Pauli Theorem 3

I'm working on something new called Pauli Theorem 3. Don't worry about what theorems 1 and 2 are. They are not germane to the discussion.

By the way, there are many more than two Pauli Theorems, but as the theorem formerly known as theorem 3 has been disproved I thought it would be good to recycle the number. It's like when you are at the deli and you have to use the bathroom so you give your take-a-number slip to a French guy who is jonesing for cheese.

The topic of the theorem is the seemingly permanent, ever-growing news story of famous men behaving badly. There is absolutely no way for the media to ignore it because FacebookTwitterDrudgeInternetSexyGirlHits and—barring a mass castration of the male population—information is being collected and incubated even now which will be hatched later to derail careers at the proper time, or to attempt to blackmail people, or simply for revenge.

Depressing? Yes; but here's my theory:

Famous men who have publicly attacked the Catholic Church or Christian beliefs are more likely to be caught in sexual scandals.

Obviously this is a theorem and the converse does not have to be true to be a valid theorem. Roy Moore is almost assuredly a serial power-abuser and he seems to at least have the veneer of Christian piety. And of course you have the many televangelists which you can add to the list of bad male actors, along with high profile priest scandals like Thomas Euteneuer and John Corapi, although the main scandal for these priests was the violation of a vow of chastity and seemingly not unwanted advances or rape.

I have several reasons to propose this theorem, and the first of them is theoretical yet fairly obvious. The Catholic Church teaches the highest standards of sexual morality in the world, and most of the traditional Protestant churches agree with 95% of the its teachings. People mad at the church are usually mad because of these teachings—along with the prohibition against abortion, many times related to fornication and infidelity—and not because the church condemns stealing, bearing false witness, or monophysitism.

Back in the late nineties I was working in an office which coincidentally employed a lot of other Catholics. I had a conversation with an atheist colleague that went like this:

Pauli: You say you are an atheist in the tradition of the famous philosopher John Hume, so what do you think of all the Catholics you are working with now?
Friend: I actually like religious people, and I'll even say they are much easier to get along with than other atheists.
Pauli: Well, you're a really honest atheist. But you were raised Catholic; why have you left the Church?
Friend: The reason I left the Church is because I don't want to follow the rules about premarital sex.
Pauli: You are the most honest atheist I ever met.

Moses came down the mountain and said "I have good news and bad news. Good news: I talked Him down to Ten. Bad news: Adultery still stands."

The empirical reason I am proposing this theory is because of my familiarity with William Donohue and the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. Long time readers of this blog know that I am a big fan of Bill Donohue and have rare disagreements with his take on political and cultural matters. I began noticing several weeks ago that many of the names of Hollywood men being accused of sexual misconduct were former subjects of Catholic League press releases. Here is a list for starters:

1. Louis C. K.
2. Harvey Weinstein
3. Bob Weinstein (yes, he's Harvey's brother)
4. Al Franken (Donohue has also praised Franken when he was deserving of it.)
5. Leon Wieseltier
6. Michael Oreskes
7. Ben Affleck
8. Oliver Stone
9. Kevin Hart
10. Kevin Spacey
11. John Edwards

Another person I thought had been taken on by the Catholic League but who did not show up in my search on their site is Joss Whedon. Donohue has not taken on Whedon whose ex-wife recently penned an excoriating account of his serial affairs while married. What I might have been remembering was Bishop Robert Barron's criticism. Bishop Barron did take on Whedon's philosophical atheism and noted his penchant for "on many occasions, signal[ing] his particular dissatisfaction with the Catholic Church."

A lot of religious people reading this might roll their eyes and say "Oh, this is so obvious... everyone knows that Hollywood is decadent and doesn't particularly like Christianity or religion in general." Decadence is sleeping around a bunch, cheating on your wife, etc. You know, partying too much. This is something else; it's powerful men taking advantage of the less powerful. It is beyond decadence and in Weinstein's case, it is way beyond decadence. Just like the molesting priests are predators, theses men are preying on those in weaker positions.

On the other hand, a lot of non-religious people might say "Nice try, but correlation doesn't prove causation. Some of the people on these lists match up. So what?" True, this evidence is anecdotal yet still curious. Many people were criticizing the Catholic Church's response to priestly abuse and even making strong condemnations of bishops' mishandling and they did not show up on the Catholic League's radar. The line these actors and comedians crossed was stating in many ways, comedic and non-comedic, that these people were bad because they were Catholic priests and bishops not in spite of that fact. To them, the Catholic Church is just an institution perpetuated to give creepy guys access to sexual abuse victims. When these showbiz people are not focusing on the creepiness of the crimes of pedophile priests, they are going on about "hypocrisy". How can the Catholic Church teach its members to be pure and chaste when these priests and bishops are screwing little boys? And then arrange hush money payoffs?

