« Y'all must be tired | Main | My Son, the Juror... »
August 23, 2004
Various reactions
To the Hudson news of last week:
Patrick Madrid at Envoy Encore
Charlotte Hays. Ouch.
Daily Kos, a liberal secular blog.
A thread at the Catholic Answers forum
Kathryn Joyce on the secular press' apparent disinterest in the story.
Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834214a5853ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Various reactions:
» Celiac disease, Deal Hudson, and John Kerry from Fructus Ventris
I was sitting listening to a really great homily today at Mass. Father chose to address the scriptures more peripherally than centrally, but he preached on a central tenet of our faith - the Eucharist. He spoke about the recurrent... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 23, 2004 10:38:43 PM
» Obligatory post about the Deal Hudson case from Catholic Light
The Revealer's Jeff Sharlet complains that the WaPo put its Deal Hudson resignation story on page A-6 instead of some place more prominent:Why is the resignation of the Bush's chief Catholic advisor -- a position of much greater power than... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 24, 2004 10:56:35 PM
» Obligatory post about the Deal Hudson case from Catholic Light
The Revealer's Jeff Sharlet complains that the WaPo put its Deal Hudson resignation story on page A-6 instead of some place more prominent:Why is the resignation of the Bush's chief Catholic advisor -- a position of much greater power than... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 24, 2004 10:59:15 PM
Comments
Regarding "the secular press' apparent disinterest in the story": I don't think WP + NYT coverage is anything to sneeze at. Also, earlier today, Google News found 66 articles on the subject. Again, that's not nothing. Especially given that Hudson was - outside of certain Catholic circles - actually a pretty obscure figure.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Aug 23, 2004 8:00:20 PM
A day late and a dollar short, I have a piece up at my blog.
Posted by: Mark Shea at Aug 23, 2004 8:31:01 PM
The comments at Mr. Drum's blog show why this a big deal. All the libertines can emerge and say, "Ha, ha another right-wing hypocrite," and insinuate that those who are the most concerned about sexual morality are those with the most to hide. It isn't a case of "only the perfect can comment on morality;" it's a case of "Caesar's wife must be beyond reproach."
I agree with Mr. Miller. Hudson is an obscure figure. To call him "more powerful than the governor of New Jersey", as Mr. Sharlet did, is ludicrous
Posted by: James Kabala at Aug 23, 2004 8:41:03 PM
Wow. Sometimes I get a little soft and sentimental about about the liberals, but then I read something like the vicious comments at Washington Monthly and I am reminded, once again, why there is a Culture War in the first place. Peaceful co-existence with these morons will not last much longer.
Posted by: Jeff Culbreath at Aug 23, 2004 9:11:29 PM
Many liberals certainly cannot be accused of hypocrisy on issues of sexual morality: to be a hypocrite one must have fallen from a standard of conduct one subscribes to, and it is hard to fall from "if it feels good do it".
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Aug 23, 2004 9:48:51 PM
Mark said it best. A despicable sin of detraction by National Catholic Reporter.
Posted by: Fr. Phil Bloom at Aug 24, 2004 2:12:42 AM
I disagree, Fr. Bloom. I think a commentor on Mark's post said it best:
Perhaps it is because I am an academic that the details of this case are so shocking to me (and I think we have to imagine they are in the main correct, or surely there would have been a libel suit). Even my pagan colleagues would agree that we have a sacred responsibility to the undergraduates entrusted to us. A graduate student mistress wouldn't phase me, or even an adult male paramour. But in my opinion at least, the behavior described is depraved in a way that should be expected to have public repercussions beyond the ones previously suffered.
Posted by: Ike at Aug 24, 2004 7:00:56 AM
Ike-- "we have to imagine they are in the main correct, or surely there would have been a libel suit" and,
"the behavior described is depraved in a way that should be expected to have public repercussions beyond the ones previously suffered."
What Dr. Hudson admits to is serious sin (the details of which he is not at liberty to discuss, and are none of my business), and even despicable. And I think that I understand the emotional reaction of Ike in part because I share the experience of being a teacher and authority.
