By: Michael P. Riccards
The classical Greeks used to watch in awe and dread the fall of a major figure in the public arena. They knew that we are dependent on great men and that their fall is the all the more terrifying to common folk. They told and retold the tales of arrogant men who exhibited pride, overarching pride, in their lives: Agamemnon, Achilles, Oedipus, Jason, and a host of others who were the stuff of good plays and poems.
In our own time, we have seen the decline and fall of public figures of some note, most recently for sexual misconduct. The demise of Eliot Spitzer is only one chapter in an increasingly familiar story. But instead of having Homer or Sophocles to tell their woes, we now have the “New York Post” and tabloid journalists.
It is odd that in America, political leaders would be so reckless, for politicians are usually in this country rather cautious. That is how they get ahead and how they survive. A person like Spitzer, who had ambitions to become president of the United States, should have realized the perils of his adventures. Apparently, he was involved with paid women of pleasure for over a decade, even when he was the attorney general in New York and was involved in breaking prostitution rings. He surely knew the ability of law enforcement personnel to trace laundered money and the increasing suspicions since 9-11 with peculiar transactions involving wired cash. He not only knew the methodologies, but also used them frequently in his own heavy handed investigations. Like Rudy Giuliani, he rarely worried about people’s civil liberties or privacy. Spitzer leaked information to the media, made accusations about individuals’ reputations, and was a prime example of the problems that a free society faces in dealing with an overly zealous prosecutor. So Spitzer had a clear view of what was possible and what were standard operating procedure if the authorities catch a whiff of wrong doing.
Also, in the United States we have a special fascination with sex since we are still in our verbal protestations at least a puritanical culture. Our clergymen, our media, our political gurus are all so self righteous about sex, even as many of them live lives of quiet decadence. No wonder kids do not have any heroes anymore. Some political leaders are simply people who enjoy sexual liaisons. But some of them, like the late John F. Kennedy, partook of the pleasures and never lectured us about sexual practices. While others like Newt Gingrich and assorted television evangelists preach against such sins of the flesh just before they go and enjoy them in the darkness of their private lives.
Why do people like Spitzer, Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, Larry Craig, and a variety of others risk so much for sexual dalliances. The reason usually cited is that they are “sex addicts,” in the words of the New York Post, who cannot avoid falling prey to that vice any more than alcoholics or drug addicts. The answer is to call in Dr. Phil and let him explain how one can be cured of that sickness by simply spending time at some expensive camp outside of San Antonio or Phoenix.
Sex is a pretty powerful drive. Surely that is why St. Paul once said that it was better to marry than to burn. Still these men were all married, and they could not resist outside activities. Commentator Laura Schlesinger has blamed the wives since they cannot satisfy their men. One does not go to a diner when the home cooking is good. The victim becomes once again the culprit.
But the Spitzer fall from grace is not really about sex, as much as it is about power. Powerful men have always had mistresses and affairs on the side. But risk aversive politicians in the Untied States, at least, seem to want to see how close they can come to skating on the edge, how close can they come to getting caught, how close can they thumb their noses at the intrusive media and not get nabbed. As one of my close friends who is an inveterate womanizer told me—it is not the consummation but the chase that is the thrill.
There is something sad about Eliot Spitzer having to check into a fine hotel using a friend’s name and trying to find a classical music CD. It is almost like a high school kid on prom night. It is surprising he did not bring flowers and candy to his liaison.
Spitzer, unlike Bill Clinton, was a politician who had no friends to stay with him when the going got rough. He had made a career about being self righteous in his battles against Wall Street, such that he thought that was the pose that would work in the governorship. He is probably the only governor who could make Joe Bruno into a sympathetic figure in Albany. The problem with hypocrisy is that one must be very careful with that sword. Dr. Samuel Johnson once said that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. So true here. Spitzer was hoisted on his own petard.
Did he subconsciously know that he was the crusading white knight doing secretly bad things, and like the subject in “Crime and Punishment” want to be punished? We will have to leave that to Sigmund Freud or Dr. Phil. What of these wives, why do these women stand by their men on television? Former Governor McGreevey’s wife, Dina, has argued that we stop worrying why wives do stand by their man and just let them trust their own judgments. That obviously is fair, but there is a still the question of whether their judgment is in some grand scheme of things flawed. Perhaps they are still in love, are forgiving, are worried about the children, or are bothered by their own loss of roles and power.
As for these men, they were in public positions of trust, and their demise disrupts the pace of government, and more importantly the ties between a democratic electorate and the political process. Suddenly they are been replaced by successors chosen or appointed in only the most indirect ways, without having a mandate, without having promise the people major changes.. Surely no one expected that in New Jersey, McGreevey would be replaced by the Senate president who was not even known to most state residents outside of Essex County. Surely no one expected that in New York, the lieutenant governor would now be in charge of an aggressive reform agenda. Public opinion in these cases was a victim in victimless crimes.
Tragedies are supposed to be uplifting to our spirits. But these sexual scandals are tawdry, and you and I are prurient in looking so closely at them seeking not to learn about human behavior but to simply get the delicious details.
