MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesMarch 19, 2002
ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, and welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
I'm coming to you tonight from Monument Regional High School in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. I've been here debating the issue of capital punishment with Barry Shank. Wish you could have been there. But — well, that's the way it goes.
But, tonight, we're going to be confronting an issue that, by coincidence, has had one of its major foci in Boston, Massachusetts. It's the crisis in the Roman Catholic Church regarding accusations of pedophilia in the priesthood.
Now, obviously, this issue is going to be of great concern to me personally. I am a Roman Catholic and one of those folk who has been watching with dismay as the scale of this crisis has grown over the course of the past few weeks.
I'm also one of those people who deeply believe that it's wrong that we should be tarring the priesthood, which represents so much good for the church and for the world, on the basis of what's happening with 1 percent or 2 percent of the priests that are involved in the vocation.
Nonetheless, I believe it's absolutely imperative that we take seriously this major crisis, which, I think, threatens to undermine credibility, authority, and reputation within the church at a time when it is most critically needed on issues that I deeply care about and am concerned about, like the issue of respect for the sacredness of human life.
I don't think that's going to be done, though. If we simply see this as some kind of an administrative problem where policies have been followed, where bad judgments have been made with respect to individual priests or even the isolated issue of the sexual misconduct.
No, I think it also involves a deeper question of whether or not we are seeing in the hierarchy of the church the kind of application of Catholic theology and faith and doctrine to issues of human sexuality that, in fact, confront the reality that in the secular world today there has been an abandonment of the understanding that human sexual activity is a reflection of the sacred of our relationship with Almighty God.
It's an issue that, as a lot of you know, is going to be close to my hear. I make no bones about being somebody who takes my faith very seriously.
And now as a matter of institutional reality that affects one of the major denominations in the United States, we need to confront these issues at all levels, including, of course, what I think is the most important one, the theological challenge that is presented by a crisis that, in fact, involves how we ought apply the understanding of faith to one of the most important and vital and intimate issues of human life.
Well, up front tonight, I'll going to be talking with a couple of Catholic priests, folks who obviously have been involved themselves, dedicated themselves to the religious vocation, but who are also folks of wide knowledge and breadth.
Father John McCloskey, director of the Catholic Information Center for the archdiocese of Washington, has joined us. And also with us, monsignor Tom McSweeney. He's the former director of The Christophers, a Catholic outreach program in New York.
Thank you for joining us, gentlemen. Really appreciate it.
FATHER C. JOHN MCCLOSKEY, CATHOLIC INFORMATION CENTER: Alan, good to be here with you.
KEYES: Firstly...
MONSIGNOR TOM MCSWEENEY, MSNBC RELIGION ANALYST: Thanks for having us, Alan.
KEYES: The first question I'd like to raise — and I think that it's one that is on the minds of many folks in America today, inside and outside the Catholic Church, where it seems we are seeing what is at one level a crisis of administrative judgment, a crisis of managerial judgment, a crisis of discipline within the priesthood. Why is all this happening, gentlemen? Where does it come from?
Let me start with Father John McCloskey.
MCCLOSKEY: Well, it's a great supernatural and human tragedy, above all, supernatural in the sense that it's a grave offense to God to have priests involved in this type of activity, a human tragedy also for all those people who in one way or another have been victimized.
The reasons why this has all come about or things are going to be examined, I'm sure, over the next few months and years, but, clearly, there is a lack of attention to both selection, the formation of candidates to the priesthood, and, obviously, clearly, mistakes were made in handling these types of cases. A great tragedy.
KEYES: Father McSweeney, what do you think is the why of this? Why are we seeing this kind of a crisis emerging in the context of the church today?
MCSWEENEY: Well, relative to the pedophilia issues, Alan, it would seem that the Catholic Church is still catching up as is society in this country. We've had Megan laws, what, for just about five years or so.
There's a sense that the Catholic Church 20 years ago, 25 years ago — their approach to the pedophilia issue was as it was to any other moral issue where there was a lapse.
What was lacking is the understanding that we have today that pedophilia is virtually incurable so that, if someone comes to me and says, “Father, please forgive me for this particular sin,” a pedophilia, I can no longer just assume that they are going to say to me, “I will never do this again. I promise. I swear. Please give me absolution,” and that they're going to walk out of the confessional and not sin again.
This is a problem that produces actually new opportunities for us to understand new ways the church can research and address sexual issues.
KEYES: Well, one of the things that I think is striking a lot of folks is the fact...
(AUDIO GAP)
... seriousness of the offense involved, and I have a problem in particular because it seems to me we live in the context of a secular society where sexual sin has been rampant, where the church certainly has noticed and commented upon this, where it would seem like the crisis in the society at large would have made one worry of the possibly of such a crisis within the church itself.
Has there been a failure, in fact, to appreciate the nature of the overall crisis of human sexual behavior that we see in the society before us today?
Father McCloskey.
MCCLOSKEY: Yes, I think there has been. I think there has to be a — put a much greater emphasis on the value on chastity within marriage and outside of marriage, the value of the chaste life of human virtues from every level, and also the need to take much greater advantage of the sacramental helps in order to be a whole person, and that goes, of course, or the lady as well as the priest.
And as you mentioned yourself, of course, there's a very small percentage that have engaged — in the priesthood — in this type of behavior, which is not — does not excuse them but does mean we have to make a greater effort in order to make them truly men of God, men who are capable of living up to the promises they undertook when they received the great gift of celibacy at the time of their calling to the priesthood.
KEYES: Well, see, one of the questions that, I think, has been raised — there's a — even an article in one of the Catholic papers in Boston — this idea that somehow or another this raises issues about the policy of celibacy for priests within the Catholic Church.
Father McSweeney, is there a need to re-examine the policy of celibacy, the doctrine of celibacy within the priesthood?
MCSWEENEY: Oh, I think that that was a very brave article that was penned by the editor of “The Boston Pilot,” in a diocese where the question of church leadership and the handling of sexual cases that deeply offend and betray the trust of the people that are charged to be taken care of.
I think that we are really headed, Alan, for a revolution in our approach to sexual issues. I think this particular case, as I was alluding to just a moment ago, the importance of dealing with confessional secrecy — how can I, again, be secret, keep something to myself, when I know that somebody may very well commit a crime?
There are — it's going to open up, which is just beyond the sexual issues, how we conduct our sacramental life in such a way that no one within the faithful community is betrayed.
KEYES: Father McCloskey, this is what seems to be deeply ironic about this particular moment that we are confronted with.
We have in the papacy a pope who probably has done more thought about the theology of human sexuality, about the sacredness about human sexuality, who has applied himself to drawing the lessons of faith and applying them to this intimate area of life, probably done more than anyone, I would argue, in the history of the church in an explicit way.
Do you believe that in the presence of this tremendous treasure of papal wisdom enough has been done to understand it and apply it, not only within the clergy, but in general in terms of the approach the Catholic Church is taking to sex education and to the whole issue of human sexuality?
MCCLOSKEY: No, I do not, Alan. In fact, I think what we're seeing with the scandal, which, of course, is again a great tragedy in every way whatsoever, may be the beginning of the end of the misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the second Vatican counsel.
I believe the teaching and example of John Paul II are going to produce a tremendous springtime for the church in this country, particularly in a lot of those areas that have to do with the integrity and the wholeness of the human person, also in the area of sexuality.
So I see this — as this time of tragedy, it's a beginning for wonderful developments in the 21st century in the Catholic Church in this country.
KEYES: Well, one of things that I think has particularly struck me over the years, as I have read what the pope has written about these things, is that he understands that, at the heart of our approach to human sexuality, there is, in fact, a theological question because Genesis begins with the creation of man — male and female. He created them.
It's something that is pointed out by the pope in his writings as having a significance because it seems to involve an understanding of how God is reflected in our human nature, in the sexual distinction, and in the things that have to do with the gender distinction.
Father McSweeney, don't — in essence, isn't it the case that one has to build a Catholic approach on that kind of a theological understanding, not just on what might be said by scientists, whoever they might be? I mean, don't we have an obligation, in fact, to develop a Catholic, theological approach to human sexuality?
MCSWEENEY: Absolutely, and I think that's what we're suggesting. And a responsible leadership to carry it through and to develop theologies and to develop fine (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on human sexuality is one thing. But, then again, when we get into the confessional, when we are dealing in a counseling situation with our people, we have to be able to deliver the goods and develop a moral way of life which is absolutely feasible and respectable for all involved.
I really think that the — with the current situation in the Vatican where they are going to have to grapple with all of these issues that my friend, Father John, has just pointed out, that, indeed, there's going to be — this is going to be not just problematic. It really is an opportunity for us to have a springtime in the church, again to bring some free and open and robust discussion.
