Another side

From the Washington Times

Deal Hudson, publisher of Crisis magazine and, until recently, a top Bush political adviser on outreach to Roman Catholics, will resign from the magazine at the end of the year after five of his most influential columnists pressured the board to get rid of him.
The columnists, who include some of the nation's best-known Catholic scholars, told the board in a letter that they would leave the magazine unless the board ejected Mr. Hudson, 54.

According to two scholars familiar with the letter, the columnists were angry about an Aug. 19 National Catholic Reporter (NCR) expose on Mr. Hudson's sexual liaison with an 18-year-old student in 1994, an action that cost him his tenured professorship at Fordham University and a $30,000 settlement.


In addition, specific accusations of more recent sexual misconduct had come to the board's attention, one scholar said.
"This was not about one incident 10 years ago," he said. "It's surprising it was held down as long as it was. I haven't gone out of my way to track Deal Hudson's improprieties — I could be doing nothing else. But you began to wonder after a while if they are true."

...After Mr. Hudson quit the Bush-Cheney campaign in mid-August, support for him and Crisis among Catholic intellectuals evaporated.

Advisory board member Peggy Noonan, a speechwriter for President Reagan who is volunteering her time with the Bush re-election effort, quickly canceled a speech she had agreed to give at the magazine's $250-a-plate fund-raiser last Friday night at the Willard Hotel.
Many of Washington's best-known Catholics also boycotted the dinner, and there were many empty seats at the gathering of 330 people. Miss Noonan also turned down an annual award given by the magazine.

Comments

[Cornelius]

I'm rather shocked by the seeming wholesale shunning of Hudson. I don't get it - have these people never sinned?

[Christopher Rake]

In addition, specific accusations of more recent sexual misconduct had come to the board's attention, one scholar said.
"This was not about one incident 10 years ago," he said.

[Radactrice]

I would be very surprised if it had been a single incident 10 years ago. The incident had all the signs of practiced behavior, including telling his wife he was taking a student home. A single fall would not have had that calculated aspect. It would have been an act of grand passion, not great plotting. And you are judged by the company you keep, so it hardly comes as a shock in this election year that people aren't running to embrace Deal and stand by their man.

[Truth seeker]

See http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/hardright.cgi/2004/09/10/_IT_S_ABOUT_OUR_VAL

[Rod Dreher]

How un-Catholic a send-off. Couldn't they have said he was resigning "for reasons of health"? Weren't there any Roman basilicas whose parish newsletters he could edit?

[Maureen]

Unless there's some nastiness we're not hearing about, it all seems like normal prudent behavior to me. "If you want Crisis magazine to survive, you should step down. If you won't do it, I don't see why I should contribute and help you murder the magazine."

Now that Hudson is "pursuing other interests", as they say, the magazine can concentrate on recovery. This will also help Mr. Hudson; he will be able to accumulate some credits to his reputation to place against the debits. It will also close out the story and let him start writing a new one.

[Mark Windsor]

Rod - What exactly are you getting at...ugh...

Maybe it would have been more appropriate if we put Deal in the town square stocks, shave his head, paint him blue, and throw rotting veggies at him. Aw, the heck with that. Who's up for building a galley, eh?

[John Heavrin]

I wonder if "five of his most influential columnists" and/or Miss Noonan knew about Hudson's behavior before NCR's dumpster dive. If his antics were such an open secret -- Rod referred over and over to knowing all about it -- where was the outrage then?

Maureen, don't kid yourself about any "new story." The people who made him have cast him out, and he'll wear the scarlet letter henceforward. He won't be heard from again. The Deal is done.

[Rod Dreher]

Some of you folks are unbelievable. The Washington Times story reports that new allegations of sexual misconduct with women have surfaced. Wrote TWT:

In addition, specific accusations of more recent sexual misconduct had come to the board's attention, one scholar said.

"This was not about one incident 10 years ago," he said. "It's surprising it was held down as long as it was. I haven't gone out of my way to track Deal Hudson's improprieties — I could be doing nothing else. But you began to wonder after a while if they are true."

If anyone was aware prior to this that Deal Hudson had had, or may still be having, extramarital affairs, I don't know them.
What I do know is that more than a few Catholic insiders had ample reason to suspect that Deal had trouble dealing with female employees. I saw that with my own eyes (it was nothing sexual), and heard it from others who work or who have worked for Crisis. There was reason for concern.

The revelation of his disgusting behavior at Fordham was news to me, and I assume was also to Novak, Royal and the others who went to the board after it came out, and said: Either he goes, or we go. It seems plausible to me that this might have been the first concrete evidence of what they've suspected for a while about his tendencies. Perhaps they found it easier to believe subsequent allegations of misconduct, in light of the Fordham revelation.

I find it psychologically telling, John, that you want to blame Michael Novak, et alia, for distancing themselves from Deal Hudson, rather than Deal Hudson for sullying the magazine's reputation through his behavior. That's how so many Catholics are: blame those who refuse, on principle, to play Circle-the-Wagons any longer. It's a fool's game.

[Frank]

Go Rod.

I wonder also what this board is thinking. Specific allegations came to them of a more recent vintage, as I pointed out they would last month, and what have they done? They have changed the name on his door from Publisher of Crisis to Director of the Morley Institute. At least the Bishops moved the bad priests around. Here, the Crisis board is keeping him in his same office in only a slightly different job. Oh my, can anyone say lawsuit?

[John Griffin]

At least, to Mr. Hudson's credit, he has not appeared at a news conference to declare that "My truth is that I am a..." whatever. Sinner seems to me to be the most appropriate word to follow that infamous phrase. Who among us is not?

I have enjoyed Crisis Magazine under Mr. Hudson's tutelage and hope that his departure does not adversley affect the otherwise sterling quality of the magazine. Hopefully, Mr. Hudson's talents are inate and he will easily be able to replicate his success in another forum. I pray for him and wish him well. I pray for the remaining board members that their collective wisdom on business decisions is proper and correct and that their intellectual output is equally inspired.