The Long Slog Ahead
By: Michael M. Shapiro
Hillary Clinton’s strong showing in Ohio’s primary coupled with a victory in the populous state of Texas has re-energized her flagging campaign and ensured that the race for the Democratic nomination will go into April and, most likely, even longer. The problem for the Democrats is that the longer the race goes on, the more expensive, as well as more competitive and negative it will also become, perhaps irreparably tarnishing whoever will win the Democratic nomination. These issues may well turn off the newly-engaged first-time voters who have been so numerous in the Democratic primaries this year. On the other hand, Senator McCain has the opportunity to limit his spending and, at the same time, throw punches at the Democratic candidates while he is insulated from attacks by those in his own party, enabling him to continue to maintain his high positive ratings while the approval ratings of Obama and Clinton fall. A shop-worn nominee, a divided Democratic Party, and an independently-minded Republican nominee with high approval ratings spell trouble for the Democrats in November.
The long slog ahead will do great damage to Democrats’ hopes for November and may so polarize the Party’s voters that the eventual nominee is unable to garner the kind of support typical of nominees of the Party. While many would like to see the race for the nomination concluded so that all energies can be focused on the general election, this does not appear to be in the cards.
What would be in the Party’s interest would be a commitment from Obama and Clinton to run positive issue-based campaigns and only note policy differences without resorting to attack politics and “the politics of personal destruction.” Clinton’s attack approach appears to have worked, especially in Ohio, which will likely lead to mutually assured destruction in the weeks ahead as both campaigns attempt to drive up the other candidate’s negatives.
While the mainstream media continues to hawk the idea that the Democrats are a pretty sure bet to take the White House in 2008, they are missing the boat. Faced with a bruised and battered opponent, a fractured Democratic Party, and an electorate turned off by the negativity of the Democratic race, McCain stands a better than even chance of being our next President.
Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence, New Jersey. He currently serves as the Editor of The Alternative Press, www.thealternativepress.com Contact Mike at mike@shaptalk.com
Hillary Clinton’s strong showing in Ohio’s primary coupled with a victory in the populous state of Texas has re-energized her flagging campaign and ensured that the race for the Democratic nomination will go into April and, most likely, even longer. The problem for the Democrats is that the longer the race goes on, the more expensive, as well as more competitive and negative it will also become, perhaps irreparably tarnishing whoever will win the Democratic nomination. These issues may well turn off the newly-engaged first-time voters who have been so numerous in the Democratic primaries this year. On the other hand, Senator McCain has the opportunity to limit his spending and, at the same time, throw punches at the Democratic candidates while he is insulated from attacks by those in his own party, enabling him to continue to maintain his high positive ratings while the approval ratings of Obama and Clinton fall. A shop-worn nominee, a divided Democratic Party, and an independently-minded Republican nominee with high approval ratings spell trouble for the Democrats in November.
The long slog ahead will do great damage to Democrats’ hopes for November and may so polarize the Party’s voters that the eventual nominee is unable to garner the kind of support typical of nominees of the Party. While many would like to see the race for the nomination concluded so that all energies can be focused on the general election, this does not appear to be in the cards.
What would be in the Party’s interest would be a commitment from Obama and Clinton to run positive issue-based campaigns and only note policy differences without resorting to attack politics and “the politics of personal destruction.” Clinton’s attack approach appears to have worked, especially in Ohio, which will likely lead to mutually assured destruction in the weeks ahead as both campaigns attempt to drive up the other candidate’s negatives.
While the mainstream media continues to hawk the idea that the Democrats are a pretty sure bet to take the White House in 2008, they are missing the boat. Faced with a bruised and battered opponent, a fractured Democratic Party, and an electorate turned off by the negativity of the Democratic race, McCain stands a better than even chance of being our next President.
Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence, New Jersey. He currently serves as the Editor of The Alternative Press, www.thealternativepress.com Contact Mike at mike@shaptalk.com
Freedom of The Press -- The Victor!
BY: Michael M. Shapiro
In January, the Student Government Association (SGA) at Montclair State University (MSU), under the leadership of SGA President Ron Chicken, stopped funding for the MSU student newspaper, The Montclarion. The SGA took this drastic step because the newspaper had used its SGA-funded attorney, Sal Anderton, to pursue action against the SGA for holding closed meetings allegedly in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. In addition to freezing funding for the paper, the SGA also fired Anderton and demanded the newspaper use the SGA’s attorney, Aaron Easley. As part of the SGA’s requirement that the newspaper use Mr. Easley, Mr. Chicken also required the newspaper to submit legal inquiries for Easley through Mr. Chicken and was not permitted access to Mr. Easley directly. Hmmm.
Fortunately, while the dispute was being mediated, funding was unfrozen to allow for publication of the newspaper. This past week, the administration at MSU, led by MSU President Susan Cole, determined that the newspaper should not be financially dependent on the SGA because it is important for the press and the government to remain as separate and independent entities. As a result, President Cole has agreed to work with the newspaper and the SGA to separate them by the summer. In addition, Dr. Cole has committed to finding an independent funding source for the newspaper.
