The Munich allegations against Pope Benedict: unproven and poorly reported

The NY Times' recent story about Pope Benedict focused on records indicating that a sex abuser priest named Fr. Hullermann was transferred while the Pope was Archbishop of Munich 30 years ago. That monstrous cleric abused again and again.

As the allegations of oversight mount, some editorialists see a death knell for Benedict's papacy. But as with Reuters' claims that the Pope is "not intimidated by petty gossip", we see an article with a few facts clothed in uncertainty.

The NY Times article's second paragraph shows only that the then-Archbishop Ratzinger was "copied on a memo" that informed him the priest would be returning to pastoral work. (Of course, before e-mail and digital records, being CC'd meant something very different than today.)

The article continues:

An initial statement on the matter issued earlier this month by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising placed full responsibility for the decision to allow the priest to resume his duties on Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy, the Rev. Gerhard Gruber. But the memo, whose existence was confirmed by two church officials, shows that the future pope not only led a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, approving the transfer of the priest, but was also kept informed about the priest’s reassignment.

Sounds pretty damning. But then the NY Times takes away that certainty:

"What part he played in the decision making, and how much interest he showed in the case of the troubled priest, who had molested multiple boys in his previous job, remains unclear."

The fateful diocesan council meeting is also described as "a busy day" and its minutes "include no references to the actual discussion that day, simply stating that a priest from Essen in need of psychiatric treatment required room and board in a Munich congregation."

To the claim that the relevant memo was unlikely to have ended up on the archbishop's desk, the NYTimes said the judicial vicar of Munich "could not rule out that Cardinal Ratzinger had read it."

The paper adds:

"Father Gruber, the former vicar general, said that he could not remember a detailed conversation with Cardinal Ratzinger about Father Hullermann, but that Father Gruber refused to rule out that 'the name had come up.'"

So we repeatedly hear that it is unclear whether the Pope was informed, but that very uncertainty is being presented as evidence he was in fact informed, especially in sensationalistic rewrites of the NY Times story.

One letter cited by the Times supposedly has a "clear subtext" about the pedophiliac priest's problems and a "clear hint" about this unnatural lusts for boys. But the clarity is only obvious in retrospect, and subtext is precisely what got the Reuters writer in trouble.

It is obvious that damaging circumlocution and "protocol-speak" can infect a chancery, confusing the unwary and providing maneuvering room for a guilty party to cover great flaws. But this does not excuse a journalist's inability to nail down the facts.

The worst story would be that the Pope was informed and was inclined to incompetence, indifference or cover-up.

The Times doesn't show evidence of that, yet it chose to run the damaging story anyway.

The story may have been intended to flush out more sources or to provoke a response from the Vatican. (Or to sell papers, of course.)

Yet it's doubtful the NY Times would have run this story ten years ago. Casting doubt on the actions of a high profile figure requires very good reasons and very solid facts. Since these facts are still in doubt, the best the NY Times can do is hope that an unknown source steps forward or the media firestorm rages on to protect their shoddy reporting from close examination.

Public outrage is often a dial that can be turned up and down. When writers aren't clear about both the facts and their presentation of the facts, that outrage serves neither truth nor justice.

St. Augustine on the culture of a failing empire

As the flaws of the Western Roman Empire became too great to sustain, St. Augustine wrote:

'So long as it [the republic] survives,' they say, 'so long as it prospers, rich in resources, self-confident in victory, or, better still, secure in peace, what difference does it make to us? What matters is that there is money to be made to support our lavish style of life, and to give the stronger their hold over the weaker; that the poor treat the wealthy with compliance, to ensure their daily bread--the poor depending on the patronage of the wealthy for a quiet life, the wealthy calling on the poor for support to boost their public standing. Popularity should accrue not to those whose policies promote public welfare, but to the big providers of public entertainment.

Law should not be rigorous; low indulgences should not be proscribed. Rulers should not bother themselves with getting virtuous subjects, simply quiescent ones. Territories should view their rulers not in the light of moral educators, merely as economic managers and purveyors of satisfactions. It does not matter if they do not seriously respect them, so long as they treat them with a calculating and subservient fear. No one should be liable to court proceedings if he has not infringed or done harm to the property, real estate, or physical safety of another person without consent; but everyone should be free to do with himself, his dependents, and consenting associates exactly what he likes.