[Whitcomb]

I am disappointed that the Washington Times permitted an anonymous "scholar" to make an unsubstantiated allegation against Hudson in this article.

If you've got the goods on Deal Hudson as some sort of serial philanderer or sexual harasser, then produce the evidence for your readers. Do the legwork, and get it on the record. Don't let somebody trash Hudson anonymously.

On a less important note, I am amused to learn from this article that Peggy Noonan is considered a "Catholic intellectual."

Surely this is a stretch?

[Frank]

No, what he did was lie and also let his friends come to his public defense when he knew the truth. He knew other allegations were out there because he caused them. Yet, yet, yet, he let Craig Richardson, MJ Anderson and others go into the public square and defend him as if the Fordham thing was the only charge!

Knowing what he knows, he should have resigned when the single story surfaced last month. As it is, he has endangered his family, the magazine, our common causes and the Church. Shame. Shame. Shame.

[Hunk Hondo]

I think that it isn't right to hash out about other unspecified "improprieties". If specific (and not obviously incredible) charges emerge, let them be discussed then. Until then, it's only speculation. In this case, what is known is ghastly enough.
Whitcomb, I'm sorry you chose this sad occasion to take another cheap shot at Peggy. You're better than that.

[John Heavrin]

Thanks, Rod, for the psychological diagnosis, and sealing it with calling me a "fool." Much appreciated, sir.

[Patrick Rothwell]

Some initial thoughts:

(1) If the only misconduct allegation against Hudson that was substantiated was the Fordham incident 10 years ago, then Hudson should not have been forced out for reasons that have been picked over and over again.

(2) If the recent allegations against Hudson are substantiated, it was right to force Hudson out depending on what they are. Which leads to...

(3) We don't know what the recent allegations are and whether they have been substantiated. I think its wrong to condemn a man because of unspecified allegations or because he gave somebody the willies. Also, query whether it is appropriate - as someone pointed out above - for a reporter to publish a story from anonymous sources claiming unspecified allegations of misconduct. It may be ethical, in this case, in order to explain why the board of Crisis did what it did. But it is a close case.

(4) I am, therefore, reserving judgment on the latest story. I do wonder, however, based upon the quote from Crisis that Lee Penn provided on another thread whether Crisis had any wiggle room whatsoever if, as that article suggests, the guiding ideology of the magazine is to encourage a civil war against sex sinners. They have pretty much boxed themselves in, and unnecessarily so, in my view.

[Whitcomb]

Hunk, OK, you make a fair point. I probably should have laid off Peggy Noonan.

On the other hand, this WT article has a patina of Catholic intellectuals and "scholars" running through it that is a bit much for this reader.

I am not a regular reader of Crisis. I wouldn't know Deal Hudson if I knocked him over. I don't have a scintilla of emotional investment in this story. But speaking of cheap shots, I think the Washington Times delivered one in this story--regardless of what anyone thinks about Mr. Hudson.

[amy]

Cheap shots? It's a story about why Hudson resigned yesterday. The board of a magazine is confronted by facts about that magazine's publisher, which then perhaps puts other incidents in a new light. They decide, for the good of the magazine, he needs to go. Former publisher sends out an email letter describing his resignation, without any references to the board's collapse of support for him.

Who's cheap?

[TSO]

"If the recent allegations against Hudson are substantiated, it was right to force Hudson out depending on what they are...I think its wrong to condemn a man because of unspecified allegations or because he gave somebody the willies."

Exactly.

O father Abram, what these Christians are,
Whose own hard dealings teaches them suspect
the thoughts of others!

Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh. - Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice"

[Chip Wilson]

The Washington Times story was necessary.

I am a daily newspaper journalist who usually loathes use of unnamed sources. In this case, however, I do trust the reporting of Julia Duin.

She thorough, well-connected and a serious Christian who, I'm sure, wouldn't report information that's not confirmed.

I would have more sympathy for Hudson in this situation if he hadn't whined about being a "lightning rod" and implying he was doing this for his family.

Chip Wilson

[Cheeky Lawyer]

That piece at the Chronicles was as one would except from the Rockford Institute pretty disgusting and vile stuff. While he makes some very good points, he also is a bit detached from reality. This is the group that kicked Father Neuhaus out of his office. Michael Novak is a good and decent man striving to live his faith. Does he fail? Sure. But he doesn't deserve that sort of hit. Furthermore, behind so much in that article is a thinly veiled disdain for Jews. I don't make those sorts of accusations lightly but it is well-known that many paleos flirt with anti-semitism.

[Mark Windsor]

Rod - for what it's worth, I think Hudson should have moved on. What I don't get is the desire for public humiliation. Some of us are still willing to forgive and move on. I guess that's just not good enough for some people, eh?

[Dave Mueller]

Well, it sounds to me like there were other ALLEGATIONS, and the board became uncomfortable and gave him the heave-ho. It doesn't sound like the allegations were necessarily substantiated.

If, in fact, the allegations are true, then it shows a pattern, and it was certainly appropriate for Crisis to sever ties with him altogether, and even letting him run the Morley Institute is pretty questionable.

But for Deal to claim that it was his decision when he was clearly forced out seems rather strange. That's like the guy who quits before he can be fired.

Still, I am not sure why support for the MAGAZINE evaporated. It has been and continues to be a high quality Catholic publication. Deal writes *ONE* page out of 64. I would continue to subscribe whether Deal was in charge or not, as long as the content quality remains high.

[Whitcomb]

Amy, I'm speaking of the responsibility of a newspaper.

The Crisis board may or may not have additional information about Deal Hudson that led to the resignation.

My complaint is with the Washington Times. Don't cheap-shot Deal Hudson with an anonymous allegation that, in effect, says he has so many paramours we can't keep up with him.

It was the responsibility of the newspaper to attempt to verify the new allegations. Failing that, the newspaper should not have permitted a source, scholarly or not, to comment anonymously about Deal Hudson in its news columns.

