MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesApril 16, 2002
ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Up front tonight, we return to our discussion of the crisis in the Catholic Church. I'm sure a lot of you are aware that there have been some major developments in the course of the last several days. The pope has summoned American cardinals to an unprecedented meeting in Rome. The official statement from the Vatican says that the object of the meeting is, quote, “The examination of the problems that have come to exist in the church in the United States, following the scandals connected with pedophilia, and the indication of guidelines towards the end of and returning security and serenity and to the families and trust to the clergy and the faithful.”
Now, obviously, a lot of folks in the Catholic Church, especially among the laity, who have been concerned about the growing scandal and who have had their confidence, I think, shaken in the hierarchy — their faith is secure, but their confidence shaken — have looked to the Vatican with the hope that the pope and the Holy See would ride to the rescue. In one respect, it would seem that this unprecedented call to the cardinals to come to Rome offers some hope.
But for those who have been calling for and expecting the resignation of some of the cardinals and major figures whose judgment had been deeply called into question as facts and events have come to the fore in the course of the last several weeks, for those who are hoping for that and believing perhaps that the meeting in Rome might result in some such change, within the past couple of hours we've learned that Boston's Cardinal Law, whose archdiocese has been rocked by the scandal, was in Rome for the past few days.
And tonight, in a statement, Cardinal Law said — quote — “The fact that my resignation has been proposed as necessary was part of my presentation. I had the opportunity to meet with several officials of the Holy See. The Holy Father graciously received me. As a result of my stay in Rome, I return home encouraged in my efforts to provide the strongest possible leadership in ensuring as far as humanly possible that no child is ever abused again by a priest of this archdiocese.”
Obviously, that last part doesn't sound like somebody who is expecting to resign or whose resignation is anticipated. That could throw a damper on the expectations of some around the country and in the laity that were looking for that kind of decisive action from the Holy Father.
But it could very well be that the meeting that will take place in Rome also takes place in the backdrop of an understanding among the American prelate prelates that differ sharply from the deep concern within the laity. Here, for instance, is what William Cardinal Keeler, archbishop of Baltimore, had to say today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM CARDINAL KEELER, ARCHBISHOP OF BALTIMORE: It's really the media of the United States that have made it an American problem. We're in this feeding frenzy situation right now where the coverage of cases of 20, 30 years ago is being plastered in headlines.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: I think the sad thing is that it's not the media's coverage, it's rather the hierarchy's cover-up that has caused the greatest concern and shaken the confidence most greatly. It's not the sins of individual priests that have shaken our confidence. I think a lot of folks expect that sinful folks are going to be there.
But when you see cardinals and bishops dealing with that challenge of sin in a way that seems to aid, abet, and be complacent in the perpetuation of the sinning, that I think is what has caused the great challenge. And yet it seems that among the prelates in the American church there's a sense that the crises is somewhere else, the crises doesn't involve them. And yet sadly, it very much involves them and the question mark that has been placed behind their judgment and behind the confidence lay people can have in that judgment as a result of the scandal.
The cardinal — archbishop of Baltimore refers to the fact that these things are 20 and 30 years old. That's because, at least on the basis of the facts in some of these cases, cover-ups were successful for 20 or 30 years. But to say that now that we've discovered the cover-up it's irrelevant because it's not news in terms of the offense, no, it doesn't quite work that way when you're dealing with this kind of offense.
We are going to be talking about that in the course of the program. And joining me up front here, we have Bill Donahue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, and Anthony Padovano, founder or Corpus, an organization that advocates allowing married men and women to serve as Catholic priests. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
WILLIAM DONOHUE, PRESIDENT, CATHOLIC LEAGUE FOR RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHTS: Thank you.
KEYES: First question I want to put on the table, and I will start with you, Bill Donahue, is what do you think one can expect from the meeting that the Holy Father has called in Rome for next week of the American cardinals?
DONOHUE: I think you are going to get rid of the confusion that exists right now. On the table there are all kind of proposals and reforms. Some of them make sense. Some of them are nonsense.
What the pope is going to do is he's going to guide them and he's going to give them some direction so they can talk with a consensus and stop with the itemization that exists even within the Catholic Church so that when the bishops — rather, when the cardinals meet with the bishops in Dallas in June, they will have a coherent, well thought out plan as to what to do. They will put some things on the table that will make some sense at that point. And they do need the intervention of the Holy Father, if for no other reason than to assure lay-Catholics in this country that they got the message in Rome that this is in a crisis stage.
KEYES: Anthony Padovano, what is your sense of the expectations we can have of the meeting in Rome next week?
ANTHONY PADOVANO, FAVORS MARRIAGE FOR PRIESTS: I do not have any great expectations of it, Alan. I'm afraid that the fact that the leadership did not come from the American church to me is extremely disappointing. I think, furthermore, that the effort in Rome will be to do something that has to be done, to stop as fast as possible this horror of pedophilia.
But the underlying problem that has given rise to it is not going to be addressed, at least not under this papacy. And I think until that happens, you will not have a restoration of trust in the leadership of the American church.
KEYES: What is your sense of that underlying problem? What do you think it is?
PADOVANO: I think the underlying problem is abuse of power and sense of entitlement. I think it's not following through on the promise of the second Vatican Council. It was that the church should be a collegial organization, one in which the laity do not have a decisive role. I don't think Catholic laity expect that, but that they have a fully consultative role, that they're able to discuss the issues that they think are crucial to their spiritual development and to the development of a church that they love very much.
