Sheila Kihne ≠ James Earl Ray

After putting up my post on the Eden Prairie desegregation controversy, I yesterday fired this friendly shot across the bow, via Facebook :

Some citizens oppose integrating Eden Prairie schools, believing that racial integration [by proxy] won't benefit students.

EP's two newspapers both suggest a large bloc of parents supports busing-based integration, but opposes either plan that's on the table. To such parents, what would a better plan look like--assuming it results ...in the same degree of desegregation?

Were we to poll this group's 600+ members, what portion would simply oppose any intra-EP desegregation-by-busing--and what portion would support such busing, if linked to a better plan?

...and I received a pile of generally-friendly responses, even from people who--I think--know that I am not a team player. 

Within the anti-plan 'resenter' camp, some members-in-good-standing oppose any family-income-based intra-Eden Prairie school desegregation, consistent with their belief that government policies at all levels should aspire to simple 'race-neutrality'.  (They believe, as a consequence, that all race-based government affirmative action should be ruled unconstitutional.)

A pillar of 'the resenter narrative' consists of  innuendo slamming the [supposed ultrashrew] superintendent and various school board members:  In sending their own children to the lily-white Spanish Immersion School--they act upon the snooty liberal wont for preening--while foisting all actual costs upon others. 

The resenters would come across better were they to drop the 'conflict of interest' allegations:  A more intelligent, uplifting community discussion will occur if we just assume the good citizenship of all participants.

I favor the plan because I sense it includes actual school desegregation--which I view as a moral good, independent of whether it accomplishes academic improvement.

Having read Sheila's fire-breathing anti-Krull rhetoric for months, I assumed an omnipotent, evil-spewing Melissa Krull could not exist. 

And then--during my first ten minutes in the same room with Melissa Krull--she did something quite yucky:  Krull publicly, pointedly refused to distance herself one centimeter from a high-status participant who publicly calls her opponents--without qualification--racists.

Even as a supporter of busing, I couldn't stand by someone who calls all plan opponents racists.  Such a charge demands convincing evidence--which has not been provided.  Why then did Krull feel the need to thrust the shiv so, with her 'refusal to disavow'--even when she knows at least some opposition to the plan stems from motives not based in racism?

Krull's moral buy-in with Team Purity requires her not merely to detect some racism among opponents, but to 'model' what she deems 'the morally proper public stance'--fulfilling one's Team Purity obligation, doing one's part to stigmatize opposition to progressive race policies.

On the left--having analyzed the situation and decided, 'The resenters are at least somewhat motivated by racism'--the Pure subconsciously seek to increase the pleasure-inducing dosage, converting their vague hunch into 'The resenters are primarily motivated by racism.'  (Such an ideological move should require explanation. imho.)

During the Civil Rights Movement, genuine racists often cloaked squalid objectives within 'appeals for race-neutrality'; present-day liberals shouldn't rely on this historical fact 'to prove' today's advocates of 'race-neutrality' are themselves racists: 

Equivalent evidence is not evidence of equivalence, and the situations--in Selma and Eden Prairie--are dissimilar.

**

Thanks B--I'm happy to receive your feedback.

I will remind Lora that--in inviting me to the tour, she is responsible for making such arrangements, which I of course assumed to be part of the package from the get-go.

I'm aware that I am not well-versed in the plan's minutiae--and that it packages many changes, in the manner that large-organizational policies often get promulgated--as parties trade horses.

But this debate is perceived as being unusually charged for essentially one reason. While many on this list dispute my assertion (in a tone redolent of orthodoxy) I believe that if you pull people aside, you find the desegregation plan packs the most emotional punch, among the plan's various components.

To say so is not to claim that the dispute pits Martin Luther King against the KKK--it is merely to attempt to ground the public discussion in reality.

Fr. Kennedy's Reign of Error

If you attend a Catholic church in the area, you'll notice an emphasis nowadays on social justice. 

Your church's social justice group ostensibly encourages voluntarism in the community and liberal governmental policies that help the poor.  In reality, church-based social justice groups turn their backs on the poor and promote snivelling, guilt and anti-abortionism--and are in actuality just another forum for status competition. 

Social justice is accepted as a self-defining term; in reality, it is not obvious what social justice is. 

If a certain amount of money has been dedicated to helping the poor, we should find out where the poorest people are--and try to get the money to them.  The world's poorest people are those for whom a small amount of money will make the biggest impact. 

