For the past few days I’ve been trying, without success, to make sense of the disgusting spectacle at Penn State. My reaction can be summed up in one word: inexplicable. The actions of Jerry Sandusky, Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Mike McQueary, the rioting Penn State students—all of it is inexplicable. I tell myself that it must be an anomalous event, for I can’t bear the idea that it may be symptomatic of our larger culture.
Since other writers have formed more coherent opinions on the topic, I’ll share what I think about what they’ve written.
My main thought about the situation is summed up by this comment by Rod Dreher:
I don’t know that I can think of an act of everyday cowardice more vile than Mike McQueary, big strapping 6-foot-4-inch Mike McQueary, walking away when he came upon an old man sodomizing a little boy.
Exactly. McQueary is the living embodiment of cowardice. The idea that a man could act in such a manner is beyond my comprehension. Anyone who is even remotely sympathetic to his situation or thinks they may have done the same thing in similar circumstances needs to stop whatever they are doing and begin some serious soul-searching. If your reaction would be anything other than that of Ronnie Polaneczky, then something is deeply flawed in your character:
I know, like I know the sun will rise tomorrow, that if I’d seen what McQueary saw, nothing would have stopped me from screaming bloody murder. From using every ounce of strength I possess to pull that naked, repulsive predator off of that little boy. From gathering the child in my arms. From telling him, “I am here. You are safe. It’s over.”
I am not alone. So many others I have spoken with about McQueary – whether male or female, a parent or childless – say the same, decent thing: They would not, could not, have left that boy. They would not, could not, have thought of anything other than ending the horror of what he was enduring.It’s easy to imagine how hopeful the child must have felt when he locked eyes with McQueary. And it’s devastating to imaginehow he must have felt when McQueary fled.
Abandoned. On his own.
Prey.
If you are the kind of person that can leave a child to be brutalized than you have lost your humanity. May God have mercy on your soul.
And if you’re a student at Penn State who is more upset about a coach being fired than a child being raped then please make that opinion as broadly known as possible (rioting is a good means of communicating your viewpoint). Your peculiar take on moral priorities needs to be made public so that the rest of us can avoid coming into contact with you in the future.
Alan Jacobs thinks the problem stems from viewing a football team as a military unit :
For me, the question that looms largest about the Penn State sexual-abuse scandal is this: How could someone see a man raping a child and fail to intervene? Fail even to call 911? I can contemplate many difficult, challenging, frightening situations that cause me to ask myself what I really would do if faced with them — and cause me to have no clear answer. This isn’t one of them. How could Mike McQueary not have done more?
The answer, I think, lies in the tradition — as old as football itself — of pretending that football is a branch of the military. Players often talk about other players they’d go to war with. That linebacker is a warrior. The guys in this locker room, they know I’ve got their back. Football coaches, more perhaps than coaches in any other sport, play up the idea that the team is comprised of a besieged band of brothers who can trust only one another. (Even at the school where I teach — a Division III school with no athletic scholarships, thank God — the football players sit together at dinner and chant and shout.) Moreover, the coaches themselves are the primary beneficiaries of this governing military metaphor: they are your commanding officers, and to them you are uniquely and solely accountable. I bet it never occurred to Mike McQueary to call the police. I bet the first, last, and only thought he had was: I have to tell Coach.
I think Alan’s metaphor may hold up in the abstract, but in my experience, it doesn’t represent the reality of military life. (Update: As Jacobs notes in the comments section, “Please note that my comment wasn’t about the military itself but about the way that sports teams are held together by a kind of make-believe that they’re soldiers.” He’s absolutely right about that.) I don’t know anyone I served with who thinks that anyone in the military, much less the commanding officer, is the person to whom they are “uniquely and solely accountable.” During the heat of battle warriors certainly look out for the interest of their brothers in arms. But when the bullets stop flying they go back to being accountable to their own conscience. Most people I knew in the Marines believed that their duty was to God, Country, and Corps—in that order.
Certainly there are situations when a small group of soldiers will try to cover up for each other. Those cases are, I believe, rather exceptional. And I find it unimaginable that a servicemember in the U.S. military would turn a blind eye after witnessing a child being raped. If it happened, though, it would be a case of the military acting more like a football team, rather than vice versa.
I love football and I respect football coaches. In fact, one of my all-time favorite characters on TV is Coach Eric Taylor on Friday Night Lights. But the fascination with football and the Cult of the Coach is a problematic sign of the degeneracy of modern manhood. Young men today are absolutely desperate for masculine role models. Too often the only example they have is a football coach. In many cases, the coaches are also decent, moral men. But the values of the playing field are not always sufficient for forming character. Joe Paterno, Mike McQueary, and Jerry Sandusky have proved that being a good coach and being a man of character are not always the same thing.
Finally, there is sci-fi writer John Scalzi who provides the most apt metaphor for this heartbreaking scandal:
Here’s what I think about that, right now. I’m a science fiction writer, and one of the great stories of science fiction is “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” which was written by Ursula K. LeGuin. The story posits a fantastic utopian city, where everything is beautiful, with one catch: In order for all this comfort and beauty to exist, one child must be kept in filth and misery. Every citizen of Omelas, when they come of age, is told about that one blameless child being put through hell. And they have a choice: Accept that is the price for their perfect lives in Omelas, or walk away from that paradise, into uncertainty and possibly chaos.
At Pennsylvania State University, a grown man found a blameless child being put through hell. Other grown men learned of it. Each of them had to make their choice, and decide, fundamentally, whether the continuation of their utopia — or at very least the illusion of their utopia — was worth the pain and suffering of that one child. Through their actions, and their inactions, we know the choice they made.