That kind of an agenda is extremely low in this particular papacy. A good papacy in many ways that's done some startling and wonderful things, but a papacy that I think has missed its moment in history as far as the key issues facing the church's internal life, its internal developmental existence.
KEYES: Bill Donohue, one of the internal things that I felt as I was looking at the developments in the course of the last couple of days and then reading Cardinal Law's statement today was the sense that up until now, there has been a feeling that this was an American problem within the hierarchy in America, questions about the judgment of American prelates. Isn't there a danger of having this now reach to the Holy Father himself if there is a perception that he is somehow tolerating — what shall we call them — the grievous errors that were made by somebody like Cardinal Law? I mean, isn't there a danger that will seem as if, OK, the Holy Father is OK with that and thinks that that is not really a problem. Isn't it true in the perception of a lot of folks within the church, it is the cover-up that was the major problem?
DONOHUE: Well, that's true. It's not only the problem of sexually immature men, which is what Anthony doesn't want to talk about, which is driving the problem, and some guys who can't keep their hands off the boys — it's mostly the boys, not the girls — we've got to talk about that.
But the fact of the matter is that if the pope had pulled back and taken a laissez faire attitude, then I think people would say, “Well, I guess the pope doesn't get it. He's just going to shove the problem back to the United States.” The fact that he's intervening I think is healthy because the cardinals in this country do need his good advice and directions.
KEYES: Well, but isn't the first step going to have to be — because I find that I know that the words say I'm going to go back, and I'm going to assure confidence, and I'm going to make sure that no child is abused,” but one of the great problems, Bill, is that as I have listened and looked at the words and actions of some of the prelates, there has been what appears to be a decided indifference to the enormous gravity of the moral dereliction that has been involved in this whole business. And to say that Cardinal Law, who sadly has given evidence of just that kind of dereliction, is now going to solve the problem, why should one have confidence that someone who showed such a decided errors of judgment has the ability to solve the problem now?
DONOHUE: Well, first of all, he's not going to solve the problem. That's exactly why you've got the cardinals going over to Rome to meet with the pope next week. And then there are over 400 bishops in the United States. And they will sit down with all of them in June, and they will collectively come to a consensus.
But they can't come to a consensus unless the cardinals are onboard first. The cardinals themselves, some of them haven't done a particularly good job on this, which is why the Holy Father should intervene. This is a crisis. For the Holy Father to sit back and say, “Fellows, business as usual,” would be an abomination.
PADOVANO: May I say something on that, if I might?
KEYES: Sure. Come on in.
PADOVANO: Part of my concern is this. I think the way the Vatican thinks is that if we have a single cardinal resign, then we're giving into the laity. In some way, we're giving them a voice. We're legitimizing their outrage. And, therefore, we may start a process that we are not able to control.
But the irony in all of that is that by not listening to the laity on this, the longer that Law and some of these other bishops are there, the worse the crisis will get. In a sense, it's the very perpetuity of keeping a person in that position that makes the outrage harder for the institutional church to turn around. They're acting against their own self-interests.
DONOHUE: But, Anthony, there's the laity and there's the laity. I mean, you were part of a movement a few years ago which was a monumental flop. When your church group said you were going to get a million signatures to change the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality. You got 37,000 after a year-and-a-half and all kinds of money. A third of those 37,000 weren't even Catholic. You bribed kids and gave them a buck for every name.
I mean, look, where you're at, I'm sure you're a good man, Anthony. But the fact of the matter is you're on the left wing fringe. You're not in the position to solve the problem, which is something that guys like you helped to create.
PADOVANO: Bill, you know all the Gallup polls, all the surveys, all the studies that have been done show that about 80 percent of the American people want a married priesthood. And 80 percent of the American people are against...
(CROSSTALK)
PADOVANO: ... birth control.
DONOHUE: Well, we have got 63 million Catholics in this country, and you have 80 percent of them, you should have gotten about 40 million Catholics. You had 37,000 sign your petition.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: If I may intervene for a moment here, I have to say that I think we're seeing an illustration of two sides of this problem.
PADOVANO: Sure.
KEYES: On the one hand, I happen to believe that the notion that having a cardinal resign gives into the laity or gives in to the media or something is a huge mistake. In fact, right now it would be an assertion of papal authority that would, in fact, preserve the health of the church, focus attention on our needs to be subject to that authority within the church, and give the pope a tremendous opportunity to set the terms of renewal in the context of this necessity for his healthy intervention.
To miss this opportunity is, in my opinion, a great mistake. And I am kind of dismayed at the thought the Holy See is looking at this situation and not realizing the kind of help that is really needed.
But on the other hand, Anthony Padovano, I think Bill is right. One of the roots of the problem is prelates, who because of the secularizing influence of a lot of people who don't want to take seriously the implications of doctrine with respect to human sexuality, we're looking the other way and trying to be tolerant of things that were grave sins in total contradiction with the church's teaching about the nature of the relationship between men and women and the real nature of human sexuality. In one respect, we can't ignore either element of this crisis, the moral spiritual element that is based on these wrong-headed notions of human sexuality, or the element of leadership that I think now requires that the pope assert his authority in such a way as to renew and change that leadership.
PADOVANO: But the very crisis, Alan, has been caused by the fact that people were making light — the leaders of the church were making light of this sexual deviation. That's the whole source of the problem. Wasn't there healthy sexuality in the response of the Catholic laity at large that said this is an abomination and an outrage that we cannot tolerate? Where was the healthier sexual leadership there?
