Quote of the Day
Avoid the crowd.
Do your own thinking independently.
Be the chess player, not the chess piece.
Ralph Charell
A Critique of Bob Schieffer
on the Current Catholic Church Controversy
I wrote a thorough piece on the current kerfuffle centering on Pope Benedict in yesterday's post, deliberately named "Maureen Dowd Must Go". I have a great deal of respect for Bob Schieffer, whom served as interim evening news anchor following the Dan Rather; quite frankly, I still believe CBS should have named him permanent anchor. I found his concluding commentary ("The Church's Problem is the Cover-Up, not the PR"), on yesterday's Face the Nation an interesting perspective but the analysis is cursory and lacks substance .
First of all, Bob Schieffer didn't address some of the salient issues I specifically pointed out which have to do with journalistic professionalism. The major sources for the adverse piece in the New York Times were not independent with respect to the Church hierarchy: lawyers suing an archdiocese and a retired archbishop whom seems to be trying to pass off blame for his failure to prosecute in Church canonical court Father Murphy for nearly 20 years as archbishop. The reason Rome was consulted in 1996 had to do with the fact some of the sexual misconduct took place as the priest was administering the sacrament of penance. (Any form of child molestation is a grave sin. The fact that Father Murphy allegedly did it while performing his official duties as a priest was a serious supplemental breach of professional ethics and Church law.) But as others have noted, these allegations (of molestation during penance) had surfaced as early as 1974, and the archbishop was appointed in 1977. The archbishop was trying to shift blame from his inaction through 1995 to responsiveness from Rome in 1996 through 1998.
Bob Schieffer also failed to address due diligence on behalf of the New York Times and other professional journalists: for example, the presiding Church judge in Father Murphy's trial noted that he had not been interviewed by anyone in the mainstream media and that his name had been publicly linked to forged documents.
What we had was a news "story" focusing on whether Pope Benedict had read a memo on restoring a pedophile priest to pastoral duty in 1980 (even though he did not make the decision) and whether his deputy in Rome during 1996-1998 had attempted to quash a canonical trial against Father Murphy. In fact, Father Murphy was in failing health, and Cardinal Ratzinger's deputy was urging an expedited procedure to defrock Murphy, something in fact relevant groups wanted and Murphy strenuously opposed. This story has some clear parallels to the bad journalism in the long-discredited Rather/60 Minutes story on Bush's National Guard service and the 2008 New York Times story suggesting an affair between Presidential candidate John McCain and a female lobbyist. They all involved events occurring several years in the past (when the nature and extent of evidence and witnesses are significantly compromised), thin evidence and/or biased or anonymous sources.
Bob Schieffer rightly points out that the Church has been overly bureaucratic and focused on self-preservation; certainly I and other conservatives are sympathetic to this argument, particularly with respect to government. Unfortunately, what Bob Schieffer does not do in his piece is show how Pope Benedict in his former capacity did much to institute process reforms (e.g., statute of limitations, enlarging scope (Internet), and expedited procedures), not to mention the Pope's widely acknowledged leadership in meeting with relevant victim groups. How could Schieffer mention the initial wave of scandals and decry the prior cover-ups, etc., but treat the last 8 years as if nothing happened?
Schieffer talks about cover-ups. I do understand the Church has been concerned with damaging effects of scandal on the faithful, and it also wants to protect the reputation of priests whom have been unjustly accused; I do think, particularly in the Internet age, that it needs to ensure it is perceived as fair (versus intimidating) to victims, and reacts with all due speed and prudently to address any violation of trust of the faithful, and that the faithful have a safe, prayerful environment in which to worship. The Church needs to ensure that its primary consideration is ministry to victims, that it cooperates with the efforts of civilian authorities to apprehend sexual criminals, and that it explicitly considers relevant risk factors in making pastoral assignments. On the other hand, I think that professional journalists have done little to note that sexual crimes by clergy occur across religions and the percentage of priests who are sexual criminals is very low (< 1%) and not a consequence of the discipline of celibacy.
I am empathetic with Schieffer's reflection that the Church bears little resemblance to its simple roots: I think that Church law has evolved into the same sort of complexity and legal subtleties for which Jesus criticized the Pharisees. We sometimes see annulments given to multi-year marriages (all in the name of the indissolubility of marriage).
