text:
D as in distortion.
Last Friday, Mollie did a superb job cataloging Bill Donohue's shortcomings both as a crusader against anti-Catholicism (which obviously includes using the occasion of World AIDS Day to call people with HIV promiscuous) and as a surrogate for the conservative movement (giving Dick Morris a run for his money). Her conclusion was pointed: "Seriously, your excellencies and eminences: what will it take to make you rethink the wisdom of encouraging Bill Donohue to act as your public interpreter?"
Wish I knew. Donohue has said lots of offensive things on a variety of topics, but his record on one subject in particular ought to give Catholic bishops considerable pause before lending him support: the sexual-abuse scandal.
Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that the clergy of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph are divided on the question of whether their bishop should resign after being found guilty of one count of failing to report suspected child abuse. (A diocesan school principal warned the diocese about about Fr. Shawn Ratigan's "inappropriate behavior with children" in May 2010; seven months later disturbing photos of little girls were found on Ratigan's laptop; Bishop Robert Finn didn't restrict Ratigan until February 2011; and the police weren't notified until May 2011.) The Times story is ugly: One priest goes on the record recommending the bishop step down. Another says his liberal colleagues are using Finn's travails to push for a new, less conservative bishop. More than one hundred thousand people have signed an online petition urging Finn to step aside. The diocese has spent $1.4 million on legal fees. And the Times spoke with two priests who say that at a recent meeting of diocesan clergy Finn denied any wrongdoing. Yet he agreed to a set of stipulated facts that led a judge to render a guilty verdict. "I truly regret and am sorry for the hurt these events caused," Finn told the judge at the time. And now he's privately telling priests that he did nothing wrong?
Of course, none of that troubles Donohue. When it comes to defending Bishop Finn, Dr. D. is all in. We've been over this before, so bear with me as I rehearse some of the details. After Finn was convicted, Donohue offered his magisterial shrug, claiming Ratigan's case involved neither child abuse nor pornography. No and no. In August, Ratigan pleaded guilty to federal charges of possessing and creating child pornography. In December 2010, diocesan staff found staged photos on Ratigan's laptop. Child pornography always involves abuse -- the subjects in such photos don't pose themselves. That's why the Vatican amended church norms to include possession of child pornography in its definition of sexual abuse.
No one is hiding those facts. If Donohue had the slightest interest in learning more about the way Finn handled this case, he might have Googled "Shawn Ratigan." There's been no shortage of reporting on the case. But no. He remains undeterred by facts that complicate his view of Bishop Finn as anything other than unjustly accused. And so Dr. D. is at it again, peddling the same old untruths in a brand new press release responding to the latest Times article on Finn.
Observe as Donohue tries his hand at fact-checking:
The Times says that Finns conviction of a misdemeanor stemmed from his failure to report the Rev. Shawn Ratigan to the authorities after hundreds of pornographic pictures that Father Ratigan had taken of young girls were discovered on his laptop in December 2010. That statement is factually wrong. On October 15, 2011 the Times mentioned there was a single photo of a young girl, nude from the waist down, and hundreds of photographs of children showing upskirt images and images focused on the crotch.
No, that statement is what's factually wrong. Dr. D. is selectively citing that October 15 Times story. A "single photo" is mentioned. But it refers to the fact that the Vicar General Msgr. Robert Murphy described only one of Ratigan's photos to Rick Smith, a member of the diocesan review board -- and a cop -- in a half-hearted attempt to figure out whether the images amounted to child pornography. This is one of Donohue's favorite facts about this case. He can't quit using it to distort what really happened.
Thus spake Dr. D.:
Moreover, the diocese described the single photo of a naked girl to a police officer who served on the diocesan sexual review board, and he said it did not constitute pornography.
False. Msgr. Murphy told the cop that the photo depicted a girl in a nonsexual pose. He asked Smith whether such a photo would amount to child pornography. The cop said he'd have to ask around the department. But he hadn't seen the photo. Nor did he know how many others were on Ratigan's computer. When Smith got back to Murphy, he reported the photo as described might or might not be pornographic. What's more, months later, after Murphy had an attack of conscience and decided to come clean about the rest of the images in Ratigan's collection, Smith was not amused. "That's not what you told me," the cop said, giving Murphy an ultimatum: get the laptop to the police today or I'm calling it in myself. And that's just what he ended up doing, because it turned out that Finn had given the laptop to Ratigan's brother, who destroyed it. (The diocese gave the police a disc containing copies of the photos.)
Watch as these facts are run through the Donohue distortion field:
So why would the Times say that hundreds of pornographic pictures were found two years ago this month? The record shows that it was not until after the diocese called the cops in May 2011 that porn pictures were found on Ratigans computer.
That is definitely not what the record shows. First, the diocese did not "call the cops." A cop called the cops. Second, among the hundreds of disturbing photographs found on Ratigan's computer was a series that focused on a young girl's crotch. She was wearing only a diaper, and over the course of several photos the diaper was gradually moved to fully expose her genitals. Those images were among those first discovered in December 2010 by Julie Creech, director of information systems for the diocese. She also found evidence that Ratigan had visited websites selling spy-cams and two-way mirrors -- along with the Facebook pages of several young girls. Third, only after the diocesan review-board member called the police were more photos found on a computer Ratigan used during a previous parish assignment.
Donohue wants you to believe that the "single photo" was the only really offensive thing the diocese had to go on, that a cop definitively declared it nonpornographic, and that the really terrible stuff wasn't found until after the the diocese referred the Ratigan case to the police department. But none of that is true. The diocese did not call the police. Capt. Rick Smith, diocesan review-board-member, said the single photo might be pornographic. And in December 2010 the diocese was aware that Ratigan had dozens of potentially illegal photos on his computer. And on the same day those photos were found, Msgr. Murphy briefed Bishop Finn on the situation. (Wouldn't you know it -- neither Murphy nor Finn say they recall the details of that conversation.)
All of that is a matter of public record. The case was exhaustively examined in a study Finn commissioned -- a study Donohue himself cites in his outrageous closing:
Under Bishop Finn, the review board was contacted, the authorities were notified, and an independent investigation was ordered (the Graves Report). In short, Bishop Finn deserves better. The attack on him, coming exclusively from the Catholic Left, smacks of an agenda.
Gosh, that makes it sound like Bishop Finn couldn't have acted more responsibly. Apparently Dr. D. could not be bothered to read the report he cites. Because if he had, he'd know that nothing could be further from the truth. Bishop Finn did not bring the matter before the review board. Finn did not notify the authorities. No diocesan employee called the police. An unpaid lay member of the diocesan review board did. That is why a judge found Finn guilty of failing to report suspected child abuse. There is no conspiracy on the Catholic left to bring down a conservative bishop. This transcends ideology. Kansas City Catholics want to know what it means to have a bishop who violated both canon and civil law, and as a result could not even be hired as a parish volunteer in his own diocese.
So what is it exactly that Bill Donohue imagines Bishop Finn deserves? To be defended with falsehoods? To be left alone, while the rest of us pretend there's nothing strange about a bishop who was convicted of the crime that drove the scandal to continue in office without so much as a peep from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops? Is the suspended sentence Finn received supposed to be sufficient to restore the trust of the Catholics of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph? What about his responsibility-avoiding apology?
Does Bill Donohue seriously believe that Bishop Finn has gotten a raw deal? Finn imposed appallingly light restrictions on a priest known to possess potentially illegal images of naked little girls, and when he learned that the priest was violating those strictures, he did nothing more than scold him. And what happened during that time? Ratigan continued taking illicit photos of little girls. "The images of my daughters private areas that the FBI showed me, they are forever burned into my brain," one parent wrote to Finn. "Shawn Ratigan was in my house, around my children in February [2011], and I thought my children were completely SAFE!" The parents of those children are scandalized. Bishop Finn is on probation.
So why would any bishop stand up for a man like Bill Donohue, let alone endorse his work? What are Catholics who are still struggling to forgive the bishops for the sexual-abuse scandal supposed to think when they see some of them supporting a person who has such a difficult time telling the truth about the Finn case, a man who has asked why teenagers "allow themselves to be molested"? That the hierarchy has turned a corner on the greatest crisis ever to seize the Catholic Church in the United States? Or that some prominent bishops really do believe that Bill Donohue paints on the "canvas of the cardinal virtues"? One of which is temperance.
About the Author
113 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
I share your indignation about Bishop Finn.
Grant Gallicho, researcher extraordinaire does it again! This is outstanding: going through the documentation to expose Donohue's rant for the dishonest drivel it is. Thank you, Grant, for expressing outrage in such strong terms.Imagine: that's $1.4 million in legal fees for one guilty criminal who refuses to acknowledge any culpability for his actions. Actually I doubt there are any, let alone many complicit bishops who believe in their hearts they did anything wrong. After all, no one intended any harm.Donohue provides PR cover and his noise so far has been a handy convenience for bishops. Let's also remember Finn's 2007 pastoral letter on pornography linked to in Mark Silk's thread on Donohue yesterday. I believe Jack Barry has covered that in prior posts here.http://www.religionnews.com/blogs/mark-silk/donohue-repeats-his-no-porn-...
Donohue must be doing something right to merit 2 threadlines on such a prestigious blog.
My Diocese is suffering. Our flock feels demoralized, paralyzed and embarrassed by Bishop Robert Finn. Bishop Finn (and any Bishop) serves as our moral, spiritual and administrative leader. He has failed on all accounts. His continued presence in our diocese serves only himself, a handful of supporters, and a conference of bishops awash in mediocrity and inaction.I started the petition for his resignation, to show that forgiveness and change can co-exist, they can and should work together.