DONOHUE: Yes, but, Anthony, most Catholics agreed that there are a lot of acts of perversion that have been committed by some of these priests. You have been associated with movements, which you want to legitimize this. So, I don't quite understand where you're coming from.
PADOVANO: That would want to legitimize this? How do you figure that, Bill? How do you argue that?
DONOHUE: If you go right down the line between abortion, homosexuality, adultery, which one of the churches teachings do you accept?
PADOVANO: Bill, you know that I do not favor that whole list of things...
DONOHUE: Answer me. Answer me.
PADOVANO: ... that I'm in favor of adultery. Now, Bill, come on, we've got to be honest with each other...
DONOHUE: (INAUDIBLE) sexuality...
PADOVANO: ... No, listen, we're both responsible people who love the church. And both of us I think are healthy in what we want for spiritual development.
DONOHUE: Do you agree with the Catholic Church's teachings on homosexuality? Yes or no?
PADOVANO: No, I do not agree...
DONOHUE: (INAUDIBLE)...
PADOVANO: ... Wait, wait, wait, now let me finish. I don't agree, nor do I think you do that sexuality is an intrinsic perversion. Do you really believe that?
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Excuse me, can I introduce a moment? This whole discussion, Anthony Padovano, I think, shows that you have a misunderstanding. The whole notion that you can consider sexuality apart from God's plan for marriage and procreation is totally contrary to faith and doctrine. So, the whole consideration of any such thing in the context of homosexuality is absurd from the point of view of the Catholic faith.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: But I'm sorry, we've reached the end of our time. Sorry. We've reached the end of our time. I'm going to have to thank both of you. I really appreciate you coming. This is obviously just the beginning of a discussion that we're going to continue to get back to over time.
Next, we get to the heart of the matter when we will ask these questions. Is the crisis managerial or spiritual or in both? What kinds of reforms are needed? And will the Holy Father's intervention be decisive?
But first, tell me, do you think this makes sense? In Iowa, I believe, you have two teams competing in a math contest. Hours after finishing third behind Iowa City High and Cedar Falls at the contest, the University of Northern Iowa on Saturday, the West High School team returned to Iowa city to recheck the scores. Well, it's a good thing they did, because there was a 60-point scoring error, which had been made by the teachers scoring the test. Well, it sure is a good thing that the teachers weren't competing in that contest, isn't it? Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: With friends like these, well, we will get into that in the next half hour. Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
A reminder that the chat room is humming tonight. And you can join right in now at chat.msnbc.com.
Let's get back, though, to the crises in the church. Joining us now to get to the heart of the matter, Keith Fournier, the founder and president of Common Good, an organization dedicated to promoting Christian social values. He's also a married deacon.
With us also, Monsignor Tom McSweeney, a MSNBC religion analyst, and former national director of Christophers.org, a Catholic media outreach organization. And Linda Pieczynski, the spokeswoman for Call to Action, a Catholic grassroots organization that promotes church openness in its structures and practices.
Everyone, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
MONSIGNOR TOM MCSWEENEY, MSNBC RELIGION ANALYST: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: Thank you. Some important and dramatic developments in the church crises, including an intervention from the Holy Father that seems to offer some hope, paralleled with some signs that, I think, maybe the Catholic hierarchy still doesn't get the real nature of the problem. And the question, what is all of this going to add up to in terms of the meeting in Rome and the kind of reforms and approaches that we can expect to come out of it?
Let me start with you, Tom McSweeney, in terms of your sense of where all of this is taking the Catholic Church and whether we can expect this intervention from the Holy Father to be a decisive one.
MCSWEENEY: Indeed, I think we can expect a great deal on the issue of child abuse. Cardinal McCarrick revealed that a week-and-a-half ago when he was in the Vatican and he sat with the pope, the pope was brought close to tears as he expressed, “How could this happen? How could this happen to the children?”
The Pope's primary concern is the abuse of these children, children. His love for children has been the — I would say right up there as one of the primary hallmarks of his papacy, his love for youth. Look how he traveled around the world to all these youth conferences.
The pope is going to get to the bottom of this sexual abuse of children. He is not going to tolerate that. And Cardinal McCarrick led us into the direction to understand that the expectation of the cardinals when they get over there is that he is going to insist that they come up with a coherent policy that can be adapted in this country nationally.
One of the problems that we have in the Catholic Church systemically is that all of the 400 or so dioceses operate almost autonomously from one other. Each one has a different policy. You've seen that develop in this particular incidence where Brooklyn has a different policy from, say, Hartford does on (INAUDIBLE)...
KEYES: Tom, if I could interrupt for a second...
MCSWEENEY: ... but what the pope is going to insist is that when the bishops get together in June, they have a coherent, national policy that can be applied throughout all diocese.
KEYES: See, but I think one of the problems, and I think you're accurate and right that to deal with the managerial problems, something like that is going to be needed. But what I wonder is the answer to that very question — Why did this happen? — is in fact not addressed by that kind of policy.
The why is not about management and policy structure. The why particularly of the reaction of the hierarchy, the willingness in some of these cases to cover up and cooperate in sweeping these things under the rug.
Let me turn to Keith Fournier. And, Keith, in following up on what Father Tom has said, don't we have a moral-spiritual dimension here that needs to be addressed here in terms of what understanding or misunderstanding made it possible for some of these prelates to have such grave misjudgments in this case?
KEITH FOURNIER, DEACON, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, COMMON GOOD: Alan, I think you're right. And that's why I have such hope because we also have a pope in the chair of Peter who is profoundly spiritual, who is a man of deep prayer, and a man who knows in the first instance that what is going on in the church right now is a time of purification. And I know that he hopes it precedes what he has called for, a new springtime.
