Alan Keyes
April 9, 2002

ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.

Up front tonight, we're going to take a look at the latest developments in the Middle East. Thirteen Israeli soldiers killed today in an ambush, apparently carried out by a suicide bomber. We'll learn later some of the shocking details about that.

Secretary of State Colin Powell says he's prepared to stay in the area indefinitely doing shuttle diplomacy. He has scheduled the meeting with Yasser Arafat. And I'll be commenting on that a little bit later.

President Bush again asks Israel to withdraw from all of the disputed Palestinian territories. But again, it looks as if Israel is going to ignore his request.

And that gets us to our first topic of the evening. I look at the situation going to and fro, and I'm focused on the question of whether or not it is, in fact, in the best interest both of Israel and of the war on terrorism for Israel to back off of its present offensive against the terrorist infrastructure that has been responsible for these assaults against innocent civilians.

Shouldn't the response of Israel to President Bush's demand be that Ariel Sharon just says no? Taking a leaf out of our own book, looks him in the eye and basically says, “I have to do, in defense of my people, exactly what you have said we all have to do in our defense against terrorism. And that is stay with it until the end, stay with it until we have destroyed the infrastructure of terror.”

Apparently President Bush thinks that there's a different imperative at work for Israel, even though the actual threat of terrorism is daily obviously in greater juxtaposition to the people of Israel even than it is to those of us who have suffered from it in the United States. Up front with us, we have with us Ambassador Hasan Abdel Rahman, the chief Palestinian representative to the United States, and Mark Regev, the spokesman for the Israeli embassy in Washington to talk about this question. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

MARK REGEV, ISRAELI EMBASSY SPOKESMAN: Thank you.

HASAN RAHMAN, CHIEF PALESTINIAN REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED STATES: Thank you.

KEYES: I want to start tonight with Mark Regev. I know this may put you on the spot a little bit, Mark. But it does seem to me there's a little bit of incongruity in turning to Israel as it faces these kinds of attacks and saying you have got to stop your defense against terrorism just right now, regardless of the situation. Shouldn't Israel actually say we've got to finish the job just as you insist on doing?

REGEV: No. When the president of the United States makes a request, we take that very seriously. We know that America is our friend and our ally. And we respect what America says to us, and that has to be very clear.

I'd also like to stress, and I think this is an important point, that we have started to pull out. And we pulled out of two cities already, two large cities, Tulkarem and Qalqilya. And pulled out last night from Qalqilya. Unfortunately, today there was already fire from Qalqilya against Israeli civilians.

Now, we have a problem. We want to pull out. We said from the beginning that this mission would be limited both in scope and in time, and that we'd finish the job and we'd leave. But we don't want to leave and have to go back in. And we're concerned that if we leave too quickly, there will be more and more suicide bombings and more and more people killed. That's not good for Israelis. That's not good for Palestinians. It's not good for the United States and stability in the region.

KEYES: Well, but doesn't that amount to saying, Mark, that one really has to stay there until the job is done? I mean, the president has said “immediately, now, this instant.” And that's obviously not taking place. Isn't what is owed to the result taking precedence over the desire to say please to the president of the United States?

REGEV: Our relationship with the United States is an integral part of our security doctrine. It is very important to us, our relationship with the United States. And we believe allies should support each other. And we support the United States.

And just as we are thankful that America supports us in our struggles when America has its larger regional aims in the Middle East — and we're talking about Iraq and Iran and other things that this administration wants to do — it is our job in Israel also to support the administration. So, obviously we can't do things that will endanger Israeli civilians.

But the president has asked us to withdraw. But Prime Minister Sharon said we, in fact, are speeding up the withdrawal. And we'll be doing so. And hopefully we'll be able to do it in the coming days.

KEYES: Well, as a private American citizen, I will say clearly what I think. And I think that the demand that Israel stop before it has actually been able effectively to address the infrastructure of terrorism is a wrong-headed demand. And I think it should have not have been made. I think it is a mistake.

And as an American citizen, I, thank God, have the privilege of disagreeing with my president. And I disagree with him strongly about this.

Let me go to Ambassador Rahman. Why is it reasonable to make a demand that Israel should withdraw its forces before the objective situation on the ground reassures Israel that it's not going to be further subject to terrorist attacks and suicide bombings and a continuation of the violence that we have seen?

RAHMAN: Because the president of the United States finally realized that Israel is a terrorist state and using terrorist tactics, Mr. Keyes, to kill Palestinian civilians. He joined the international consensus.

Obviously, there are some in this country, like you, Mr. Keyes, who do not believe that. But I must assure you that the whole world is outraged by the criminal behavior of the Israeli Army.

