« Under His Wings | Main | Targeted, Creative? »
January 31, 2008
Conservatism & Corruption
The February issue of Vanity Fair has a scathing and gossipy article about the recent marital breakup of Richard Mellon Scaife and his wife, Margaret Ritchie Rhea Battle Scaife. Scaife, a wealthy and major backer of conservative (read: political and economic) causes, gave $1.8 million in the 1990s to The American Spectator to investigate Bill Clinton (i.e., Whitewater and all that and more). To give you an idea of the depth of Mr. Scaife pockets, in this interim period before the divorce is legally effected, a court ordered "interim support payments of $725,000" ... a month. Per month. According to the Post-Gazette's website, battles have been pitched over a "94-page itemized list of art and objets, from a million-dollar Magritte to an $1,800 set of asparagus tongs."
In 2005, Ritchie hired someone to tail her husband. In December of 2005, the detective
took pictures showing the reclusive 75-year-old billionaire [Scaife] with a woman named Tammy Vasco, a tall, blonde, 43-year-old whose criminal history includes two arrests for prostitution. The pair was photographed at Doug's Motel, a roadside establishment near Pittsburgh, where rooms rent for $49 a night, or $31 for three hours.
Michael Joseph Gross, author the article, writes that
Richard Mellon Scaife is the man who funded the movement that made "family values" a watchword of the right and badly damaged the Clinton presidency. Many would now dearly love to hang him in the gallery of hypocrites whose Dickensian comeuppance exposes the moral bankruptcy of the culture wars.
Aside from this being a bit overstated and a bit too neat (I think there's more sentiment and concern for "family values" (a weak phrase we don't like) out there in the unwashed masses than whatever can be coaxed by money poured into think tanks; and Bill Clinton helped a little in damaging his legacy), it does put a finger on our national problem: moral corruption up and down the line. Conservative (or liberal) economics or conservative governing principles and politics do not mean virtue.
I am again reminded of a passage that jumped out at me from Jeremiah two days ago, the passage assigned in FSJ's devotional reading guide. The Lord challenges Jeremiah:
Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, look and take note! Search her squares to see if you can find a man, one who does justice and seeks truth; that I may pardon her.
Jeremiah admits that "they have refused to take correction. They have made their faces harder than rock, they have refused to repent." But what comes next jumped out:
Then I said, "These are only the poor, they have no sense; for they do not know the way of the Lord, the law of their God.
I will go to the great, and will to speak; for they know the way of the Lord, the law of their God."
But they all alike had broken the yoke, they had burst the bonds. (5:4-5)
Ah, the "great" ones, those who are the elite, the cream of society. Later (6:15):
Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No, they were not ashamed; they did not know how to blush.
That last phrase says it all: No shame, no ability even to blush. But moral outrage over asparagus tongs, that's another matter. (And over adultery. Does that means there's still a glimmer of hope?)
I wouldn't bet much on the promises of our politcal and wealthy classes. We must remember the biblical examples given to us of believers in high places, places of elite access and power: Joseph in Egypt, who refused sexual favors, Daniel and the Three Youths who showed ascetical restraint and devotion to prayer and praise of the true God, even Uriah the Hittite, who honored the warrior's code and discipline while his commander in chief defrauded him of his wife and arranged for his death in battle, and John the Baptist who refused to approve of the moral corruption of his temporal lord.
Virtue cannot be purchased with all the money in the world. Conservatism that doesn't conserve virtue is not simply another variation on the Fall. The primary challenge our nation faces is not economic, it is not educational, it is moral. And our pulpits ring with hollow words telling us how to feel better about ourselves.
Posted by James M. Kushiner at 10:12 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e550059f218833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Conservatism & Corruption:
Comments
The primary challenge our nation faces is not economic, it is not educational, it is moral. And our pulpits ring with hollow words telling us how to feel better about ourselves.
O, wonderful, wonderful, and most wonderful wonderful!
Posted by: Polly Prim | Jan 31, 2008 10:21:45 AM
The primary challenge our nation faces is not economic, it is not educational, it is moral. And our pulpits ring with hollow words telling us how to feel better about ourselves.
O, wonderful, wonderful, and most wonderful wonderful!
Posted by: Polly Prim | Jan 31, 2008 10:22:16 AM
"moral outrage. . . over adultery. Does that mean there's still a glimmer of hope?"
Oh, if only it did. One suspects one knows all too well that any outrage is not over the adultery, but over the hypocrisy of a 'family values' conservative getting caught in adultery. With not a small portion of schadenfreude in the mix, as well. It's all a matter of whose ox is being gored at the time, such is the toxically partisan political environment in which we now find ourselves.
The cluelessness of it all can be so galling, at times. As when many of the same Republicans who so decried Mr. Clinton's adultery, could, without apparent sense of irony, advance the candidacy of Mr. Giuliani. (If there is a glimmer of hope to be discerned, it is that Mr. Giuliani's abortive presidential campaign just might indicate that you can't quite fool all of the people all of the time. . .)
Posted by: CKG | Jan 31, 2008 11:28:25 AM
>>>The cluelessness of it all can be so galling, at times. As when many of the same Republicans who so decried Mr. Clinton's adultery, could, without apparent sense of irony, advance the candidacy of Mr. Giuliani.<<<
It was not so much Clinton's adultery that bothered us, but his fundamental disdain for and abuse of women extending back many years, combined with his use of official office to intimidate witnesses, obstruct justice and commit perjury. Say what you want about Giuliani, nobody every accused him of rape (let alone CREDIBLY accused him of it). Nobody every accused Giuliani of harassing the women with whom he had affairs, nor does Giuliani seem to have been attracted to the kind of callow, one-night stands that mark Clinton's behavior.
Finally, Giuliani had the decency to divorce his wives after their marriages failed, whereas Bubba and Lady MacBeth seem to have a modus vivendi that turns a blind eye to his pecadillos in return for his support of her political ambitions. You choose which form of behavior is more reprehensible.