So, I was not surprised to hear that he summoned the cardinals to Rome. And I expect that we are going to see something very, very significant occur.
Yes, we're going to see a uniform approach to dealing with the systemic problem. Yes, we're going to see reforms in the whole process of inviting men to consider the priesthood, perhaps a seminary system. But I think we are going to see also a new outpouring of prayer, spiritual renewal, and dealing with the deeper issues. This is a time of purification for the church...
KEYES: Well, let me ask you a question.
FOURNIER: ... and she will come out the other side.
KEYES: In terms of that purification, I have got to tell you, part of the problem that I see here is that there was an influence of a secular and worldly understanding of human sexuality...
FOURNIER: I agree, Alan.
KEYES: ... within the context of the American hierarchy, the adoption of understandings that had nothing to do with Catholic doctrine with respect to human procreation and so forth. Are we going to see an effort to present and apply the actual principles of the Catholic faith to the challenge of human sexuality?
FOURNIER: Alan, I think that's the only solution. And remember, this is the pope, who perhaps more than any other pope in history has written extensively on this subject. We've spoken before, the entire five-year catechesis that he delivered, it's been summarized and called the theology of the body.
He has so much to offer. And it is time the church hear what he has to offer, but not only hear it, incorporate it, and make it part of the catechetical instruction, the preparation for marriage, the discernment process for priesthood, or a call to the deaconate, religious life. The whole teaching of this pope on human sexuality is the solution and the way out of this problem.
KEYES: Linda Pieczynski, do you think that this Holy Father in terms of his background and teaching and the kind of approach he is likely to take offers hope for getting beyond this crisis?
LINDA PIECZYNSKI, SPOKESWOMAN, CALL TO ACTION: Well, one would hope, obviously, that he would address the problem of the victims above anything else. And I'm sure that is his intent.
However, in order to truly do that, he is going to need to clean house. And that means he needs to ask the cardinals to step down who have been accountable for the abuse of children.
Cardinal Law put people in positions where children were abused. And those people's lives have been destroyed because of his action, in addition to the priests who were doing these terrible deeds. And I don't have a lot of hope that the hierarchy is going to be able to restore trust among the Catholic people without the input from the Catholic people.
The first thing that needs to be done is the church has to be out of the business of investigating these child abuse allegations and leave it up to law enforcement because, in addition to it being a managerial and a spiritual problem, ultimately it's a criminal problem. As a former prosecutor, I personally know of instances where the church has just done the wrong thing just to try to hide, basically, its sins from the people and make the church look good on the backs of victims. And that has to stop.
And I don't know if the pope, given his current frailty, from what we're hearing is that he is very ill, that many days he is not fully engaged in what is going on. And the question is, who is really making the decisions, and who is going to be making the decisions in this matter?
I read that they're going to be members of the curiae that are going to be involved in this discussion. And people who should be involved in this discussion are the people, for example, in Boston who have suffered this terrible tragedy. They should be at the table giving advice as to what they think will lead to the healing of people.
KEYES: Now, following up on what Linda is saying, and this I address now to Keith and Tom both, I have to tell you that when I read Cardinal Law's statement, which just came out in the last couple of hours in which he basically says that he met with the pope, met with the folks at the Vatican, and gives the impression that he is just going to go on and be charged with improving the situation and so forth and so on, Keith, Tom, I have to tell you, I don't feel much confidence in that. And I don't think many people do.
We need words. And we need thought. And we need certain kinds of action. But don't we also need some sign that the hierarchy in America understands that it is one element of the problem here? The problem isn't just priests that abuse.
(CROSSTALK)
FOURNIER: I think it remains to be seen what is going to happen. Watch for the next two or three weeks. And this notion that this pope is to weak to lead I completely reject. This is an extraordinary, vital pope.
PIECZYNSKI: Well...
FOURNIER: Also remember, the prelates you mentioned, ma'am, you are coming — people like Cardinal Ratzinger, who is one of the strongest leaders in the church today — and he is going to speak to the issues that we addressed earlier, doctrine of the spiritual dimension.
But the most important thing — and, by the way, I'm a former prosecutor — is it's not either-or, it's both-and. We have got to deal with the criminal realities there. There has to be full prosecution. There has to be restitution to the victims. Everyone agrees. But at another root level here, we have to deal with the spiritual malady.
PIECZYNSKI: But our leaders need to take — I agree we need to deal with the spiritual level — our leaders need to take responsibility.
FOURNIER: I don't disagree with that.
PIECZYNSKI: But what we are hearing are excuses. Cardinal Law chalks this up to bad record keeping. I mean, that is a slap in the face to the victims. How can the victims heal when one of the people that caused the terrible tragedy to them is still in a position of power? It's like being victimized all over again.
KEYES: If I can add to that, if I can add to that, Tom, I alluded when the show opened to a statement by Archbishop Keeler in Baltimore basically saying this is a media assault and so forth and so on. I think the notion that somehow or another this problem results from a media attack is a denial of reality.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Wait a minute. Doesn't that suggest, Father Tom, that the American prelates have not faced up as yet to their own responsibility here?
MCSWEENEY: Indeed. There are seriously issues right now with cardinal law avoiding this camera lens. To direct his message that he's not going to step out of the job through his priests was really kind of a diffusion. I think that he's trying to negotiate himself into a position where he can step out gracefully.
