Poland: John Paul II abuse cover-up claims divide a nation

Jacek Lepiarz in Warsaw

Pope John Paul II is still seen by many in Poland as a national hero and moral authority. A recent documentary has caused outrage by alleging that he covered up clerical sex abuse cases while archbishop of Krakow.

The private Polish television channel TVN24 has been reporting for years about child abuse in the Catholic Church in Poland and about attempts to sweep the scandals under the carpet. And the latest program in the series, broadcast just a week ago, has really stirred up a hornets' nest.

The journalists behind the documentary provided what they say is evidence that Pope John Paul II knew of cases of abuse but did not take sufficient action against the abusers.

John Paul II is a hugely admired figure in his native Poland

Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto/picture alliance

Born Karol Wojtyla in 1920, he is often referred to as the "Polish pope." John Paul II is viewed as a national hero in his native Poland, not just because he became head of the Catholic Church and the first non-Italian pope since the 16th century but also because of his strong opposition to communism. He died in 2005 and was canonized in 2014.

Indeed, so great is his influence in Poland that the people who consider John Paul II to be their lodestar and point of reference and have been shaping politics and culture in Poland since the collapse of the Iron Curtain are even referred to as the "JP2 generation."
Three cases of abuse

The period under scrutiny in the TVN24 documentary was the 1960s and 1970s, when Karol Wojtyla was archbishop of Krakow — in other words, before he was elected pope in 1978.

The documentary focused on the cases of three priests who sexually abused minors and then — in some cases after serving prison sentences — were allowed to continue working as priests. In one case, the priest in question, who also worked as an informant for the communist secret service, was transferred to Austria.

TVN24, part of the US company Warner Bros. Discovery Inc., has long been a thorn in the side of the Polish right wing

Str/NurPhoto/picture alliance

Several of the victims spoke in the documentary, most of them anonymously. One of the victims claimed that he told Wojtyla about sexual abuse by one priest as far back as 1973. He says that the archbishop asked him not to say any more about it.
A gift for the government?

Some in Poland have said that the allegations should lead to a reassessment of John Paul II's legacy. Members of the opposition alliance The Left have even called for his name to be removed from public spaces, including schools and kindergartens named after him.

But Poland's ruling conservative political alliance, the United Right, has seized the opportunity presented by the documentary to divert attention away from its own problems. The Law and Justice party (PiS) — the largest party in the alliance — is under considerable pressure because of rising prices and several corruption scandals.

Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki: the accusations are 'an attempt to trigger a culture war in Poland'

Piotr Nowak/PAP/picture alliance

Coming just six months before parliamentary elections in Poland, the criticism of the popular pontiff is like manna from heaven for the government.

'An attempt to trigger a culture war'

The government's response was swift and strongly worded: Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki called the accusations "an attempt to trigger a culture war in Poland." Culture Minister Piotr Glinski went so far as to say that "an attack on the pope is an attack on Poland."

The current archbishop of Krakow, Marek Jedraszewski, sang a very similar tune, speaking of a "second assassination attempt on John Paul II." This was a reference to the fact that John Paul II was seriously injured by a gunman in the Vatican in May 1981.
Right wing rushes to the pope's defense

The PiS reacted swiftly by drafting a resolution for the parliament to "defend the good name of Saint John Paul II." The resolution read: "The Sejm [lower house of the Polish Parliament] … strongly condemns the shameful media campaign, based largely on the materials of the communist apparatus of violence, whose object is the Great Pope — Saint John Paul II, the greatest Pole in history."

The Polish Parliament passed a resolution to 'defend the good name of Saint John Paul II'

Slawomir Kaminski/Agencja Wyborcza.pl/REUTERS

The PiS parliamentary party dismissed the documents shown in the TVN24 report as having been "fabricated by the communists" and held up images of the deceased pope in the chamber during the debate. The resolution was passed by a large majority, with some members of the opposition voting with the PiS.

The speaker of the Parliament, Elzbieta Witek (PiS), also waded into the debate. "John Paul II is our identity, our foundation and our bond. The communists knew this perfectly well and that's why they sought to destroy him while he was alive. Today, their heirs are doing it after his death," she said in a televised address last Thursday. Witek went on to say that Pope John Paul II was "a beacon of freedom" for Poles.

Mobilizing voters with talk of a 'religious war'

In reality, the documents from the communist secret service, which are archived in the Institute of National Remembrance, IPN, are only part of the papers presented as evidence in the documentary. Court and church records, as well as victim statements, also featured prominently in the program.

Speaker of the Polish Parliament, Elzbieta Witek: Pope John Paul II was 'a beacon of freedom'

Damian Burzykowski/newspix/IMAGO

"The PiS is cynically using John Paul II as a means of holding onto power. The party assumes that it will mobilize its voters with this religious war, thereby securing a third term in power," said Justyna Dobrosz-Oracz of the Polish daily newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza.

 
Liberal icon defends the pope

Yet the dispute about the accusations against John Paul II transcends the usual left-right political divide. An icon of Poland's liberal opposition, Adam Michnik, the editor-in-chief of Gazeta Wyborcza, has called on people not to reduce the pope to the clerical sex abuse scandal.

 

Former civil rights activist Adam Michnik called on Poles not to reduce the deceased pope to the scandal

Michal Fludra/NurPhoto/picture alliance

The former civil rights activist, who declared himself in favor of an alliance between the church and the left-wing laity in the 1970s, recalled the late pope's contribution to the defeat of the communist dictatorship and his commitment to Poland joining the European Union. "Wojtyla was a child of his era. What is a matter of course for us today was not a matter of course 40 years ago," said Michnik, even before the TVN24 documentary was aired.

Church to set up inquiry

Even Pope Francis, the current head of the Catholic Church, has called for understanding. "You have to put things in the context of the era. [...] At that time everything was covered up. […] It was only when the Boston scandal broke that the church began to look at the problem," said the pope in a recent interview with the Argentine newspaper La Nacion.

In a first response to the documentary, the Polish Bishops' Conference declared that "further archival research" would be needed to arrive at a just evaluation of the decisions and actions of Karol Wojtyla.

It then announced yesterday that it had unanimously decided to put together "a team of independent specialists to search state and church archives to shed light on cases of the sexual abuse of minors by some clerics." It stressed that the report would focus on all dioceses and religious orders in Poland.

Adapted from the German by Aingeal Flanagan

Fervent fans keep faith with heroes even after ‘immoral acts’, study finds

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

The more that people express admiration for a public figure, the more likely they are to forgive and defend them after a “moral violation”, according to a new study analysing the posts from 36,464 YouTube followers of a famous online prankster.

The findings suggest that we “resist updating our beliefs” about those we publicly support – even when they commit acts that might appall us, say researchers. 

Psychologists from Cambridge University investigated fan reactions to online celebrity Logan Paul’s videos before and after a notorious incident in which he filmed the dead body of a man in Japan’s Aokigahara forest – tragically known as a ‘suicide site’ – and shared it with his followers.

In the video, Paul and friends make highly inappropriate jokes. At the time, the final day of 2017, he had over 15 million YouTube subscribers. The “suicide forest scandal” led to a major backlash against Paul and indeed YouTube, despite a public apology from him 48 hours later.

In a study published in the journal Social Psychological Bulletin, researchers used language-processing algorithms to assess the level of “moral emotions” – from anger and disgust to adoration – displayed in comments by some of Paul’s army of YouTube followers over the course of the scandal.

The psychologists deployed a “concept dictionary” – lists of words associated with, for example, notions of love or forgiveness – to scan user commentary on seven Logan Paul videos prior to the scandal, and posts from those same followers on his apology video in the wake of the scandal.