Adultery is a sin. And like all sins, it is a fact of life. It is a fact of American history that more than one of our Presidents and leading statesmen (i.e., dead politicians) were guilty of this sin. So, is Thomas Jefferson expunged from fasti because of Sally Hemmings? What about Grover Cleveland? Franklin Roosevelt (who was at his side when he had his fatal stroke at Warm Springs? Hint--NOT Eleanor). Ike had his Kay Summersby, JFK had bimbos galore (he was apparently Bubba's role model). Nancy Reagan, lest we forget, was not Wife Number One.
I also wonder why Donna Hannover doesn't come in for her share of criticism. After all, she was a big girl, and leveraged her position as Wife Of to the benefit of her own career, even opposing her own husband's policies during his tenure as mayor--quite publicly, too. It takes two to tango, and two to wreck a marriage, and the fault was not entirely Rudy's.
On the other hand, who is responsible for Bubba's "bimbo eruptions", if not Bubba himself, with the complicity of Lady MacBeth?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 31, 2008 11:52:09 AM
Moral outrage at adultery per se is practically nonexistent in the public sphere today. In the Lewinsky affair, not one pundit, politician or prosecutor dared to suggest that having an adulterous affair with a subordinate was an offense that rendered a man unfit for the Presidency. Instead everyone had to profess to be offended by his lying about it. And thus the whole affair got bogged down in debates over the nuances of perjury laws and "obstruction of justice," where there were plenty of loopholes for a clever lawyer to wriggle his way out.
And no, you are not seeing moral outrage over adultery in the Scaife case, just glee over having caught a conservative in an embarrassing situation. (A 40 year old prostitute in a cheap motel is the best a billionaire can do? Giggle, giggle.)
Posted by: Matthias | Jan 31, 2008 2:24:00 PM
>>>Moral outrage at adultery per se is practically nonexistent in the public sphere today.<<<
It was mostly nonexistent for the past, oh, thousand years or so, provided it was the man who strayed. Public outrage at male adultery was limited to those situations in which the woman betrayed was exemplary in her chastity and overwhelmingly sympathetic in the public eye.
>>>Instead everyone had to profess to be offended by his lying about it. And thus the whole affair got bogged down in debates over the nuances of perjury laws and "obstruction of justice," where there were plenty of loopholes for a clever lawyer to wriggle his way out.<<<
Anyone who was surprised that Bill Clinton was an adulterous hound dog would be shocked, shocked! to discover gambling going on at Rick's Cafe Americaine. Aside from which, Hillary, merely by being herself, made Bill's behavior understandable, if not forgivable. And finally, adultery is not an impeachable or even a criminal offense (in most jurisdictions), whereas lying and obstruction uniformly are.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 31, 2008 2:35:52 PM
>>>And finally, adultery is not an impeachable or even a criminal offense (in most jurisdictions), whereas lying and obstruction uniformly are.<<<
Though, adultery use to be a crime in many jurisdictions. The greatest hypocrisy during the Lewinsky scandal, however, was the feminazis who decided that they had no problem with the most powerful man in the world having sexual relations with a 21-year-old intern who worked under his ultimate supervision. It just shows how sincere their protests against men in authority misusing that power to curry sexual favors from women over whom they have authority. But then, as they say, politics makes strange bedfellows.
By the way, did you see that the New York chapter of NOW has announced their disappointment in Ted Kennedy (whom they assert that they have stood by in the past despite his own misuse of women) for betraying their cause by supporting an African-American man over a woman for the White House. Apparently, it would be wrong to vote for a man just because he is man, but one must vote for a woman just because she is a woman even if you believe the African-American man would make the better president. I thought they believed that sex doesn't and shouldn't matter. It appears that this principle only works against a man, not in his favor. Again, hypocrisy rears its ugly head.
Posted by: GL | Jan 31, 2008 2:45:41 PM
Hypocrisy is now the deadly sin. If you flaunt your sins brazenly, you are morally superior, because you are not a hypocrite.
Posted by: Gintas | Jan 31, 2008 4:15:40 PM
>>According to the Post-Gazette's website, battles have been pitched over a "94-page itemized list of art and objets, from a million-dollar Magritte to an $1,800 set of asparagus tongs."<<
They got the tongs, but they ain't happy. ;)
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Jan 31, 2008 4:17:45 PM
>>>By the way, did you see that the New York chapter of NOW has announced their disappointment in Ted Kennedy (whom they assert that they have stood by in the past despite his own misuse of women) for betraying their cause by supporting an African-American man over a woman for the White House. <<<
He did to them what he did to all those other women. They can take comfort from the fact that they weren't asleep in the back seat when they crossed that bridge.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 31, 2008 4:24:52 PM
Jim, thanks for cutting through to the Thing That Matters, the center of which is not found in D vs R or liberal vs conservative.
(In place of Thing That Matters, I almost said "the true issue," which shows just how poisoned I am by politispeak.)
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Jan 31, 2008 5:21:54 PM
Poor Richard Mellon. A Scaife-goat if there ever was one!
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 31, 2008 5:45:03 PM
Time once again to be the skunk at the garden party! :-)
Stuart wrote:
“It was not so much Clinton's adultery that bothered us, but his fundamental disdain for and abuse of women extending back many years, combined with his use of official office to intimidate witnesses, obstruct justice and commit perjury. Say what you want about Giuliani, nobody every accused him of rape (let alone CREDIBLY accused him of it). Nobody every accused Giuliani of harassing the women with whom he had affairs, nor does Giuliani seem to have been attracted to the kind of callow, one-night stands that mark Clinton's behavior.
“Finally, Giuliani had the decency to divorce his wives after their marriages failed, whereas Bubba and Lady MacBeth seem to have a modus vivendi that turns a blind eye to his pecadillos in return for his support of her political ambitions. You choose which form of behavior is more reprehensible.