When you attack civilians, maybe some people think that the Palestinians are not human beings and therefore they should be killed. But I am glad to realize that the president of the United States like many others, almost everyone else in the world, came to the realization that Sharon is a terrorist, and he leads an Army that is engaged in Nazi-like behavior because what's happening in Jenin today is similar to what's happened in the Warsaw ghetto when the Nazis invaded the Jewish quarters. And the Jewish people then rose against the Nazis and fought them hard.

And the Palestinians today in the refugee camps of Jenin and in the city of Nablus and everywhere else are fighting this Army that is led by no other than the well-known terrorist Mr. Sharon. And I'm sure that many, many, many people in Israel do not share your views, Mr. Keyes, because the human rights tell them today, protest it to Israel for its demolishing of homes over its citizens for the use of...

KEYES: Well...

RAHMAN: ... let me finish, please.

KEYES: ... Mr. Ambassador...

RAHMAN: ... for the use of its — I'm saying let me finish what I am saying because you did not interrupt Mr. Regev when he was speaking. I am sure that no decent people will tolerate the bombardment of civilian quarters with Apache helicopters or with tanks.

KEYES: Mr. Ambassador...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: ... Mr. Ambassador, Mr. Ambassador, several problems. I want to get back to Mark Regev for a response. But I have one first. Point of personal privilege.

RAHMAN: Go ahead.

KEYES: I have one first, because frankly I don't advocate for the killing of Palestinians.

RAHMAN: Well, you just did.

KEYES: I think — excuse me...

RAHMAN: You just did.

KEYES: ... let me finish, sir.

RAHMAN: Go ahead.

KEYES: I think that the killing of innocent Palestinians is a travesty.

RAHMAN: Yes.

KEYES: And that's why I think that the Palestinians deserve better leadership. I have no quarrel with the Palestinian people.

RAHMAN: That's your opinion.

KEYES: Let me finish, sir. I have a quarrel with a leadership that will encourage its people to go out and kill themselves...

RAHMAN: You are wrong, Mr. Keyes.

KEYES: ... that will take young women and take 10-year-old kids...

RAHMAN: You are not being an objective journalist...

KEYES: ... and send them to their deaths. I think that...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: ... I think that such a leadership is morally bankrupt. And I think that that moral bankruptcy...

RAHMAN: I think you are wrong. I think you are wrong.

KEYES: ... clearly suggests that the Palestinians deserve better leadership than those who are bent on this kind of self-destruction.

(CROSSTALK)

RAHMAN: That's your opinion. And that is your opinion.

KEYES: Number two, I at least have no problem clearly understanding what constitutes terrorism. War is an ugly business.

RAHMAN: Well, I am sure...

KEYES: Let me finish, sir.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: War is an ugly business. And sometimes innocent people will, as they say, as a collateral matter, they may be killed in war. And that is a terrible tragedy. But when you consciously adopt a strategy that is aimed at taking people into the midst of innocent folks and blowing them up and destroying those innocent people, that constitutes targeting...

RAHMAN: That is what Israel is doing today to the Palestinians.

KEYES: ... that constitutes targeting of innocent civilians...

RAHMAN: That's what Israel is doing today.

KEYES: ... that crosses the line. Now, Mr. Regev, Ambassador Rahman is suggesting that in the style of Nazis — and I have to confess I find this comparison, I don't know about you, I find it deeply offensive...

RAHMAN: That is your problem, Mr. Keyes.

KEYES: ... but in the style of Nazis in the Warsaw ghetto, Israeli troops are moving with the implication that somehow they are moving against innocent civilians. Is that what's happening in Jenin? I need a clarification.

REGEV: I find the comparison obscene. And I say that with all the force that I can. I'm a former infantryman myself. Everyone in Israel does national service. I did it myself.

There's nothing more dangerous, nothing — anyone who has been in the U.S. military will tell you the same. There's nothing more dangerous than house-to-house fighting in an urban built-up area. And that's what our boys are doing.

I mean, if Mr. Rahman's charges were true, we could just bomb from the air or shell from a...

RAHMAN: That's what you're doing today.

REGEV: ... Sorry, I didn't interrupt you, Mr. Rahman...

RAHMAN: I'm not interrupting.

REGEV: ... it would have — we lost 12 boys today, 13 boys today, in Jenin because we're doing dangerous house-to-house fighting. Our soldiers have very, very strict orders to avoid civilian casualties.

We want a surgical strike. We want to do as much as we can to safeguard the local population.

