The Debate

CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter

March 2, 2004

**********************************************

Dear Friend,

In all the excitement over the bishops' Review Board report on
Friday, I didn't get the chance to tell you about last Thursday's
debate over The Passion at the Center for Jewish History in New York.
It was quite an experience, and I'll give you the full rundown in a
moment.

But first, I need to update you on a couple items...

First, a few weeks ago, I told you about the problems that erupted
in the Arlington diocese when Catherine Nolan, the director of child
protection and safety, presented the Good Touch/Bad Touch child
safety program to Catholic school parents. As you probably recall,
the parents were outraged by the program's explicit content and the
fact that they hadn't been consulted about their children's education
in this delicate matter.

The situation was reaching the boiling point. Sooner or later,
something had to give. In this case, it ended up being the program...
and Catherine Nolan. Nolan resigned from her position shortly after a
series of heated confrontations with parents, and the diocese dropped
the Good Touch/Bad Touch program. Furthermore, they've announced that
they'll be investigating the VIRTUS "Protecting God's Children"
program, which several other solid dioceses have recommended.

This is great news for Arlington; the diocese was right to take the
parents' concerns seriously. Congratulations to all involved.

Now, before I get to the debate, I need to clear up one point I made
in my last e-letter about the National Review Board's report.

In it, I wrote: "Overall, 81% of abuse victims were male, and 78%
were at or past the age of puberty. In general, the highest rate of
abuse occurred among males aged 11 to 14. In other words, most of the
abuse involved gay priests molesting teenage boys. This is called
homosexuality, not pedophilia."

Several friends wrote in to object to the distinction I make here,
and to ask if I was trying to minimize the abuse.

First, I apologize for not being clearer in what I wrote. Here's my
point: Pedophilia is the adult attraction to prepubescent children.
An attraction to post-pubescent teens is, by definition, not
pedophilia. Rather, it would be better described as homosexual abuse
with a minor.

However, this is NOT to minimize the monstrous nature of the abuse,
one way or another. Both are awful. I was in no way trying to
downplay the seriousness of the offense.

In fact, the only reason I made the distinction at all is because in
finding a solution to the problem, we need to know exactly what that
problem is. We would approach rampant pedophilia differently than we
would the homosexual abuse of minors. (And again, BOTH are gruesome
crimes against kids.) In other words, let's get the diagnosis correct
before we prescribe the cure.

Anyway, I hope that helps clear up any confusion.

And now, at long last, on to The Passion debate...

As I mentioned to you last week, I'd been invited with several other
journalists and scholars to speak on a panel regarding the
controversy surrounding Mel Gibson's film. The group included Sister
Mary Boys of the Union Theological Seminary; Dr. Paula Fredriksen, a
professor of scripture at Boston University; Rabbi Eugene Korn,
formerly of the Anti-Defamation League; and Peter Boyer, a staff
writer for the New Yorker who did a profile of Gibson for that
magazine. The event was moderated by Ed Rothstein, the culture critic
for the New York Times. Each of us had 15 minutes to present our
views of the film and the controversy surrounding it. Afterward, we
were given time to discuss each opinion.

Now I've given hundreds of speeches all over the country and have
been in the hot seat plenty of times in television and radio
interviews. I enjoy a healthy debate. But this time, the situation
was different. This was going to be tough.

For one, I was the person on the panel most identified as a
supporter of the film. With the exception of Peter Boyer, the others
were outright antagonistic toward the film and Gibson himself. And
the crowd was a tough sell, too. I've never been in a more
emotionally charged debate and I was nervous.

The hall was overflowing -- about 250 people packed into the main
auditorium, with another 200 or so watching the debate in a separate
hall. The other presenters gave their various cases for and against
the movie. Sister Boys seemed angry towards the film. Boyer, a
southern Episcopalian, pointed out the  movie's huge box office
success, noting that the millions of Christians who are seeing the
film are not seeing anti-Semitism. (Boyer was a welcome voice of
reason throughout the evening.)