The researchers say that this approach allowed them to account for specific slang in their sentiment analyses, such as “logang4life”: a phrase used by Paul’s more devoted fans to demonstrate commitment.

“Imagine a celebrity or a politician you greatly admire does something you consider deeply immoral and repugnant. Would you stand by them?” said lead author Simon Karg, who conducted the work while at the Cambridge Body, Mind and Behaviour Laboratory.

“We can see that people often keep holding on to a positive character evaluation even when the admired person commits a severe transgression. The more important the person has been to us, the less likely we are willing to change our favourable opinion,” Karg said.

Cambridge social psychologist Prof Simone Schnall, the study’s senior author, said: “People often use celebrities in the construction of their social identity. A threat to the standing of a public figure can be perceived by fans as a threat to their own self-identity – something we may feel compelled to defend.”

Previous studies on how people judge moral character have been limited by small participant groups, often lab-based, as well as hypothetical scenarios. By scraping and analysing YouTube comments, the Cambridge team were able to investigate thousands of reactions to a “real life” scandal of moral transgression.

Overall, 77% of the YouTube users who had left comments on a Logan Paul video before the scandal continued to support him afterwards, with only 16% expressing anger, and 4% disgust, after Paul mocked the suicide victim.

Psychologists were able to examine the link between pre-scandal attitudes and post-scandal messages of support among individual social media users.

YouTube users who commented often and positively on Logan Paul videos prior to the scandal were 12% more likely to continue to voice support for him once he had publicly disgraced himself.

Those who posted positively using Logan Paul fan language – an expression of “social identity” – were 10% more likely to back Paul after the Aokigahara forest video. 

Online behavior predicted fan reactions beyond merely support for Logan Paul. For each one of his videos a user had commented on, their likelihood to display “adoration” for Paul after the scandal increased by 4%.

Conversely, each pre-scandal Logan Paul video commented on by a YouTube user left them 5% less likely to express anger, and 9% less likely to express disgust, at his transgressive behaviour in Japan. 

“High levels of online approval only led to the entrenchment of support when fans were suddenly faced with extremely negative information about their hero,” said Karg, who is now at Aarhus University. 

“There are numerous examples of celebrities and politicians acting in less than ideal ways without much backlash from devoted partisans. It seems that fervent supporters will readily excuse deplorable actions by their heroes. The question is whether anything can break this spell of commitment,” Karg said.

---

JOURNAL

Social Psychological Bulletin

DOI

10.32872/spb.8283 

ARTICLE TITLE

Followers Forever: Prior Commitment Predicts Post-Scandal Support of a Social Media Celebrity

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

6-Sep-2022

Rand Paul is facing backlash for his anti-trans comments equating gender-affirming surgery to 'genital mutilation'

YELENA DZHANOVA
FEB 27, 2021, 

Sen. Rand Paul compared gender-affirming surgery for trans people to “genital mutilation” during a hearing for Dr. Rachel Levine.

Levine, if confirmed by the Senate, will be the first openly trans official approved by the chamber.

Some of Paul’s Democratic colleagues sharply rebuked his remarks. 

During confirmation hearings for Dr. Rachel Levine for assistant health secretary, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky conflated gender-affirming surgery with “genital mutilation.”

Paul on Thursday during a hearing before the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee questioned Levine on her stances regarding healthcare for transgender youth. In doing so, he attempted to correlate transition-related surgery with genital mutilation – a practice health officials have previously called a human rights violation that “has no health benefits.”

“Genital mutilation is considered particularly egregious because … it is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children,” Paul, a former ophthalmologist, said.

Paul then tried to portray Levine as a supporter of “surgical destruction of a minor’s genitalia,” asking her if she believed minors could make “such a life-changing decision as changing one’s sex?”

“For most of our history, we have believed that minors don’t have full rights and that parents need to be involved,” Paul said. “We should be outraged that someone’s talking to a 3-year-old about changing their sex.”
—Chris Johnson (@chrisjohnson82) February 25, 2021

Levine, a pediatrician and an advocate for hormone therapy, has never said children should receive gender reassignment surgery.

“Transgender medicine is a very complex and nuanced field with robust research and standards of care that have been developed,” Levine said in response to Paul. Levine also told Paul she’d further discuss the subject with him if confirmed by the Senate.

Levine, if approved, will become the first openly trans official confirmed by the Senate.

Paul’s comments led to immediate backlash from Democratic lawmakers, who supported Levine.

Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington and the chair of the Senate health committee, rebuked Paul’s questions.

“It is really critical to me that our nominees be treated with respect and that our questions focus on their qualifications and the work ahead of us, rather than on ideological and harmful misrepresentations like those we heard from Senator Paul earlier,” Murray said on Thursday.

Paul’s office did not immediately respond to Insider’s request for comment.

Levine, 64, is a professor of pediatrics and psychiatry at the Penn State College of Medicine. She also serves as the president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.

In separate remarks on Thursday, Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer condemned Republican lawmakers speaking out against trans rights.

Republican “attacks on trans people and the transgender community are just mean,” Schumer said during an in-person press briefing. “And show a complete lack of understanding and a complete lack of empathy. They don’t represent our views, and they don’t represent the views of a majority of Americans. Their despicable comments just make my blood boil with anger. If I didn’t have a mask, you could see my teeth gritting.”

Mitt Quits To Win Bush's War

The American Right is obsessed with using the old Nazi "stab in the back" argument to justify being wrong about Iraq. As Mitt Romney did yesterday. Romney tried to cloak his ignoble defeat in the robe of Imperial triumph appearing as the retiring Ceaser not the vanquished Republican Presidential gladiator.

Explaining his decision, he said he believed it was in the best interest of the country's national security -- he told conservatives a Democratic victory would lead to the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, defeat in the war on terrorism and future domestic terror attacks.

"If I fight on, in my campaign ... I'd forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I'd make it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win," Mr. Romney said.

"Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

The much vaunted Bush War On Terror was lost the day the U.S. left Afghanistan for Baghdad, and since then it has become the Politics of Fear, which Romney stooped to use as a parting shot in his wimp out speech.

No sir he was no quitter he was doing this for the good of the party and the good of the country and the good of the war, he was a good old boy. Seems though that it did little to quell the split in the party or on the right.

For one long, uncomfortable moment, John McCain was silenced by the boos at a meeting of the influential Conservative Political Action Committee.

They erupted from the back of the ballroom at the Omni hotel in Washington, a lusty chorus of catcalls from conservatives not ready to accept they were almost certainly listening to the next Republican presidential nominee.

And what does it say of Ron Paul the Republican Presidential candidate who also opposes the Bush War and who has not dropped out of the race. I guess he too is a defeatist prepared to surrender America to her terrorist enemies. Logic was never Romney's strong suit, opportunism was.

Ron Paul tapped in to a wide array of interests, and his appeal went well beyond the simple "opposition to the war" explanation arrogant journalists favored. But let's just say he could have tapped in a lot deeper and with more lasting results. It's not like we don't need the help right about now. The country is seeing the beginnings of a real leftwing backlash and the Republicans are about to nominate a "national greatness" conservative who is in every respect the anti-Goldwater. (Good luck getting any libertarian leverage from those Paul delegates at the convention.)

After the smoke cleared at the Conservative Political Action Conference – the public withdrawal of Mitt Romney from the Republican presidential race, and the attempt of John McCain to make friends with the party’s staunchest conservatives – a conservative crowd-pleaser stepped forward .

Ron Paul, the Republican representative from Texas.

