SEX SCANDAL AND CELIBACY

Last week I read an article on the Church/Sex story, titled "Pope Opens Solemn Holy Week Amid Sex Abuse Crisis." It's the usual story line: the Church didn't react fast enough or forcefully enough to predatory priests. For more on the painful subject, buy and read "The Faithful Departed," an honest and deeply troubling book.

EO was intrigued by a small quote near the end of the article. A Cardinal - identified in the article as a "liberal" - suggests that "mandatory chastity for churchmen should be thought over to prevent further abuse cases by clergy and help the church regain lost trust."

The Cardinal may have been "sound-bit," for all we know. "Sound-bit" is when you say something for one purpose, but a piece of your quote is used for another.

"Sound-bit"

(photo credit)

Rather than speculate on what the Cardinal actually had in mind, EO will just "think over" the actual language of the quote, which is safer. "Thinking over" stuff is almost always a good idea, except when you are "thinking over" sin. Then, not so much.

But I digress.

"I'll do the thinnin' around here!"
- Quick Draw McGraw
(photo credit)

EO can think of two different things the quote might mean: (A) requiring priests to be chaste actually causes them to become pedophiles, or (B) allowing priests to be married reduces the chances they will turn to pedophilia.

Theory (A) generally means that if you don't give people latitude to fornicate they will develop unhealthy sexual appetites. The flip side would be that if allowed to fornicate as they wish, people will wind up with healthy moral habits.

Smart people say so.

Sigmund Freud: "Let's Get It On."
(photo credit)

Cool people say so.

Marvin Gaye: "Let's Get It On."
(photo credit)

Bottom line: America has "Gotten It On" for the last 50 years, with genocidal results: a million abortions a year, a horrendous worldwide AIDS epidemic, a 70% illegitimacy rate in large segments of our society, explosions of rape, domestic violence, and pornographic abuse of women and children.

"Let's Maybe Not Get It On So Much."
(photo credit)

I would prefer not to import this wholesale into the priesthood.

Theory (B) generally means that if you let priests marry you can avoid having child molesters in the priesthood.

Problem is, two-thirds of child victimizers have been married. One-third of child abusers committed the crime against their own child. School teachers and married clergy may have higher incidencea of child abuse than Catholic clergy. The links supply a starting point, but there is plenty more.

So "married" is a truly lousy proxy for "won't commit child abuse."

Contrary to popular mythology, marriage is not something radically different from holy orders. It shares many of the same attributes, requiring chastity, faithfulness, sacrifice and endurance.

Priests who have problems with chastity in holy orders will have problems with chastity in marriage.

The problem is too little chastity, not too much.

Photo credit

There is ample room in God's kingdom for all his children, no matter what their struggles. God has a way to redeem all of us. But that doesn't give us a license to be stupid. EO does not try to minister to Sports Illustrated swimsuit models. He keeps a respectful distance from them.

The Catholic Church does not force anyone to become a priest, or to stay a priest. Someone who struggles with a sexual attraction to young boys should not be a priest. You need to work that out in another environment.

For the last generation Catholic seminaries have been thrown open to people who were living in violation of the Church's rules on sexual morality. During the same period many in the Church's hierarchy dealt with pedophilic priests by sending them to "treatment" centers, then putting them back on active duty, rather than following historic norms for dealing with priests with sexual problems.

Now chastity is to blame for the sex scandal?

This is like torching a store and then suing the fire company for not putting it out fast enough. Next we will start blaming gluttony on prayer and fasting.

Nero fiddling.
photo credit)

Excuse me while I curb my enthusiasm.

(photo credit)

Celibacy and chastity don't cause perversion, any more than marriage cures it.

Successfully celibate priests mean that sexual immorality is not an uncontrollable outcome of the human condition. The VAST majority of priests are faithful to their vows. People in my generation hate the celibate priesthood because it stands as a quiet witness against our culture of sexual immorality.

The notion that chastity causes or contributes to perversion is unsupported and a little whacky. It is the type of "virtue is vice" accusation that characterized the first Good Friday.

So thank God for Easter.

(photo credit)

(For more on the history of priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church,

see the Catholic Encyclopedia article.)

LIFE GOES ON

So Reid-Pelosi passed the house last night, amid cheering and high-fiving. Me, not so much.