As Vatican I states, the Pope " "full and supreme power of jurisdiction, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and governance of the Church dispersed throughout the world".In other words the buck stops with him. Should probably tweet him about this and ask what HE is actually doing. There is a crisis of leadership and if he is not part of the solution, he is part or actually IS the problem.
Thanks - a couple of other thoughts:- can we suggest that the USCCB's silence is *complicity* in a legal, technical sense- why hasn't the USCCB modified the 2002 statement to include accountability for bishops, cover-ups, etc.? (they appear to pass the buck to Rome)- compare the inaction on Finn with Rome's recent actions against a variety of bishops, priests when they are found guilty of supposed disloyalty, heresies, etc. e.g. Bishop Morris who supposedly voiced a need to discuss priesthood be expanded to others? Ah yes, any mention of women and the priesthood results in almost immediate dismissal; even if it is only to discuss the issue. How can any sane person compare abuse cover-up and possible discussing ordination of women and realize that in the eyes of Rome, the later is the more serious event.As Bishop Geoffrey Robinson says: Hypocrisy.
On Dec 9 ten years ago, 58 Boston priests sent their open letter to Cdl. Law asking him to resign. They wrote: "your position as our bishop is so compromised that it is no longer possible for you to exercise the spiritual leadership required for the church of Boston". By that time, the departure process was evidently underway; Law had flown secretly to Rome and the Pope accepted his resignation on Dec 13. Yet, the letter from the priests was uniquely important among many voices speaking out. Dozens of the Cardinals own priests had found the virtue and courage to speak up together when the Church in Boston had reached the state their letter reflects. http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories3/121002_letter.htm (Letter link under picture)
Donohue's willingness to say absolutely anything to distract from the hierarchy's role in, and failure to respond to, the sex-abuse scandal is the number-one reason bishops should distance themselves from him. In my most cynical moments, I fear that it's also the number-one reason so many prominent bishops are his enthusiastic boosters today.
Jack Barry rightly recalls Cardinal Law's disgrace and Roman posting. Now cardinal O'Malley is left with closing more parishes, schools and cleaning up after the demoralized faithful have walked away.. In a few years 'they' will send in the clean up guy to KC .. It's a small potatoes place now with a demoralized clergy and faithful and it will be much much less when the cleanup guy arrives very late as usual. Won't some bishops recall how No. Africa was a thriving Faith place in the time of Augustine and is now a Faith parched desert. Ireland is now becoming the modern Faith desert with a fake green tint. .
"In a few years they will send in the clean up guy to KC."I don't think so. I suspect that Mark Proska and his ideological confreres will hold the day. Kansas City will have a disgraced conservative bishop for another sixteen years. And he will be an example of how the self-styled "orthodox" and "faithful" and "traditional" Catholics can be as sinful, stained, and scandalous as anyone else. An entire generation of Kansas City Catholics will grow up under a marginalized bishop giving an antigospel example. I'd say it's time to return to one preconciliar practice, just for survival's sake: the local bishop is meaningless.
Jack,There were many actions taken against Law: by the 58 priests, by survivors and their supporters demonstrating at the cathedral, by VOTF's vote for his resignation, and by a grand jury subpoena for his testimony. I have come to believe that none of the measures above were the real reason JPII accepted Law's resignation, after declining it on his first trip to Rome some weeks earlier. It was MONEY, what else, that was the catalyst. After the inadvertent release of the Fr. James D. Foley documents among others on December 3,* 2002, major donors let it be known that Law needed to go. They made it clear to key church officials that they would help rescue the Boston archdiocese financially, but only if Law left. He was in Rome by Dec. 8 and gone Dec. 13. If major donors in Kansas City would act Then again, Finn is in Opus Dei, and they are not known to be a poor organization.Todd,I fear you are right. Rome will not be pushed around by uppity priests and laity, so 16 years may be realistic. If bishops' primary concern were the "care of souls" then Finn would be gone in a minute, but the controlling factors are money and the exercise of power. As Eugene Kennedy wrote in one piece, the message is: "We have power and you do not and we enjoy using it over you."(*Cleric Had 2 Children, Kept Status http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/2002_12_06_Rezendes_ClericHad.htm)
Jeff W. ==Thank you for initiating action to try to remove a man with criminally bad judgment. Maybe he didn't understand the effects of his inaction. but such bad understanding of human nature disqualifies him from being an effective bishop. He should be removed from office.
To clarify "inadvertent" release of documents: "The archdiocese mistakenly included the files of the Rev. James D. Foley when it turned over to lawyers for alleged victims of sexual abuse the files of the Rev. James J. Foley, who has been accused of sexual molestation.It turned out, however, that Rev. James D. Foley had been caught up in a scandal of a different sort: The records mistakenly handed over showed that he had fathered two children in the 1960s by a woman who subsequently died of an overdose with Foley present. When those documents became public last week, the Rev. James D. Foley was removed from his parish assignment in Salem." Boston Globe
"Should probably tweet him about this and ask what HE is actually doing. There is a crisis of leadership and if he is not part of the solution, he is part or actually IS the problem."George D. --Yes, we should. And we should continue to ask about it until action is taken. There is already a petition to remove Bishop Finn with 150,000 signatures. All of them and the rest of us should continue tweeting the Pope until he acts.Anybody with me?
Here is the link to Jeff Weis' petition:http://www.change.org/petitions/bishop-robert-finn-resign-as-bishop-of-t... Let's all sign.
Carolyn - or Jeff Weil --I went to the site, but there was no place to sign. How does one sign it?
With care, I think that it is possible for people to set Bishop Finn aside, as though he had resigned. For example, instead of contributing to the Diocesan appeal, they can give the money to a local Catholic organization on which he does not have oversight, or to a local Christian organization, or to the diocesan appeal of another diocese which they would "adopt". They can make presents to their parish in kind and not in dollars, so that no fraction of the donation goes to the diocese.They can cancel their subscription to the diocesan paper and subscribe to another paper instead. They can avoid reading anything Bishop Finn has written and avoid listening to anything he has said. They can avoid talking about him, or looking at him, or interacting with him in any way. They can ask for confirmation to be conferred by someone else; defer confirmation if that is not possible; or at least not take pictures of him with the newly confirmed youth.
Priests like Fr. Roy Bourgeois, Fr. William Rowe are punished and Law and Finn are not rebuked. When I think of the US bishops, of the Vatican, I feel a dreadful combination of anger and disgust and contempt. Also a kind of despair - they won't do the right thing of their own accord and we don't have the power to make them. Wish someone would launch a coup.
In a way it's a little bit like the Catholic church in China: they have some bishops that are imposed against their will by the Chinese government and have to make do with the situation as best as they can. What are the recommendations of the Vatican to Catholics in China about how to handle it? They might give useful guidelines.
If you want to do something about criminal bishops, please sign the petition to President Obama at http://wh.gov/5aAQ
I have praised Grant's work before, but this time I am very disappointed.While he accuses Dr. Donohue of distortion, Gallicho commits quite a bit of distortion of his own.For an accurate summary of the Ratigan episode, I recommend that people *actually read* the Graves Report: http://www.diocese-kcsj.org/_docs/8-31-11_Report_of_Independent_Investig... is gambling that people will not actually click the link he provides. One will then see that Gallicho is very selective in his facts, and Donohue's presentation is actually accurate. What is shocking about the whole episode is that there were SEVEN diocesan employees (including two computer techs!) - and Bishop Finn was *not* one of the seven - who saw the images but did not call the police. Why not? The prosecutor clearly seized upon the issue to target a bishop, and she succeeded.And even as the Times article begrudgingly admits, even without the Ratigan episode, half of priests would vote to get rid of Finn because they are dissident and liberal, and Finn is a conservative. The fact that there is 1000% more anger at Bishop Finn than Ratigan himself is proof of this.And as far as Gallicho's claim that "There is no conspiracy on the Catholic left to bring down a conservative bishop," I am stunned by such blatant dishonesty.But Gallicho's biggest distortion is the "100,000 +" signatures to get rid of Finn. The petition is on a far-left web site (change.org), where various kooky, 'progessive' causes are espoused. 99.9% of the signatures are from people outside of Kansas City who have nothing to with the issue.And Gallicho's claim that bishops "stand up" for Donohue, that is a straw man if there ever was one. Donohue does what he does. He defends the Church when he feels that it has been wronged. And ...?I am saddened by Gallicho's egregious deceit and guile. It is palpable that the exploitation of children does not really bother Gallicho. It is simple an issue with which he can attack a conservative bishop. How despicable. Gallicho should be ashamed.
I can't stop looking at his sunglasses. It's like he's a really flush Asa Hawks.
If you want to do something about criminal bishops, please sign the petition to President Obama atJerry,You have to be joking... Or do you expect Obama to create the next Thomas Beckett or Thomas More? Btw, a little perspective might be useful here. Finn's crime is a misdemeanor. And I would guess that everyone reading or writing on this site has been guilty of one as well since misdemeanors include crimes like speeding. (Excessive speed is responsible for a third of all fatal accidents) Not suggesting that we should encourage our Bishops to break any laws
I wish even one bishop would say publicly that the very name "Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights" is a lie. Donohue does absolutely nothing to protect the religious and civil rights of Catholics, because the Constitution does not give Catholics the right to force other people to say only nice things about our faith. And if I were denied housing or employment because of my religion, I would turn for help not to the Catholic League but to the ACLU, which has tons of experience in this area. All I could expect from Donohue would be a press release--and since I favor the ordination of women and marriage equality, probably not even that. By his yardstick, I myself am an anti-Catholic bigot.@ DPierre: "begrudgingly" means enviously. I assume you mean "grudgingly," which means reluctantly.