[Cheeky Lawyer]

And while I agree the NCR piece should never have been published, Deal Hudson should never have been a public figure after Fordham. As someone put after initial story, he should have gone and toiled in anonymity rather than take a public position. The man seems to have serious issues with pride and one wonders if being in such a public spot (outside of the question of his history) was a good thing for him to be doing.

Furthermore, this, just like priests who molested and should never be returned to ministry, is not about forgiveness. People seem to equate forgiveness with remaining and functioning as one did before as if nothing wrong had occurred. In fact, forgiveness and punishment are not mutually exclusive. Deal should never have been editor in the first place. Now he should exit stage right and try to pick up the pieces of his life. We should love him and pray for him. But we shouldn't let that love and charity stop us from recognizing the justice of his being forced to resign his position.

[Cheeky Lawyer]

And while I agree the NCR piece should never have been published, Deal Hudson should never have been a public figure after Fordham. As someone put after initial story, he should have gone and toiled in anonymity rather than take a public position. The man seems to have serious issues with pride and one wonders if being in such a public spot (outside of the question of his history) was a good thing for him to be doing.

Furthermore, this, just like priests who molested and should never be returned to ministry, is not about forgiveness. People seem to equate forgiveness with remaining and functioning as one did before as if nothing wrong had occurred. In fact, forgiveness and punishment are not mutually exclusive. Deal should never have been editor in the first place. Now he should exit stage right and try to pick up the pieces of his life. We should love him and pray for him. But we shouldn't let that love and charity stop us from recognizing the justice of his being forced to resign his position.

[Frank]

Statement Deal Should Have Made in August:

"I hereby resign from Crisis Magazine. I do this for reasons I will not make public for they are scandalous. Taking full responsibility means just that. In this case, it means resigning, for the sake of my soul, my family, my Church, my magazine and the causes I hold dear. I will not return to public life. I will likly find a job in business and in my own way small way work for the Kinddom of God. I am profoundly sorry for the things I have done and for the people I have harmed. Please pray for me. Good bye."

Thbat is the statement of a real man. As it is, he hid behind his friends and lied to us repeatedly, even in his most recent email posting.

[Cheeky Lawyer]

You are right on Frank.

[Christopher Rake]

I understand skepticism and even cynicism about the use of anonymous sources.

But if you're a reporter covering this story, there were significant new developments: The five columnists who insisted on the resignation, wise-man advice from the likes of Fr. Neuhaus along the same lines, the humiliation of having Peggy Noonan reject what should be the honor of receiving an award, followed by Rev. Schall, followed by Mr. McInerny, followed by a semi-boycotted fund-raiser.

If you're covering this beat, is this a story? Of course. Are you going to write this story without explaining why all of these things happened? Of course not.

[Kathleen]

Just a correction to the WT article regarding the Crisis annual dinner. I was an attendee Friday and there were no empty seats. The dinner was well attended and all of the usual suspects were there. I don't know where the WT got the impression that Crisis is being boycotted, but to my knowledge, it is and has not been.

[Mark Windsor]

Cheeky Lawyer - Love your handle, but if you notice I said that Hudson had to go AND I can forgive and move on.

[Christopher Rake]

Kathleen, very interesting, that definitely leaves me puzzled.

[TSO]

"If the recent allegations against Hudson are substantiated, it was right to force Hudson out depending on what they are...I think its wrong to condemn a man because of unspecified allegations or because he gave somebody the willies."

Exactly.

O father Abram, what these Christians are,
Whose own hard dealings teaches them suspect
the thoughts of others!

Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh. - Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice"

[Colleen]

Thanks Kathleen. Deal Hudson isn't 'Crisis' magazine, it makes no sense that people would boycott a fundraising dinner for the magazine.

For the record, I met Deal Hudson once and one of the things that struck me was his eyes, unusually penetrating, piercing and direct. I can almost see where they would unnerve some people, maybe especially women? He seems very sure of himself and he is an excellent wordmeister, no pc stuff when I heard him speak. Maybe that is off-putting as well.

As I would with all of us sinners, I wish Mr. Hudson the best and pray that he keeps on the narrow road.

[Rod Dreher]

My understanding is that this developing story on Deal's ouster -- and that's what it was -- is one in which the people who know precisely what happened are either unwilling to talk, or unwilling to talk for the record.

There is, I am told (and believe), no reason to doubt the reported facts surrounding this move by the Crisis board. What's happening is what often happens in these Catholic matters: people trying to handle a difficult and ugly situation sub rosa. I know Julia Duin, and know that she's a serious Christian and a serious journalist. I believe what she's written here.
She has no axe to grind.

Mark W., I'm not enthusiastic for Hudson to be humiliated. What I am sick and tired of is this idea that Catholic leaders who have committed serious wrongdoing, and have not been honest with themselves or those to whom they owe accountability, and who indeed have publicly dissimulated in a self-aggrandizing way -- I'm sick of the idea that it's somehow a Christian virtue to play along with the fraud.

It seems to me too that the Crisis board is just kicking Hudson upstairs. Is that accountability? They may have no other choice; I may be wrong, but I think that Hudson pretty much controls the money that funds Crisis, through this foundation named for his relative. It will be interesting to see if Novak, McInerny, and the others will remain associated with the magazine given that Hudson is still apparently a player in the magazine, even though he's lost his title.

[Tom]

If you're covering this beat, is this a story? Of course. Are you going to write this story without explaining why all of these things happened? Of course not.

The question is not whether the story meets all journalistic standards. We can grant that and still ask whether it meets the standards of Christian morality.

The only reference to "more recent sexual misconduct" in the article is made by someone who requested anonymity, then implies it's a full-time job "to track Deal Hudson's improprieties." The quotation finishes with, "But you began to wonder after a while if they are true."

And this is not gossip on the part of the speaker why?

And the just reason for the reporter to include this in the story, thereby damaging Hudson's good name, is what?