While some may not make much of a dispute between a college newspaper and the college’s student government, the issues involved are very real and troubling. Here, the SGA was not only infringing upon the newspaper’s ability to publish but also severely undermining its ability to retain independent legal counsel. The process set up by Mr. Chicken to serve as a gatekeeper between the newspaper and the SGA’s attorney and not to allow the newspaper to have direct contact with the attorney is questionable, at the very least, this having resulted from the newspaper's audacity to challenge the SGA for holding meetings behind closed doors. Unfortunately, we should not be surprised that college students would engage in such behavior given that their role models in government and the media behave similarly.
Governmental entities throughout the State of New Jersey violate the Open Meetings Act and there is little recourse for citizens. It is unfortunately not uncommon for politicians who resent newspaper coverage to contact advertisers of the paper to encourage them to seek other advertising avenues, thereby impacting the newspaper’s financial ability to function. Meanwhile, newspapers, especially on the local level, are often dependent on the administration in power to provide news for their readers and encourage local merchants to advertise with the paper. Thus, they either do not cover contentious governmental issues or take a decidedly pro-administration stance in such coverage. Since most local newspapers are found in one-newspaper towns, they have a virtual monopoly on local news and citizens are left with few options. In addition, because of these factors, most local media have no interest in covering Open Meetings Act disputes that never result in positive support for the government in power.
Fortunately for MSU, the newspaper stood its ground and fought for its ability to publish as well as to have independent legal counsel. The Administration of MSU is to be commended for its attempt to resolve the dispute. The SGA and Mr. Chicken deserve just what they are getting – negative publicity.
Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence, New Jersey. He currently serves as the Editor of The Alternative Press, www.thealternativepress.com Contact Mike at mike@shaptalk.com
In January, the Student Government Association (SGA) at Montclair State University (MSU), under the leadership of SGA President Ron Chicken, stopped funding for the MSU student newspaper, The Montclarion. The SGA took this drastic step because the newspaper had used its SGA-funded attorney, Sal Anderton, to pursue action against the SGA for holding closed meetings allegedly in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. In addition to freezing funding for the paper, the SGA also fired Anderton and demanded the newspaper use the SGA’s attorney, Aaron Easley. As part of the SGA’s requirement that the newspaper use Mr. Easley, Mr. Chicken also required the newspaper to submit legal inquiries for Easley through Mr. Chicken and was not permitted access to Mr. Easley directly. Hmmm.
Fortunately, while the dispute was being mediated, funding was unfrozen to allow for publication of the newspaper. This past week, the administration at MSU, led by MSU President Susan Cole, determined that the newspaper should not be financially dependent on the SGA because it is important for the press and the government to remain as separate and independent entities. As a result, President Cole has agreed to work with the newspaper and the SGA to separate them by the summer. In addition, Dr. Cole has committed to finding an independent funding source for the newspaper.
While some may not make much of a dispute between a college newspaper and the college’s student government, the issues involved are very real and troubling. Here, the SGA was not only infringing upon the newspaper’s ability to publish but also severely undermining its ability to retain independent legal counsel. The process set up by Mr. Chicken to serve as a gatekeeper between the newspaper and the SGA’s attorney and not to allow the newspaper to have direct contact with the attorney is questionable, at the very least, this having resulted from the newspaper's audacity to challenge the SGA for holding meetings behind closed doors. Unfortunately, we should not be surprised that college students would engage in such behavior given that their role models in government and the media behave similarly.
Governmental entities throughout the State of New Jersey violate the Open Meetings Act and there is little recourse for citizens. It is unfortunately not uncommon for politicians who resent newspaper coverage to contact advertisers of the paper to encourage them to seek other advertising avenues, thereby impacting the newspaper’s financial ability to function. Meanwhile, newspapers, especially on the local level, are often dependent on the administration in power to provide news for their readers and encourage local merchants to advertise with the paper. Thus, they either do not cover contentious governmental issues or take a decidedly pro-administration stance in such coverage. Since most local newspapers are found in one-newspaper towns, they have a virtual monopoly on local news and citizens are left with few options. In addition, because of these factors, most local media have no interest in covering Open Meetings Act disputes that never result in positive support for the government in power.
Fortunately for MSU, the newspaper stood its ground and fought for its ability to publish as well as to have independent legal counsel. The Administration of MSU is to be commended for its attempt to resolve the dispute. The SGA and Mr. Chicken deserve just what they are getting – negative publicity.
Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence, New Jersey. He currently serves as the Editor of The Alternative Press, www.thealternativepress.com Contact Mike at mike@shaptalk.com
Benedict XVI's American Agenda
BY: Michael P. Riccards
In April, Pope Benedict XVI will come to the United States of America. I remember all so well the first trip of his beloved predecessor John Paul II. He visited many places including Boston, and his caravan drove down the major streets of that city through cheering throngs into Dorchester. We sat in lawn chairs near the traffic circle to see this 57 year old handsome, virile Polish prelate. As he came by in his open car, he was greeted by a rain of flowers from little girls dressed in traditional Polish garb. He then went on to New York City, and on October 2, my birthday, he arrived at St. Patrick’s Cathedral on Fifth Avenue. There he embraced the magnetic, but then sickly television preacher, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, who has been so poorly treated by Francis Cardinal Spellman of New York. The pope embraced him and whispered in his ear—“You have been a loyal son of the Church.” They both knew what he was saying. Ironically both men are now being considered for sainthood.