November 10th, 2011 | 3:49 pm
[...] Joe Carter puts me onto a hell of an observation about the Penn State mess, from sci-fi writer John Scalzi: I’m a science fiction writer, and one of the great stories of science fiction is “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” which was written by Ursula K. LeGuin. The story posits a fantastic utopian city, where everything is beautiful, with one catch: In order for all this comfort and beauty to exist, one child must be kept in filth and misery. Every citizen of Omelas, when they come of age, is told about that one blameless child being put through hell. And they have a choice: Accept that is the price for their perfect lives in Omelas, or walk away from that paradise, into uncertainty and possibly chaos. [...]
November 10th, 2011 | 3:57 pm
Joe, please note that my comment wasn’t about the military itself but about the way that sports teams are held together by a kind of make-believe that they’re soldiers. None of it is based on what military life is really like, but rather on an image or metaphor that is probably drawn from movies more than from deep knowledge of the armed services.
November 10th, 2011 | 4:04 pm
Alan,
Sorry, I worded that poorly. (I’ve added an update.) I didn’t mean to imply that you were implying that the military is like that. The problem is, as you note, that sports teams have a make-believe view that they are like soliders. (I started to go into that notion, but I thought it might be more fitting for a future post.)
November 10th, 2011 | 4:51 pm
Thanks, Joe! Just wanted to be clear. . . .
November 10th, 2011 | 6:13 pm
What happened at Penn State (or should we rename it State Pen) is due in part to universities forgetting their true purpose which is to educate students. Instead, the identity of most major universities (which some administrators will tellingly refer to as their “brand”) is linked to their athletic prowess. University boosters worship sports over educational achievement, and until we break the stranglehold that the athletic department and their boosters have over the country’s prestigious universities, education (including desperately needed courses on ethics) will take a back seat to preserving the viability of the brand.
November 10th, 2011 | 6:38 pm
Alan Jacobs is obviously wrong on his bet that McQueary’s “first, last, and only thought” was to tell his coach, since the first person McQueary told was his father, and he didn’t tell Paterno until the next day. I suspect McQueary’s poor character is more attributable to his father than to the “team pretending to be a military unit” mindset, since his father apparently didn’t push McQueary to go to the police himself – even after it became obvious that the report to Paterno didn’t produce any results.
I think it’s a little goofy that Jacobs offers this pretend-warrior mindset as “the answer” to McQueary’s failure. Half a century after Milgram’s experiments, and over a decade after the exposure of the Catholic Church’s failures w/r/t sexual predators, it seems clear that the failure to challenge authority figures even when it’s clear that they are acting immorally is a widespread trait that unfortunately affects many people (which is not an excuse for McQueary!). It’s appropriate to be horrified at the Penn State situation, but there’s no need to work hard to come up with novel explanations for what happened.
Also, on the last page of the grand jury report is an account of a janitor who witnessed a similar molestation in 2000, and also simply reported it to his supervisor and apparently didn’t personally intervene to stop Sandusky in the act or pursue the matter further after it was clear nothing had happened to Sandusky. I don’t think the janitors were also pretending to be a military unit.
November 10th, 2011 | 7:11 pm
One of the news outlets of course compared this to the catholic sex abuse scandal, trying to make similarities between the riots and “rallying” around the bishops. I do not recall anyone flipping cars when Cardinal Law was dismissed.
There are more coaches like this out there. . .and teachers. . .and administrators/union reps ready to cover it up.
November 10th, 2011 | 9:44 pm
Have you read Taylor Branch’s piece in the September edition of The Atlantic about the NCAA? I question more and more why Christians would give their money to continue its very morally questionable operations. I question even more why Christian colleges would give obeisance to the institution. Sometimes truth has to speak to power.
November 11th, 2011 | 7:43 am
And out come the self-congratulating pontificators to announce to the world how much more courageous they are than people they’ve instantly condemned after reading about them fourth-hand through internet blogs.
You, Carter — and all of you, Dreher, the commenters, and every single smug, snap-judging bloviator you cite — are a disgrace to the principles of sobriety, disinterest, conservatism, and Christianity, leading the lynch mob to get witch justice.
Read Rene Girard on the scapegoat (from the pages of this very website), and how we Christians are supposed to have overcome the pagan blood ritual of appeasement to imitate the Lord’s justice.
The efficiency with which mob lust sweeps through souls in this hyperconnected society should chill every conservative who witnesses it.
November 11th, 2011 | 8:44 am
J said
” …it seems clear that the failure to challenge authority figures even when it’s clear that they are acting immorally is a widespread trait that unfortunately affects many people[...]It’s appropriate to be horrified at the Penn State situation, but there’s no need to work hard to come up with novel explanations for what happened.”
This is reminiscent of the “lessons learned” in the wake of spectacular airplane crashes caused by pilot error. In some cases, flight crews were reluctant to challenge the captain, even when they were obviously disturbed by his decisions. You can see it in the voice recorder transcripts: at Tenerife, the KLM flight engineer asking nervously if the Pan Am jet is, in fact, off the runway and the captain barking the affirmative. Or the co-pilot of the Air Florida jet saying “it don’t look right” and the captain officiously brushing off his qualms.
The industry identified an unhealthy and dangerous culture of unchallenged authority that needed to be changed.
November 11th, 2011 | 8:54 am
That Ursula K. LeGuin story reminds me of a passage from Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov, spoken by Ivan to his brother Alyosha:
“Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature that little child beating its breast with its fist, for instance—and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth.”