[Brigid]

I have a different angle that's always been of interest to me whether we're discussing presidents, priests, preachers, politicians or publishers:

Why Do Powerful Men Risk It All On Affairs?

http://listarchives.his.com/smartmarriages/smartmarriages.0210/msg00001.html

Power. It's all about the power.

[Radactrice]

Would all who condemn the reporters for making Deal Hudson a "story" equally condemn the reporters for making Monica Lewinsky a story?

[Loudon is a Fool]

Spare us the anti-Semitism canard, Sweet Cheekys. I wasn't even aware that Hudson, Novak, Bennet, Derbyshire, and Donohue were Jewish until your post alerted me to the fact. Although I guess it makes sense with respect to Novak since he seems to reject EENS.

Flemming, per usual, gets to the heart of the matter. Now I don't want to kick a man while he's down, but it is worth noting that Catholicons seem to have ideological loyalties that trump their Catholicism. Which is weird.

[SiliconValleySteve]

That is the statement of a real man. As it is, he hid behind his friends and lied to us repeatedly, even in his most recent email posting.

I couldn't agree more.

[Esquire]

Tequila Deal is the sick bastard who wants to politicize the most Source and Summit of our Faith. "The denial of the Eucharist should begin and end with John Kerry."

He places political ideology above even respect for the Sacraments. If he really believed in his position, are there not numerous politicians who'd fall under Canon 915? Of course, but they're Republican. To him, Party is more important than Faith.

So it's only to be expected that his supporters would swallow their revulsion at his conduct and complain about "detraction". The only way these folks will acknowledge his degeneracy would be if he was found buying Tequila shots for underage boys.

[SiliconValleySteve]

I just went back and read the whole story. I for one am very pleased with the response from the Catholic columnists and intellectuals. This is exactly what I would have expected and completely in accord with the personal correspondence that I have had with a few of them.

His change of position however is not enough. It will not save the magazine.

[Dave Mueller]

Oh, come off it, Esquire.

I am reminded of the recent quote on Mark Shea's site, "to the corrupt, all things are corrupt." It seems like Democratic-leaning people here see a conspiracy behind every story.

For the record, I though Deal was wrong about denying the Eucharist only to Kerry. That was indeed a horrible idea, and I don't understand it at all. There are many others, mostly Democrat but also some prominent Republicans, who should also be subject to Canon 915.

However, I still think that what happened to Deal was detraction. Deal may be degenerate, but that has no relation to whether what happened to him was detraction or not.

[Carrie]

Is the call for revelations of the latest indiscretions appropriate? Hudson has a family that will be hurt further by detailed revelations.

Someone said they pray for Hudson. Personally, I pray for his wife and kids.

I also regret the fallout this wil have for the Catholic Church. Hudson was conservative, and still the taint of sexual indiscretion adheres to him, giving us one more piece of public evidence that sexual sin is a problem throughout all factions in the Church.

Cheeky Lawyer, I like your take on forgiveness.

[Dave Mueller]

I ask again...why should Deal's sins bring down the magazine? For any thinking person, (I will assume that readers of the magazine fall into this category) isn't it the quality of the publication that matters rather than the ritual purity of the publisher???

Has the magazine ever delved into unorthodoxy? No. I have a very low opinion of anyone who unsubscribes based on one person's sins. They have a large staff of talented editors and contributors.

FOR GODS SAKE, anyone who is thinking of unsubscribing because of Deal, wake up and smell the coffee!!

[Jimmy Mac]

I think this kind of thing used to be characterized as "rats deserting a sinking ship." Or, refusing to "rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic."

Real Deal = Bad Deal.

[Esquire]

"For the record, I though Deal was wrong about denying the Eucharist only to Kerry. That was indeed a horrible idea, and I don't understand it at all."

Dave, there's a very easy explanation. It's called "politics, see also: Republican hypocrisy."

Maybe Tequila Deal needs to be publicly shamed into changing his ways with women. Isn't one of the rationales for denying the Eucharist "medicinal discipline" (i.e. we're really concerned about that poor politician's soul should he receive unworthily")? Well, let's consider this medicinal discipline for Hudson. It would appear that the very private buy-out he got from Fordham didn't do the job.

[Brigid]

We've woken up and we're smelling the coffee, Dave.

As Amy and others have ponted out, Crisis magazine is owned by the Morley Institute which is named after Deal's aunt! What more information do you need?

Or perhaps we should tell you and others: take off your rose-colored glasses because CRISIS magazine IS Deal Hudson.

May God bless Deal's family AND the staff at CRISIS. This ain't over yet.

It's all about the POWER and who will win in the end: the board or the powerful individual who is in control.

We've been through this before...!

[Kathleen]

This doesn't have anything to do with this specific story, but to me the story is symptomatic of what I am about to say, that, one of the things that is so saddening to my faith is the ability of CATHOLICS to rip one and other to shreds in ways that I have never seen in the secular world. It goes on, but not to the extent or with the aggressiveness I see in Catholic circles. I volunteered for a Catholic org up in NYC and saw the same thing I see here in D.C.

I say this because of the illusions in the article, one of which I know to be untrue, the boycott and the lack of attendance at the dinner. It bothers me that this would be reported even if people are speaking OFF THE RECORD as Rod has mentioned. It makes it seem like a big game of gotcha that is terribly hurtful and is another example to the libs in the Church that we are just the same as they are in our behavior.

[thomas tucker]

Look, the guy has problems. I won't repeat the anecdote I told when all this came out last month, but I can tell you that Mr Hudson has issues with either personal boundaries and power,or with alcohol, or both. That was my experience and it had a very unsettling effect on me and my wife at the time. None of this surprises me now. I have prayed and will pray for Mr. Hudson and his family. I will not respect him, however, as long as he continues to spin and cover-up, instead of making the kind of statement, and meaning it, that Frank writes about above.

[Dave Mueller]

Brigid,
If I am not mistaken, Crisis magazine started long before Deal Hudson became involved with it.

