"It's almost a curse to be a Priest -- so many people hate us now. Many Americans think us no better than a troop of pedophiles."
So a friend of mine, recently ordained, lamented about the public perception of his vocation. In America, Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice, one seized upon by media outlets and various leftist organizations. The Priest sex-abuse scandal has provided these Catholophobe outlets with ample ammunition.
The numbers, however, tell a different story.
As a person who has long been involved in education, I must first say that ANY abuse directed towards a child is tragic and deserving of the highest punishment.
Anyone reading the newspapers would be under the impression that there is a virtual epidemic in the Church regarding pedophilia. For the purposes of Catholic congregations, even a single proven incident of Clerical sexual abuse is one-too-many. The image of the pedophile Priest and the uncaring Bishop is simply a false one, however, when compared with the available date.
An AP report released today chronicles the yearly number of sexual abuse cases in Protestant Churches, claiming an average of 260 complaints are filed every year. That is higher than the average of 228 a year from the Catholic Church. Remember the Frugal Gourmet? He was a Methodist Minister, and a convicted sex offender. Last week when a grown man complained against the Catholic Bishops in Chicago for their "lack of action" against pedophiles, he was front-page news in the Tribune. Today's AP report about Protestant sexual abuse is hidden on the corner of page 22.
Yet Protestant Ministers don't receive the stigma of being a pack of pedophiles. As to why this is, the complex of reasons lie beyond the scope of this article.
Keep in mind that of the nearly 500 claims filed a year against Clerics of all stripes, many are shown to be false claims. Not surprisingly, such vindications rarely make the news.
When compared to the numbers against public school teachers accused of the very same act, it's not even close:
"A national survey of 2,064 students in 2000 showed that 9.6 percent of public school students from kindergarten through 11th grade reported unwanted sexual harassment or abuse by public school employees, mostly educators, said Shakeshaft, professor of educational policies at Hofstra University in Huntington, N.Y." (Agostino Bono, "Picture of Child Sex Abuse..." CNS.)"
To be fair, if Catholic Priests are to be labeled a pack of pedophiles, then the slander must extend to Protestant Ministers and ESPECIALLY to Public School Teachers. The easily influenced might as well lock up their child until they turn 18.
Let me suggest, however, that the very same media who is so quick to slander based on claims of sexual abuse is itself guilty of the very same crime. In a culture where psychologists claim the average age of female sexualization as 8, something is clearly wrong. Whether watching television, driving down the street or checking out in the grocery store, our oversexed culture is impossible to escape.
Perhaps magazine editors and television executives should be slandered for sexual abuse towards children? Considering the magnitude of their influence, such a claim would be far more justified than the irrational and bigoted hate directed towards Catholic Clergymen. It is an honest question: When a "diva" grinds her crotch into the stage during a performance meant for all ages, is this really different then somebody doing it in the middle of the street in the sight of children?
As usual with the media, what "sells" is often overblown, whether we are speaking about sex abuse or spinach-salmonela scares. It is good habit to view all press with skepticism, and dig deeper on the issues before forming our prejudices.
In the case of the Church, it is both unfair and bigoted to paint the world's largest provider of charity as a den of child molesters. I can only call such claims what they are: Catholophobia.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
New Music: Alive and Well.
Just last week, several thousand people filled the Harris Theater in Chicago to hear "new music." Dawn Upshaw was in town, and she was about to give a rousing performance of Osvaldo Golijov's "Ayre."
Aided by musicians from the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Upshaw's performance received the adulation it deserved. The musicians even repeated a movement from the first half of the work, further breaking from (recently) established tradition.
Upon entering the upper level of the theater, I could already spot the new music "purists" and academics, being obviously uncomfortable with the large turn-out for a composer and piece many of them probably considered "second-rate."
I've heard people slam Phillip Glass for sounding "too much like Yanni." The criticisms of Gorecki are many, including his "total disavowal of the past 100 years of advancement in Western Harmony." I heard a well-known composer slam Golijov for his "undisguised use of folk melody."
Amazing. Milton Babbitt's "Who Cares if You Listen?" mentality, aided by the mathematical snobishness of Boulez-ites, has done nothing but empty the concert hall.
Academic art has its place. And it needs to KNOW its place, which does not include the criticism of legitimate art that falls outside of its borders, or the students that aspire to such careers.
A city like Chicago has 9 million listeners to choose from. To assume that the only "intelligent" or "adventurous" listeners are the dozen-or-so who populate your new music series is an arrogant and agregious insult to many intelligent and open-minded people.