November 11th, 2011 | 9:06 am
Agree about the idolatrous nature of attention and efforts bestowed on behalf of sports , of the need to curtail same !
This incident could lead to some loss of glitter which can be welcome – as painful as the price has been !
Hope that this scandal would also make it possible for men’s toilets to be places of privacy , just as that of women ; in these days of perverted , lustful men out there , what parent would want their child in places where they can be objects of lust , if not outright attacks !
November 11th, 2011 | 9:09 am
King The efficiency with which mob lust sweeps through souls in this hyperconnected society should chill every conservative who witnesses it.
What in the world are you talking about? Seriously, I curious to what you mean. I said that we should not stand by while a child is being raped. I don’t think you disagree so what are you raving about?
November 11th, 2011 | 10:03 am
King, please. The “mob lust” was on Penn State’s campus when the students rioted because they had their beloved coach taken away from them. It’s a twisted vision that sees people outraged by child molestation and its cover-up, and sees the outraged people as the problem.
November 11th, 2011 | 11:09 am
King – And out come the self-congratulating pontificators to announce to the world how much more courageous they are than people they’ve instantly condemned after reading about them fourth-hand through internet blogs.
To a very limited extent, I sort of agree.
‘J’ above pointed to the Milgram experiments, where people proved far easier to persuade to ignore the harm they were doing than most would believe.
Imagine someone you know and trust, even love. I mean someone specific, in your life. Now picture finding them naked, assaulting a child. I know a lot of people say they would do anything to protect that child – but it seems that, in practice, all too few do.
That’s not remotely an excuse, mind – any more than understanding the motive for a murder makes the murder justifiable. But one lesson that should be drawn from this tragedy is that, apparently, it frequently proves a lot harder to do the right thing in such cases than one would expect. Which means that the right thing needs to be made clear, reinforced, and supported by training and policy.
That said… no one here has called for violence against McQueary. I’ll grant many are villifying him as contemptible, of course. The thing is, though – if the grand jury report actually represents the situation at all accurately, he really is contemptible.
November 11th, 2011 | 11:27 am
King,
Endorsing the idea that an enabler of a child molestor (who admitted to his actions — no “fourth hand account” here) be removed from a coaching position hardly qualifies as an example of a “lynch mob” pursuing “witch justice.” If you are looking for an example of a lack of “sobriety” “disinterest” and “Christianity” look in the mirror….
November 11th, 2011 | 12:11 pm
Q. What’s the difference between Joe Paterno and Cardinal Law?
A. Paterno was fired, and Law was promoted to the home office.
November 11th, 2011 | 12:56 pm
Ray,
As a victim of sexual abuse as a child (4 years old), a believer in Jesus Christ as Lord, and knowing firsthand the damage sexual abuse can do for years to come, if not forever, you better believe if I had witnessed “someone I love” doing that absolutely horrific act to an innocent child I would do EVERYTHING in my power to stop it and bring whatever justice possible to the child.
There is nothing in the deepest part of my soul telling me I would do otherwise.
November 11th, 2011 | 12:59 pm
Siger, Law was not promoted. He resigned as archbishop and is now essentially a rector of a single church.
What I think King is getting at is that moral outrage like all kinds of anger can be dangerous. It’s easy to imagine ourselves making the right decision and it feels good to boast about our imaginary good judgment. I thought this was an interesting take on this.
November 11th, 2011 | 1:04 pm
“Your peculiar take on moral priorities needs to be made public so that the rest of us can avoid coming into contact with you in the future.”
Did not Jesus come for the sick? Or did he come so that the “moral” people could go into hiding and look out at all the bad people and “avoid” them.
November 11th, 2011 | 1:11 pm
Joe’s reaction, and most especially Rod Dreher’s reaction, pretty much sums up how I felt most of yesterday. Mike McQueary’s failure to rescue a 10-year-old boy was a sickening act of cowardice, and Joe is right to say:
I suspect though, that if this had happened not at Penn State but at some other school, and Mike McQueary had suffered through reading every word of it as we did yesterday, he too might have affirmed the same words that Joe Carter wrote above.
There is no doubt a Catholic Bishop out there too who, before ever having had to witness the horror of child molestation by one of his own priests, would have affirmed Joe’s words above only to run like a coward when his virtue was put to the test.
I suspect many Dutch and Frenchmen have affirmed over and over again throughout their lives that they would never have acted with the pure cowardice that so many German Christians did in Berlin when they saw such horrors perpetrated upon their Jewish neighbors. A couple CS Lewis quotes come to mind:
I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that if I walked in and witnessed a close friend of the most powerful and beloved man at one of the world’s most powerful institutions in my profession that I would have ignored my position and any ramifications for myself or my family and acted with virtue. I honestly feel I know this beyond all doubt, but thank God, I haven’t had it put to the test.
Like me and Joe Carter, Alan Jacobs knows what he would have done in this situation, and wonders what could possibly account for the cowardice of Mike McQueary. Jacobs identifies the culprit as “the tradition — as old as football itself — of pretending that football is a branch of the military.”
After so many years on the field playing junior high football, high school football, and college football, I never once felt my teammates were a “band of brothers who can trust only one another.” I have witnessed a lot of stupid crap on and off the football field, just as I have at work, at old churches, and even within my own family, but I can’t say I remember a fellow teammate ever expressing something like Alan Jacobs describes above, but obviously Alan Jacobs’ experience in football is different than my own.