We shouldn't spend any of it in the USA, since--for the same amount of money--we can help many people in the Congo, where per capita GDP (at $300) is less than 1% of ours. 

Eden Prairie's gigantic Pax Christi Catholic Community likes to present itself as ultraprogressive--it features both an Óscar Romero Room and a Dorothy Day Room--but the church promulgates a brazen contrarianism, with regard to helping the poor:  When the pastor hired social justice expert Allison Boisvert:

"I told him I wasn't much interested in the third-world stuff," said Boisvert, who is of Native American extraction and lives in the Phillips Neighborhood of Minneapolis. "It's easy to get enamored with nice little brown people from Ecuador but not so much with the Indians on the Red Lake reservation.

"We somehow look at third-world poverty as being more deserving," Boisvert added. "Unfortunately, what most see as poverty in this country is on the 10 p.m. news; it's always black and it's always scary."

That's right:  If you believe that the world's poorest people ought to be Target #1 for the parish's giving, Pax Christi considers you an ignorant bigot.

Per capita GDP in Ecuador--at $7,600--is more than 25 times that of the DRC.  If your church is giving money to Ecuador you should tell them, 'We can help twice the number of people we're now helping in Ecuador by redirecting our aid to the Congo.  We can help more people more dramatically if we apply basic economic common sense, when giving.'

Resentment v. Purity

 

To make sense of today's post you'll need to have read this StarTribune article about Eden Prairie's hot-button issue--pitting the morally advanced opposite the repulsively smug--to name the two camps using the in-house nomenclature of what is merely one randomly-selected ideological party within the dispute.

 

I trudge first to the wrong building, then find the room, above, within the suburb's pre-boom high school--a weirdly warm public space, for Eden Prairie, in what appears to have been a performance hall and sports arena from the 1930s. It's not packed, contra Strib, but there are a lot of people. I arrive late and leave early--catching only a snapshot of the drama, and considerably prior to the resulting decision [to adopt the proposal].

Standing in the back of the old court, I view the EP Board up front, far away--where I can only identify progressive board member Carol Bomben and superintendent Melissa Krull.

The issue tonight is whether to redraw boundaries so as to desegregate Eden Prairie Schools. The morally pure see such change as a fundamental civic obligation--to direct their adult public energy in favor of cost-imposing government policies designed to steer and push social change to reduce the marginalization associated with race, in America.

In public they tone it down--often reworking the narrative, arguing 'overall student achievement will improve' with integration at what will prove to be modest cost.  (It's not 'a moral imperative', it's a commonsense, practical matter--somewhat disguising, in my analysis, the strength of feeling on the left side.)

The resenters respond, sometimes exhibiting a cringe-inducing 'richly-earned right to play victim on the public stage'--their grandparental chastisement can at intervals grow tiresome.  And some play 'right intellectual'--asserting familiarity with recent social-scientific literature, claiming it unambiguously, uniformly militates against busing's claimed social benefits.

The morally pure willingly enter the social science debate--not always without erudition--arguing 'No, recent social-scientific research actually does provide justification for desegregating public schools using busing.'

Here is one imagined liberal response, modeling a reasonable-left reply to the right's social science critique:

Non-ideological public discussion of 'the unambiguous public policy implications of the latest, peer-reviewed, unbiased scholarly social scientific research'--should any be demonstrated to exist pertaining to the policy here under review--is entirely welcome. But it is a discussion which should be put off for another day:  While I contest the resenters' claims to fluency in the latest social-sciences scholarly literature, I should state clearly:

I advocate desegregating the schools whether or not Eden Prairie's test-score averages budge, as a result of desegregation--as I consider desegregation a moral imperative for our community, to prevent race from correlating with the fundamental character of our schools' educational environment.

Such people sincerely maintain 'society benefits on multiple levels--even the psychological'--when we embrace the goal of consciously intervening--using government--to undo the brutal historical unfairness from which white Americans to this day continue to benefit.

The resenters have the kernel of a point when they say it is a money-wasting naive-liberal pipe dream to suggest government policy can intervene into the social lives of individuals and families to the extent minimally needed to change the massive present-day race-correlated disparities in income and [euphemism alert] educational attainment and the host of other indices that define marginalization.

Amid this backdrop, yesterday's 20-minute snapshot in the old gymnasium allowed me to take in the psychodynamics at play among board, superintendent, security guards, the dozen-or-so suited-and-hajibed Somali parents, media horde and earnest Eden Prairie yuppies, some hot.