Now, if Deal somehow controls the money which funds the magazine, that could be a problem. I wish the board well as I think it would be *better* if Deal were not involved in any capacity any longer (assuming that the more recent allegations are TRUE).

All I am saying is that I subscribe to the magazine because I like the *CONTENT* of the magazine. My reason for subscribing is not because the people running the magazine are the nearest thing to Immaculately Conceived that I have seen. If it starts printing dissenting material, then I'll send off my cancellation notice immediately.

Similarly, I subscribe to _This Rock_ because I like the magazine, not because Karl Keating is a saint (for all I know, maybe he is, but that is not why I subscribed)

[Christopher Rake]

And the just reason for the reporter to include this in the story, thereby damaging Hudson's good name, is what?

Tom, perhaps I am inferring too much, but I do not believe all of the actions described in the story (putting aside the odd clash of accounts regarding attendance at the dinner) would have taken place without the widespread belief that there are more recent improprieties on Hudson's part. IMHO that gets us back to a judgment call on square one: All these things are happening, and the WT wants to tell you why.

And Dave, simply as a matter of credible leadership, I don't think one can divorce the magazine from the actions of its most prominent executive.

[amy]

Dave, you're right - Crisis does predate Hudson. It was started by Michael Novak and called "Catholicism in Crisis." As the NCR piece (linked in a comment above) describes it, the magazine was in dire financial straits when Hudson was brought aboard, and he turned it around.

[Cheeky Lawyer]

Loudon is a fool...

The anti-semitism point is not a canard. Take a look at David Frum's important piece that details some of this: http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp

Nor was I suggesting that Fleming's critique was leveled only at Jews. But that is a subtext here. Those nefarious Podhertzes and Kristols and all the rest who influence things behind the scenes.

I am not sure what EENS is so you will have to fill me in. And I did admit that Novak and others like most Catholics struggle to let their faith guide them in all things. For instance one could imagine a Catholic who has monarchist tendencies which steer him away from the Church and her teaching on certain matters.

[Joseph R. Wilson]

Who should be surprised if we eventually find out that power and money have had a corrupting influence? This may turn out to be yet another good reminder that we must always watch and listen for false teachers. I find it very interesting that very few, if any, people are using "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (so often used out of context when a liberal politician or cleric causes scandal).

[Father Ethan]

I think we should pray for Deal Hudson, his wife and children, his victims, Crisis Magazine, etc. We are all sinners. Shouldn't this be a time for us to examine the state of our souls and seek God's grace in the Sacrament of Penance?

[John Heavrin]

Now that Crisis magazine has purified itself of the unclean one (sort of), I wonder if they'll start circling the drain as they did before he was brought in. Perhaps that was NCR's quarry all along: not just Hudson personally, but Crisis itself, and other Catholic publications they don't like.

The Crisis board seems torn between wanting him to disappear and wanting him to still be around. It seems odd that, having been ousted as publisher, he's still going to have a hand in running the mag, from his position as head of the Morley foundation. After all, the purpose of removing the taint of his presence can't be said to have been accomplished. And won't he still be around to act improperly in non-sexual ways towards female employees, as witnessed to in an above post?

If they want him out, one wonders why they didn't throw him out completely. Maybe they believe on some level, no Deal, no Crisis.

[Brigid]

amy and dave-

hudson continues to turn it around and around and around... perhaps that IS my point...

who actaully owns "the morley institute?"

have y'all been doing your research?

[Frank]

in re attendance...in the days running up to the dinner, the Crisis staff were calling all over town giving away tickets. this is actually what alerted Julia Duin to the story. Duin was at the dinner and she observed empty tables and she also knew that many marquee Catholics were not in attendance.

[Tom]

IMHO that gets us back to a judgment call on square one: All these things are happening, and the WT wants to tell you why.

Yes. And neither the fact that all these things are happening, nor the fact that the WT wants to tell you why, constitutes an objectively valid reason to disclose, not even another's faults and failings, but only rumors of them, to persons who did not know them.

I've tried to make this point before, but what journalists say constitutes "good journalism" is not necessarily morally good.

(And it's not just journalism. "Good medicine," "good politics," "good blogging" -- in none of these does "good" necessarily imply "moral.")

[Kathleen]

Uh Frank:

There were not empty tables. I was there. As to staff giving away tickets I don't know. The only empty seats I saw were right next to (two) me one of which was for my friend who came down with the flu and her husband who could not attend due to volunteer fire duty.

Empty tables is not true at all.

[Fr. Rob Johansen]

I too was at the Crisis dinner last Friday, and contrary to the report, there was a bare sprinkling of empty seats. Most tables were full, and only a few had empty places. Indeed, it seemed to me there was a very good showing of support for the magazine. A number of prominent Catholics were there, such as Kathryn Jean Lopez, Tim O'Donnell (President of Christendom College), Mother Assumpta Long, and several White House people, such as the President's Director for Catholic Outreach (whose name I can't recall at the moment).

Also, contrary to the story's implication, Peggy Noonan did not "refuse" the award in some sort of disassociation from the magazine. The magazine is planning an event next spring honoring and featuring her.

Furthermore, contrary to what some here have implied, Deal is an effective fundraiser for the magazine, but he does not "control" the money. The board controls it.

Deal has, for several years, had little day-to-day input into the content of the magazine. The content of the magazine is primarily the responsibility of the Editor, Brian St. Paul. And that arrangement is largely of Deal's own doing. His primary role has been as booster and fundraiser.

Finally, the idea that this will be the "death of Crisis" (I suppose that may be wishful thinking on the part of some) is just silly. As Deal himself said, he is not Crisis magazine. I suppose if the Board, in a fit of panic, fired Brian St. Paul and the rest of the staff who have made the magazine what it is, that could happen, but that's a very unlikely scenario.

[Frank]

The Morley Institute is a 501c3 and is therefore not "owned" by anyone. It has a board of directors who have responsibility for running the foundation which owns the magazine. Certainly many of the top donors, some on the board, are standing by Deal and that is why he has been promoted rather than fired.