Perhaps Alan Jacobs never joined a football team. For my part, I have never pursued an advance degree or worked on a college faculty. But I have stood outside of academia looking in and felt the utter revulsion of watching 88 faculty members from one of the most prestigious schools in the country do everything in their power to utterly destroy the lives of three students for a heinous crime they did not commit. The Gang of 88 sought not only to destroy the lives of the falsely accused students, but also to publically implicate as abetting racists and rapists, all of Duke lacrosse. Like Alan Jacobs’ analysis of the football tradition, I find it easy to identify a systemic problem that pervades most of academia well beyond the walls of Duke University that accounted for the evil put on display by the Gang of 88. Even today, I imagine the Gang of 88 reading about Penn State football and patting themselves on the back for their (oh, possibly overly zealous) vigilance so many years ago.
My point, I guess, is that perhaps none of us should use the occasion of evil to elevate ourselves or our philosophy. I hope this makes some sense, and it is not my intention to offend either Joe or Alan Jacobs.
All this reminds me of something written by W.H. Auden, first brought to my attention by Alan Jacobs:
November 11th, 2011 | 1:15 pm
[...] Carter, in his article “Thoughts on the Penn State Scandal” at First Things, collects words from several other writers who have tried to make sense of [...]
November 11th, 2011 | 1:46 pm
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
- Edmund Burke
November 11th, 2011 | 2:13 pm
[...] is the intro to Joe Cater’s post on the Penn State Scandal. You must read the whole thing. I am so angry over the passivity, cowardice, selfishness, and evil men have exhibited at Penn [...]
November 11th, 2011 | 2:30 pm
[...] by a post from Joe Carter found here. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in [...]
November 11th, 2011 | 2:55 pm
I am very upset about this whole mess at Penn State. Like many of you, I cannot simply comprehend the inaction of Mike McQueary in 2002: Entering the locker room late at night…hearing “rhythmic slapping” and looking in the showers to see a 10 year old boy, hands up on the wall with a naked Sandusky behind him having his way!….I’m a 45 year old 5’4″ woman and I would have done more than walk away. But what I find more alarming is the attitude of so many people. I live outside Philadelphia. The elementary school that my daughters attend has many teachers who went to Penn State. In talking with many of them over the course of the past few days, many believe that McQeary did the right thing. In amazement I asked them to elaborate. Their response: he reported it to his superior. Apparently, our teachers are trained to go to the principal and not to the police. I asked them to clarify, that if they walked into a classroom where they witness a teacher raping a child that they are “NOT ALLOWED” to call 911. They must go to the principal. There is something wrong here. I understand that if a teacher suspects a crime is being committed, they must report it to their superior, but witnessing such a heinous crime “as it is occurring” certainly warrants an immediate 911 call. (with the next call to their superior, to keep them in the loop). The safety of the child comes first – Right? This is just nuts…
November 11th, 2011 | 3:21 pm
Amy –
I’m very sorry to read that, and you have my deepest sympathies. Frankly, I have no doubt that in such circumstances you would do exactly what you say. I honestly believe I would do so, too (and I’ve said so before). But I haven’t been tested like that (and never hope to be). And – as the terrible data about child abuse indicates – many people fail that test.
As Douglas Johnson points out, people who don’t have any experience of such things tend to overestimate their courage and self-possession. Likewise, most people like to think that if their country was invaded, they’d run off to join the resistance… but in practice, it doesn’t seem to work out that way.
My point was that we sadly can’t rely on our good instincts and impulses to do the right thing when ‘put to the test’. Almost everyone needs conviction, and forethought, and training, and policies, and enforcement, too.
I’m not minimizing the horror of what McQueary did at all. Instead I’m pointing out something very like Christian doctrine – we are all capable of evil and we need to be very cautious about imagining how virtuous we would naturally be in some trial.
Which in turn means we have to do what we can to make sure we are ready if we are subjected to such a trial. Just this week I went through the Catholic church’s child abuse prevention training, “Protecting God’s Children”, and thought it a very good program overall.
Among other things, it pointed out how often people have suspicions that they don’t act on until it is too late.
November 11th, 2011 | 6:03 pm
The fact of the matter goes some thing like this:
On July 4th, 2011… you couldn’t find one, let alone 12 people who would acquit Casey Anthony of murdering her own child. Yet, on July 5th, 2011, she was.
Until you experience it, there is never 100% certainty how anyone would react.
November 11th, 2011 | 8:33 pm
As I follow this story it is increasingly apparent that these boys were not from the middle or upper classes. At least one was raised by a single mother. Her son was taken out of school by Sandusky on a regular basis and apparently she was never informed. Who would allow that to be done to a doctor’s or lawyer’s or professor’s son? They would be called immediately. Those of us have neither money nor position nor status are often the Americans who see society at its most abusive and irresponsible and ugly.
As the son of a single mother this was my experience at Catholic high school in the late 1960s and early seventies. Perhaps not being a Catholic at the time also contributed to my isolation and second-class status.
There are rumors of a coming report about Sandusky’s foundation that will be even more harrowing than what we have learned so far. I won’t repeat those rumors here.
Alan Jacobs overthinks the situation. My own experience and the continuing revelations of the Penn State scandal reveal it to be pedestrian and suburban in its moral complacency. Fear. Conformity. Slander. These are the usual conditions and tactics for this evil to develop. When I raised “the situation” to a religious at my high school — or tried to — she turned away and never spoke to me again. Aggressive and public hostility from the priest involved insured that I would be shunned and abandoned by teachers and students.
William McGowan, author of COLORING THE NEWS and GRAY LADY DOWN (about the NY Times) expressed his own “theory” on the Dennis Prager show some months ago. “It’s about homosexuality” of predator and prey (i.e. teenage high school boys) in many cases. The Penn State story is different. How many ten year old boys can defend themselves? I had played three years of football by my freshman year; I could get away from the immediate actions. And stay away.