“Adultery is a sin. And like all sins, it is a fact of life. It is a fact of American history that more than one of our Presidents and leading statesmen (i.e., dead politicians) were guilty of this sin. So, is Thomas Jefferson expunged from fasti because of Sally Hemmings? What about Grover Cleveland? Franklin Roosevelt (who was at his side when he had his fatal stroke at Warm Springs? Hint -- NOT Eleanor). Ike had his Kay Summersby, JFK had bimbos galore (he was apparently Bubba's role model). Nancy Reagan, lest we forget, was not Wife Number One.
“On the other hand, who is responsible for Bubba's "bimbo eruptions", if not Bubba himself, with the complicity of Lady MacBeth?”
Well, Stuart, your royal or editorial “we”) or “us” in this case speaks for yourself but not for me. I strongly dissent with several points here.
First, Clinton has been accused of seduction but not (credibly, at least) of rape.
Second, adultery is indeed a sin. But your argument here implies that Guiliani’s adulteries are less sins than Clinton’s. Apart from partisan political preferences, why should anyone buy into that? On the contrary, it bothers me just as much as did Clinton’s, and Giuliani's moral standard is little or no higher than Clinton's.
Third, your third paragraph mixes apples, oranges, and unsubstantiated speculation and innuendo. I for one have never found the charge of adultery against Ike credible. And while FDR had his Lucy Mercer, there is again no credible evidence that he was engaged in adultery at Warm Springs when he died. Jefferson and Cleveland were guilty of fornication, not adultery (with Jefferson’s having an implicit exploitative dimension to it), and Cleveland courageously assumed responsibility to support a child by a widow that was not clearly his in order to spare the reputations of several other men who were married. Reagan, unlike Giuliani, was not conducting an adulterous affair with wife #2 while married to wife #1. (Ditto for McCain.) Furthermore, none of the actual or alleged conduct of all the preceding occurred while they were in office. So, apart from JFK (and Harding, whom you failed to mention), none of these is really comparable to either Clinton or Giuliani, both of whom sinned much more severely.
It is also worth remarking that, with the exceptions of Jefferson and Cleveland (both of whose failings occurred years before becoming president), all of the known sexual pecadillos of U.S. presidents have been subsequent to 1920. In other words, the highest office of our nation was virtually free from this grave sin and scandal for its first 130 years. That is worth pondering in considering the decline we presently witness in the moral fabric of our nation.
Fourth – and I expect I’ll get some heated disagreement here – as much as I detest the Clintons both politically and personally, the charge that Bill and Hillary have a “modus vivendi that turns a blind eye to his pecadillos in return for his support of her political ambitions” and that Bill engages in them with the complicity of Hillary is an act of judgmentalism contrary to Matt. 7:1-5 and Romans 2. Your scenario is possible and plausible, but also unproven. It is also equally possible that Bill and Hillary do love one another, or at least that Hillary loves Bill, and out of that love made a painful and self-sacrificial decision to remain married to him. (A mixture of the two is also possible.) None of us is party to the inner workings of the Clinton’s marriage, and lacking hard evidence, the absolute demands of Christian charity, to our enemies as well as our friends, requires us to given them the benefit of the doubt on that score. It is all too easy, when we oppose and despise someone, to let our imaginations and suspicions run riot, and impute to our foes without sufficient evidence sins of which they are innocent in addition to the sins of which they are demonstrably guilty.
Moreover, while the Matthean exception arguably permits divorce in the case of adultery, it does not mandate it, and the prophet Hosea is an instance of the husband who takes back his wife despite her whoredoms. I have always been disturbed that so many conservatives who claim to uphold the permanence of marriage and oppose divorce virtually demanded that Hillary divorce Bill instead, and attack her for not so doing.
In sum, Bill’s adultery and perjury alone, apart from his political beliefs and positions, are sufficient grounds on which to reject him. And Hillary’s political beliefs and positions are sufficient grounds on which to reject her, without any need to make unproven and unprovable personal accusations against her. I say all this not becasue I have any sentimental or chivalrous notions regarding Bill or Hillary, but because of clear Scriptural standards on how to treat even those who would do us evil.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Jan 31, 2008 7:39:47 PM
>>>First, Clinton has been accused of seduction but not (credibly, at least) of rape.<<<
The accusation was credible enough for US, thanks. And WE believe the allegation.
>>>Second, adultery is indeed a sin. But your argument here implies that Guiliani’s adulteries are less sins than Clinton’s. Apart from partisan political preferences, why should anyone buy into that? On the contrary, it bothers me just as much as did Clinton’s, and Giuliani's moral standard is little or no higher than Clinton's.<<<
There are sins that are due to weaknesses of the flesh, and then there are those which are due to pride and vainglory. Giuliani's appear to me the former, Clinton's the latter. The Desert Fathers understood full well that all men sin, but sins of the spirit are worse than sins of the flesh.
>>>And while FDR had his Lucy Mercer, there is again no credible evidence that he was engaged in adultery at Warm Springs when he died.<<<
That FDR had an affair with Lucy Mercer is just a fact. That he told Eleanor he would never see her again is also a fact. That Lucy Mercer was at FDR's side when he suffered a stroke is also a fact. That FDR's daughter conspired with him to facilitate that relationship is not only a fact, but says reams about Eleanor Roosevelt. Whether a man in FDR's condition in 1945 could physically consummate the affair is, from a moral perspective, irrelevant.
I'll cede the point on Cleveland, who was a bachelor, but not on Jefferson, in deference to the Eastern Christian understanding of marriage as perduring beyond death.
>>>It is also equally possible that Bill and Hillary do love one another, or at least that Hillary loves Bill, and out of that love made a painful and self-sacrificial decision to remain married to him. <<<
Anything is, i suppose, possible--but this scenario flies in the face of the evidence, not to mention a serious YUCK factor.
