« Saint Maybe...Not | Main | Rocket Science »
August 19, 2004
The Times picks up the story
Opened up in Deal Hudson's NRO piece yesterday.
William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said Mr. Hudson had played an almost indispensable role reaching out to Catholics for the White House. "He had become the point man,'' he said. "If you wanted to get something to the top inner circles of the White House from a Catholic perspective, you could contact Deal Hudson and it was delivered."Mr. Donohue said that Mr. Hudson's resignation would inevitably set back the Bush campaign's efforts with Catholic voters. "He was the ultimate networker," Mr. Donohue said. "I think it will be hurt because of the ties that Deal had."
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83422e00853ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Times picks up the story:
» HUDSON, THE MEDIA, AND "STRUCTURES OF SIN" from HMS Blog
HUDSON, THE MEDIA, AND "STRUCTURES OF SIN" [Kevin Miller]
8/19/2004
At the end of the Catechism's section on sin, we find:
1869 ... Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. "Structures... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 19, 2004 1:26:51 PM
Comments
Ah the vaunted Fourth Estate, dutifully "reporting" on a not-yet released expose with unknown details by "informing" us of the details that Fordham's Elizabeth Schmaltz only too willingly provides.
First of all, I wonder if they would so eagerly provide similar details regarding the removal of heretic at the behest of the Vatican, or a sodomite caught in flagrante delicto.
But this most certainly goes to the integrity of the press. The evident schadenfreude in the Times, and Newsday underscores the breathless anticipation they greet the very possibility that a critique of the regime of polymorphous sexuality and eradication of guilt they seek to impose will be disclosed as a human being after all.
Evidently, the same details are gone over in Hudson's book, which doubtless the Times has no interest in. But the rumor it reports with glee. However, many other rumors the Old Gray Lady passes over with discretion and disdain, refusing to dignify such matters. . .
Posted by: al at Aug 19, 2004 8:23:09 AM
Al, I've read Hudson's book. The "details" of his loss of tenure at Fordham, as well as other details he himself alluded to yesterday, are not mentioned. The NYTimes gets it right in terms of how he deals with this in "An American Conversion." Vaguely. Which is his right, but there it is, nonetheless.
Posted by: amy at Aug 19, 2004 8:29:19 AM
Does that make rumors of impending expose's, newsworthy, then?
Does it make decade old scandals relevant to present day flouting of Church teaching?
Has the times reported that conflict--between Orthodoxy, and Heterodoxy in any thing resembling an Orthodox manner?
Or do they trot out at every opportunity, for ideological reasons, the same litany of dissenters (largely derived from NCR editors and contributors) to give a panoply of "Catholic" views, while steadfastly refusing to identify the one view that counts as the view that counts--the Vaticans.
If this is news, then I'll expect to see Paul Likoudis's From the Mail, Michael Rose's works, Roman Catholic Forum's exposes, and any number of other more inherently newsworthy sources written up in coming weeks.
I can't wait to see the Times's coverage on how various prominent clerics advocating homosexual ordination, female ordination, and the communication of pro abortion Catholics have trails of well substantiated "issues" following them along.
Posted by: al at Aug 19, 2004 8:53:40 AM
Chill out. Hudson wrote a piece in a national secular publication yesterday. He resigned from a position advising a presidential campaign, in political season, right before the convention. He himself was very vague, but the fact that he left his advising capacity would lead one to believe something important was at stake. In a time of year when politics is of high interest, when the purported "Catholic vote" gets frequent examination in the press, the abrupt resignation of the main adviser to the administration on the Catholic vote for the past four or more years is, indeed newsworthy.
Posted by: amy at Aug 19, 2004 9:01:57 AM
Still, I applaud the article for ending on a note of contrition. Maybe the positive side of this will be a better witness to the gospel, which is forgiveness and repentence, for crying out loud. My prayers for Deal and his family in his hour of need.