This can be seen as effort to shut the Catholic Church up. Quit preaching these standards if you are not able to live up to them. Well, does Hollywood ever preach? on topics like feminism, to name one? Uh, yeah, and with much greater ferocity, consistency and volume than the average parish priest addresses homosexuality or adultery. So behold these scandals, and realize that the "hypocrisy" is just as foul at the highest levels of power in Hollywood as it is within any religious denomination. And my prediction is that we are going to hear even more sermonizing after these revelations since these people are in the wordsmith business and know little else about how to deal with issues. Don't expect any real repentance or self-examination, however. Possibly uncomfortable joking about serious matters, but little more.

This all illustrates a spiritual principle which is that those who exhibit the same faults as our own become our biggest irritants. I forget what spiritual writer or saint pointed this out, but it was after hearing many confessions at a convent or monastery. Imagine how this irritation translates into the world of nonspiritual persons without the self-control or self-examination of nuns or monks, yet possessing commanding media pulpits. It becomes uncontrolled rage.

I do not wish to suggest that there has not been any self-examination or introspection in some circles over this rash of scandals. Matthew Yglesias has gone on record regretting the cultural left's dismissiveness of President Clinton's* sexual predation. David Brooks broke the topic of Clinton/Lewinsky as a starting point for all this last weekend and, of course, we conservatives have been quoting Brooks more than usual as a result.

But we have been talking about this for so long it really makes these people look late to the game, and I mean fourth-quarter, two-minute warning late. Here's Donohue again from 14 years ago. Excerpt:

There’s something else going on here as well. The New York-Hollywood axis of smut, and those who support it, want the Catholic Church to fail. What it comes down to is that these people do not want to be told that their promiscuous lifestyle is sinful.

Sadly, this represents the Clintonization of our culture. In other words, shamelessness has been mainstreamed. Because it is nothing if not shameless that the same men and women who rush to put a medal around the neck of celebrities for sexually abusing children rush just as fast to put a millstone around the neck of priests who do so.

* - I love the fact that I can write President Clinton and everyone knows I mean Bill Clinton.

"ISIS is Islamic." Not bigoted, just honest.

I received a birthday present today from Aaqil Ahmed, the head of the BBC’s religious programming via the Catholic League. Here it is in its entirety:

Bill Donohue comments on remarks made this week by Aaqil Ahmed, the head of the BBC’s religious programming:

In 2009, when Aaqil Ahmed was appointed the first Muslim to direct religious programming at the BBC, he was looked upon with some suspicion. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, wasn’t happy that the “Christian voice is being sidelined.” Now others are looking askance at Ahmed; his remarks made this week at a London gathering of journalists are raising some eyebrows.

Ahmed, who is a professor at Middlesex University, was asked about the phrase “so-called Islamic State.” His answer was enlightening: “I hear so many people say ISIS has nothing to do with Islam—of course it has.

They are not preaching Judaism. It might be wrong but what they are saying is an ideology based on some form of Islamic doctrine.” He added that the Islamic nature of ISIS is “a fact and we have to get our head around some very uncomfortable things.”

Those who work at the State Department have an ethical responsibility to discuss Ahmed’s position. The same is true for those who teach multiculturalism on American college campuses.

Clear-minded persons know that ISIS is rooted in an interpretation of Islam that is widely shared in Muslim communities, even if it is not embraced by most Muslims. This isn’t being bigoted—it’s being honest.

President Obama bears much of the blame for closing down an honest discussion on the religious roots of ISIS; his constant denial of any relationship between the teachings of Muhammad and terrorist acts conducted in his name is absurd. We can’t make progress in any area without robust freedom of speech, untainted by political considerations.

Professor Ahmed has done us a service. It is up to others to grab this opportunity.

And grab it we will. With both hands. "Of course ISIS has something to do with Islam." Just like the Orangemen have something to do with Protestant Christianity, although most Protestants aren't Orangemen, nor do they condone their actions.

Clarity is so refreshing, and this has to be listened to because this man is both trusted on the subject matter and a public figure. And now he has proven himself to be a courageous one.

If anyone needs more proof that Islam is a violent religion, here you go.