Make no mistake of it. I can see the pope sitting there, even in his feeble state, looking at Cardinal Law and saying, “Bernie, what would happen if you stepped out? What would be the good of that for the church? And what would be the good of that for all of those that we have already injured?” Again, those abused children are his first concern.
And they are going to discuss the domino effect. You know, if Cardinal Law goes, what about the two bishops that were a part of the structure that allowed that abuse to take place? They're going to have to get into those issues. And I tell you this pope is going to say this has to be a part of your discussion when you get together with the rest of the bishops in Dallas in June.
KEYES: I want to thank all of you for coming tonight, and I think that I at least am rendered hopeful by the Holy Father's intervention. But I hope that the American prelates will go to Rome with the sense that one of the things that must be looked at is their own responsibility and the fact that confidence wasn't just shaken in priests, it was shaken in these prelates.
Next, Saudi Arabia. Are they praising terrorism, and what does it mean?
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia's going to be visiting with President Bush next week, and, of course, he comes to America under the guise of friendship with the Saudi Arabians saying that they support us in the war against terrorism and so forth.
Now there are a whole lot of reasons, as I've pointed out on this show before, to question Saudi Arabia's relationship with terrorists — the flow of their money, the involvement of their citizens, the support they have given to various front groups for terrorism around the world.
All of these things are on the record, on the table, raising serious questions about whether the Saudis aren't, in fact, part of, even sponsors of the terrorism problem. This is the difficulty. This is the question.
Now one would think they'd want to be really careful not to feed these suspicions in any way, and yet the Saudi ambassador to Britain, a renowned poet, has praised Palestinian suicide bombers and criticized the United States in a poem published Saturday in a Pan-Arab daily.
Ghazi Algosaibi wrote in “The Martyrs,” a short poem published on the front page of the London-based daily, “Al Hayat,” he wrote the following — quote — “May God be the witness that you are martyrs. You died to honor God's word. You committed suicide. We committed suicide by living like the dead.”
And he's referring to the suicide bombers who have gone against Israelis, gone against Israeli civilians, and so forth, and that becomes even more clear as we move along in his poem.
In an apparent reference to Arab leaders looking to the United States for help in ending Israeli-Palestinian violence, Algosaibi, who has served as ambassador to London for more than a decade, wrote, quote, “We complained to the idols of a White House whose heart is filled with darkness.” Now remember this is the Saudi ambassador to Great Britain, and he is writing in a tone that praises suicide bombers, refers to the United States as if we're some dark place of evil.
And, finally, in his poem, Algosaibi referred to 18-year-old female terrorist suicide bomber Ayat Akhras, who detonated explosives strapped to her body at a Jerusalem supermarket on March 29th, killing two Israelis and wounding 25, the following pane of praise to her. He writes, and I quote, “Tell Ayat, the bride of loftiness, she embraced death with a smile, while the leaders are running away from death. Doors of heaven are opened for her,” he wrote.
And it seemed to me that you look at this, and you would start — a reasonable person might conclude that this is a pane of praise to terrorism and that terrorist suicide bombers come in for the approval of the Saudi government. After all, this is Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Great Britain.
And you would say, “Oh, no, Alan. It was just a poem,” and so forth. Well, I know that when you're sitting in a country as an ambassador, everything that you do and say is scrutinized insofar as you represent and it represents your country amongst those people, and everybody who's been involved in diplomacy knows this.
So if he publishes a poem like this on the front page of the Arab daily, don't tell me that it doesn't have implications for Saudi Arabia's attitude on this score. And if it doesn't, then the government needs to reprimand him and make clear their separation.
Well, who are they? Friends? Enemies? Are they against terrorism, part of the problem?
Joining us now to discuss all this is Jean AbiNader, managing director for the Arab American Institute, a group representing Arab-American interests in government and politics, and Stephen Schwartz, author of the upcoming book “The Two Faces of Islam.”
Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JEAN ABINADER, ARAB-AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Thank you.
STEPHEN SCHWARTZ, SAUDI EXPERT: Thank you, Alan. It's good to be back.
KEYES: Jean, welcome back.
You know, Jean, since you know me a little bit now, that looking at the ambassador's poem, well, my mischievous mind just went to all kinds of places as I looked at this, but it sure does seem to me to raise a question about Saudi Arabia's attitude toward terrorism.
Do you think it's appropriate for Saudi Arabia's ambassador to a major country like the — Great Britain to be praising terrorists by name and suggesting that they get the great rewards of heaven for their terrorist acts?
ABINADER: Well, as you pointed out, Ghazi Algosaibi is a well-known poet in the Arab world.
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
KEYES: Jean AbiNader, go ahead.
ABINADER: Oh, I'm sorry.
KEYES: That's all right.
ABINADER: You know, he's a well-known poet. He — and I'm not going to sit here and have a literary excursus review about the poem itself, but I think it's very consistent with the way Arab poetry is constructed, and that is he's taking a case that's very, in his mind, spiritual and making a case for supporting it in terms of morality.
Now we're calling it terrorism. We're saying it is criminal behavior to kill innocent people. And he's saying that — as you've heard before, that people are driven to these kinds of acts because they think their life is so desperate.
So I agree the difficulty is should an ambassador be saying this as opposed to someone who is a political commentator or someone who is trying to create a case for a position that they're taking, but I don't think it reflects the attitude or the behavior of the Saudi government. Ghazi Algosaibi is known for this kind of behavior.