I want to tell you the chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Force, General Mofaz, gave a personal orders three days ago to every soldier saying, “Do the mission, but the maximum effort has to be made to safeguard the civilian population. We are not the enemies of the Palestinian people. We are the enemies of a terrorist regime, unfortunately, that supports groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.”

And as long as, unfortunately, the Palestinian leadership is in bed with these sort of terrorist groups, we have to respond. But we are not against the Palestinian people. We are not hurting the Palestinian people. We are trying only to hurt the terrorists.

KEYES: Ambassador Rahman, do you think that the suicide bombers have orders to avoid civilian casualties when they go into public areas and holiday observances and blow themselves up? Do they have orders to avoid civilian casualties, do you think, Mr. Ambassador?

RAHMAN: You know, if you were listening to me or you care to listen, you would understand what I am saying. What I said always, and we have said, that we are opposed any action against Israeli civilians, whether it is suicide bombers or others.

And our suicide bombers that you are talking about are individuals. They are a small minority. And they are engaged in acts that we are opposed to.

REGEV: They are funded by Mr. Arafat.

RAHMAN: No.

REGEV: They are funded by Mr. Arafat. We have documents.

RAHMAN: I did not interrupt you, so, please. And, therefore, we are against it. But this terror by the Israelis, Mr. Keyes, is conducted by no other than Mr. Sharon, the prime minister.

And if you think that Israel is not engaged in terrorism, why don't you look at the reports of your colleagues, the journalists, who are reporting from there? They are saying that Israel is targeting civilians, including journalists. The International Red Cross suspended operations in protest against the atrocities that the Israelis are committing against the Palestinians.

Adding to that, Mr. Keyes, you — I'm sure that you understand what freedom means. The Palestinian people have been subjected to a constant regime of terror for 36 years and the Israeli military occupation. You should more than anybody else understand when you establish cities and towns exclusively for Jews, that's obscene, in Palestinian territories.

KEYES: What I understand, Mr. Ambassador, sad to say, is that under the present kind of leadership, which is ordering people out for suicide bombings, which as itself — let me finish...

RAHMAN: You are not listening to me.

KEYES: ... you always talk about folks interrupting, this is my show, I get to have my say on it. Excuse me...

RAHMAN: Then invite me...

KEYES: ... and I'll tell you. I have a problem with this whole notion that freedom is represented by a regime that would lead its people to this kind of self-destructive death, that has itself practiced in order to maintain its power the same kind of terrorism against Palestinians themselves to prevent opposition and other voices from emerging. Don't expect that folks who know the history are going to ignore those facts and let you get away with the kind of rhetoric that I'm afraid has dominated this situation for too long. Not good for us. And it's not good for Palestinians, either.

RAHMAN: That's because we are the minority.

KEYES: Right now, sad to say, what I see is a leadership that offers to Palestinians a way of death, a way of self-destruction, not a way of life. And, frankly, Mark Regev, I think it is important. You need to respond.

REGEV: I would love to.

KEYES: He is saying that the international community...

RAHMAN: He does not need to having you there, Mr. Keyes. (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

KEYES: He is saying that the international community is witnessing a regime of terrorism by Israel against journalism and other civilians. Is that the case?

REGEV: Can I tell you the International Committee of the Red Cross wrote an official letter of complaint to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society because they've been using ambulances...

RAHMAN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) condemn you.

REGEV: ... they've been using ambulances to carry suicide bombers, to carry explosives, to carry weapons.

RAHMAN: That's not true.

REGEV: You know this is true, Mr. Rahman. Don't deny it.

RAHMAN: Nonsense. Nonsense.

REGEV: And we've had more than one occasion, unfortunately, with ambulances, which everyone has national conventions not to use ambulances like this — the Palestinians, we found three weeks ago, a suicide bomber with all the explosives on him ready to go off, being transported into Israel in a Palestinian ambulance...

RAHMAN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to what I'm saying.

REGEV: ... and the Red Crescent received a letter from the International Committee of the Red Cross complaining about this, Mr. Rahman.

(CROSSTALK)

REGEV: And you know it to be true.

KEYES: I have to thank you gentlemen for joining us. We've come up against the end of our time.

RAHMAN: I want to respond. Mr. Keyes, I want to say something before we leave.

KEYES: Ambassador Rahman, we'll have you back. But we're at the end of our time now.

RAHMAN: You know...

KEYES: I really appreciate your coming in.

Reaction to the conflict in the Middle East has been intense. Protests are going on on college campuses across the country, something we haven't seen intensively for quite some years. There were over 20 of them today, the largest at the University of California at Berkeley, around 1,000 protesters. They occupied a classroom building there.