Rabbi Korn, on the other hand, condemned it outright. The film would
inflame anti-Semitism, he said. He even seemed to imply that it would
be the beginning of a second Holocaust, a comment that drew loud
applause from the crowd.

When my turn came to speak, I began by saying simply, "I loved this
film." I went on to explain that I shared the audiences' abhorrence
of anti-Semitism, but that I couldn't find ANY anti-Semitic themes in
the film. In fact, if anything, I thought the movie would help
diminish anti-Semitism. People leaving the theater after seeing this
movie aren't concerned with playing the blame game -- they're too
focused on their own sins that led Jesus to suffer and die.

I ended my comments by reading the prayer that Pope John Paul II
left at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem on his 2002 trip to the Holy
Land and emphasized once again that it's completely reasonable to
like this movie and not be anti-Semitic.

That's when the free-wheeling discussion began.

Most of the panelists just rephrased their opening statements... the
film was dangerous and likely to inflame hatred, etc. After just
about every comment, the moderator would come back to me for a
response. It was a difficult balancing act to maintain, but I tried
to focus on being as precise as I could and hoped that I got my point
across.

Sometimes I did, and sometimes I didn't. When I told the audience
that I had purposely looked for anti-Semitism during my second
viewing of the film but still couldn't find it, there were groans
from the crowd. At another point, I told them I thought the film was
the rebirth of great Christian art in our time. Even louder groans.
People began jumping out of their seats to ask questions, and the
situation got more heated. Fortunately, Rothstein did a good job
keeping things from getting out of hand.

In the end, I don't know if I was able to reassure the skeptics that
The Passion isn't anti-Semitic. Still, I was encouraged by the
positive reactions of a few people in the crowd who told me that they
were now able to see things from another perspective.

I spent the hour before the debate in prayer and meditation (the
organizers were kind enough to give me my own room), and that really
helped me stay focused and calm. In the end, I did what I could.
Hopefully, that was enough.

I'd like to thank the staff of the Center for Jewish History for
inviting me to take part in this important debate. While we may
disagree on the merits of The Passion, I found them to be exceedingly
kind and generous hosts.

I'll talk to you again in a few days,

Deal


P.S. If you're interested, here's the text of the prayer the pope
left at the Wailing Wall in 2002:

"God of our fathers,
You chose Abraham and his descendants
To bring your Name to the Nations:
We are deeply saddened
By the behavior of those
Who in the course of history
Have caused these children of yours to suffer,
And asking your forgiveness
We wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood
With the people of the Covenant."


** 7 SECRETS THE POLLSTERS USE TO GET YOU TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT **

Learn the 7 secret tricks pollsters use to twist your most cherished

beliefs...before they do it to you again! Once you know these 7
simple
tricks, you can turn the tables on the poll-takers and make sure
your
true opinions get heard...and reported!

You'll learn:

* The trick pollsters use to force you to agree with them before you

even answer their questions.
* Why pollsters try to call you at dinnertime. (And no, it's not
because "That's when you're home.")
* How they stack the answers to make sure you can't give your real
opinion... and much more!

Click below to find out more!

http://www.crisismagazine.com/subscribe.htm
(copy and paste into your browser if you can't click)

**************************************************************

To subscribe to the FREE CRISIS Magazine e-Letter, and get the
latest
news, views, and responses to current issues, send an e-mail to
e-letter@crisismagazine.com and write "SUBSCRIBE" in the subject
line.

**************************************************************

To learn more about CRISIS Magazine, visit
http://www.crisismagazine.com/subscribe.htm

**************************************************************

If you no longer wish to receive the CRISIS e-Letter, please send an

e-mail to mail@crisismagazine.com and write "CANCEL" in the subject

line.

**************************************************************

To change your e-mail address, please send an e-mail to
mail@crisismagazine.com with "ADDRESS CHANGE" in the subject line.
Please make sure to tell us your old and new e-mail addresses, so we
can
make the change.

**************************************************************

Please forward this letter to anyone you think might benefit from
it.