I think they're Gucci. I kind of covet them.
@Bruce, re: "begrudgingly"Begrudge: "to be reluctant to give, grant, or allow" (def. #2)http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/begrudgingly"Begrudgingly" is fine as I used it.
DPierre: The one thing that was omitted by Grant that makes a difference to me is that Fr Ratigan tried to commit suicide when found out. To me, that explains why Bp Finn cut him some slack. But it does not justify it and is not legally relevant, which I guess is why Grant omitted it. You say in defense of Bp Finn that he did not see the pictures, but that is already irresponsible on the part of the bishop. He chose not to ask for the pictures. His repeated bad judgment renders him unfit to lead. Bruce, yes, his crime is a mere misdemeanor: like a school bus driver who is found guilty of reckless driving, he should be terminated from his job, but after that things might not need to go much further than that. He simply needs to be moved out of a position where he has responsibilities for which he is unfit. If he were a school bus driver, was kept on the job, the company said not one word blaming him, and he started denying wrong-doing in private, I would also be indignant.
I am concerned that too many Catholics are just adapting to whatever is dished up by the latest scandal. Feeling unable to do anything to change an unjust situation in our Church, they give into it.This response is sinful in itself. But because it's a manifestation of social sin, it is not questioned or denounced. The whole situation conspires to make people sin the more. I am looking for prophetic voices to name what is happening, not to the hierarchy, but to the faithful because of this ongoing problem.
Claire: According to the Graves Report, doctors initially thought Ratigan would not survive his suicide attempt, and that's partly why Finn didn't remove him from ministry straightaway. Within ten days it was clear that Ratigan would fully recover. Of course, like several other bishops who made bad decisions when advised of dangerous priests, Finn was confused about what canon law allows when it comes to suspending priests. He mistakenly believed he couldn't just put him on administrative leave pending investigation. Bishops always have that option. (Also, I included Ratigan's suicide attempt in a previous post, which I linked to above.)As for DPierre's attempts to rebut me, he's also confused. I've distorted nothing. I encourage everyone to read the Graves Report. I didn't say Finn saw the images on the laptop. But they were described to him, as was Creech's detailed memo about them. He didn't ask to see them -- which boggles the mind. People are upset with Finn because he failed to follow canon and civil law. He put children at risk. The only deceit here is DPierre's.
Donohue has a habit of referring and responding to things he hears or reads without telling his readers what he's talking about. It's hard for me to say whether this is sloppiness or evasiveness; I think it's usually a bit of both. But I do think it's pretty ridiculous for "DPierre" to criticize Grant for linking to the source he's accused of distorting, when Donohue does not link to or even clearly identify the NYT story he's misrepresenting. He never does. To amplify his bullying, Donohue relies on people who take what he says as credible (God knows why) without ever looking into it themselves. So, today, a new Catholic League tweet: "Bishop Finn's foes are so anxious to get him that they become the new puritans. To wit: Mark Silk equates child nudity with child porn." Here's the Mark Silk blog post Donohue is apparently referring to. It would be interesting to hear Donohue actually respond to what Silk wrote. It strikes me as bizarre that instead he wants to dismiss as puritanical anyone who might be alarmed by nude photos of children in a particular context. Even someone who doesn't bother to find out what Donohue's griping about here should be given pause by the way he attempts to wave it off, don't you think?
Apparently it doesn't matter to Donohue that Ratigan pleaded guilty to federal charges of possessing and creating child pornography.
Well obviously that just means Ratigan himself is part of the liberal Catholic plot to make it look like Bishop Finn did something wrong.
"I am concerned that too many Catholics are just adapting to whatever is dished up by the latest scandal. Feeling unable to do anything to change an unjust situation in our Church, they give into it."This response is sinful in itself. But because its a manifestation of social sin, it is not questioned or denounced. The whole situation conspires to make people sin the more. I am looking for prophetic voices to name what is happening, not to the hierarchy, but to the faithful because of this ongoing problem."Rita, way to lay on the Catholic guilt! Only half teasing b/c I'm not sure what you think people should do. Seems to me that Grant's identifying blind obedience/collusion with corruption in high places here and Eugene M's piece on the Dolan-Donohue-Anderson troika are good starts. I no longer give to the bishop's appeal (and he knows why if he reads his mail). And we can pray, certainly.But are we supposed to stop going to mass? Move to new dioceses? What do you think the answer is?
Rita, like Jean it is not clear to me what you would propose.The most natural adaptation mechanism, it seems to me, is to ignore the bishop. That leads to a weakening of episcopal authority. In the US, that is perhaps a good thing. Eventually, one day, we may get leaders who are humbled by their powerlessness. That could be good. Less temporal power, more holiness: it's a good trade!In the meantime we have to bear with the absence of obvious leaders. It's no fun, but maybe it's good for us too.
I am not going to defend Bishop Finn.What concerns me is that Commonweal recently showcased an article by Rembert Weakland, former Archbishop of Milwaukee. We all know that Weakland paid out hush money to keep his former male lover quiet. This money came out of archdiocesan funds money that could have been used in assisting the local poor. Moreover, Weakland told abuse whistleblowers that archdiocesan lawyers would scrutinize their complaints for libelous remarks. He would later refer to the actions of these people as squealing (although he eventually apologized for that remark.) Weakland wrote in his book, "A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church,"We all considered sexual abuse of minors as a moral evil, but had no understanding of its criminal nature Weakland also said that he initially "accepted naively the common view that it was not necessary to worry about the effects on the youngsters: either they would not remember or they would 'grow out of it.'"Archbishop Weakland is a theological and political liberal; Bishop Finn is a conservative. If Finn resigns, will Commonweal defend his right to publish in a Catholic weekly? Will he, like Rembert Weakland, be welcomed back into the public discourse of the People of God?
Mr. Donohue wrote a book on the four cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance? That is so hugely ironic. Is the book any good?
Finn pleaded guilty to CRIMINAL misdemeanor involving the health, safety, and welfare of little children. Earlier, the bishop sent Ratigan to a psychiatrist affiliated with an organization that helps clerics in trouble; if I recall, the MD (apparently not concerned with acquiring or maintaining professional board certification in psychiatry) bought the cleric's story about people out to get him! Finn obviously put ecclesiastical considerations ahead of any possible concern for kids.Finn needs to go! And Pope Benedict XVI, if he wants to demonstrate genuine concern in this matter, needs to fire Finn pronto! In any other scenario, the bishop's butt would have been out the door back in September.What can KC-St Joe Catholics do? They can stop money to parish and diocese. If they receive the local church paper by paid subscription, they can let it lapse or inform the publisher to terminate their subscription. (I've also said in the past that concerned parishioners should work with sympathetic attorneys/accountants to set up separate parish expense accounts that cannot be touched in any way, direct or indirect, by the bishop.)The laity and local clergy must hold accountable. This is not about forgiveness but, instead, about assuming responsibility for his knowing and willing dereliction of duty in one of the most sensitive areas of church life today.Finn's continuing presence in the diocese is a disgrace and an outrage.
I no longer give to the bishops appeal (and he knows why if he reads his mail).And we can pray, certainly.But are we supposed to stop going to mass? Move to new dioceses? What do you think the answer is?Jean,I find this commentary really sad. I assume you are a lay Catholic just like me. Most of us have never even met our local bishop, a few might have had their picture taken with him and fewer still know and work with him. But our duties as lay Catholics are really quite independent of the bishop, and even more independent of our opinion of him. Of course we are to attend mass, receive the sacraments, pray, give alms - even to the bishops appeal, etc. It is our obligation to give, its the recipients obligation to use the money well. St. Therese's of Lisieux little way in terms of a commitment to the tasks and to the people we meet in our everyday lives is really what being a lay catholic is all about. This handwringing over the hierarchy is completely misdirected.
Bruce --We are obliged to give to the poor. We are not obliged to give to any particular charity, not even the bishop's. I happen to have a decent bishop, but I can understand people who do not wish their incompetent bishops to remain in office. It does seem true -- money is the only language the papal nuncio and the Vatican understand. I used not to think that, but the evidence has forced me to change my mind.
Frank Gibbons,I do not defend Rembert Weakland's record in the abuse scandal or his personal conduct. Neither apparently does he. I do find instructive his open penance laying prostrate in a packed cathedral. When people erupted in applause at the end of the penitential service, he stopped it, and insisted on leaving the altar in silence.Finn's conduct is equally instructive: a refusal to admit he did anything wrong, and I suspect he heartily welcomes any applause that comes his way.Those differing responses are meaningful to me.
If the pope and bishops are going to be so strict with charities when it comes to the use of the non-proprietary term "Catholic," they might consider the same goose sauce for the gander "Catholic" League.I realize that might cost them some financial support, but life sux sometimes.
