Category: Old Dish

Flipping through the channels late the other night I came across a somewhat sad spectacle. There was Sir Ian McKellen on “Politically Incorrect,” a late-night gabfest in which pretty anchors and West Coast political consultants try and make part-funny and part-serious comments about current events. God, it’s awful. I should know. I’ve been on it a couple of times. But Ian McKellen? The greatest actor of his generation? And then it dawned on me. He’s on a campaign swing. This is primary season… [Continued in my latest piece opposite.]

THE COMING CATASTROPHE: “But we must now contemplate the possibility of a surprise attack taking out all of Washington, leaving nobody in line for the presidency and a situation of chaos, with dozens perhaps jumping up to say “I’m in charge here.” The best option is to include governors in the line. The Constitution requires those in line of succession to the presidency to be officers of the United States. Attorney Miller Baker has suggested allowing the president to deputize several governors as heads of their state militias, making them officers, and allowing him some say in the succession to his own office.” – Norm Orenstein in a Wall Street Journal piece today that is necessary but still horrifying to contemplate.

GAYS ARE A ‘PLAGUE’: That’s the view of Joe Fitzgerald, the Boston Herald columnist now claiming heroism for blaming sex with minors on homosexuals, rather than pedophiles. For people like Fitzgerald, of course, there is no real distinction between celibate and non-celibate gays or between gays and child-molesters, either in principle or in reality. But that is not the authentic view of the Church. Doesn’t Fitzgerald see that his Church teaches that the issue here is not orientation? It’s firstly breaking a vow of celibacy and secondly doing so with a minor. It is completely possible to abhor both things, whether done by straights or gays, and yet support the presence of celibate gays in the priesthood. That’s my view, at least. And it has far more backing from the Church’s authoritative teachings than Fitzgerald’s un-Catholic rant.

Anaconda, nearing success, continues; recession’s end wounds the Democrats; Colombians, and Zimbabweans risk their lives for democracy; Washington insiders make fun of themselves in annual jamboree.

AFTER THE DOCUMENTARY: I feel drained now, just with the images of it. The playful innocence of that morning; the boyish enthusiasm of the “probie” fire-fighter; the sudden noise of a plane too low; the confusion of the first hit; the denial; the helplessness in the lobby of Tower 1; Father Judge muttering his last prayers, as he paced the floor; the dread in the eyes of so many fire-fighters, about to enter the inferno; the foul, heart-stopping sound of bodies plunging to the ground; the dazed group of workers emerging from a suddenly-released elevator; the unforgettable footage under a car as dust – human dust – swirled through the air, turning it black, and then darting around like specs of plankton under water; the crowds of bewildered, terrified people running and walking and screaming and pointing on the streets; a strong man and experienced fire-fighter vomiting into the Fire House trash-can upon his return; the ashen quiet of white-powdered streets in the aftermath; the bemused, almost deranged, calm of an old, heavy businessman slowly walking away from Tower 1, not thinking even to wipe his dust-covered glasses; the strained and numbed relief of those finding their brothers are alive; the bleakness of those who weren’t so lucky. I would say I’m glad to be reminded, as one fire fighter put it, of “how evil evil can be.” But there is no gladness. It is simply a good thing that we remember that we are still at war; that the enemy launched it with a callousness that should banish any doubts about the morality of our cause; and that, when resolve falters, we remember the people and civilization we’re fighting for and the thousands of victims who have already paid the price. In an odd way, having seen it all again, I feel less afraid of what lies ahead, and more eager to get on with it. The simple virtue of those rescuers remind us of what human beings are capable of, and the invincible character of the civilization they are a part of, however ruthless the evil arrayed against it.

NO FALTERING: A new poll tells us largely what we knew. The Nation may be gaining subscribers, but the vast majority of Americans still get what happened six months ago today. Eighty percent believe, as do I, that the worst is yet to come, and seem to have no intention of letting down their guard. And the president can be reassured to know that, whatever ever else his administration accomplishes, if it defeats this enemy then it will need no other legacy. The president clearly knows this, and it’s by far his most admirable quality. As a retired plumber tells the Washington Post, “Bush is doing good; he’s doing real good. He ain’t going to take nothing from anybody. That’s the way it has to be done.” Amen.

