The Wisdom of Nicholas Kristof?

I should like to thank Steve, Susan, Rick, and John for their various contributions regarding Nicholas D. Kristof’s The New York Times op-ed piece of May 2, 2010, “Who Can Mock This Church?” As you might surmise, I have a response to Mr. Kristof and his views. At first I wondered if he was mocking the Church or if he was mocking certain people in the Church. His commendation of people like Sister Cathy and Fathers Michael and Mario is clear, but his condemnation of “cardinals” and others in the Vatican is equally unambiguous. However, his lack of understanding of the Church, the People of God, the Body of Christ, the Communion of Saints is limited; moreover, this limitation is patent in what he has to say about the Church that is one. This is what he mocks. What some may call wisdom in his op-ed piece, I call a lack of understanding.

I continue by raising the question: would he have used such a title about mocking somebody or some institution if it were not the Roman Catholic Church? I have no immediate answer to my own question, but there is something in his title that suggests the Church can be mocked even though persons or other institutions with whom he might also disagree ought not to be mocked, at least publicly.

But this is not my point of writing. When I read Mr. Kristof’s op-ed piece when it was published, I found myself disagreeing with him on many fronts. No surprise there for many of you.

But before I said anything further, I realized I had to get to know something more about Nicholas Kristof and his work. I am glad I did. I knew he has taken on some very difficult and very dangerous assignments on behalf of his employer. I respect and honor that. It would have been too easy to have entitled this contribution “Who Can Mock This Journalist?” or “Who Can Mock This Newspaper?” But, as St. Ignatius counsels his sons, of which I am one, and those who do the Spiritual Exercises, it is vital to put the best interpretation on something with which you disagree at the initial stages. Why? The other may be right, and you (meaning me), may be wrong until proven otherwise.

So I learned a good deal about Mr. Kristof and how he has put his life on line in taking on difficult, perhaps even harsh journalistic assignments that could bring great danger to himself. I respect that, and I honor him for his exercise of free will to do this. In short, I pay tribute to him and his resolve.

But, as I read this particular contribution of his, I wondered if he ever thought about those whom he found so easily to critique? Would he think that those who issue “Paleolithic edicts on social issues” have never faced death, intimidation, bullying, danger to life and limb? There is little evidence of this; moreover, he continues in a fashion that demonstrates his lack of understanding by assuming that those in “the Vatican” are not part of “the true church [sic].” He both assumes and concludes that “the top of the church [sic] has strayed from its roots.”

Really? How does he know? From what have they strayed? On what does he base his opinion? There is no evidence offered other than declarations and proclamations that anyone who has a post in Rome is out of touch with the world and its problems that are beyond Rome. Is his disagreement and condemnation so much about the sinners who have sexually abused others as it is about teachings on sexuality with which he disagrees? His condemnation of many hard working and dedicated members of the Church who happen to now live and labor in Rome is flawed; moreover, his condemnation is not the basis for declaring someone who holds and publicizes the positions he does “wise.” To the contrary, there is not only no wisdom but little understanding displayed by him about those who populate the offices in Rome and where they have been before they became part of “the Vatican”. He does not acknowledge nor does he appear to comprehend that many of these people he finds easy to criticize and denounce also were “the grassroots network of humble priests” sent to difficult places in the world where their lives were also constantly threatened. The reason why they issue, as Mr. Kristof dubs them, “Paleolithic edicts on social issues” is because most of them saw the world and the problems that its people face and have been participants in formulating Christian thought and teachings that respond to these crises.

I also found erroneous his dismissal of these people who labor in Rome, these priests—yes, some of who are now archbishops and cardinals—as “male chauvinist, homophobic and so out of touch that [they bar] the use of condoms even to curb AIDS.” If Mr. Kristof thought for a moment, he would realize that their “Paleolithic edicts”, if followed by all those involved, would never have permitted the crises that are to be censured. From my perspective, they have viable alternatives to bar AIDS that Mr. Kristof does not discuss, but I digress. It may be from the perspective of those familiar with gatherings he dubs as “a New York cocktail party” “to sniff derisively” at the individuals who work in Rome, but they, too, have earned our respect. As I have already stated, many of them have seen and experienced suffering, they have seen human need, and they have responded. A problem with Mr. Kristof’s op-ed piece is that there is, in his mind, no alternative to his solutions or those found in the attendees of “the New York cocktail party” of which he sometimes seems to be a part.

At another level, I am also troubled at how he dismisses the Church’s social teachings with condemning language, i.e., “Paleolithic edicts on social issues” or “antediluvian stances on women, gays and condoms.” There is much more to these teachings than he suggests. Perhaps it is because he is unfamiliar with them. Amongst other subjects, I teach the Church’s social doctrine. I would find Mr. Kristof’s characterizations of the Church’s teachings ill-informed and reckless. Whenever I start the social teachings course for the first time (and I have taught it in the U.S. and in Rome), I make clear to the members of the course that we must first understand what the Church teaches and then why She teaches what She does. Mr. Kristof’s op-ed piece reveals nothing about the knowledge essential to answering either of these two vital and essential questions—the what and the why—other than the sort of superficial familiarization that might be characteristic of a social gathering such as that which may be found at some “New York cocktail part[ies].” Until he demonstrates familiarization with the “what” and the “why”, his charges are meaningless. His assertions about the Church and those work on Her behalf in Rome and elsewhere are not only presumptuous, they are wrong.

I was amazed that he thinks The Boston Globe “has done more [than any other organization] to elevate the moral stature of the Catholic Church in the United States.” The Church in this country was already addressing the problems facing Her and Her members perpetrated by clerics, religious, and laity before 2002. This is something that he does not understand. He should get to know the Church better as I have tried to get to know him better.

Finally, I share his tribute to the Sister Cathys and the Father Michaels and Marios of the world. But they are not the only ones who “rock.” Others have been willing to suffer with the poor, the massacred, the brutalized, and some of these folks now work in Rome. How do I know? I have gotten to know them; moreover, I have had the privilege of working beside them and know that they are not the caricatures that Mr. Kristof believes them to be. They may hold ecclesiastical titles, but they, too, remain disciples of Christ because they have been with Christ and his suffering poor. This is something to which Mr. Kristof either does not know, and if he knows this, he does not want to admit it. I have no right to disparage him on other fronts. And surely, he has no right to disparage those whom he finds so easy to criticize and reproach.

RJA sj