The John Patrick Shanley play and movie DOUBT reveal the contortions our “literary class” will enter to avoid assigning blame. In the film the mother of a boy who may have same-sex attraction allows her son (11 or 12 years old) to be sexually exploited by a grown man so he can get a good education and “have a future.”
In its own tortured cleverness Shanley’s fiction sickens as much as the Penn State story.
Over the past two days I have grazed several lgbt activist sites, including PrideSource and the Human Rights Campaign. Not a single word about Sandusky or Paterno or Penn State. Why?
Like Mr Scalzi I grew up reading science fiction and have written it as well and ugly scenarios can come unbidden. So here’s my monstrous prediction. It is very likely that in a generation or two this “behavior” will not be illegal.
Bishop Conley’s “aTheocracy” in America (as he calls it on CNA’s site) will be complete. There will be no restraints. Fear, conformity, and slander will yield their inevitable horrors.
November 11th, 2011 | 10:11 pm
Joe Carter asked: “What in the world are you talking about? Seriously, I curious to what you mean. I said that we should not stand by while a child is being raped. I don’t think you disagree so what are you raving about?”
This specifically is what I’m talking about, from your post above: “The actions of Jerry Sandusky, Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Mike McQueary, the rioting Penn State students—all of it is inexplicable.”
This condemnation with a sweep of your hand is precisely the mob-mentality snap-judgment and instant justice that just ended at least one man’s impeccable career of 60 years and destroyed his reputation — after reading tabloid-minded reports and one-sided grand jury testimony.
When you become honest with yourself, and when the full mechanism of justice is allowed to run its course (with all exculpations reported well, well below the fold), maybe then you will understand how you unjustly allowed your righteous repulsion at a crime color your unrighteous rush to judgment regarding the men tangential to the (alleged) predator.
But, all things are justified when it comes to expressing our outrage at the pain of the innocent, right? Well, Rod Dreher thinks so anyway:
“It’s a twisted vision that sees people outraged by child molestation and its cover-up, and sees the outraged people as the problem.”
No one said or implied the instant mob anger was “the” problem. It just happens to be the problem few have recognized over the din of preening proclaimers of their own moral rectitude like Mr. Dreher, shouting how much they hate evil.
No kidding child molestation is shocking and depraved and a blot on humanity itself. Shall I endeavor to convince Mr. Dreher more about my firm stand against the abuse of children, lest he label me too blase about evil and the negligent enabler of “cover up”? Let me make clear for the record, I hate child rape. It is a crime worse than murder, given the length and depth of the pain dealt to the utterly innocent victim.
After a certain point, there is no purpose to expressing one’s “outrage[]” at “child molestation” except to participate in the cathartic condemnation of an accused man who must be regarded in a sober republic as innocent until proved guilty. That is precisely what should have set off Mr. Dreher’s John 8 alarm bells. Further, when someone is calling him out for his public incitement, he should be alarmed at his immediate assumption that only a “twisted” apologia for the crime would motivate criticism of him.
Stop shaking your heads at the “inexplicable” nature of sin. You should be sin scientists, Christians. Stop seeking emotional outlets to vent your frustrations at the countless injustices of this world. Direct your regret and your anger at yourself first, and seek mercy for yourself, and remember your Original role in the impossibility of perfect justice in this earthly kingdom. The world is broken and we broke it. Sandusky’s victims can never be made whole here, the crimes cannot be erased thanks to us, and nothing we do to the soul-murderer or his “enablers” will change the fact of our primary participation in the murder of the entire world and He Who created it.
All of this noise, this pagan scapegoating of everyone in the vicinity of the abomination not only effects no true justice whatever, it actively destroys us and pushes the city of man still further from the City of God. Do not adjudge Sandusky’s or Paterno’s sins worse than your own. After all, what is more “inexplicable” than turning your back on Him Who made you? Are others greater sinners than you? Are you so sure? Do you agree with St. Paul that he, not you, is the greatest sinner who ever lived? Work out your faith in fear and trembling, Christian. And when you are sure — deathly sure — of your clean conscience, then pick up that rock and send it hurtling toward the octogenarian sinner’s head.
Or, if you can’t stay faithful to your Christian duties, then at very least wait until all crimes and cover-ups are fully adjudicated by earthly systems before you vent your spleen to the world. But by then we will have forgotten our complicity in this matter, with fresh scandales du jour being served up to us hot for the devouring.
November 12th, 2011 | 2:33 am
One of the news outlets of course compared this to the catholic sex abuse scandal, trying to make similarities between the riots and “rallying” around the bishops. I do not recall anyone flipping cars when Cardinal Law was dismissed
There is one way in which it is similar, and that is in that it affects on a deep and profound level every person who loved and trusted the institution that has been violated and the authority that was misused.
My heart goes out to all the people who loved and trusted these coaches and this institution. It is horrible to be betrayed. I especially feel for the young men who worked so hard to excel at football, only to have their efforts fall apart because of the coaches.
It should be remembered that the abused children are of course by far the worst victims, in the sense of having suffered the most, but they are not the only victims. We should try to be compassionate toward the students who can’t believe their coach and hero could have done something so seriously wrong. Denial is the first stage of grief.
November 12th, 2011 | 7:55 am
THAT’S what I was waiting for. Thank you, King.
It takes no courage to denounce evil in others from the safe distance of the blogosphere. It takes immeasurable courage and humility to acknowledge that “there but by the Grace of God go I.”