BEST EUPHEMISM OF THE DAY: “But all the signs, including the exhausted but jubilant soldiers returning, profanely triumphant at blows inflicted on the enemy, pointed to a seemingly hopeless situation for a dwindling band of perhaps a few hundred Islamic militants holed up in caves and other pockets of resistance.” – John Burns, New York Times, today, (my italics).

THE POINT OF TERRORISM: The awful chaos in Israel will be described, as it usually is, as a new low-point in an ancient struggle between two warring peoples. But what we need to understand is that it is, in fact, the consequence of a deliberate strategy. The strategy of the PLO and its more radical allies is to negotiate a better deal with Israel than the one outlined at Camp David. Arafat knows that the people he represents will never be satisfied with a modest state in the West Bank and Gaza. He’s also terrified of trying to govern one. So he quit Camp David in order to try war as an alternative. It’s working. The mayhem Arafat has unleashed and the mayhem Sharon has sponsored in response has forced the U.S. to intervene again, and has thus set the parameters for Israel’s self-defense. Since those parameters do not allow for a real destruction of the PLO and its allies, Israelis must now choose between a lot of terrorism under the current stalemate – or almost as much terrorism and a more dangerous Palestinian state, armed to the teeth, on its border. That’s a pretty unpalatable choice. But, in the veiled threat issued last night, it is also Israel’s “last chance.” As Edward Said has recently, and candidly, written, that’s the whole idea:

The point here is that … even though Israel commands Bush’s support for the moment, Israel is a small country whose continued survival as an ethnocentric state in the midst of an Arab-Islamic sea depends not just on an expedient if not infinite dependence on the US, but rather on accommodation with its environment, not the other way round. That is why I think Sharon’s policy has finally been revealed to a significant number of Israelis as suicidal, and why more and more Israelis are taking the reserve officers’ position against serving the military occupation as a model for their approach and resistance. This is the best thing to have emerged from the Intifada. It proves that Palestinian courage and defiance in resisting occupation have finally brought fruit. [my italics]

If you substitute murder and fanaticism for “courage and defiance,” you have a very shrewd analysis of the situation. Barring a miracle, Israel’s future as a free and independent state is now very dark, if it has a future at all.

BRITS ON DOPE: One of the three major parties in Britain has now called for the legalization of marijuana and a full retreat in the failed and failing drug war. Will libertarian Tories follow suit? I sure hope so.

NERVES OF STEEL: A useful primer from Businessweek on the politics of Bush’s shamelessly political steel tariffs decision. More revealing is Francis X. Clines’ reporting from Ohio on electoral college politics. Broder seconds Clines. I think this call should be placed in the roster of Bush’s dark side. Like most of Bush’s unnerving decisions – like going to Bob Jones University, barely campaigning in the last days before the election, or spinning his travel itinerary on September 11 – this one was inspired by Karl Rove. Rove seems to think that cynical, purely political decisions make a president strong
er. Mark Steyn sums up my feelings pretty much in his Telegraph column. The Brits, in particular, are furious. And Bush now wants them to deliver 25,000 troops for Iraq?

LOWERING THE RHETORIC: A low-key and interesting analysis of Bush’s budget in the Washington Post. The philosophy behind it seems less skeptical of government than Reagan or Gingrich, but more results-oriented than Clinton.

BACK AT MASS: Cardinal McCarrick presided over the evening mass at my local, St Matthews, last night. There were no bidding prayers about the scandal, only a veiled reference in his homily to “these dark days” for the Church, and a call for more to enter the priesthood. But I wondered if his presence at a mass that many gay men attend wasn’t a sign of his commitment to us and his inclusion of us. The Gospel was the wonderful story of the blind beggar who sees for the first time when Jesus heals him. The Pharisees interrogate the man contemptuously. Jesus seeks him out gently and exposes him to the light of day. And then there was this passage from Ephesians:

Try to discover what the Lord wants of you, having nothing to do with the futile works of darkness but exposing them by contrast. The things which are done in secret are things that people are ashamed even to speak of; but anything exposed by the light will be illuminated and anything illuminated turns into light. That is why it is said: Wake up from your sleep, rise from the deal, and Christ will shine on you.

How good it felt to be home again, and welcomed too.