Paul was playing on the frustrations in this hall, with many voicing worries about McCain, the all-but annointed nominee.

Now the party has an apparent candidate who is a friend of Sen. Russ Feingold – on campaign finance reform – Paul said. And now the party has an apparent candidate who is a friend of Ted Kennedy – on immigration – Paul said.

He raised cheers in the hall – perhaps the first genuine cheers of the day.

“If you think we can lead this country back to conservative principles… you have another thing coming, because it’s not going to happen,’’ Paul said.

“The answer is found in fiscal conservatism – live within our means,’’ he said to cheers in the hall.

“As long as a government can stir up fear, sometimes real and sometimes not real, the people are expected to do one thing, sacrifice their liberty,’’ he said to cheers.

And then there is the war in Iraq, with Paul the only one of several Republican candidates for president this year who took a stance against the war.
.
“McCain says we should stay there for 100 years if necessary – I say there is no need,’’ Paul said to more cheers in the hall.

“We campaigned in 2000 for a humble foreign policy, no policing of the world – and now we are doing the very same thing,’’ Paul said.

But this is where he started to lose his audience: “Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.’’

The Paulites in the hall were happy, but the rest of the crowd was starting to part ways with a Republican who has sharply parted ways with most of the candidates.

Romney was never the real conservative contender against McCain, Mr. Slick was just another liberal in conservative clothing. The real conservative contender is still in the race; Mike Huckabee. Watch conservative voters swing to him not Ron Paul despite the illusions held by his followers.

However the party establishment and the Conservative Political Establishment won't, most rank and file Republicans will hold their noses and support McCain. While those who remain McCain's critics will remain ineffectual offering no alternative since they backed Romney. And that will put them between a rock and a hard place, as the impact of their denunciations will give the conservative base of the party no alternative but Huckabee.

While the pundits like Chris Matthews, see Romney's quitting as giving McCain his coronation as the Republican Presidential nominee, it ain't over yet. And the divisiveness on the right will not be quelled by Romney's absence. The right and the Republican party is irreparably split.

"I will not vote for John McCain and it is our belief that he will destroy the Republican party," Vincent Chiarello, a retired foreign service officer from Virginia, told Al Jazeera. "I'd rather vote Democrat."

At a Friday campaign stop in Denver, the Texas Republican Congressman spoke to a standing room only crowd of 2,000 supporters-nearly double the number that came out earlier in the day to cheer on ordained front-runner Mitt Romney.

Paul’s speech was greeted with the eagerness of a religious revival. One supporter broke down in tears at the microphone as she described Paul as her “hero.” Sitting next to me in the front row was a 61-year-old lifelong Republican. She said she had never missed an opportunity to vote in her four decades of eligibility. Without Dr. Paul (this is how the obstetrician’s supporters affectionately refer to him) she said she would have sat this election out. She says she is most motivated by his anti-war stance. When greeted by a 20-something activist, they both nod in unison about their frustration with the drug war.

The interaction is a familiar one. This is not your father’s Republican party.

Dred-locked hippies stand united with Christian homeschoolers. Democrats and independents also pepper the crowd, proclaiming our need for renewable energy initiated within the private sector. There are no staged applause lines. On multiple occasions, an impromptu chant begins, “Ron Paul Revolution! Give us back our Constitution!” On stage, Paul is greeted by a drum line dressed as Revolutionary War soldiers.

The Democrats will continue to have the advantage, because even if McCain is now the presumptive candidate, the media will focus increasingly on the horse race that is on between Clinton and Obama. This is an advantage not a disadvantage in particular for Obama who can now make the case that only he can defeat McCain as national polls have shown.






ind blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Republicans,US Presidential race, Mitt Romney,
Mormon, Mormonism is a cult,
presidential elections 2008,
John McCain, Mike Huckabee,

First look at St. Paul's $15 minimum wage: Some restaurants were shedding jobs before it took effect

Frederick Melo, Pioneer Press, St. Paul, Minn.
Sun, November 21, 2021

Nov. 21—Even before the city of St. Paul increased the citywide minimum wage last year, some restaurants and retailers began dropping jobs and shedding hours.

Full-service restaurants — those with wait-staff and sit-down service — saw jobs decline by 16 percent. Limited-service restaurants, such as fast-food eateries, saw a 27 percent decline.

Minneapolis, which began hiking its minimum wage two years earlier, lost nearly 3,000 restaurant jobs during the same time, according to two new analyses from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota.


But some St. Paul retailers and food service employers actually raised wages in 2018 and 2019, apparently in anticipation of the mandate, or in competition for workers with higher-paying jobs across the river. And a tight labor market in the months since has raised wages further.

IMPACT OF $15 MINIMUM WAGE

With the goal of gradually moving toward a $15-an-hour citywide minimum wage over the next few years, St. Paul rolled out a wage schedule that requires most low-wage employers to institute annual increases, which began at $9.25 to $11.50 an hour as of July 1, 2020, depending upon business size.

Officials in both St. Paul and Minneapolis promised they would contract economists to analyze the impact on jobs, earnings and employment hours. It's a task complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the recession, rioting and arson following the death of George Floyd, federal relief checks, a labor shortage, inflation and other curveballs of the past several years.

"This needs to be interpreted with caution," said Anusha Nath, a research economist who worked on the analyses for the Minneapolis Fed.

Nevertheless, the researchers were able to glean some "baseline" data from pre-COVID employment numbers, and they spotted some sizable "anticipation effects" in St. Paul. In short, restaurants, retail and food services apparently braced for the minimum wage hike by cutting jobs or reducing hours in 2018 and 2019, even before the new law rolled out, though the overall low-wage sector showed little net effect.

DROPS IN JOBS, HOURS, EARNINGS

St. Paul restaurants in particular saw large drops in jobs, hours and total earnings.

"The estimates of job loss in the restaurant industries of both St. Paul and Minneapolis are particularly large compared with other studies of minimum wages, implying that at least some businesses in the Twin Cities were quite sensitive to the actual or imminent increases in labor costs," reads a study summary by Lisa Camner McKay, a writer-analyst with the Opportunity and Inclusive Growth Institute at the Minneapolis Fed.

Most other low-wage sectors studied in St. Paul, such as social assistance and administrative support, showed no deep changes in the studies. A hodge-podge of jobs falling into the "other" category — such as repair shops, barber shops and personal care services — actually increased in number, for reasons that aren't entirely clear.

"In that sector, we saw an increase in total jobs," Nath said. "This could partly be driven by if there's a loss in restaurant jobs, these workers could be getting jobs elsewhere. ... These are the types of channels we want to study in future reports."

How much did St. Paul's initial minimum wage increase impact St. Paul businesses after July 1, 2020?

Given that the increase took effect in the early months of the pandemic, shortly after riots rocked St. Paul's Midway, it's probably too soon to tell.

"Isolating the impact of the minimum wage during ... unprecedented times poses a significant challenge and raises questions about how to interpret data from 2020," reads the study summary from the Minneapolis Fed.

Given the scramble to attract workers during a labor shortage, some call it unlikely that boosting the minimum wage has had deep impact.

Andy Remke, co-owner of the Black Dog Cafe in St. Paul's Lowertown, said the restaurant industry used to attract many casual workers who wanted to pick up a shift here or there for extra spending cash.

"The pandemic pushed a lot of those people out of the industry," said Remke. "We're paying probably easily 20 percent more than we were for cooks, and probably more."

He added: "Minimum wage is certainly not a factor. The only people we have working here making the minimum wage are servers, and that's before tips, after which they make substantially more. Everybody else — food runners, kitchen staff — they're all making more, because that's the labor environment we're in."