November 12th, 2011 | 7:57 am
“FOR” the grace of God
November 12th, 2011 | 8:33 am
[...] I was far from the only person to reflect on the Penn State scandal. Two of the more interesting takes that I came across: Mark Silk considered an analogy between the pedophilia scandal in the Roman Catholic Church and what happened at Penn State (H/T John Fea, who also shares his own thoughts as someone working in higher education not too far from that part of Pennsylvania); and Alan Jacobs laid some blame at the feet of “the tradition — as old as football itself — of pretending that football is a branch of the military” (H/T Joe Carter). [...]
November 12th, 2011 | 9:45 am
Graham Combs –
I can’t find the article now, but I recently read a story about Penn State student and teacher reactions to the scandal. One point was an LGBT group specifically not making a statement about it, because they didn’t want to be associated with it in any way.
(The Catholic church’s own training emphasizes that the vast majority of child abuse is heterosexual.)
November 12th, 2011 | 2:44 pm
Over the past two days I have grazed several lgbt activist sites, including PrideSource and the Human Rights Campaign. Not a single word about Sandusky or Paterno or Penn State. Why?
Graham Combs,
Why would you expect gay rights groups to say anything? There is no P (for pedophilia) in LGBT. All the major gay rights organizations reject the idea that pedophilia has anything to do with gay rights. That has been the position for two decades. There is no need to reiterate it because of the Penn State scandal. Gay people feel no more connection to Jerry Sandusky than straight people would if Sandusky had been sexually assaulting girls. Pedophiles who prey on children of their own gender tell us nothing more about homosexuality than pedophiles who prey on children of the opposite gender tell us about heterosexuality.
November 12th, 2011 | 11:34 pm
(The Catholic church’s own training emphasizes that the vast majority of child abuse is heterosexual.)
But homosexuals and pedophiles are the same in that both defile sexuality in ways that turns it away from its rightful purpose, and toward a gluttonous focus on perverted self-pleasure.
Also both groups are similar in that both groups, in their quest to fulfill their fantasies and self-pleasure, justify the act of deliberately hurting children.
November 13th, 2011 | 12:27 am
We cannot continue to have this cognitive dissonance: on the one hand we act as if we genuinely believe that sexual pleasure is a basic human right, something that a person cannot live without and should not be expected to live without – but then on the other we act astonished when pedophiles molest kids.
If sexual gratification is a “need” and a “fundamental right”, then we owe it to pedophiles to define exactly how they are to have their “needs” met in ways that do not hurt kids.
Of course, sexual gratification is neither a need nor a right, and it’s not our job to resolve the problem faced by the pedophile. His sexual deviance is in conflict with real needs and real rights.
But there is no way to enforce that if we aren’t willing to apply the same standards to everyone. As long as promiscuity and fornication are prioritized over greater and more pressing, more real concerns, we will continue to get exactly what a society that values sex more than it values ethics will get, and it’s hypocritical to pretend to be shocked.
Anyone who can vote for reallocating scarce medical dollars away from the genuinely sick and toward free birth control pills has no real right to act any better than anyone else who puts their sexual desire over the well-being of the helpless, the dependent, and the vulnerable.
November 13th, 2011 | 9:09 am
The Penn State scandal is, indeed, emblematic of modern American culture: despite the outward appearance of wholeness, it is almost entirely decayed and shattered on the inside. Generations of moral relativism have seeped into the fabric of our culture and have finally rotted it through. Thus, the mainstream acceptance of Marx, the hesitancy to fight to preserve the culture against hostile religious philosophies, and the rise of generations of Americans who don’t know, or care about, the difference between Good and Evil. After decades of hard work, the Left has finally succeeded in turning this country into what it imagined it was.
Yes, it’s emblematic.
November 13th, 2011 | 9:59 am
Lots of people are outraged about the secrecy and cover-up at Penn State, and we should be. Pastors and church leaders–take notice!! There was a similar situation in my family where pastors from several churches turned a blind eye to pedophilia abuse and covered it up for many years. Many young boys were molested because no one spoke up. Why? According to one pastor, he didn’t want to break up a marriage. Another one said he didn’t want to cause division in the church. Others were so charmed by the abuser they didn’t believe the testimony of the victims. Some were cowardly and didn’t want to get involved. If all the pastors who covered up or ignored this type of abuse were fired, there would be a whole lot of pulpits empty on Sunday morning. PLEASE, PASTORS! (and every other person too), take action immediately and stand up against abuse of every kind. Stop being passive!
November 13th, 2011 | 1:22 pm
KING,
You described Joe Carter’s essay as contributing to a “lynch mob” atmosphere producing “witch justice.” You condemn the lack of “sobriety” “disinterest” and “Christianity” among critics of Paterno et. al.
Isn’t this a perfect example of “condemnation with a sweep of your hand” and “snap-judgment and instant justice”? Or is your rush to judgment above reproach? You should live by your own standards before you preach to others….
November 14th, 2011 | 10:09 am
Blake –
Depends a lot on what the ‘purpose’ of sexuality is considered to be, of course. (BTW, a challenge – name anything in nature that has only one purpose.)
On the other hand, pedophilia by definition doesn’t involve all consenting adults.
Not that you’ve ever been able to demonstrate…
November 14th, 2011 | 10:19 am
Blake –
And then you don’t follow through. Homosexuality doesn’t have to inevitably stomp on anyone else’s rights – whereas any attempt to act on pedophilia immediately does so.
To your (limited) credit, you’ve at least claimed to be ‘live and let live’ about homosexuality before. Still, you fret about the potential for harm to children from ‘same-sex marriage’… without actually being able to point to any evidence of harm.