Sexual satisfactions should be freely available on the open market for those who want them, especially those who cannot afford to maintain facilities privately. Domestic architecture should be expensive and ornate, to accommodate large and lavish parties where anyone may game and drink all day and night, if he pleases, till he brings it up or sweats it out. The sound of dancing should be heard in every neighborhood, and theaters should be humming with excitement at their coarse amusements and their various brash entertainments.

Should someone disapprove of this perfect contentment, he must expect to meet public hostility; and should someone attempt to reform or abolish it, the spirit of popular freedom must know what to do with him: shut him up, pack him up, beat him up! Religion ought to make a case for itself by guaranteeing and perpetuating these conditions of life for the greatest number of people. Let the gods have all the worship they want, and all the games that they want, to enjoy them with (and at the expense of) their worshipers, just so long as they ensure this satisfactory state of affairs against threat from enemy, plague, or disaster.'

-City of God Book II Chapter 20

---

Perhaps excepting the shameless worship of strength and the poor man's servile compliance before the wealthy, all these vices are clearly dominant today.

Materialism, hedonism, libertarianism, even therapeutic deism. These are not ideologies but vulturous habits of mind that come at times of cultural disaster.

Their only unity comes in alliance against reformist critics.

The West has seen them before. Let us hope their age is coming to an end.

(via the Distributist Review)

Vatican now on Twitter

Joining the social networking trend of 2009, the Vatican has a twitter feed, according to Catholic News Agency.

Its account name is unpoetic but functional: News_Va_en

Having noticed the Italian-language announcement from Vatican Radio by way of Paolo Rodari, I was among the English-language feed's first twenty followers. However, I made the mistake of breaking the news via Twitter alone, not thinking to add a blog entry.

White House tweets bad info on Catholic nuns in health care debate

Here's how Twitter can amplify the consequential media mess accompanying the health care debate.

NETWORK, a group claiming to represent 59,000 Catholic religious sisters, endorses the Senate bill.

The AP reports this endorsement, also reporting their claimed size.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs then tweets the AP story to 38,000 people, calling it an "IMPORTANT HEALTH CARE ENDORSEMENT." (caps his)

At least ten dozen people then repeat the press secretary's information via Twitter.

According to the (unreliable) bit.ly stats for Gibbs' link, the link received 1,735 clicks and was tweeted 100 times. The AP story was shared 234 times on Facebook, where it collected 223 "likes" and 230 comments.

The Catholic bishops' spokeswoman then responds: “The letter had 55 signatories, some individuals, some groups of three to five persons. One endorser signed twice,” she added. “There are 793 religious communities in the United States.”

Let's see if either the AP or Gibbs follow up.

Associated Press: own your mistakes!

Secretary Gibbs: own your tweets!

(American Papist is also on the story. And technically the "nuns" are properly known as religious sisters.)

Twitter: @PressSec, @CnaLive, @AmericanPapist, @kevinjjones

Sen. Ted Harvey debates Kevin Miller's libertarianism

The Independence Institute’s Jon Caldara recently hosted a debate on social conservatism on his PBS KBDI 12 show Independent Thinking.

His two guests were State Sen. Ted Harvey, a Republican representing the south Denver suburb of Highlands Ranch, and Kevin Miller of the National Freedom Initiative, a new think tank.




Miller’s argument, also presented in a November newsletter of the Centennial Institute, held that the national scene was not the proper venue for social conservative policies.

Harvey proved more sophisticated than Miller. In a discussion of prayer in schools, he zeroed in on the contradiction in a libertarianism that would have the federal government forbid localities from acting as they see fit.

Miller floundered at this point, departing from his initial federalism to argue against the specifics of school prayer. This made clear his individualist stand on some local matters as well.

Jon Caldara, a libertarian himself, sniffed out Miller’s superficiality by asking for specific instances of social conservatism on the federal level.

This led Miller to attempt to associate anti-drug laws with social conservatives specifically. Harvey parried by defining that position as a social issue that has broad appeal.
Miller, noting that people disagree on the definition of virtue, simply asserted a principle of freedom except in cases of harm to person or property.

Of course people disagree on the definition of virtue, but they disagree on the definition of “liberty” and “harm” as well. The harm principle risks creating a split between a libertarian public persona and a conservative private life. At worst, the public persona overtakes private conservatism to the point where, as the joke goes, your morals are so private you don’t even impose them on yourself.

One weakness for principled thinkers is a tendency towards ridiculous extremes. One is always ready with an answer, even when one should take into account the particulars of a situation or the possibility that one’s principles are incomplete. Miller tended towards this error, an inevitable risk for a viewpoint capable of full description in an e-mail signature.