MINNEAPOLIS IMPACTS

The Minneapolis wage law began in 2018, offering more pre-pandemic data to work with.

The researchers found that through early 2020, the total number of jobs declined by 12 percent more than they otherwise might have at full-service Minneapolis restaurants, and 18 percent more at limited-service restaurants. That's roughly 2,900 Minneapolis restaurant jobs lost over the 27 months analyzed.

At the same time, wages increased about 4 percent more for Minneapolis full-service restaurant workers, and 9 percent more for limited-service restaurant workers, than they otherwise might have.

The analyses are the first in a series of annual reports planned from the Minneapolis Fed through 2028, and they've already garnered pushback from advocates for the $15 minimum wage. A written critique published by the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank based in Washington, D.C., calls the Minneapolis changes in employment "implausibly large" and likely attributable to other factors, given that the Minneapolis minimum wage last year increased by only 75 cents at small employers and $1 at large employers.

"The data and methodology used in the study are simply not sufficient to distinguish between the effects of the minimum wage increases and other changes in employment happening around the same time," it states.

FULL EFFECT MIGHT NOT BE KNOWN FOR YEARS

It will be a few more years before the full effect of a $15 minimum wage in the Twin Cities can be studied in retrospect.

That's because the mandated increases roll out on different schedules for large or small employers in Minneapolis, and micro, small, large, and macro businesses of more than 10,000 employees in St. Paul. It won't go into effect for all city businesses until 2024 in Minneapolis and 2028 in St. Paul.

For their findings, researchers with the Minneapolis Fed and the University of Minnesota used administrative data from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, which provides quarterly earnings and hours worked for each employee of businesses that file unemployment insurance reports with the state.

The DEED data was combined with information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, allowing researchers to identify the specific establishment, industry, ZIP code and city where each individual works.

US Catholic bishops’ response to McCarrick report is sad but predictable

At their fall meeting, the American Catholic bishops failed to communicate that they understood the startling report's implications.
Archbishop José Horacio Gómez of Los Angeles speaks at a 2020 virtual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Video screengrab

November 20, 2020
By Thomas Reese


(RNS) — The discussion of the Vatican report on ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick by the U.S. bishops at their annual fall meeting was sad but predictable — sad because the bishops failed to communicate that they understood the report’s implications; predictable in that some bishops defended John Paul II against the report’s finding that the pontiff shared culpability in the McCarrick case.

The report, released Nov. 10, acknowledged that despite it being known that McCarrick was sleeping with seminarians, he was promoted to the Archdiocese of Washington and made a cardinal by Pope John Paul II.

It would have been better for the bishops to acknowledge the pope’s failure and argue that if he were alive today, he would be apologizing for his mistakes. In their 45-minute public discussion of the report, followed by 90 minutes of talking privately about it, they did neither.

Bishops are reluctant to criticize John Paul’s record of appointing and promoting bishops because most of them were appointed the same way by the same pope. To acknowledge his failures would open the possibility that they, too, were selected through a defective process that stressed loyalty over other factors.

“It can’t be a bad system; it selected me,” would be the attitude of most bishops.

Only Bishop Mark Brennan of Wheeling-Charleston suggested that the process should be improved. He proposed giving 30 to 60 days at the end of the process for people to comment on a candidate before his appointment was finalized. That way, he said, “We might avoid appointing someone to the episcopacy who did not deserve it.”

The tone of the meeting was set by Archbishop Christophe Pierre, the papal nuncio, who did not even mention McCarrick’s name in his address to the bishops. What Americans needed to hear instead from the pope’s representative was an apology for the failure of his predecessors and the Vatican hierarchy, who not only did not deal with McCarrick’s abuse but promoted him.

The president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, did better in introducing the discussion by saying that it “shows that the tragic outcome was not the result of a single failure but rather resulted from multiple failures across many years.”

Those failures were fed by clericalism, he acknowledged. The culture of clericalism limited the church’s “ability to discuss abuse with honesty and integrity,” he said. “It left other brave voices feeling isolated when they called out the sins of abuse.”

Gomez acknowledged the failures of the past without naming names — for example the three New Jersey bishops, all now deceased, who knew about McCarrick’s abuse of seminarians and said nothing.

In this Nov. 14, 2011 file photo, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick prays during the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ annual fall assembly in Baltimore. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

But Gomez stressed spiritual reform, rather than institutional reform, because he believes “we have already made important steps addressing the institutional failings that led to this sad tragedy of Theodore McCarrick.”

Gomez urged the bishops to have a personal relationship with Jesus in prayer. This relationship would then be the foundation of their relationship to each other in the common task of building the kingdom of God.

“Individually and collectively, we apologize for the trauma caused by those who commit abuse and any church leader who fails to respond with compassion and justice,” he said.

He expressed “deep sorrow for the victims and survivors of abuse” and said the bishops are committed “to holding the church and each one of us as bishops accountable on the ways we have failed in our responsibilities to our Lord and to the people of God.” He said the bishops were ready “to continue on our path of repentance, purification and reform.”

Likewise, Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore called on the bishops to spend an hour each day in prayer and reparation before the Blessed Sacrament, together with some form of fasting or penance each week.

But while acknowledging the need for spiritual reform, some bishops called for more accountability and institutional reform.

Pointing to the gifts of money McCarrick gave to clerics and organizations, which have led to suspicions that he was buying influence, Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth called for the recipients to be named.

“We have to give an accounting to the faithful for this, we have to respond to their questions,” he said. This is necessary “for the continuing of our conversion, for the continuing of the purification of our church and its transparency.”

Bishop W. Shawn McKnight of Jefferson City argued that reports like the McCarrick report should come as a matter of routine when accusations are made rather than only when they are forced by public demand. He also urged a greater role for the laity, particularly those with relevant skills, in conducting investigations.

The peculiarities of the McCarrick case prompted calls for looking at the abuse with new eyes. Noting that the abuse of adults and seminarians is often overlooked, Archbishop Bernard Hebda of St. Paul and Minneapolis called for the bishops “to reach out to our priests and seminarians to allow them to speak about their experiences and about whatever it might be that would prohibit someone from coming forward with allegations.”

Others bemoaned the division among the bishops the case has caused. Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago cited the letter of Archbishop Carlo Vigano accusing the pope of ignoring McCarrick’s abuse and calling for his resignation.

“We have to make sure that we never again have a situation where anyone from our conference is taking sides in this with the Holy Father or challenging him or even being with those who are calling for his resignation,” Cupich said. “That kind of thing really has to cease.”

Cupich also called on the bishops to meet with survivors of abuse, to encourage them to come forward.

Victims “were intimidated; they thought they would not be listened to because of the power structure and so on,” he said. “The more that we listen to victims and make it public that we are meeting with victims, as the Holy Father does on a regular basis, the word will get out there that we are on the side of victims. We will learn to have our hearts moved the more we listen to victims.”

It is a mistake to focus on either spiritual or institutional reform in the absence of the other. Both are needed to deal with the tragedy of sexual abuse of minors or adults. The report requires much more study and discussion by the U.S. bishops and the whole church in order to discern the correct path into a better future.

Worse than bungling, McCarrick report shows Vatican failed to take abuse seriously
The Vatican report on McCarrick shows that something worse than mere incompetence was at work in the Vatican’s failure: clericalism.
Washington’s archbishop, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, listens as Pittsburgh Bishop Donald Wuerl speaks at a news conference announcing Wuerl as the choice of Pope Benedict XVI to succeed McCarrick as leader of the Roman Catholic community in the nation’s capital, at the Archdiocese of Washington, on May 16, 2006. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

November 11, 2020
By Thomas Reese


(RNS) — The sex abuse scandal involving former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick has always been disturbing in at least two ways: the alleged abuse itself and the idea that an abuser could rise so high in the Catholic hierarchy.