If the argument is that the birth control results in less illness in the long term, then it would be justifiable, no? Not that it’s an either-or choice in the real world, anyway. (Why haven’t you sold your computer to donate money to medical research? Why are you wasting your time on forums when you could be volunteering at a lab?)
November 14th, 2011 | 2:40 pm
[...] pointed reflections on the student reaction to the recent scandal at Penn State. While our own Joe Carter dealt with the character of the students who were more outraged over the termination of a beloved [...]
November 15th, 2011 | 5:11 am
Depends a lot on what the ‘purpose’ of sexuality is considered to be, of course.
That’s just it.
It is the act of defining life as being, first and foremost, about personal pleasure – and sexuality as being, first and foremost, about personal pleasure – that makes it really incredible when people pretend to be outraged on behalf of the children.
You who worship your own body and its pleasures, you KILL children. You don’t care about children. You use them and you hurt them. You justify sucking the brains out without even administering painkillers first. Because life, for you, is about yourself, your own pleasure, and that comes before a child.
So spare me the pretending that pedophiles are somehow different. Promiscuous women murder babies, and that’s okay. Gay families make kids pretend that a stepfather is a mother, that having an intact family or an honest identity is irrelevant – they rape their kids’ minds – and that’s okay. All of you have created a culture where children are sexualized from age six, watch sex on TV from age three, defend the people who sell push-up bras to kids who don’t even have breasts yet, and now we have a culture where kids routinely lose their virginity before they hit middle school. This is the world you wanted: YOU were the ones who chose to sacrifice children – and their innocence – so that your sex drive could be free from restrictions, and who cares if that makes the world ugly for children? Who cares how a broken marriage hurts a child, as long as Mom is sexually satisfied?
But pedophilia – that’s different! Not because it hurts children but because it disgusts you.
November 15th, 2011 | 9:00 am
Publius wrote:
And now you are “judging” me. Hypocrisy is the only sin recognized in a relativist society.
Did Christ “rush to judgment” when he asked challenged the gathered, bloodthirsty crowd, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”? Or was it an appropriate provocation by the only sinless one, a cryptic reservation of His prerogative of judgment for Himself? Are we not to imitate Christ, to draw the line in the sand so that His judgment might be preserved away from the vengeful release of the increasingly self-exciting crowd?
I appreciate the criticism and I’m glad you bring it up. Matthew 7 is roundly misinterpreted as “judge not, lest you be judged,” when a better understanding of it is “condemn not, lest you be condemned.” It is the relativist’s favorite passage in the Bible and the only one they recognize and the facile basis for using scripture against Christians.
We obviously must make judgments in life. We must judge Sandusky to have performed evil, if indeed he did what his worst accusers say. We must judge Paterno as to have abetted evil, if indeed he admits he understood the gravity of the situation and did nothing out of fear or self-interest.
But we do not condemn. We do not take revenge on men. We punish insofar as the specter of civil unrest (to which Carter and Dreher contribute with their precipitate dudgeon) require of us in prevention; earthly justice is nothing but a poor simulacrum of the Lord’s Justice, done to appease low fantasies of making the wounded whole again. A Christian polity’s “corrections” system, in a perfect world, is about incarceration, prevention, and rehabilitation, not retribution or punishment.
“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’”
November 15th, 2011 | 9:13 am
Finally, I do not know, nor do I have the apparatus with which to find out, what Sandusky, Paterno, et. al. did or did not do. Our sources on this matter is hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay. However, I have witnessed with my own eyes what Carter and Dreher have done — and unlike my internet accusers (one of the devil’s names is “accuser”) — I will not leave the salacious comparison of evils to be inferred: the misdemeanor incitement of Dreher and Carter for purposes of moral catharsis is a near infinitesimal fraction of the patent wickedness of Sandusky or the cowardly sin of omission of Paterno, as alleged.
Being a Christian among the constant, universal temptations of earthly justice means walking a very fine line, and pulling your brothers back when they drift toward cowardice in the one direction or vengeance in the other. We must be imitators of Christ — our positive duty is to stand athwart the impulse of revenge and instant condemnation, to go slow and to remember the prerogatives of the Lord in comparison with our own.
I am hugely disappointed with the conservative media’s abetment of the hysteria. I trusted you to be voices of reason, of calmness, of sobriety and disinterest, of the Lord Himself when the culture is tempted to innuendo, moral grandstanding, and mob justice. I suppose I have my own lessons to relearn: “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help.” When it really counts, we see who is unfaithful, and Who is trustworthy.
For our Lord “heals the brokenhearted, and binds up their wounds.” He alone. Paterno wishes he “had done more,” but earthly justice does not allow him to go back and use omniscience to prevent the crime, for that omniscience is His alone. Paterno does not have benefit of the hindsight which Carter and Dreher have used to condemn the man. Only God has that benefit, only God may condemn.
And while we’re at it, what did Carter and Dreher do to prevent the evil done to those boys? What did you do? What did I do? Those are the appropriate questions. Are you tempted to rationalize: well, I didn’t know, I wasn’t there, how could anyone reasonably expect me to have stood between Sandusky and those children? That is Paterno’s exculpatory claim, and our temptation to the same would only be a matter of degree and not kind. Paterno might have been in a better position to prevent the evil in his midst, but can you, sinner, say you have done all you could to prevent the evil in your midst? Up to and including the Sandusky crimes? At very least Paterno has publicly confessed his weakness, that in fact he personally could have “done more” and failed. He is sorrowful for “all that [he has] done and all that [he has] failed to do.” Are you?