Posted by: mizznicole at Aug 19, 2004 9:06:23 AM
Speaking of the Catholic League, a press release on their website about this mess includes comments from NCR's Tom Roberts.
I'm not sure how Mr. Donoghue managed to get comments from Mr. Roberts where the N.Y. Times failed to so so.
Posted by: Mio at Aug 19, 2004 9:06:56 AM
On a separate note, reading MizzNicole's thoughts, I wonder if a "note of contrition" was intended by the author.
I note that Mr. Kirkpatrick chose his concluding sentence to make reference to Mr. Hudson's Marian devotion -- a devotion that, obviously, will seem foreign to many Americans (even religious ones). My sense, as a former journalist, is that the intent was to close by leading the impression that Mr. Hudson is a kook.
I could be wrong.
Posted by: Mio at Aug 19, 2004 9:13:41 AM
Mio,
The Newsday account of the story has quotes from NCR's Tom Roberts:
"Tom Roberts, editor of National Catholic Reporter, said the story began as a straightforward profile of a prominent public figure. 'But as we started talking to people, these things came up. ... But we decided that he's such a public figure and he's been uncompromising in judging other people's behavior.'
He noted how Hudson criticized Ono Ekeh, founder of the Catholics for Kerry online discussion list, for 'going so far as to defend Kerry against the explicit directives from the Vatican' on abortion. Ekeh was subsequently fired from his job with the U.S. Catholic bishops conference." (Hat tip, HMS Blog.)
It's fairly clear what motivates Roberts in this matter. But he must be seething that he was scooped first by Hudson and now the New York Times. It serves the vindictive cad right.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Aug 19, 2004 9:15:49 AM
The Newsday piece on this had a comment from Roberts.
Here.
This appears to be the source for the Catholic League quote.
Posted by: amy at Aug 19, 2004 9:15:53 AM
I wonder if the Reporter might decide to pull the plug at this point. After all, they've been scooped and already have their scalp.
A combination of "too late" and "mission accomplished."
Posted by: Dale Price at Aug 19, 2004 9:20:24 AM
I am flabbergasted to see the Catholic League piece attack Deal's accuser — twice — as a drunk.
A defense of Deal doesn't have to — and shouldn't — go in this direction.
Posted by: Rick at Aug 19, 2004 9:25:30 AM
You can't expect to play a ballgame and play hardball when you're pitching and softball when you're batting. Politics is adversarial, by definition. Part of it is promoting your own agenda and part of it is going after the opposition.
Hudson went directly after a man's job and had it taken away from him, based on the facts. Now the facts of Hudson's life are being used against him. We can argue about which is worse: open backer of John Kerry or serial monogamist and sexual harasser. It is even more regrettable, inasmuch as the sexual harassment charge apparently already cost Hudson his tenured position at Fordham and his previous marriages have been annulled by the Church.
We hold our public, political figures to a high standard. When Hudson offered himself as the spokesman for Catholics in the political arena, he should have know this was possible. When he went after Ekeh's job, he was inviting this kind of exploration of the facts about his own life.
Posted by: Desert Chatter at Aug 19, 2004 9:26:11 AM
Dale,
I was wondering the same thing -- particularly since I imagine they've been hearing from Mr. Hudson's attorneys.
From somewhere in the back of my mind, from a long-ago half-remembered torts class, the phrase "false light invasion of privacy" keeps springing to mind.
Whether Mr. Hudson is too much of a public figure to be protected is another question.
Posted by: Mio at Aug 19, 2004 9:26:28 AM
Rick,
The New York Times' describes the accuser as having been intoxicated at the time of the incident, but, yeah, Donahue, being the loose cannon that he is, awkwardly uses that detail to undermine her credibility.
Dale,
No way. They'll run the story or risk Hudson being seen as somehow vindicated.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Aug 19, 2004 9:30:54 AM
Peace, all.