The latest story out of Florida seems a little fishy to me. All the protestations that no one could possibly have known of a past incident of under-age molestation by a priest who subsequently became a bishop are a little strained. If true, how could such important information be buried? If untrue, who knew and appointed him anyway? My gut tells me that this scandal will end up in Rome. Hence their damage control already. On a brighter note, I thought Bill Keller’s essay in today’s Times struck all the right notes. I share his pessimism.

Blogger was down today for a long, long time. Here’s our new batch of letters – from a member of Opus Dei, among others. Enjoy. Oh, and to all those of you who had trouble reading some of the purple links against the blue background, we heard ya. The new links are cool, huh? And, er, visible.

NOISE IN THE HOOD: Busy day on my block. At 5am today, a young Latino guy was shot dead down the street having parked in front of my building. He was brandishing a big toy gun, apparently. I slept through it. Then a little later, the driver of a big Cadillac swerved onto my street, saw the police lines, tried to reverse out of the block, hit the accelerator by mistake and took out my next door neighbor’s wrought iron fence, a gas main, and landed in a tree trunk. I slept through that as well. I guess I’ll hear about a dirty bomb from the news.

You know what? I agree with almost everything in Paul Krugman’s column this morning. Including his praise of president Clinton’s free trade legacy. Amazing what Karl Rove has accomplished, innit?

Gardez battle intensifies; Bush caves in to State Department; recession over, House passes “stimulus package”; Blair faces cabinet mutiny over Iraq war.

THE NON-EXISTENT ANTI-WAR LEFT: Funny, isn’t it, that a movement that many have told us doesn’t really exist seems to be gaining strength. The Nation, for example, has seen its circulation grow to a record 112,000 since September 11, up from 95,000 in 2000. “The magazine is thriving,” Katrina vanden Heuvel, socialist heiress and editor, tells a fawning Earth Times, “in the context of too few independent voices.” She adds that “we are on the threshold of a permanent war economy which has little to do with fighting terror.” Best not to read this piece before breakfast.

LIFE IMITATES THE ONION: First there’s this story. Then there’s this one. Yeah, I know. I support the Bush position – and Mickey Kaus explains why (third item). But the Onion story is still priceless.

IS BUSH GETTING CLINTONIZED?: The steel decision was a terrible one – bad economics, short-sighted politics, and bad geo-politics. One aspect of it that has been short-changed is its devastating blow to Tony Blair. Blair has already been embroiled in a scandal taking campaign money from a steel company that wanted the Bush tariffs. He’s beleaguered in his own cabinet for his support for the war on terror. He’s the most important ally in Europe. And what does Bush do? Kick him in the teeth by pandering to the voters of Ohio and West Virginia. You think Karl Rove thought of that? And now there’s the ritual sending of a “peace” envoy, following the classic State Department line in favor of mollifying the Arab “street” and the unelected thugs of the Arab League. What is Zinni supposed to do? What on earth is there to negotiate? I know the violence is horrifying. But rescuing these parties – especially the murderous terrorism of Hamas and the PLO – from the consequences of their own decisions will not help. In fact, this safety net is partly what keeps the Palestinian terror growing. If they believe they can kill their way toward American intervention, they will kill again and again. If they believe a settlement can be imposed, and they can again shirk any responsibility for its success, then they will not negotiate a real deal. This Powellite decision is worthy of Bill Clinton – and it will have the same consequences of postponing a real peace, ratcheting up the incentives for the Palestinians to kill more Israelis and lead to yet more meaningless discussions with the Arab satrapies we prop up with oil money. So the cycle goes on. And to think I’d hoped Bush could end it.

TWO GAY CATHOLIC VOICES: I’ve been hearing a lot lately from gay catholic priests, by email mainly, frightened at what they may soon endure, horrified by the smears leveled at them by their own church, aware that they are on a knife-edge. Most seem to believe that if they keep their heads down, the sane leaders of the American Church will protect them. I’m not so sure. What really amazes me is how many seem to believe that coming out is not an option. Although there is no doctrinal reason for barring openly gay priests, the current church practices, in the view of many of its gay clergy, brutal discrimination against them. If they come out, they say they will effectively be shunted aside, removed from parishes, taken away from real missions, and so on. Compare that treatment – of honest, celibate gay priests – with the treatment meted out to closeted non-celibate pedophiles. There is no theological basis for this, no doctrinal or pastoral justification. It’s reflective of a syndrome that prefers lying to truth, secrecy to candor, and bigotry to faith. But if gay priests don’t put their careers on the line to oppose this syndrome, who will? Here’s one email that struck a chord from one gay priest:

