The only word for Father Paul Shanley is evil. I am relieved he is finally in jail. But the church hierarchy must be terrified. It appears Shanley attempted blackmail before; what he could say in a trial or other venues could make our current knowledge of this systematic pattern of abuse and cover-up seem mild. Another omen: 52 percent of practising Catholics in the New York Times/CBS poll believe that the pope himself has known of this problem of child abuse for a while, yet did nothing about it. If we are to believe the accusers of Father Maciel, that could indeed be true. I hope not. But the sky is darkening with every passing day.
LIBERALISM AND RELIGION: Not exactly a new topic, but since I mentioned Frank Rich’s crude attack on John Ashcroft yesterday, it behooves me to point out a subtler and deeper treatment of the subject. Check out my friend Peter Berkowitz’s wonderfully lucid account of the role of faith undergirding both Kant and – surprise! – John Rawls. As Peter puts it,
No one is saying that liberalism requires you to be religious or that religious people are more amply endowed with the liberal spirit. But for those who care about understanding liberalism, a more precise knowledge of its foundations should be welcome.
No intelligent liberal who wants to understand the roots of his political tradition more precisely would ignore the singular role of religion – in both creating liberalism and defending it.
WHILE I’M AT IT: My favorite modern playwright, Tom Stoppard, has a diverting piece in the Daily Telegraph. Stoppard is a real liberal (which is why he is often dumbly described as a liberal or a libertarian). What I’ve al;ways loved about his work, apart from its breath-taking erudition and sheer fun, is the love of freedom that imbues all of it. Perhaps the fight against terror has led more people to restate that love of a free life in a free society, but Stoppard puts it nicely here:
To take away freedom is to take away humanness. A society in which the individual is beset by ranks of nannies, secret policemen and a hundred kinds of authority joined together to make you behave in the way you would, according to authority, voluntarily behave if only you weren’t so misguided and ignorant, is, the Romantics insisted, a deeply immoral society. “The essence of liberty is not that my interests should be tolerated, but that I should tolerate yours.” When we look again at this seemingly anodyne sentiment in the light of what the Romantics preached, it does take on a tremendous force, something not too far distant from Auden’s “We must love one another or die”. It makes tolerance not simply a desirable virtue, but a necessity.
Ah, but the virtue of self-restraint required to make such a statement is not so easily attained. Especially not when life gets easy and utopia seems so temptingly reachable.
THE FULL MAHONEY: A devastating account of the cover-ups of abuse in the arch-diocese of Los Angeles is laid out in excruciating detail in Los Angeles’ alternative New Times. More dreadful evidence of the Church’s moral decay.
LUCKY HITCH: Classically lovely little review by Christopher Hitchens in the current Atlantic (yes, I know they just won three National Magazine Awards, but don’t hold that against them). It’s of one of my favorite novels, Kingsley Amis’s “Lucky Jim.” Good cheerer upper, if you need one. Nice little hors d’oeuvre:
Just as a joke is not really a joke if it has to be clarified, I risk immersion in a bog of embarrassment if I overdo this; but if you can picture Bertie or Jeeves being capable of actual malice, and simultaneously imagine Evelyn Waugh forgetting about original sin, you have the combination of innocence and experience that makes this short romp so imperishable.
As bogs of embarrassment go, this one is worth sloshing around in.
THE PEDOPHILE CRISIS HITS HOME: It’s my nephew’s first Holy Communion soon, and he’s rightly excited. He’s one of many in his Catholic elementary school in England, and the Church had a celebratory poster-board up with photos of all the children about to have their first encounter with the Holy Sacrament. And then the pictures went missing. Someone apparently took the photos of the little boys – and last week, they were discovered by the police in a man’s home. Not only has the man not been charged with anything, the priest has told the parents there is nothing that can be done. The law in England apparently protects the man’s identity, but my sister has been told he’s a member of the Congregation, although the priest refuses to give any details. The priest’s a good man, apparently, genuinely distraught, and is only doing what the law requires. But my sister has to decide whether to let my nephew go to the mass with the awful possibility that this man might actually be in the church – watching, stalking. With no-one identified, she can’t even seek a restraining order. No crime has been committed so far, except theft. But the simple thought that my little nephew could even conceivably be put in harm’s way makes my blood run cold. Again, I ask myself: how could anyone, anyone, allow any similar children to be placed in real danger? Let alone a man of God? I think this is what makes some of us unable to understand why the leaders of the church aren’t on their hands and knees begging forgiveness for what they have allowed to happen. And I’m not even a parent.
The Dish 