>>>Moreover, while the Matthean exception arguably permits divorce in the case of adultery, it does not mandate it, and the prophet Hosea is an instance of the husband who takes back his wife despite her whoredoms. I have always been disturbed that so many conservatives who claim to uphold the permanence of marriage and oppose divorce virtually demanded that Hillary divorce Bill instead, and attack her for not so doing.<<<
It is significant that adultery is one of the handful of reasons for which the Orthodox Church will recognize a divorce and allow remarriage of the innocent party. There are also canons (for clergy, admittedly) that REQUIRE a priest who learns of his wife's infidelity to divorce her or leave the ministry. Either way, it certainly does appear that Hillary Clinton acts more as an enabler of her husband's affairs than a woman affronted and humiliated by them.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jan 31, 2008 8:23:49 PM
"It is also equally possible that Bill and Hillary do love one another, or at least that Hillary loves Bill,..."
Um, guys, would you mind specifying Bill "C"? Some of us are a little sensitive about these things....
Posted by: Bill R | Jan 31, 2008 11:05:20 PM
Good thing Hosea wasn't an Orthodox priest, then.
I also think that the Ike and Summersby thing is, at best, innuendo.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Feb 1, 2008 7:41:30 AM
The rape charge was very credible. It is to the eternal shame of the professional feminists that they sided with Clinton over that. It's of a piece with their lack of interest in oppressed Muslim women -- anything that would help President Bush or the vast right wing conspiracy is off limits to them.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Feb 1, 2008 7:55:36 AM
>>>I also think that the Ike and Summersby thing is, at best, innuendo.<<<
The typical U.S. soldier overseas in World War II had sexual liaisons with an average of four different women. If Ike limited his affections to Kay Summersby, he was a paragon of fidelity. Patton, for his part, was widely believed to be having an affair with his niece. His wife threatened to leave him several times because of it. Soldiers are many things. Models of chastity generally isn't one of them. Or, as Kipling put it, "Single men in barracks don't grow into plaster saints".
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Feb 1, 2008 7:58:17 AM
By that logic, it's a wonder every man hasn't committed adultery. But if you take Ike at his word to his wife, who asked directly, he didn't have sexual relations with her. There is no direct evidence. So why assume he did?
Might he have been emotionally dependent upon her (as the only woman in a sea of men with whom he regularly dealt)? Sure.
On the other hand, look at someone like LBJ who had a history of adultery. He once boasted that he had more women "by accident" than JFK had on purpose. There is no corresponding proof, though, in the Eisenhower case.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Feb 1, 2008 8:28:34 AM
I meant evidence, not proof.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Feb 1, 2008 8:29:21 AM
>>>By that logic, it's a wonder every man hasn't committed adultery.<<<
Some of us just don't hold up our end.
>>.But if you take Ike at his word to his wife, who asked directly, he didn't have sexual relations with her. There is no direct evidence. So why assume he did?<<<
A combination of circumstantial evidence and a low opinion of human nature, I suppose. Ike was under tremendous pressure. He chain-smoked close to a half dozen packs a day. He put in crushing hours. And I for one totally understand the need he might have for the refuge of a personal relationship. I've known lots of soldiers, sailors and airmen, and read the personal reflections of many more. There is a very real tendency to compartmentalize one's life into "at home" and "on deployment" boxes. Add the risk of imminent death (or at least professional disgrace) to the inherent loneliness of the situation, and extracurricular activities become understandable, if not necessarily foregiveable.
Regarding the morals of the typical GI, check out the VD rates for U.S. troops in the various theaters of operation. Also check into the reason why the government would hand out condoms to troops going on furlough, and why some commanders felt it necessary to actually run licensed brothels for the troops (even the puritanical Bernard Law Montgomery felt the need to do this for British troops in North Africa). The biddies back home were appalled, and most U.S. commanders had to cease the practice--but then VD rates skyrocketed once more.
>>>But if you take Ike at his word to his wife, who asked directly, he didn't have sexual relations with her. There is no direct evidence. So why assume he did?<<<
Well, in the first place, I believe that Ike did love Mamie, and wanted to spare her distress. Second, Ike the soldier had the ability to compartmentalize his life, and the Mamie box and the Kate box were entirely separate from each other. Had Mamie and Kate been together in England or the States, then the affair would not have happened. Finally, and definitely a tertiary consideration, in the Old Army of which Ike was very much a part, divorce was career suicide for an officer. And under the amiable surface, Ike was ambition personified. You don't rise from obscure LTC in the War Plans division to Supreme Allied Commander in three years without that kind of ruthless drive.
>>>On the other hand, look at someone like LBJ who had a history of adultery. He once boasted that he had more women "by accident" than JFK had on purpose. There is no corresponding proof, though, in the Eisenhower case.<<<
Ike and Jack Kennedy were scoundrels, but Ike was a decent guy. And therein lies the difference.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Feb 1, 2008 9:55:46 AM
I'm familiar with the early history of antibiotics and somewhat familiar with their use. Churchill authorized the use of penicillin (discovered by the British--thank you Fleming & Florey--but eventually made in large quantities during WWII only by the US) to treat the troops. For what, forsooth? Infected wounds, certainly, but primarily venereal diseases acquired in (at first) Italy.
I don't have a high view of human nature, but I do think that Ike's character shouldn't be tarnished on so *little* evidence. Sure, if you *know* that he committed adultery, all of what you say is plausible. But you don't know he committed adultery and using a plausibility argument as evidence for it, is hardly fair.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Feb 1, 2008 10:27:29 AM
I'm with Gene on this. Ike certainly appears the have had the opportunity, but whether he actually took advantage of it we do not know. I don't believe we should assume the worst.