A self-consciously aware center-right portion of the public 'reads Melissa Krull like a book', believing Krull--in heart of hearts, uncritically accepts Myron Orfield's demagogy.  On what is--they like to remind themselves--their dime, Krull is rapidly ascending the professional ladder, pushing a stern liberal educational politics somehow opposite that of Michelle Rhee, yet salable nonetheless to the 'reasonable' bulk of the semi-attentive white middle class.

In other words, their children and their taxes fuel a public career built on helping smug upper middle class liberals stigmatize and disempower people such as themselves.

While at the meeting, Sheila Kihne comes over, extends a hand and we engage in brief, elevated conversation.  (She willingly submits to the pleasant portrait displayed above.)  Kihne is the strongest non-elected voice on the Right in Eden Prairie and her blog is a vehicle for promoting what she perceives as a credibly Reaganite view on contemporary local and national politics. 

Today's boundaries debate is a manifestation of the social-psychological gulf between white Eden Prairians and the 500-family presence of Somali-Americans. Somalis are largely looked down upon by white Eden Prairians of all ages. Within the rarely-voiced white Eden Prairian's psychopolitics lurks some condemnation of 'the failure of Somalis to adapt' toward a more self-improving, less hajibed set of American values. The ill feeling some whites harbor toward Somalis is insufficiently acknowledged--and does constitute a hidden pillar within the resenters' edifice of public support.

That said, I nonetheless divine at least one conceivable 'rational, public-spirited' explanation for how one might wholesomely arrive at the anti-desegregation position. (I view the 'I'd support the gerrymandering--I just don't think this is the best possible plan' position to be nothing but a cheap political dodge.) I can also legibly read--to my satisfaction, at least--a certain chauvinism and unbrotherliness in the attitude of the resenters.

Sheila Kihne is the best-known public voice of the resenters. And--to put it gently but fairly--she occasionally veers onto the wrong side of the dichotomy delineated in the previous paragraph, imho. At the same time, much of what she publishes does fall within the zone of reasonableness. Her piece the other day certainly clarifies aspects of her political and cultural perspective--and merits a reading.

Sheila quite understandably takes note of this snippet from a recent Star Tribune news article:

Myron Orfield, a University of Minnesota law professor, has advocated for integration efforts at many Twin Cities schools. He has spoken in favor of Eden Prairie's plan and was booed by some parents at meetings.

"This is a big decision for the school board and for the region -- whether we're going to have racially integrated school districts," Orfield said. ''The implications [if the proposed plan fails] will be that there are a group of white racist parents who can stop integration in schools."

If you are willing to allow for the existence of satisfactorily non-racist white Eden Prairie parents who do not view intra-Eden Prairie racial desegregation as a morally urgent public priority, then you should also be willing to admit just how insulting Orfield's rhetoric must sound to such people. (If you believe every last one of the resenters is nothing but Orval Faubus-in-business-casual, then you don't need to participate in this exercise; I have a separate list of questions in the hopper should any such person come forward.)

While observing the school board meeting's bland BS-politeness and limp managerial verbal filler, two things get said which momentarily dispel my premature yen to dismiss this public dialogue as being primarily non-linguistic:

The white resenters--who make up the overwhelming bulk of the audience--largely muffle their scoffing and grunts to a reasonably semi-audible level. Yet Carol Bomben can't resist chastising the audience for their [minuscule, in my view] 'breach of civility'--[the 'self-appointed Civility Commissar' being a particularly disliked social type, to your humble servant].  Bomben's rhetorical error, however--in my scoring--is eclipsed by Superintendent Krull's jarringly indelicate psychopolitical uppercut:

A person reads the Myron Orfield Star-Tribune quotation [above] and then asks the superintendent to comment on it. Krull first bullshits a nonanswer, but the questioner doesn't duck, and--sharpening focus--then crisply asks Krull to disavow Orfield's characterization [of what sentient participants cannot overlook is this very audience].

Krull--via an ostensibly 'neutral, non-committal' reply--demurs, boldly refusing to make nice-nice with the resenters, as she quite easily might do at tiny ideological cost.  (She will not distance herself one inch from a high-status participant who equates this evening's attendees with George Wallace, in other words.)  Several unobtrusive gasps and hisses issue forth.