For his part, Harvey became stuck repeating the obvious fact that every law is a moral law. This was useful in parrying someone like Miller, but substantial defenses of individual matters are also necessary.

All involved in the discussion were too quick to claim social conservatives as natural allies of fiscal conservatism. They should read Lydia McGrew’s doubts about the existence of social liberals who are fiscal conservatives.

The Independent Thinking disputants seemed only half-conscious of the dominance social conservatism once enjoyed across party lines. Capitalist ideologues’ hatred for the traditional family is likely unknown to the parties.

The association of social conservatism with the Republican Party is in some ways an accident of history. Had feminists decided to stay with the Republicans, or had they not established dominance in the Democrats, social conservatism could have had better bipartisan prospects.

Miller’s National Freedom Initiative will work to keep social conservatives subordinate to libertarian concerns. This may be good for short-term Republican political prospects. However, this will hinder the long-term prospects for social conservatism.

Miller was more eager to make converts. Sen. Harvey’s hands-off attitude towards localities is useless if no one is willing to make positive arguments in favor of conservative ideals and customs.

Harvey himself realized this, saying “The reason why we have the problems we do is because the left has been successful in their virtue politics and the right has been… absent.”

Among the standard libertarian arguments repeated by Miller was the idea that social conservatives’ desire to “legislate virtue” provides an opening for left-wing attempts to give their own views the force of law. His Centennial Institute essay even suggests that the attempts to ban homosexual counterfeits of marriage could be a trap that allows “secularists” to pass laws branding “opposite-sex marriage as a ‘hate’ institution.”

This naïve libertarianism is an abdication of reason and politics. The fanatical secularist must be opposed on his own terms. Conservative laws may make secularists more zealous to overturn them, but they also create an obstacle to their progress. If they were still fighting public obscenity laws, they would be too distracted and powerless to shut down Catholic adoption programs.

The decline of social conservatism, not its non-libertarian principles, created the opportunity for leftist expansion. The collapse of the family and the decline of religion have taken place alongside the growth of the welfare state and the inability to self-govern.

Libertarians were accessories to these lamentable happenings, part of their long tradition of political obliviousness.

Some now support same-sex civil unions, or even “marriages,” as extensions of personal liberty. This allows liberals to pass a non-discrimination law at the city level barring government contractors from refusing benefits to civil partnerships. Then a few years later at the state level, they mandate that all businesses provide benefits to these civil unions.

In response comes a paltry libertarian protest, without the self-awareness that they helped bring this predictable government expansion to pass by rejecting conservative objections.

Without conservatism institutionalized in private organizations, businesses and governments, there are few bases of power to capably oppose cultural leftism. Harvey, though often a fine advocate for his cause, showed little awareness about building this institutional conservatism.

Miller showed strong, if unwitting, dedication to eroding its foundations. He has proposed that conservatives self-limit themselves when their liberal opponents show no such willingness. That is unilateral disarmament and a recipe for continued defeat in the culture wars.

Twitter: @joncaldara @TedHarvey @kevinjjones

Is Hispanic family unity being targeted by banking interests?

A disturbing comment on an interview with Patrick Deneen:

My brother once worked for a bank in the American Midwest. He was present at a meeting in which the board, all serious, believing Christians, discussed the need to increase lending opportunities in the Hispanic community by breaking down family ties. The Hispanic habit of communal saving and paying in cash was incompatible with the growth of bank profits.

Latino family breakdown is a problem enough as it is. Writers like Heather MacDonald are keen to warn about the family problems of Hispanic immigrants, especially as their children or grandchildren assimilate to the toxic wasteland produced by the pop culture industries.

This comment suggests there are more subtle business pressures on the Latino family, pressures which may also have been applied to all families.

The American consumer economy constantly tries to remove private economic functions into the public market, where they can be monitored, taxed, and made more efficient in quantifiable terms.

But the family should not be a mere locus for consumption. The good habits and strong bonds formed in extended familial financial planning surely have an importance we don't recognize until they are gone.

I would appreciate any leads to material about the anti-family strategies of the banks, which may not even realize how destructive their work can be.

Family dysfunction link to welfare causes kerfuffle in Colo. legislature

Last week when Rep. Spencer Swalm (R-Centennial) discussed the problem of family formation and welfare expenses. This inevitably sparked another minor controversy in the state legislature.

"Don't have kids out of wedlock," he said from the House floor. "If you're married, if at all possible, trya to stay married. Those are ways to lift families out of poverty."