Such situations (the fall of a respected authority figure) test our capacity to apply the virtues of prudence, temperance, and justice and of our offering mercy to the sinner. It seems potentially destructive to offer suggestions on just punishment when our knowledge is limited to what we have learned on the Internet or other media. Dr. Hudson has a right to his reputation (such as it now seems to be), and it is our obligation to be not only prudent in our public statements, but merciful.
Posted by: Joseph R. Wilson at Aug 24, 2004 7:50:27 AM
The reasons this story did not have much traction in the national press are that Deal Hudson, as noted above, truly is an obscure figure, except to certain Catholics and conservatives, and the Hudson story was submerged by the Kerry Swift Boats controversy.
You can argue that Hudson was an "adviser" to the president on reaching out to Catholics and thus this should have been a bigger story. But I understand Hudson's was a largely ceremonial role, with perhaps a lunch here or there with Karl Rove, and no paid salary.
Small potatoes.
Posted by: Whitcomb at Aug 24, 2004 8:46:26 AM
Our strength is often our weakness. He sinned boldly but the other side of that is his boldness fighting a culture of death. Yes, you can have the latter without the former, but it seems to me we who are more timid in publically standing up for our Faith should grant him our forgiveness. God did. Scripture says that God "forgets" our sins, which means that when he sees Deal Hudson writing an essay against adultery, he's forgotten that's what Deal did.
Posted by: TSO at Aug 24, 2004 9:23:52 AM
We believe in the forgiveness of sins--except where the behavior described is depraved in a way that should be expected to have public repercussions beyond the ones previously suffered. Then we have the right to go on dredging up that sin ad infinitum, even if it's been repented and those affected by it are reconciled with the sinner.
We believe in Our Right to Know about salacious deeds that don't concern us, Internet Tribunals, salvation by law, kicking ass, and taking names. World without end. Amen.
Posted by: Mark Shea at Aug 24, 2004 9:41:54 AM
I have to agree with Mark Shea. Hudson's head rightly rolled back in '94. That should be the end of it. What NCR did is unconscionable. Deal Hudson's reputation is now ruined, forever, because of, not so much what he did, but because he dared to speak out on matters of morality while having committed a terrible sin ("depravity?" there's an amorphous concept. "grave sin" I'll certainly agree, but some of you seem to want to set up a category beyond mortal sin, called "depravity," which contains those sins you can feel free to hold against the guy forever. I hope Our Lord's take on events is different, or I'm sunk and so are all of you except the sinless ones.).
So now that's the precedent, per NCR. Unless you're sinless, shut up. Or we'll shut you up. Mission accomplished.
The only good thing I can see coming out of this is that, by descending to this level, NCR's reputation, long-term, is as ruined as Hudson's. Welcome to the world of Catholic journalism, circa 2004. The slime and nonsense characterizing the media in general has now been given benediction.
Perhaps we should all be incensed.
Posted by: John Heavrin at Aug 24, 2004 10:22:43 AM
He was held to the same standards he preaches, and he was held accountable for his immoral actions, and that should have been the end of it. Now he's being held accountable all over again. I'm not defending his actions, and nobody is, obviously, as you must realize, but I do defend his right not to have to pay in perpetuity for his sin, because I don't want to pay in perpetuity for any of mine. Unless Hudson's now-famous tongue is to be cut out of his head, he may actually dare to speak again (probably not, though, I think NCR has successfully put an end to his public life, as they set out to do), until somebody doesn't like what he says, then I suppose he'll be held accountable yet again, maybe in 2014, as somebody said on another thread. Every ten years, get out this story and warm yourself by the light of the auto-da-fe.
(edited by amy for reference to now-deleted post)
NCR will probably soon take the position that, hey, we didn't topple the guy, he toppled himself. We just gave you the facts. It's not our fault what happens then.
In this season of state fairs, far and near, I say:
Bullcrap.
Posted by: John Heavrin at Aug 24, 2004 10:44:28 AM
Peace, all.