Posted by: GL | Feb 1, 2008 11:01:09 AM
The issue is this: if it did turn out to be true, it would not diminish my opinion of Eisenhower as man, general or president (though I admit I have very mixed feelings about Ike's generalship). I don't expect my leaders, whether political or military, to be plaster saints, "for there is no man who lives and does not sin". I find in my old age I am a very forgiving kind of person, willing to overlook a range of personal foibles and failings in others provided that the essential strength of character and virtue is there. Eisenhower was an essentially good man, put into an incredibly unique position for which no one would have considered him qualified in 1940, and he performed magnificently. He went on to be a far better president than we had any right to expect. If he had lapses along the way, I'm quite willing to overlook them, for they are not typical of the man.
On the other hand, we have some people like Bill Clinton, for whom such lapses are the rule rather than the exception, and whose careers and personal lives reflect that fact. And in them, i am less forgiving, because theirs is an essentially narcissistic exercise--it really is all about them. I go back to the distinction between sins of the flesh and sins of the spirit, and find the latter far more dangerous and difficult to overlook.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Feb 1, 2008 11:44:55 AM
Finally, Giuliani had the decency to divorce his wives after their marriages failed,
Why is divorcing your wife 'decent'? And why are you lapsing into the passive voice.
Posted by: Art Deco | Feb 2, 2008 3:14:52 PM
Another reason not to like Huc
Huck Looks for Black Helicopters [Mark R. Levin]
This is incredible. Mike Huckabee accuses Sean Hannity, who has announced he will vote for Mitt Romney on Tuesday, of being influenced by Bain Capital, which Huckabee says owns Sean's network — Clear Channel.
First, the facts. Bain is trying to buy Clear Channel, or parts of it. Clear Channel does own many radio stations. Sean appears on many of their stations, as do many of us. But Sean's syndication partner is ABC Radio Networks, which was recently acquired by Citadel Broadcasting.
So, not only does Huckabee get his facts wrong, like most conspiracy kooks, he makes a scurrilous charge — in his usual matter-of-fact way — and then admits he really doesn't know. Here's the video.
Not enough attention is given this tendency we've seen from Huckabee. In South Carolina, where the Confederate flag issue was largely settled, he brought up during campaign stops to agitate for support. It was utterly irresponsible act. And then there was his devil-worship line about the Mormon faith, which was intended to raise questions about Romney's religion.
This is disgraceful stuff.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Feb 2, 2008 3:22:49 PM
>>>Why is divorcing your wife 'decent'? <<<
It's more decent than flaunting your infidelities in her face. Were Bill and Hillary Roman Catholic, Bill's chronic inability to keep it in his pants would be seen as a manifestation of a "defect of intent", which would allow for the nullification of the marriage; i.e., no marriage in fact existed.
If they were Orthodox, Bill's philandering would give Hillary the justification to divorce him AND would give her permission (as the aggrieved party) to remarry within the Church. Somehow, I don't think this matters much to either of them.
>>>And why are you lapsing into the passive voice.<<<
I was feeling transgressive, OK?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Feb 2, 2008 3:26:55 PM
No dice on several counts, Stuart.
To begin, a relevant background personal anecdote.
Some 20 years ago at my parish in Chicago I foolishly retailed to the late Fr. William Deutsch (of blessed memory) some hearsay that another priest in the diocese was gay. He sharply and properly cut me down to size with the retort, "Really? Show me the pictures." Sin properly chastised and lesson learned.
So, Stuart, enough of the suppositions, suspicions, and innuendoes. If you want to make these various allegations against past and present figures, show us the pictures.
Now to the main topic --
First, what "appears" to you to be the difference between Giuliani and Clinton is merely your subjective perception and prejudice. The issue here is not one of sins of the flesh vs. those of the spirit (we all recognize that distinction) but of judgment that a specific sin has been committed at all. And the standard for that (as the Church fathers also recognized) is objective proof or strong evidence. This is the point that Gene and GL as well as I are trying to make to you. You present no proof or hard evidence whatsoever in making your differentiaotn between Giuliani and Clinton; it apparently reflects only your political prejudices. Also, since every sin of the flesh has an underlying sin of the spirit, you don't get Giuliani off the hook there either.
Second, you present no credible evidence for the rape charge against Clinton. (I had never even heard of the charge until it was mentioned on this thread, which makes me even more doubtful of it, and I believe I can truly say that I keep myself well informed politically.) Show us the pictures.
And your "we" and "us" still speaks only for you. Screaming at me with capital letters does not impress me at all.
Third, the same goes for your innuendoes about Eisenhowever. Where is your hard, confirmable, objective proof or strong evidence? Show us the pictures, or the smoking gun letters.
Your invocation of an average of four sexual partners per GI in WW II and rates of VD as possible evidence is simply an obvious instance of the fallacy of division (i.e., if X is true of group Y as a whole, then X must also be true of every member of group Y). I too have a low estimate of human nature. But such a low estimate does *not* entitle me, or you, or anyone, to make accusations of sin against another person where hard evidence is lacking. To do so is an act of judgmentalism, contrary to Matt. 7:11-5 and Romans 2, among other passages. As Gene and GL and I keep pointing out, the issue here is not just one of forgiveness, but of making judgments in the first place.
Fourth, as for Roosevelt, this is the only instance where you may have a case. But even so, your series of "facts" does not again add up to firm proof of subsequent adultery by FDR again. Show us the pictures.
Fifth, as for your statement re: Bill and Hillary that "this scenario flies in the face of the evidence, not to mention a serious YUCK factor" -- again, you present *no* objective proof or evidence whatsoever, not one scintilla, that Hillary enables or facilitates Bill's adulteries. Show us the pictures, or provide the tapes or letters.
And likewise your "yuck factor" is once again only a purely subjective response on your part. And who made you judge and jury of the Clinton's marriage in the place of God anyway?
Sixth, as to your invocation re: Jefferson of "the Eastern Christian understanding of marriage as perduring beyond death" and "canons (for clergy, admittedly) that REQUIRE a priest who learns of his wife's infidelity to divorce her or leave the ministry" -- well, here we have something most peculiar, that requires unpacking at some length (and may inadvertantly hijack this thread in a completely unintended direction).
