; I took more time for friends and family and bike rides and late mornings with coffee and newspapers. In some ways, this giddy diversion into Shakespeare is part of the same thing. What better way to let yourself know that, even after the mind-changing moment of last September, life still goes on, that you can take time to be in a play, meet new people, try new things? Day draws near. Another one. Do what you can.

ALWAYS OUR CHILDREN: Michael-Sean Winters has a superb and measured piece in the current New Republic on the current crisis in the church (whence I purloined the thought for the day above). He gets most of it – especially the ludicrous notion that somehow the 1960s created pedophilia. But he’s really acute about how the church was unable to see sexual abuse of children except as an extension of the adult’s sexual sin:

In fact, it was the bishops’ refusal to see pedophilia from the child’s point of view – their tendency to see it as merely a sin of the flesh rather than a radical betrayal of trust – that lies at the heart of the current scandal. And that refusal has deep roots. The relevant canons (Church laws) lump pedophilia together with other sexual acts and make no consideration of the victim at all. Most people are, rightly, forgiving of sins of the flesh. But when one uses a position of authority to coerce sexual relations from a minor, or even from a young person of majority age who is nonetheless a parishioner or an underling, this is a sin of the spirit, a betrayal of all that the Church says sexual love should express–the free gift of self in equality and freedom.

Amen. And this is why celibacy is relevant to this problem. One deep understanding of sexuality that only the non-celibate laity can fully grasp is that central to the understanding of moral sexual expression – indeed, I would argue, its guiding moral center – is the notion of equality and freedom in sex. To coerce someone into sex through physical force or social power is far more immoral in my mind than having sex without procreation. But only if you have experienced sexual relationship, as opposed to simple sexual release, can you fully absorb why this is so. If the Church is to stick to its policy of universal celibacy for the priesthood, then it should at least allow lay people to exercize greater authority in determining and discussing sexual morality than is now the case. Some things have to be experienced in order to be fully internalized, and their nuances understood. And the strange, lonely, unrelated sex lives of celibate priests makes them uniquely unqualified to understand what sex in this sense actually is and how it can be best morally expressed. That’s not their fault; it’s just a function of their condition. (And don’t tell me they have no sex lives. They all have sexual fantasy, they all ejaculate, they all masturbate. Celibacy is not about not having a sex life. It’s about having as limited a sex life as you can – alone.)

CALLING THE SAUDI BLUFF: Man, I hope president Bush managed just the right mixture of defiance and politeness to Prince Abdullah in private yesterday. The usual blather that the Arab world will rise up if the U.S. doesn’t stand up to Israel is, well, the usual blather, as Bernard Lewis points out today. I have to say I think my recent piece in defense of Bush’s deft management of the Arab-Israeli crisis holds up pretty well. Pity the Arab world seems to agree with me – which might require more bluff from Bush at Crawford. The appearance of distance from Sharon is strategically useful. Meanwhile, let’s get ready for the real problem. Reuel Marc Gerecht gets it just about right (as usual) in the current Weekly Standard. This paragraph nails it, methinks:

With his decisive victory on the West Bank–and it is decisive just because Sharon did it and everyone in Israel and the Arab world knows that he will do it again–Sharon is in the process of pushing the Arab idea of coercing and dominating Israel into the distant future, beyond the immediate passions of young Palestinian men and women, who live for the present. Probably far sooner than most people imagine possible–a few years, not decades–the defeat of Israel through terrorism will become for most Palestinians what the conquest of Constantinople was for the medieval Arab world, an appealing image that no longer sufficiently inspires. When that happens, some kind of peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza will become possible.