The fact is: people want something to hold on to. They want a dramatic curve. They want MEANING. Music -- or any art for that matter -- that fails to provide this is specialist at best, and useless at worst. An artist who refuses to extend a hand (or at least a fingertip) to his/her audience is nothing more than a creative snob, completely ignorant of the great tradition of artists who did just THAT.
The crowd at the Ayre concert was wonderfully varied, from neo-hippies to yuppies to art students to families with children to the simple-looking South-American couple sitting behind me. It was obvious that Golijov's creation had crossed numerous borders, just as the composer had intended it to, conventions be damned.
I wonder how many of the "real" composers sulking at the Ayre performance had the ability to compose something so simply beautiful and near-perfect as the guitar-voice duo in the second half of the work. Simple harmonies. Simple melodies. Transparent scalar structure. Yet, my heart fluttered when I heard it... and my intellect was not offended at its simplicity, because it simply worked.
The acquiring of Golijov as the CSO "Composer is Residence" is simply the smartest new-music move Chicago has made in a generation. Golijov is himself -- he expresses his cultural identity, his ideological bent, and his melodic heart in a music that can only be considered authentic and honest. If the Ayre concert is any indication, the presence of Golijov -- along with fellow CSO-Composer-in-Residence Marc-Anthony Turnage -- will go a long way in repairing the image of new-music in Chicago.
New music is alive and well, and its face is Osvaldo Golijov. He proves that it is possible to write authentic new music, while still caring "if you listen."
Aided by musicians from the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Upshaw's performance received the adulation it deserved. The musicians even repeated a movement from the first half of the work, further breaking from (recently) established tradition.
Upon entering the upper level of the theater, I could already spot the new music "purists" and academics, being obviously uncomfortable with the large turn-out for a composer and piece many of them probably considered "second-rate."
I've heard people slam Phillip Glass for sounding "too much like Yanni." The criticisms of Gorecki are many, including his "total disavowal of the past 100 years of advancement in Western Harmony." I heard a well-known composer slam Golijov for his "undisguised use of folk melody."
Amazing. Milton Babbitt's "Who Cares if You Listen?" mentality, aided by the mathematical snobishness of Boulez-ites, has done nothing but empty the concert hall.
Academic art has its place. And it needs to KNOW its place, which does not include the criticism of legitimate art that falls outside of its borders, or the students that aspire to such careers.
A city like Chicago has 9 million listeners to choose from. To assume that the only "intelligent" or "adventurous" listeners are the dozen-or-so who populate your new music series is an arrogant and agregious insult to many intelligent and open-minded people.
The fact is: people want something to hold on to. They want a dramatic curve. They want MEANING. Music -- or any art for that matter -- that fails to provide this is specialist at best, and useless at worst. An artist who refuses to extend a hand (or at least a fingertip) to his/her audience is nothing more than a creative snob, completely ignorant of the great tradition of artists who did just THAT.
The crowd at the Ayre concert was wonderfully varied, from neo-hippies to yuppies to art students to families with children to the simple-looking South-American couple sitting behind me. It was obvious that Golijov's creation had crossed numerous borders, just as the composer had intended it to, conventions be damned.
I wonder how many of the "real" composers sulking at the Ayre performance had the ability to compose something so simply beautiful and near-perfect as the guitar-voice duo in the second half of the work. Simple harmonies. Simple melodies. Transparent scalar structure. Yet, my heart fluttered when I heard it... and my intellect was not offended at its simplicity, because it simply worked.
The acquiring of Golijov as the CSO "Composer is Residence" is simply the smartest new-music move Chicago has made in a generation. Golijov is himself -- he expresses his cultural identity, his ideological bent, and his melodic heart in a music that can only be considered authentic and honest. If the Ayre concert is any indication, the presence of Golijov -- along with fellow CSO-Composer-in-Residence Marc-Anthony Turnage -- will go a long way in repairing the image of new-music in Chicago.
New music is alive and well, and its face is Osvaldo Golijov. He proves that it is possible to write authentic new music, while still caring "if you listen."
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Saving Face(book) in My Space
In the fractured humanity of our everyday modern lives, we are starting to develop split personalities and alter-egos at dizzying speeds. The computer -- once the proud tool of the disenfranchised "geek" class (and yours truly) -- has now turned into the preferred method of social interaction among even the more computer-challenged folks out there. (I cannot help but perceive the irony, when the very same high-school jock who picked on me because I knew how to program a computer is now maintaining a meticulously personalized myspace profile!)