KEYES: Don't you think the Saudi government needs to make that clear, because it seems to me — we have on the record — see, this is my problem — a number of areas where the involvement of Saudi Arabians and Saudi money and other Saudi things — that aren't official, mind you, but that still raise some eyebrows about the role that Saudi Arabia's playing in the whole terrorist network —
Doesn't this kind of a poem and this kind of praise that seems to reflect the most extremist and violent views kind of suggest that, amongst the Saudis, who are most influential, like this ambassador, there is actually not just tolerance for but encouragement and support for this terrorism?
ABINADER: I don't think in their mind it's terrorism. You know, the Palestinians are being occupied. Their sense is that, if Israel is really interested in peace, that they would be working with the United States government over the past two years to try to forge something that would bring both parties to the table.
Obviously, the Palestinians have made some real mistakes. Colin Powell's trying to get some direction there. But Israel also has made some real mistakes.
But the question here, ultimately, Alan, is the one you asked at the beginning of the show, and that is can the Saudis bring something to the table that will helpful to the United States and end the violence in moving both parties toward negotiations, and I think that's really what we should be focusing on.
KEYES: Well, see — but I have a problem, and it's one thing that we mustn't forget here. When I listen to the Saudi ambassador praising suicide bombers who are going against who? You know, he identified the United States as a force of darkness there.
And this is an academic for us, you understand, because thousands of Americans are dead at the hands of Saudi citizens who took out the World Trade Center, killed our people...
ABINADER: I think if you look at...
KEYES: Now you've got to let me finish because I'm waxing a little outrage because it is outrageous, OK. We have been victims of this. He points to us, says we're the darkness, and then praises suicide bombers like the ones who killed our people, and we're then supposed to look at this...
ABINADER: I don't think that's what he said at all.
KEYES: ... objectively, like some kind of diplomatic maneuver?
ABINADER: I think what he's saying — he is not equating what happened at the World Trade Center with what's happening in Palestine. I think you're mixing the metaphors because you said you're angry and you want to vent something.
But the reality is, if you look historically, what happened when the Irish Republican Army was doing what they were doing in Britain and in Northern Ireland, which were clearly acts of terror. They were supported by a lot of Americans and by a lot of American politicians.
But we didn't have roundups of American politicians and say, “Shame on you for praising the Irish in the newspapers and saying”...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I didn't make the connection with the United States. He did in his poem.
ABINADER: No. He said the White House is the source of darkness?
KEYES: That's exactly right.
ABINADER: And Tom Payne...
KEYES: I think the White House refers to something...
ABINADER: ... said the same thing about the British during the Revolutionary War.
KEYES: The White House refers to something else than the United States, John? Let's not play games here.
Stephen Schwartz...
SCHWARTZ: Yes, sir.
KEYES: ... what do you think of all of this? I'm watching this...
SCHWARTZ: Well, first of all...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... raises a lot of questions for me.
SCHWARTZ: First of all, I think it is utterly ridiculous to talk about spirituality, morality, and desperation. We are talking about the Saudi monarchy and its wealthy representative sitting in a comfortable palace in London. This man is not moral, is not spiritual. He is not — definitely not desperate.
Another thing is this poem is not some symbolic literary work that you have to deconstruct. It says what it says.
Another thing is you can argue about whether it's terrorism. You can't argue about whether it's death. The Saudis are preaching death. The Saudis are preaching to the Palestinian people that they should not take the road of peace, that they should continue to take the road of suicide.
Now I'm sorry. This is based in Saudi Wahhabism, which is a cult of death. It's the official form of Islam in Saudi Arabia. It tells the Muslims of the world that it is better to die and go to paradise than it is to live. He says it in the poem.
He says that it's as if he committed suicide. I'm sorry. This man has not committed suicide. This man is not living in hell and is not dead. He is very rich.
KEYES: Hold on.
SCHWARTZ: He is very powerful. He is very influential. He is very corrupt, and he represents the most corrupt, most hypocritical, and, frankly, the most evil regime in the world...
KEYES: Now, Steve...
SCHWARTZ: ... and that regime exists because of our generosity.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I want you both to stick around now. I know it's very intense, but calm down just a little bit. Relax for a second here. We're going to you both back right after this break.
And later, just in case you haven't seen enough outrage yet, you're going to see my outrage of the day.
But, first, do you think this makes sense?
The principal at T.R. Smedberg Middle School in Elk Grove, California, held meetings last week for parents to discuss their childrens' scores on standardized tests. There were four meetings in all, with separate gatherings for whites, Asians, blacks, and Hispanics. Separate but equal. We've heard about this one.
The principal, who is ballistic, said the segregated meetings were designed to, quote, “get real honest answers” from black and Hispanic parents whose children were among the lowest scores and to allow them to speak freely without embarrassment.
Well, tell me, after all these years fighting against segregation, does it really make sense to reintroduce it on the flimsy excuse that people can't talk in the presence of other groups? Because if that's the case, it seems to me we're going to have segregation all over this very diverse society.
Do you think this makes sense, because I sure don't.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back.
We're talking about Saudi Arabia's ambiguous, not to say duplicitous stance in the war on terror. With us is Jean AbiNader of the Arab American Institute, and Stephen Schwartz, author of the upcoming book “The Two Faces of Islam.”
Now, Stephen, when we left, you were making some pretty strong statements suggesting that the apparent ambiguity here is really pretty deeply rooted both in religion and in practice in Saudi Arabia.
SCHWARTZ: There's a deep hypocrisy in the Saudi regime, and there is a deep evil in the Wahhaby death cult, and the fact is that the Saudi regime, to try to maintain its credibility and its legitimacy in the Muslim world, promotes the Saudi death cult.