ARE GAYS PEDOPHILES? Many Catholic rightists seem to think so, believing that purging gay priests and re-stigmatizing gays as unmentionable and sick will end the child-abuse problem. Here’s an email I just received offering a different view. I think it speaks for itself:

My brother did time for abusing a four-year-old boy. He devasted our family, did time in prison, and is still in counseling. He did a terrible thing and got off fairly lightly in my book. But if there is redemption in Christianity at least he is seeking it.
The main point of this note, though, is the nature of his sexuality. I never knew him to be gay. And he told me he is not gay. The abuse wasn’t about male or female erotic pleasure, but more about being in power and about the intimacy, however perverse. Although he is not gay, he is a loner who has a hard time in relationships. Kind of a celibate, but not by choice.
I think that Lowry is calling something a homosexual problem when it is something else – even when the abuser and abused are same sex. If a man molests a little girl, is that a manifestation of heterosexuality?
I think a gay priest in a city of any decent size can find an easy, and discreet enough sexual release, should they choose to do so. I just cannot see the abuse of children as a homosexual issue.

Seems quite simple, when you read a letter like that. And it makes the efforts of Lowry, Dreher et al that much more distressing and unfair.

AIDS STATS REVISITED: Some of you may remember my skepticism a while back of the many studies that have emerged proclaiming massive increases in HIV infection in various sub-populations in America. My quibbles were with the size of samples, the inferences drawn, and the enormous incentives for groups looking for public funds to exaggerate the scale of the crisis. None of my criticisms was rebutted, although I had to endure the usual abuse from the AIDS lobby and parts of the gay left for even raising questions. Still, I never thought that some of the studies had actually been deliberately falsified. The San Francisco Department of Public Health, which sponsored some of the studies I criticized, has now been found guilty of doing just that. The U.S. Public Health Service has now disciplined one researcher in that department for deliberately switching randomized samples to get the desired result.

“In these awful days, George W. Bush has become the American Yasir Arafat, an empty, repetitive, shifty public personality who talks out of both sides of his mouth, with little or nothing to say from either of ’em.” – Nicholas von Hoffmann, New York Observer.

GORE’S ARSENIC LIE: If you want a good example of how Al Gore has turned into Terry McAuliffe, check out Spinsanity’s dissection of Gore’s repetition of the simple lie – that president Bush tried to increase the levels of arsenic in the drinking water. Gore knows this is untrue. He’s not dumb. But he says it anyway. You can expect the repetition of such untruths from the likes of Michael Moore, but from Gore? After what he learned (or didn’t learn) in the last campaign?

“NOTORIOUS”: Some of you have written to say that the American cardinals’ use of the word ‘notorious’ to distinguish some sexual abusers from others is not as ominous as I might have thought. The distinction is designed to separate priests who have merely been accused and those who are already exposed in the public sphere as child-abusers or minor-seducers. I take the point. But I still do not see why the public nature of any accusations should affect treatment in any way. This is not about p.r. It’s about protecting the abused. The criteria for laicization of priests should be the same regardless of whether that priest’s misbehavior is well known or a complete secret. Until the hierarchy can stop thinking about ‘reputation’ and start thinking about morality, little will change.

They still have no clue, but then why should we be in any way surprised? The hierarchy of the American Catholic church has now a long paper-trail of protecting child-abusers rather than protecting children, and today’s communique, for all its expressions of regret, esentially maintains that posture. No-one will step down. Cardinal Law couldn’t even be bothered to attend the press conference. And abusive priests won’t be automatically thrown out. Here’s the adjective I find inexcusable: “notorious.” Here’s the section of the Cardinals’ text that beggars belief:

2) We will propose that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops recommend a special process for the dismissal from the clerical state of a priest who has become notorious and is guilty of the serial, predatory, sexual abuse of minors.
3) While recognizing that the Code of Canon law already contains a judicial process for the dismissal of priests guilty of sexually abusing minors, we will also propose a special process for cases which are not notorious but where the Diocesan Bishop considers the priest a threat for the protection of children and young people, in order to avoid grave scandal in the future and to safeguard the common good of the Church.