When Benedict comes, the Church he visits will be different from what JP II saw in the beginning of his reign.. The US is in deep military, financial and political trouble—a great nation at war with the forms of militant Islam which the pope himself is wary of. He will meet again with the lame duck president, and he will try to figure out this strange new land that is so different from the rarified cultures of Europe. Benedict as well as John Paul seems to be fixated on warning that the Church is being overwhelmed by the forces of secularism, atheism, or at least nonreligious consumerism. What nation is more associated with consumerism, popular culture, and mass prosperity than this country?
But secularism is not the major cause of disenchantment in the American Church, First, the Church is sill hurt by the steady stream of pedophilia and other forms of sexual abuse and its attendant costs—moral, fiscal, and political. Jesus once said that it be better “for you to tie a millstone around your neck and be thrown into the ocean than to cause even one of God’s children to stumble.” There are an awful lot of millstones needed—for both the violators and the those many bishops who for generations covered up those acts. In some ways, Benedict has been more willing to deal with the problem than his predecessor who just could not believe that such abuses were taking place.
Second, American consumer choice is oddly apparent in religious affiliations. The most recent Pew Poll shows that over 40% of us change our religious affiliation (or non- affiliation). The major force that is helping keep the Catholic numbers up is the large numbers of Hispanics in the United States, many of them illegal. No wonder that Roger Cardinal Mahoney wants his churches to become sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. Those groups aside, however, the Catholic Church is losing adherents. Churches and schools are being closed. The archdiocese in Washington D.C., for example, is making its parochial schools into charter schools funded by public money rather than denominational contributions. Essentially the schools are meant not to disseminate the faith, but to be an alternative to DC public schools.
In the midst of this turmoil, the Church in America has made it clear that it is especially hostile to gays, to divorced Catholics, to the overwhelming majority of couples using birth control, to those who do not link opposition to abortion to opposition to the Democratic party, and efforts to increase the participation of the laity, especially women Only a third of the Catholics in the USA are observant. The Catholic Church used to have schisms and heresies, now it has the faithful simply opting out. Churches can resist dogmatic errors, but they cannot deal with a general sense that they are irrelevant to the people who used to be in the pew. Recently, the hierarchy even chased the laity off the altar area; including its Eucharistic ministers and lectors. They are not to come too close to the priest. Vatican II’s notion of a “people of God” is being scrubbed. Somehow the dignity of the (male) priesthood is dependant on keeping liturgical distance from the rest of the congregation. It is the re-triumph of the Romanist, centralized Church of Pius XII.
The American Church has additional problems. The Catholic Church is a sacramental Church not a Scripture based evangelical church. It requires priests to perform its most important rituals—especially the consecration of the Eucharist. In the Catholic tradition, the Mass is not a theatrical reenactment or a symbolic embrace of the Last Supper. It is the full transformation (“transubstantiation”) of the bread and wine into the true Body and Blood of Christ, It is for this reason the priest cannot be replaced by church elders or inspired speakers. The huge loss of priests, the rapid aging of the remaining men, the closing of neighborhood parishes has also created problems for the ties that bind and have burdened a shrinking group of weary priests. Single priest parishes have been common for a while; now there are single priests with multi- parishes—becoming like old missionaries on the frontier. Nuns, once so important for schools and hospitals, have become scarce. In looking at the shortage of priests, John Paul II refused to lead. Mandatory celibacy of priests (in its Western rite, not in the eastern rite though) and the absolute barrier to the ordination of women priests may make some sense in Rome, Ireland or Poland, but not in much of the other parts of the world..
In facing those problems the last two popes have abandoned Paul VI’s emphasis on naming pastoral bishops and have chosen instead to choose as bishops conservative company men to toe the new doctrinal lines. They often come with a strong conservative political agenda—insisting that a Catholic politician’s views on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay rights are more important than their positions on social justice or peace and war. Some aggressive American bishops are now insisting that Catholic politicians should be denied the sacraments, and the hierarchy insists that independent voting by Catholic lay people could lead to mortal sin—a clear violation of the position on freedom of conscience taken by the fathers in Vatican II.
In one highly visible case, the pedophile scandal in the Boston archdiocese has led the hierarchy to try and energize in Massachusetts its political base by attacking gay unions. This is their idea of moral leadership. It is odd that bishops in much of Western Europe, except in Spain, avoid the extremes of their American colleagues. Even the bishop of Rome—who is also the pope—never threatened Catholic politicians in that way. As for gays in the Catholic Church, one must remind people of history --that there have been many gay priests, gay bishops, and probably even one gay pope during the Renaissance.
The America that Benedict sees is indeed a modern, wealthy nation, but it is not a secular country. It is not England, France, the Netherlands or Scandinavia where religion is simply irrelevant. Large segments of Americans, especially Protestants, are fundamentalists and have very active churches, indeed even mega churches. But Catholic Americans are still called by Vatican observers, “cafeteria Catholics” They pick and choose what they will observe and believe. Their attitudes on abortion, birth control, gay rights are very similar to other white Americans in their income groups. They respect the pope, but avoid confession; their colleges, like Holy Cross, put on tasteless shows like the “Vagina Monologues” just like public colleges and universities do.