First, with the possible exception of certain ones from the 7 ecumencial councils, canons generally are not part of the Tradition. Most are temporally or geographically limited in application and authority and do not meet the bar of the Vincentian canon. On a previous thread I made a distinction between principles, rules, and regulations. Canons belong to the realm of regulations, the lowest order. The burden of proof rests with you to show that this particular canon is one that is actually constitutive of the Tradition of the Church.
Second, you are the one who, when a Western Christian in a debate with you invokes his theological understanding of e.g., marriage, loudly protests against it as an attempt to force Western Tradition upon the East, whereas the Eastern Church has its own Tradition. I'll leave aside discussing the dubious and all too convenient dichotomization of the single Tradition of the undivided Church this entails, and similary obvious equivocation between "Tradition "and "tradition", and accept that claim here for the sake of argument. I will therefore simply note that the force of this argument is to assert that the Western Tradition is of no authority, application, or even relevance to the Eastern Church, and consequently that no Western Christian has any right to pronounce any judgment regarding any person or event peculiar to the Eastern Church.
If so, then the reverse holds true as well, and your invocations of the Eastern understanding of marriage and Eastern canons on divorce re: Jefferson and the Clintons are likewise of no authority, application, or relevance, since they were and are members of the Western Church. And, as an Eastern Christian, you consequently have no right to pronounce any judgment regarding them, or any other person or event in the Western Church. By your own logic, you have completely disqualified yourself here.
Third, I'll bite a potentially contentious theological bullet here as well. A canon for clergy that requires them to divorce, rather than merely to legally separate from, adulterous wives, or else to leave the ministry, is (as Gene implicitly pointed out regarding Hosea) as good an instance as any of Corban, of setting the traditions of men in place of the commandments of God. Canons do not belong to the infallibility or indefectability of the Church, and some (both in the East and West), however well intentioned, were and are wrong and may even be sinful. (The RC Church canons re: handling of priests guilty of sexual abuse may be a case in point, but I'm not informed on that subject.) The NT Scriptures may allow divorce as a permissible option, but they do not mandate it. And it is nothing short of perverse for a Church and Tradition that claims an "understanding of marriage as perduring beyond death" to *require* divorce of anyone -- not to mention sanctioning what is then necessarily by definition spiritual polygamy by allowing some divorced persons to remarry other people, and in a Church ceremony to boot.
But since my EO priest friends have told me in the past that you consistently misrepresent EO teachings on marriage, I'll reserve the possibility that such holds true here as well, and assume I'm arguing only against your idiosyncratic representation of the matter.
In any case, I'd rather stick to the point of the present argument -- that, barring objective proof or very hard evidence, you have no moral right to accuse Eisenhower, the Clintons, etc. of specific sins. If you have a justification from the Scriptures or a consensus of the fathers for a right of Christians generally to make such judgments in the absence of such proof or evidence, please post that here.
As a postscript, I'm waging a parallel argument off-line with a conservative friend who is making similar unsubstantiated personal charges against McCain. I can and do reject the Clintons, or Obama, or Ron Paul, etc., on the basis of their actual political beliefs and practices, and the types of people who support them. I do not need, and am thoroughly put off by, any resort to ad hominem argument and innuendo, no matter how much I detest someone politically. And believe me, I do detest the Clintons politically.
------------------------------------------
To return to my previous suggestion that Obama may be a worse political threat than Hillary -- the widely respected nonpartisan National Journal has just issued its annual rankings of the voting records of members of Congress. (It therefore does not include Romney, Huckabee, or Giuliani.) The article also includess extensive comments and links to what votes were evaluated and how. (To access records for past years one must be a subscriber.)
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
Hillary was ranked as the 16th most liberal member of the Senate. Who was #1? Obama. Might I suggest that our common political detestaton of Hillary not blind us to the fact that, underneath the affable, smiling, peppy exterior, Obama promises to be even worse?
Since McCain missed more than half of the evaluated votes this year, he was not ranked this year. However, the following link gives a series of annual scores and overall composite score for all the members of Congress running for Republican presidential nominations:
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/06republicans.pdf
McCain came in as the second most liberal Republican senator. Who ranked as the most liberal, by a country mile? Ron Paul.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Feb 2, 2008 4:11:46 PM
>>> Might I suggest that our common political detestaton of Hillary not blind us to the fact that, underneath the affable, smiling, peppy exterior, Obama promises to be even worse?<<<
On the other hand, if elected, he is likely to be as ineffectual as Jack Kennedy was--and without a Lyndon Johnson to show him how the machine operates. In which case, Camelot II may play out much like Camelot I--lots of glamor and glitz, not much substance at the end of the day. One wonders if, after a complete first term, Obama might not be as deeply in a hole as Kennedy was the day before he went to Dallas.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Feb 2, 2008 5:43:36 PM
>And then there was his devil-worship line about the Mormon faith, which was intended to raise questions about Romney's religion.
Levin needs to limit himself to areas where he has some understanding...
Posted by: David Gray | Feb 2, 2008 6:31:42 PM
>The NT Scriptures may allow divorce as a permissible option, but they do not mandate it. And it is nothing short of perverse for a Church and Tradition that claims an "understanding of marriage as perduring beyond death" to *require* divorce of anyone -- not to mention sanctioning what is then necessarily by definition spiritual polygamy by allowing some divorced persons to remarry other people, and in a Church ceremony to boot.
Amen.