He added that intact families do better than broken families, whose children are " almost guaranteed to be in poverty."

Democratic House Speaker Terrance Carroll reinterpreted the comments as an insult to "every single person who lives in poverty, who works their butt off every single day just to keep their head above water."

Democrats then pointed to Speaker Carroll's outlier success as not very convincing disproof of Swalm.

Bored by typing internet comments and not-quite-finished blog posts, I tried my hand at writing a letter to the editor. The Post now limits writers to 150 words, but my reply was published yesterday:

State Rep. Spencer Swalm’s commonsense anti-poverty advice to marry before having kids provoked ignorant outrage. The link between the decline of marriage and the rise of poverty is well-established.

Hollywood feminism pretends marriage can be ignored or redefined at will. But the traditional family is best for men, women and children.

Intact families benefit everyone. Americans were once forthright in preparing young people to be good husbands and wives. We told them to avoid premarital sex because of its moral, emotional and biological consequences.

Now, like an uncaring absent father, we just tell them to get condoms, abortions and welfare packages. We praise poor single mothers more than the hard-working housewives and upstanding husbands whose taxes support them.

Let’s build a family-friendly economy, politics and culture that reward those who have done right, or people will just keep doing wrong.

The word limit is excellent at encouraging confident writing, but it also risks reducing comments to bumper sticker sentiments.

Unfortunately, the Post cut my plug of Allan Carlson and ProFam.org, one of the best resources on the state of the family and family policy I know.

Carlson has discussed the social conservatism of the New Deal, much of which would be anathema to the party activists today.

While socially conservative government policy may have once been native to the Democrats, it is now homeless. Even Republicans who do not tend towards morally autistic libertarianism are incapable of designing social policy and a bureaucracy capable of benefiting married motherhood and fatherhood.

Connie Dover will go to the West

The 21st Annual Colorado Cowboy Poetry Gathering, a continuing Stock Show tradition, was held at the Arvada Center last month.

Among the performers were Connie Dover, who accompanied NPR regular Skip Gorman. Despite her hoarse throat, the quality was undeniable.

A sample of her work in the Celtic genre:


The Western half of "Country & Western" has always outperformed the southern Country variety, but its popularity peaked some time ago.

It was unfortunate the Arvada Center performance only attracted an older audience. There were even jokes about Will Rogers' horse Trigger, who died in 1965.

The performers' songs of lyrical landscapes may still have a hold on the outdoorsman crowd, but without a revival the genre will pass into further obscurity. Its last pop culture high point was probably Don Edwards' song "Coyotes" being played at the close of the documentary "Grizzly Man."

Here is Edwards performing live:



Alongside its enjoyable but predictable nostalgia, the genre has too much real emotion and dependence upon rural nature to succeed. Its frequent criticism of our technological, history-hating age isn't exactly a marketer's dream.

Fred Phelps' crew to "protest" Boulder marriage debate tonight

Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church has announced it is protesting outside the venue of the debate between Maggie Gallagher and Jonathan Rauch tonight.

This will have the benefit of making Ms. Gallagher look like the moderate she is.

However, the debate will show a gaping hole between Gallagher's position and Phelps' that needs to be filled in public debates like this. You know the same-sex "marriage" debate is artificially limited because there are no open, non-kook representatives from the 40% of Americans who still support anti-s-domy laws.

Poor media coverage is pro-life leaders' own fault

This story happens every year. The mainstream media doesn’t cover the March for Life enough. And when it does, its coverage is incompetent or biased.

These complaints happen every year too. Why is that?

It’s not the journalists’ job to report on every event in Washington. They have a world to cover.

However, it is the job of pro-life leaders to secure as much accurate and favorable media coverage as possible. Media companies need to be convinced the March for Life is important.

Decades into the March for Life, they aren't convinced yet.

Are pro-life groups just dispatching a single press release to busy newsrooms and expecting reporters to notice? Sometimes it seems that way.

If CNN anchor Rick Sanchez doesn’t know who is sponsoring our largest event of the year, it's our own fault for not using the system right. Let’s stop coasting on lazy and self-excusing accusations of media bias.

Pro-lifers donate lots of money to support our movement's leaders. If we're still complaining about media coverage every year, these leaders aren’t succeeding at their jobs.

We need an audit to find out what we’re doing wrong.

EWTN is not enough. What are leaders in the pro-life movement doing to build contacts, working relationships and even friendships with mainstream reporters?

And what are the rank-and-file pro-lifers doing to make their leaders lead?

