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.
The Dish 