I believe that there is much in the culture of the Church that deserves to die and which will die as a longterm effect of the exposure now occurring. That is what gives me some paschal hope amid this horror. If cover-ups are now bound to fail, it is all to the good, and that realization should give everyone the courage to read the horrific revelations head-on each day. After all, Jesus did talk about proclaiming truth from the rooftops and I think that should extend to the bad as well as to the good news. I keep sharing your links with some other gay priests. We are really outraged by the attempt to blame the crisis on us and hope you will continue to hammer away at that on your site. I think only a news media holding the hierarchy’s and the Vatican’s feet to the fire has any chance to make them change. We really don’t have many canonical rights if the Vatican is truly determined to remove us. In fact, one aspect of this situation that is very much overlooked is the Church’s need to have its own bill of rights for all members.

And here’s a reminder that there are many gay lay people serving the church as well. These people are under threat now too:

Your postings today are particularly insightful. You are right that gay priests should come out and declare who they are. As a gay layman who serves as a Catholic school principal, I also feel the same way at times since I know with certainty how many fine gay priests there are! Yet I wonder sometimes if I would have the courage to “come out” beyond the small circle of friends that know about me. What a tremendous amount of courage would be needed; perhaps we gay Catholic leaders are at a moment in our history which DEMANDS such courage? It is certainly worth praying over.

I’m not going to sit in my privileged position and tell gay priests or principals to come out. My sympathy and solidarity belong to them – and other conscientious Catholics caught in this mess – whatever they decide to do. But I do think, for what it’s worth, that something important is at stake now. And courage is needed to resist the forces that are thinking of a purge.

George Will rightly eviscerates Bush’s cave-in to protectionism and industrial policy. Why Karl Rove is running economic policy is beyond me. Are they that scared of the upcoming elections? This is easily the dumbest, worst, and most cynical decision yet of this administration, and I hope principled conservatives give them hell for it.

“The ground war in Afghanistan hotted up yesterday when the Allies revealed plans to airdrop a platoon of crack French existentialist philosophers into the country to destroy the morale of Taleban zealots by proving the non-existence of God. Elements from the feared Jean-Paul Sartre Brigade, or ‘Black Berets’, will be parachuted into the combat zones to spread doubt, despondency and existential anomie among the enemy.” I don’t know who this guy is, but he sure made me laugh.

Here’s a stunning web-page about Ted Rall, who thinks it’s brave to ridicule the widows of men killed by terrorists. He’s apparently suing another cartoonist for, among other things, “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.” The crime? Writing a spoof email about Rall’s dislike for Art Spiegelman and sending it to 30 or so colleagues. Poor Ted. Compared to the distress of a woman whose husband was just beheaded by terrorists, he must be really going through it.

One “dirty bomb” could make Manhattan uninhabitable for decades, expert testifies in Senate; this just in: Clinton lied; Arafat’s suicide bombers plan more murder of civilians; cost of Cardinal Law’s cover-up increases to $45 million of Catholics’ money; world’s first womb transplant performed.

THE UNSERIOUSNESS OF THE DASCHLE DEMOCRATS: John Ellis (friend and supporter) nicely highlights the sheer fatuous narcissism of Daschle Democrats toward this war for our national survival. They’re still playing the news cycle game, the Washington status game, and the blame game. Mike Kelly makes a similar point: “The administration does not know exactly how, in the end, it is going to prevail. But it does seem to know what Daschle does not — that in the end it must prevail, that it cannot settle for declaring victory and going home: Home is where they attacked us.” Kelly is right that Daschle et al are simply not serious leaders. Worse, they simply aren’t serious people. Thank God they aren’t in charge right now. And heaven help us if they control the government any time soon.

BUSH ON GORE: “Bush had little use for Gore. Publicly, he never said so, but privately, when he talked to friends and political allies, he made it clear that he saw Gore as equal parts pompous blowhard and preening chameleon, a spineless panderer ready to be anything for anyone. For Bush, this was distilled in a single, oddly chosen detail: ‘The man dyes his hair… What does that tell you about him? … He doesn’t know who he is.'” The more I read Frank Bruni’s book on the real George W. Bush, “Ambling Into History,” the more I like this president. I’m not sure that’s Bruni’s intention, but there you have it. There are still two weeks to get a fresh, insider insight into Dubya and join the discussion with me and Bruni and your fellow readers. You can get the book and thereby join this month’s club here.