Posted by: David Gray | Feb 2, 2008 6:34:32 PM
>>>The NT Scriptures may allow divorce as a permissible option, but they do not mandate it. And it is nothing short of perverse for a Church and Tradition that claims an "understanding of marriage as perduring beyond death" to *require* divorce of anyone -- not to mention sanctioning what is then necessarily by definition spiritual polygamy by allowing some divorced persons to remarry other people, and in a Church ceremony to boot.<<<
The canon does not mandate divorce, it simply requires the affected clergyman to choose, because the ministry is an ecclesial, not personal charism, and a priest wearing horns would find it difficult to minister effectively to his flock. If he so loves his wife and wishes to forgive her, he may do so--but not remain an ordained minister.
On the other matter, believe what you will. The Eastern Churches have always maintained the indissoluability of sacramental marriage, while as early as Basil the Great it also allowed for non-sacramental remarriage in a limited range of circumstances. Those who expect absolute consistency and rationality from Christianity have chosen the wrong faith. Theology is not a science, but contemplation of a mystery.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Feb 3, 2008 6:46:26 AM
>> a priest wearing horns would find it difficult to minister effectively to his flock.
Huh? Why? Don't a good number of the flock have horns as well?
Posted by: DGP | Feb 3, 2008 6:53:25 AM
>>>Huh? Why? Don't a good number of the flock have horns as well?<<<
Indeed, they do. But the priest is, according to Saint Paul, supposed to be capable of maintaining order in his own household--else how can he maintain order within his parish? That said, do not make the mistake of viewing Eastern Church canons as being objective law; in most instances, they represent signposts and waypoints for those charged with overseeing the Church, who are expected to use their own good judgment on whether to apply them, and if they do, how they should be applied.
Note, for instance, that there is also a canon against priests remarrying, yet on rare occasions (none involving adultery, divorce or abandonment), priests have been allowed to do so: it is within the oikonomia of the bishop.
The entire issue of marriage and the priesthood is covered in Fr. Joseph (Allen)'s anthology "Vested in Grace: Priesthood and Marriage in the Christian East", Holy Cross Orthodox Press (Boston) 2000. It includes excellent essays by Archbishop Peter (d'Huillier) of New York on marriage, sexuality and the priesthood in the first millennium; on canonical aspects of marriage and priesthood in the later Byzantine period and modern periods by Patrick Viscuso. You will find information regarding canonical regulation and practice in these sections. On how to apply them to the problems of priesthood and marriage today, the second section of the book includes essays on the marital status of the clergy, some recommendations, and two excellent bibliographical essays. I don't necessarily agree with where Allen wants to go (as a remarried priest himself, I suspect he feels uncomfortable in his ambiguous position), but the underlying research is quite good.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Feb 3, 2008 7:14:38 AM
By the way, the regulation in question is Canon 8 of the Council of Neocaesarea, which reads as follows:
If the wife of a layman has committed adultery and been clearly convicted, such a husband cannot enter the the ministry; and if she commit adultery after his ordination, he must put her away; but if he retain her, he cannot retain possession of the office with which he has been entrusted.
Archbishop Peter comments on it:
At first sight, such a rule seems very harsh. In order to grasp its rationale, we should try to understand the ethical views of ancient Christianity on the conditions needed for the continuance of the consortium omnis vitae ("sharing the whole life"). Christian thought, of course, was deeply influenced by the Holy Scriptures, and in that perspective the Church Fathers deduced from the concept of the couple's unity that for a husband to continue living with his adulterous wife would amount to sharing her defilement. With such an idea, allowing a cleric to keep his adulterous wife and exercise his sacred functions was hardly conceivable. Zonatas and Balsamon in their commentaries explain adequately the logical basis for the rule, viz., the concept that the cohabitation of the cleric with his adulterous spouse implies a kind of contamination.
With regard to how we can look at such canons today, His Grace stresses the need to contextualize:
Differences in contexts create differences in views. We saw how this accounted for differences in canonical practices as the East and West interpreted differently the very same legislation. No less can be said as we today look back on this history. The Church lived in and ministered to a world far different from our own. Furthermore, the theory proposed at each point regarding ordination and marriage in that history was not always what one would find in the praxis of the Church. But. . . always inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Church in each age, following these first thousand years, necessarily had to make decisions according to the challenges that God placed before her concerning marriage and the priesthood. Sometimes those decisions agreed with those of the earlier age--and sometimes they did not.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Feb 3, 2008 7:48:40 AM
>>>McCain came in as the second most liberal Republican senator. Who ranked as the most liberal, by a country mile? Ron Paul.<<<
Since Ron Paul is not a senator but a House member, I am curious as to who is the most liberal Republican senator.
Posted by: Judy K. Warner | Feb 3, 2008 8:32:47 AM
I'm betting Snowe.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Feb 3, 2008 8:35:31 AM
"Note, for instance, that there is also a canon against priests remarrying, yet on rare occasions (none involving adultery, divorce or abandonment), priests have been allowed to do so: it is within the oikonomia of the bishop."
And yet the priest whom you mention in the next paragraph was allowed to marry, after his wife's death, a divorced woman, a member of his parish and (withal) a friend of his late wife, and to continue to serve as a priest.
Posted by: William Tighe | Feb 3, 2008 8:37:41 AM
"Note, for instance, that there is also a canon against priests remarrying, yet on rare occasions (none involving adultery, divorce or abandonment), priests have been allowed to do so: it is within the oikonomia of the bishop."
And yet the priest whom you mention in the next paragraph was allowed to marry, after his wife's death, a divorced woman, a member of his parish and (withal) a friend of his late wife, and to continue to serve as a priest.
Posted by: William Tighe | Feb 3, 2008 8:38:04 AM
>>>And yet the priest whom you mention in the next paragraph was allowed to marry, after his wife's death, a divorced woman, a member of his parish and (withal) a friend of his late wife, and to continue to serve as a priest.<<<
Note my further comments on Father Joseph Allen, as well as the telling comment by Archbishop Peter:
"Furthermore, the theory proposed at each point regarding ordination and marriage in that history was not always what one would find in the praxis of the Church."