To sum up, I support the desegregation proposal, primarily from a dogmatic philosophical perspective, whether or not it results in any measurable academic benefit. It just seems to me a fairly cheap and worthwhile way of prettifying EP's civic life and advancing the feeling of civic equality within the community.

Lots of people oppose my position on this matter, and at least some do so reasonably.  This reasonable subset--among the resenters--isn't easy to measure, but can't not feel pissed off at some of the rhetoric being beamed out at them, from the morally pure.

A Krenikian Afterthought

A brief thought demands pixillation, on this Sunday evening:

This afternoon I am granted audience with an adored maternal figure--adherent of the One True Faith--recently widowed, now resident a suburb to our left.  Our zesty dissection of family politics consumes two hours in the blink of an eye--and then I aver having attended Mass yesterday afternoon at the thrice-blogged  Chanhassen pagoda.

I want to take in the feel of the place:  It is bracing, the psychic blast of a previously unentered house of worship, at showtime.  This one feels younger than my home parish, more exurban--less conscious if that's possible.  Big though not completely full.  Parishioners are bid greet each other twice here--once at the start and later after our first knee-beating--which is onerous, emotionally [then it dawns I've now fulfilled two Sundays].

Their pastor having just been frog-marched to Siberia--thanks to Archbishop Nienstedt's loveless literalism--I attend St. Hubert's in part to see whether Fr. Krenik-of-the-labor-camp gets mentioned.  (And there is one elliptical reference to 'recent difficulty', I think, followed by a single distant, muffled chuckle.) 

During my conversation with the frail, elderly person--a St. Hubert's parishioner, she reveals--your blogger asks if she is aware of the recent personnel change.  She is aware, she says, betraying the cosmopolite's unscandalized affect--one's kin can be charming--though she doesn't particularly seem to care, at first.  Then she allows, 'I very much liked Fr. Krenik.'

I briefly explain my 'it seems to me an outrage' position:  Who cares if the priest has a frolic in the park?  (It's the festive season for them, too, I say.)

No significant push-back...and then:  But he couldn't thereafter be trusted around children.

No Hero

[from the report]

A19 (WITNESS): Because from standing--initially running up on it I couldn’t tell that it was even an aircraft, sir, but when you moved to the side of it you could see the bottom of it. I could see one of the wheels facing the sky, sir.

On April 9, 2010, Eden Prairie's Randall Voas crashed a CV-22 Osprey in Afghanistan.  Four people died in the crash--including Voas--while the surviving 16 passengers were all injured, many severely.

Immediately after the tragedy, Eden Prairie's upright citizens named Voas a national hero.  The local Veterans Committee made Voas a featured honoree at this years' Memorial Day event--and his name has been added to the Wall of Honor at the Eden Prairie Veterans Memorial.

The Eden Prairie Veterans Committee gushes 'Major Voas was one of the Air Force's most experienced and skilled V-22 "Osprey" pilots and his contributions to Air Force Special Operations Command and his country are immeasurable.'

On July 24, Eden Prairie citizens and dignitaries participated in Randy's Run, honoring Voas' 'heroism'.  US Rep. Erik Paulsen officiated; Paulsen's brother won the footrace.

The Eden Prairie News unquestioningly accepted Voas' designation as 'hero,' without nuance or explanation.  Randall Voas' obituary asserts:  'His final moments were a testimonial to all that he represented in life when he demonstrated his heroism by saving the lives of sixteen fellow comrades.'

This evening the Air Force Special Operations Command released its report on the crash.

Prior to this evening's report-issuance, just one Eden Prairie resident publicly objected to calling Randall Voas 'a hero'.  His viewpoint was deemed so far 'beyond the pale' as to not require polite acknowledgement.

"The board president determined 10 factors substantially contributed to the mishap," says the report. 

These ten factors include:

*'inadequate weather planning'

*'a poorly executed low visibility approach'

*'the mishap crew's task saturation'

*'the mishap crew's pressing to accomplish their first combat mission of the deployment.' 

The report concludes that the crash was not caused by 'enemy action' or loss of engine power.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram's Sky Talk blog has additional detail--and adds:

An Air Force investigation has concluded that the fatal crash of a CV-22 Osprey aircraft in Afghanistan last April resulted from a number of factors, largely flight crew mistakes.

Waiver Request

Pastor Paul Nelson of Eden Prairie's Immanuel Lutheran Church has responded to my letter to the editor:

Gavin, thanks for including me in your e-mail.