Carolyn,Let me reiterate that I do not defend Bishop Finn.Perhaps Rembert Weakland apologized publicly for using archdiocesan funds to pay off his accuser. However, according to SNAP, Weakland has never apologized for his mishandling of sexual abuse in Milwaukee. The following is from a SNAP Wisconsin press release of 10/4/12."Finally, Weakland has never apologized publically to victim/survivors and their families, and he could have used the interview with Gibney to perform this one decent gesture, knowing victims of priests he was responsible for would be undoubtedly watching the film. He could have apologized for his written remarks he once made in the Catholic newspaper that not all victims of priests are so innocent and that some victims are street wise and savvy. He could have apologized when in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal, around the very time he was sending secret reports about Murphy to Ratzinger, he opines that once a priest loses sexual interest in a child that is when the squealing starts and you have to deal with it. Perhaps he had in mind some of the deaf victims of Murphy who were causing him so much consternation. And he could apologize as to why he commissioned a bronze relief of himself in the cathedral, which is still there, depicting himself in the place of Christ shepherding little children, when so many childrens lives were destroyed under his care."
As long as people continue to provide financial support, nothing will change.
Solidarity forever: http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/thanks-commomweal-taking-bill-donoh...'s appropriate that the theme movie about the current state of Catholicism is coming soon: Les Miserables.
Abp. Weakland is out of the actively ministering picture. Finn should be. THAT is the shame of it all.And, yes, I deliberately left Finn's title off. As far as I am concerned, he doesn't deserve to used it anymore.
"I no longer give to the bishops appeal (and he knows why if he reads his mail). "While it feels good to individuals to stop giving and to let the bishop know why, it is unfortunately relatively meaningless.But if an entire parish refuses (as has mine for the last 10 years!) that is noticed. We have been in constant "negotiation" with the archdiocese of San Francisco for the past 3 years and our compromise is to give our unwilling "donation" to either Catholic Charities or a specific list of parish schools. Our nut is about $55,000 a year.There are ways to do these things that cause notice to be taken ... and can eventually involve the parish in determining how its money will be used.
Frank G. - -There are huge differences between the Weakland and Finn cases. The Weakland case involved a young man in his 20s. The Finn case involved a prepubescent little child. Archbishop Weakland resigned, has shown great contrition, and has testified as to how the cover=ups were done, while Bishop Finn sometimes still doesn't admit he did anything wrong. I've forgotten where I read this, but years ago I read that the money which Weakland paid the young was money he had earned making speeches and given to the diocese. He didn't use money from the laity.And, if you'll notice, it seems that many of us are willing to forgive -- when there is repentence that seems genuine.
"Archbishop Weakland is a theological and political liberal; Bishop Finn is a conservative. If Finn resigns, will Commonweal defend his right to publish in a Catholic weekly? Will he, like Rembert Weakland, be welcomed back into the public discourse of the People of God?"As it happens, Commonweal's editors wrote on this topic about nine years ago - not in reference to Weakland and Finn, but Weakland and Law. The editors' criteria at that time seem to me to strike the right balance, and I'd think they answer your question, Frank G.http://commonwealmagazine.org/rembert-weakland-1
About the Bishop's Fund: for the last some years I've made a token contribution to the local Catholic Charities, with the check thus made out. I used to explain why
Sorry, pushed the wrong button again. I used to explain why in a letter, but after never getting any response, spared myself the trouble. There are plenty of secular organizations that do charitable work -- food banks, homeless shelters, medical centers, etc. etc. etc. One thing that the Catholic Church in this country has shown us is that it is a feckless steward of its (and our wealth), pouring out vast sums to victims, to lawyers, and so forth (to say nothing of ecclesiastical finery), and our dollars probably are more beneficial to society if given to institutions we trust, and that are accountable.
Jean: I am against the idea of stopping to go to Mass. Do you remember that in "The Power and the Glory", at one point an old woman says to the main character: "You're a bad priest"? Yet it does not prevent her from going to him for Mass and even for confession. I like that attitude. A holy Mass presided by a sinful priest and attended by sinful people: that makes sense to me. We need the sacraments. My basic request is for people to be removed from positions in which they may cause harm, but after that, we're all together in this mess that life is.
Ann Oliver,There are two separate issues regarding Rembert Weakland. One is his paying hush money to a lover. The other is his reassigning known pedophiles to be near children. In that case, he is like Bishop Finn in that he mishandled his dealings with dangerous members of the clergy who were under his care. It is SNAP who charges Weakland with failing to apologize. I suggest that you contact SNAP Wisconsin if you think Weakland is being judged unfairly.
Donate to the Archdiocese.My husband made me stop the final few payments on a multiyear pledge after he read in the paper that our Archdiocese was spending money to fight laws meant to give victims of sexual abuse more time to sue in court. My husband really, really didn't like that. I am also not thrilled that my Archdiocese is closing Catholic schools but seemed to put a ton of resources into the "Fortnight of Freedom". It seems unfortunate we had money for the latter and not the former. So now I give the money I used to give to the Archdiocese directly to poor parishes. And I giving more to my own parish as well now that i don't give to the Archdiocese.
Hey Jean, I agree with you: "Seems to me that Grants identifying blind obedience/collusion with corruption in high places here and Eugene Ms piece on the Dolan-Donohue-Anderson troika are good starts.I no longer give to the bishops appeal (and he knows why if he reads his mail).And we can pray, certainly."Claire, I also think you identified some excellent protest gestures:"For example, instead of contributing to the Diocesan appeal, they can give the money to a local Catholic organization on which he does not have oversight, or to a local Christian organization, or to the diocesan appeal of another diocese which they would adopt. They can make presents to their parish in kind and not in dollars, so that no fraction of the donation goes to the diocese.They can cancel their subscription to the diocesan paper and subscribe to another paper instead. They can avoid reading anything Bishop Finn has written and avoid listening to anything he has said. They can avoid talking about him, or looking at him, or interacting with him in any way. They can ask for confirmation to be conferred by someone else; defer confirmation if that is not possible; or at least not take pictures of him with the newly confirmed youth."I actually think that numerous lay people have risen to the challenge as best they can. Bravo. More power to those who have not given up on change. People like both of you, and others, have not given in to the sinfulness of the status quo. In addition to this, I think we need prophetic voices from the pulpit. We need priests and deacons and bishops who are willing to break ranks and name the actual demons that are driving this thing. And I don't mean dish out the usual excuses: secularism and the media, our permissive society, etc. etc. etc. I mean naming the demon of clericalism, and the worship of authority and success, and the weakening of moral fiber because we put the perpetuation of institutional power ahead of the needs of vulnerable people and demands of justice. These things are sins. (Sorry, Jean, you're right about the Catholic guilt, I guess!) If these sinful habits weren't firmly in place, the first instance a child was touched, somebody would have been there to say "Hey, stop that" and they would have been backed up to the hilt. We know that's not what happened, and it's still not to be taken for granted.Our shepherds are not only shrugging themselves, but they seem to feel no pressure to keep us, their people, from complicity in these sins. That's my view. We become complicit when we get used to it, when we "take refuge in the impossibility of changing the unjust situation," and shrug or wink or throw up our hands, or whatever. For the sake of the moral life of Catholics, we've got to change this dynamic. No ideal solutions are on my mind, but I think that the collective wisdom of the Church can come up with something better than what we have to date.
Jim Pauwels,Unfortunately, I can not access the article you reference. Could you email the text to me? Thanks.
I gave up giving to the bishop's fund 3 years ago when I realized that the NY state bishops had hired a PR firm to lobby for them in the NYS senate. A Child Victims Bill has passed several times in the Assembly. It adds five years to the current statue of limitations on child abuse claims and allows for a one year window when victims from before that limit can make a criminal and civil complaint. It has never been taken up in the senate, due in large part to the lobbying by the bishops hired hands. Since I had been e-mailing and writing letters to state legislators on behalf of this bill, I had to ask myself why I was still giving to an entity that was aggressively lobbying against what I was lobbying for. The money I gave yearly to the bishop's fund, I now divide among groups I see that are doing God's work. Most are Catholic, some are not. These are dark times in the church. The only power the laity has is the witholding of money. No money, no power. A small step, but a necessary one. I can only hope that many others follow.
Frank G. --Yes, Weakland behaved badly with about the abusive priests. But he has admitted it in detail under oath. As to his affair, I'm not so sure that an affair, whether with a man or woman, should automatically and finally disqualify a priest/bishop. Depends on the circumstances, repentence, etc. It's the toleration of the use of children that is such a heinous fault. Actually, I think that many of the abusive priests have severe mental problems, which lessens their culpability. So I view the actions and inactions in the cover-ups as as serious and even more serious than the sins of the crazy priests. (No, I don't think that *all* of the abusers are crazy, but some are, and many are neurotic to the point that culpability is probably lessened somewhat.)As to SNAP, I don't know it's latest pronouncements, and at does seem unforgiving. However, what I've read indicates that Archbishop Weakland is truly contrite. Most significantly, his resignation shows it. (I might ask you -- why do you think he is insincere? Might there be some bias there??)The case that really drives me up the wall is that of C. Law. That such an administrator should be rewarded for his sins instead of being fired is jaw-droppingly unbelievable -- except that it did happen and it continues to give the worst sort of scandal after 10 years. It's like responding to Bernie Madoff, "Oh well, boys will be boys".
It would be pharisaical to think, "I could never and would never make Finn's mistake" and it is unhelpful to demonize him with overheated rhetoric. DPierre makes a point worth considering even if it risks mitigating the convenient picture of Finn as a baddie: "Lets see here: two computer technicians a diocesan lawyer a monsignor a vice-chancellor a psychiatric doctor and a deacon ALL allegedly saw the disturbing images from Fr. Ratigans computer, but NONE of them officially alerted law enforcement. Why not?!? The Graves report said all the people who saw the images should have called the police. Yet Bishop Finn, who stated he never saw the images, was the one who took the hit."To say Finn's bad judgment of people makes him unfit to be a bishop is rather sweeping. Who has perfect judgment in dealing with people? Who can even be sure of having good or fairly good judgment? And there is no interviewing process to examine bishops on their judgment of people.