Next, in the “Heart of the Matter,” we're going to address these questions. Is the comparison with South Africa that these demonstrators are making valid? Who deserves moral condemnation, the terrorists or Israel for responding to terrorism? And should we divest in Israel or the oil axis that is sponsoring terrorism against Israel and us?

You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RODERICK MACLEISH, JR., PRIEST ABUSE VICTIM ATTORNEY: What we saw when we first looked at these documents, this is the records of Paul Shanley at the Archdiocese of Boston, were with the words “Men and Boys.”

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: That was the lawyer for a man who claims he was abused by a Boston priest. That priest later spoke at the founding meeting of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, an association that advocates homosexual pedophilia. In our next half hour, we'll debate whether the priest who knew about this, Cardinal Law of Boston, should resign and be held accountable.

A reminder that the chat room is on fire tonight. And you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.

First, though, the anti-Israeli Mid-East protests on American college campuses today have been attracting a lot of attention. Here is MSNBC's George Lewis.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GEORGE LEWIS, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At the University of California-Berkeley...

PROTESTERS: End the occupation! End the occupation!

LEWIS: At the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and at a couple dozen other campuses across the country today, students marched in opposition to Israel's occupation of Palestinian areas.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the students are engaged. I think this has really penetrated the apathy that sometimes characterizes students.

LEWIS: Berkeley, the scene of the biggest demonstration, around 1,000 protesters occupying a classroom building.

(on camera): It's a scene reminiscent of the '60s in the same place where there were huge anti-Vietnam demonstrations. Now the pro-Palestinian students say they're adopting the same kind of activism.

NOURA ERAKAT, STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE: What you're seeing today is basically frustration. Enough is enough. Bush said it. We've been saying it. Palestinians have said it for 54 years.

LEWIS (voice-over): And the students say their movement is beginning to attract others as well. Mica Pedan (ph) calls himself an anti-Zionist Jew.

MICA PEDAN, STUDENT: The Jewish people will never have shalom, peace, and safety until we put justice for the Palestinian people.

LEWIS: But he was booed by Jewish students who fear that the new pro-Palestinian activism has anti-Semitic overtones that could lead to violence in this country. The director of the Hillel Jewish Student Center in Berkeley says recently someone hurled a cinder block through the center's plate glass door.

ADAM WEISBERG, DIRECTOR, HILLEL JEWISH STUDENT CENTER: Anti-Semitic graffiti was scrawled there as well. There was an attack on two identifiably Jewish members of the community shortly thereafter.

LEWIS: During the pro-Palestinian demonstration, Jewish students stood nearby reading off the names of victims of the Nazi holocaust on this Holocaust Remembrance Day. But those supporting the Palestinians called it a day of action as the tensions in the Middle East begin to play out on American college campuses.

George Lewis, NBC News, Berkeley.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KEYES: Joining us now to get to the heart of this matter, Jessica Oleon, a senior at Berkeley and president of the Jewish Student Union. She takes issue with the pro-Palestinian protests at her school today. And Vincent Lloyd, a junior at Princeton University and one of the student organizers of the Princeton Divestment Campaign.

Welcome, both of you, to MAKING SENSE. Let me start with you, Vincent.

Why do you think that it makes sense, first to draw a parallel as some are doing between the situation in the Mid-East today and the situation of South Africa and to suggest that divestiture, one of the approaches that was used in the South African case, would be appropriate in the case of Israel? Why do you think that's so?

VINCENT LLOYD, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Well, 25 years ago, Princeton students, community members, and faculty came together and said that Princeton University ought not be investing in U.S. companies that are doing business in South Africa while the South African government is oppressing millions of its people and committing human rights abuses.

And we believe that the same thing is happening in Israel today, that Israel is committing human rights abuses, Israel is violating international law, and that Princeton University ought not be investing in U.S. companies that are doing substantial amounts of business in Israel while these things are happening.

KEYES: Well, do you think that we ought to be investing in companies that are doing substantial business with Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and others who have been demonstrated to be supporting the terrorists, the suicide bombers, the others, who are consciously targeting innocent civilians in the Middle East and who have been responsible even for terrorist acts against us? Would you think that divestiture is appropriate against those companies too?

LLOYD: We believe that human rights of all people must be respected, and that there are countries around the world that are violating human rights. But we believe that in this particular case, with the public eye on Israel and with the debate in the media so much looking like Israel versus terrorists, we believe that by focusing on Israel, we can make people think about the situation like they were thinking about South Africa.

KEYES: So, you want to distract people from the terrorists who have killed innocent civilians so, what, they can go on with their work without interference?

