Well, Hello.

I'm not going to even try to cover what's been heavily covered over the past few days, especially since Mark Shea's blog has become Vent Central regarding Hussein, Martino, et.al. If you haven't already, I point you in that direction to get a taste of the conversation, if you need it. If you want to catch me up on what's been said, feel free. I understand Rod Dreher was on O'Reilly? Radio show or TV?

Anyway.

When I heard on the radio yesterday, "A Vatican Cardinal has criticized the US for the way it has treated Saddam Hussein," I immediately said, "Martino." Yup. What an idiot. Once again, we revisit the Mysteries of Vatican Diplomese, which are, to tell the truth, more abstruse than the Mystery of the Holy Trinity. It's a place we visited a lot 8 months ago. I see no sense in trying to unpack why Martino said what he said and what he should have said. He said it, and it's done a lot of damage - one wishes someone would send Martino a tape of ten minutes of the local drive-time radio call-in show we heard yesterday as we left Chicago. It is an amazingly ironic statement to come from within a structure that defines "giving scandal" as the eleventh commandments.

And, as others have noted, this is also a good summary of what's being said.

Choosing words carefully, as Martino should have done, is not important simply to avoid offense or scandal, but in order to communicate the entire truth. The entire truth is that Hussein was a dictator and a tyrant and a murderer and that the competent authorities have the right to do what they want with him, within the confines of international law. What bothers those bothered by Martino's statement is the absence of the whole truth, which, of course, also includes the suffering of Hussein's victims.

I do like the Sheed quote that Mark posted, and I will repeat it here:

"We are not baptized into the hierarchy; do not receive the Cardinals sacramentally; will not spend an eternity in the beatific vision of the pope. Christ is the point. I, myself, admire the present pope, but even if I criticised him as harshly as some do, even if his successor proved to be as bad as some of those who have gone before, even if I find the Church, as I have to live with it, a pain in the neck, I should still say that nothing that a pope (or a priest) could do or say would make me wish to leave the church, although I might well wish that they would leave."

For the thinking Catholic, who understands herself to be a part of a living Church that extends through time and space, the remarks of Martino should provide no threat to faith. A frustration, yes. An obstacle in evangelization, yes, and thanks a lot for that, buddy, but a threat to one's personal faith? I am at a loss to see why. For me, Cardinal Martino's statement is no more a threat to my faith than the spectacularly sinful life of a 15th century Cardinal or Pope. Same Church, the saints and sinners all exist on the same plane. It is a mystery, yes, and one worth unpacking - if our faith is revealed incarnationally, through stuff and words and music and yes, people, how do we see through the (always) less-than-adequate stuff and the (frequently) ridiculousness (and worse) of the people to Christ? And how do we help others do the same?

Comments

[Mark Shea]

No fair. You say better in one post what I couldn't say in a day's worth of posting!

[Todd]

Peace, Amy.

Welcome home. The Sheed quote is apt, and is possibly the same line of thought when I encounter clerical behavior I find mystifying.

[Mark Shea]

PS. Rod was on O'Reilly? Didn't hear about that! What's the story, Rod?

[Cecil]

I forget who said this: "Don't fall away from the Church because it's full of hypocrites. There's always room for one more." And I guess that goes for fools, too. It's a thought that keeps coming back and back to me nowadays.

[TNP]

I don't understand how the U.S. mistreated Hussein by checking for lice and examining his gums. Treated like a cow? They check for lice twice a year in our local public schools. Wouldn't that indicate humane treatment? And why take issue with the government rather than the media who post such pictures? No, Martino is anti-America and that's all there is to it. Any excuse to voice disgust is the way I see it.

[Mark Shea]

Argh. Blogger seems to have blown a fuse this morning, so I can't blog at present.

[Cathleen]

How do we see through the ridiculousness? That's an easy one....through prayer. By being vigilant in prayer, we are constantly brought back to truth, brought back home to Christ. We can see the nonsense more clearly, respond to it more courageously, and offer our peace and confidence (confidence, not arrogance!) to those who around us.

[Gene Humphreys]

TNP,

I gather that Amy would rather us not get into the long discussion on this here, but I think the difference is in broadcasting. Checking for lice is humiliating if it's put on TV.

They should have video taped the examination for protection--in case those anti-American folks falsely accused our military of mistreating Saddam. But I cannot think of any reason (other than humiliation) to broadcast that exam (or turn over the video to the media for broadcast).

By the way Amy, I had missed the Sheed quote on Mark's site. Thanks for linking it--it's on target.

[John Hearn]

Cathleen,

You hit it! Without prayer we are lost in more ways than one.