Better commentary on the Charlie Hebdo massacre

Since I often have offered the opinions of William Donohue as my own on a wide range of topics, I've been planning to post for some time with regard to how much I disagreed with his press release two weeks ago in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Donohue mentions how important it is to be "unequivocal", then he coughs this up:

Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.

This is pure victim-blaming, and the only explanation I'll offer cannot be an excuse for a man as bright as Donohue. He had waged battles against Charlie Hebdo and other publications which insulted religion in the past and he seems to have felt a certain justice had been served by their murders. This is not unlike the phenomenon of Jodi Arias supporters who go too far in their empathy for someone suffering at the hands of a sex-abusing reprobate. But Arias didn't get a restraining order against Travis Alexander, she murdered him. If a sensible man educates himself on what we know about the type of person Alexander was, he wouldn't want him near any of his female friends or relatives. But he was murdered; it's not about him anymore. It's about a crime which is worse.

What troubles me even more is that this characterization of an anger which is supposedly righteous and yet leads to murder misses out entirely on the nature of Islamic jihad and the threat it poses. The men who perpetrated this violence were soldiers. If there was a miraculous religious conversion at Charlie Hebdo two months ago and everyone repented and disbanded the paper, is it sensible to think that these jihadists would not have perpetrated any terrorist attack ever? They would have just waited until another target was acquired; that's what soldiers do. Look at the Boston Marathon bombing — jihadists didn't need an insult to their religion to target a foot race. Is it insulting to Muhammad to watch a soccer game? Should kids who watch a soccer game be publicly executed? Some Islamists think that's a wonderful idea, obviously, and so in a country without any "satirical" magazines that's as good a target as any for the jihad. And we could list more.

So once again, I think that William Donohue has done a very poor job of picking the bad guy here, and I'm wondering if it might be a good time for good old Bill to take a senior advisory role at the Catholic League. You don't have to hang a Je suis Charlie sign around your neck to get your priorities straight in a response. A better Catholic response was offered yesterday by George Weigel who wisely waited a few weeks before pointing out the vulnerabilities of Europe's secularism which are epitomized by Charlie Hebdo. Excerpt:

If all that Europe can say in condemning the despicable murders of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists and editors is “We are all Charlie Hebdo,” then what Europe is saying is, in effect, “We are all nihilists.” And how, pray, is nihilism—nothingness raised to a first principle, skepticism taken to the last extreme—supposed to defeat conviction, however warped that conviction is? If all that Europe can say to murderous jihadism is “Why can’t we all just get along?” its fecklessness will make it an even softer target for the kind of lethal fanaticism that recently turned Paris into a war zone.

There’s another aspect to this tangled and bloody business that’s worth noting, and that is the high price that Europe, and France in particular, is paying for culturally engrained (and sometimes legally enforced) political correctness. Virtually proscribing public discussion of the threat to European civility and order posed by Islamist maniacs has made dealing with that threat far more difficult: for citizens, for the security services, and for the public authorities. In the years since 9/11, the French public square has been dominated by the jihadists and the xenophobes; and in that volatile social environment, something very bad was going to happen. Now that it has, perhaps steps can be taken to bring the adults—and the real issues—back into the discussion.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that William Donohue is one of the "adults" on this topic any more than those infected with nihilism and/or political correctness. One of the secondary effects of the murders is to send the popularity of Charlie Hebdo soaring and selling more copies than ever before. So if the true purpose of these jihadists was to silence those who attach their religion, they are miserable failures. But if their purpose is to "[C]ast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve... (Qur'an 8:12)" then they are a success. Yes, many Muslims have already voiced this opinion; the them what these jihadists did in the name of Islam was fully justified.

Facts on Catholic clergy sex abuse

As always, the latest release from the Catholic League will irritate some people, but there are no denying the facts. So I republish them here.

Now that Pope Francis has set up a commission to study priestly sexual abuse, Bill Donohue urges reporters to get their facts straight:

Myth: Children have been the main victims of priestly sexual abuse.

Fact: Since more than 95 percent of all the victims of priestly sexual abuse, as reported by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, are not prepubescent, that means that adolescents have been the primary victims.

Myth: Pedophile priests have been the problem.

Fact: Homosexual priests have been the problem. Proof: 81 percent of the victims have been male, and more than 95 percent have been postpubescent. When males have sex with postpubescent males, it is called homosexuality.

Myth: The problem is on-going.

Fact: The homosexual scandal took place mostly between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s. In the last ten years, the average number of credible accusations made against 40,000 priests is in the single digits.

Myth: The Church’s repressive teachings on sexuality are the problem.