With online profiles, we are also discovering a new form of hypocrisy. For instance: a person will construct a profile, share intimate information about themselves, link with all of their closest friends, and put up pictures of themselves frolicking on a Mexican beach. Say now that this person is your acquaintance at school or work, and you happen to encounter them in passing and strike up a conversation. Can you compliment them on their taste in music, or mention that sweet bikini they wore in Tahiti? Can you tell them that you "totally disagree" with that jerk Bob's comments about their latest blog? Can you offer them advice about the relationship woes which they have published for the world to see?
Perhaps. Unfortunately, many people would label you an "online stalker," or at least think you a bit strange. Just like the attractive woman who wears a v-neck and dares you not to get caught looking, we are now in the age of digital-teasing. Then there are those people who put up profiles in public places and make them "private," either missing the whole point of the WORLD-wide web, or using myspace as a way to further show their exclusive existance to others. The hypocrisy runs deep, but is hardly surprising.
Personally, I love this new aspect of internet socialization -- it certainly beats the days of text-only BBS and telnet chatrooms (though many of you were too "cool" to participate in these.) I've met new friends, made professional contacts, and caught up with people I thought I'd never see again.
Some may find it strange that they now know so many personal things about familiar faces with whom they've never had a personal conversation. Perhaps it is strange, but I will opine that it is really a tool -- once our hypocrisy about it is removed -- to create more open and intimate social settings. In a world where technology is causing us to be fractured and isolated, technology may have also provided a solution to its own dehumanzing dillema.
With online profiles, we are also discovering a new form of hypocrisy. For instance: a person will construct a profile, share intimate information about themselves, link with all of their closest friends, and put up pictures of themselves frolicking on a Mexican beach. Say now that this person is your acquaintance at school or work, and you happen to encounter them in passing and strike up a conversation. Can you compliment them on their taste in music, or mention that sweet bikini they wore in Tahiti? Can you tell them that you "totally disagree" with that jerk Bob's comments about their latest blog? Can you offer them advice about the relationship woes which they have published for the world to see?
Perhaps. Unfortunately, many people would label you an "online stalker," or at least think you a bit strange. Just like the attractive woman who wears a v-neck and dares you not to get caught looking, we are now in the age of digital-teasing. Then there are those people who put up profiles in public places and make them "private," either missing the whole point of the WORLD-wide web, or using myspace as a way to further show their exclusive existance to others. The hypocrisy runs deep, but is hardly surprising.
Personally, I love this new aspect of internet socialization -- it certainly beats the days of text-only BBS and telnet chatrooms (though many of you were too "cool" to participate in these.) I've met new friends, made professional contacts, and caught up with people I thought I'd never see again.
Some may find it strange that they now know so many personal things about familiar faces with whom they've never had a personal conversation. Perhaps it is strange, but I will opine that it is really a tool -- once our hypocrisy about it is removed -- to create more open and intimate social settings. In a world where technology is causing us to be fractured and isolated, technology may have also provided a solution to its own dehumanzing dillema.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Three Ways to Fix America
There are multiple reasons why I would never be elected President, now or ever. Chiefly amongst them is my platform: Three Ways to Fix America.
To understand the power of something, you must understand its root or origin. Democracy works when an informed and passionate electorate elects public officials who are not afraid to make unpopular decisions. At the heart of it all, our "democracy" is really a trustee-ship, where we are trying to put responsible people into office who will make the right decisions, not the decisions that will get them re-elected.
Anybody with a political pulse will acknowledge that "all is not well" with the American experiment. Our electorate -- outnumbered by those who vote for the last American Idol -- is not passionate, and (on the whole) is hardly informed. Our politicians, far from being responsible trustees with a vision, instead are career-minded moneygrubbers willing to make any personal compromise if only to ensure their re-election.
Solutions? Here are mine.
1.) A one-term limit for Senators and Congressmen, coupled with severe campaign-finance limitations at the local level.
Why? Career politicians hurt. Just look at the various missteps of Ted Kennedy, as well as the Bush and Clinton clans. Surely our corrupt nature will lead to other forms of political longevity, but this will be curtailed by solutions #2 and #3.
2.) Books for America: A national call to literacy, with a reorganization of the education system to focus more on literature, and less on test scores.
Why? Because it is no coincidence that America's political decline has happened concurrently with her massive decline in literacy. One could write a book on the subject of how lack of information has led to the rise of kitch-culture, idiotic mass entertainment, and complete political ignorance. Good books, read habitually, lead to deeper thinking. They show us how to think better, and how to structure our thought lives (let alone HAVE them.) They are the ONLY way in which to acquire truly deep ideas, explore informed creativity, and build an imagination capable of surviving adolescense. They teach us ideals, teach us to look beyond the bottom line, and teach us to question in a way more informed than the average adult American's juvenile rebelliousness. When books die, America will follow in short order.
