|
April 22, 2002
CounterPunch
Wire
EPA
Ombudsman Resigns
in Protest
Dave Marsh
DeskScan: What's Playing
at My House This Week
Ron Jacobs
A20
in DC: Taking the
Message to the Beast's Belly
Kathy Kelly
An Open Letter to
Israeli Soldiers
Irit Katriel
Word
Games and Body Bags
Rep. Cynthia McKinney
We Come for Peace
Daniel
Bar-Tal
Is
There a Way Out?
Occupation, Terror
and Understanding
David Wilson
A Week of Coups, But Now
The Freedom Train Hits Town
Shaik
Ubaid
Today
I Was a Palestinian
April 21, 2002
Michelle Campos
Suckered Again in Israel
Mike Leon
200,000
in DC Protest Say:
"We Are All Palestinians Today"
C.G. Estabrook
Sex and Power in Catholicism
Kathy
Kelly
Gimme
Some Truth Now
A Walk Through Jenin
April 20, 2002
Philip Farruggio
Drowning in a Sea of Apathy
Kristen
Schurr
Leaving
Nablus
Bernard Weiner
Israel and the Intifada
for Dummies
Jean-Guy
Allard
A
Coup Signed by Otto Reich
Chris Floyd
The "Grandeur" That Was Rome:
A Letter from the Front
April 19, 2002
Eric Flint
Free
the Books!
David Krieger
A Peace Proposal:
Bring in the Children
Jeff Paterson
Advice
to Recruits from
a Gulf War Vet
Jeffrey St. Clair
From Sen. "Lunkhead" to
Bush Energy Czar: A Year in the Life of Spencer Abraham
April 18, 2002
Tom Turnipseed
Latin
America's Dilemma:
The Propaganda of Otto Reich
Sam Bahour
Bush is Playing Russian
Roulette with Palestinians
M. Shahid
Alam
A
Colonizing Project
Built on Lies
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
INSIDE
EXCLUSIVE
TO
COUNTERPUNCH
SUBSCRIBERS
Published March 15, 2002
Read Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The New Crusade:
America's War on Terrorism
By Rahul Mahajan
The Memphis Blues Again:
Six Decades of Memphis Music Photographs
Photos by Ernest Withers
Text by Daniel Wolff
The New Intifada:
Resisting Israel's Apartheid
Edited by Roane Carey
A Pocket Guide to
Environmental Bad Guys
by James Ridgeway
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The
Phoenix Program
by Douglas Valentine
Al Gore:
A User's Manual
by Cockburn
and St. Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
Reviews of Gore:
a User's Manual
|
April 23, 2002
Who'll Rid Us of the
Pedophile Priests?
By Joan Smith
I recently attended a seminar at which an eminent
philosopher described how he would react if he died and found
himself, against his expectations, ushered into the presence
of God. He would simply explain, he said, that autocratic forms
of government are outmoded and demand a timetable for democratic
elections. He has a point: churches are far from being democratic
institutions and they do not even, judging by the extraordinary
behaviour of the
Roman Catholic hierarchy, consider themselves
subject to the laws that other citizens are expected to uphold.
So the imminent arrival in Rome of all the American cardinals
for a crisis meeting with the Pope reminds me of a Hollywood
movie, the kind where the heads of mafia families are summoned
for a dressing-down by the capo di tutti capi.
What is on the agenda when they meet
in the Vatican on Tuesday is nothing less than a conspiracy to
protect US priests who have molested children, and in some cases
raped them, over a period of two decades. Priests like William
Effinger, for instance, who confessed to sexually abusing an
altar boy in 1979 and was shielded by Rembert Weakland, Archbishop
of Milwaukee, for 13 years. Or John Geoghan, a Boston priest
who was the subject of dozens of allegations of sexual abuse.
Cardinal Bernard Law, Archbishop of Boston, knew about the allegations
but transferred him from parish to parish.
Effinger and Geoghan are just two of
3,000 Catholic priests facing allegations of sexual abuse in
the US. Nor is the scandal confined to one side of the Atlantic;
a French bishop was given a three-month suspended sentence last
year for failing to report a paedophile priest, who was eventually
jailed for rape, to the police. I have never been a fan of the
vow of celibacy. But I don't think allowing priests to marry
would address the problem of paedophilia, which is as much about
power and secrecy as it is about sexuality.
This scandal arises from the church's
assumption that its own moral authority was sufficient to deter
serial sex offenders. Even now, when the scale of the abuse is
being exposed in hundreds of criminal investigations, senior
churchmen are having to be dragged kicking and screaming to co-operate.
Senior clerics have effectively been operating a parallel and
clandestine system of justice, so used to regulating the sex
lives of their congregations that they apparently believed it
would also work with parish priests.
But priests are part of the power structure.
Priests with paedophile tendencies seem to have judged correctly
that their calling would protect them against allegations of
sexually abusing minors. There is a kind of erotic excitement
attached to the exercise of power and there is no reason to believe
that priests are untouched by it. Rather, they enjoy not just
status in the community, but unparalleled opportunities to be
alone with vulnerable young people. Add the lure of the forbidden
and you have a blueprint for trouble.
The meeting between the Pope and the
American cardinals is scheduled to last three days. But I doubt
whether John Paul II is the man to deal with a scandal that has
come near to destroying the authority of his church in the US.
Like a mafia boss, he can issue rebukes and insist on changes.
But secular habits of democracy and openness are unlikely to
come easily to an organisation built on secrecy, repression and
a tragically mistaken assumption of its superior moral values.
* * *
What is the word for prejudice against
people of Arab origin? It is "anti-Semitic", although
it is rare to hear it used in that context. I mention this because
the definition of anti-Semitism is being re-written. At a time
when leading Israelis like Ariel Sharon are guilty of anti-Semitism
towards the Palestinians, it is being narrowed down to hostility
towards Jewish people. But it is being expanded to include criticism
of the conduct of a state, a government and an army. It should
be obvious that none of these can ever be exempt from scrutiny,
and suggesting otherwise would not be taken seriously in any
other context. The charge of anti-Semitism should not be used
to stifle debate about the founding of the state of Israel in
1948, when it is only by correcting that injustice that this
conflict can be solved. In the second half of the 20th century,
a body of international law came into existence which regards
the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their
homes as unacceptable. Israel's supporters should acknowledge
this, just as Palestinians need to reject the horrible tactic
of killing Israeli civilians in suicide bombings.
Joan Smith is a columnist for The Independent.
|