The failure of the Vatican vetting process to take seriously multiple allegations over decades suggests incompetence; appointing the subject of those allegations to be the cardinal archbishop of Washington, as McCarrick was, is equivalent to the FBI clearing an enemy agent for a U.S. Cabinet post.

Worst of all, the Vatican report on McCarrick, released Tuesday (Nov. 10), reveals that at least three bishops knew of his abuse and did nothing. This is a sign that clericalism was at work as much as incompetence. 

It makes one wonder how many other accusations against bishops were treated in the same way. 

The report also reveals how difficult it is to hold abusers accountable without the testimony of their victims. Victims must be honored, respected and encouraged to come forward if the church wants to root out abusers. 

The child abuse occurred when McCarrick was a young priest in the 1970s, but the victims did not come forward until almost 50 years later. Once victims came forward, Pope Francis quickly instructed Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York, to investigate. When the allegations were found convincing, the pope made McCarrick resign as a cardinal and dismissed him from the priesthood in 2018.

While McCarrick’s abuse of minors was not uncovered until the papacy of Pope Francis, allegations of McCarrick sleeping with young adults, including seminarians, appeared when he was being vetted to be archbishop of Washington. Prior to that, the report says, “no credible information emerged suggesting that he had engaged in any misconduct.”

The allegations were focused on his time as bishop of Metuchen (1981-1986) and archbishop of Newark (1986-2000). 

Granted that he was already sleeping with seminarians in Metuchen, it is shocking that nothing turned up when he was vetted for Newark. Either the wrong people were asked, or they did not report his bed sharing. Once again clericalism triumphed. 

Before he was elevated to the Archdiocese of Washington, anonymous letters accused McCarrick of pedophilia with “nephews,” a term he publicly used for minors and seminarians with whom he was close. By this time, the report states, McCarrick “was known to have shared his bed” with young adult men and seminarians.

But no victims and only one witness of sexual misconduct had come forward. The witness, a priest, was discredited by his own abuse of minors.

Cardinal John O’Connor of New York warned Pope John Paul II against advancing McCarrick to Washington. Archbishop Battista Re in the Secretariat of State and Cardinal Lucas Moreira Neves, head of the Congregation for Bishops, also opposed his promotion.

Even though they didn’t believe the allegations had been substantiated, they worried they would become public and hurt the church. Sadly, none of the documents express great concern for the victims. 

These misgivings stopped McCarrick’s advancement at first, but John Paul changed his mind after receiving a letter from McCarrick defending himself. Re, who succeeded Neves as head of the Congregation for Bishops, also changed his mind, probably because he knew John Paul wanted it.

John Paul simply could not believe the accusations against someone he had known and befriended since the mid-1970s. He also respected McCarrick’s outstanding work for the church. 

Failing to properly investigate rumors about McCarrick was a sign of both incompetence and clericalism.

The report says the Vatican attempted to investigate the rumors by contacting bishops in New Jersey, rather than hiring a trained investigator. Although the investigation confirmed “that McCarrick had shared a bed with young men but did not indicate with certainty that McCarrick had engaged in any sexual misconduct,” the Vatican found a way to ignore it. 

The report acknowledges that three of the four New Jersey “bishops provided inaccurate and incomplete information to the Holy See regarding McCarrick’s sexual conduct with young adults.”

Bishop Edward Hughes, McCarrick’s successor in Metuchen, did not pass on reports from seminarians and priests who told him they had been abused by McCarrick. Bishops James McHugh of Camden and John Smith of Trenton even witnessed McCarrick sexually touching a seminarian at a dinner party but never reported it, the Vatican said.

Without negative testimony from bishops or victims, “the accusations against the prelate,” as one nuncio concluded, “are neither definitively proven nor completely groundless.”

The refusal of these bishops to come forward is outrageous. They are deceased so they cannot be punished, but their names should be removed from any church facilities honoring them. It was their support, as well as many bishops’, that weighed heavily in McCarrick’s appointment to Washington.

Even without further investigation, frequently sharing a bed with young men should have stopped McCarrick’s advancement. His habit of sleeping with seminarians and other young men screamed for investigation. McCarrick himself acknowledged that he had “imprudently” shared a bed with young men but denied any sexual activity, but the fact that no one had accused him of actual sexual misconduct is irrelevant. 

If John Paul and the Vatican knew that McCarrick had a habit of sharing his bed with seminarians, his career should have been over. Even without sexual contact, this was grossly inappropriate.

The Vatican appears to play down his misconduct by noting that his victims were adults, not minors, but the fact that they were seminarians makes it an abuse of power. If he had simply picked up willing young men in a bar, that could be forgiven. His preying on those under his authority disqualified him from being a bishop. Again, one wonders how many other bishops received similar clemency. 

The willingness of John Paul to advance McCarrick shows the corrupting influence of clericalism. 

John Paul had a blind spot when it came to clergy sex abuse because he had seen how Nazi and communist governments in Poland would use such accusations against good priests. He could not believe that McCarrick, who had done so much for the church and had been a loyal friend, could be an abuser. He also refused to listen to complaints against the Rev. Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ.

Others also failed to uncover McCarrick’s infractions. Reporters from The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Star-Ledger in Newark had heard the rumors about McCarrick but could never get anyone to go on the record. Even the federal government missed the signs when investigating him for a security clearance. 

While it does not answer all my questions, the McCarrick report is a huge step forward in transparency. It relates in great detail, with copious quotes from letters and document, the process by which McCarrick was vetted.

While the church has made great strides in protecting children, the McCarrick scandal indicates the need to also protect seminarians.

For example, every seminarian in the church should be asked at least once a year whether he has experienced sexual abuse or harassment. This interview should be done by someone independent of the seminary and the diocese.

The church also needs to take more seriously anonymous accusations and rumors of misconduct. While no one should be convicted on flimsy evidence, independent trained investigators should determine the facts when possible.

Francis should be congratulated for demanding this report. It needs careful study so the church can learn what additional reforms are needed.

McCarrick report shifts views of Pope John Paul II in a polarized Catholic Church
Detailing how Pope John Paul II ignored accusations against McCarrick to make him Archbishop of Washington and elevate him to cardinal, the report raises questions about the legacy of Poland's first Catholic pontiff

.
FILE - In this Feb. 23, 2001 file photo, U.S. Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick, archbishop of Washington, D.C., shakes hands with Pope John Paul II during the General Audience with the newly appointed cardinals in the Paul VI hall at the Vatican. McCarrick was one of the three Americans on a record list of 44 new cardinals who were elevated in a ceremony at the Vatican on Feb. 21, 2001. (AP Photo/Massimo Sambucetti, File)
November 16, 2020
By Claire Giangravé

VATICAN CITY (RNS) — For more than a week at the end of October, massive demonstrations swamped the streets of major cities in Poland as women marched against a court decision increasing abortion restrictions in the country.

The demonstrators, accusing the Roman Catholic Church of being a partner with Poland’s increasingly authoritarian conservative government, also showed their anger by disrupting Masses and invading cathedrals dressed in the red dresses and white bonnets of “The Handmaid’s Tale.” Signs recalling sexual abuse by Catholic clergy also became commonplace at the demonstrations.

The criticism, almost unimaginable just a few years ago in a country that counts itself the most Catholic nation in Europe, has been received by some as a wake-up call for the Church.