It is a puzzle to many of us how he could hang on with not just substantial allegations leveled against him, but specific and substantial allegations made by substantial people.

[Jason]

>>>"Tequila Deal is the sick bastard who wants to politicize the most Source and Summit of our Faith."

No, the "sick bastard" would be Koran Kissing Wojtyla who published the Canon Law that requires the Church's pastors to refuse communion to manifest, unrepentant sinners.

Get a life.

[Frank]

Father,

Not many of these high-profile Catholics would have shown up if they had known there were other credible allegations. That's the thing. Deal knew of them, but he allowed all these good people to somehow be a show of support for him. The problem he faced was that at that time, several reporters were calling the board. Like last time, he got ahead the story and bailed (kicked upstairs really).

I personally find it despicable that he used Mother Assumpta Long and Father Groeschel in this way. I guarantee you that neither of them knew of the threatened resignation of the columnists, the distancing of Weigal, Neuhaus, George, or, even more important, the other allegations of sexual impropriety.

[Kathleen]

So Frank, since Fr. Johanson has confirmed my observation at the dinner, can we conclude that Julia Duin is lying?

[Jason]

New report from the Times:

"Catholic leaders today denounced Pope Peter I for his scandalous hypocrisy amongst the Jews in Jerusalem. Said one anonymous source, 'there are also other rumors of judaizing by Peter.' Some of his brother Apostles are demanding his letters be removed from the Canon. Says the Apostle Paul, 'either his letters go, or ours do'".

[Kathleen]

While there is useful discussion going on here, who is Jason? What gives?

[Dave Mueller]

Thanks, Jason, that was great!!

Oh, and Kathleen, I guess that the Rather standard was applied here. Frank has clarified that there WOULD have been empty tables if they had known about the additional allegations against Deal. Therefore, it's OK to report that there *were* empty tables.

Thank you for setting the record straight on many things, Fr. Rob!

[Frank]

Kathleen,

From the Times:

"Many of Washington's best known Catholics also boycotted the dinner, and there were many empty seats at the gathering of 330 people"

Both true...she did not say there was an general boycott of the dinner. She said prominent Catholics boycotted. True. She also said she saw many empty seats. True, also.

You should turn your laser-like accusations of lying to Mr. Hudson.

[Brigid]

ah, yes - 501(c)3 non-profit ownership.

makes it all so "pure" doesn't it?

we shall see...

[Victor Morton]

The reason Julia Duin did not provide names and dates and details for the new allegations is (a) nobody among the columnists, on the Crisis board or Washington's Catholic elite would say anything *for the record,* though (and this is a perennial frustration journalists have with all sources of all religions) they were quite willing to give specifics not for attribution. Julia repeated some of these specifics to me when we were working on the story; (b) the article is about Hudson resigning amid the collapse of support for him. That's a matter of public interest in the sense that his pecadilloes are not (in and of themselves). We absolutely have to say "why," as Amy points out, but that's only one element of the story. We could have given a little more info (there was one paragraph that I crafted, based on our conversations, on which Julia and I went back-and-forth before we decided not to publish it). But the very fact this is not a Star or National Enquirer expose -- "HUDSON HITS ON HAMPTONS HOTTIE!!!! -- means that, in my judgment and Julia's, we said what was necessary to say.

Plus, I dunno who "frank" is ... but his 1:02 pm post took the words right out of my mouth about what Julia told me about the Crisis dinner. In response to that, she had been working on a "collapse of support" story Monday (basically the "he goes or we go" letter -- lead being something like: "Several prominent Catholic scholars are demanding that Deal Hudson leave Crisis magazine") until it got overtaken by events when Hudson resigned Tuesday.

Re: the collapse of support for Crisis. First of all, the article never said there was a circulation problem (and indeed it noted the contrary). Crisis is a fine magazine and I hope nobody thinks this article is any reason people shouldn't buy it. But ... when you're putting out a small-circulation opinion/intellectual magazine, you don't get most of your operating funds from paid circulation, you get them from donations and philanthropies. Hudson's reputation was causing prominent public figures, the kind who assist in these fund-raising endeavors, to disassociate from Crisis or threaten to do so -- the five columnists, Noonan, Schall, the dinner turnout -- then support is collapsing.

[Frank]

Dave,

Do not twist my words. I did not say there would have been empty tables. I said the relatively few prominent Catholics would not have shown had they known of the other accusations. And I stand by that. Get it straight.

Interesting that you good Catholics do not want to criticize Mr. Hudson for being a sexual predator but would rather criticize the messanger. Perfect. Sickening. But perfect.

[John Heavrin]

On Bettnet it was stated that NCR is going to have another Deal Hudson piece, or at least that they'll be giving "more of the story." Any word as to whether it'll just be their version of today's WashTimes piece, or will it be more details of the kind they gave us before?

[Kathleen]

Frank, you are now modifying your statement. Before you said that:

"Duin was at the dinner and she observed empty tables and she also knew that many marquee Catholics were not in attendance."

These are your words.

So, are you a liar?

I don't know what is true or not true in the article, but I for one am not willing to believe allegations about anyone unless they are proven.

[Dave Mueller]

Brigid,
Why don't you just clarify and tell us what you are insinuating? Your cryptic comments are getting old.

Kathleen,
Jason was making a parallel between Deal and St. Peter who also taught truth but didn't always live up to it. Granted, Deal's failings seem to be of a different magnitude, so I can't really side with Deal in all of this if there is a pattern of problems with women, but it illustrates the folly of expecting perfection from anyone teaching truth. Even Jesus told his listeners to follow what the Jewish Leaders sitting on the Chair of Moses teach, but NOT to follow their example.

Truth is truth, regardless of the teacher.

[Frank]

Kathleen...my mistake...go back to what Duin actually reported....boycott by prominent Catholics (true), empty seats (true)...

You like to throw the word liar around a lot. Go back and track Mr. Hudson's statements aobut this situation.