Then I started thinking: what a great country we live in. Here we are debating an issue that touches the core of who we are, a defining line between very different visions of who we should be. Yet there are no machetes, suicide bombers or IEDs anywhere around.

Conservatives took a whipping in 2006 and 2008. Liberals won the national debate and the election in 2008. They won it politically, they won it following the rules, and to the victors go the spoils. They did what they said they'd do.

Yet no one is leading an armed insurrection. Conservatives are trying to take back power, just as liberals did when they were in the wilderness. But "take back power" doesn't mean fund a private militia and storm the capital.

In this country, it means working all the harder at making your point; working all the harder at convincing a free people of the merits of your position; working all the harder to elect people who agree with you.

The debate on health care has only begun. The bad math is still there, and in the coming decades we and our children will have to confront it again. Because this bill, for all its noble purpose, does not fund the entitlements it creates. And that, however you dress it up, is a piece of deception.

Funding these entitlements will, in the end, involve either massive new taxes or the complete overthrow of the current insurance system. At some point, you can no longer finesse the issue with gimmicky accounting tricks.

And the American people will have to make the actual choices that Congress ducked here. Do you want to keep your entitlements intact and pay much higher taxes? Do you accept a severe reduction in entitlements to limit your tax bill? Do you nationalize health care in order to control costs? Or some combination of these three unpalatables?

I don't know what their choice will be. I can't predict all the circumstances under which that choice will be forced upon them. But the cause for optimisim is that the people get to make that choice, and not some wacko president-for-life, "fearless leader" or Maoist dictator.

So for those who prefer an America where risks and rewards are high, and government control is low, keep working, keep praying, and keep voting. The day will come when your voice is heard again. Maybe you'll be the ones high-fiving and cheering on the floor of the House.

TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES

The health care bill now pending in Congress (I will call it Reid-Pelosi Care, or "RPCare") will mean a huge new entitlement program, vast increases in the federal budget, and huge new federal deficits.

We are currently watching the Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid (call them S2M2) programs approach bankruptcy. Soon we will get to watch RPCare approach bankruptcy, along with the Federal Treasury.

The Congressional Budget Office issues reports each time RPCare changes. The people at the CBO must be approaching nervous breakdowns.

The CBO reports suggest that over 10 years the bill as presently constituted will shave about 10% of the RP's cost off the federal deficit. Now this is small beer, in any event, given the enormous increase in the federal deficit during the Bush/Obama "debt = eternal happiness" era of government expansion.

But the CBO "scoring" is just that: "scoring," as in a weird game of Risk, based on arcane rules that ignore historical reality. CBO predictions of cost savings almost never materialize, and CBO always woefully underestimates how fast health care costs really grow.

Even on their own terms the CBO's estimates don't promise fiscal solvency. They just say that they can't predict where the bill will take us past 10 years, but that by increasing revenues now and postponing new health care expenditures for 4 years, the bill ekes out about 10% more revenue than expenses by year 10. This means 10 years of revenue to pay for 6 years of health care.

Never mind the quality of the "revenues" RPCare asks us to believe in. That is a sausage factory you do not want to see or smell.

After 10 years, we have to pay as we go. See, this is the problem with Ponzi schemes and check-kiting. At some point your "float" drys up. The expenses will keep on going up dramatically, while the revenue sources won't. The math will stop working very rapidly.

And then what? The S2M2 bankruptcy will be dwarfed by the bankruptcy of RPCare. We will either scrap the system, at untold cost to poorer Americans with nowhere left to go, or turn to a truly nationalized health care system. Welcome, Veterans Hospitals.

The administration understands that RPCare is the last, great hope of turning the United States hard toward a nationalized health system. The administration sees such a turn as "the right thing to do." Every year, every month, every week that goes by without RPCare allows America to keep thinking about "entitlement bankruptcy." Voters are getting more and more jittery, even now. Witness Scott Brown sitting in "Ted Kennedy's" seat. People's enthusiasm for new spending will continue to erode, the closer the S2M2 bankruptcy lumbers toward us.

Hence, the urgency to pass this bill now, while Democrats can. Because very soon, the moment will have passed, never to return.

In the end, I don't think Obama cares very much about health care. He didn't before the primaries. He picked up Hillary Clinton's fervor as a convenient device for accomplishing his true passion, a federal government locked into growth at a faster rate than the private economy. If Obama wins health care, he wins constant government growth, relative to the private economy. The rest of the story is interesting, but essentially inevitable, like finishing a hand of solitaire once all the cards are up.