That article in “The Boston Pilot” was asking for an openness for discussion. There's been — at least in the last couple of years, you've gotten the feeling from the Vatican that a lot of these issues are closed, that we're not supposed to be talking about them anymore.
Well, that isn't going to happen. I think the people in Boston have brought that to our attention, that there is an opportunity to have a free and robust discussion about all of the issues, including celibacy.
KEYES: But it does seem to be — I mean, when you say “free,” free within the context of the teaching and discipline of the Catholic faith —and, Father McCloskey, doesn't that imply a responsibility on the part of the hierarchy?
I was kind of disappointed because we approached members of the hierarchy. They didn't want to come on the program to talk about this. It does seem to me that this is an area that challenges the heart and mind and soul of the leadership of the Catholic faith to demonstrate the application of Catholic theology in this vital area of human life.
Do you think folks are going to step forward to meet the challenge now?
MCCLOSKEY: I'm quite sure they will. There's — attention, unfortunately, has been gotten in this sort of way.
But I'm quite confident that the bishops in this country, listening to the teachings of the church and seeing perhaps the misapplication in some ways of those teachings in terms of the way they have not clearly been brought to the priesthood and also to the ladies, to some extent, are going to speak out much stronger and clearer with great charity and warmth and, at the same time, with very great clarity in terms of the beauty of the teachings of the church and even sexuality and how it really does build up the entire person.
KEYES: Thank you both. I really appreciate your coming tonight. Knowing the reluctance of some to come forward, I really especially appreciated your willingness to join us this evening and discuss these matters. I think it's only the beginning of something that's going to be needed to help us all confront what is for many of us truly a heartbreaking and dismaying spectacle.
Next, we get to the heart of the matter. We're going to be addressing these key questions: Is the crisis within the church today one of judgment, policy, or faith, or all of the above? Will the church face up to the crisis in a way that will lead to constructive results? And finally, what is the answer? What are the things that need to be done and presented?
Plus, our open phone line segment. Call me at 1-866-KEYES-USA. 1-866-KEYES-USA with whatever is on your mind.
But, first, do you think that this makes sense?
There is a fellow who has been expelled from his high school for a year. Now why did he get this horrible punishment?
Sixteen-year-old Taylor Hef (ph) was cleaning out the garage with his father and, apparently, on the bed of his pickup truck, a bread knife fell out, and when this bread knife was discovered on school property in his pickup truck — he'd never seen it, he'd never touched it, but they decided to expel him from school.
How many times do we have to hear about this kind of absurdity before school officials around this country are going to get the message that zero tolerance doesn't mean zero common sense? They don't appear to get it yet, and until they do, we're going to see travesties like this assaulting and undermining and destroying the credibility of our commitment to a policy intended to banish violence, not to warrant stupidity at the expense of the lives of students.
Do you think this kind of a decision makes sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LINDSEY EARLS, FORMER HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT: I felt like they were accusing us, you know, of being drug users or being pot heads when I wasn't and my friends weren't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: That was teenager Lindsey Earls who was asked to submit to a drug test before she was allowed to participate in extracurricular activities at her central Oklahoma high school.
This involves a case where she complained, and the case was before the Supreme Court today finally to decide whether or not this is an invasion of her Fourth-Amendment right.
Coming up in our next half-hour, we will debate the question whether or not students should be routinely tested for drugs before they're allowed to participate in extracurricular activities.
And a reminder: The chat room is humming tonight, and you can join by saying — joining Sagroove who says, “I think Catholic priests should be able to take wives and have a family,” believes that we should end the policy in the church of celibacy. And you can join in with your opinion right now at chat.msnbc.com.
First, though, we are talking about the crisis that now faces the Catholic Church with respect to the — what appears to be reasonably widespread problem of pedophilia.
It only affects a small percentage of the priesthood, but it is now showing up in ways that are more and more affecting elements of the hierarchy within the church and gaining public attention and notoriety, I think, leading to some great concerns on the par of people within the Catholic Church, within the country as they view the Catholic Church, given that the institution and folks like myself — we're heavily involved in some important issues in this country.
What affects the credibility of the Catholic Church as an institution, I think, overall affects our ability to deal with a lot of these serious policy matters, including the issues that affect the sacredness of human life. Obviously close to my heart, as all of you know.
Well, here on the heart of the matter, we are joined today by Howie Carr, a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist for “The Boston Herald.”
Also with us, Dr. Ray Guarendi, host of “The Doctor Is In,” a national syndicated radio show that appears on the Catholic Radio Network.
And Barbara Blaine, founder of The Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests known as SNAP. Barbara is a survivor of priest abuse.
Welcome, all of you, to MAKING SENSE.
Obviously, dealing tonight with an issue that is serious, that is controversial in many respects, that affects many folks inside and outside the Catholic Church with a great deal of dismay, and it's critical that it be dealt with rightly.
But I'll ask all of you the question that I posed to the two folks who joined us in the first part of the program. Starting with you, Barbara. The why of this. Why are we seeing this crisis in the church today?
BARBARA BLAINE, SNAP FOUNDER: Well, I believe it's because of the fact that, for decades, the church leaders have left these priests in ministry when they knew that the priests had actually sexually molested children, and because they've left them in ministry, they've continued to abuse, and so it's just been going on for decades, and there are probably — there might be thousands of individuals who might have been saved who wouldn't have had to have been abused, had the church leaders removed these men when they should have.
KEYES: Drew Myani (ph), why did this policy continue for as long as it has? What — I mean, obviously, we are dealing — and I know a lot of the folks in the hierarchy are some people who are fine human beings, who have been, in many respects, important leaders within the church on issues where they showed courage and better judgment. What happened in this instance?
Drew Myani (ph)?
RAY GUARENDI, PH.D., RADIO TALK-SHOW HOST: Alan, I think you're talking to me, Dr. Guarendi.
KEYES: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Dr. Guarendi, I'm sorry.
GUARENDI: No problem, Alan.
Well, first of all, you have to understand that we expert types have done a number on the church, too, because the last decades, we have told the priests and the leaders of the church, “You know this particular type of offense can be cured,” and so many of them were acting on the basis of our advice, and now with hindsight, we turn around and hammer their judgment.
BLAINE: I find that hard to believe.
KEYES: Well, one of the things that worries me, though — go ahead, Barbara.
BLAINE: It seems to me that the church officials have known for decades, and it doesn't take a professional to tell the bishops that molesting a child is wrong and that molesting a child should — should be reported to the law enforcement, to police.
These priests have known, the bishops have known, and the psychological, the mental-health professionals were telling them back in the mid '80s that they needed to remove these priests and that priests who molest will probably not be able to be cured. The bishop's conference had a report in 1985. And yet they've left them in ministry. Here we are, another 16, 17 years later.
HOWIE CARR, RADIO TALK-SHOW HOST: Alan, I agree with what Barbara said.
In Boston, for example, the priest who's gotten into the most trouble who's now jailed, Father Geoghan — they sent him to two, quote-unquote, “medical specialists” to be examined. One of them was a general practitioner, and the other one had settled his own sexual-molestation case out of court with a large monetary settlement.
I mean, they weren't really serious about doing anything. They just shuttled them from parish to parish. We've seen this in archdiocese after archdiocese.
KEYES: But the question I would raise — is that a failure to understand something about — I don't know — secular understandings on pedophilia and so forth, or is it, in fact, a failure to apply the understanding of the faith itself?
Here's what I mean. And I'm addressing this particularly, Ray, to you, I think, because —- if you looked at this in terms of the moral implications of the sin, you are dealing with something that, with respect to the young, whom Christ told us it is most important not to scandalize, one is creating an occasion for mortal sin, in fact, and for being led down a path that results in the destruction of that which Christ said was more important than the one who threatened physical life.
So, from the point of view of what is being done to these individuals, it's sort of like serial spiritual murder.
GUARENDI: It is.
KEYES: And it shouldn't — without any prompting — without any prompting from any secular wisdom whatsoever, shouldn't the application of the faith have meant that one took this seriously, the same way that one would take it seriously if one discovered that someone had killed the body of a young child?
GUARENDI: Absolutely. There's no question about that.
KEYES: Why wasn't it done then?
GUARENDI: Well, because humans are...
KEYES: Why wasn't it taken that serious — no, no. I'm talking about in terms of the faith now, not in terms of some judgment other than that. If the faith says that this is a mortal sin that assaults people in a way more deadly than what kills the body, why wasn't it treated as something that assaulted these children in a way that was more deadly than what killed the body?
GUARENDI: Because if you're asking why do people sin, why do people who are supposed to be holy sin, then you're asking a question that people have asked for generations. Certainly, there's no...
KEYES: No, no. Ray — Ray, you're misunderstanding. I'm asking why the hierarchy didn't treat the assault on these young lives as they would have treated somebody who was guilty of murdering these children...