Fact: It was liberals outside the Church who pushed for the sexual revolution, and it was liberals in the Church who abetted the revolution in the seminaries. Moreover, it was liberals who promoted therapy as the way to deal with molesters, instead of using punitive measures.

Myth: The Church has done nothing about the problem.

Fact: Pope Benedict XVI made it more difficult for active homosexual priests to enter the priesthood, thus getting directly to the source of the problem. Also, steps have been taken in every diocese to ensure that anyone who works for the Church must participate in a training program aimed at curtailing the abuse of minors.

A sense of humor

One thing which is critical to possess in this world is a sense of humor. Bill Donohue has been blessed with a superb one. He skewers KKT, but oh, so gently:

I spent my St. Patrick’s Day marching in the parade up New York’s Fifth Avenue, and then drank beer with my friends. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend spent her St. Patrick’s Day at a conference attended by homosexuals, lesbians, and men/women with new genitals. I had a good time.

Kathleen is confused. She says the Catholic Church’s teachings “encourage bigotry and harm.” She doesn’t cite a single example, so she obviously meant some other religion. She also says that the conference was put on by a Catholic organization called New Ways Ministry. Again, she is confused—there is no Catholic group by that name (on St. Patrick’s Day last year the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops reaffirmed that New Ways Ministry is not a Catholic organization). To top things off, she says that two female priests gave her a special blessing at the conference. More confusion: my religion does not have female priests. All three errors of fact were made in the first six sentences, which is why I didn’t go any further.

I am at a loss to know what the source of Kathleen’s confusion is. This wouldn’t be so bad if she didn’t have that sterling Kennedy name.

Love that photo. Too funny.

To lack a sense of humor isn't so much to be sad as it is to be angry. Someone has been trying to get me to fight with her on Fbook over Obamacare. She is someone who has been on the left her whole adult life, and she knows where I'm at; she knows I'm conservative. So I don't know why she is bothering to try to get me to argue. She is not married, has no kids, and I really feel bad for her. There is anger and bitterness behind the confrontational language in her direct messages to me and in her indignant tone over Scalia's remarks which I posted over on Fbook.

All the "defenses" of Obamacare which I've heard from committed lefties are pretty weak. "You're a racist" is, of course, both the silliest and the most impossible to refute, along with "why do you hate poor people?", which is analogous to the famous wife-beating question/accusation. A more challenging charge is "Well, WE HAD TO DO SOMETHING!", but in the end still an assertion devoid of substance. Maybe this is why the Solicitor General had such a hard time defending it.



We're done making arguments. It's time to fight it. It's time to beat Obamacare to death by any means. And we will do it with joy, hope and a raucous sense of humor. "And they sang as they slew, for the joy of battle was on them."

Bill Donohue: "Stop funding the leisure of rich white people"

It is to LOL. William Donohue once again opens up a can of pure pwnage on the effete elites of the museum industrial complex. Here's the money paragraph:

In a large survey of museum-going households released in April, it was found that they are significantly better educated and affluent than the U.S. population; they are also overwhelmingly white. The time has come, then, to stop funding the leisure of rich white people: all public monies for the arts should cease. Quite frankly, to make the working class pay for the leisure of the rich amounts to class discrimination. In the spirit of social justice, a better case could be made to fund professional wrestling—it's what the working class enjoy.

"[A]ll public monies for the arts should cease." Yes, sir, I second that emotion, if for no other reason than this art sucks shit.

Fool me twice, shame on me

When President Obama omitted the phrase about God being the source of our human rights from the Declaration of Independence, I figured that he had some speechwriter who didn't like God or who just screwed up. But now that it happened again, I have to agree with William Donohue's statement that these omissions were deliberate. Here's his entire release on the matter.

For the second time this fall, President Obama has quoted from the Declaration of Independence, omitting any reference to God. In Rockville, Maryland on Monday, he spoke of "inalienable rights," mentioning that "all men are created equal," but omitted what comes after this phrase: namely, he did not say "that they are endowed by their Creator" with these unalienable rights.

On September 15, after Obama omitted the same words before the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (there are four references to God in the Declaration), I faulted his speech writers but defended the president by saying he should "be given a pass." I can no longer do so: President Obama, it is painfully obvious, does not believe that individual rights are given to us by God.

The most dramatic historical achievement of the American Revolution was the insistence of the Founders that the state is not the source of our rights. What the state grants, it can take away. We saw this most strikingly under the Soviets: the Soviet Constitution was a marvelous tribute to human liberty, the only problem being that it made the state the origin of individual rights. By declaring God to be the origin of rights, the Founders deliberately awarded a subordinate role to government.