[Grant Gallicho]

Having a medical examination aired before the world's eyes is de facto humiliating. That the person being humiliated is responsible for evil doesn't change that. I doubt any cardinal at the Vatican is ignorant of Saddam's crimes; neither, it should be pointed out, Amy, is his audience. This "let's get the whole story" business is a canard in the case of Hussein.

[amy]

Grant,

In this world of instant and mass communication, everyone is Martino's audience, minutes after he says what he says. And that everyone includes people who make snap judgments, who have only a half-formed sense or understanding of what the Church is all about and who know everything they know about the Church from the secular media's soundbytes.

In that context, we all have an extraordinary responsibility to understand how our words are going to be received and reflect on the Gospel we are charged with living and preaching, to all those who hear it.

[amy]

Oh, and if you want to hash over it here, that's fine! Didn't mean to communicate anything different...speaking of careful communication!

[Grant Gallicho]

I think that if you're looking for someone who seems incapable of making nuanced judgments, or of at least articulating them, our president is a better example Martino. Would "livestock" have been better than cow? It was low to display the examination. I understand that the Iraqi people needed proof of his capture, but did they need to see him degraded? What was the benefit of airing that footage? It does more damage than its worth, fuels more rage in the Arab world.

I repeat: I seriously doubt that anyone who read Martino's statement hadn't heard about Saddam's atrocities. They've been announced repeatedly for months by every news outlet in the United States, by this president, and years before, by his father.

I don't understand what you're really asking for, Amy. Should every statement that expresses concern for the treatment of a moral monster take care to announce the character of the recipent of said sympathy? "While Saddam Hussein is responsible for countless acts of evil, he should not be treated like a cow before the world." Would that be better? Do you really believe people--especially in the United States--are in the dark about Saddam's crimes?

[John McG]

I don't buy it.

I think even if Martino had delivered a 20 minute tirade detailing the crimes of Saddam, and what a terrible person he was, and how glad he was that he was arrested, and then expressed his concerns about the treatment of Saddam, we'd have gotten the same type of reaction.

Also, what would be the point of such a tirade? Saddam is out of power. Are we so fragile about our righteousness that we need to be constantly reminded how bad Saddam is?

Sure, members of the hierarchy have a responsibility to speak clearly, but we also have a responsibility to listen clearly.

And concluding from this statement that the Vatican cares more about Saddam than about the Iraqi people isn't listening clearly.

[craig]

Grant, I saw it in the opposite light -- he was not being treated like a cow, nor as the demigod he portrayed himself to be, but as a mere man. The curtain has been pulled back and the Wizard of Oz is just a pathetic little man pulling strings.

Could he have been taken without this kind of publicity? Yes. Would it have led to charges that we (a) didn't have the real Saddam, or (b) had him and were torturing him in secret? Yes. Would it have led to many Iraqis lingering in the belief that their nemesis holds the power to slip out of American fingers yet again and stage another 1991? Yes.

[Grant Gallicho]

Craig: As I said, there is plenty of footage of Saddam not being examined that would prove to the world that the real Saddam was in custody. You don't really believe showing his examination eradicates the belief that he's being secretly tortured, do you? We could run a 24-hour live feed and that sentiment would still adhere. I didn't suggest that we shouldn't have shown any video of Saddam in custody, but the medical stuff is degrading--it's meant to degrade. Not the act itself, but airing it.

Were you unsure about whether he was a real man? Comeuppance can be satisfying to its observers, but schadenfreude is not admirable.

[craig]

John McG, I disagree. There are lots of folks, myself included, who would like to believe the best about the Catholic Church, but every time -- every time! -- I am just about at ease with the notion of a True Church, some cardinal or bishop comes out and does something so completely obsequieous to pomp and power and princes and potentates, and so deaf to the cares of ordinary men, as to send my inner Sisyphus back down to the bottom of the hill. There's a reason Jesus portrayed the priests and Levites as bypassing the poor man on the highway.

[craig]

Grant, my point was that the fascistic imagery and propaganda common to the Arab world portrays men like Saddam or bin Laden in eschatological terms as invincible conquerors possessing Allah's favor and protection. We Americans have a more prosaic and "regular guy" view of our leaders than most of the rest of the world, including Europeans. Puncturing the myth is not done to make us feel good (though it does) but to counteract the effects of the divine-right propaganda.

[Grant Gallicho]

Craig: If we Americans aren't given to divine-right propaganda, why would we need to have the image, the idea, of Saddam punctured? We didn't. The static epithet attached to Saddam by G. W. Bush was "thug." How many Americans do you think were in need of having their notion of Saddam demystified? My answer: not many. Not enough to justify aring that footage.

[craig]

Again you misunderstand, willfully I fear. The footage is not for Americans' benefit, but for Iraqis. That it was shown here is due to the choices of a free press. The myth that needed puncturing was that of the pan-Arabists, and the Islamists to the extent this helps.

[John McG]

Craig,

It's my opinion that one who falls down the hill because of Martino's statements didn't really want to be at the top of the hill in the first place, and was looking for a reason to come back down.

[Grant Gallicho]

Don't be afraid, Craig. I'm not willfully misunderstanding. I don't think that's a genuine concept, actually. But back to your point: Saddam in custody is enough to puncture whatever it is you're talking about.

While it's cheery that you believe the Saddam footage was shown here because of a free press, I locate the cause more cynically: the government wanted it released because it humiliates someone this administration loathes, this president loathes (for, among others, intensely personal reasons). Humiliating Saddam will ignite more hate against us. It is also beneath us. Unnecessary. Vindictive. A disheveled, captive Saddam is enough to show Iraqi's that their once-powerful dictator is no longer a threat to them. Incidentally, I don't think Iraqi's are given to this divination business you're talking about. They feared Saddam not because he was God-like, but because he weilded murderous power.

[Frank Sales]

Grant, you and the others who support Martino's sentiments are being overly sensitive to Saddam's dignity. Surely there is a scale of "degradation" on which a televised lice check and mouth examination reside on the mild end. People who know about these things say that in the Arab world personal honour and charism are true sources of power in leaders. Deflating the man is truly important in convincing Iraqis that is no longer a source of terror to them. In that world, an incarceration in which Saddam retained his dignity and defiance would achieve less than the closure we are seeking. At the end of the day, the indignity of the video footage is trifling compared to the goal it is trying to achieve. Viewed from that perspective, the Americans should be, pace Martino, be given the benefit of the doubt.

[Mary]

Grant,

'the government wanted it released because it humiliates someone this administration loathes'

That's quite an accusation. I agree with those who think otherwise. The video struck me as very humanitarian. Middle class suburbia may be humiliated at being checked for lice and having it broadcast all over the world, but for someone in the physical state Hussein was in, it could also be viewed as a means of showing that he was treated as a man and not a tyrant.

[g kerr]

Grant,
Sadam deserves humiliation. His image justly deserves to be deflated in just this fashion. He is not a god or a superman. He is a tired, confused, human being not to be feared and to be pitied by those including fools and leftist's who hate force unless it keeps their pet causes in play.

[Donald R. McClarey]

With Saddam, anything short of cannibalism provides him more human dignity than he deserves. The cardinal was being an idiot.

[John McG]

My last comment was poorly considered, and I apologize for it.

[Grant Gallicho]

I wish I didn't have to run off to have my own teeth checked now! Otherwise, I'd love to respond; dentists get angry when you're late. But in brief: I didn't say I "support" Martino's statements, but I am certainly sick and tired of people using that word like some kind of bloody litmus test. It seems to have been eviscerated of meaning some time between Plymouth Rock and Humanae vitae. Frank, Iraq is a special case. It doesn't always conform to the rest of "the Arab world." Saddam was not a religious leader. The same superstitions don't obtain. G. Kerr: I'm not prepared to say what Saddam deserves. Sorry. I am prepared to defend myself against an actual attack, though, instead of your ad hominem "lefty bad!" drivel. Donald: How baroque of you. I don't suppose you'd want the first bite.

[Fr. Shawn O'Neal]

Thanks for the post, Amy.

May we all receive the gift of prudence this Christmas!

[Rod Dreher]

(I was on O'Reilly last week, before Saddam's capture, ostensibly to talk about the judicial usurpation of politics, but we never got beyond Abercrombie & Fitch. My opponent said social conservatives were behind the complaints; I said that I thought it was less of a conservative thing, and more of a parent thing.)

I still have trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that people sitting comfortably in the West, who have never had to worry about a dictator hauling them off to a dark torture room and burning their genitals with electric shock; who have never had their tongues cut out of their head for criticizing the dictator; and who have never had their own fathers, brothers, sons or husbands hauled off to the gulag and murdered, have the audacity to sit back and worry about how mean the US Army was to the man responsible for all this death and pain for showing a freakin' video of him receiving a medical exam.

As I said on Mark's blog yesterday, this has all the hallmarks of Cardinal Law's valedictory to John Geoghan on his retirement: "Yours was an effective life of ministry, sadly impaired by illness. ...God bless you, Jack." This coldhearted indifference to unspeakable evil, and to the moral worth of those victimized by it, is contemptible.

[Donald R. Mcclarey]

Note Grant that I said anything short of cannibalism. I doubt if deposed Iraqi tyrants/tramps make for a tasty snack except among the less discriminating palates of certain tribes in the Congo.