Still with all those differences, one of the fastest growing devotions in traditional Catholicism is the message of Divine Mercy from the Polish mystic of the 20th century, Saint Faustina, who stresses not God’s justice but His incredible mercy. If one has to choose between a just God and a merciful one, we would all benefit from the later. She has given the Catholic Church a new paradigm—one that is remarkably nonjudgmental and that is infused with mercy and forgiveness.
Benedict understands in many ways what is happening in the Church he is leading. And he is a knowledgeable and rather clear scholar on Church history and dogma, more so that his predecessor who was influenced by the obscure vocabulary of phenomenology. Still, Benedict is an admirer of the harsh St. Augustine rather than the more moderate St. Thomas Aquinas. His best selling book on Jesus is really rather engaging, and it shows how well Benedict knows the new scholarship and the old tenets. His concerns are the rise of anti religious feeling in his beloved Western Civilization and the belligerence of militant Islam. In a remarkable interview, he lamented how the Church conveys a sense of negativism, of a listing of things one can not do in life, rather a sense of joy over the good news of the Gospels. Still his pleas for a return to reason in discussions of faith came from the same man who s for two decades was the bulldog of Vatican orthodox who terrorized the greatest theologians of his time. One of the reasons the Church is having such a difficult time dealing with science, secularism, and Islam is that the bright young thinkers in the Church are intimidated into reciting the clichés of the old orthodoxy. The greatest theologian of the Church, Thomas Aquinas, welcomed the insights of Aristotle and his Jewish and Moslem commentators into his brilliant encyclopedic work, and the Church lived off his intellectual capital for centuries. But even he was excommunicated for his views by the bishop of Paris . Being a theologian in the Catholic Church is a dangerous occupation.
Benedict is an old man, who must garner his strength and not globe trot. In some ways, he lives a lonely life. He remembers the public adulation the actor- pope John Paul II, the special ties the latter seemed to have with the young, the delight of the people with his sense of mood and gesture. But Benedict is hemmed in. He cannot be even more conservative than John Paul, who was really more conservative than most realized. John Paul pushed the Church to the right with every technique he could marshal, and did it with class and style. But the Church’s basic problems remain. Benedict cannot turn to the left, as John XXII did, for as he approaches age 80 he cannot alter his views, his instincts, or his Church to accommodate that Church to the dissidents. So he comes, and will be respectfully received as he should be. He will say Mass in the most elegant style, and will remind us of the better angels of our nature. But in the end the American Catholics will do their own thing: they will baptize their children, attend Mass periodically, and buried their loved ones in sacred ground. But they will remain Americans in so many ways—cafeteria Catholics –which is another definition for the use of their own reason, conscience, and perhaps honestly self interest and lethargy.
Michael P. Riccards is Executive Director of the Hall Institute and has authored a book on the papacy titled The Papacy and the End of Christendom: The Leadership Crises in the Church from 1500 to 1850 (Binghamton, N.Y.: Global Publications, 2002)
In April, Pope Benedict XVI will come to the United States of America. I remember all so well the first trip of his beloved predecessor John Paul II. He visited many places including Boston, and his caravan drove down the major streets of that city through cheering throngs into Dorchester. We sat in lawn chairs near the traffic circle to see this 57 year old handsome, virile Polish prelate. As he came by in his open car, he was greeted by a rain of flowers from little girls dressed in traditional Polish garb. He then went on to New York City, and on October 2, my birthday, he arrived at St. Patrick’s Cathedral on Fifth Avenue. There he embraced the magnetic, but then sickly television preacher, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, who has been so poorly treated by Francis Cardinal Spellman of New York. The pope embraced him and whispered in his ear—“You have been a loyal son of the Church.” They both knew what he was saying. Ironically both men are now being considered for sainthood.
When Benedict comes, the Church he visits will be different from what JP II saw in the beginning of his reign.. The US is in deep military, financial and political trouble—a great nation at war with the forms of militant Islam which the pope himself is wary of. He will meet again with the lame duck president, and he will try to figure out this strange new land that is so different from the rarified cultures of Europe. Benedict as well as John Paul seems to be fixated on warning that the Church is being overwhelmed by the forces of secularism, atheism, or at least nonreligious consumerism. What nation is more associated with consumerism, popular culture, and mass prosperity than this country?
But secularism is not the major cause of disenchantment in the American Church, First, the Church is sill hurt by the steady stream of pedophilia and other forms of sexual abuse and its attendant costs—moral, fiscal, and political. Jesus once said that it be better “for you to tie a millstone around your neck and be thrown into the ocean than to cause even one of God’s children to stumble.” There are an awful lot of millstones needed—for both the violators and the those many bishops who for generations covered up those acts. In some ways, Benedict has been more willing to deal with the problem than his predecessor who just could not believe that such abuses were taking place.