The temptations to paganism are constant and universal, and they lead to a metastasizing evil far, far worse and far, far more widely disbursed than anything the Penn State network can transmit. Work out your faith in fear and trembling, Christians.
November 15th, 2011 | 12:31 pm
“I know, like I know the sun will rise tomorrow, that if I’d seen what McQueary saw, nothing would have stopped me from screaming bloody murder.” So what exactly was it that McQueary saw? Was it really as explicit as our imaginations make it? Maybe it was, but I’m having a hard time finding any real evidence reported in our media (either mainstream or alternative) as to what exactly McQueary saw, thought he saw, or thought he might have seen or imagined. Doubt, perhaps, might have prevented any rational person from “screaming bloody murder”.
But no one is rioting over McQueary, who was not, after all, fired (yet). The riots are over Paterno. The article makes an insinuation: “if you’re a student at Penn State who is more upset about a coach being fired than a child being raped…” Insinuations aside, I know for a fact that there is no student at Penn State more upset by a coach being fired than by a child being raped. But rioting will not undo any of the (still only alleged) rapes; it might, however, undo the scapegoating of an innocent man. No one in a free society should be happy that reluctance to repeat hearsay is now a fireable offense.
November 15th, 2011 | 1:00 pm
Blake –
Another way you go off the rails is by assuming that everyone defines ‘pleasure’ the way you seem to.
So often here I run into people arguing with what they want me to have said instead of what I actually say. But you just set some kind of record. I dunno who you’re arguing with, pal, but it ain’t me.
Again, not so. Thrice over, in fact.
Let me know if you ever substantiate that claim you keep making, with anything more than ‘argument by vigorous assertion’. I won’t be holding my breath.
Again, you should probably go find someone who actually does that so you can argue with them. I ain’t your guy.
No… because it hurts children.
(Say, how many Christians here agree with Blake? Show of hands? Anyone gonna call him on this stuff?)
November 15th, 2011 | 7:29 pm
No… because it hurts children.
Divorce hurts children.
The “two mommy myth” hurts children.
A sexualized culture hurts children.
Children not being protected from sex and sexualization hurts children.
Democrats and liberals make a big fuss about letting youngsters watch movies that show adults smoking cigarettes, but viciously attack anyone who suggests that TV and film shouldn’t aim sexual imagery at children.
Go watch the film “The Kids Are Alright” and ask yourself: are all these “studies” (that ask irrelevant questions and use highly questionable methodologies) about finding the truth – or are they about justifying, finding narratives to explain how doing something you know to be wrong “isn’t really hurting anyone”?
Children have underage sex every day in America, and liberals cheer. They hand out condoms. They help the little tykes get abortions without the parents knowing.
Those who justify handing out condoms and abortions to children below the age of consent (those who justify abortions period) don’t have the right to expect to be taken seriously when they suddenly, belatedly, start pretending to care about the “well being” of children.
The sexual revolution has been violating the bodily, emotional, and psychic integrity of children since it began – it isn’t the actual goal of the sexual revolution, but since the goal of the sexual revolution is about selfishness and prioritizing sexual pleasure over the well-being of family, society, mates, etc., it really isn’t possible to be in favor of the sexual revolution and still be in any position to claim to care about the well-being of children.
And as long as the majority of people in America see sexual pleasure as so important that it justifies harming children over, there will be pedophiles, and they will simply ignore your concerns because they rightfully view you as hypocrites.
November 16th, 2011 | 8:52 am
Blake –
Casual divorce hurts children. Your reluctance to make distinctions leads you astray rather often, unfortunately.
Not only haven’t you demonstrated that your version of the ‘two mommy myth’ actually exists, you haven’t been able to demonstrate harm, either.
No argument there. I think we disagree about the causes of that, however.
Evidence?
I have, months ago. It was an interesting drama. (I’ve mentioned this before, but I think you may need to look up the difference between drama and documentary.)
I know! If the results don’t come out the way you want, throw out the calculator!
November 17th, 2011 | 8:13 am
Again, it looks almost like an inability – certainly an unwillingness – to recognize distinctions.
Your own past arguments make me feel comfortable making “generalizations” about what you support.
Also this generalization: that you treat this as a line: you can do anything you want, up to that line. No matter how it does or doesn’t impact the kids, it’s okay – “no harm done”, because society doesn’t recognize it as harmful. But cross that line and POW!
I don’t view it that way. I view it as one of many ways in which people who are addicted to the pleasures of the body do harm. To the extent that the person has no control over his desires, I have compassion – no less for the pedophile than for the gay man or the woman who wants a divorce because she just plain isn’t happy with her life.
But let’s not pretend that gay couples and divorcing ladies are somehow not guilty of wrecking kids’ lives.
Or, you can pretend if you want to – but I’m not going to play along. Because the entire sexual revolution makes the world ugly for kids – and the people who justify the sexual revolution are just plain lying (maybe to themselves?) when they play at denial.
November 17th, 2011 | 9:02 am
Blake –
Me, I link to your past ‘arguments’ when pointing out problems with them. You can’t do the same courtesy? For example, which ‘argument’ of mine, specifically, led you to think I support “handing out condoms and abortions to children below the age of consent”?
No… let’s not claim they are without being able to back it up.
November 18th, 2011 | 12:50 pm
Dang it, I forgot to point out this little incident, where Blake and ‘Heraclitus’ each think they can tell someone’s entire worldview from a comment… and both of them badly misread each other’s words.
In other words, Blake has a demonstrated problem with accurately characterizing those he discourses with.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact