« But before I go... | Main | Christmas in Florida! »
December 17, 2003
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?
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83456276b69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Well, Hello.:
» Reynolds and Wellborn on Cardinal Martino from ProfessorBainbridge.com
The flap over Cardinal Martino's ill-advised remarks about Saddam's capture continues to roil the blogosphere. Instapundit slams the Church as a whole:It's true, of course, that the Church is made of human beings.... It's just unfortunate that so many of [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 17, 2003 12:27:06 PM
Comments
No fair. You say better in one post what I couldn't say in a day's worth of posting!
Posted by: Mark Shea at Dec 17, 2003 10:06:05 AM
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.
Posted by: Todd at Dec 17, 2003 10:06:56 AM
PS. Rod was on O'Reilly? Didn't hear about that! What's the story, Rod?
Posted by: Mark Shea at Dec 17, 2003 10:07:39 AM
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.
Posted by: Cecil at Dec 17, 2003 10:29:23 AM
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.
Posted by: TNP at Dec 17, 2003 10:35:57 AM
Argh. Blogger seems to have blown a fuse this morning, so I can't blog at present.
Posted by: Mark Shea at Dec 17, 2003 10:38:35 AM
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.
Posted by: Cathleen at Dec 17, 2003 11:03:16 AM
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.
Posted by: Gene Humphreys at Dec 17, 2003 11:25:00 AM
Cathleen,
You hit it! Without prayer we are lost in more ways than one.
Posted by: John Hearn at Dec 17, 2003 11:26:05 AM
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.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Dec 17, 2003 11:27:57 AM
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.
Posted by: amy at Dec 17, 2003 11:39:32 AM
Oh, and if you want to hash over it here, that's fine! Didn't mean to communicate anything different...speaking of careful communication!
Posted by: amy at Dec 17, 2003 11:41:31 AM
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?
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Dec 17, 2003 11:56:16 AM
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.
Posted by: John McG at Dec 17, 2003 12:06:55 PM
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.
Posted by: craig at Dec 17, 2003 12:10:03 PM
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.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Dec 17, 2003 12:18:10 PM
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.
Posted by: craig at Dec 17, 2003 12:20:36 PM
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.
Posted by: craig at Dec 17, 2003 12:29:09 PM
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.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Dec 17, 2003 12:32:34 PM
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.
Posted by: craig at Dec 17, 2003 12:39:26 PM
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.
Posted by: John McG at Dec 17, 2003 12:44:05 PM
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.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Dec 17, 2003 12:50:27 PM
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.
Posted by: Frank Sales at Dec 17, 2003 1:07:57 PM
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.
Posted by: Mary at Dec 17, 2003 1:09:13 PM
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.
Posted by: g kerr at Dec 17, 2003 1:14:58 PM