LLOYD: Like the case in South Africa when there was violence on both sides, we want to look at the fundamentals of the situation. We want to look at three million oppressed Palestinians who have been living under occupation for 35 years. We want to look at the legal use of torture in Israel. We want to look at the transfer of civilian population into the occupied territories. And we want to look at the refugees who have been kicked out and don't have a right to come back to their homelands.

Just like in the case of South Africa, these — if we look at the fundamentals, we see there is violence on both sides. And we condemn the violence on both sides. And we (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the fundamentals.

KEYES: Jessica Oleon, you look at this situation. Does it make sense to you, first, to equate Israel with South Africa, and, second, to suggest that one should do it, especially so that the world won't look at the work of the terrorists?

JESSICA OLEON, SENIOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY: No, it makes no sense whatsoever. And, actually, it makes me vaguely sick. I think the biggest differences between what happened in South Africa, which was clearly apartheid, was there was a legal system in place that was the policy of the government that limited the rights of citizens in terms of voting, set up different forms of taxation for different types of citizens, and limited the travel of citizens in the country.

The difference in Israel, and this is the biggest difference, is that all Israeli citizens, whether they're Israeli or Arab birth, whether they're Christian, Muslim, Jewish, brown, blue, or purple have the same rights as the citizens of the state of Israel. The people who hat we're trying to talk about here are non-citizen Palestinians who live in the territories, an area that Israel has largely been trying to give back and create a Palestinian state for, for at least the last eight years, and I think it can be argued for a long time before that.

KEYES: Now, Vincent Lloyd, I find it a little strange, though, because I think what Jessica said is clearly consistent with the facts. Israel hasn't wanted to hold onto these territories. They've been engaged in negotiations to give them back to the Palestinians, even set up the Palestinian Authority, agree to all of that, and yet because Yasser Arafat didn't get exactly what he wanted at the negotiating table, he unleashed a wave of terror. Why don't you want to look at those facts?

LLOYD: We've been waiting for 35 years for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. International law and the United Nations have clearly said that Israel is in violation of international law by occupying land.

KEYES: That's not true, by the way. I'm sorry, Vincent, I have to stop you a second because what you just said is not true. First of all, international law does not require that territory acquired as a result of victory in war simply be surrendered to those who were defeated. What it requires, if anything, is — or what it allows — is that it can be given back in the context of a negotiated peace, which is what Israel has been trying to do.

And the resolution 242 that is referred to by people does not require that the Israeli withdrawal be outside the context of such negotiations. So, why would you say it does?

LLOYD: The resolution clearly states Israel must withdraw from territories conquered in the recent conflict. That was the 1967 conflict. I don't think there's much room for debate there. Israel must withdraw.

KEYES: Oh, yes, there is. I'm sorry. There has been a lot of room for debate because that's exactly what Israel has been trying to do, consummate with the fact that international law does not require that the victorious party give back territory to the defeated party outside the context of a negotiated settlement.

And Israel has been trying to negotiate a settlement. But because Yasser Arafat didn't get all he wanted, he started killing people. And you're saying we should ignore that?

LLOYD: We're saying that while there are three million people living under oppression, under occupation, that have been doing so, living in this condition for 35 years, it's — if you — it's not unexpected that there is violence on both sides, and that when we change the fundamentals of the situation, then peace will be much easier to achieve. And...

KEYES: Can I ask you one final question, Vincent? Because Osama bin Laden said that when he attacked the World Trade Center and blew up the Pentagon and killed thousands of Americans, he did it because of Israel and because of American support for Israel and that it was in order to try to achieve just the aims you're describing for the Palestinian people. So, if you believe that violence in pursuit of those objectives against innocent people, terrorism, is OK, do you then approve of Osama bin Laden's actions?

LLOYD: We condemn all violence. But what we're saying is that if you treat people like dogs and they bite you, you shouldn't be surprised. Right? I think we're condemning — we always condemn (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

KEYES: Actually, I'm a follower of Martin Luther King. And I think that no matter how people treat you, you can still act like a human being. He taught me that.

LLOYD: We believe that too.

KEYES: Jessica Oleon, Jessica Oleon...

OLEON: Yes.

KEYES: ... I look at this situation. And do you think that it is appropriate to put Israel in the same category as folks who are consciously targeting innocent life? Is that what the Israelis are doing?

OLEON: No, I think that they're trying to establish the right to their own state as they won 50 years ago and again in 1963 and again in 1967, the right to a state with logical and defendable borders. And I think that they have been working very hard and sometimes have a negotiating partner and sometimes clearly don't, to try to create a parallel state, a Palestinian state with safe, negotiable, defendable borders. And the deal from the Israeli perspective is that both of these states coexist in peace and that Israel is recognized and lives with normalized relations with all of their neighbors.