Health care has grown faster than the rest of the economy for 40 years. If the federal government is running health care, the health care math means government expands at a rate faster than the private economy. 2 + 2 = 4, and that's that.

And this means that at some point within a generation, the government will have overcome and swallowed the private economy. That day will mark a great victory for America's left. No armed revolution will have preceded this takeover; just a vote on health care on March 21, 2010.

Obama and friends see federal control of the private economy as the only sure way to ensure social justice, a social justice defined by Obama and people who agree with him. Once they get RPCare done, all they have to do is wait, and the rest of the deal comes to them while they sit.

Tomorrow is the first day of spring. The weather is likely to be lovely, here in Hotville. I hope the House of Representatives refuses to approve RPCare. I am Eternally Optimistic.

BLESSED

How to pronounce it? Just "blest?" One syllable? Or "bles - sed," two syllables?

What a beautiful word, either way. It means various things, but among the more common are "consecrated by a religious ceremony . . . hallowed, holy . . . enjoying supreme felicity . . . happy, fortunate . . . enjoying the bliss of heaven." Oxford English Dictionary.

Bliss = your own copy of OED.

(Photo credit)

Last night EO woke up in the middle of the night, thinking. It happens often enough that I wonder if I should form a pre-dawn support group, consisting of people I can reliably email or phone at zero-dark-thirty to discuss what is keeping my eyelids open, even though I am very tired.

(Photo credit)

Early this morning my thoughts happened to be a frequent - though not a welcome - guest. Up through my bubbling subconscious came the sense of having not been enough: not enough for my children, not enough for my wife, not enough for God, not enough for my friends.

Now this may have been fueled by the wine I had at supper, but these thoughts have been frequent enough visitors that I cannot blame alcohol entirely. Alcohol is simply a facilitator, not a cause.

I was not feeling bles-sed, or blest; quite the opposite. I was feeling a failure for not being enough. I was thinking of what a small and inadequate life I have led.

But through the haze of weird chemical reactions, odd personality disorders and bad memories came a very short and quiet thought, the kind I have come to believe is the "word of God" that people write about hearing.

"Aren't small lives the ones Christ was talking about in the Beatitudes?"

Region of the Beatitudes. Not a lot of big stuff here.

(Photo credit)

So this morning I read the Beatitudes again, after Mrs. EO gave me a pep-talk (she is, fortunately, a life-long cheerleader for the wounded and sad).

I noticed that nowhere in the Beatitudes did it say "blessed are the rich and powerful" or "blessed are the famous." Nope.

Brangelina.

(Photo credit)

Instead,

Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the land.

Blessed are they who
hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the clean in heart,
for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted
for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew chapter 5.

No matter how small and insignificant my life may be, and no matter how poor my decisions may have been, at this moment and at every moment of my life these doors to blessedness are available to me on exactly the same terms as to every other human being, whether great or small.

And in God's economy, in His society, these are the things that count. Fame and beauty, power and prestige, wealth and privilege: all of it "withers and fades," in the words of Isaiah.

"The Prophet Isaiah."

(Photo credit)

He wrote in the 8th century B.C., but his words still strike home, because they are true:

The grass withers, the flower fades
but the word of the Lord stands forever.

Isaiah chapter 40.

So, as the noted philosopher Carl Spackler once said,

"I got that goin' for me. Which is nice."


Philosopher King Carl Spackler.
Photo credit

HAPPY ST. PATRICK'S DAY!

All in Green this fine day, for obvious reasons, I should hope.

March 12, 2010 a good man died. Joe Cassario, an old friend, was lifted from this world and went to be with his Lord, whom he loved. I am privileged and happy to know Joe and his family, who every one of them share in his genuine kindness, good spirits and humility.

Tonight Mrs. EO and I have been listening again to a song based on St. Patrick's words. To think of the love that man had for those who had enslaved and tormented him. He deserved the name "Christian." What a beautiful song. What a beautiful life. I thought what a beautiful way to celebrate Joe's life and his new life above.

Joseph, please introduce me to your friends when I arrive. Soon and very soon.

I arise today
through the strength of heaven.

Light of sun, radiance of moon,
splendor of fire, speed of lightning,
swiftness of wind, depth of the sea,
stability of earth, firmness of rock.