Accountability is surely missing among those in high places, particularity bishops.
It doesn't take perfect judgment to realize, when you receive a long letter from a parish school principle warning you about a priest's inappropriate behavior toward kids -- which includes the fact that parents found girls panties in a planter in the priest's yard -- followed by news from your vicar general that the same priest had potentially illegal photos of naked children on his computer, nearly ten years after Dallas, that the priest poses a threat. Finn didn't ask to see the photos? That was irresponsible. As were his restrictions on Ratigan. No effort was made to monitor his Internet use. Don't forget, Ratigan left a suicide note apologizing for the harm he'd done to children. What sentient being wouldn't interpret that at the very least as an indication that the guy was dangerous? Even when Finn learned that Ratigan was ignoring the light restrictions, he did nothing more than scold him by phone. Finn was found guilty because he agreed to stipulated facts that amounted to an admission of guilt. He is the bishop. The final authority in the diocese. And his failure to report and rein in Ratigan led to Ratigan's commission of more crimes.
"Accountability is surely missing...."Jeb,It is, and what complicates this is that Bishop Finn has the support of his younger priests. Are they more charitable in their judgment, do they themselves have the conservative qualities attributed to the bishop (and thus admire him, detect a bias against him because of his conservative nature), or do they just want to leave final judgment to posterity? It is hard to say. O thing for sure: if the younger clergy are supporting him, he will stay put.
Clergy, at least some clergy, don't start from a position of objectivity. We feel bonds of loyalty to our bishops. In many ways, these bonds are good things, and serve the church well. It's not that different from the bonds of loyalty that most of us feel toward members of our family, or that a soldier may fell toward her commanding officer. I do think that clergy should be granted some - not unlimited, but some - latitude when their loyalty to their bishop is put to the test.If the priest or deacon or bishop is a person of integrity, then presenting him the truth in love will help open his eyes and open his heart. It may take several attempts :-). On the other hand, fierce frontal attacks elicit a circle-the-wagons mentality in a lot of people, including some clergy.
Jim P, I don't think there's anything to be proud of in tribal loyalty - it's a purely self-serving device that privileges the well-being of the in-group against the well-being of all others. Ideally, the church (like the military) shouldn't exist to perpetuate itself - its purpose is to serve the very people it is instead preying upon.
James Chichetto and Jim Pauwels,I assume youve read Grants comments -- the one that immediately preceded yours, and the earlier ones. Would you say that theyre truthful, accurate? If so, how could the loyalty of the younger clergy ever be a reason for not removing Finn? As Tina Turner might say, whats loyalty got to do with it, when someone has done what Finn has done, and failed to do what hes failed to do? Doesnt a tipping point exist, a point at which one declares, Enough already! He simply has to go. We have to do the right thing, regardless of whether the younger clergy likes it.
Gene - for myself, I'm not arguing that Finn should stay. I agree that there is such a thing as a tipping point, a point beyond which clergy, or anyone, needs to set aside loyalty to the church, for the good of the church. If that point has been reached in Finn's diocese, then some of his clergy may need to be *helped* to realize that. In my view, the path to achieve that is to tell the truth in love. I see Grant's post and his comments here as exercises in truth-telling. That is very powerful.
Jim, You wrote, I agree that there is such a thing as a tipping point, a point beyond which clergy, or anyone, needs to set aside loyalty to the church, for the good of the church.If they were to do that, I dont think it would amount to setting aside loyalty to the church. It would mean, instead, setting aside loyalty to a person precisely in order to be loyal to the church.
I maintain that Bill Donohue and his ilk are the foundational cause of the "Bishops Abuse Scandal. It is lay Catholics like him who blindly support the "Apostolic Hierarchy" with their words and money who are the true perpetrators of the criminal sodomy of children.The hierarchy of the Roman church would have a much more difficult time of defending itself if the laity was united in their abhorence of the crimes that the bishops have committed. So the laity who continue to support the Abuse of Power by all the bishops are abetting the continuation of a bishop's power to resume the secret practice of covering up crimes whenever they decide to do it again.The power to keep scandals secret continues to be systemic to the entire hierarchy. The so called "reforms" are cosmetic. In Philadelphia accusations were never sent to the "hand-picked review board." The pope in Rome immediately gets rid of Bishop Morris of Australia for even mentioning the future possibility of a married priesthood or women priests, but refuses to accept the resignation of Irish bishops who covered up crimes. What is wrong with this picture?Bishops on every continent (except Antarctica) have covered up the sexual abuse of children in over 26 countries. Most child victims were sodomized because bishops worldwide covered up the crimes and perpetuted the abuse of additional victims.There is too much evidence for Rome and the Pope to claim they did not know.Bill Donohue's words should be criminal in that his lies are helping the Bishops continue to deny their Abuse of Power. The underlying System of Abuse continues to exist. Unless the power system is changed, the sodoming of our future children and grandchildren will happen again. How do I know that? Because the hierarchy has all the power in the Roman Church and obedience to that power is absolutely required all the way to "infallible" Rome.If you don't think what I say is true, then I would ask you "What does your Bishop do with ALL the money you send him?" Truth is you not only do not know, but no one can find out unless your bishop lets you. There is no one looking over his shoulder checking up on him, nor will he let any "independent" audit occur. The bottom line is the laity are powerless. but the worst part of the laity are lackeys like Bill Dondhue. They continue to play a roll in the sodomizing of children.
'It would mean, instead, setting aside loyalty to a person precisely in order to be loyal to the church.'Right, Gene. As JAk never ceases to remind us, the bishops are *not* the Church. They're part of the Church, no less, no more.
"Enough already. He simply has to go."Yes, certainly. But how does one convey that to his younger priests?
"Yes, certainly. But how does one convey that to his younger priests?"Maybe something like, "This is a good and sincere man who thought he could handle and control a dangerous predator. He is not equipped to make the hard decisions a bishop must make in order to protect the most vulnerable members of the church."
"But how does one convey that to his younger priests?"That's easy. Rome does it. The younger clergy prone to support Finn surely would not balk if the decision came from Rome. As for the mechanics of it, that's easy too. They send in a co-adjutor bishop, then take Finn aside and persuade him it's for the good of the faithful that he resign. Once he agrees, he himself will explain to his younger clergy that they must all look to the greater good and not worry about him. Period. It's finished.But it will never happen. They don't take the crisis seriously. Judging from earlier events, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Finn has already asked to resign and was forbidden by Rome.
"If they were to do that, I dont think it would amount to setting aside loyalty to the church. It would mean, instead, setting aside loyalty to a person precisely in order to be loyal to the church."You're right. I meant to write, " ... setting aside loyalty to the bishop for the good of the church"
"But how does one convey that to his younger priests?Take them to my old neighborhood where the Russian Orthodox priests always in cassocks, beards and birettas[?] with congregations of about a dozen babushkas, and show them the Roman future
Each day that Finn remains in office, each day that twisted hacks for the hierarchy like Donohue appear before the public to defend priests' indefensible rape, sodomy and exploitation of children, each day that bishops escape their accountability for the corruption of the priesthood, is another nail in the clerical coffin, another shovel of dirt on the hierarchy's grave.In a perverse kind of way, Finn's clinging to his office is a Christmas gift to Catholics that keeps on giving. He's dragging them all down with him.Jesus scolded the sign-seeking Pharisees and Sadducees of his day for not reading the "signs of the times." Catholics today are witnessing the slow-motion, painful death of the feudal celibate priesthood- the signs have been all around us for a very long time. Matthew quotes Jesus: "A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.What kind of Jesus movement and church will emerge from the belly of the beast in the 21st century?LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!
Rita's comment is correct. We in Dallas experienced a like situation in the 1990's over the Rudy Kos trial. The initial judgment was over $31 mil; eventually negotiated down to around $18 mil. Insurance companies covered roughly 50%. The diocese had to make up the difference - e.g. selling land that had been earmarked for future parishes or needed schools for minority populations; saddling parishes with higher payments/*taxes*, etc.This was ten years before the Dallas Charter. Kos and the initial cover-up occurred before his time and yet he made subsequent decisions that made him a part of the cover-up; excuses; etc. (there are indications that his witness testimony is contradicted by both facts and other testimonies. Both he and his chancellor publically stated that the parents were at fault, etc.)During the trial, significant and powerful catholic lay folks met with the bishop and (by their written account) he agreed to resign/retire at the trial's conclusion. The bishop reneged on that promise. Rome eventually assigned a co-adjutor but the bishop fought this (per sources, leveraging his personal friendship with Ratzinger). After a few years of heightened animosity between these two - bishop/co-adjutor, Rome moved the co-adjutor to New Jersey. Rome then allowed the bishop to remain until his 75th birthday.From a diocesan perspective, that 10+ year period has been tracked and documented - no serious catholic gave any sizable donation, trust fund, etc. during that period....many vocally stated that they would wait until he was gone. Pastors hunkered down; expansion plans; building projects, etc. were either held up or postponed. (one exception - the bishop did get his cathedral renovated; finished the bell tower that had never been done; and added expensive bells). Diocesan morale remained negative waiting for his retirement. There were public calls for him to step down but it was skewed to look like his staying was a sign of loyalty and integrity to his calling/position.This is hypocrisy - the church is put on hold to play to papal politics, personal egos, power plays, etc.