GUARENDI: Are you asking...
KEYES: ... because the church says that what assaults the soul is actually more devastating than what assaults the body. It doesn't seem to me they acted on that belief.
GUARENDI: If they didn't — and it appears in many cases they didn't — they were grievously wrong, Alan. But if you're going to slam your fist down and say, “Why do humans sin, even humans who are supposed to be holy?” you're asking an age-old question.
The bigger question is this: If you say, for example, that celibacy was the problem here, well, you need to look at the research. The research is real clear. Celibacy has nothing to do with this. In fact, the research we have indicates that married clergy, down the line, are more likely to do these kinds of offenses as well as other immoral offenses than celibate priests.
Secondly...
KEYES: One second.
Barbara? Barbara, you have something to say?
BLAINE: Yes. Well, I'm not so sure. I don't know that celibacy is the solution, but it certainly has to be looked at because of the climate that's created within the church. When the priest — when there's a commitment to celibacy, then there is a climate regarding sexuality of secrecy and denial, and in that type of a climate, I think creates a place where this abuse can fester...
GUARENDI: As a psychologist...
BLAINE: ... and that's certainly what's happened.
KEYES: Aren't we, in fact, dealing with something as if, within the context of the church, one should look for secular answers and not spiritual ones? Because one of things that bothers me — and, Ray, I don't think one has dealt with it adequately yet — is the fact that this is an application of faith we're talking about.
I'm not worried about the rest of it right now. But in terms of the application of faith — and I wish it were isolated, but the same thing seems to be true in terms of decisions made with respect to sex education for children in the schools, where they simply borrow from secular nonsense instead of developing and applying a Catholic theology that takes advantage of the wisdom that the pope has shown.
Are we dealing just with human weakness, or are we dealing with a willful failure...
CARR: Alan...
KEYES: ... to apply the grace that has been offered to us with the wisdom that the pope himself represents...
CARR: Alan...
KEYES: ... and has not been applied systematically?
CARR: We have a problem with the fact that the church can't even tell the truth to the victims, as I'm sure Barbara knows. I mean, here in Boston, the victims and their families were told over and over again these priests will never be exposed to children again, and yet it wasn't true. They just shuttled them — and this happened all over the country, were shuttled from parish to parish. The church didn't tell the truth.
KEYES: But, again...
CARR: The church doesn't tell the truth about the monetary settlements. The truth — the church has tried to stonewall the media from finding out what was going on. We never find out. This institution is unfortunately rotten from the top down.
KEYES: I believe — no, I don't believe that's true. I believe at the top...
CARR: It is.
KEYES: ... great wisdom and grace has been on offer and that...
CARR: Cardinal Law. Cardinal Egan.
KEYES: Let me finish. Let me finish. The reserve of that grace has been neglected in point of fact, and I don't think that — myself that the answer is that you abandon the church's position of faith on things like celibacy and, in this context, surrender to the notion that a naturalistic impulse cannot be dealt with in an environment of grace. That would not be a surrender of policy but a surrender of faith, and...
GUARENDI: Celibacy is only...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... surrender of faith — let me finish — and in the light of the fact that we have a pope who has, in fact, offered us an understanding that opens up avenues of greater strength than obviously has been implemented here, is the problem that we've neglected a bunch of secular wisdom, or is the problem that the hierarchy has neglected the wisdom that exists within the church from a pope provided by the providence of God who has thought deeply about these issues but whose truths have not been mined (ph) and applied in such a way as to translate into a curriculum for the clergy and for the young people who are involved in high schools and other schools around the country? It has not been done in a systematic way.
CARR: Alan, how long...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... somebody asked why.
CARR: How long has clergy been required to be celibate? My understanding is it's only been a thousand year, and, at that point, it was an economic decision because they didn't want the priests passing down church property to their sons.
I mean, this is not — this is not in the Ten Commandments that priests have to be celibate. If an episcopal...
KEYES: If we're not...
CARR: ... priest switches over and becomes a Catholic priest that is married, he gets to bring his wife with him. So it's not even a 100-percent policy.
KEYES: I think we misunderstand the issue here, if we get bogged down in that discussion. The issue is not just celibacy.
If you surrender the doctrine of celibacy on the grounds that people of faith, clergy dedicated to God cannot discipline their sexual impulse, then you haven't just surrendered a doctrine of celibacy. You have, in fact, taken a position that belittles the power of faith with respect to one of the most important elements of the human soul and spirit, and that surrender would have implications, theologically and otherwise, far beyond the issue of the priesthood.
I think that has to be thought about seriously, and I don't think it's being done.
Anyway, thank you all for joining us today. I really appreciate it.
Next, should high school students be drug tested? If they're going to pardon me in extracurricular activities, should they have to submit to this invasion of privacy? What do you think? We're going to have a debate on it up next.
And later, we'll get to what's on your mind on any topic. Call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA.
You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Do you think that students who are trying to get into extracurricular activities should be subject to drug testing, all of them, on a random basis? One young student was so subjected and the case has come all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, where it was argued today. Some saying it is an invasion of Fourth Amendment rights, others that it is a necessary extension of the authority of the school as we fight to prevent our children from being swept away from the tide of illicit drug abuse. Before we get to our guests, let's take a look at some background.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETE WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When Lindsay Earles (ph) wanted to join the choir, band, and academic team at her high school in central Oklahoma, the school board required anyone applying for extracurricular activities to take a drug test. She considered it extremely embarrassing, giving a urine sample to faculty monitors in the restroom.
UNIDENTIFIED STUDENT: It was terrible in that these are our teachers standing outside listening to us use the bathroom.
WILLIAMS: With her parents' support, she sued, claiming the school violated the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches by randomly testing students in everything from the chess club to the future farmers, even when they were not suspected of drug abuse.
GRAHAM BOYD, ACLU: The police could not go through your neighborhood door to door saying we'd like a urine sample just to see if maybe you're using drugs. They can't do that in schools either.
WILLIAMS: Seven years ago, the Supreme Court upheld testing athletes in schools with serious drug problems, reasoning that they face a greater risk of injury. But the Oklahoma school says wider testing, including students who volunteer for extra activities, helps deter drug use before it becomes a crisis.
STEPHANIE MATHER, SCHOOL DISTRICT LAWYER: Our evidence showed, and what is reality in all schools throughout the country, is that drug use is a problem in all schools and it crosses all lines.
WILLIAMS: But some justices were critical of the school, O'Connor called it, quote, “absolutely odd to test students in the choir who use drugs less than others.” Even so, a majority of the courts seemed to favor broader testing. Breyer said drug tests are preventive, like throat cultures, and Kennedy said a school with no widespread drug problem is entitled to use testing to keep it that way.
(on camera): Based on their questions today, the justices seem inclined to uphold drug testing for extracurricular activities. If they do, that would bring public schools one legal step closer to testing for all the nation's 13 million high school students.
Pete Williams, NBC News, at the Supreme Court.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: Joining us now, our guest, David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute at the Libertarian Public Policy Group. David thinks drug testing like this violates the Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures. Also with us, Dan Lundgren, former California attorney general. He was one of the chief opponents of legalizing marijuana for medical use in that state and he thinks that teen drug testing is necessary and for our war against drugs. Welcome to MAKING SENSE, gentlemen. I appreciate your joining me tonight.
Let me start with Dan Lundgren. Obviously, the concerns that are being raised are concerns about the assault that might be represented on civil liberty. How do you think that this applies to young people in high school, if it does?
DAN LUNDGREN, FORMER CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, first of all, we have to understand what the Constitution says. It, in the Fourth Amendment, it talks about unreasonable searches and seizures. So, the question is whether this is reasonable under the circumstances.
The courts have said a number of things in the past. One is that you can do more in terms of invasions of privacy, if that's the way you want to term it, with respect to students in a school setting than you could to adults. And the reason is it's an educational setting. These are young people. They're not fully formed adults yet, and there's an educative function, obviously, in an educational setting.
The second thing is we wouldn't even be talking about this if we didn't have a serious drug problem in this country that particularly confronts our young people. Taking those two things together, I think the court is going to find that it is reasonable under these circumstances for a particular school board, school district, school principal, to make a decision that this kind of program is appropriate.
But let's not confuse things. That is the question of whether it is constitutional. That is not the question that some would pose as to whether it is appropriate in a particular school. As Justice Scalia as said at times, when he was growing up, people would see something they didn't like and they'd say there ought to be a law. Now the tendency is to see something you don't like and say, oh, my gosh, it's unconstitutional. would argue it's constitutional. I would argue in this particular setting, it is appropriate where it may not be appropriate in another setting.
KEYES: David Boaz, we are dealing, in fact, with kids here. Folks in high school, in many different ways, they don't have the same latitude in terms of their rights and liberties that adult people in this society are expected to have. They are under authority. They are minors. They are people who in many ways are living in an environment structured by a whole set of rules that's different than those that apply to adults.