[TCB]

I think the whole debate over the tooth examination misses the point. Saddam's humiliation was evident with any picture after his capture. The fact is that Saddam looked like a bum or a man man who crawled out from under a rock. If Saddam was clean and spiffy in his uniform, I don't think anyone would have commented about a picture during a tooth and lice exam. Saddam was not treated like an animal but he looked like an animal and behaved worse than a mere animal.

[jay]

Here's one for those espousing the "I don't worship the Pope or Cardinals" view. What on Earth would make a non-Catholic believe that they lead the One True Church when they continually make boneheaded statements like this one?

[Caroline]

I've heard that the real humiliation for Saddam in the medical exam was that the exam was being done by a Jewish doctor. Don't know if this is true but it's not impossible.

[Joseph DHippolito]

Rod's comparison of Martino to Law speaks volumes. Has the hierarchy become so infatuated with itself and its esoteric viewpoints -- and so isolated from even basic morality, let alone Christian doctrine -- that it has the audacity to tolerate Law's and Martino's comments? Granted, they're talking about different subjects but the its the arrogance, the air of superiority, the isolation that provide the connection.

This is so obvious to anybody with common sense yet it goes over the heads of the most devout Catholics. Why? It is because far too many Catholics (especially those who consider themselves "traditionalist") confuse the ecclesial institution with the Church itself? It it because they've defined their faith through allegiance to ecclesial bureaucrats than to Christ?

Well, how else can anyone explain the myriad attempts to rationalize Martino's stupidity regarding Saddam (and, for that matter, episcopal passivity in the clerical abuse crisis) and the refusal to hold anybody in the hierarchy (especially the pope) accountable for anything?

[Joseph DHippolito]

Any Catholic worthy of the name should be scared to death of the direction the Church is going. And, no, it's not just the "liberals" or "modernists" who are to blame. More often than not, it's the fault of the ecclesial bureaucrats who are responsible for the welfare and moral guidance of the faithful. Well, even a cursory reading of Jeremiah or Ezekiel should show what will happen to such "shepherds."

God Bless Rod Dreher and Victor Morton for their clear-headedness and honesty! Would that more Catholics be like them. Pity that so few seem to be, especially in the Catholic Blog Asylum.

[craig]

Joseph, I would not accuse the devout Catholics of defining their faith through allegiance to ecclesial bureaucrats than to Christ, quite the opposite. But their ingrained habit (and theologically defensible practice) of not imputing the failings of individuals onto Holy Mother Church has led them to rally round the Church in times like this with a public defense that looks remarkably to non-Catholics like "my mother, drunk or sober".

[Rod Dreher]

Craig: ...has led them to rally round the Church in times like this with a public defense that looks remarkably to non-Catholics like "my mother, drunk or sober".

Well, it looks to this Catholic remarkably like "my mother, drunk or sober." Understand, I'm not, not, not imputing the idiocy of a single cardinal, however high-ranking, to the entire Church. But I'm struggling to see how else to explain the defense of Martino that I've heard from many folks on these blogs. It appears to be a case of "if the cardinal said it, it must be the truth." If I'm mischaracterizing the beliefs some of you have, then I'm sorry. But that's what it looks like. We can never allow ourselves to get into the position of treating whatever churchmen say or do as right simply because it is said or done by churchmen.

There's a horrible case involving a recently retired bishop, who was 15 years ago administering a southern see. The rector of his cathedral used the confessional to blackmail a penitent woman into having a sexual affair with him. She finally couldn't stand it anymore, and broke down. I spoke to this woman's lawyer, and to a very well respected orthodox Catholic psychiatrist who treated her. They confirmed details of the case, and talked about how they were with her when she met with the bishop about this. The bishop offered her a settlement, and told her she'd better accept it, or he would see to it that she was ruined.

"I have to do what I have to do to protect the People of God," this bishop said to her, according to two witnesses who were willing to go on the record with me. As I recall, not much of anything was done to the priest who used confessed sins to blackmail a woman into adultery.

I never wrote about this in part because the woman was reluctant to have her name made public, and in part because the publication I was working for did not care to publish the story. The bishop retired not long ago, respected by his peers; because he's no longer in office, there's not much point in writing the story now. Still, this is the kind of evil that the Church has allowed under the principle that whatever the bishops decide to do must be kosher because they, being bishops, decided to do it.

[John McGuinness]

I don't think that we assume that everything a cardinal says is true, but I think we hear them with hope that there is some truth in what they're saying, as I would if my parents a a longtime friend were to say something to me.

It's possible that they're completely wrong, but I at least owe them my consideration.

And I'm not going to stop doing it because some bishops have engaged in egregious misbehaviors, any more than I would stop listen to my father because he struggled with alcohol.

And once again, I strongly object to the implication that those who defend the hierarchy are complicit in sexual abuse.

For every horror story about the clergy, there are hundreds more horror stories about what happens when people stop listening to the hierarchy and decide to go it alone.