KEYES: Well, I want to thank you both for joining us today. It's obvious that this is the beginning of a renewed debate and discussion. But I've got to say, personally, I think folks are going to have a hard time trying to establish that all the wrong of this situation is on the Israeli side and that we should totally ignore the deep, outrageous commitment to violence against the innocent that has even claimed thousands of American lives.

I don't think many of us are going to be willing to do that. We'll see.

Next, the new outrage in the ongoing crisis in the Catholic Church. Is it assignment time for the see-no-evil leaders to go? Stay with us as we discuss it coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.

The cloud over the Catholic Church in Boston looks more ominous tonight, a day after papers were discovered that showed church leaders knew about Father Paul Shanley's not only sexual exploits but his public advocacy of homosexual pedophilia at a founding meeting of a group called the North American Man Boy Love Association, a group dedicated to proselytizing for this kind of pedophilia between men and boys.

Joining us now is Father John McCloskey, the director of the Catholic Information Center of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., and Monsignor Tom McSweeney, an MSNBC religion analyst and the former national director of christophers.org, a Catholic media outreach organization.

Father John, I have to say that when I read this this morning, it started off that this was going to be my outrage of the day, and the more we talked about it, the more it seemed to me that we had to focus a lot more attention on it than that because — to tell you the truth, I think this is one step beyond what had already crossed the line.

I mean, it's one thing to try to say this is a weak person and they have sinned with these individuals and we want to show understanding, but when you stand in a public place and join in the founding of an organization that advocates for a mortal sin, how on earth can this be consistent with a priestly vocation?

I simply don't understand this and how anybody seeing somebody who was guilty of such an offense could then say, “You'll continue in this vocation that your actions have betrayed,” it makes no sense to me, and I don't think it makes sense to many other Catholics in this country.

How could it happen and doesn't the judgment of the prelates who were able to look at this advocacy of evil — because we're not talking here about weakness anymore — and look the other way — don't they have to be held accountable now?

FATHER C. JOHN MCCLOSKEY, CATHOLIC INFORMATION CENTER: I think they certainly do have to be held accountable. I want to be fair only to say that I would like to know what the archdiocese of Boston and — how they're going to respond to what has happened over the last day or two in terms of revelation of this particular incident. They really must speak in order to explain this.

As it appears to a person who reads it or hears about it, it's certainly inexcusable, and it really does bring up big questions in terms of who was responsible, from the top on down in the archdiocese of Boston in terms of dealing with Father Shanley.

KEYES: Father McSweeney, do you think that it's time for Cardinal Law to consider the tremendous challenge that is being done? I hear that in Boston now they're considering criminal charges. It would be, to my knowledge, unprecedented, the spectacle of a Catholic prelate at this level on some criminal charge before a court. Don't you think it's time that he really, for the sake of the church, consider resignation?

MSGR. TOM MCSWEENEY, MSNBC RELIGION ANALYST: Alan, I've been on the phone all day, I've traveled around the country even in these last couple of days, and that support that stood for Cardinal Law has actually evaporated. To report to you that — the feeling and the sentiment that was once with Cardinal Law as he was negotiating this great crisis seems to have just fallen right through the floor.

Yes, indeed, it is time for Cardinal Law to resign, to consider more the opportunity that still exists for some recovery time. The issue now is about recovering, it's about healing in the church, and to watch Cardinal Law day after day in courts of law responding to litigation is just going to chew up all that recovery time that we have to initiate right now.

KEYES: Father John, do you think that that's true — because I think that, obviously, if the cardinal is engaged in constantly trying to respond to these kinds of things, what happens to the pastoral mission and the other work that needs to go on? At the end of the day, the church is not about defending itself against these sort of charges, but they start to absorb everything, don't they?

MCCLOSKEY: Yes. First of all, whether Cardinal Law resigns or not, he still may be liable to criminal prosecution or investigation and that may be still a cardinal of the church whether he's resigned as archbishop or not, which is a very ugly scenario.

I think in terms of the possibility of resignation, that is something only Cardinal Law, on one hand, can truly decide, whether it's better for him to resign or it's better to stay on as a shepherd of the church, as a success of the apostles, and try and undo a lot of the damage that has taken place under his leadership in this particular area in the archdiocese of Boston.

There is one other person that's also very much involved, and that, of course, is John Paul II, who is his superior in the Catholic Church. Whether the holy father would ask for his resignation or whether he would accept it if it was offered is also a very big question.

But I think only Cardinal Law in his conscience as the archbishop in Boston and the holy father in Rome can make that decision. I certainly can't.