Why should we be making a constitutional argument that ignores this distinction?
DAVID BOAZ, CATO INSTITUTE: Well, we don't have to ignore the distinction, but we still have to determine whether this is an unreasonable search and seizure. The opposition to unreasonable searches was a key element of the founding of the American republic and of the U.S. Constitution and of the Bill of Rights. And the Fourth Amendment says no unreasonable searches.
The question is, is this unreasonable? And it seems to me that it is, they have not shown that there was a serious drug problem in this high school. In fact, when they did drug tests, they drug tested 500 kids and they found three tested positive. That doesn't sounds like a very serious thing.
And, second, they didn't bring the parents in. If the parents said I wanted my kids tested, that might be one thing. But to just blanket say all the kids who go out for the academic quiz team or the choir or the band would be drug tested, I think is an unreasonable intrusion on the presumption of privacy. Even children who are forced to go to this school, remember, we say they're in a school setting, but remember there are laws that force them to be there. So, first, we force them to be there and then we are going to say we're going to intrude on your privacy this way. I think it is a pretty serious intrusion on your privacy.
We don't even want to talk about this, to be forced to urinate in a jar and hand it to a teacher with the kids outside knowing that's what's going on. You're called out of class in order to do this. I think there ought to be a really good reason for that, and I don't think this school system had a really good reason.
KEYES: Dan Lundgren, in particular, when we talk about moving forward in a way that establishes a blanket policy that does not seem, for instance, to involve the parents when we're dealing with minors, I believe deeply ought to be involved in a lot of these decisions, doesn't this in a way tent to cut against the grain of those who are concerned that parental authorities should be respected in the educational process?
LUNDGREN: Well, I would hope that they would bring parents into the whole process in making the determination. But if you say you have to have parental approval to do this in a school setting, what you're saying is that one parent could object and stop the program from going forward. And let me make something very clear here. We're not talking about testing all students in order to go to school, which they're required to do. We are saying that for the — or they are saying in this instance for the privilege of participating, being able to participate in an extracurricular activity, this is an additional obligation. So they are not being forced to do that. They are being invited if they want to participate in extracurricular activities.
They are not being required to. If they wish to participate in these activity, then they are subject to this testing.
BOAZ: Interestingly enough, the school system acknowledges that it's the students who don't participate in extracurricular activity whose are more likely to have a drug problem. So, we've kind of decided, the school system decided to test the least likely people to have a drug problem. That seems like an odd way to go about it. But I do think you ought to address this parental issue. It is not that one parent could stop the program. Why not ask every parent, do you want your child drug tested? Let the partners make those decisions.
LUNDGREN: Well, I think one of things that we have to realize is the tremendous peer pressure that exists in schools when children are of high school age. Children are looking for crutches, they're looking for opportunities to be able to say no. In a very real sense, programs like this actually help the students say no, because they can say to another student, yes, maybe I'd like to use that joint, but, you know, I have got the possibility I could be tested or I want to go out for the school football team or I want to participate in this activity. And I run the risk of not being able to participate.
BOAZ: They already run the risk of being arrested.
LUNDGREN: This program did not kick them out, this program did not turn the information over to police authorities. This program, if they, in fact, register positive on the test, turned them over to a counseling program. And if they refused to participate in the counseling program, they weren't kicked out of school, they weren't turned over to police authorities, they weren't allowed to participate in the extracurricular activity.
My goodness. Is that a constitutional right? Isn't this a reasonable approach in dealing with a huge problem, and I would assume that you would agree that drug abuse is a big problem with our young people in America today.
BOAZ: Yes. Drug abuse is a big problem. Not in this school, apparently, but in many schools it is.
LUNDGREN: Would we wait until it is a big problem?
BOAZ: Let me point out that what's really going on here, is that we have a war on drugs that most Americans realize is failing. That's why overwhelmingly Dan Lundgren's fellow Californians have voted twice to chip away at the war on drugs. They recognize that sick...
KEYES: David.
BOAZ: ... people ought to be able to get marijuana. They recognize that we are being too punitive with the drug war, and this is another way of insisting on escalating a war that we can't win.
LUNDGREN: Hey, I will submit —
KEYES: David...
(CROSSTALK)
LUNDGREN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
KEYES: Wait, gentlemen, we've come to the end of our time, unfortunately. Lively discussion.
One last word, if I may take it because it does seem to me that the argument that somehow or another this has failed and so forth — no, actually if you observed that this school doesn't have the problem in a large degree, that you're not talking about failure, but you are talking about steps that might create a prophylactic environment, where you're guarding against the possibly that something could become widespread without the knowledge of the school, without the knowledge of parents. I think, myself, with proper provision made, to make sure that by signing the kids up for extracurricular activities, parents understand what is involved in that decision and are therefore involved in it.
I frankly don't see what the problem is with letting schools have this latitude if they believe that it is going to be necessary to maintain, much less a drug-free environment, much less deal with an environment where a problem already exists.
Gentlemen, thank you for joining us today.
LUNDGREN: Thanks, Alan.
BOAZ: Thank you.
KEYES: Next, I want to hear what's on your mind. Call us at 1-800-866-KEYES-USA. I am sorry, 1-866-KEYES-USA. 1-866-KEYES-USA.
But first, does this make sense? There was a new voter on the voter's rolls in California. Barnabus Miller, a registered Republican. He was called up for jury duty in Costa County, it turned out, though, that he was a dog. A puppy that had been registered under false pretenses by his owner. Now, the folks that are involved with the board of elections that have gotten all upset because the guy was putting fraudulent information on his registration card.
Well, I think they ought to be upset about that, but you know what upsets me even more, the fact that these folks accepted the fraudulent information, don't have any checks — aren't allowed in California apparently — even to ask for identification. So that if you do happen to get on the voters rolls fraudulently, they're not likely to find you out until it's too late. Now I suppose they might notice if the dog showed up to vote. But what if he voted by absentee ballot? Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now let's hear what's on your mind. We'll start with David from Iowa. David, are you making sense?
DAVID: Yes. Well, I hope. I'm a victim — I'm one of the victims years ago of a priest. And I have some questions for the church. Why would I trust it to be a part of the solution when it's clearly part of the problem, with regards to the sexual abuse. And if they're really interested in knowing how the extent of the problem in the priesthood, why doesn't the pope release all the victims from the agreement they had to sign of silence. And let them come forward and name who these people were?
KEYES: See, I hear from you a cry from the heart, David, and I think it's one that does need to be taken very seriously. I think the reason one can trust that there is strength within the church to deal with this is, because there's grace from the church. But that grace has to be accessed, it has to be something that people open their hears to accept, David. And I think that's going to be true throughout the church, including within the hierarchy.
Let's go to Frank from Texas.
FRANK: Yes. I'm a funeral director and I've worked with priests for many years, and I've seen priests being moved from church to church for this very reason. I believe if the hierarchy was above reproach, they probably could have dealt with this problem and caused these other priests to be above reproach themselves. The problem is much bigger than anybody knows, because if it's that way in the northeast, it's that way all over the country. And if the bishops would be reproached, they would cause people to come clean and get this problem over with.
KEYES: I think one of the reasons that this has to be dealt with effectively in ways where people will face up to it, not refuse to come on programs and talk about it, but sit down, look people in the eye and deal with it is precisely because of what you just said. Oh, is this all there is? there more?
I think we need to deal seriously and effectively with that as a challenge, if it is going to be something where the heart can be laid to rest, where we can find some truth and peace. We'll see.
“My Outrage of the Day” is actually going to be on this question, because I changed my mind in the course of today's discussion. And I want to share with you a final thought in the context of our discussion of this issue, of the crisis that is faced within the Catholic church on this handling of charges and reality of pedophilia. So stay with us. I will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now for “My Outrage of the Day.” In the course of the discussion today, I changed my mind about what my outrage would be because I was deeply struck as I listened to the discussion by how wrong it is, in my opinion, to consider the crisis within the church today as if it were some kind of managerial or administrative problem, even a problem that has to do with disrespect for secular laws. I think it reflects a real spiritual crisis, a crisis of faith.
When you have a pope who has devoted such wisdom to dealing with issues of human sexuality, when the American hierarchy has, I believe, willfully resisted the grace's wisdom represents, not applied it in the areas where it is so vital. And then a crisis like this springs up, which seems directly related to that deficiency, I think we're making a huge mistake if we see it in terms of some secular, administrative or managerial foul up. I think it is a spiritual crisis, as one would expect, in the hierarchy of the church. And that that spiritual crisis must be dealt with in a way that reconciles the heart to the wisdom that is on offer from God, which I think is there in the pope's teachings. Will the Catholic hierarchy here accept it? That's the question. That's my sense of it.
THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.
I'm coming to you tonight from Monument Regional High School in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. I've been here debating the issue of capital punishment with Barry Shank. Wish you could have been there. But — well, that's the way it goes.
But, tonight, we're going to be confronting an issue that, by coincidence, has had one of its major foci in Boston, Massachusetts. It's the crisis in the Roman Catholic Church regarding accusations of pedophilia in the priesthood.
Now, obviously, this issue is going to be of great concern to me personally. I am a Roman Catholic and one of those folk who has been watching with dismay as the scale of this crisis has grown over the course of the past few weeks.
I'm also one of those people who deeply believe that it's wrong that we should be tarring the priesthood, which represents so much good for the church and for the world, on the basis of what's happening with 1 percent or 2 percent of the priests that are involved in the vocation.
Nonetheless, I believe it's absolutely imperative that we take seriously this major crisis, which, I think, threatens to undermine credibility, authority, and reputation within the church at a time when it is most critically needed on issues that I deeply care about and am concerned about, like the issue of respect for the sacredness of human life.
I don't think that's going to be done, though. If we simply see this as some kind of an administrative problem where policies have been followed, where bad judgments have been made with respect to individual priests or even the isolated issue of the sexual misconduct.
No, I think it also involves a deeper question of whether or not we are seeing in the hierarchy of the church the kind of application of Catholic theology and faith and doctrine to issues of human sexuality that, in fact, confront the reality that in the secular world today there has been an abandonment of the understanding that human sexual activity is a reflection of the sacred of our relationship with Almighty God.
It's an issue that, as a lot of you know, is going to be close to my hear. I make no bones about being somebody who takes my faith very seriously.
And now as a matter of institutional reality that affects one of the major denominations in the United States, we need to confront these issues at all levels, including, of course, what I think is the most important one, the theological challenge that is presented by a crisis that, in fact, involves how we ought apply the understanding of faith to one of the most important and vital and intimate issues of human life.
Well, up front tonight, I'll going to be talking with a couple of Catholic priests, folks who obviously have been involved themselves, dedicated themselves to the religious vocation, but who are also folks of wide knowledge and breadth.
Father John McCloskey, director of the Catholic Information Center for the archdiocese of Washington, has joined us. And also with us, monsignor Tom McSweeney. He's the former director of The Christophers, a Catholic outreach program in New York.
Thank you for joining us, gentlemen. Really appreciate it.
FATHER C. JOHN MCCLOSKEY, CATHOLIC INFORMATION CENTER: Alan, good to be here with you.
KEYES: Firstly...
MONSIGNOR TOM MCSWEENEY, MSNBC RELIGION ANALYST: Thanks for having us, Alan.
KEYES: The first question I'd like to raise — and I think that it's one that is on the minds of many folks in America today, inside and outside the Catholic Church, where it seems we are seeing what is at one level a crisis of administrative judgment, a crisis of managerial judgment, a crisis of discipline within the priesthood. Why is all this happening, gentlemen? Where does it come from?
Let me start with Father John McCloskey.
MCCLOSKEY: Well, it's a great supernatural and human tragedy, above all, supernatural in the sense that it's a grave offense to God to have priests involved in this type of activity, a human tragedy also for all those people who in one way or another have been victimized.
The reasons why this has all come about or things are going to be examined, I'm sure, over the next few months and years, but, clearly, there is a lack of attention to both selection, the formation of candidates to the priesthood, and, obviously, clearly, mistakes were made in handling these types of cases. A great tragedy.
KEYES: Father McSweeney, what do you think is the why of this? Why are we seeing this kind of a crisis emerging in the context of the church today?
MCSWEENEY: Well, relative to the pedophilia issues, Alan, it would seem that the Catholic Church is still catching up as is society in this country. We've had Megan laws, what, for just about five years or so.
There's a sense that the Catholic Church 20 years ago, 25 years ago — their approach to the pedophilia issue was as it was to any other moral issue where there was a lapse.
What was lacking is the understanding that we have today that pedophilia is virtually incurable so that, if someone comes to me and says, “Father, please forgive me for this particular sin,” a pedophilia, I can no longer just assume that they are going to say to me, “I will never do this again. I promise. I swear. Please give me absolution,” and that they're going to walk out of the confessional and not sin again.
This is a problem that produces actually new opportunities for us to understand new ways the church can research and address sexual issues.
KEYES: Well, one of the things that I think is striking a lot of folks is the fact...
(AUDIO GAP)
... seriousness of the offense involved, and I have a problem in particular because it seems to me we live in the context of a secular society where sexual sin has been rampant, where the church certainly has noticed and commented upon this, where it would seem like the crisis in the society at large would have made one worry of the possibly of such a crisis within the church itself.
Has there been a failure, in fact, to appreciate the nature of the overall crisis of human sexual behavior that we see in the society before us today?
Father McCloskey.
MCCLOSKEY: Yes, I think there has been. I think there has to be a — put a much greater emphasis on the value on chastity within marriage and outside of marriage, the value of the chaste life of human virtues from every level, and also the need to take much greater advantage of the sacramental helps in order to be a whole person, and that goes, of course, or the lady as well as the priest.
And as you mentioned yourself, of course, there's a very small percentage that have engaged — in the priesthood — in this type of behavior, which is not — does not excuse them but does mean we have to make a greater effort in order to make them truly men of God, men who are capable of living up to the promises they undertook when they received the great gift of celibacy at the time of their calling to the priesthood.
KEYES: Well, see, one of the questions that, I think, has been raised — there's a — even an article in one of the Catholic papers in Boston — this idea that somehow or another this raises issues about the policy of celibacy for priests within the Catholic Church.
Father McSweeney, is there a need to re-examine the policy of celibacy, the doctrine of celibacy within the priesthood?
MCSWEENEY: Oh, I think that that was a very brave article that was penned by the editor of “The Boston Pilot,” in a diocese where the question of church leadership and the handling of sexual cases that deeply offend and betray the trust of the people that are charged to be taken care of.
I think that we are really headed, Alan, for a revolution in our approach to sexual issues. I think this particular case, as I was alluding to just a moment ago, the importance of dealing with confessional secrecy — how can I, again, be secret, keep something to myself, when I know that somebody may very well commit a crime?
There are — it's going to open up, which is just beyond the sexual issues, how we conduct our sacramental life in such a way that no one within the faithful community is betrayed.
KEYES: Father McCloskey, this is what seems to be deeply ironic about this particular moment that we are confronted with.
We have in the papacy a pope who probably has done more thought about the theology of human sexuality, about the sacredness about human sexuality, who has applied himself to drawing the lessons of faith and applying them to this intimate area of life, probably done more than anyone, I would argue, in the history of the church in an explicit way.
Do you believe that in the presence of this tremendous treasure of papal wisdom enough has been done to understand it and apply it, not only within the clergy, but in general in terms of the approach the Catholic Church is taking to sex education and to the whole issue of human sexuality?
MCCLOSKEY: No, I do not, Alan. In fact, I think what we're seeing with the scandal, which, of course, is again a great tragedy in every way whatsoever, may be the beginning of the end of the misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the second Vatican counsel.
I believe the teaching and example of John Paul II are going to produce a tremendous springtime for the church in this country, particularly in a lot of those areas that have to do with the integrity and the wholeness of the human person, also in the area of sexuality.
So I see this — as this time of tragedy, it's a beginning for wonderful developments in the 21st century in the Catholic Church in this country.
KEYES: Well, one of things that I think has particularly struck me over the years, as I have read what the pope has written about these things, is that he understands that, at the heart of our approach to human sexuality, there is, in fact, a theological question because Genesis begins with the creation of man — male and female. He created them.
It's something that is pointed out by the pope in his writings as having a significance because it seems to involve an understanding of how God is reflected in our human nature, in the sexual distinction, and in the things that have to do with the gender distinction.
Father McSweeney, don't — in essence, isn't it the case that one has to build a Catholic approach on that kind of a theological understanding, not just on what might be said by scientists, whoever they might be? I mean, don't we have an obligation, in fact, to develop a Catholic, theological approach to human sexuality?
MCSWEENEY: Absolutely, and I think that's what we're suggesting. And a responsible leadership to carry it through and to develop theologies and to develop fine (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on human sexuality is one thing. But, then again, when we get into the confessional, when we are dealing in a counseling situation with our people, we have to be able to deliver the goods and develop a moral way of life which is absolutely feasible and respectable for all involved.
I really think that the — with the current situation in the Vatican where they are going to have to grapple with all of these issues that my friend, Father John, has just pointed out, that, indeed, there's going to be — this is going to be not just problematic. It really is an opportunity for us to have a springtime in the church, again to bring some free and open and robust discussion.