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Feb 3, 2008 12:33:09 PM
Judy,
“Who ranked as the most liberal, by a country mile? Ron Paul.”
My very careless “bad.” I should have written: “Who ranked as the most liberal Republican member of Congress running for president, by a country mile? Ron Paul.”
There are of course several other Republican senators besides Snow whose voting records are more liberal than McCain’s – see the link I previously posted:
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/06republicans.pdf
----------------------
Stuart,
You evade and misrepresent rather than respond to my point, by not quoting my initial statement:
“A canon for clergy that requires them to divorce, rather than merely to legally separate from, adulterous wives, or else to leave the ministry. . . .”
As I indicated, if “putting away” consisted of separation rather than divorce, I would not have a problem with the canon. The problem is with not with mandating divorce absolutely, but with mandating divorce rather than separation even as an alternative. That is simply wrong. Furthermore, on Scriptural grounds (I Cor. 7:10-17 & Matt. 19:3-9) a Christian should not divorce a spouse if the unbelieving or sinning spouse does not desire it, and the party who initiates the divorce proceedings bears the guilt of the sin of adultery – yet another reason the Church should not mandate (rather than permit) divorce for adultery even as a possible alternative.
Also disturbing is your statement “If he so loves his wife and wishes to forgive her, he may do so -- but not remain an ordained minister.” Christians have a choice whether or not to forgive sin?? And a priest is to be required to choose between loving and forgiving a repentant wife and forgiving her?? Your theology of sin and forgiveness is badly in need of remedial work here.
You also do not deal with a point I also have raised previously. When performed by the Church, marriage is by definition a sacrament. To speak of a “non-sacramental marriage” performed by the Church (rather than the state) is not a matter of “mystery” vs. “absolute consistency and rationality” as you wish to pretend, it’s simply hopelessly illogical and contradictory.
You also wrote that the Eastern Church has an "understanding of marriage as perduring beyond death." In writing that you made no distinction between a “sacramental” vs. “non-sacramental” marriage. I therefore may presume that, on your account, you claim *all* marriages are so understood by the Eastern Church – in which case even a putative “non-sacramental” second marriage is on your account spiritual bigamy being sanctioned and practiced by the Church. You’ve also never squared this with the Scriptures themselves, notably Matt. 22:29-30, as I’ve previously asked you to do.
But, as I have said, my EO priest friends tell me that you are not accurately representing the Eastern Orthodox position, and I am taking their word over yours.
“On the other matter, believe what you will.”
Et tu, Brute. :-)
Posted by: James A. Altena | Feb 4, 2008 4:38:10 PM
It's more decent than flaunting your infidelities in her face.
Divorce-and-remarriage is flaunting your infidelities in her face.
Posted by: Art Deco | Feb 4, 2008 5:31:16 PM
Second, you present no credible evidence for the rape charge against Clinton. (I had never even heard of the charge until it was mentioned on this thread, which makes me even more doubtful of it, and I believe I can truly say that I keep myself well informed politically.) Show us the pictures.
The charge was made by a businesswoman from Arkansas named Juanita Broaddrick. It was made publicly and IIRC she was interviewed on television. In her account: as he was leaving the room after having ravished her, he pointed to her bleeding lip, smiled, and said, "you better put some ice on that".
Posted by: Art Deco | Feb 4, 2008 5:36:29 PM
Thank you for the details, Art Deco. But, as I said, where's the credible evidence? Did she file a police report, or have photos taken or lab work done at the time? Were there independent witnesses who saw him at the scene and saw her with the cut on her lip?
Anyone can get on TV and make sensational accusations. Remember the guy who falsely accused Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago of sexually seducing him? (In that instance the slander was finally withdrawn.) Ever read the book of Susannah in the Apocrypha? (Not that Bill Clinton is virtuous as she was, of course.)
Is Bill Clinton capable of rape? I suppose so -- many men are. Did he actually commit it? Let's have the hard evidence. My point remains that as much as we detest someone politically, we must maintain the same standards for proof of guilt regarding our enemies as we would wish to have applied to ourselves.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Feb 5, 2008 4:38:59 AM
>Is Bill Clinton capable of rape? I suppose so -- many men are. Did he actually commit it? Let's have the hard evidence. My point remains that as much as we detest someone politically, we must maintain the same standards for proof of guilt regarding our enemies as we would wish to have applied to ourselves.
I wouldn't put him in prison on the basis of the evidence we have. I would never permit him to be alone with my wife or sister on the basis of the evidence we have.
Posted by: David Gray | Feb 5, 2008 5:08:04 AM
That's a good way to formulate it, David. He certainly couldn't be made a deacon by the standards Paul lays out in his letters to Timothy.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Feb 5, 2008 9:43:03 AM
As David and Gene remind us there is criminal evidence and then there is socially actionable evidence. We have socially actionable evidence since we also have perjury and admitted adultery. He seems to have a rather difficult time with his zipper.
Posted by: Nick | Feb 5, 2008 12:49:56 PM
And yet...there but for the grace of God go us (or at least me). I don't know about you guys but lust has often been a problem for me.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Feb 5, 2008 12:59:43 PM
The above comments led me to reflect on 1 Timothy 2:1-4 (ESV):
"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
How hard it must be for the famous and all those in "high positions" to be saved! But with God, all things are possible. We should give thanks if we are blessed with peaceful and quiet lives, wherein we neither seek nor desire power, fame, or any other "high position."
Thus ends the sermon... ;-)
Posted by: Bill R | Feb 5, 2008 1:27:52 PM
This is a fascinating discussion. I do not think the fathers ever envisioned Christians having a forum for debating who the worst public sinner was. Nor do I think they would be comfortable discussing whose sin was alleged vs. whose was certain. The advice the fathers would give when you hear of this sort of sin is to pray that you not fall into the same sin, and not to condemn them that did.
Posted by: Bob G | Feb 5, 2008 4:19:08 PM