On the NCR thinking, I'm not sure they would consider themselves "scooped," and I doubt anyone is "seething" in the editorial offices. (Wishful thinking, that.) Journalists who publish every two weeks might guess they would have finish line problems in the era of the internet. NCR has always seemed to me to be more satisfied with investigative journalism and bringing a thoroughly researched story to print.
No doubt, NCR would bring substantial details of their investigation to bear, details lacking in Hudson's semi-confession or the other sources linked. I still don't like the smell of this kind of journalism, even if it's considered "newsworthy" today. Hudson's case seems more like Bill Clinton's than that of a minor USCCB bureaucrat. And it is true that Americans, even Catholics, like to see a big shot take a big fall. Not to worry, there's always the public rehab phase: it worked for Nixon, it's working for Martha Stewart, and it will probably resuscitate Deal Hudson.
Posted by: Todd at Aug 19, 2004 9:34:03 AM
You know, there was a time in which the fact that a woman had been drinking would make a sexual advance upon her by a married man even more egregious.
But I guess that time is no more? Gentlemen?
I don't know the details, and none of us do, but I felt moved to say that anyway.
Posted by: amy at Aug 19, 2004 9:37:14 AM
I don't see the equivalence between Hudson's conduct and Roberts'. Hudson criticized Ekeh's defense of Kerry's defiance of Vatican teaching on abortion. He didn't dredge up a 10-year-old DWI or the like. I am not defending Hudson's harassing the young student, but if Hudson's criticism of Ekeh is the worst example of Hudson being "uncompromising in judging other people's behavior" Roberts can come up with, then I think he's just offering up a lame excuse for a hatchet job.
Posted by: keypusher at Aug 19, 2004 9:38:20 AM
What this is all really about is "accountability", which is really just a liberal way of saying justice. When people see someone "getting away with something"--a cleric (negligence, or malfesance), a pundit (hypocrisy, or saying something they don't like), or a public official--what they want to see is justice done--the person held to account.
When they don't see what they want done, they have two options--they can trust in providence, and try to advance the cause of justice in accord with their station in life; or they can attempt to arrogate to themselves the power to meet out justice.
Now what we know from God's justice is that it encompasses two things: 1) the afterlife (not everyone gets their just desserts here and now; and more importantly 2) MERCY. This Mercy is a scandal to many, because what it means is that in many cases their percieved "aggrievement" will not be redressed (on this, see the parable of the sevants on the way to the judge. . . .).
What these combined aspects have precipitated in a wayword and sinful humanity is the attempt to define down justice to accountability. This is done for 2 reasons-to establish a way to preempt the scandal of Mercy, and for those who like to edit God out of the equation of justice, as in "well who can say with any surety what God is due, since we're all flawed humans with limited knowledge yadda yadda yadda" (which means when you say God is requiring me to not do x or y, which I want to do, becuase it offends him, I'm still going to do it, but I believe in keeping people "accountable" where their behavior discernable impacts others).
Now a cursory consideration of justice indicates that most powerful figures, and especially Churchmen are really only accountable to God. But this is not a satisfactory situation to many, for the reason mentioned above. So since there's really no way of usurping God's justice to oneself, and since people generally like the sound of the idea of mercy (expecially when its applied to them) the proponents of "accountability" have devised a number of ways to arrogate the power to themselves that they would like: revolution, conscientious dissent, and the Fourth Estate.
The strange thing is, though, that with God out of the picture, accountability quickly becomes identified with "what I think is the real problem." And without the check of fundamental justice (circumscribed by objective norms like the sins of detraction, the obligation to discretion, and ultimately the imperatives of prudence and murcy), the ensuring of accountability devolves into the settling of personal grievances against unrelated "antagonists"-a past criminal, doctrine, God. . . .
Perhaps this is a bit of a rambling rant, but if you consider these concepts, an idea of the moral obligations of "journalism" should become more clear--obligations which are completely absent from the profession as practiced today. And with those obligations more clear, perhaps people can see how the Fourth Estate as it currently exists is in no way helpful to the cause of restablishing God's justice in the Church as it exists today.