The fact is they tell us on the one side they love us, they love the United States, they want to support us, they want to help us, and then this Crown Prince Abdullah comes up with this utterly hypocritical and phony peace offer.
I'd like to say one thing about this peace offer. I think that Crown Prince Abdullah insulted Israel and the Jewish people because he thought that the Jews would haggle for peace and that this would get the United States to quit asking the Saudi monarchy uncomfortable questions about 9/11.
And, frankly, the so-called Saudi peace offer is a peace offer that essentially takes the role of negotiator out of the hands of the Palestinians. It locks the Palestinians out.
And here's Crown Prince Abdullah, this incredibly immoral, corrupt, evil figure, coming and basically saying, “Well, I'll settle everything for you, and you won't have to worry about those Palestinians anymore.”
ABINADER: Alan, can I ask a question, please?
KEYES: Yeah. Jean AbiNader, go ahead. Yeah.
ABINADER: Yeah. You know, I first went to the Arab world — you know, I'm an American. I was born in this country. I went first to the Arab world in 1971, and I first went to Saudi Arabia in 1976.
I've never heard of Stephen Schwartz, and yet you have a byline that says he's a Saudi expert. He obviously doesn't know what Wahhabism is. He doesn't know anything about...
SCHWARTZ: Oh, now don't start with that.
ABINADER: ... Crown Prince Abdullah.
SCHWARTZ: You don't want to go there.
ABINADER: You know, it reminds me of like...
SCHWARTZ: You don't want to go there.
(CROSSTALK)
ABINADER: ... writing a book about security in Saudi Arabia having never been to the country.
SCHWARTZ: You don't want to go there.
ABINADER: Obviously, this is a guy who's....
(CROSSTALK)
ABINADER: ... Saudis and doesn't really understand, one, the dynamics of the Saudi society or, two, the role that Crown Prince Abdullah is playing...
SCHWARTZ: You don't want to go there.
ABINADER: ... among the Arab countries.
KEYES: Wait, wait, wait.
ABINADER: Steve, I do want to go there because...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Hold on, guys.
SCHWARTZ: First of all...
KEYES: Hold on a second.
SCHWARTZ: ... the Saudi regime does not allow journalists in.
KEYES: Stephen, hold on. I have a remark to make here that I think ought to be pretty clear.
Jean AbiNader, you'd be on less shaky ground with all of this if when dealing with the questions of the Saudi ambassador's support for terrorism and killing and other signs that we have seen of Saudi encouragement of this terrorism —
You'd be on stronger ground criticizing Stephen Schwartz in this regard if the response to that, meaning no offense, from you and others isn't just a lot of double talk that distracts from the facts that these folks have expressed their support for this outrageous terrorism. You say this man is lying, but the fact suggests that there's a dualism, that there is the support for death and terrorism.
Explain it please.
ABINADER: Gladly. Number one, I already said that I can't read Ghazi Algosaibi's mind, but I understand what he is trying to say — and remember his Ph.D. from the USC is in comparative literature — is that, in his mind, what people are doing is resisting an occupation by whatever tools they want to use. I'm not saying I agree with it, and I said that at the beginning, and I'm not saying that justifies suicide bombers.
(CROSSTALK)
ABINADER: I can't justify what Ghazi Algosaibi wants to say because that is not my job. My question to you is...
KEYES: Jean, hold on. We're up against a break.
ABINADER: My question to you is: Do we have a role, a constructive role that Saudi Arabia can play in terms of bringing peace to the Middle East, and I...
KEYES: John, let me answer that question.
(CROSSTALK)
ABINADER: Very quickly, let me answer that question.
The only person — way you can let somebody play a constructive role is if, on a given day of the week, you can trust what they tell you. If somebody is smiling in your face and supporting those who are killing your pop and stabbing you in the back, I don't see that their role is constructive. It's more likely to be deceptive.
Thank you both for joining me.
Next, on my outrage of the day, a little bit more on Saudi Arabia's — shall we call it — ambiguity on these topics, when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Here is my outrage of the day.
Can you believe that Saudi Arabia's American ambassador has said that George Washington is a terrorist like Yasser Arafat? Well, he didn't send any 18-year-olds out to kill innocent people. Thanks for being with me. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. See you tomorrow.
Up front tonight, we return to our discussion of the crisis in the Catholic Church. I'm sure a lot of you are aware that there have been some major developments in the course of the last several days. The pope has summoned American cardinals to an unprecedented meeting in Rome. The official statement from the Vatican says that the object of the meeting is, quote, “The examination of the problems that have come to exist in the church in the United States, following the scandals connected with pedophilia, and the indication of guidelines towards the end of and returning security and serenity and to the families and trust to the clergy and the faithful.”
Now, obviously, a lot of folks in the Catholic Church, especially among the laity, who have been concerned about the growing scandal and who have had their confidence, I think, shaken in the hierarchy — their faith is secure, but their confidence shaken — have looked to the Vatican with the hope that the pope and the Holy See would ride to the rescue. In one respect, it would seem that this unprecedented call to the cardinals to come to Rome offers some hope.
But for those who have been calling for and expecting the resignation of some of the cardinals and major figures whose judgment had been deeply called into question as facts and events have come to the fore in the course of the last several weeks, for those who are hoping for that and believing perhaps that the meeting in Rome might result in some such change, within the past couple of hours we've learned that Boston's Cardinal Law, whose archdiocese has been rocked by the scandal, was in Rome for the past few days.