Why should “notoriety” have anything to do with whether a priest should be disciplined? These church despots are still worried about their reputation rather than children’s lives. And if you read between the lines, a priest who is discreet about his abuse or who has only committed it once may escape censure. The laity has to make it perfectly clear that this isn’t good enough. Abuse of children or minors is not a peccadillo. It’s horrifying in anyone, appalling in the priesthood. If someone committed such a crime in the past and seems genuinely to have experienced remorse, contrition, and paid a criminal penalty, then he shouldn’t be permanently barred. But any future instances of abuse, properly investigated and proven, should surely be treated as de facto resignations from the priesthood.

COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM: I hope today’s story in the Washington Post detailing president Bush’s support for mental health parity in health insurance is accurate. Yes, I know it’s expensive. But health-care costs should not be suppressed by an arbitrary exclusion of a real and terrible array of illnesses. Their very exclusion is symptomatic of a stigma toward mental illness that has no basis in fact or science, and that keeps many people from seeking and getting the care they need. And that should apply not simply to extreme cases of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and the like, but also to crippling low-level depression that can be treated both pharmaceutically and in talk therapy. Mental illness can impede a person’s ability to work and function just as effectively as a physical ailment. Removing those terrible barriers will eventually pay dividends, not just to the individuals themselves, but to the broader society in which they can find a way to play a larger part.

THE RIGHT’S GAY-BAITING: Check out Will Saletan’s as usual excellent dissection of the Catholic Right’s attempt to use the church’s abuse crisis to sustain their own agenda of re-stigmatizing homosexuals. The complete illogic, double-standards and general incoherence of their arguments are as apparent as their underlying animus. Saletan points out, for example, that these conservatives claim that a tiny proportion of sex abuse cases among gay priests makes it a gay problem, but that a tiny proportion among priests doesn’t make it a priestly problem. I’m used to Richard John Neuhaus claiming that simply because abuse of minors is with the same sex, that makes it a question of homosexuality. (I doubt whether he would use the prevalence of rape as pointing to the question of heterosexuality). But I was particularly shocked to hear Rich Lowry say, on CNN, that the abuse of male minors makes this a homosexual problem, and that this is “just not something heterosexual men do.” Does he mean abuse minor males or just minors? If the former, he’s just playing with semantics. If the latter, he’s nuts. Either way, he’s deliberately fanning the flames of anti-gay prejudice. To what constructive end? I have no idea.

MUCH ADO: Well, we’re up and running. The critics come this weekend. I’m finding that with every run, things get a little smoother and my attempt to figure out my character both easier and harder. I keep finding new angles in the words! That damn Shakespeare. So sexually ambiguous. The opening night audience, to my simple shock, seemed to love it. But I’m far too close to the show to have any kind of reliable judgment. If you’re interested and live in the D.C. area, here’s the website for tickets.

RELEASE: How to describe the joy imparted by a new Pet Shop Boys album? The latest, “Release,” doesn’t disappoint. The sad uplift of the lyrics, the mystical ambience of the techno-arrangements, the elevating sound-track quality of even their throw-away ditties, and the lyrics, the lyrics. Neil Tennant has surpassed himself this time. There’s a hilarious satirical song about a supposed tryst with Eminem, counter-poised by the touching, simple words of “Here:”

We all have a dream
of a place we belong
The fire is burning
and the radio’s on
Somebody smiles
and it means “I love you”
but sometimes we don’t notice
when the dream has come true.

Or this message, both sentimental and hard-edged, sad and determined:

He’s gone
You’ve lost
Stay behind
and count the cost
You try
You lose
You don’t fall in love by chance
You choose

I know I’m a sucker. I’ve been devoted to their music for two decades, their songs a strange sound-track to periods and moments in my life that resonate still. I’m lucky to have found such muses, and they’re not for everyone. This album is also graced with some wonderful guitar work by Johnny Marr. Yesterday, on a stunningly crisp Spring afternoon, it made my day.