Posted by: al at Aug 19, 2004 9:40:49 AM
Yes, I'm not sure that, as a Catholic, I would want someone in the political sphere representing Catholics who may have used his position of authority, influence or prestige to sexually harass a semi-incapacitated young person. We seem to have enough problems like that already in our ranks.
Posted by: Desert Chatter at Aug 19, 2004 9:43:58 AM
The comment about the "drunken female he met at a bar" is telling, but consistent with his usual tack. The word "female" comes off as a sneer.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Aug 19, 2004 9:44:29 AM
"NCR has always seemed to me to be more satisfied with investigative journalism and bringing a thoroughly researched story to print."
Kicking sand at the Vatican and doing their best to convey the impression that there exists a panoply of legitimate Catholic viewpoints is closer to the mark.
Picking up an intoxicated eighteen year old is still ungentlemanly, Amy.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Aug 19, 2004 9:44:31 AM
Amy,
Can we assume that perhaps Hudson might have been drinking as well, which might mitigate that added guilt as well?
Or is this the new paradigm of "emancipated sexuality" in which the only overtures that are welcome are those either initiated by the woman, or those which are successful?
Make no mistake, an adulterous or fornicative liason is an overture no one should make, but the notion that the male species bears the primary responsibility for the debasement and objectification of sex in the modern era is false.
Posted by: al at Aug 19, 2004 9:47:07 AM
"We hold our public, political figures to a high standard. When Hudson offered himself as the spokesman for Catholics in the political arena, he should have know this was possible."
Yes, this is true, and yet I find it ridiculous that past sins should disqualify someone from speaking for the church. As the saints have shown us, the path toward holiness is always coupled with a greater awareness of our sins and need of salvation. I would much prefer a spokesman who's had to wrestle with his need for forgiveness than someone who presents his lack of embarassing sins as his qualification for leadership.
In my far-removed, idealistic opinion, Hudson would lose nothing, nothing that mattered, by continuing to agree with his accusers, but offering at the same time his enounter with all-surpassing grace.
Posted by: mizznicole at Aug 19, 2004 9:52:21 AM
"Hudson went directly after a man's job and had it taken away from him"
Desert Chatter -- are you suggesting that Deal Hudson ordered the USCCB to fire Ekeh? They did it, not him. Obviously he wanted Ekeh gone, but I'd bet he was surprised that Ekeh got fired. If he thought the USCCB was taking orders from him, something tells me he'd have more significant things in mind than what some bureaucrat was up to.
Todd -- pax vobiscum. The public rehab phase only works when your *supporters* think you were done wrong. Nixon was publicly rehabbed? That's arguable. He wasn't as vilified at the time of his death as on the day he staggered out of the White House, but he was and is and probably always will be regarded as a disgrace. Sexual improprieties on the part of a conservative like Hudson probably won't be "rehabbable," because his supporters will be the ones offended by it, even as they're outraged by the use of it by his/their opponents. It reminds me of Clinton's situation; few of his supporters gave a damn about his misadventures, only the people who already despised him did. If Bush pulled the same thing, his detractors wouldn't care on the substance, but would gladly use it to take him down. His supporters, unlike Clinton's, would hold it against him. How you fall depends on where you stand.
Posted by: John Heavrin at Aug 19, 2004 9:57:13 AM
Peace, al.
"... the notion that the male species bears the primary responsibility for the debasement and objectification of sex in the modern era is false."
The problem was with the unequal relationship between a teacher and a student. Many older men and women know how to deceive and seduce a younger person. That the victim might be six, sixteen, or twenty-two would affect the seriousness of the sin, but all these cases would be immoral, even those that did not lead to genital expression.
Posted by: Todd at Aug 19, 2004 10:02:32 AM