Rita,You wrote, it will never happen. . . . I wouldnt rule out the possibility that Finn has already asked to resign and was forbidden by Rome."If thats the case, its very disappointing. Why would they forbid him to resign? Honestly, I dont understand. And if they did do that, do you think theres any similarity between this and another story one often hears: that Cardinal Law had wanted to resign earlier than he actually did, but was forbidden by Rome?
Gene,You are correct that Law wanted to resign earlier on his first trip to Rome. Batista Re headed the Congregation for Bishops and was against it, as no doubt were others in Rome as well. The answer was no, tough it out. The fear was that Law's resignation might turn out to be the first domino.When Law got back to Boston, things calmed down a bit and it looked as though he just might make it through. Then the repulsive Foley documents and others were released; Judge Constance Sweeney said the evidence in documents showed Law's earlier statements about his record did not reconcile (practically calling him a liar); and those documents lost Law his die hard major donor support. That last was the nail in the coffin so to speak, except that a cushy retirement awaited him.Bill deHaas' recount of the experience in Dallas is another sad chapter in Rome's power games.I doubt that Finn has already offered his resignation though. He does not think he did anything wrong, so in imitation of the suffering Lord, he bravely carries on.
And let's not forget the Irish bishops who resigned under pressure but whose resignations were turned down by Rome: Bishop Raymond Field and Bishop Eamonn Walsh.
Again, thank you, Grant, for your powerful rebuttal of Donohue's distortions of reality at the opening of the thread, and at 12/06/2012 - 8:44 pm.
Gene P: "Honestly, I dont understand."Neither do I.Sadly, I keep coming back to Eugene Kennedy: We have power and you do not..."
Gene,I'd be speculating to say why. I suppose the domino effect is feared. I also think there is resistance to the idea of moral accountability for oversight. The resignations of bishops (Antigonish, Milwaukee) who actually performed immoral acts themselves were accepted. Carolyn has spoken to your question about Cardinal Law, and Claire's addition of the two Irish prelates whose resignations were not accepted is apt. There are others too, I am told. The costs, as Bill DeH. has outlined, are enormous. I share your sadness.
Accountability. We learned about that around Boy Scouts' campfires :"If you don't bear the cross, then you can't wear the crown" (From "Do Lord, O Do Lord, O Do Remember me")Resignation. What kind of a mindset does it take for a man who feels that, to do the right thing, he has to resign, but doesn't do so because someone forbids him to do it? Why didn't he resign and let the Vatican refuse to accept it? "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
Crystal: this tribal loyalty is a direct outgrowth of the knowledge that Big Daddy has your career in his hands. If you want to move up and possibly have access to a touch of the scarlet, then you have to play along with whatever Big Daddy wants you to do. And above all you must exhibit loyalty to him no matter what.Once the priest with integrity gets over this sense of ambition and possibly entitlement, then and only then will he do the right things.
To try to put some kind of a positive Advent spin on all of this:On the Mystery of the Incarnation by Denise Levertov (19231997)It's when we face for a momentthe worst our kind can do, and shudder to knowthe taint in our own selves, that awecracks the mind's shell and enters the heart:not to a flower, not to a dolphin,to no innocent formbut to this creature vainly sureit and no other is god-like, God(out of compassion for our uglyfailure to evolve) entrusts,as guest, as brother,the Word.
Jimmy,The Levertov poem is ravishing. Thanks for sharing it. I love her poetry, what of it I know, but haven't read this before. What collection is this from?
Wonderful, wonderful poem. Thank you.
Jimmy, wow! Thank you!
Beautiful - thanks, Jim.
Catholic News Agency says "Criticisms of Bishop Finn described as misleading, dishonest"By Michelle Bauman --- with the usual Donohue quotes and those from supportive priests: "Although Msgr. Blacet believes the attacks against Bishop Finn are unwarranted, he is not discouraged, but rather sees an analogy to the sufferings and accusations that Christ bore during his passion..." As I feared, Finn as the suffering Christ.http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/criticisms-of-bishop-finn-describ... now, Grant's rebuttal here provides much needed counterpoint and truth-telling, provided my link is accepted.
Thank you very much, Jim. Have you considered forwarding a copy to Donohue for his possible use in his Advent stream-of-consciousness effluvium? Imagine his impact if he used it as you did.
Carolyn - saw the same post. Msgr is 91 or 92 years old. Don't mean to pick on the elderly but not sure that I place much credence in his opinion - he is entitled to his opinion but let's not generalize or make some type of clerical statement.
"Most child victims were sodomized because bishops worldwide covered up the crimes and perpetuated the abuse of additional victims."(1) only a small percentage of the abuse victims were actually sodomized.(2) how can you substantiate that most crimes against minors (rather than many; or some) were due to episcopal coverups?
"lets not forget the Irish bishops who resigned under pressure but whose resignations were turned down by Rome: Bishop Raymond Field and Bishop Eamonn Walsh."Martin Drennan courageously withstood this pressure, rightly.Donal Murray should have withstood too. Now people realize the charges against him were unsound and he is praised in the latest report for his handling of the abuse crisis.Don't jump on bandwagons.
Note that the Vatican has trouble finding anyone who wants to be a bishop.
It's from "The Journey With Jesus: Poems and Prayers." http://www.journeywithjesus.net/PoemsAndPrayers/Denise_Levertov_Incarnat...
DPierre's sharp criticism (@12/6 9:50AM) and personal attack against Grant Gallicho must not go unremarked. Charging Grant with deceit, guile, being unbothered by the exploitation of children, distortion and blatant dishonesty is unwarranted and unwelcome here.Some background on Pierre may be helpful to discern his approach. I believe he and Donohue have much in common. http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/01/the-truth-about-false..."Dave Pierre is a journalist who operates TheMediaReport.com, which examines anti-Catholicism and bias in todays media, and the author of two books, Double Standard: Abuse Scandals and the Attack on the Catholic Church and Catholic Priests Falsely Accused: The Facts, The Fraud, The Stories. Dave is also a contributing writer to NewsBusters.org, a blog of the Media Research Center covering media bias."Below the interview with Pierre, is this helpful comment:Dr Margaret Kennedy March 13th, 2012 at 10:06 pm"I have extreme difficulty understanding Dave Pierres statistics regarding alleged false allegations. (32% in Boston) Even Father Stephen Rossetti, himself a Catholic Priest and therapist who ran a treatment centre for clergy offenders said in Rome in February that 95% of allegations are true! the John Jay research states only 1.5% allegations are false and most studies find the percentage of false allegations are between 2-3%.I do think other voices, other research on this whole area needs to be heard by the ACP. Dave Pierre is a journalist, does his experience trump that of criminal researchers (John Jay) and priest Therapists (Rossetti)Weird."A response to Dave Pierres book on falsely-accused Catholic priests...http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/03/re-catholic-priests-f... 3/18/12In the interest of transparency:http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/03/dave-pierre-author-of... 3/19/12I believe Grant deserves much better.
How the complexity of our relation to the church hierarchy is interfering with our prayer.In my parish the prayers of the faithful are prepared by parishioners. Today's prayer: "For the pope, bishops, priests and deacons - the representatives of Christ on earth - as they teach us the truths of God's law" (or something like that). Upon hearing: "for the pope, bishops, priests and deacons", I wondered with unease what was coming next, but reminded myself that of course they needed our prayers. Then I heard "the representatives of Christ on earth", thought to myself that it is not just in them that we see Christ, but started wondering what "representatives" really meant and whether I might be able to assent to what was being said. That train of thought threw me off and by the time the third part of the sentence came (which I can't remember word for word), I was too confused to decide whether to join in, and my vague mumble was between a response or non-response. Also, was there an agenda behind the prayer? Was it a coded way to ask us to pray for their campaign against gay marriage? Or on the contrary, was it a suggestion that we should follow them only when they themselves are faithfully following Christ? These days, nothing is simple when pope and bishops are mentioned in the prayer of the faithful.
Re: Its from The Journey With Jesus: Poems and Prayers. http://www.journeywithjesus.net/PoemsAndPrayers/Denise_Levertov_Incarnat... be clear for those who haven't looked at the link yet. The link is to the source where I saw the poem. It isn't to any collection of Levertov's.Here is a link to her thoughts: http://books.google.com/books?id=J0Ly9rX6e54C&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=on+t...
Jim,Along the line of the role of imagination in faith, see "The Healing Imagination" by Ann Ulanov, a penetrating study. Fictions of real possibilities..."a central resource of the life of the psyche and the life of the spirit"...The last chapter on Resurrection is masterful.Sample it at http://books.google.com/books?id=w2sSEmb5A80C&pg=PA1&lpg=PP1&dq=The+Heal... Resurrection: http://books.google.com/books?id=w2sSEmb5A80C&pg=PA1&lpg=PP1&dq=The+Heal...
co-written with husband Barry Ulanov -- sorry
Claire, I would say that all of us who are baptized represent Christ on earth. In my view, the wording of that petition was unfortunate. In my experience, when parishioners are empowered to contribute items like Universal Prayer petitions or bulletin articles, the pastor needs to keep an editorial watch on the content.