“If the Polish bishops don’t realize that Poland, like the rest of the West, is mission territory, and if they don’t call their clergy and people to live the New Evangelization, Poland in 20 years could be the new Italy: a country with a visible facade of Catholic culture and history but a rather weak faith beneath,” Catholic commentator George Weigel told Religion News Service on Friday (Nov. 13).

RELATED: McCarrick scandal shows why popes, like John Paul, should not be canonized

Another blow to the Polish church came just days later, as the Vatican released its long-awaited report on the handling of the sexual abuse case of ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick. Detailing how Pope John Paul II failed to act on the accusations against McCarrick to make him Archbishop of Washington and elevate him to cardinal, the report raises questions about the legacy of Poland’s first Catholic pontiff, its most recent saint and a hero of its struggle to escape the influence of Communism in the 1970s and ’80s.

Washington’s archbishop, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, listens as Pittsburgh Bishop Donald Wu.erl speaks at a news conference announcing Wuerl as the choice of Pope Benedict XVI to succeed McCarrick as leader of the Roman Catholic community in the nation’s capital, at the Archdiocese of Washington, on May 16, 2006 (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

“The legacy of John Paul II is in jeopardy now,” said Frederic Martel, journalist and author of “In the Closet of the Vatican,” a 2019 book that delved into the gay culture within the Vatican.

“Fighting Communism in Eastern Europe was a more important ideological goal than combating sexual abuse for John Paul II,” Martel added.

In addition to the McCarrick report, a Polish documentary that aired last week suggested that Cardinal Stanisław Dziwisz, John Paul II’s secretary, covered up numerous cases of sexual abuse in Poland and elsewhere. The McCarrick report mentions Dziwisz over 40 times.

In recent days, the fallout from the report has revived arguments that John Paul was made a saint too soon, only nine years after his death in 2005. There is no way to decanonize a saint in the Catholic Church, though feast days can be removed from the calendar.

According to the investigation, then-Archbishop of New York Cardinal John O’Connor and the Vatican envoy to the United States, Archbishop Agostino Cacciavillan, collected the evidence and testimonies against McCarrick and sent them to Pope John Paul II between 1999 and 2001, before McCarrick became D.C.’s archbishop in 2000.

The Vatican report tries to explain John Paul’s decision-making process with documents showing that several prelates concealed information and that some of the pope’s closest advisers believed a letter from McCarrick in which he defended himself from the allegations.

John Paul had a long-standing relationship with McCarrick, the report shows, and the pope’s experience in Poland — where clergy were often personally attacked by the Communist government to undermine their authority — likely had a strong impact on his decisions.

Many who know John Paul’s history have defended him, saying that the report’s account is too stark. “Media claims notwithstanding, that situation was very, very murky,” said Weigel, adding that a lack of clear evidence and McCarrick’s lies made the allegations as O’Connor presented them “less of a bright red flag than it’s being portrayed.

“To condemn John Paul II’s decision-making in 1999-2002 by what we know about McCarrick now is ahistorical and very likely agenda-driven,” Weigel said, “and to turn a 449-page report on a sexual predator, pervert, liar and manipulator into an indictment of another man, as too many have done, is, at the very least, strange.”

Pope John Paul II waves from the popemobile, in the company of Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, before entering Sacred Heart Cathedral for a service during a visit to Newark, New Jersey, on Oct. 4, 1995. Photo by Jerry McCrea/ Newark Star-Ledger

The McCarrick report has led to finger-pointing in the already polarized Catholic community, with conservative factions moving to protect their longtime standard-bearer, John Paul, as progressives hail the document as a victory for Francis, who ordered the report that largely exculpates him from responsibility in McCarrick’s continuation as cardinal after the accusations became better-known.

“I think the question of what Pope Francis knew in specific and when did he know it remains to be answered,” Weigel said, adding that Francis should have “insisted on, and enforced, a non-public life for the retired McCarrick.”

“But it must also be said that, confronted by the evidence presented by Cardinal Dolan in 2018, Pope Francis moved swiftly and decisively against McCarrick,” he added.

Francis accepted McCarrick’s resignation from the College of Cardinals in July 2018 and ordered him to a “life of prayer and penance” while awaiting a canonical trial.

For Martel, the Vatican report proves that the 2018 letter by former Vatican representative to the United States Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, condemning the Vatican’s handling of McCarrick and asking for Francis’ resignation, “was a lie.”

RELATED: Vatican’s McCarrick report: Three popes looked the other way on sex abuse claims

If Catholic insiders disagree on which pontiff is most to blame for McCarrick’s embarrassment of the church, they agree that the Vatican report leaves many questions unanswered.

One such question is what, exactly, the church should do to restore faith in its ability to handle, and hopefully end, the abuse crisis.

Weigel said that reforming seminaries and promoting fraternal correction among bishops is essential to combating clergy abuse. “The clerical caste system and the ‘men’s club’ mentality among bishops that facilitated McCarrick’s self-promotion and deception remains to be fully dismantled,” he said.

Martel said it’s imperative that those who played a significant role in protecting and insulating McCarrick face canonical trials. “It’s the only way to avoid the legacy of John Paul II being destroyed,” he added.

McCarrick scandal shows why popes, like John Paul, should not be canonized

The fact that John Paul advanced McCarrick in the hierarchy despite warning he received from Vatican officials and Cardinal John O’Connor makes some wonder why he should be considered a saint. Canonizing popes is more about ecclesial politics than sanctity.
Pope John Paul II waves from the popemobile, in the company of Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, before entering Sacred Heart Cathedral for a service during a visit to Newark, New Jersey, on Oct. 4, 1995. Photo by Jerry McCrea/Newark Star-Ledger

November 17, 2020
By Thomas Reese

(RNS) — The recent report detailing the Vatican’s response to the scandal surrounding ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick shows why it’s a mistake to canonize popes (or anyone) quickly after their deaths.

According to the Vatican report released last week, Pope John Paul II received warnings about McCarrick from Vatican officials and New York Cardinal John O’Connor in 1999. Two years later, McCarrick was installed as archbishop of Washington, D.C. 

John Paul was beatified in 2011, six years after his death, and was made a saint three years later.

It’s not just popes: The church needs more time to examine any person’s life. The people of Argentina, for example, wanted to canonize Eva Peron immediately after her death in 1952. At the time, thankfully, the mandatory waiting period before the canonization process could begin was 50 years. Though she is still revered by many Argentines, Peron’s reputation has been clouded in recent years by accusations that she and her husband harbored Nazis after World War II.

John Paul reduced the waiting period from 50 to five years, because he wanted to canonize individuals who were still relevant to today’s generation. His successor, Pope Benedict XVI, waived even that for John Paul’s canonization in response to popular demand.

As a result, when John Paul was canonized a mere nine years after his death, independent historians did not have access to the secret files of the Vatican, so it was impossible for outsiders to judge his cause. As more information is disclosed, questions are raised about his actions. 

Canonizing popes is a special problem because their canonizations are more about ecclesial politics than sanctity. Those pushing for sainthood are their fans who want their pope’s legacy to be reinforced. It is a vote for continuity against change, as elevating a pope to sainthood makes it more difficult to question and reverse his policies. 

Politically, it is difficult to oppose the canonization of a pope because opposition is portrayed as disloyalty. Those who openly or secretly oppose canonization are usually proponents of change. 

As a compromise, two popes are sometimes made saints at once: Pope John XXIII was made a saint the same day John Paul was in April of 2014. Progressives liked John while conservatives liked John Paul. 