Let me correct you. I did not say the [Eden Prairie] Ministerial Association comes ‘together as community to serve the good of all, not merely to advocate for our own interests.’ Rather, it is our hope as a ministerial association that the whole community come together to serve the good of all.

As far as joining the Eden Prairie Ministerial Association, do you represent a congregation within the community?

As to the your last line, unless you were to provide specific examples of my spreading false information within the community, I will assume this is just a personal attack.

And my response:

Thanks for your reply, Paul.

You're correct in noting that I interpreted the quotation differently than you now state. Thank you for clarifying your meaning.  But even taking the quotation as you now explain it, my primary question stands:

From whom does this quality distinguish the EPMA, Rev. Nelson?  Is there some individual in our community who you view as advocating an ill-spirited position?

Since I oppose superstition, it is difficult for me to get hired by any superstition-based institution, Rev. Nelson.  (I am simply not very gullible.)  So I ask that the EPMA waive this requirement for me--so as to accommodate my disability.  Please show some flexibility on this point.

Finally, you have asked that I cite 'specific examples' of your spreading false information within the community.  Gladly:  Let me mention a historical falsehood which you advocate: The Massacre of the Innocents.

There is very little evidentiary support--if any--for this historical claim:  The Massacre of the Innocents, I assert, is a fable.

I look forward to review your evidence in support of it.

I assure you, Rev. Nelson, that--as a gentleman--I do not trade in baseless personal attacks. I request that you refrain from jumping to any such conclusion, prior to hearing my viewpoint.

Warmest regards,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

To the Eden Prairie News

Dear Editor,

In your 12/2/10 edition, the Rev. Paul Nelson--pastor at Immanuel Lutheran Church and president of the Eden Prairie Ministerial Association--had an epistle published entitled 'Ministerial group corrects record.'

Nelson claims that the Eden Prairie Ministerial Association takes no position on issues but merely seeks to promote civility--and is pristinely free of any selfish desire.

The EPMA--he states--comes 'together as a community to serve the good of all, not merely to advocate for our own interests.'

From whom does this quality distinguish the EPMA, Rev. Nelson?

I would like to join the Eden Prairie Ministerial Association--despite the fact that I am not superstitious.

Am I barred from joining the Eden Prairie Ministerial Association, due to the fact that I don't spread false information within the community, as Rev. Nelson does?

Very best wishes,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

On the Prevalence of Cowardice

Quick review:  A Chanhassen Catholic priest had been leading St. Hubert's for some years, to the satisfaction of all stakeholders.  Then--on Thursday, Nov. 4, 2010--St. Paul police set up a sting at a public park 'in response to citizen complaints.'

A well-informed cop knows where prostitution and drug-dealing are happening before the citizen complaints begin arriving at HQ.  Even without citizen complaints, cops know where they can score many easy arrests. 

Making many arrests is good for a cop's status.  It is tempting for police departments to set up sting-op's even when no citizen complaints happen.  'Citizen complaints' can be produced quite easily--and are likely often fictional.

Further, we should assume that the park where Fr. Krenik was arrested is large and woodsy with numerous secluded nooks that reduce the possibility of being observed--to one seeking privacy--nearly to zero.  (In the absence of any factual information to the contrary, we're obligated to give Fr. Krenik the benefit of the doubt.)

It is therefore prudent to think that Fr. Krenik's 'crime' entailed bothering no one, respecting the rights of other park users and considering the feelings of his fellow citizens.  (The suggestion that Fr. Krenik must now endure some multi-year moral re-education program is idiotic, in other words.)

As a practical matter, people in these parts do not process Fr. Krenik-like social disjunctures via thoughtful, informed conversation with other sane, good-willed people.  This is particularly the case within a Catholic parish--where supine submission to the dog collar is respectability's ne plus ultra.

Catholic clergy today walk on eggshells:  A community-wide psychic blurring occurs:  Priest and sex and indecent exposure and children get mixed up, even though such imagery does not correspond to Fr. Krenik's alleged offense.

Psychic imagery bleeds and morphs, particularly when unchallenged by informed, rational, frank discussion--a problem much exacerbated by the prevalence of cowardice.