KEYES: I understand that there are some high-level American prelates now in Rome and that meetings with the pope are planned. Have you heard about this?

MCCLOSKEY: Well, I have not heard about that. However, almost always there are high-level American prelates in Rome, but I'm not sure that they are necessarily there in order to discuss this particular tragedy.

KEYES: Now I would like to address this to both of you, starting with Father McSweeney, because you talked about healing, and I think it's always important in the context of looking at this terrible crisis to think in terms of how one goes beyond it because I think that you have a lot of people who are heartbroken, people who are shaken in some sense in their faith, though not abandoning it at all, but who nonetheless, I think, are in a situation where a healing process is going to be needed.

Father McSweeney, what does that consist in, do you think?

MCSWEENEY: In — it consists right now in trying to lance the boil that just seems to be bubbling up every day, to take some of the pressure off of the wound, and the cardinal's resignation would go a long way to start lancing that boil.

We saw in Ireland where a bishop was brave enough and was concerned more about integrity to step out of his office, to tender his resignation to John Paul, who did, in fact, accept his resignation, and now Ireland is moving on that heavy litigious past, which — to address all the issues of abuse and also simply to recognize that, with Cardinal Law, resignation doesn't necessarily mean failure.

It takes some grit, it takes some courage to live up to the moral standards of the church, and if he has failed, he can claim himself to be at least accountable on the level of integrity by resigning.

KEYES: Father John, what is the healing path here to get us to a point where we can begin to move beyond this tragedy and to rebuild a sense of confidence, I think, with the...

MCCLOSKEY: I think the people of the Catholic Church and throughout the United States, I think, still have a great confidence in their prelates and their priests. This is an isolated, very small percentage of Catholic priests.

At the same time, I think we talk about healing, which is important, and, certainly, justice for the victims, but I think, also, what is necessary, above all, is reform and renewal in the church. We simply cannot have people admitted to seminaries or to the priesthood that are capable of performing these type of acts.

And at the higher level we have to make sure that, if such things happen, that they aren't covered and that they are honest with the people in the church about — the important thing is to have the great sympathy and understanding for the victims and not in any way try and protect the priests who in any way have abused them.

KEYES: We'll have more with our guests in just a minute. We'll be focusing or trying to focus on the question again of how we rebuild and what understanding has to be brought to this crisis, particularly of the matters of human sexuality and sexual responsibility that might show us a way out of it, to avoid the outrages of the past, but also to build toward a more positive future.

And later, my outrage of the day.

We'll be right back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: We're back talking about the Catholic Church scandal, and still with us, Father John McCloskey and Monsignor Tom McSweeney.

Gentlemen, two questions. First of all, I think we've talked around it maybe too much, but isn't the core of this problem in the first instance the problem of homosexuality and tolerance for homosexuality in the priesthood, and don't we just have to definitively make it clear that that's intolerable and is going to be put behind us?

Father John?

MCCLOSKEY: I would agree with you entirely there. I think that is a problem, a very small percentage of active homosexuals in the priesthood who have acted in this sort of way. All the precautions have to be taken with a zero tolerance for the possibility of entrance in the seminaries and ordination of homosexuals to the priesthood.

The bishops will be meeting in June. I'm sure they'll be discussing this. And this is, indeed, and has been the consistent advice of the Vatican over a good number of years. I will not say this has been largely ignored, but it certainly has not been paid attention to in such a way. If it had, we would not have a lot of these problems.

KEYES: Father Tom?

MCSWEENEY: Alan, I don't get the full drift of your question. We're off talking about homosexuality right now. This issue is about the systemic problems in the Catholic Church, when the hierarchy throws the veil of secrecy over issues, when the hierarchy is deceptive with the people that it's intending to serve.

Why we're going to wheedle in, you know, one sexual preference here in homosexuality when we're talking about the systemic issue...

KEYES: Well, I'll tell you. Can I explain why?

MCSWEENEY: Yes.

KEYES: I'll explain why. Because it seems to me that at the root of this was more than just sexual episodes. Homo...

MCSWEENEY: No.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Let me finish. Father Tom, let me finish. Let me finish.

Yes, indeed, because I think what was at the root of it was a corrupt understanding of human sexuality, that tolerance for homosexuality arises, in fact, from a failure to understand that homosexuality represents the refutation of the Catholic theological understanding of the sacredness of human sexuality and that that, in fact, is at the heart of the problem, which has been reflected in a willingness on the part of too many prelates to borrow an understanding of sexuality from modern psychology, from modern sociology, from the secular world, even though that understanding is entirely incompatible with the theological truths represented by the church.