====

UPDATE: Sum of Change was doing some reporting and passes on a
a flyer to March bus captains that reads:

it is good to suggest to your Marchers that they
refrain from giving names and addresses to unknown persons,
and refrain from answering personal questions from people who
are, for instance, “with the press” or making a “survey.”

That blog also says:

So we are covering their event. However, after seeing the interviews, I can tell why they instruct marchers not to talk with the press: these folks have no idea what they are talking about. A literal quote, "We don't have to have facts or figures."

While it would be unfair to expect the average Marcher to be a good spokesman, wouldn't a little media preparation on the long bus ride be a helpful pasttime?

Twitter: @kevinjjones

Maggie Gallagher and Jonathan Rauch to debate same-sex 'marriage' at CU-Boulder

UPDATE: This could get interesting.* Fred Phelps' crew is heading to Boulder for the debate.

*As James Poulos has noted: "The interesting is not the good."
====

On Monday, January 25, the Aquinas Institute for Catholic Thought, the intellectual outreach arm of the St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Center, will hold the third annual “Great Debate” on the University of Colorado campus and host nationally-known speakers Jonathan Rauch and Maggie Gallagher for a debate entitled “Should the Government Approve Same-Sex Marriage?”

Last year’s “Great Debate” featured Dinesh D’Souza and Christopher Hitchens [KJJ: Not that great] and drew a crowd of over 2,400 people to CU’s campus to hear the debate on “Atheism vs. Religion.” Over 2,000 people are expected to attend again this year and tickets are currently on sale. Tickets are $10 per adult, $5 per student and can be purchased at www.thomascenter.org or at any King Soopers.

Monday, January 25, 2010 at 7pm
University of Colorado-Boulder, Macky Auditorium Cristol Chemistry 140
All are welcome.

“The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of engaging in public debate on important ideas and issues of the time, even those controversial in nature. Given the growing national interest in the same-sex marriage debate, the Catholic Center has decided to provide a forum to openly discuss the merits of both sides of this issue, on the campus of Colorado’s flagship university,” said Father Kevin Augustyn, director of Campus Ministry at the St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Center.

“In the tradition of the Catholic Center’s patron saint, St. Thomas Aquinas, who intelligently and fervently engaged the ideas and controversies of his day with age and grace, we hope to provide a stimulating intellectual discussion on the same-sex marriage debate.”

(Source: Jan. 12 Thomas Center Press Release)

---

The first debate featured Peter Kreeft and David Boonin on the ethics of abortion. See too my personal take on the debate and the fine work of the Thomas Aquinas Catholic Center.


Twitter: NOMTweets ThomasCenter kevinjjones

Denver First Things readers' group to hold first 2010 meeting

With the happy link from the First Thoughts blog to the post below, I will take the opportunity to note that the Denver First Things Readers' Group will meet this Tuesday at 7:00 in the west Denver home of our organizer.

His contact details are at the FirstThings.com ROFTERS page.

Twitter cross-references: @MicahMattix @ROFTERS @DRDRF @kevinjjones

Walker Percy documentary in the works

The trailer:



Percy's novels and essays drew upon the oddity and despondency of modern life. At a time when every basic need seems met, when man can spy across the globe and amuse himself to death, man can think himself more miserable and solitary than ever.

In this paradox of success, Percy saw proof of man's transcendence. There the novelist found leverage for a Christian, existentialist and uniquely American aesthetic.

A schoolkid echoes Holbein and gets suspended

In the latest oddity of our fear-driven age, a second grader in Taunton, Mass. has been suspended over a drawing of Jesus and told to undergo psychological evaluation (at his parents' expense).

His artwork:




"...because he put Xs in the eyes of Jesus, the teacher was alarmed and they told the parents they thought it was violent," an educational consultant with the Associated Advocacy Center told the Taunton Gazette.

It may be too effusive to say so, but this child's iconography shows a deep theological truth. The Crucifixion was no mere illusion of death.

Perhaps that realization hit the teacher too closely.

The drawing itself is like a child's version of the Jesus in Hans Holbein's painting "The Body of the Dead Christ in the Tomb."




Note the disturbed reaction to that painting from Ippolit, the death-obsessed character in Dostoevsky's The Idiot:

"Looking at that picture, you get the impression of nature as some enormous, implacable, and dumb beast, or, to put it more correctly, much more correctly, though it may seem strange, as some huge engine of the latest design, which has senselessly seized, cut to pieces, and swallowed up--impassively and unfeelingly--a great and priceless Being, a Being worth the whole of nature and all its laws, worth the entire earth, which was perhaps created solely for the coming of that Being!