PAUSE: “It gives pause. That is the reaction here in Washington to the news that the White House has created a shadow government in the mountains. We are not frightened or panicked, just, you know, pausing, briefly, to mull the implications of a government program for which the possible obliteration of one’s community is the premise.” That’s the opener for a hilarious take by Joel Achenbach on the jitters in Washington right now.

CRIMES OF OMISSION: How Bob Herbert can write a column about New York City’s success against crime while barely mentioning Rudy Giuliani is beyond me. Yes, he gives some scant credit to Giuliani’s computer-assisted strategy. But really, the ingratitude and ideological blinders are still staggering.

SIMON’S OK: “Voters can register here as “Decline To State” which is great for me as my own term would be “none of your damn business”. As a DTS I could ask for any party ballot. I was happy and excited to vote for Simon. The first time I’ve been happy to vote for an R on the state ballot since 1992.” – from the Letters page today. You also defend Clinton, Rall and the liberal media.

TED’S BUDDY: Here’s a blog from one John Scalzi who is, apparently, a friend of Ted Rall, the cartoonist who recently mocked “terror widows.” James Taranto points out something I almost missed. One of Rall’s panels has a clear reference to Mariane Pearl. One “terror widow” says, “of course it’s a bummer that they slashed my husband’s throat – but the worst was having to watch the Olympics alone.” What point does that conceivably make? Apparently, according to Scalzi, a fair one:

The question then becomes, regardless if it’s insensitive to point it out or not, whether Ted’s satirical take on these telegenic widows has some basis. I think it does; anyone who watched Mariane Pearl on TV while she was waiting for word on her husband marveled how composed she was on camera, in a situation where your typical spouse would need to be deeply medicated. I don’t personally ascribe Mrs. Pearl’s poise to an inappropriate hunger for the media glare; like her husband, Mariane Pearl is a journalist and can probably compose herself when she needs to — and she also knew that presenting a calm and collected front could help to defeat the purpose of her husband’s kidnapping, which was to instill terror. This is how I read it; Ted may have (probably did) read it differently. Neither of us is Mariane Pearl, so we don’t know what she was really thinking. We have to go on our guts from there.

Hmm. What does it say about someone’s gut that he sees a woman whose husband has his throat slit for being a Jew and he ridicules her and mocks her mourning? If this is what is motivating some elements of the anti-war left, they’re even more depraved than I thought. No paper should ever run Rall again. Censorship? Nah. Decency. And editorial judgment. (See the Letters page for an alternative view.)

EVEN ANTI-ZIONISTS: Binyamin Jolkovsky has an interesting insight into a recent terrorist attack in Israel. Usually, the justification is that this is a war against the “occupation” of land in the west Bank and Gaza, or secondly a war against Zionism and the Jewish state – not simply against Jews as such. Of course we know that the Palestinian and Arab press is still riddled with Hitlerian hatred of the Jews, but we look the other way. What Jolkovsky shows is that the recent bombing of a Hasidic neighborhood is very clarifying in this respect: the massacre targeted Hasidic Jews who specifically oppose Zionism and whose opposition to the Jewish state even leads many of them to carry Palestinian passports. It’s the Jews these Islamist murderers hate. Even if Israel were destroyed as a state, Arafat and his allies would still murder every Jew left behind. That’s the reality. It’s time we faced it.