I arise today
through God’s strength to pilot me

God’s eye to look before me, God’s wisdom to guide me
God’s way to lie before me, God’s shield to protect me
From all who shall wish me ill,
Afar and a near, alone and in a multitude

Against every cruel merciless power that may oppose my body, and so…

Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ in me,
Christ beneath me, Christ above me, Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit down, Christ when I arise,

Christ to shield me.
Christ in the heart of everyone who thinks of me;
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me.

I arise today.

READER MAIL

(Eternal Optimist is trying to catch up on Reader Mail, and thought he would publish some of his correspondence.)
*************************

Dear Eternal Optimist,

I noticed that I get a headache whenever I read your blog. I think your blog entries are too long and hard to follow.

Headachey in Madison


Dear Madison,

Your headaches are due to the snow and cold in Wisconsin. EO's blog entries are much shorter and warmer than President Obama's speeches. You ate too many of those during the last election and they gave you an "ice-pop" headache, maybe.

You should pack EO's blogs on your forehead, like a warm compress, for your headaches.

Or, you could just read every third word. It is much faster and more entertaining.

Warmest Personal Regards,
EO


***************

Dear EO (whoever you really are),

You make me SICK!! What right do you have to be so judgmental about people's moral views?! People like you and Bush have ruined this country!! Look at the shambles we are in because of Bush! If people were more tolerant of one another (something you can't seem to understand) we wouldn't have so much gridlock in Washington! I would call you a stupid joke, but you aren't funny!!

Tolerant in Minnesota


Dear Tol,

I don't appreciate your intolerance of my judgmental attitudes. It is your intolerance, and the intolerance of the other people up there, that makes Minnesota so cold and miserable. Why are people in Iowa so nice, but Minnesota is so mean?

You elected Al Franken, so you can't be all bad. Check out "Stuart Saves His Family." Great movie. Remember, "progress, not perfection."

Warmest Personal Regards,
EO


*************

Dear Eternal Optimist,

The last election demonstrated the problematic nature of the democratic/republican insistence on either/or propositions during elections and, more broadly, during any political debate. The underlying dementia in the current toxic political environment is the insistence on a zero-sum mentality, when the reality of today's multi-dimensional social and psychic time/space continuum is that we rarely confront a bona fide zero-sum game; rather, we are most often involved in games that promise less for all players (or, correspondingly more for all players), depending on the inter-connectivity and biological relevance of the answers we suggest and, ultimately, implement. Contributing to the misidentification of dialectic imperatives does nothing to enhance the reformation of what can and must be relatively benign processes for change and overall paradigm shifting toward the symbolic and actual sharing of both political and economic futures. We cannot afford to continue along these lines and fool ourselves into believing it does not matter.

Earnestly in California


Dear Earnie,

I can't disagree. I think you've said it all.

Warmest Personal Regards,
EO


**********

Dear EO,

I find your blog offensive in the extreme. Please take me off your mailing list at once.

Stuck in Rhode Island


Dear Stuck,

(A) I don't have a mailing list. (B) If I had a mailing list you wouldn't be on it. (C) Doesn't it embarrass you to have the same number of senators as California?

Warmest Personal Regards,
EO


*****************

Dear EO,

I am your mother, and even I find you difficult. Why don't you stop writing these silly blogs and just find a job and be kind to people?

Love,
Mommy


Dear Mommy,

I used to work at a job, but that made me so sad. Everyone was mean to me. So now I just write blogs and play the guitar and the bongos, and I feel more happy. And I've lost a lot of weight.

You want me to be happy, don't you?

Don't you?

Mommy?

MORAL ABSOLUTES

Pope John Paul II. Pray for us.

(photo credit)

This weekend I read an article about moral absolutes in a local paper (The Hotville Herald). The article took as its starting point Pope John Paul II's statement, "In the end, only a morality which acknowledges certain norms as valid always and for everyone, with no exception, can guarantee the ethical foundation of social coexistence . . ." Parenthetically, Pope Benedict XVI probably agrees with this.

Pope Benedict XVI. Still going strong.

(Photo credit)

The article went on to cite a Marist College Institute poll that found that 82% of Catholics between 18 and 29 agreed with the statement

"Morals are relative; there is no definite right and wrong for everybody."