That article in “The Boston Pilot” was asking for an openness for discussion. There's been — at least in the last couple of years, you've gotten the feeling from the Vatican that a lot of these issues are closed, that we're not supposed to be talking about them anymore.
Well, that isn't going to happen. I think the people in Boston have brought that to our attention, that there is an opportunity to have a free and robust discussion about all of the issues, including celibacy.
KEYES: But it does seem to be — I mean, when you say “free,” free within the context of the teaching and discipline of the Catholic faith —and, Father McCloskey, doesn't that imply a responsibility on the part of the hierarchy?
I was kind of disappointed because we approached members of the hierarchy. They didn't want to come on the program to talk about this. It does seem to me that this is an area that challenges the heart and mind and soul of the leadership of the Catholic faith to demonstrate the application of Catholic theology in this vital area of human life.
Do you think folks are going to step forward to meet the challenge now?
MCCLOSKEY: I'm quite sure they will. There's — attention, unfortunately, has been gotten in this sort of way.
But I'm quite confident that the bishops in this country, listening to the teachings of the church and seeing perhaps the misapplication in some ways of those teachings in terms of the way they have not clearly been brought to the priesthood and also to the ladies, to some extent, are going to speak out much stronger and clearer with great charity and warmth and, at the same time, with very great clarity in terms of the beauty of the teachings of the church and even sexuality and how it really does build up the entire person.
KEYES: Thank you both. I really appreciate your coming tonight. Knowing the reluctance of some to come forward, I really especially appreciated your willingness to join us this evening and discuss these matters. I think it's only the beginning of something that's going to be needed to help us all confront what is for many of us truly a heartbreaking and dismaying spectacle.
Next, we get to the heart of the matter. We're going to be addressing these key questions: Is the crisis within the church today one of judgment, policy, or faith, or all of the above? Will the church face up to the crisis in a way that will lead to constructive results? And finally, what is the answer? What are the things that need to be done and presented?
Plus, our open phone line segment. Call me at 1-866-KEYES-USA. 1-866-KEYES-USA with whatever is on your mind.
But, first, do you think that this makes sense?
There is a fellow who has been expelled from his high school for a year. Now why did he get this horrible punishment?
Sixteen-year-old Taylor Hef (ph) was cleaning out the garage with his father and, apparently, on the bed of his pickup truck, a bread knife fell out, and when this bread knife was discovered on school property in his pickup truck — he'd never seen it, he'd never touched it, but they decided to expel him from school.
How many times do we have to hear about this kind of absurdity before school officials around this country are going to get the message that zero tolerance doesn't mean zero common sense? They don't appear to get it yet, and until they do, we're going to see travesties like this assaulting and undermining and destroying the credibility of our commitment to a policy intended to banish violence, not to warrant stupidity at the expense of the lives of students.
Do you think this kind of a decision makes sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LINDSEY EARLS, FORMER HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT: I felt like they were accusing us, you know, of being drug users or being pot heads when I wasn't and my friends weren't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: That was teenager Lindsey Earls who was asked to submit to a drug test before she was allowed to participate in extracurricular activities at her central Oklahoma high school.
This involves a case where she complained, and the case was before the Supreme Court today finally to decide whether or not this is an invasion of her Fourth-Amendment right.
Coming up in our next half-hour, we will debate the question whether or not students should be routinely tested for drugs before they're allowed to participate in extracurricular activities.
And a reminder: The chat room is humming tonight, and you can join by saying — joining Sagroove who says, “I think Catholic priests should be able to take wives and have a family,” believes that we should end the policy in the church of celibacy. And you can join in with your opinion right now at chat.msnbc.com.
First, though, we are talking about the crisis that now faces the Catholic Church with respect to the — what appears to be reasonably widespread problem of pedophilia.
It only affects a small percentage of the priesthood, but it is now showing up in ways that are more and more affecting elements of the hierarchy within the church and gaining public attention and notoriety, I think, leading to some great concerns on the par of people within the Catholic Church, within the country as they view the Catholic Church, given that the institution and folks like myself — we're heavily involved in some important issues in this country.
What affects the credibility of the Catholic Church as an institution, I think, overall affects our ability to deal with a lot of these serious policy matters, including the issues that affect the sacredness of human life. Obviously close to my heart, as all of you know.
Well, here on the heart of the matter, we are joined today by Howie Carr, a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist for “The Boston Herald.”
Also with us, Dr. Ray Guarendi, host of “The Doctor Is In,” a national syndicated radio show that appears on the Catholic Radio Network.
And Barbara Blaine, founder of The Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests known as SNAP. Barbara is a survivor of priest abuse.
Welcome, all of you, to MAKING SENSE.
Obviously, dealing tonight with an issue that is serious, that is controversial in many respects, that affects many folks inside and outside the Catholic Church with a great deal of dismay, and it's critical that it be dealt with rightly.
But I'll ask all of you the question that I posed to the two folks who joined us in the first part of the program. Starting with you, Barbara. The why of this. Why are we seeing this crisis in the church today?
BARBARA BLAINE, SNAP FOUNDER: Well, I believe it's because of the fact that, for decades, the church leaders have left these priests in ministry when they knew that the priests had actually sexually molested children, and because they've left them in ministry, they've continued to abuse, and so it's just been going on for decades, and there are probably — there might be thousands of individuals who might have been saved who wouldn't have had to have been abused, had the church leaders removed these men when they should have.
KEYES: Drew Myani (ph), why did this policy continue for as long as it has? What — I mean, obviously, we are dealing — and I know a lot of the folks in the hierarchy are some people who are fine human beings, who have been, in many respects, important leaders within the church on issues where they showed courage and better judgment. What happened in this instance?
Drew Myani (ph)?
RAY GUARENDI, PH.D., RADIO TALK-SHOW HOST: Alan, I think you're talking to me, Dr. Guarendi.
KEYES: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Dr. Guarendi, I'm sorry.
GUARENDI: No problem, Alan.
Well, first of all, you have to understand that we expert types have done a number on the church, too, because the last decades, we have told the priests and the leaders of the church, “You know this particular type of offense can be cured,” and so many of them were acting on the basis of our advice, and now with hindsight, we turn around and hammer their judgment.
BLAINE: I find that hard to believe.
KEYES: Well, one of the things that worries me, though — go ahead, Barbara.
BLAINE: It seems to me that the church officials have known for decades, and it doesn't take a professional to tell the bishops that molesting a child is wrong and that molesting a child should — should be reported to the law enforcement, to police.
These priests have known, the bishops have known, and the psychological, the mental-health professionals were telling them back in the mid '80s that they needed to remove these priests and that priests who molest will probably not be able to be cured. The bishop's conference had a report in 1985. And yet they've left them in ministry. Here we are, another 16, 17 years later.
HOWIE CARR, RADIO TALK-SHOW HOST: Alan, I agree with what Barbara said.
In Boston, for example, the priest who's gotten into the most trouble who's now jailed, Father Geoghan — they sent him to two, quote-unquote, “medical specialists” to be examined. One of them was a general practitioner, and the other one had settled his own sexual-molestation case out of court with a large monetary settlement.
I mean, they weren't really serious about doing anything. They just shuttled them from parish to parish. We've seen this in archdiocese after archdiocese.
KEYES: But the question I would raise — is that a failure to understand something about — I don't know — secular understandings on pedophilia and so forth, or is it, in fact, a failure to apply the understanding of the faith itself?
Here's what I mean. And I'm addressing this particularly, Ray, to you, I think, because —- if you looked at this in terms of the moral implications of the sin, you are dealing with something that, with respect to the young, whom Christ told us it is most important not to scandalize, one is creating an occasion for mortal sin, in fact, and for being led down a path that results in the destruction of that which Christ said was more important than the one who threatened physical life.
So, from the point of view of what is being done to these individuals, it's sort of like serial spiritual murder.
GUARENDI: It is.
KEYES: And it shouldn't — without any prompting — without any prompting from any secular wisdom whatsoever, shouldn't the application of the faith have meant that one took this seriously, the same way that one would take it seriously if one discovered that someone had killed the body of a young child?
GUARENDI: Absolutely. There's no question about that.
KEYES: Why wasn't it done then?
GUARENDI: Well, because humans are...
KEYES: Why wasn't it taken that serious — no, no. I'm talking about in terms of the faith now, not in terms of some judgment other than that. If the faith says that this is a mortal sin that assaults people in a way more deadly than what kills the body, why wasn't it treated as something that assaulted these children in a way that was more deadly than what killed the body?
GUARENDI: Because if you're asking why do people sin, why do people who are supposed to be holy sin, then you're asking a question that people have asked for generations. Certainly, there's no...
KEYES: No, no. Ray — Ray, you're misunderstanding. I'm asking why the hierarchy didn't treat the assault on these young lives as they would have treated somebody who was guilty of murdering these children...
GUARENDI: Are you asking...