While the local 'Church' is congratulating itself on the high-minded manner in which it has handled L'Affaire Krenik--and media and public join in, as the odor of Fr. Krenik's charred reputational corpse disperses into the distance--let us not lose sight of the fact that a McCarthyite travesty has occurred, before our noses: 

A decent, caring person has been vaporized out of the community with no discussion, with no evidence and without a peep of objection--with the connivance of many who should know better. 

A Good Thing it would be were one St. Hubert's parishioner to stand up and say,  'I am disgusted!'

Hamline's Dogmatic Victim-Feminist

Chanhassen blogger Prof. Jessica Pieklo publishes both on Care2 and on her own blog, Hegemommy.  A few comments on her recent output:

Pieklo blogs on legal issues at Care2, without bringing compelling legal insight to bear on anything.  (By all means send me a link if you disagree on this point.)  Care2 generates a huge amount of crap-traffic, however--and her legal posts invariably get numerous comments, unfailingly uninteresting.  In two Wikileaks blogposts, she still hasn't made clear whether she supports or opposes Julian Assange or Wikileaks--and adds no new information to our knowledge base.

For Thanksgiving Hegemommy presents Gratitude, excusing herself yet again for the toll her hormones are taking upon her writing.  She's 'weepy and gushy' and has lost her edge.  (We might dispute this final self-assessment.)  The legal eagle confesses she's 'an amazingly lucky lady' but has lost sight of her many blessings of late.  She fulsomely thanks 'the universe' for our extreme generosity--promising never in future to similarly neglect her perceived [spiritualist] gratitude obligation.  (Why?)

On Nov. 29, Pieklo reenlists in the Mommy Wars.  In blogging on her family's recent new arrival, Hegemommy informs us that breast-feeding has been challenging, leaving the professor 'tired, cranky and really really looking for a break.'  After six hours' effort, Pieklo orders out for Mrs. Nestlé, feeling the immense burden of our condemnation falling down upon her.  By post's end, Pieklo has recommitted to her baby's demanding nursing regimen, thus 'reenlisting in the Mommy wars'.  (I have just read a 500-word blogpost on nursing and have no idea what the author means, if anything.)

On Dec. 8, Pieklo bade a characteristically self-referential adieu to Elizabeth Edwards--who Hegemommy assures us was both 'approachable and genuine'; a woman of 'strength and grace' and the blogger's personal and professional mentor-from-afar.  Lamenting Edwards' passing, Pieklo provides not a single illustration to explain the high regard in which she held the political spouse, though she does find time to speculate on how her late mother might assess Edwards--freely admitting that such discussion might seem weird.  (Check.)

Some time ago, I criticized Prof. Pieklo and was answered with a scathing, self-pitying tweet, claiming she'd been 'flamed'.  After leaving a mild criticism on Hegemommy the other day, the victim-feminist martinet blacklisted me--and fired off a new self-pitying tweet to her 1,256 followers:

It takes a special sort of loser to troll at a mom blog & an even more pathetic version of said loser to complain if I delete your nastiness

In Pieklo's earlier excoriation, we learned she views all criticism of her writing as ill intentioned and below-the-belt--she will brook no disagreement, however civil.  In her more recent tweet-attack, we learn again of the Hamline prof's extreme anti-intellectualism and contempt for her non-slave readership.  'Tis a pity.

Replying to Fr. Paul Kammen

My fellow blogger Fr. Paul Kammen--of St. Hubert's, Chanhassen--has disallowed the brief, polite comment I submitted on his blog.  I thank him nonetheless for his emailed response, which arrived today--and to which I will now respond:

When sharing one's feelings and opinions with the masses, one models a vision of good citizenship--playing public intellectual, if on a humble scale.  I view the censoring of blog comments as constituting a significant ethical lapse:  To disallow readers' civil challenges is to reveal an ugly desire.  Reality is most educational when it is vigorously contested.

In your email, Fr. Paul, you claim that priests do not serve at the pleasure of parishioners, but by the Archbishop's appointment.  So you imply that the Archbishop will never bend, in response to congregants' opinions. 

I disagree, and were I a parishioner at St. Hubert's, I'd very much like to put your contention to the test.  Of this we can be sure:  Church-going Catholics do not accept the sexual regimen advocated--for centuries--by the church.

Were I a St. Hubert's parishioner and learned that Fr. Mike Krenik immediately offered to resign, after his arrest, I would demand that the Archdiocese reject his resignation.  The Catholic Church has numerous rules concerning sexual behavior and--like most church-going Catholics--I view many of them as being stupid. 