Jim, I'd rather have people write petitions freely even if those can be questionable (within reason). Not every problem has to be fixed by increased clerical oversight. On the contrary it's better (according to a variant of the principle of subsidiarity?) to avoid pastoral meddling if possible. I think we can manage this kind of minor issues by ourselves, at least, I hope so. Just think of the problems Bp Finn would have avoided if he had systematically deferred to the diocesan review board's advice and had only stepped in when they were not in agreement among themselves!
Claire, I guess I'd wish the pastor and the people writing the petitions to have a collaborative relationship. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the pastor has some competence that the lay writers would benefit from. It doesn't have to be clerical oversight. In our parish, which has the benefit of a large and qualified professional staff, the pastor might delegate the editor role to one of the staff. But ultimately the pastor is responsible for the content. For all I know, everything I'm describing here is already happening your parish. I just wouldn't have put the text of that petition quite that way.
Claire, sorry, forgot to add - you're most likely correct about Bishop Finn. I'm not certain to what extent the review board was involved in the Ratigan case, but in general, I believe bishops would be very well-advised to collaborate with their review boards.
Ms Disco is busy demonizing those who disagree with her yet again. The Sean O'Conaill article she posts is quite questionable too. "Children do not like about sex abuse" is one of his tenets that ensures that allegations are immediately turned into proofs. Has he forgotten the Fells Acre incident? "The incident began in 1984, when a 5-year-old boy told a family member that Gerald Amirault, administrator and handyman at the Fells Acres day care center, had touched his penis. The boy's mother notified the authorities, and Gerald was arrested. The children told stories that included being abused by a clown and a robot in a secret room at the day care center. They told of watching animals being sacrificed, and one girl claimed Gerald had penetrated her anus with the twelve-inch (30 cm) blade of a knife (which left no injuries)."The new Danish film, "The Hunt" gives food for thought on this, and warns that adults' relation with children is being poisoned by terror of "allegations". Many adults no longer express any affection for children outside their immediate family.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria
oops, quote should read "children do not lie about sex abuse"
In fairness she does post the reply to O'Conaill: http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/03/dave-pierre-author-of...
Fr. O'Leary: When was the last time you came across criticism of a sexual abuser or his enabler that didn't strike you as an example of demonizing?
so now Carolyn Disco's target dpierre is an "enabler" of child abusers -- another example of demonization.and, Mr G, when did you stop beating your wife?
No, that's not what I said. But you haven't answered my question. As ever, you remain the priest who cried "demonizer."
Mr Gallicho: When was the last time you came across criticism of the witch-hunt mentality or documentation of false accusations that didnt strike you as an example of enabling child abuse? Again I urge you so see The Hunt.
My reflex is not yours. False accusations are horrifying.
Of course we both agree that child abuse and its enabling as well as false accusations are horrifying. The point I am making is a far subtler one; which is why I urge you to see that film; it is about the poisoning of trust between adults and children NOT primarily because of the reality of child abuse BUT because of the spread of a paranoid culture of suspicion.


text:
For something I'm writing -- I'm interested in examples of bad arguments which involve the application of mathematical theorems in non-mathematical contexts. E.G. folks who make theological arguments based on (what they take to be) Godel's theorem, or Bayesian arguments for creationism. (If necessary I'm willing to extend the net to physics, to include bad applications of the second law of thermodynamics or the Uncertainty Principle, if you know any really amusing ones.)
A tragic example of this is the case People v. Collins, in which a prosecutor asked a mathematician (as an expert witness) a question of the form, "assuming these events are independent, what is the probability that...". The events were obviously not independent, things like "drives a convertible", "has a caucasian girlfriend", "girlfriend has blond hair", and some others. The mathematician answered the misleading question correctly (assuming independence), and the defendant went to jail. The California Supreme Court later overturned the verdict, in a decision that shows a surprisingly solid understanding of probability.
This case could be required reading (the supreme court decision, anyway) in any introduction to probability course. It has counting, independence, and conditional probability all involved in a fundamental way.
Here are some examples, ranging from the comical to the debatable.
Comical: Pretty much any mention of mathematics in Jacques Lacan. To give you an idea, here is a typical passage:
And here's another one:
Interesting/Rigorous but still quite a stretch: The work of Alain Badiou on set theory, although more rigorous and advanced, also provides a very good resource for misapplications of formal mathematics in order to draw non-mathematical conclusions, cf. especially Being and Event which is his magnum opus, in which he uses set theory to support the tagline that 'Mathematics is Ontology'. Unlike Lacan, Badiou at least knows his stuff when it comes to the statement and development of formal results. That said, his interpretations and conclusions are often huge stretches.
Here's a related MO post on Badiou:
Interesting/Philosophy: I don't know if you'd call these misapplications, but they are certainly attempts to use formal results to draw philosophical conclusions that are not in any formal way entailed by those results. Here are some examples:
The philosophical significance of Gödel's theorem, M Dummett - Ratio, 1963
Pretty much anything philosophical that has been written about the so-called Skolem Paradox involves formal-to-informal entailments.
My favourite in this direction is an application of Noether's theorem to public relations: Sha, "Noether's Theorem: The Science of Symmetry and the Law of Conservation", J. Public Relations Research, 16 (2004) 391-416.
I quote from the abstract:
This is not an answer. Just a very long comment. Mostly I am stunned by the answers given.
(1) I'm surprised to see Lacan featured as the main example. What I see in these quotes is an attempt to formalise human condition. Is it laughable? Yes! But no more that 16th century physics and widely taken as such. I'm pretty sure 99,9% of the human population never heard of Lacan and was never affected by his thoughts on maths in any way.
(2) If I was in the audience for a talk on "Theorems misapplied to non-mathematical contexts" I'd selfishly want to see examples that affected me or someone I know. Amazingly, none of the answers given until now mentionned the field of ECONOMICS. Some people in this field are passing opinions (often political) for mathematical facts every day and this translates into policies that have influence on the lives of millions (if not billions) of people.
Just an example. When the subprime mortgage buble exploded, we heard most banks and insurance companies were shocked because "their experts(*) said the price of houses couldn't go down everywhere in the US at the same time". In fancier terms, it was widely believed that the use of Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO) and Credit Default Swaps (CDS) were minimizing the risk of default while it was actually just spreading and increasing it. I am very ignorant in mathematical finance but I'd like someone to try and explain to me which theorems that was based on. I'm pretty sure this should go straight to the top of the list.
(*) I used the word "experts" as a generic word for "economists and mathematicians employed by financial institutions".
A couple of misapplications of physics come to mind:
Conservation of angular momentum does not mean what people think it means. If you have an object spinning on a flat surface, it can't turn around without outside forces, right? Wrong, the rattleback toy does this (video).
The Coriolis effect is real, but the idea that this has something to do with the direction water spins down the drain is a false urban legend.
There are very many examples of the misuse of probability arguments in legal cases. See e.g. the Prosecutor's fallacy.
The original question, and several of the answers, refer to misuse of Godel's work, but with very few specific citations. For these, I would suggest Torkel Franzen's book, Godel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to its Use and Abuse.
As you mentioned, an often misapplied mathematical statement is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which for me, as a reader of Chriss-Ginzburg, is the purely mathematical statement that any subvariety of classical phase space ($\mathrm{Specm}(\mathrm{gr}A)$) that arises from a noncommutative system of equations (an ideal in A) is coisotropic. The Encyclopedia of Science and Religion states:
There has also been an interest in using quantum uncertainty, and the breakdown of rigid determinism that it ensures, to defend the concept of free will and to provide a channel for divine action in the world in the face of unbreakable laws of nature.
I've come across this often in religious discourse- the claim that the uncertainty principle states that "everything is uncertain" and that therefore the laws of nature are subject to the decisions of G-d. I've heard it freely confused with the "law of relativity", which apparently states that "everything is relative". Moreover, some anthropologists cite Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as follows:
In social situations, too, the simple presence of an observer - an anthropologist at a tribal ceremony, a news reporter at a schoolboard meeting, or a TV camera in a courtroom - generally influences the course of events to some uncertain degree as they are recorded. The distortion that results from measurement or observation is called the Heisenberg Effect as in "No one does or can do the same thing on stage that he does unobserved..."
"Therefore, socialist economy is impossible, in every sense of the word."
Robert Murphy comes to this conclusion in Cantor's Diagonal Argument: An Extension to the Socialist Calculation Debate.$^1$
The debate is over whether a Central Planning Board can, even in theory, correctly price goods and services, as it is assumed a market economy can. Socialists such as Dickinson argued that a market economy can, in principle, be simulated by the Board, even if it means solving a large system of simultaneous equations. Hayek, on behalf of the Austrians, agreed, yet maintained the number of equations—presumably one for each product and potential product—is clearly too large in practice. Both sides claimed victory.
In the cited article, the author takes the ball from Hayek and carries it across the goal line: after a decent three-page explanation of the diagonal argument, Murphy concludes the Planning Board's task would not merely be impractical, but fully impossible because of the requirement to publish an uncountably infinite list of prices.
I suppose if one started with the assumption there are (at least) countably infinite number of products/services $p_1, p_2, \dots$ and also agreed that any possible subset of these products is again a product itself, the price of which is not necessarily the sum of the component prices (let's ignore issues of convergence!), then one could conclude using Cantor's Theorem ($2^S>S$) there are an uncountable number of products the Board must "list". But I'm not sure why, if we take the listing process literally, it matters how large the infinity is.
The "No free lunch" (NFL) theorem from mathematical optimization was used by William Dembski to disprove Darwinian theory of evolution. (The relevance of NFL's theorem to evolution was proposed earlier by Stuart Kauffman.)