I don't want to surrender to a conventional denunciation of institutionalized religion, but there is a part of me that delights in moments, for instance, where in The Shoes of the Fisherman, the newly elected Russian pope goes incognito. (CBS has a current related series concept called Undercover Boss.) Nevertheless, I have a lot of respect for the man whom leads over a billion Roman Catholics. We have seen two extraordinary leaders, saintly men, whom have led the Catholic Church since the 1970's. I am not interested in some formulaic presentist critique of the Catholic tradition by the likes of Maureen Dowd and her thinly-veiled personal attack on a saintly man, whom personally ministered to victims of sexual misconduct and their families during a recent visit to America.
Unpopular Conservative Opinion:
I Agree With Pat Buchanan on Iran
First of all, I want to make it very clear that my position of support for Israel is unambiguous. I wrote a strong opinion against the recent Obama Administration position rebuking Israel over an ill-timed announced expansion of housing in an East Jerusalem Jewish neighborhood. Second, I am not naive over Iran's meddlesome behavior in the Middle East, including its vocal anti-Israel position, material support of Palestinian terrorists in Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and other areas, not to mention its interference in Iraq, including supplies of IED's or their components, used by insurgents against American soldiers and others. I am also not naive to believe Ahmadinejad's talking points over Iran's allegedly peaceful pursuit of nuclear technology solely for purposes of power generation. I have consistently supported a policy in favor of regime change in Iran, e.g., via the Green Revolution which I support.
However, I am concerned about the Chicken Little rhetoric state of panic over Iran developing a nuclear weapon and rumors of preemptive military strikes by Israel or even the United States. I think Pat Buchanan, whom pointed out that, in fact, a policy of deterrence and/or containment has worked in terms of past and ongoing relationships with Russia and China, is right to call for restraint against preemptive action against a nation which has not represented a threat to its neighbors in the way, for instance, Saddam Hussein did.
Fundamentally, I do not believe Iran will launch a nuclear attack on other states in the region, particularly Israel, which is widely believed to have nuclear weapons of its own. Any attack by or attributable to Iran against the United States or its allies (including Israel) would almost certainly result in a devastating response against all major Iranian cities.
I do think the sacrifices this nation has made in trying to nation-build Afghanistan and Iraq over the past decade are steep, and with a $12.5T deficit, I and probably many, if not most Americans, have little stomach for nation-building in Iran, not to mention a devastating effect of war on the global economy. Yes, I am aware of Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and do not underestimate Islamic extremism, but I think Ahmadinejad is using over-the-top responses to solidity support for his illegitimate government. Let's tone down the rhetoric; I'm not an isolationist, but I do think we need to do a better job of picking our battles.
Girl at Obama Appearance: My Captions
The little girl right in front of the President in the below photo appears unimpressed. The Worth Reading blog editor invited readers to post captions for the photo, and my 5 suggestions are subsequently reprinted [Note 6/22/12: the blog has migrated to a new URL; I have located an alternative image source] :
 |
| Courtesy of about.com |
- Oh, darn, I could be doing homework!
- Wait...he said he'll insure 30 million more Americans while cutting the deficit...I don't understand this new math...
- He's not "the one" I've been waiting for...
- He said all the money in my piggy bank is going to pay for Congressional pork.
- My taxes are going up at the end of the year, I'll have to pay a penalty if I don't cover Billy's health care insurance, I'm required to post an ingredient label on each glass, I have to send in my estimated self-employment tax payment this quarter, I just got an audit notice from the IRS, and progressives want to slap a surtax on each drink... Things were a lot easier when my mom used to run a lemonade stand....
Gary McCoy should print the full warning label. I haven't consulted the doctors from the Chicago School of Economics, but I believe that the warning label should include the following: "WARNING: Use of this product may be hazardous to your morals, undermining your personal responsibility and options in making future health care decisions." We also also emphasize the following disclaimer in the small print: "Past health care performance and quality are no indication of future results under ObamaCare. Medicare cuts, which are not indicative of past Congressional performance, are expected in the future to underwrite expenditures for the new entitlement and may adversely affect the health care of our senior citizens. All progressive Congressmen and Presidents by law are protected from political malpractice suits. Federal debt exposure from progressive entitlement Ponzi schemes is unlimited: let the taxpayer beware!"
Musical Interlude: Still More Songs of the Heart
Phil Collins, "You'll Be in My Heart"
Rod Stewart, "This Old Heart of Mine"
Tony Bennett, "I Left My Heart in San Francisco"
Benny Andersson Band, "Story of a Heart" (post-ABBA/new vocalist)
