THE WANDERER, JUNE 23, 2005
JOSEPH SOBRAN'S
WASHINGTON WATCH
Not Guilty?
In the past few years we have seen two sensational
sexual scandals, both concerning men and boys. One is the
Michael Jackson case, now legally resolved by a
controversial acquittal; the other, of course, is that of
sexual abuse by Catholic priests.
In reporting both stories, the media have carefully
avoided using the term "homosexual." The peccant priests
have been characterized as "pedophiles," though the boys
they abused were mostly adolescents, not children. The
reporting has been phrased so as to protect the
homosexual cause and to pretend that that cause has
nothing to do with pedophilia.
But why do the media disapprove even of pedophilia?
According to the Playboy philosophy, which is now
virtually part of the U.S. Constitution, sexual pleasure,
regardless of marital status or procreative intent, is
intrinsically good. Why does it become evil when it
involves children?
For Christians, sexual pleasure outside marriage is
immoral as an abuse of our reproductive faculties, and
pedophilia is merely an especially grave abuse. It's an
intelligible matter of nature and degree. But for sexual
liberals, the ban on pedophilia is an anomaly, an
irrational taboo. If other forms of carnal pleasure are
okay by them, why should they be so horrified by this
one? Isn't it just one part of the "diversity" they love
to celebrate?
How, in other words, did pedophilia make its way
onto the extremely short list of sexual acts liberals
disapprove of? Yes, liberals always want to protect
children. But why "protect" them from a good thing?
Michael Jackson seems such an obvious freak that
it's easy to single him out. Still, we're entitled to
know on what =principle= he's being singled out by
people who tolerate fornication and adultery by other pop
stars. A similar question might be raised about the
homosexual priests: Why have they been attacked for acts
liberals usually defend? Why do mere age differences make
those acts immoral or even criminal?
Catholics and other believers in the virtue of
chastity don't have to face such awkward questions.
Because we have norms, we have no difficulty recognizing
the abnormal, and if necessary condemning it. For this we
incur the liberal's charge of "intolerance," but unlike
the liberal we know that tolerance has limits -- a truth
liberals always have to learn the hard way, and with
embarrassment.
The Two Michaels
Jackson's lawyer, by the way, has announced that the
singer will no longer allow boys in his bedroom. Too many
people get the wrong idea. It "makes him vulnerable to
false charges."
We are sharply reminded, by nearly everyone who has
commented on the verdict, that "not guilty" doesn't mean
"innocent." It would be hard to find anyone outside his
fan clubs who doubts that Jackson has an unhealthy
interest in boys, and he has at least brought this
suspicion on himself.
Furthermore, a remarkable number of people who had
fortified this impression, including both his ex-wives,
suddenly changed their stories during the trial.
All the same, it's probably a good thing he was
acquitted. The government's power to prosecute, to target
individuals, to seize evidence, and to compel (and
bargain for) testimony, all make it prohibitively
difficult (and expensive) for almost anyone who is
targeted to defend himself. And even if he manages to
avoid conviction, he still pays a fearful price, if only
in reputation; whereas the prosecutor can pass his
relatively minor expenses along to the taxpayer.
Wealth and, especially, celebrity now make people
particularly attractive targets for the law; any
prominent person can become what Tom Wolfe has dubbed
"the Great White Defendant," to be harpooned on the front
page by an ambitious prosecutor.
Jackson isn't exactly white, of course; he has gone
so far to confuse his racial identity that he more or
less falls between racial categories, and he sounds a
little silly when he complains that he is being
persecuted because he's black. Who can say what color he
is now? Maybe he's being persecuted because he's so
eccentric.
Meanwhile, America's other great eccentric Michael,
heavyweight boxer Mike Tyson (who has also done weird
things to his face), has apparently reached the end of
the road. Here in Washington, with Muhammad Ali watching
at ringside, his latest comeback bid ended ignominiously
when he failed to answer the bell for the seventh round
the other night against an unheralded Irishman named
Kevin McBride.
Unable to knock McBride down, in the sixth round
Tyson gave what I suppose was his version of the old
college try -- a low blow, a head butt, and an attempt to
break his opponent's arm -- before slumping to the canvas
for 20 seconds in what the referee chose to rule a slip.
After the fight, Tyson said he was retiring, out of
"respect for the sport I love."
Boxing connoisseurs realized the old Tyson magic was
gone when he neglected to bite either of McBride's ears
off. Seeking perhaps to reinvent himself, Tyson also
announced that he hopes to begin a new career as a
missionary in Africa; of what religion was left unclear.
Graham Cracks
Inside the Beltway we have a young right-wing talk
radio host named Michael Graham with whom I usually
disagree, but who occasionally hits the bull's eye
hilariously. His humor alone is enough to keep me
listening.
The other day Graham noted that the liberal group
Americans United for Separation of Church and State was
suing to prevent a local high school from holding its
graduation ceremony in a church. He referred to the group
as "Americans United for Separation of Church and
Christ."
Oh, how I wish I'd said that! But the fun wasn't
over. Taking a cue, an impish caller phoned in the
logical next step: Drivers on state-funded highways
should be prevented from displaying religious articles in
their cars. Graham imagined cops with night-vision
goggles stopping drivers with crucifixes on their
dashboards, rosaries hanging over their rear-view
mirrors, and of course bumper stickers praising Jesus.
But Graham stopped it right there, saying he didn't
want to give the civil libertarians any ideas.
Americans United for Separation of Church and
Christ! Exactly. We know some Catholic theologians who
might qualify for membership.
+ + +
SOBRAN'S is still getting up off the canvas. If
you have not seen my monthly newsletter yet, give my
office a call at 800-513-5053 and request a free sample,
or better yet, subscribe for two years for just $85. New
subscribers get two gifts with their subscription. More
details can be found at the Subscription page of my
website, www.sobran.com.
Already a subscriber? Consider a gift subscription
for a priest, friend, or relative.
--- Joseph Sobran
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2005/w050623.shtml".
This column copyright (c) 2005 by THE WANDERER, the
National Catholic Weekly founded in 1867,
www.thewandererpress.com. Reprinted with permission.
This page copyright (c) 2005 by THE VERE COMPANY.
This column may not be published in print or Internet
publications without express permission of THE WANDERER.
You may forward it to interested individuals if you use
this entire page, including the following disclaimer:
"THE WANDERER is available by subscription. Write
subscription@thewandererpress.com for information.
Subscription price: $50 per year; $30 for six months.
Checks can be sent to The WANDERER, 201 Ohio Street,
Dept. JS, St. Paul, MN 55107.
"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's syndicated columns are
available by e-mail subscription. For details and
samples, see http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write
PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."
This page copyright (c) 2005 by THE VERE COMPANY.