MCSWEENEY: That is the — absolutely. And it is incompatible. If that is your point of view, get ready and fasten your seat belt because it's going to be a very bumpy ride. You know the statistics on homosexuality among the Catholic clergy. The statistics are as high as 50 percent.

MCCLOSKEY: That is absurd. That is totally absurd.

MCSWEENEY: That is — but that is Cousins (ph). That's a reputable report, and I know Father John can tell me it's as low as 4 percent or whatever...

MCCLOSKEY: It is...

MCSWEENEY: ... but you're saying — but you're saying it is that large of an issue. You're saying it is that large of an issue.

KEYES: Oh, I — what I am telling you is more than that because — it's more than just a question of how many individuals are or are not homosexuals.

The willingness to tolerate homosexuality is the willingness to take a view of human sexuality that removes it entirely from the purview of procreation, from the purview of a relationship with God, from the purview of Genesis and the image of God that is reflected in human sexuality, and instead places it in an entirely, worldly, sexual, fleshly context that is absolutely a refutation of the theological understanding that the church has promoted of human sexuality.

MCCLOSKEY: Any priest who is not capable of receiving the gift of priestly celibacy, whether they're heterosexual or homosexual, simply cannot be ordained a priest because they were — there was an incapacity to live a commitment that is part of being a Catholic priest.

MCSWEENEY: I will give you this, Alan. Grace builds on nature. No amount of praying about our problems is going to make them go away. We have to be right with ourself as a church, and we do have to live up to the standards that we set for ourselves.

KEYES: Well, I've got to tell you, Father Tom, I — if what I hear from your side right now is an evasion of the root issue of how the church deals with and presents the theology of the body and of human sexuality and if you don't understand that at the heart of this problem...

MCSWEENEY: I understand...

KEYES: ... there is more...

MCSWEENEY: I understand...

KEYES: ... than some sociological challenge, there is a spiritual challenge, and if that spiritual challenge is not...

MCSWEENEY: I understand the...

KEYES: ... dealt with, then nothing else that is done is really going to solve this problem. I've got to tell you...

MCSWEENEY: Alan — Alan, give me a second.

KEYES: ... I think that's a mistake.

MCSWEENEY: Just give me one second. Give me one second. We're not...

KEYES: Well, sad to say, I'll have to have you both back because we've run out of seconds.

MCSWEENEY: You better have us back, Alan.

KEYES: We sure will. I'll be glad to do it.

Next — next, we will get to my outrage of the day.

But, first, does this make sense? Congress doled out $20.1 billion for pet projects in fiscal year 2002, according to the Citizens Against Government Waste Annual Pig Book. Their annual report was issued today.

A youth outreach program in Missouri expected to spend $273,000 to combat goth culture; $50,000 for tattoo removal in San Luis Obispo, California; $400,000 to restore chimneys on Cumberland Island in Georgia. That money's really going up in smoke.

In 2001, there was $18.5 billion in pork-barrel spending. Pentagon officials, by the way, predict an $18-billion shortfall in the defense budget to fight the war on terrorism. So which do you think is more important — our security or the pig book and the pork? I think we need to get rid of this rancid pork, don't you, and not sacrifice our security?

Does this make sense?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Now time for my outrage of the day.

You heard that Colin Powell is going to meet with Yasser Arafat. Now here is what Colin Powell said about that possible meeting on “Meet the Press” on Sunday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: So, if circumstances permit, if the opportunity presents itself, I would try to see Chairman Arafat as well as other Palestinian leaders.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: If circumstances permit. Now what circumstances do we face? We had Bibi Netanyahu on the network saying that a 10-year-old had carried out the suicide bombing that killed 13 Israeli soldiers today. And in the context of that abuse of a child's life, here's what Colin Powell had to say about the meeting with Chairman Arafat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

POWELL: I'm looking forward to conversations with the prime minister, and I intend to meet with Chairman Arafat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: You know what I think is sad? By going ahead with this meeting, it appears that Colin Powell is saying that we have no choice but to foist off on the Palestinian people the kind of leaders that will take children and send them to their deaths, that will consciously make use of those young lives as instruments of destruction and self-destruction.

I don't think that that's good for the Palestinian people, and I sure don't think it sends the kind of message about America's attitude toward terrorism that is going to quell the temptation on the part of these terrorists to believe that no matter how abusive they become of human life, even when they take the innocent lives of children and use them abusively to take the innocent lives of others, we will still be talking to them.

Why doesn't he open up negotiations with Osama bin Laden because I can't think he's that much worse.

That's my sense of it.

Thanks. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.