Second, American consumer choice is oddly apparent in religious affiliations. The most recent Pew Poll shows that over 40% of us change our religious affiliation (or non- affiliation). The major force that is helping keep the Catholic numbers up is the large numbers of Hispanics in the United States, many of them illegal. No wonder that Roger Cardinal Mahoney wants his churches to become sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. Those groups aside, however, the Catholic Church is losing adherents. Churches and schools are being closed. The archdiocese in Washington D.C., for example, is making its parochial schools into charter schools funded by public money rather than denominational contributions. Essentially the schools are meant not to disseminate the faith, but to be an alternative to DC public schools.
In the midst of this turmoil, the Church in America has made it clear that it is especially hostile to gays, to divorced Catholics, to the overwhelming majority of couples using birth control, to those who do not link opposition to abortion to opposition to the Democratic party, and efforts to increase the participation of the laity, especially women Only a third of the Catholics in the USA are observant. The Catholic Church used to have schisms and heresies, now it has the faithful simply opting out. Churches can resist dogmatic errors, but they cannot deal with a general sense that they are irrelevant to the people who used to be in the pew. Recently, the hierarchy even chased the laity off the altar area; including its Eucharistic ministers and lectors. They are not to come too close to the priest. Vatican II’s notion of a “people of God” is being scrubbed. Somehow the dignity of the (male) priesthood is dependant on keeping liturgical distance from the rest of the congregation. It is the re-triumph of the Romanist, centralized Church of Pius XII.
The American Church has additional problems. The Catholic Church is a sacramental Church not a Scripture based evangelical church. It requires priests to perform its most important rituals—especially the consecration of the Eucharist. In the Catholic tradition, the Mass is not a theatrical reenactment or a symbolic embrace of the Last Supper. It is the full transformation (“transubstantiation”) of the bread and wine into the true Body and Blood of Christ, It is for this reason the priest cannot be replaced by church elders or inspired speakers. The huge loss of priests, the rapid aging of the remaining men, the closing of neighborhood parishes has also created problems for the ties that bind and have burdened a shrinking group of weary priests. Single priest parishes have been common for a while; now there are single priests with multi- parishes—becoming like old missionaries on the frontier. Nuns, once so important for schools and hospitals, have become scarce. In looking at the shortage of priests, John Paul II refused to lead. Mandatory celibacy of priests (in its Western rite, not in the eastern rite though) and the absolute barrier to the ordination of women priests may make some sense in Rome, Ireland or Poland, but not in much of the other parts of the world..
In facing those problems the last two popes have abandoned Paul VI’s emphasis on naming pastoral bishops and have chosen instead to choose as bishops conservative company men to toe the new doctrinal lines. They often come with a strong conservative political agenda—insisting that a Catholic politician’s views on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay rights are more important than their positions on social justice or peace and war. Some aggressive American bishops are now insisting that Catholic politicians should be denied the sacraments, and the hierarchy insists that independent voting by Catholic lay people could lead to mortal sin—a clear violation of the position on freedom of conscience taken by the fathers in Vatican II.
In one highly visible case, the pedophile scandal in the Boston archdiocese has led the hierarchy to try and energize in Massachusetts its political base by attacking gay unions. This is their idea of moral leadership. It is odd that bishops in much of Western Europe, except in Spain, avoid the extremes of their American colleagues. Even the bishop of Rome—who is also the pope—never threatened Catholic politicians in that way. As for gays in the Catholic Church, one must remind people of history --that there have been many gay priests, gay bishops, and probably even one gay pope during the Renaissance.
The America that Benedict sees is indeed a modern, wealthy nation, but it is not a secular country. It is not England, France, the Netherlands or Scandinavia where religion is simply irrelevant. Large segments of Americans, especially Protestants, are fundamentalists and have very active churches, indeed even mega churches. But Catholic Americans are still called by Vatican observers, “cafeteria Catholics” They pick and choose what they will observe and believe. Their attitudes on abortion, birth control, gay rights are very similar to other white Americans in their income groups. They respect the pope, but avoid confession; their colleges, like Holy Cross, put on tasteless shows like the “Vagina Monologues” just like public colleges and universities do.
Still with all those differences, one of the fastest growing devotions in traditional Catholicism is the message of Divine Mercy from the Polish mystic of the 20th century, Saint Faustina, who stresses not God’s justice but His incredible mercy. If one has to choose between a just God and a merciful one, we would all benefit from the later. She has given the Catholic Church a new paradigm—one that is remarkably nonjudgmental and that is infused with mercy and forgiveness.
Benedict understands in many ways what is happening in the Church he is leading. And he is a knowledgeable and rather clear scholar on Church history and dogma, more so that his predecessor who was influenced by the obscure vocabulary of phenomenology. Still, Benedict is an admirer of the harsh St. Augustine rather than the more moderate St. Thomas Aquinas. His best selling book on Jesus is really rather engaging, and it shows how well Benedict knows the new scholarship and the old tenets. His concerns are the rise of anti religious feeling in his beloved Western Civilization and the belligerence of militant Islam. In a remarkable interview, he lamented how the Church conveys a sense of negativism, of a listing of things one can not do in life, rather a sense of joy over the good news of the Gospels. Still his pleas for a return to reason in discussions of faith came from the same man who s for two decades was the bulldog of Vatican orthodox who terrorized the greatest theologians of his time. One of the reasons the Church is having such a difficult time dealing with science, secularism, and Islam is that the bright young thinkers in the Church are intimidated into reciting the clichés of the old orthodoxy. The greatest theologian of the Church, Thomas Aquinas, welcomed the insights of Aristotle and his Jewish and Moslem commentators into his brilliant encyclopedic work, and the Church lived off his intellectual capital for centuries. But even he was excommunicated for his views by the bishop of Paris . Being a theologian in the Catholic Church is a dangerous occupation.