3.) Go back to God, America.
Why? The very idea of freedom is moot without God, as every major atheist regime of the 20th century has shown. Lose God in the political equation, and you lose the moral anchor which allows for a free society to make responsible and moral decisions. Lose God, and the masses begin to vote with their crotches instead of their conscience. Lose God, and our "rights" soon cease to have the "responsibilites" they require. America surives now, but will only thrive again when God is once again at the center of the American democratic experiment. Secular humanism is a bankrupt ideology, as proven by the mass killing fields of the 20th century, let alone the slow but sure collapse of modern Europe. Our strength to defend ourselves when attacked, our ability to make tough and unpopular political decisions, and our concern for the common man, all stem from God. Without God, these things will surely be washed away by the first big flood. Without God, we no longer have the foundation from which to confidently stand as the leaders of the free world.
I've been thinking about it for a long time, and I see no other way in which we can surely make America great again. Eliminate career politicians. Teach thinking, ideas and imagination. Regain your faith. The last two suggestions can be brought about on a personal level, after which they should be encouraged and even expected of those closest to you. If you think these are only my "opinions," then I suggest reexamining America's periods of strength. A strong America has always been a stable, moraled, God-centered, and tradition-minded America. A liberal America has always been weaker. End of story.
To understand the power of something, you must understand its root or origin. Democracy works when an informed and passionate electorate elects public officials who are not afraid to make unpopular decisions. At the heart of it all, our "democracy" is really a trustee-ship, where we are trying to put responsible people into office who will make the right decisions, not the decisions that will get them re-elected.
Anybody with a political pulse will acknowledge that "all is not well" with the American experiment. Our electorate -- outnumbered by those who vote for the last American Idol -- is not passionate, and (on the whole) is hardly informed. Our politicians, far from being responsible trustees with a vision, instead are career-minded moneygrubbers willing to make any personal compromise if only to ensure their re-election.
Solutions? Here are mine.
1.) A one-term limit for Senators and Congressmen, coupled with severe campaign-finance limitations at the local level.
Why? Career politicians hurt. Just look at the various missteps of Ted Kennedy, as well as the Bush and Clinton clans. Surely our corrupt nature will lead to other forms of political longevity, but this will be curtailed by solutions #2 and #3.
2.) Books for America: A national call to literacy, with a reorganization of the education system to focus more on literature, and less on test scores.
Why? Because it is no coincidence that America's political decline has happened concurrently with her massive decline in literacy. One could write a book on the subject of how lack of information has led to the rise of kitch-culture, idiotic mass entertainment, and complete political ignorance. Good books, read habitually, lead to deeper thinking. They show us how to think better, and how to structure our thought lives (let alone HAVE them.) They are the ONLY way in which to acquire truly deep ideas, explore informed creativity, and build an imagination capable of surviving adolescense. They teach us ideals, teach us to look beyond the bottom line, and teach us to question in a way more informed than the average adult American's juvenile rebelliousness. When books die, America will follow in short order.
3.) Go back to God, America.
Why? The very idea of freedom is moot without God, as every major atheist regime of the 20th century has shown. Lose God in the political equation, and you lose the moral anchor which allows for a free society to make responsible and moral decisions. Lose God, and the masses begin to vote with their crotches instead of their conscience. Lose God, and our "rights" soon cease to have the "responsibilites" they require. America surives now, but will only thrive again when God is once again at the center of the American democratic experiment. Secular humanism is a bankrupt ideology, as proven by the mass killing fields of the 20th century, let alone the slow but sure collapse of modern Europe. Our strength to defend ourselves when attacked, our ability to make tough and unpopular political decisions, and our concern for the common man, all stem from God. Without God, these things will surely be washed away by the first big flood. Without God, we no longer have the foundation from which to confidently stand as the leaders of the free world.
I've been thinking about it for a long time, and I see no other way in which we can surely make America great again. Eliminate career politicians. Teach thinking, ideas and imagination. Regain your faith. The last two suggestions can be brought about on a personal level, after which they should be encouraged and even expected of those closest to you. If you think these are only my "opinions," then I suggest reexamining America's periods of strength. A strong America has always been a stable, moraled, God-centered, and tradition-minded America. A liberal America has always been weaker. End of story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)