The practice, meant to soothe friction between factions in the church, goes back to Pope Calixtus and Hippolytus (the first anti-pope) in the third century. Legend has it that these opponents, whose supporters fought openly in the streets of Rome, reconciled after being sent to the Sardinian tin mines by the pagan Roman authorities. Both were honored as saints by the church of Rome in an effort to unify the church. 

The joint canonization of John XXIII and John Paul II similarly brought together liberal and conservative factions who had been at odds since Vatican II, which was initiated by John.

I would not be surprised to see Popes Francis and Benedict canonized on the same day within 10 years of their deaths.

The politics of canonizing popes aside, saints are supposed to be models for Catholics and others to imitate. How can anyone who is not pope really model him or herself after a pope — unless you are a cardinal who wants to be a pope?

My preferred candidates for canonization are lay people, especially married couples and young people. I would canonize the Rwandan students at Nyange Catholic Girls’ School who were beaten and killed by Hutu militants in 1997 when they refused to separate into Hutu and Tutsi groups. Their witness against genocide and for solidarity would mean more to young people than any pope.

Were these young women perfect? Not likely, but they don’t need to be: Saints are not perfect; they are also sinners. We need to remember that St. Peter denied he knew Jesus.

But when scandals like McCarrick’s become known, it makes people question the whole system. Which isn’t always a bad thing. When Josemaría Escrivá, the controversial founder of Opus Dei, was canonized in 2002, a Jesuit wag responded, “Well, that just proves everyone goes to heaven.”

Ron Paul

Even the Democratic Candidates for President have not been this radical when it comes to the war in Iraq. Ron Paul is the self styled 'Libertarian' candidate in the Republican Primaries. He is not as libertarian when it comes to other issues like abortion, gay rights, or immigration.

Of course he has as much chance as the Democratic libertarian Dennis Kucinich does.

This is from the last Republican candidates debate.

Ron Paul

Voted against use of military force in Iraq. Supports withdrawing troops from Iraq, but opposed war spending bill which included a plan to withdraw most U.S. troops by March 2008. Calls for repealing authority given to the president in 2002 Iraq war authorization vote. Opposed Bush plan to increase the number of American troops in Iraq. Says military victory in Iraq is "unattainable."

You’d abolish the Department of Homeland Security in the middle of a war?

Ron Paul: We were already spending billions of dollars on homeland security prior to 9/11 and it didn’t prevent the attacks; inefficiency was the problem. Adding another huge, expensive, inefficient level of bureaucracy makes things worse.

You’re the only one on this stage who opposes the war. Are you out of step with your party, and why are you seeking its nomination?

Ron Paul: The Republican Party has lost its way. The conservative wing was always anti-interventionist: Taft was against NATO; Bush ran on a promise of a humble foreign policy, anti-nation-building, anti-global-policing; Republicans were elected to end the Korean and Vietnam wars; it’s the Constitutional position; the founders’ advice was to pursue friendship with other nations but avoid entangling alliances. We should negotiate, talk, trade with other countries; we lost 60,000 soldiers in Vietnam and lost the war, and now we invest there. We shouldn’t go to war so carelessly.

Follow-up: Is noninterventionism still a viable position after 9/11?

Ron Paul: 9/11 was a response to our previous interventions. We’d been bombing Iraq for a decade; we’re now building 14 permanent bases there and an embassy bigger than the Vatican. If China were doing this in the Gulf of Mexico we’d be upset.

Follow-up: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks?

Ron Paul: I suggest we believe their reasons are what they say they are; also bin Laden says he’s delighted our soldiers are over there where they can be targeted more easily.

Giuliani intervenes: As NYC mayor during 9/11, I’ve never before heard such a shocking claim that we invited 9/11 and I ask Ron Paul to withdraw it or clarify whether he believes it.

Ron Paul: I believe the CIA is correct when it warns us about blowback. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and their taking the hostages was the reaction. This dynamic persists and we ignore it at our risk. They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there.

(Later on Tancredo also attacked Paul, saying that regardless of what our foreign policy was or whether Israel existed, the terrorists would still attack us because they view it as a religious imperative. Paul did not have a chance to respond.)

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Republicans, US Presidential race, Ron Paul, Iraq, US, libertarian, Imperialism,

Ron Paul Spoiler

There it was flashing on CNN and MSNBC, Ron Paul came in second in Montana, and as usual no comment from the pundits. And then he came in third in North Dakota. Silence. Ron Paul is still in the Republican race, a spoiler for a fight and spoiling to continue his fight against American Imperial aspirations. Go Paul Go. And notice even Coulter, Limbaugh and company don't dare take on Paul. Who is after all Mr. Conservative.

Paul did better in the Northern Midwest caucus states, placing second in Montana, third in North Dakota and fourth, but with 15 percent of the vote in Minnesota. He also placed third with 17 percent at the Alaska Republican caucus and, despite a fourth place finish in initial voting, got 3 national convention votes in a backroom deal with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in West Virginia.

Missoula GOP chooses Paul
By CHELSI MOY of the Missoulian

Diane Rotering casts her ballot for a presidential candidate at the Missoula County Republican caucus Tuesday night. Rotering, a designated caucus voter, cast her ballot for Ron Paul, who won the county by only three votes over Mitt Romney. “It's just awesome,” says Rotering. “(The caucus is) sort of like the Super Bowl: well-played and a good clean win.” LINDA THOMPSON/Missoulian

Missoula County Republican caucus voters threw their support to maverick presidential candidate Ron Paul on Tuesday night, giving the Texas congressman a three-vote victory over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

An organized youth vote filled Missoula's empty precincts, helping Paul win 45 of the 97 votes cast at the caucus. Romney won 42 votes, while Sen. John McCain of Arizona had seven and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee had three.

About 300 people turned out at Missoula's DoubleTree Hotel for the historic event, many of them sporting red - the color of the Republican Party. The turnout far surpassed the expectations of Will Deschamps, chairman of the Missoula County Republican Central Committee.

The Ron Paul National Delegate Count is now 42 or more, and the campaign intends to press on to the Republican National Convention.

And here is some good advice; Paul supporters, if you learn anything from this election, it should be this: Stop wasting your damn time waving signs on street corners. Canvassing and phone-banking aren't fun, but they win elections.

Tags;
libertarian, Republican, Barry Goldwater US, Ronald Reaganelections, politics, right wing, conservative, Mr.Conservative, Reagan, social-conservatives, US Presidential race, Ron Paul,

Robert Reich: US Jobs Report May Spook The Fed (But It Shouldn’t) – OpEd

February 4, 2023
By Robert Reich

Surprising most analysts and forecasters, employers added a whopping 517,000 jobs in January, according to Friday’s monthly labor report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This was almost twice the growth from December’s 260,000 jobs. The unemployment rate fell to 3.4 percent, the lowest since 1969.

What does this mean?

It may mean very little. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’s monthly report can bounce around a lot, depending on seasonal weights and samples. Next month’s job number could be far lower.

Also, keep your eye on wage growth. Average hourly earnings climbed in January at a slower pace than in December — by an annualized 4.4 percent, down from 4.8 percent in December. With prices still rising faster than wages, most workers continue to suffer a decline real wage – that is, in their purchasing power.

But the strength of the labor market is likely to worry the Fed, which last Wednesday raised interest rates for the eighth time in a year – although only by a quarter of a percentage point this time.

“The labor market continues to be out of balance,” Jerome Powell, the Fed chair, said earlier this week. He stressed that we won’t have a return to his target 2 percent inflation in the service sector “without a better balance in the labor market,” adding “I don’t know what that will require in terms of increased unemployment.”