[Dave Mueller]

Frank,
Of course I would criticize Deal for being a sexual predator. It is obviously a very grave sin if that is the case. From my point of view, I only know of one allegation which is acknowledged to be true. Perhaps you are in a position to know otherwise, but don't blame me for making careful judgments only on the facts I know are true.

I'm sorry if you feel I mischaracterized your remarks. You said that "not many of these high-profile Catholics" would have attended if they knew of the other allegations. And if I'm not mistaken, you did mention empty *tables* somewhere above.

[Loudon is a Fool]

Cheeks,

This is off-topic and I don't really know what the blogosphere protocol is for going off topic but I can't allow any public defense of Frum to go unassaulted.

There is no correlation between the existence of anti-Semitism and the identification of an anti-Semite by Frum. Same rule applies with respect to patriotism. I have a hairy, clawed, and toothed monster living under my bed. Frum has anti-Semites under his (not to imply that anti-Semites don't exist, just that Frum has never identified one). So you'll need to come up with a better example than the word of a pro-abort, Jesus-hater.

EENS stands for extra ecclesiam nulla salus, outside the Church there is no salvation. Novak appears to hold to the view that the Jewish people are saved by the Old Covenant alone. He attributes this view to the Holy Father, although I am unaware of JPII describing an asymmetry between the Old and New Covenants in the manner that Novak does. To say that God keeps his promises is not the same as saying Christ need not have died for our sins for the Jews to have eternal salvation. Which is, I think, a fair paraphrase of Novak's views.

He writes:

"As John Paul II has made clear, however, the Jewish Testament remains valid; God can no more become unfaithful to His covenant with the Jews than He can to His covenant with Christians. The relation between Jews and Christians, therefore, is asymmetrical. Christians must understand and accept Jewish faith, in order to accept Christian faith. Their God is also the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Apart from the background, principles, and prophecies of the Jewish Testament, the Christian Testament does not make sense. Christians, in order to be Christians, must be Jews in belief (though not in circumcision and ritual), in a way that, in order to be Jews, Jews need not be Christians. That is the asymmetry."

Which can be found in its entirety at NRO.
http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak012802.asp

His statement could be read simply to mean Christians need to understand Jews to be Christians, but Jews need not understand Christians to be Jews living under the unfulfilled Covenant. But if that is what he means, then the opening sentence of the paragraph is both superfluous and misleading.

But I'm out of my depth here not being a theologian or a scholar. And, as I mentioned, we're off topic.

[Brigid]

Dave,

Take off those rose colored glasses!

Cryptic messages of truth: there is more to come esp. in regards to WHY Hudson and Morley Institute and CRISIS are going to have a hard time separating.

Perhaps Cheeky Lawyer could give a little lesson here on non-profit ownership?

This is going to get worse before it gets better and who knows where Hudson's family, the good staff @ CRISIS and the "Morley Institute" will land.

!

[Radactrice]

So allegations don't mean anything. Fine. But what about those individuals who are clever enough and wealthy enough to hire lawyers who keep the truth from coming out and therefore things remain mere "allegations" forever? Just because it's an allegation doesn't mean it isn't true. If I knew someone who was "allegedly" accused of murder and all those around him said off the record that he had done it and even worse, I probably wouldn't be hanging out with him, checking out his gun collection.

[Kathleen]

Frank:

My point was that she states things in her article that are not true and I know these things for a fact. There were a few empty seats, not "many" and she talks about prominent Catholics boycotting the dinner, I want to know who? There were many prominent Catholics there and these are the ones usually in attendance including (I've been to the dinner for five years straight) Robert Novak, Kathryn Lopez and Bob Reilly. Robert George has only been once when he was honored and the same for Fr. Neuhaus who introduced him. George Weigel has never attended. For Duin, and you in this blog, to insinuate that there was this sudden chilling towards Deal or the magazine based on unproven charges is not fair.

I don't throw the word liar around at all. It just seems like you are stretching the article or Duin is in her article by implying a lot with no facts to back up what she is saying. Rod states that she doesn't have an axe to grind, but from the content of the article it sure seems like it to me.

[Dave Mueller]

Brigid,
I don't think I have rose-colored glasses. I may have blinders, though. I still don't know what you are getting at, but then I don't know any of the details of the Morley Institute, how it is funded and how it was set up, etc.

I only know that the content of Crisis magazine is good.

[Cheeky Lawyer]

Non-profits are out of my league...I'm afraid.

[John Heavrin]

Frank, you take a shot at those of us unwilling to criticize Hudson for being a "sexual predator" but willing to criticize the "messenger." All I hear is "Trust us, he's a sexual predator. All we can print is one incident from ten years ago, and no one else will go on the record to demonstrate a pattern, but, trust us, he's a sexual predator." Maybe he is a terrible serial predator; he's been ruined as such, anyway. I don't want to defend him, but I'm not willing to assume the worst about the man because you say, "Trust me."

That "messenger" deserves criticism. If Hudson is still doing things like he did at Fordham, so does he. But I don't know that he is, and I don't think it's right to conclude that he is because I'm being assured of it, not for attribution. Maybe NCR will have pictures next time, and that'll settle the matter forever.

[Karl Keating]

Dave Mueller wrote:

"Similarly, I subscribe to _This Rock_ because I like the magazine, not because Karl Keating is a saint (for all I know, maybe he is, but that is not why I subscribed)."

Dave, if "This Rock's" circulation were proportionate to my sanctity, the magazine would have a negative number of subscribers.

[James Kabala]

Loudon:
David Frum is a "Jesus-hater?" Is there any evidence for this accusation? As with Fleming's use of the term "Christophobe" to describe the Podhoretzes, it seems that not believing in the divinity of Christ is being equated with hating or fearing Him. I wish that all men believed in Christ, but I'm not going to throw epithets at those who don't.
I also wish that Fleming had expanded on his assertion that Crisis is a dishonest publication. His article is full of insults, but only a few of them are backed up with specific accusations.