KEYES: ... because the church says that what assaults the soul is actually more devastating than what assaults the body. It doesn't seem to me they acted on that belief.
GUARENDI: If they didn't — and it appears in many cases they didn't — they were grievously wrong, Alan. But if you're going to slam your fist down and say, “Why do humans sin, even humans who are supposed to be holy?” you're asking an age-old question.
The bigger question is this: If you say, for example, that celibacy was the problem here, well, you need to look at the research. The research is real clear. Celibacy has nothing to do with this. In fact, the research we have indicates that married clergy, down the line, are more likely to do these kinds of offenses as well as other immoral offenses than celibate priests.
Secondly...
KEYES: One second.
Barbara? Barbara, you have something to say?
BLAINE: Yes. Well, I'm not so sure. I don't know that celibacy is the solution, but it certainly has to be looked at because of the climate that's created within the church. When the priest — when there's a commitment to celibacy, then there is a climate regarding sexuality of secrecy and denial, and in that type of a climate, I think creates a place where this abuse can fester...
GUARENDI: As a psychologist...
BLAINE: ... and that's certainly what's happened.
KEYES: Aren't we, in fact, dealing with something as if, within the context of the church, one should look for secular answers and not spiritual ones? Because one of things that bothers me — and, Ray, I don't think one has dealt with it adequately yet — is the fact that this is an application of faith we're talking about.
I'm not worried about the rest of it right now. But in terms of the application of faith — and I wish it were isolated, but the same thing seems to be true in terms of decisions made with respect to sex education for children in the schools, where they simply borrow from secular nonsense instead of developing and applying a Catholic theology that takes advantage of the wisdom that the pope has shown.
Are we dealing just with human weakness, or are we dealing with a willful failure...
CARR: Alan...
KEYES: ... to apply the grace that has been offered to us with the wisdom that the pope himself represents...
CARR: Alan...
KEYES: ... and has not been applied systematically?
CARR: We have a problem with the fact that the church can't even tell the truth to the victims, as I'm sure Barbara knows. I mean, here in Boston, the victims and their families were told over and over again these priests will never be exposed to children again, and yet it wasn't true. They just shuttled them — and this happened all over the country, were shuttled from parish to parish. The church didn't tell the truth.
KEYES: But, again...
CARR: The church doesn't tell the truth about the monetary settlements. The truth — the church has tried to stonewall the media from finding out what was going on. We never find out. This institution is unfortunately rotten from the top down.
KEYES: I believe — no, I don't believe that's true. I believe at the top...
CARR: It is.
KEYES: ... great wisdom and grace has been on offer and that...
CARR: Cardinal Law. Cardinal Egan.
KEYES: Let me finish. Let me finish. The reserve of that grace has been neglected in point of fact, and I don't think that — myself that the answer is that you abandon the church's position of faith on things like celibacy and, in this context, surrender to the notion that a naturalistic impulse cannot be dealt with in an environment of grace. That would not be a surrender of policy but a surrender of faith, and...
GUARENDI: Celibacy is only...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... surrender of faith — let me finish — and in the light of the fact that we have a pope who has, in fact, offered us an understanding that opens up avenues of greater strength than obviously has been implemented here, is the problem that we've neglected a bunch of secular wisdom, or is the problem that the hierarchy has neglected the wisdom that exists within the church from a pope provided by the providence of God who has thought deeply about these issues but whose truths have not been mined (ph) and applied in such a way as to translate into a curriculum for the clergy and for the young people who are involved in high schools and other schools around the country? It has not been done in a systematic way.
CARR: Alan, how long...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... somebody asked why.
CARR: How long has clergy been required to be celibate? My understanding is it's only been a thousand year, and, at that point, it was an economic decision because they didn't want the priests passing down church property to their sons.
I mean, this is not — this is not in the Ten Commandments that priests have to be celibate. If an episcopal...
KEYES: If we're not...
CARR: ... priest switches over and becomes a Catholic priest that is married, he gets to bring his wife with him. So it's not even a 100-percent policy.
KEYES: I think we misunderstand the issue here, if we get bogged down in that discussion. The issue is not just celibacy.
If you surrender the doctrine of celibacy on the grounds that people of faith, clergy dedicated to God cannot discipline their sexual impulse, then you haven't just surrendered a doctrine of celibacy. You have, in fact, taken a position that belittles the power of faith with respect to one of the most important elements of the human soul and spirit, and that surrender would have implications, theologically and otherwise, far beyond the issue of the priesthood.
I think that has to be thought about seriously, and I don't think it's being done.
Anyway, thank you all for joining us today. I really appreciate it.
Next, should high school students be drug tested? If they're going to pardon me in extracurricular activities, should they have to submit to this invasion of privacy? What do you think? We're going to have a debate on it up next.
And later, we'll get to what's on your mind on any topic. Call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA.
You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Do you think that students who are trying to get into extracurricular activities should be subject to drug testing, all of them, on a random basis? One young student was so subjected and the case has come all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, where it was argued today. Some saying it is an invasion of Fourth Amendment rights, others that it is a necessary extension of the authority of the school as we fight to prevent our children from being swept away from the tide of illicit drug abuse. Before we get to our guests, let's take a look at some background.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETE WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When Lindsay Earles (ph) wanted to join the choir, band, and academic team at her high school in central Oklahoma, the school board required anyone applying for extracurricular activities to take a drug test. She considered it extremely embarrassing, giving a urine sample to faculty monitors in the restroom.
UNIDENTIFIED STUDENT: It was terrible in that these are our teachers standing outside listening to us use the bathroom.
WILLIAMS: With her parents' support, she sued, claiming the school violated the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches by randomly testing students in everything from the chess club to the future farmers, even when they were not suspected of drug abuse.
GRAHAM BOYD, ACLU: The police could not go through your neighborhood door to door saying we'd like a urine sample just to see if maybe you're using drugs. They can't do that in schools either.
WILLIAMS: Seven years ago, the Supreme Court upheld testing athletes in schools with serious drug problems, reasoning that they face a greater risk of injury. But the Oklahoma school says wider testing, including students who volunteer for extra activities, helps deter drug use before it becomes a crisis.
STEPHANIE MATHER, SCHOOL DISTRICT LAWYER: Our evidence showed, and what is reality in all schools throughout the country, is that drug use is a problem in all schools and it crosses all lines.
WILLIAMS: But some justices were critical of the school, O'Connor called it, quote, “absolutely odd to test students in the choir who use drugs less than others.” Even so, a majority of the courts seemed to favor broader testing. Breyer said drug tests are preventive, like throat cultures, and Kennedy said a school with no widespread drug problem is entitled to use testing to keep it that way.
(on camera): Based on their questions today, the justices seem inclined to uphold drug testing for extracurricular activities. If they do, that would bring public schools one legal step closer to testing for all the nation's 13 million high school students.
Pete Williams, NBC News, at the Supreme Court.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: Joining us now, our guest, David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute at the Libertarian Public Policy Group. David thinks drug testing like this violates the Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures. Also with us, Dan Lundgren, former California attorney general. He was one of the chief opponents of legalizing marijuana for medical use in that state and he thinks that teen drug testing is necessary and for our war against drugs. Welcome to MAKING SENSE, gentlemen. I appreciate your joining me tonight.
Let me start with Dan Lundgren. Obviously, the concerns that are being raised are concerns about the assault that might be represented on civil liberty. How do you think that this applies to young people in high school, if it does?
DAN LUNDGREN, FORMER CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, first of all, we have to understand what the Constitution says. It, in the Fourth Amendment, it talks about unreasonable searches and seizures. So, the question is whether this is reasonable under the circumstances.
The courts have said a number of things in the past. One is that you can do more in terms of invasions of privacy, if that's the way you want to term it, with respect to students in a school setting than you could to adults. And the reason is it's an educational setting. These are young people. They're not fully formed adults yet, and there's an educative function, obviously, in an educational setting.
The second thing is we wouldn't even be talking about this if we didn't have a serious drug problem in this country that particularly confronts our young people. Taking those two things together, I think the court is going to find that it is reasonable under these circumstances for a particular school board, school district, school principal, to make a decision that this kind of program is appropriate.
But let's not confuse things. That is the question of whether it is constitutional. That is not the question that some would pose as to whether it is appropriate in a particular school. As Justice Scalia as said at times, when he was growing up, people would see something they didn't like and they'd say there ought to be a law. Now the tendency is to see something you don't like and say, oh, my gosh, it's unconstitutional. would argue it's constitutional. I would argue in this particular setting, it is appropriate where it may not be appropriate in another setting.
KEYES: David Boaz, we are dealing, in fact, with kids here. Folks in high school, in many different ways, they don't have the same latitude in terms of their rights and liberties that adult people in this society are expected to have. They are under authority. They are minors. They are people who in many ways are living in an environment structured by a whole set of rules that's different than those that apply to adults.