Rod makes sense here. And the NCR piece didn't happen in a vacuum either. Hudson went after someone of almost no consequence in the big abortion picture. He went after him waving the flag of abortion. He attacked not for any hope of reform or repentance, but just because he had power and could do it. That, in my mind, is at least as despicable as what NCR did. I think NCR was wrong to follow where their noses obviously led after Ekeh lost his job, but that's what reporters do. It's up to editors to make policy, and that even means editors like Hudson and Donohue.
If it's any comfort, I think Hudson, Donohue, and Roberts all fit the same size stockade in the St Blog's town square. They've all lost sight of the important issues (at least in this case) they should have focused on. Personally, I'd like to see a little more heat applied to Donohue; he's the one character in this mess who basically did it all to himself.
Posted by: Todd at Aug 24, 2004 11:24:48 AM
Rod's post disappeared, as did my response to it. Sorry if I said something out of line in mine.
Posted by: John Heavrin at Aug 24, 2004 11:46:40 AM
No, it's just that if I have to delete a post, posts in response that post no longer make sense, so they might as well go, too.
Posted by: amy at Aug 24, 2004 11:57:21 AM
FROM: Mr Heavrin
"...but I do defend his right not to have to pay in perpetuity for his sin, because I don't want to pay in perpetuity for any of mine."
But... aren't we asking priests and others with one credible count of abuse to, in essence, pay in perpetuity? So, paying in perpetuity is not a concept foreign to today's
Church. I think most would agree, some errors are so egregious that they might disquality one from any future high-visibilty religious role.
Posted by: CB at Aug 24, 2004 12:21:42 PM
My comments will not have much specifically to do with Deal Hudson, but will attempt to address some of the more general ideas being offered in this thread.
There are consequences to sin and forgiveness is not the erasure of consequences. Bishop Dolan of Milwaukee seems to agree that forgiveness is not the same as resetting events to their original state:
Dolan, in response to a question about abusive priests returning to ministry, said that the church can forgive the sin of sexual abuse through the sacrament of penance, but "forgiveness and tolerance are two different things." http://www.chnonline.org/2002/2002-09-19/newsstory1.html
Bishop Dolan also indicated (in another forum regarding the sexual abuse crisis) that true forgiveness provided to abusers did not entitle them to maintain their ministries or lives as they had existed before the abuse is revealed. Dolan also would not subscribe to the idea that people are "paying in perpetuity" when forgiveness does not restore a sinner to their pre-existing situation. Consequences, natural or instituted, should not necessarily be confused with punishment. Forgiveness is not the same as pretending that an offense did not occur.
The claim that people are entitled to their reputation has me honestly confused. I don't see how I am entitled to my reputation. I believe that I am entitled to appropriate regard and respect, based upon the truth of my actions and who I am. I am not entitled to a fictitious reputation or a regard based on falsehoods. If I have sinned against one of you, I am not entitled to another's impression that I have not sinned against you. That seems to be a lie, and I cannot accept that I am entitled to people believing lies about me, either good or bad.
I also have to disagree that the sin of another is no concern of mine or none of my business. If we honestly believe that we each have at least some level of responsibility to assist in the salvation of others, why is it that we want to so blindly turn our heads and say it is no business of ours? Sounds like Cain to me - "Am I my brother's keeper?" Some posters seem to think that the objections to Mr. Hudson's actions are based on nothing less than prurient titillation or busy-bodiness; said posters should show the same generosity they expect of others. Might it not be that some people are actually concerned about Mr. Hudson, his wife, his marriage? I'm sorry, but that is my business. It is all our businesses. I would hope that, if any of you knew me, and knew that I had been unfaithful to my wife, had affairs with other women, etc., that you would take it as your responsibility to be outraged at me and correct me. I hope that you would not hide behind the mantra of "that's none of my business" and let fate take its course. How many divorces might have been prevented had someone gone out of their way to make it their business and help a foundering marriage? Plenty.
MKasper
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Aug 24, 2004 1:48:35 PM
"The claim that people are entitled to their reputation has me honestly confused. I don't see how I am entitled to my reputation."