If Fr. Mike offered to resign after his arrest, I would ask him 'Why?  Do you think I give a crap about your accepting a blow from a stranger in some discrete corner of a park?'  (Indeed, I find it somewhat endearing--and humanizing.)

The Catholic Church makes an absurd demand upon priests:  Celibacy.  Since many view the demand as a bizarre historical relic, many church-goers adopt a position of 'studious incuriosity' toward the romantic lives of priests--tacitly accepting that most of them will enjoy the occasional furtive spurt-spurt (or deniable ltr).  Few would seriously demand unerring success, from priests, in their on-again off-again limpness goal.

Even with Fr. Mike's recent arrest, I have no reason to believe he wasn't faithfully living up to his end of our bargain.  I'm distrustful of the claims of police officers, particularly when they enforce prudish notions concerning 'lewdness'.  You support such 'sting' operations, while I fear their stifling impact on individual freedom.

No one has yet demonstrated that Fr. Mike did anything bad.  You claim he's likely 'working through some issues'; I would advise him to dispense with that phony goal.  Strong and wide-ranging sexual desire is--for many men--more the rule than the exception.  They're best off learning to live with it, without bothering bystanders.  While you suggest Fr. Mike recklessly exposed himself in a place visible to children, you have not presented any evidence in support of this claim.

To blindly accept extremely vague claims against a person's honor is spineless, Fr. Paul.  You do not appear to have even read the police report--and in your email you invent descriptive details surrounding Fr. Mike's arrest which are not based in the known factual record.  Shame on you.

You say St. Hubert's parishioners are 'sad' but 'trying to move forward.'  If they are genuinely sad, I surmise they are sad because of their own moral paralysis.  They are sad because Fr. Mike's ejection reminds them of their status as opinionless infants, in the Church's eyes.

A significant number of St. Hubert's parishioners has not yet been persuaded by the extremely feeble evidence thus far presented--and would happily have Fr. Mike continue as pastor.  So I believe their forward progress might be significantly aided with the retrieval of some vertebrae.

St. Hubert's Cowardly Congregation

I noticed an interesting event listing the other day, when glancing at the church bulletin of St. Hubert's, Chanhassen.  So I entered the building, walked around a bit--and never found the 'Advent Retreat' I'd come to observe.  At length I came upon a brief flyer announcing the recent--and sudden--'resignation' of the church's senior pastor, Fr. Mike Krenik. 

Somehow I hadn't heard the news.  And even when you read it in the paper of record, Krenik's 'crime' remains fuzzy.  For decades cops enjoyed hassling and humiliating men who have sex with other men in public places.  To illustrate my confusion, consider two hypothetical 'lewd acts':

1)  In broad daylight, Bob fellates Dave on main trail in busy area of public park.  Cop observes money shot--and arrests Bob and Dave.

2)  Same lighting situation; Bob and Dave consensually find an off-trail spot in park which is not visible or audible to passersby.  Cop--citing vague 'citizen complaints of lewd conduct'--combs rarely-traversed park areas and spots said Dave-on-Bob gymnastics.  Cop arrests Bob and Dave.

When cops describe the arrest to the public, they will present the arrest as resembling Situation #1.  The arrested men might confide that their encounter more closely resembled Situation #2.  Having observed firsthand--on multiple occasions, within the past decade--the willingness of police officers to knowingly lie in order to advance their petty agendas, I greet this kind of statement with skepticism:

The incident occurred about 1:20 p.m. in an area where citizens have complained about lewd public behavior, said Inspector John Keating, a police spokesman.

In other words, I consider it very possible that Fr. Krenik did nothing offensive.  He appears to have agreed to a quickie with an undercover cop.  The Strib report provides no reason to believe Krenik hit on anyone non-consensually, nor does it suggest Krenik sought unwilling viewers.

Were a friend or colleague arrested under such circumstances, I'd feel quite hesitant about participating in his ostracization.  I'd certainly want further details prior to concluding my friend should hereafter be treated as a pariah.  If--based on such flimsy evidence--my boss announced one Monday morning that our cubemate Dave has been summarily fired due to Dave's Krenik-like arrest, I would viscerally object.

Immediately after the arrest, Fr. Krenik was fired, presumably by the Archdiocese--and temporarily replaced by Fr. Paul Kammen.  No apparent effort has been made to tell parishioners whether Father Mike's 'crime' more closely resembles Situation 1 or Situation 2, above.  (One isn't required to go into much detail, with sheep.)