Benedict is an old man, who must garner his strength and not globe trot. In some ways, he lives a lonely life. He remembers the public adulation the actor- pope John Paul II, the special ties the latter seemed to have with the young, the delight of the people with his sense of mood and gesture. But Benedict is hemmed in. He cannot be even more conservative than John Paul, who was really more conservative than most realized. John Paul pushed the Church to the right with every technique he could marshal, and did it with class and style. But the Church’s basic problems remain. Benedict cannot turn to the left, as John XXII did, for as he approaches age 80 he cannot alter his views, his instincts, or his Church to accommodate that Church to the dissidents. So he comes, and will be respectfully received as he should be. He will say Mass in the most elegant style, and will remind us of the better angels of our nature. But in the end the American Catholics will do their own thing: they will baptize their children, attend Mass periodically, and buried their loved ones in sacred ground. But they will remain Americans in so many ways—cafeteria Catholics –which is another definition for the use of their own reason, conscience, and perhaps honestly self interest and lethargy.
Michael P. Riccards is Executive Director of the Hall Institute and has authored a book on the papacy titled The Papacy and the End of Christendom: The Leadership Crises in the Church from 1500 to 1850 (Binghamton, N.Y.: Global Publications, 2002)
A federal (and state) lifeline is essential for debt-strapped homeowners
By: Linda Stamato
Mediation, farmer-lender style, can make the housing mortgage lifeline work.
What New Jersey needs for homeowners facing foreclosure in the subprime loan mess -- some 53,600 were filed in 2007 and more are anticipated in 2008 -- is a law that requires lenders to seek mediation for their troubled loans before foreclosure, and a forum in which loans can be modified. There at least should be a serious effort to secure the voluntary cooperation of creditors. Lawsuits against mortgage lenders, investment banks and credit rating agencies may well be part of the state's plan. This plan may include litigation against those who inflated appraisals or failed to prevent the questionable packaging of loans into securities. Important as they are, these actions do not provide immediate relief to homeowners,
The latest in a series of efforts at the federal level, Project Lifeline, would give homeowners more than three months behind on their mortgage payments and a one-month grace period to work out plans to avoid foreclosure, thus putting a stop to foreclosure proceedings so that homeowners can attempt to negotiate new terms. This framework, though, needs further elaboration.
One answer can be found when we examine the farm crisis that swept across the country in the 1980s, a crisis that led a successful use of mediation of troubled farm loans. Farmer-creditor mediation brought debt-burdened farmers and their creditors together to resolve loan problems before they reached the point at which the only option was foreclosure or legal action.
This was a monumental effort generated by a crisis of significant proportions: Farmers, nationally, owed $200 billion, and the debt was concentrated among farmers with the least ability to pay. These are stark figures, to be sure, dramatizing the stakes for debtors and creditors alike.
Pioneering states, first in voluntary efforts and then through mandatory programs, instituted mediation. In Iowa, for example, a state law prohibiting lenders from foreclosing on farms without first seeking mediation created the Iowa Mediation Service, which operated on the principle that even if farmers could not pay the full amount they owed, they often could pay something. In many cases, banks were happy to get that smaller amount instead of taking owner ship of depreciating farmland. In the end, 16 states, including Minnesota and Texas, provided mediation services.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture assisted the states' mediation efforts, moreover, by providing matching grants to states for farmer-lender mediation programs. Under the terms of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, federal lenders were required to participate in mediation of farm-credit disputes, thus providing additional support and encouragement to the dozen states where, by that time, the practice was well established. More states followed.
These programs were evaluated in terms of costs incurred, loans restructured and paid off, satisfaction rates, and so forth. They were deemed to be enormously successful—and not only on tangible grounds. Farm debts were restructured and farmers were able to remain on their farms and to borrow again to keep their farms in operation and help their rural communities. The toll on family life that credit disputes of this scope generate was reduced (e.g. domestic violence rates receded, divorce rates fell). Taxpayers and public and private creditors benefited, too.
At the federal level, these programs were seen as so successful that the USDA recommended to Congress that it consider extending the mediation process to include all federal creditors, including the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. attorney's offices.
As a result of this experience, in September 2007, the attorney general of Iowa hired that state's mediation service to provide similar services for homeowners facing foreclosure on their homes. (Iowa is seventh from the top in states with subprime mortgage foreclosure, at 9.4 percent.) The Iowa Mediation Service is currently working on a significant number of mortgage cases and is reported to being close to reaching settlement agreements on many of them.