Why should we be making a constitutional argument that ignores this distinction?
DAVID BOAZ, CATO INSTITUTE: Well, we don't have to ignore the distinction, but we still have to determine whether this is an unreasonable search and seizure. The opposition to unreasonable searches was a key element of the founding of the American republic and of the U.S. Constitution and of the Bill of Rights. And the Fourth Amendment says no unreasonable searches.
The question is, is this unreasonable? And it seems to me that it is, they have not shown that there was a serious drug problem in this high school. In fact, when they did drug tests, they drug tested 500 kids and they found three tested positive. That doesn't sounds like a very serious thing.
And, second, they didn't bring the parents in. If the parents said I wanted my kids tested, that might be one thing. But to just blanket say all the kids who go out for the academic quiz team or the choir or the band would be drug tested, I think is an unreasonable intrusion on the presumption of privacy. Even children who are forced to go to this school, remember, we say they're in a school setting, but remember there are laws that force them to be there. So, first, we force them to be there and then we are going to say we're going to intrude on your privacy this way. I think it is a pretty serious intrusion on your privacy.
We don't even want to talk about this, to be forced to urinate in a jar and hand it to a teacher with the kids outside knowing that's what's going on. You're called out of class in order to do this. I think there ought to be a really good reason for that, and I don't think this school system had a really good reason.
KEYES: Dan Lundgren, in particular, when we talk about moving forward in a way that establishes a blanket policy that does not seem, for instance, to involve the parents when we're dealing with minors, I believe deeply ought to be involved in a lot of these decisions, doesn't this in a way tent to cut against the grain of those who are concerned that parental authorities should be respected in the educational process?
LUNDGREN: Well, I would hope that they would bring parents into the whole process in making the determination. But if you say you have to have parental approval to do this in a school setting, what you're saying is that one parent could object and stop the program from going forward. And let me make something very clear here. We're not talking about testing all students in order to go to school, which they're required to do. We are saying that for the — or they are saying in this instance for the privilege of participating, being able to participate in an extracurricular activity, this is an additional obligation. So they are not being forced to do that. They are being invited if they want to participate in extracurricular activities.
They are not being required to. If they wish to participate in these activity, then they are subject to this testing.
BOAZ: Interestingly enough, the school system acknowledges that it's the students who don't participate in extracurricular activity whose are more likely to have a drug problem. So, we've kind of decided, the school system decided to test the least likely people to have a drug problem. That seems like an odd way to go about it. But I do think you ought to address this parental issue. It is not that one parent could stop the program. Why not ask every parent, do you want your child drug tested? Let the partners make those decisions.
LUNDGREN: Well, I think one of things that we have to realize is the tremendous peer pressure that exists in schools when children are of high school age. Children are looking for crutches, they're looking for opportunities to be able to say no. In a very real sense, programs like this actually help the students say no, because they can say to another student, yes, maybe I'd like to use that joint, but, you know, I have got the possibility I could be tested or I want to go out for the school football team or I want to participate in this activity. And I run the risk of not being able to participate.
BOAZ: They already run the risk of being arrested.
LUNDGREN: This program did not kick them out, this program did not turn the information over to police authorities. This program, if they, in fact, register positive on the test, turned them over to a counseling program. And if they refused to participate in the counseling program, they weren't kicked out of school, they weren't turned over to police authorities, they weren't allowed to participate in the extracurricular activity.
My goodness. Is that a constitutional right? Isn't this a reasonable approach in dealing with a huge problem, and I would assume that you would agree that drug abuse is a big problem with our young people in America today.
BOAZ: Yes. Drug abuse is a big problem. Not in this school, apparently, but in many schools it is.
LUNDGREN: Would we wait until it is a big problem?
BOAZ: Let me point out that what's really going on here, is that we have a war on drugs that most Americans realize is failing. That's why overwhelmingly Dan Lundgren's fellow Californians have voted twice to chip away at the war on drugs. They recognize that sick...
KEYES: David.
BOAZ: ... people ought to be able to get marijuana. They recognize that we are being too punitive with the drug war, and this is another way of insisting on escalating a war that we can't win.
LUNDGREN: Hey, I will submit —
KEYES: David...
(CROSSTALK)
LUNDGREN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
KEYES: Wait, gentlemen, we've come to the end of our time, unfortunately. Lively discussion.
One last word, if I may take it because it does seem to me that the argument that somehow or another this has failed and so forth — no, actually if you observed that this school doesn't have the problem in a large degree, that you're not talking about failure, but you are talking about steps that might create a prophylactic environment, where you're guarding against the possibly that something could become widespread without the knowledge of the school, without the knowledge of parents. I think, myself, with proper provision made, to make sure that by signing the kids up for extracurricular activities, parents understand what is involved in that decision and are therefore involved in it.
I frankly don't see what the problem is with letting schools have this latitude if they believe that it is going to be necessary to maintain, much less a drug-free environment, much less deal with an environment where a problem already exists.
Gentlemen, thank you for joining us today.
LUNDGREN: Thanks, Alan.
BOAZ: Thank you.
KEYES: Next, I want to hear what's on your mind. Call us at 1-800-866-KEYES-USA. I am sorry, 1-866-KEYES-USA. 1-866-KEYES-USA.
But first, does this make sense? There was a new voter on the voter's rolls in California. Barnabus Miller, a registered Republican. He was called up for jury duty in Costa County, it turned out, though, that he was a dog. A puppy that had been registered under false pretenses by his owner. Now, the folks that are involved with the board of elections that have gotten all upset because the guy was putting fraudulent information on his registration card.
Well, I think they ought to be upset about that, but you know what upsets me even more, the fact that these folks accepted the fraudulent information, don't have any checks — aren't allowed in California apparently — even to ask for identification. So that if you do happen to get on the voters rolls fraudulently, they're not likely to find you out until it's too late. Now I suppose they might notice if the dog showed up to vote. But what if he voted by absentee ballot? Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now let's hear what's on your mind. We'll start with David from Iowa. David, are you making sense?
DAVID: Yes. Well, I hope. I'm a victim — I'm one of the victims years ago of a priest. And I have some questions for the church. Why would I trust it to be a part of the solution when it's clearly part of the problem, with regards to the sexual abuse. And if they're really interested in knowing how the extent of the problem in the priesthood, why doesn't the pope release all the victims from the agreement they had to sign of silence. And let them come forward and name who these people were?
KEYES: See, I hear from you a cry from the heart, David, and I think it's one that does need to be taken very seriously. I think the reason one can trust that there is strength within the church to deal with this is, because there's grace from the church. But that grace has to be accessed, it has to be something that people open their hears to accept, David. And I think that's going to be true throughout the church, including within the hierarchy.
Let's go to Frank from Texas.
FRANK: Yes. I'm a funeral director and I've worked with priests for many years, and I've seen priests being moved from church to church for this very reason. I believe if the hierarchy was above reproach, they probably could have dealt with this problem and caused these other priests to be above reproach themselves. The problem is much bigger than anybody knows, because if it's that way in the northeast, it's that way all over the country. And if the bishops would be reproached, they would cause people to come clean and get this problem over with.
KEYES: I think one of the reasons that this has to be dealt with effectively in ways where people will face up to it, not refuse to come on programs and talk about it, but sit down, look people in the eye and deal with it is precisely because of what you just said. Oh, is this all there is? there more?
I think we need to deal seriously and effectively with that as a challenge, if it is going to be something where the heart can be laid to rest, where we can find some truth and peace. We'll see.
“My Outrage of the Day” is actually going to be on this question, because I changed my mind in the course of today's discussion. And I want to share with you a final thought in the context of our discussion of this issue, of the crisis that is faced within the Catholic church on this handling of charges and reality of pedophilia. So stay with us. I will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now for “My Outrage of the Day.” In the course of the discussion today, I changed my mind about what my outrage would be because I was deeply struck as I listened to the discussion by how wrong it is, in my opinion, to consider the crisis within the church today as if it were some kind of managerial or administrative problem, even a problem that has to do with disrespect for secular laws. I think it reflects a real spiritual crisis, a crisis of faith.
When you have a pope who has devoted such wisdom to dealing with issues of human sexuality, when the American hierarchy has, I believe, willfully resisted the grace's wisdom represents, not applied it in the areas where it is so vital. And then a crisis like this springs up, which seems directly related to that deficiency, I think we're making a huge mistake if we see it in terms of some secular, administrative or managerial foul up. I think it is a spiritual crisis, as one would expect, in the hierarchy of the church. And that that spiritual crisis must be dealt with in a way that reconciles the heart to the wisdom that is on offer from God, which I think is there in the pope's teachings. Will the Catholic hierarchy here accept it? That's the question. That's my sense of it.
THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.