The Catholic Spirit--Archbishop Nienstedt's Pravda--praises Fr. Kammen's handling of the crisis. 

On Nov. 5, the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis said in a written statement that Father Krenik had “voluntarily resigned” as pastor and would be restricted from all public ministry until the case was resolved.

(And President Garfield "voluntarily took to bed," as they say.)

In fact, Fr. Kammen--in sermon and blogpost--at no point makes any case for Fr. Mike's firing.  So St. Hubert's parishioners have been lied to by the archdiocese--and appear to enjoy being lied to.  Fr. Mike immediately morphed into nonexistence, without St. Hubert's parishioners being consulted in any manner.  The flyer being distributed within the church withholds any contact information for Father Mike--and won't disclose where he now lives.  (Tune in next week for Fr. Kammen's discourse on solidarity.)

It is sad that the parishioners at St. Hubert's have reacted so spinelessly.

Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults

I attended--for the first time--an RCIA meeting this evening, at OLG.  The group had apparently met previously and has already presented itself, ceremonially, to the parish.  With the RCIA instructors, some 'sponsors' and two priests, there were about 25 people in the room.  This evening's session focuses on baptism.

The attendees seem happy about becoming Catholics; I don't hear any probing question during the ninety-minute session.  They're self-contented and flattered, as if they're doing something mature and deeply good--and profoundly approved-of by Edina burghers.  (A powerful magnet--for church membership--is clearly embourgeoisement.)

Our instructor tells us that baptism is 'necessary for salvation':  It is the baptized who are able to enter the kingdom of heaven.  'Baptism fills the soul with grace.'

I'm somewhat disappointed in the new joiners, then--as I'd hoped someone might object to this evening's 'sacrament.'  If god is omnipotent, all-knowing and perfectly compassionate, why would 'He' love the unchristened less?  Do people truly believe newborn babies are drenched in a vileness that requires this ritual?  Does the besprinkled adult genuinely believe another person's suffering can release him from moral culpability? 

For decades if not centuries, the Catholic Church terrorized vulnerable people with the horrific fates awaiting the unbaptized.  It's too bad the present tranche of joiners takes such an uncritical attitude toward this wicked superstition.

At one point a participant--describing an intra-family religious dispute--says that a relative 'is an atheist, so she believes in self-...[pause] reliance.'  (My imaginary machete gets re-sheathed with her sentence's final word.) 

Atheists, imho, don't so much exalt the self; they just treat magic-based, ancient stories with skepticism.

NVC

Civility then, for the time being, is the McCarthyite's plaything.  The 'champion of civility' believes that conversation--public and private--is excessively free-wheeling.  Civility's advocates appoint themselves its guardian and enforcer; the onus of the new speech restrictions strike harshly upon status quo critics.

The Nonviolent Communication™ ideological fad on its surface appears unobjectionable, in imposing circumspection upon participants, decelerating dicey interactions and advancing compassion as our primary communicative goal.  But when compassion becomes the overarching goal of speech, other values get assigned lower priority--while NVC's advanced practitioners become Compassion's Pinkertons. 

If you take the time to view some of the Youtube videos on the topic, NVC's cheesy New Ageism is unmistakable, as are its extreme claims and demands.  (For Rosenberg, corporations and national governments are 'gangs' which NVC seeks to upend by eliminating competition from social interaction, for example.)

Within the Nonviolent Communication course I'm now taking, NVC is presented as an all-or-nothing package that one must humbly practice and learn.  A mannered, churchy politeness reigns, but participants often remark on NVC's weirdness.  'This isn't a book club,' our leader warns, putting the critically-minded on notice. 

Participating in a Roman Catholic church, one is continually forced to present as an orthodox believer.  A panoply of obstacles remain in place, within the church, severely limiting one's ability to speak openly about one's beliefs.  Accepting their role as sheep--as regards Church doctrine--it might be tempting to hold a communication-improvement workshop whose ideological core comes from a non-church source--thus allowing parishioners to engage each other on a mental plane absent the infantilization central to Mass.

It is therefore ironic that in presenting its Nonviolent Communication series, Marshall Rosenberg--man and text--get treated as being above criticism:  A scolding attitude is directed at anyone so arrogant as to believe she should have the right to formulate her own ideas--or that NVC might be a hodgepodge that needn't be swallowed whole.