[Christopher Rake]

I really do understand why people would condemn the use of anonymous sources in this case. It comes down to your trust in the judgment of the reporter and the publication. If a comment like this is to see the light of day, one hopes that it is well-researched and not based, for example, on mere score-settling, which is one of the big dangers of allowing an anonymous source to attack a named, public figure.

Is it immoral or non-Catholic to publish a story like this? I don't think so, again, based to some extent on the assumption that Duin's report accurately points to more recent improprieties.

My initial reaction to this dating from the NCR story was similar to Mark Shea's (I don't know if his current Catholic Exchange piece was written before the latest news, or whether he thinks it would matter). Putting aside NCR, and I do, it struck me that Hudson had already paid a price for a transgression; there was no need for the public to know any further details.

But there's no question that today's story covers significant new developments. Which account, Hudson's or Duin's, best describes what happened?

Separately, is there some "Catholic reason" that I shouldn't have the opportunity to learn about this?

[b]

Just a little public information on who is supports the Morley Institute / Morley Publishing Group.

[Frank]

Kathleen,

Come on now. You are quibbling. The difference between "few" empty seats and "many" empty seats is how many, exactly?

About prominent Catholics not there and boycotting? Novak, McInerny, Royal, Uhlman, Hittenger, Schall, O'Beirne. You say George, Neuhaus and Weigel have only been once or never? Maybe. But I do know that each of them are very unhappy with this situation. Adn the thing to udnerstand about many prominent Catholics is that they soured on teh Deal show long ago.

You are trying to build a case against Duin based on this?

Come on, where is your outrage at the perp?

[James Kabala]

Loudon:
David Frum is a "Jesus-hater?" Is there any evidence to back up this accusation? Like Fleming with his use of the term "Christophobe" to describe the Podhoretzes, you seem to be equating not believing in the divinity of Christ with hating or fearing Him. I wish that all men believed in Christ, but I don't see the use in hurling epithets at those who do not believe.
I also wish that Fleming had expanded on his claim that Crisis is a dishonest publication. Fleming's article is full of insults, but in only a few cases does he back up the incident with hard evidence

[James Kabala]

Sorry for the two very similar posts:
I thought that I had lost the first one, and then I tried to rewrite from memory.

[Marty]

Read the link to Chronicles Magazine. Wish I hadn't. What a hate-filled, vindictive, spiteful person Thomas Fleming is! So self righteous and judgmental! Too bad he's a Catholic. He seems to be filled with loathing and contempt for pretty much everyone and everything. I have a friend whose daughter was one of the people working with Fr. Neuhaus when the Rockford folks changed all the locks on their offices and dumped them out on the street.
It's sad--Chronicles used to be pretty good when Leopold Tyrmand was the head of it. I understand his widow is very disgusted with what Chronicles has become.

If Hudson has an ongoing problem, not just an isolated incident, the board acted rightly. He needs to come clean and get help. We should certainly pray for him, his family, and any persons whom he has offended. Do you suppose Fleming ever prays for the neo-cons he despises so thoroughly? He has already consigned Bill Buckley to hell and he's not even dead yet! Fleming's fellow paleo Joe Sobran might have broken with Buckley on the issues but still lauds his "sweet nature and temperament."

I find people like Fleming, who claims to be a Catholic Christian but is filled with hate and rage, infinitely more disgusting than the people he condemns for their sins of the flesh.

[Fr. Rob Johansen]

So "b", what is your point?

A bunch of conservative foundations support the Morley Institute.

So what? Is that supposed to surprise anyone?

Rich liberals like George Soros and Norman Lear support left-wing causes. Again, so what?

[Dave Mueller]

Wow! Did anyone else follow the link to see who is FUNDING the Morley Institute!?!??!

It turns out that it is *CONSERVATIVE* foundations which are providing a lot of the funding for Crisis magazine!?!?!

Wow, that is so surprising, I was expecting the Rockefeller and Ford foundations.

[amy]

I think b's point was simply to answer questions that had been raised here, since some of them had revolved around what role Hudson or his family had in this Morley Institute.

[Fr. Rob Johansen]

Radactrice wrote:

Just because it's an allegation doesn't mean it isn't true. If I knew someone who was "allegedly" accused of murder and all those around him said off the record that he had done it and even worse, I probably wouldn't be hanging out with him, checking out his gun collection.

Wow! Talk about an inversion of justice: "Just because it's an allegation doesn't mean it isn't true."

OK, I accuse you of being a tax cheat, a beater of puppies, and of bingeing on Cheetos.

There! It might be true. Guess we shouldn't hang around with you.

The point is, we don't know what those allegations are, who's making them, or who some of those sources are, because they're all unnamed and unspecified. That's unjust. And it's unjust to make further speculations based on those allegations.

[Mark Shea]

Christopher:

The piece was written shortly after the story broke. It's just coincidence that it came out today.

I will have more to say on this on my blog in a little while. But I don't unsay a word of the CE piece, which is a defense, not of Deal Hudson, but of the sacrament of reconciliation and the scandalous Catholic teaching on mercy.

[Kathleen]

Frank:

It was you who began by twisting words and implying things that are not true. Have you spoken personally to the Catholics who you state are very unhappy with the situation? Maybe they are I don't know. The way you twist words I have no reason to believe what you say. I think we can all read the article to get the idea that it was trying to imply that Crisis is being boycotted by Catholics who normally never go to that dinner, which I know for a fact.

The article doesn't prove any new facts at all. I don't like what Deal did ten years ago any more than anyone else but since I've moved to this city I've heard lots of whispers about many prominent Catholics. Should I take those rumors to be gospel?

And Frank, be real, there is a difference between "few" and "many". Please explain how these words mean the same or close to the same thing.

[Frank]

Kathleen,

I have twisted nothing.

And you work for Deal? Well............

Is this part of Deal's PR gambit? To try and impune Julie Duin in the same way he let Bill Donahue impune the Fordham victim as a drunk? Deal's gal Kathleen is out inpublic saying Julie Duin is a liar? This is creepy.