President Obama is the first president in American history not to acknowledge that all rights stem from God. Given that all prepared presidential speeches are written and vetted by many people, and that he was roundly criticized last month for this same infraction, it is only fair to conclude that this was not a mistake. This was deliberate.

The thing I don't claim to know is why he would do such a thing. I don't know what it buys him with the voting groups he needs to win back. But I suppose it's a sign of my own health that I don't understand the workings of a deluded megalomaniac's mind.

Identifying the Gay Elephant

Good points. But I think Donohue meant the headline to be "Push to end celibacy implies gay guilt."

Reports in Ireland and Germany of decades-old cases of priestly sexual abuse have triggered an array of articles, surveys and talk-show discussions on the need for the Catholic Church to end the celibacy requirement. The implication, of course, is that more heterosexuals, and less homosexuals, would therefore be drawn to the priesthood, thus alleviating the problem.

The reasoning is sound: as we have seen from several studies—including the one just released by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops—80 percent of the victims are male. Just as important, the majority of the victims are post-pubescent. In other words, we are talking about homosexuality, not pedophilia.

Those who fancy themselves progressive would never, of course, say there is a homosexual link to priestly sexual abuse. But they know it to be true in their heart of hearts. For example, no one seriously believes that pedophiles would be inclined to marry if celibacy were lifted—they are not interested in adults. But surely homosexuals would find the seminaries and parishes less attractive if most of the men were married.

So as not to be misunderstood, it is nonsense to say that homosexuality causes sexual abuse. Moreover, it is both untrue, and unfair, to say that most gay priests are molesters. They are not. But it is also true that most of the molesters are gay. Is this not the unstated predicate of progressives pushing for an end to celibacy? Why else recommend doing away with it?

In short, the only difference between most progressives and most conservatives on this issue is that the latter are not afraid to identify the elephant in the room.

Larry David Pisses on Picture of Jesus

How original! Never heard of that before.

At one point in the show, David goes to the bathroom in a Catholic home and splatters urine on a picture of Jesus; he doesn’t clean it off. Then a Catholic woman goes to the bathroom, sees the picture and concludes that Jesus is crying. She then summons her equally stupid mother and the two of them fall to their knees in prayer. When David and Jerry Seinfeld (playing himself) are asked if they ever experienced a miracle, David answers, “every erection is a miracle.” That’s what passes for creativity these days.

Was Larry David always this crude? Would he think it comedic if someone urinated on a picture of his mother? This might be fun to watch, but since HBO only likes to dump on Catholics (it was just a couple of weeks ago that Sarah Silverman insulted Catholics on “Real Time with Bill Maher”), and David is Jewish, we’ll never know.

That's so frickin' funny. Really.

UPDATE: I think a few who have stumbled onto this post, not being regular readers, haven't realized that I'm being utterly sarcastic when I said the bit was funny. It's not funny at all from my perspective.

UPDATE, 10/29/2009: Here are my new thoughts on the "Jews laugh" links.

Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage

Kevin Jennings is a member of ACT UP

Bill Donohue asks "Why does Obama like Kevin Jennings?"

Catholic League president Bill Donohue speaks to the selection of Kevin Jennings as Director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools:

On September 23, I wrote a news release on the curious moral credentials of Kevin Jennings to be President Obama’s Safe Schools Czar: a former drug user and irresponsible teen counselor, he is also a Christian basher. What was not known at the time is that he is also a proud member of ACT UP, the homosexual urban terrorist group that broke into St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1989 and disrupted Mass; the Eucharist was desecrated and obscene depictions of Cardinal O’Connor were posted.

Now a group called MassResistance, and the website WorldNetDaily, have exposed Jennings as a member of ACT UP. And he is no mere member: Jennings is listed as a donor to a sick display, “ACT UP New York: Activism, Art, and the AIDS Crisis, 1987-1993,” currently featured at the Harvard Art Museum. Harvard, of course, would never feature a display of Klan paraphernalia and say it was being done for the purpose of “dialogue.”

The real story here is not the corruption of Harvard—that’s old hat—the real story is the president of the United States choosing a morally challenged anti-Catholic homosexual to join his team. That Jennings belongs to, and sponsors, an urban terrorist organization, should alone disqualify him from public service at a municipal level. And remember, Obama did not choose him to monitor global cooling—he was chosen to instruct youth on moral matters.

Catholics deserve to know why Obama likes Jennings.