As I’ve said many times over the past year, this worry is misplaced. Most of the upward pressure on prices domestically is coming from big corporations with the market power to raise prices faster than their costs are rising. Much of the rest is coming from continuing supply shocks abroad, including Putin’s war’s effects on global energy and food prices, and China’s lockdowns followed by COVID.

And, as today’s report shows, wage gains are slowing and they lag behind price increases.

The basic reality is American workers don’t have the power to raise their wages. Big American corporations have the power to raise their prices. The Fed should not be aiming to increase unemployment as a means of slowing prices.

Robert B. Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, and writes at robertreich.substack.com. Reich served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fifteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock", "The Work of Nations," and"Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent, "The Common Good," which is available in bookstores now. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." He's co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism," which is streaming now.

Hiring surges but trends show more working-age men dropping out of labor force

PBS NEWSHOUR

Feb 3, 2023 



By — Paul Solman

By — Ryan Connelly Holmes

Job growth surged last month, shaking off fears of a hiring slowdown. Employers added 517,000 jobs in a hiring boom far stronger than anyone had expected. The jobless rate dropped to 3.4%, the lowest level in 53 years. The report underscores the challenges facing Federal Reserve officials who remain focused on slowing inflation. Economics Correspondent Paul Solman reports.

Read the Full Transcript

Amna Nawaz:

Welcome to the "NewsHour."

We are following two major stories tonight. Defense Department officials are tracking a suspected Chinese surveillance balloon that is making its way across the Central part of the U.S.


Geoff Bennett:

And job growth surged last month, shaking off fears of a hiring slowdown.

Let's delve first into the economic news. Employers added 517,000 jobs last month, a hiring boom far stronger than anyone had expected. The jobless rate dropped to 3.4 percent. That's the lowest level in 53 years. The latest jobs report also underscores the challenges facing Federal Reserve officials, who are focused on slowing inflation.

And, as economics correspondent Paul Solman tells us, it fuels more questions about a labor market that's proven more resilient for months now.


Julia Pollak, ZipRecruiter:

A big surprise.


Paul Solman:

Labor economist Julia Pollak on today's jobs report.


Julia Pollak:

So many leading indicators turned sharply negative in the fourth quarter. Investment has been slow. Consumer spending has also been relatively sluggish. And yet, against that backdrop, job growth is exploding.


Paul Solman:

In fact, the latest jobs report found widespread hiring, particularly strong in hospitality, leisure, and health care. The latest revisions also found job growth was stronger than first reported in the past two months.

But the pace of wage growth slowed in January, something the Federal Reserve wants to see more of before it stops raising interest rates.


Julia Pollak:

This report is sort of the stuff of economics fiction. At a time of rapidly rising interest rates, to have both falling inflation and falling unemployment is almost unheard of. It's almost as though we're in the world with $20 bills on the sidewalk and free lunches.


Paul Solman:

President Biden didn't go quite that far this morning, but he did take credit for a surge of hiring since he took office.

Joe Biden, President of the United States: We have created more jobs in two years than any presidential term in two years. That's the strongest two years of job growth in history, by a long shot.


Paul Solman:

And yet employers still need more workers, a reported two job openings for every officially unemployed person in America.

That's why the Fed may be concerned about the hiring boom announced this morning. The slowdown it wanted to see hasn't happened yet. But a major puzzle remains. The cost of living is up substantially, and yet the labor force participation rate is even lower than it was before the pandemic, which helps explain why there ere are millions of jobs unfilled.

So, why the shortfall?


Julia Pollak:

The main reason is a huge decline in participation among older workers. And part of that may be driven by long COVID. We have seen an increase in the number of people reporting disabilities, especially cognitive disabilities.


Paul Solman:

Now, a bigger factor may be the work force exit of healthy prime-age working men between the ages of 25 and 54. One familiar explanation, says Pollak.


Julia Pollak:

The U.S. economy has experienced a hollowing out of the jobs in the middle, high-wage jobs with strong retirement benefits that used to be common among men without college degrees. Now software has eaten many of those jobs. And so non-college educated men have actually seen their working prospects fall.


John Lilly, Job Seeker:

I do have lots of friends who just stopped working. They're not even trying. They have fallen off the work force.


Paul Solman:

Fifty-four-year-old John Lilly, recently laid off and looking for work, has a few friends without degrees who have just given up.

But how can they afford it?


John Lilly:

I think they're just couch-surfing on their parents' couches at 50 years old, waiting for people to die, so they can inherit the house and that sort of thing. It's just a really bizarre situation right now.


Paul Solman:

And some of his peers simply balk at conforming to new workplace norms, he says.


John Lilly:

Something like the pronouns, the gender pronouns, seem stupid to a middle-aged person. But it's not stupid if you want to get a job. If you want to get along with the work culture, you have to keep up with culture in general.


Paul Solman:

But a hollowed-out labor market as the main cause of the male worker shortfall seems a stretch to economist Nicholas Eberstadt, who published "Men Without Work" in 2016, now in a post-pandemic edition.

Nicholas Eberstadt, Economist and Demographer, American Enterprise Institute: The received wisdom is that economic and structural change is driving the decline in work force participation for men, outsourcing, decline of manufacturing, less demand for less skilled work.

All of that is fine as far as it goes, but it's really only part of the story, and I don't think it's even most of the story.


Paul Solman:

And most of the story is?


Nicholas Eberstadt:

Disability payments, dropouts, unintended consequences of our social welfare guarantees, and the invisible ex-con population, which is now maybe 25 million people in the United States.


Paul Solman:

And when you say ex-con, you mean they are formerly convicted, not necessarily formerly incarcerated?


Nicholas Eberstadt:

Only one in 10 persons who has a felony conviction in their background is currently serving in prison. It's an order of magnitude bigger than our incarceration situation in the United States.


Mike Tyner, Chicago Resident:

It's been almost impossible to get a job that pays a living wage.


Paul Solman:

Mike Tyner is one such American, though he did serve time on a bank robbery conviction. A college grad with a 3.7 GPA, even some grad school, he's had six actual job offers, all rescinded because of his felony conviction.


Mike Tyner:

I get it. You don't want me working in a bank if I robbed a bank. I get you don't want me working around money if I have had an issue with money in the past. But I can't clean a bus?


Paul Solman:

OK, felony convictions, a hollowing-out economy, government benefits, long COVID, a long list, but even that's not all.


Tom McFarland, Missouri Resident:

Childcare is very expensive and hard to acquire right now.


Paul Solman:

Thirty-three-year-old new stay-at-home dad Tom McFarland offers yet another reason.


Tom McFarland:

Financially, it turned out to be where childcare was basically going to take up our whole paycheck. So I chose to become a stay-at-home parent.


Paul Solman:

His wife, a veterinarian, supports the family on her salary. No surprise, as women keep outpacing men in college degrees, and thus in earning potential.


Tom McFarland:

In our case, it made financial sense and good professional sense.


Paul Solman:

Has he noticed more men his age becoming house husbands?


Tom McFarland:

Mm-hmm. Yes. It made me feel more comfortable making the decision.


Paul Solman:

And how does he respond when asked why he's not working?


Tom McFarland:

I'm currently working. I'm just working as a parent at home. I'm very proud to become — to be a stay-at-home parent. I'm very proud to be a father.


Paul Solman:

So, the moral of this story is pretty clear. Prime-age men have dropped out for lots reasons, contributing mightily to the curious case of a high-cost-of-living economy with not enough workers to go round.

For the "PBS NewsHour," Paul Solman.