Now, the 82% figure includes anyone who self-identifies as a Catholic. If you took a poll of people who go to Mass even once a month (the Church teaches you should go at least once a week) the answers to the poll change significantly, as the article points out.

Nevertheless, the "buy-in" on the statement is fascinating.

I had some questions I wanted to ask of the 82% (we will call them "The Eighty-Two.") Feel free to write in with comments.

First, when you said "there is no definite right and wrong for everybody," did you mean, "categorically and objectively, there is no definite right and wrong for everybody?" I will assume so, since otherwise the statement boils down to

I don't think there is a definite right and wrong for everybody,
including myself, but I am actually not so sure.
Besides, it is time to watch "Lost."

We will call this mushier statement "Lost," to keep things brief. Lost is not much to get excited about, so I will ignore it for now. More on Lost later.

If your answer was yes, "categorically and objectively, there is no definite right and wrong for everybody," my question is "how do you know that?"

Do you know it (A) empirically, having tested all possible knowledge and all possible variations of right and wrong, or (B) via some type of deductive logic, reasoning from an accepted first premise?

Deductive reasoners.

(Photo credit)

I will take a wild guess and rule out (A). So we are left with (B). Somehow you were able to move step by logical step from an accepted first principle to the conclusion that, categorically and objectively, "there is no definite right and wrong for everybody."

Let me know what the universally accepted first principle was and what the logical steps were. My guess is that the universally accepted first principle looks awfully like an absolute moral value. But I will wait to see the arguments before passing judgment on that.

Here's a second question. Let's try a "Moral Absolutes Experiment." I guess that even The Eighty-Two will agree with the following absolute moral norms:

(1) torturing small children to death is never a moral good.
(2) racism is never a moral good.
(3) forced conversion to Christianity is never a moral good.
(4) listening to Rush Limbaugh is never a moral good.

Okay, I'm sorry, get rid of Number Four. But am I wrong about the first Three? I like Three, for reasons I've explained elsewhere.

If you want to argue that any of the first three propositions are only relative (i.e., sometimes it is okay to torture small children to death), my only stipulation is that you let me know who you are so I can keep an eye on you.

If I can think of three (possibly four) absolute moral truths in 15 seconds, you maybe see why I am siding with the Pope on this issue? You can try stating moral absolutes at home, just for fun. It's easy. For example, "launching nuclear weapons purely for the purpose of self-gratification is never a moral good."

Maj. Kong rides the bomb.

(Photo credit)

(Check out the Slim Pickens clip, from Dr. Strangelove, on YouTube.)

You get the idea for the game. It will keep you busy on the weekends and provide plenty of fun comments with which to infuriate your teachers during the school week.

I will step out on a limb here and say that the actual thought in the mind of every one of The Eighty-Two was, in fact, "Lost" (for those who forgot the details on Lost, including me, it means "I don't think there is a definite right and wrong for everybody, including myself, but I am actually not so sure. Besides, it is time to watch 'Lost.'")

LOST.

(Photo credit)

I will step out further on the limb and say that the originating impulse for Lost is that The Eighty-Two wanted to have sex with their girlfriends/boyfriends and didn't like the Pope or anyone else telling them it was wrong.

I will also stand on a twig at the end of the limb and say that each of The Eighty-Two heard or read the statement "there is no definite right and wrong for everybody" an average of 10,097 times in high school and college. And many of them heard it right after the class on the Holocaust, where they heard (and agreed) that genocide was never a moral good. I will venture that the contradiction never registered.

So the basis of this profound moral nihilism is that the The Eighty-Two really, really want to have sex with their girlfriends/boyfriends. Without the Pope telling them "no good."

You are going to dump the Pope, maybe your Mom (although there are some odd Moms out there these days), almost certainly your Grandmom, together with 5,000 years of a very sensible moral system (dating back to at least Abraham) so that you can have sex with your girlfriend/boyfriend? On the advice of that teacher with the bad haircut and body odor, to whom you probably wouldn't entrust your bicycle, much less your eternal soul?

Weird Teacher.

(Photo credit)

How about instead of jettisoning a time tested system of morality, you just deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Jesus? Maybe start by going to confession and trying to quit sinning?

It's Lent. Great time of year for that.

I'm just saying.

It seems simpler to me. Occam's razor, know what I mean?

Occam's Razor: New, Improved!

(Photo credit)