GAY PRIESTS ETC: Thanks for all your emails. I apologize for seeming angry these last couple of days. The truth is I have never been as depressed about a Church I love. Perhaps this story will help explain why. Some of you may remember my brief account of a wonderful ordination I attended last summer. It was of a friend of mine, my own age, who, unlike me and most of his peers, has dedicated his life to vows of poverty, chastity, obedience and service to God and his fellow men and women. He trained for seven years as a Jesuit. He ha
s worked among the poor, the blighted of the inner city, the young, the needy. He does God’s work, without any expectation of worldly rewards, and when I see what he has done to reach out to African-American Catholics in places others fear to tread, I feel only awe and shame at my own selfishness. At several moments in my own faith-journey, he has picked me up and helped me back on my feet. He is a good, good man. I love him as a brother. And, yes, he’s gay. When I hear his life and work and dignity trashed, violated, insulted and demeaned by the pope’s spokesman, my anger rises, and now, as I write this, the tears well. But you know what? My friend is the real church. He is the real spokesman for the Gospels. And this other spokesman for a Vatican who declared every gay priest a molester-in-waiting has only his conscience to answer to. My friend tells me to go back to the sacraments, to pray that the real church will survive this, and to believe that Our Lord will guide his church back from the secrecy, shame and evil that now infects it. His faith under siege is an inspiration and a goad. Those of us in a state of disbelief and depression need to remember that these hierarchical gay-baiters and protectors of child-molesters cannot take our faith from us, and that our church – the real church – needs us now as never before.

NOW, THE DIFFICULT QUESTION: But some of you raise important questions. Couldn’t it also be true that there are indeed some cliques of gay priests in seminaries and elsewhere, and that celibacy is flouted by some of these people, if not many? Isn’t it also true that some of these incidents are not classic pedophile cases, but more like pederast cases, where the victims are not children but under-age youths? I think the answer to both questions is, sadly, yes. The question is what do we make of it? We don’t have clear data but it’s a fair bet to say that disproportionate numbers of priests are gay. I think that proportion may have increased over the decades as fewer and fewer men become priests and those who get ordained may do so to avoid conflicts over sexual identity. But why should this matter? Celibacy is the rule – for gays and straights. If gays are flouting it, they should be called to account on exactly the same grounds as straights. It becomes a deeper practical and pastoral issue for gays, in my opinion, because the struggle for gay priests to remain celibate is not openly and frankly dealt with. The lingering stigma of homosexuality in the church means that the closet is still the rule rather than the exception, and so these priests are driven underground where they cannot get help and guidance. The closet forces people into further feelings of shame and guilt and secrecy, generating an unhealthy atmosphere in which cliques thrive, cover-ups multiply and scandals are inevitable. The solution? Not more secrecy and purges, but more openness and honesty. If every gay priest were out to his superiors, out to his parishioners, and out to the world, I think we’d be in a much healthier place. Since being gay is not sinful as such, there’s no doctrinal problem with this. And such fresh air is not as conducive to psycho-sexual pathologies as the current stifling secrecy. But of course the Church would be embarrassed to announce that gay men are among its strongest pillars, because it still harbors in attitude if not doctrine a lingering loathing of homosexuality, and its own increasingly strained sexual doctrines would seem far less potent if gays were front and center in the church’s public image. So the shame continues, the secrecy deepens, the pathologies worsen and the scandals multiply. The only way out is candor and serious pastoral care for gay and straight priests alike.

BUT ARE THEY PEDOPHILES OR PEDERASTS?: This question seems to me to be interesting but beside the point. Priests are supposed to be celibate. And if they’re not celibate, they’re breaking their vows, whether they’re gay or straight. If they’re not celibate with consenting adults, they’re criminals, whether they’re gay or straight. What more do we need to discuss? The sly point of raising this issue, of course, is to insinuate that homosexuality is somehow more likely to be expressed with children and under-age youths than heterosexuality. But there’s no credible evidence for this. In fact, much evidence points in the other direction. Britney Spears, anyone? Anna Kournikova? You think straights are less attracted to youth than gays? When this slur fails to stick, the Church’s spinmeisters try another one: that being gay is a form of sickness and that part of that sickness is an inability to control one’s sexual desires. So gays should be purged from the church because they cannot help themselves, while straight pedophiles can. Here’s a quote that addresses that precise point: the notion that homosexuals are sexually compulsive and cannot restrain their desires is an “unfounded and demeaning assumption.” Moreover, the “human person, made in the likeness and image of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation.” That’s from the 1986 Vatican authoritative document called “The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.” This is the document that Navarro-Valls single-handedly threw out the window over the weekend to promote his own personal, heretical agenda. The authentic teaching of the Church unequivocally rebuts the hierarchy’s current attempt to scape-goat its own gay priests to deflect attention from hierarchical malfeasance. That shows just how desperate and unprincipled they have become. Their arguments are not only expedient, cynical and self-serving. They are un-Catholic in every sense of the word.