Other states are beginning to look in this direction. Meanwhile, homeowners in New Jersey face foreclosure without such pressure and without any forum. It doesn't need to be this way. The state has a significant cadre of volunteer mediators who perform their services in every judicial vicinage in the state and it has an office within the Public Advocate and a State Board of Mediation for labor disputes in the private sector that could gear up to offer mediation in homeowner-lender disputes. There are mediators in private practice to draw from, as well. What is needed is an affirmative stance by the attorney general to encourage (or re quire) the use of mediation prior to foreclosure and to provide the means to organize a systematic approach to provide that service statewide.
Farmer-lender mediation programs provided solutions for the crisis in rural America only a few decades ago. The contemporary crisis in home mortgage foreclosures could benefit from a similar approach. In other states, the effort is showing considerable promise already. New Jersey should step up and make a responsible effort to encourage, if not mandate, mediation. It just may help families save their homes, preserve neighborhoods and communities, and help restore faith in the nation's credit lending system.
Linda Stamato is a faculty fellow and Co-Director at the Center for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution at Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University.
Mediation, farmer-lender style, can make the housing mortgage lifeline work.
What New Jersey needs for homeowners facing foreclosure in the subprime loan mess -- some 53,600 were filed in 2007 and more are anticipated in 2008 -- is a law that requires lenders to seek mediation for their troubled loans before foreclosure, and a forum in which loans can be modified. There at least should be a serious effort to secure the voluntary cooperation of creditors. Lawsuits against mortgage lenders, investment banks and credit rating agencies may well be part of the state's plan. This plan may include litigation against those who inflated appraisals or failed to prevent the questionable packaging of loans into securities. Important as they are, these actions do not provide immediate relief to homeowners,
The latest in a series of efforts at the federal level, Project Lifeline, would give homeowners more than three months behind on their mortgage payments and a one-month grace period to work out plans to avoid foreclosure, thus putting a stop to foreclosure proceedings so that homeowners can attempt to negotiate new terms. This framework, though, needs further elaboration.
One answer can be found when we examine the farm crisis that swept across the country in the 1980s, a crisis that led a successful use of mediation of troubled farm loans. Farmer-creditor mediation brought debt-burdened farmers and their creditors together to resolve loan problems before they reached the point at which the only option was foreclosure or legal action.
This was a monumental effort generated by a crisis of significant proportions: Farmers, nationally, owed $200 billion, and the debt was concentrated among farmers with the least ability to pay. These are stark figures, to be sure, dramatizing the stakes for debtors and creditors alike.
Pioneering states, first in voluntary efforts and then through mandatory programs, instituted mediation. In Iowa, for example, a state law prohibiting lenders from foreclosing on farms without first seeking mediation created the Iowa Mediation Service, which operated on the principle that even if farmers could not pay the full amount they owed, they often could pay something. In many cases, banks were happy to get that smaller amount instead of taking owner ship of depreciating farmland. In the end, 16 states, including Minnesota and Texas, provided mediation services.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture assisted the states' mediation efforts, moreover, by providing matching grants to states for farmer-lender mediation programs. Under the terms of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, federal lenders were required to participate in mediation of farm-credit disputes, thus providing additional support and encouragement to the dozen states where, by that time, the practice was well established. More states followed.
These programs were evaluated in terms of costs incurred, loans restructured and paid off, satisfaction rates, and so forth. They were deemed to be enormously successful—and not only on tangible grounds. Farm debts were restructured and farmers were able to remain on their farms and to borrow again to keep their farms in operation and help their rural communities. The toll on family life that credit disputes of this scope generate was reduced (e.g. domestic violence rates receded, divorce rates fell). Taxpayers and public and private creditors benefited, too.
At the federal level, these programs were seen as so successful that the USDA recommended to Congress that it consider extending the mediation process to include all federal creditors, including the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. attorney's offices.
As a result of this experience, in September 2007, the attorney general of Iowa hired that state's mediation service to provide similar services for homeowners facing foreclosure on their homes. (Iowa is seventh from the top in states with subprime mortgage foreclosure, at 9.4 percent.) The Iowa Mediation Service is currently working on a significant number of mortgage cases and is reported to being close to reaching settlement agreements on many of them.
Other states are beginning to look in this direction. Meanwhile, homeowners in New Jersey face foreclosure without such pressure and without any forum. It doesn't need to be this way. The state has a significant cadre of volunteer mediators who perform their services in every judicial vicinage in the state and it has an office within the Public Advocate and a State Board of Mediation for labor disputes in the private sector that could gear up to offer mediation in homeowner-lender disputes. There are mediators in private practice to draw from, as well. What is needed is an affirmative stance by the attorney general to encourage (or re quire) the use of mediation prior to foreclosure and to provide the means to organize a systematic approach to provide that service statewide.
Farmer-lender mediation programs provided solutions for the crisis in rural America only a few decades ago. The contemporary crisis in home mortgage foreclosures could benefit from a similar approach. In other states, the effort is showing considerable promise already. New Jersey should step up and make a responsible effort to encourage, if not mandate, mediation. It just may help families save their homes, preserve neighborhoods and communities, and help restore faith in the nation's credit lending system.
Linda Stamato is a faculty fellow and Co-Director at the Center for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution at Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