Well, the Catechism says that you are entitled to your reputation. Someone may have a superior right to derogatory information about you, but that is by way of exception.
"2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity."
Posted by: Patrick R at Aug 24, 2004 2:11:15 PM
Patrick,
I see the quotation from the RCC, but I am still trying to understand.
If I have done you a grave wrong, but everybody thinks I am the bee's knees, how is it that I am entitled to my reputation at your expense? How can it be that it is appropriate for people to believe lies about me?
I am asking this in sincerity, not in sarcasm.
MKasper
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Aug 24, 2004 2:17:38 PM
Peace, Patrick.
That whole CCC section is instructive. The question of detraction comes up with NCR a lot these days, and the operative principle: did they have an "objectively valid reason?"
CCC 2478 insists on interpreting "thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way." The presumption should hold that a person is good or on the right track unless evidence to the contrary exists. For example, if a person has been harmed by a liberal in the past, the victim would not be on the high ground by thus condemning all liberals as "morons" and such. Certainly some commenters on this thread and here and there in St Blog's would be guilty of offenses mentioned in this section, along perhaps with the NCR. Strange bedfellows, I guess.
CCC 2479 could be interpreted from a stance of a positive regard unless proven otherwise. Certainly a person's *good* reputation is deserved. I think Hudson's preemptive essay sort of precludes the sin of detraction on the part of the NCR. And if his reputation was harmed by self-infliction and self-publication, Patrick, you are right in the sense of the words you have used. The CCC doesn't seem crystal clear on the point.
Posted by: Todd at Aug 24, 2004 2:31:51 PM
Mark:
"If I have done you a grave wrong, but everybody thinks I am the bee's knees, how is it that I am entitled to my reputation at your expense?"
If I have done you a grave wrong, then you are entitled to know that. However, Hudson's acts were a grave wrong to the student, not to you and me.
Todd:
"Certainly a person's *good* reputation is deserved. I think Hudson's preemptive essay sort of precludes the sin of detraction on the part of the NCR. And if his reputation was harmed by self-infliction and self-publication, Patrick, you are right in the sense of the words you have used."
The problem is that Hudson would not have written the NRO article had NCR not decided to write the article. The NCR article is a "but-for" cause of the damage to his reputation. Hudson's article was an attempt to mitigate the damage to his reputation as much as possible. He may have succeeded, but only in part.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Aug 24, 2004 2:45:49 PM
Patrick,
I cannot agree with your statement: "Hudson's acts were a grave wrong to the student, not to you and me."
Any grave wrong against you is an offense against us all. The segregation of sin's effects into neatly quantized packages, the individualization of evil, harming this person and but not that person, does not make sense to me.
John Donne's "Devotions upon Emergent Occasions" (1624) states my position well: "No man is an iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine. If a clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were. Any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee... "
I am not an island and my sin affects all. Any man's sin diminishes me and all in the Church. I will not pretend that the evil of others in not my concern.
MKasper
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Aug 24, 2004 3:22:53 PM
I accept why Amy deleted my post above. She wants to keep the commentary focused on what we do know, and not open up speculation into what we don't. I do think it appropriate once again to say that folks ought to be paying attention to the dogs that aren't barking, and leave it at that.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Aug 24, 2004 3:29:58 PM
"Patrick,
I cannot agree with your statement: "Hudson's acts were a grave wrong to the student, not to you and me."
Any grave wrong against you is an offense against us all. The segregation of sin's effects into neatly quantized packages, the individualization of evil, harming this person and but not that person, does not make sense to me."
Maybe it would make sense to you if someone exposed something bad that you did, and sent a flier around your neighborhood and parish explaining in detail your evil. After all, evil and sin is a matter of everyone's concern, right? No man is an island, right?
Using your logic, therefore, all of us are entitled to know your secret sins and you are morally obliged to 'fess up, otherwise you are living. No man is an island, as you say. After all, by your own logic, failure to disclose your mortal sins to us is tantamount to living a lie.
Now Mark, please don't tell us your grubby sins. None of us need to know that, and I sure don't.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Aug 24, 2004 3:34:10 PM