...The people surrounding the dead man, none of whom is shown in the picture, must have been overwhelmed by a feeling of terrible anguish and dismay on that evening which had shattered all their hopes and almost all their beliefs at one fell blow. They must have parted in a state of the most dreadful terror, though each of them carried away within him a mighty thought which could never be wrested from him."

Forget a psych exam, get that kid a paintbrush.

Update: The Associated Press claims that the school district denies the father's account. How will this turn out?

Writing books for money: a fool's errand?

Joe Carter discusses the economics of being an author.

Prospects are not good:

950,000 titles out of the 1.2 million tracked by Nielsen Bookscan sold fewer than 99 copies. Another 200,000 sold fewer than 1,000 copies. Only 25,000 sold more than 5,000 copies. The average book in America sells about 500 copies

One author says her net profit on a NY Times bestselling book currently stands at $24,517.36.

Samuel Johnson said nobody but a fool ever wrote except for money.

That was before the internet. There are a lot of fools out there.

Writing may be even less profitable than acting, and dollars for new art are dropping because of competition the Gutenberg Project and YouTube.

Without speaking fees or teaching positions to compensate, does the book writer have a realistic career path?

To new visitors:

I see that Inside Catholic has republished my complaint about indecency in the local library, Neighborhood Pornucopia.

Welcome to new visitors! Action at this blog is quite slow this year. Those interested in recent activity should see my Twitter page.

Athanasius Kircher's Tarantella

Fr. Athanasius Kircher, SJ, was a genuine Renaissance Man of the 17th century. A logician, a mathematician, a vulcanologist, a phonologist, an Egyptologist...

His position as "alpha scholar" is secure enough. Just read what New Advent and Wikipedia have to say of his accomplishments.

Now Western Confucian points us to a Tarantella dance he composed:



"With all his learning and vast amount of adulation which he received on all sides, Kircher retained throughout his life a deep humility and a childlike piety," the old Catholic Encyclopedia writes.

Truly, a model for every intellectual.

New England folk music: "Spanish Ladies"

A relative's trip to Oregon and back brought me a souvenir: The Black Irish Band album "Into the Arms of the Sea." (MP3 and CD)

Though on the opposite coast, these musicians have compiled an enjoyable set of Maritime music from the New England seaboard.

Some of their songs are a capella. At their best, the band truly sounds like it is on the deck of a seaward ship.

A few songs are reliable classics, like "New York Girls (Can't You Dance the Polka?)", but many of the songs are beyond the knowledge of Google. As they should be.

While fans of American Western music can complain about its neglect, New England traditional music is in an even worse state. To my knowledge, it had no Will Rogers crooners for the television age.

Fortunately its enthusiasts endure.

With Chai Feldblum, polygamists gain a foothold in the Obama Administration

A law professor nominated by President Obama to become a commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was a signatory to a radical 2006 manifesto which endorsed polygamous households and argued traditional marriage should not be privileged “above all others.”

So reports CNA in its story "Obama EEOC nominee signed radical marriage manifesto that praised polygamy" about Georgetown University (sigh.) law professor Chai R. Feldblum.

CNA adds:

Describing various kinds of households as no less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy than other relationships, the Beyond Marriage manifesto listed “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.”

[...]

“Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others,” the manifesto continued. “While we honor those for whom marriage is the most meaningful personal ­– for some, also a deeply spiritual – choice, we believe that many other kinds of kinship relationship, households, and families must also be accorded recognition.”

One signatory of the Beyond Marriage manifesto, Michael Bronski, once complained that he and his allies were being treated like skunks at a garden party for hitching polygamist and polyamorist concerns to the same-sex "marriage" debate.

Now someone who thinks "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner" are equally worthy to natural marriage is positioned to become a major influence in the enforcement of workplace anti-discrimination law. The pro-family New Deal Democrats must be spinning in their graves.


UPDATE: In her Senate confirmation hearing, Feldblum disavowed the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage manifesto.

She called it "overly broad" and a "mistake" to sign. She professed disagreement with unspecified parts of the document.

It is difficult to believe that a Georgetown law professor wouldn't realize what she was signing, and so it is difficult to believe her disavowal is authentic.

Diverted by Twitter

For the previous few months my activity has been focused at Twitter. More substantial posting will resume at Philokalia Republic sometime in the future.