Olle Haggstrom wrote a paper debunking Dembski's argument. (Here is an early version with stronger rhetorics.)
Arrow's theorem is often glossed as "there is no good voting system".
Press' paper Strong profiling is not mathematically optimal for discovering rare malfeasors has been misinterpreted by the popular press as a mathematical endorsement of certain politics, though that's perhaps due in part to the intentional framing of the problem by Press.
Goedel's theorem is misapplied arguably more than it is used properly.
Alan Sokal's Book deserves some mention if we are talking about misuse of theorems.
This isn't exactly what you asked for, but I find it so amusing I could not resist.
The Indiana $\pi$ bill, when they almost passed a bill claiming that $\pi=3.2$, in order to be able to square the circle.
In order to baffle the uninitiated, some authors interpret Banach-Tarski paradox (stating that "it is possible to decompose a ball into five pieces which can be reassembled by rigid motions to form two balls of the same size as the original.", cf. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Banach-TarskiParadox.html) in an obviously false way as if it could be applied to physical objects. E.g. Reuben Hersh writes (Reuben Hersh: "What Is Mathematics, Really?" p.255):
"Stefan Banach and Alfred Tarski proved, using the axiom of choice, that it's possible to divide a pea (or a grape or a marshmallow) into 5 pieces such that the pieces can be moved around (translated and rotated) to have volume greater than the sun."
Clearly, this formulation is very much misleading, since it suggests that the paradox can be applied to a physical objects, which is obviously false. Indeed, the construction is such that the ball is divided into non-measurable parts and, clearly, there is no physical objects corresponding to non-measurable sets.
In his book Everybody for Everybody, Samual A. Nigro argues that Gödel's theorems not only cast doubt on the theory of evolution, but prove the doctrine of original sin, the need for sacrament and penance, and that there is a future eternity.
This recent article is a striking example of debunking a misuse of mathematics in social sciences. In short, some diversity scholars had claimed to prove a "theorem" that diverse groups of less able individuals outperform uniform groups of more able ones. Upon examination, it turns out that the theorem is
Remarkably, the authors use an expression "for any probability measure on (a finite set) $\Phi$ with full support, (something holds) with probability one", instead of saying that it holds for every element of $\Phi$.
It seems to be a widely accepted result, published in PNAS with about 500 citations in Google Scholar.
This is a wonderful and fascinating still life by Juan Sanchez Cotán: http://www.friendsofart.net/static/images/art1/juan-sanchez-cotan-still-life-with-quince-cabbage-melon-and-cucumber.jpg
It is thought by many art historians that Cotán used a mathematical formula to determine the heights at which the various items would appear. For all I know this may be the case -- it would seem only appropriate given the name of the artist -- but I once read part of a book by a very respectable art historian (whose name I have maddeningly forgotten but I'm working on it) who said what the formula was. His evidence was just the picture itself and not any surviving record of how it was painted. But of course, given that the heights of the items are not precisely determined (anything like), it is clear that any number of curves could be declared to fit. This is not exactly misuse of a theorem but it was certainly misuse of mathematics, similar to finding the golden ratio everywhere but a bit more sophisticated.
Added: I've tracked it down now. The critic is Norman Bryson and he says this: "In relation to the quince, the cabbage appears to come forward slightly; the melon is further forward than the quince, the melon slice projects out beyond the ledge, and the cucumber overhangs it still further. The arc is therefore not on the same plane as its co-ordinates, it curves in three dimensions: it is a true hyperbola, of the type produced when a cone is viewed in oblique section." I haven't found more of the quotation, but I seem to remember that it was quite important to Bryson that it really was a hyperbola and not, say, an exponential decay. (As a matter of fact, looking at the picture again I am not convinced that the items form a nice curve of any kind: the cabbage is too far to the left and too near to being directly under the apple. And the relationship of the string of the cabbage with the leaves of the apple leads me to doubt whether the curve lies in an oblique plane, or indeed any plane, as he suggests.)
Sokal once again, with Brown and Friedman, wrote this paper: The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: The critical positivity ratio (arXiv version). The story behind this is that Nick Brown, "who began a part-time psychology course in his 50s – and ended up taking on America's academic establishment" according to Andrew Anthony in the guardian http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/19/mathematics-of-happiness-debunked-nick-brown.
This could be an unfair example, since I don't know the text myself. All I can say is that my skepticism is aroused just by the title of
(in other words, topos theory applied to music theory). At least one MO participant at MO (Mikael Vejdemo Johansson) has tried to read this book and came away feeling skeptical, according to his remarks here. I'd be interested in hearing other reactions from people who have taken a stab at it.
I submit, to your consideration, this paper by Frank Tipler, Professor at Tulane University. The paper was published in the peer-reviewed Reports on Progress in Physics, volume 68 (2005), pages 897-964. Tipler's book "The Physics of Christianity" is based on this paper.
Tipler invokes Gödel's theorem (see p. 905 onwards), Presburger arithmetic, Löwenheim-Skolem, Hales' proof of the Kepler conjecture (the latter only as an example, I believe), and various other mathematical results.
The whole "transformation" and "network centric warfare" push in the US Department of Defense last decade under Cebrowski and Rumsfeld invoked a heap of dubious interpretations and purported applications of nonlinear phenomena (perhaps most notably when 9/11 was referred to as a "system perturbation"). See here for an introductory overview.
Not really a theorem but amusing non-sense. Somebody (it was perhaps Sokal) told me about a psychanalytical book based on set theory. The author wrote it in English and translated the french terminology "th\'eorie des ensembles" as "Theory of the (w)hole". The book was later translated into French with the title "Th\'eorie des t(r)ous".
I call your attention to http://www.abarim-publications.com where you will find the book, Quantum Mechanics for Beginners; an Introduction with the blurb,
Quantum Mechanics studies the peculiar world of the "ones"; those things in nature that can not be divided. Since God is a One, and the Body of Christ as well, it shouldn't be surprising that the Bible discusses the "ones" at length, and this a few millennia before the emergence of Quantum Mechanics in the scientific arena. To appreciate this unexpected dimension of the Bible, Abarim Publication's fun-filled crash course in Quantum Mechanics should be mandatory at every seminary.
Also, Chaos Theory for Beginners; an Introduction:
Chaos Theory looks at patterns and their reoccurrence in nature. Since Moses built the tabernacle - which would turn into the temple, and later still in the Body of Christ - after patterns he saw in heaven, Chaos Theory is a must for every serious student of the Bible.
One of the chapters is entitled, Agape and Gravity Live Together in Perfect Harmony. Fans of Stevie Wonder may see a pun there. There is also Scripture Theory for Beginners; an Introduction:
What Chaos Theory does with nature, Scripture Theory does with Scriptures: the identification of reoccurring patterns and their meanings. Especially interesting are those Biblical patterns that are identical to those found in high-energy physics.
It's physics rather than math, but surely this creative paper by Alan Sokal deserves mention.
A rare instance of Gödel-abuse in a published paper is "Bacterial wisdom, Gödel's theorem and creative genomic webs" by Eshel Ben-Jacob. Here, Gödel's theorem is used to prove that "a system cannot self-design another system which is more advanced than itself", with application to genomics.
From the text:
Authors try to analyze how librarians work, by making an analogy with fractals. Also, the obligatory reference to Heisenbergs uncertainty principle.
Russian media provide a lot of amusing examples. Let me mention two:
1) (Perelman's proof of) the Poincaré conjecture leads to understanding the shape of the Universe;
2) (this is maybe what you mean in the post) it follows from the Godel's theorem that God does not exist.
In the same vein as the bayesian argument for creationism and misapplications of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, there are misapplications of the second law of thermodynamics against evolution of life ("undesigned", e.g. darwinian or lamarckian).
The second law is a mathematical consequence of Hamilton and Schrödinger equations for reasonable hamiltonians, in particular of fundamental physical evolution equations, and also of simple statistical models (statistical ensembles). See Wikipedia.
The argument is that life is complex and evolution implies a decrease in entropy/increase in complexity contradicting the second law. See for instance here.
The flaw is that the Earth, where evolution occurs, is not an isolated system. If we consider rather the solar (or just Sun-Earth) system there is loss of entropy on Earth but a compensating gain on the Sun.
For a recent anecdote (and a nice blog to add to your blogroll) see Retraction Watch.
This reference is an excellent parody of the so-called application of mathematics to economics and other social sciences (it purports to apply mathematics to theology): http://www.amazon.de/corruptionis-Entscheidungslogische-Ein%C3%BCbungen-H%C3%B6here-Amoralit%C3%A4t/dp/3922305016
I just came across the paper BAK-SNEPPEN MODELS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF STRUCTURED KNOWLEDGE in SOCIETY. INTEGRATION. EDUCATION Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference.
The abstract states:

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Welcome to the Division of Student Services!
Student Services works collaboratively and directly with students to provide guidance and resources designed to optimize the quality of student life in and beyond the classroom. The departments within Student Services provide a wide range of programs and services intended to complement and enhance each student's academic experiences.
Please click here for a downloadable summary of departments and resources within Student Services.
The mission of student services is to promote student success and wellbeing, and to foster an inclusive Reed community.
Student services supports Reed's educational mission
- by providing information, guidance, and resources;
- in collaboration with students, staff, faculty, alumni, and other community partners;
- through sponsoring comprehensive programs and services;
- in order to enhance learning in and beyond the classroom.
Please click here for more information about the division of Student Services from Mike Brody, Vice President for Student Services.