And tonight, in a statement, Cardinal Law said — quote — “The fact that my resignation has been proposed as necessary was part of my presentation. I had the opportunity to meet with several officials of the Holy See. The Holy Father graciously received me. As a result of my stay in Rome, I return home encouraged in my efforts to provide the strongest possible leadership in ensuring as far as humanly possible that no child is ever abused again by a priest of this archdiocese.”
Obviously, that last part doesn't sound like somebody who is expecting to resign or whose resignation is anticipated. That could throw a damper on the expectations of some around the country and in the laity that were looking for that kind of decisive action from the Holy Father.
But it could very well be that the meeting that will take place in Rome also takes place in the backdrop of an understanding among the American prelate prelates that differ sharply from the deep concern within the laity. Here, for instance, is what William Cardinal Keeler, archbishop of Baltimore, had to say today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM CARDINAL KEELER, ARCHBISHOP OF BALTIMORE: It's really the media of the United States that have made it an American problem. We're in this feeding frenzy situation right now where the coverage of cases of 20, 30 years ago is being plastered in headlines.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: I think the sad thing is that it's not the media's coverage, it's rather the hierarchy's cover-up that has caused the greatest concern and shaken the confidence most greatly. It's not the sins of individual priests that have shaken our confidence. I think a lot of folks expect that sinful folks are going to be there.
But when you see cardinals and bishops dealing with that challenge of sin in a way that seems to aid, abet, and be complacent in the perpetuation of the sinning, that I think is what has caused the great challenge. And yet it seems that among the prelates in the American church there's a sense that the crises is somewhere else, the crises doesn't involve them. And yet sadly, it very much involves them and the question mark that has been placed behind their judgment and behind the confidence lay people can have in that judgment as a result of the scandal.
The cardinal — archbishop of Baltimore refers to the fact that these things are 20 and 30 years old. That's because, at least on the basis of the facts in some of these cases, cover-ups were successful for 20 or 30 years. But to say that now that we've discovered the cover-up it's irrelevant because it's not news in terms of the offense, no, it doesn't quite work that way when you're dealing with this kind of offense.
We are going to be talking about that in the course of the program. And joining me up front here, we have Bill Donahue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, and Anthony Padovano, founder or Corpus, an organization that advocates allowing married men and women to serve as Catholic priests. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
WILLIAM DONOHUE, PRESIDENT, CATHOLIC LEAGUE FOR RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHTS: Thank you.
KEYES: First question I want to put on the table, and I will start with you, Bill Donahue, is what do you think one can expect from the meeting that the Holy Father has called in Rome for next week of the American cardinals?
DONOHUE: I think you are going to get rid of the confusion that exists right now. On the table there are all kind of proposals and reforms. Some of them make sense. Some of them are nonsense.
What the pope is going to do is he's going to guide them and he's going to give them some direction so they can talk with a consensus and stop with the itemization that exists even within the Catholic Church so that when the bishops — rather, when the cardinals meet with the bishops in Dallas in June, they will have a coherent, well thought out plan as to what to do. They will put some things on the table that will make some sense at that point. And they do need the intervention of the Holy Father, if for no other reason than to assure lay-Catholics in this country that they got the message in Rome that this is in a crisis stage.
KEYES: Anthony Padovano, what is your sense of the expectations we can have of the meeting in Rome next week?
ANTHONY PADOVANO, FAVORS MARRIAGE FOR PRIESTS: I do not have any great expectations of it, Alan. I'm afraid that the fact that the leadership did not come from the American church to me is extremely disappointing. I think, furthermore, that the effort in Rome will be to do something that has to be done, to stop as fast as possible this horror of pedophilia.
But the underlying problem that has given rise to it is not going to be addressed, at least not under this papacy. And I think until that happens, you will not have a restoration of trust in the leadership of the American church.
KEYES: What is your sense of that underlying problem? What do you think it is?
PADOVANO: I think the underlying problem is abuse of power and sense of entitlement. I think it's not following through on the promise of the second Vatican Council. It was that the church should be a collegial organization, one in which the laity do not have a decisive role. I don't think Catholic laity expect that, but that they have a fully consultative role, that they're able to discuss the issues that they think are crucial to their spiritual development and to the development of a church that they love very much.
That kind of an agenda is extremely low in this particular papacy. A good papacy in many ways that's done some startling and wonderful things, but a papacy that I think has missed its moment in history as far as the key issues facing the church's internal life, its internal developmental existence.
KEYES: Bill Donohue, one of the internal things that I felt as I was looking at the developments in the course of the last couple of days and then reading Cardinal Law's statement today was the sense that up until now, there has been a feeling that this was an American problem within the hierarchy in America, questions about the judgment of American prelates. Isn't there a danger of having this now reach to the Holy Father himself if there is a perception that he is somehow tolerating — what shall we call them — the grievous errors that were made by somebody like Cardinal Law? I mean, isn't there a danger that will seem as if, OK, the Holy Father is OK with that and thinks that that is not really a problem. Isn't it true in the perception of a lot of folks within the church, it is the cover-up that was the major problem?
DONOHUE: Well, that's true. It's not only the problem of sexually immature men, which is what Anthony doesn't want to talk about, which is driving the problem, and some guys who can't keep their hands off the boys — it's mostly the boys, not the girls — we've got to talk about that.
But the fact of the matter is that if the pope had pulled back and taken a laissez faire attitude, then I think people would say, “Well, I guess the pope doesn't get it. He's just going to shove the problem back to the United States.” The fact that he's intervening I think is healthy because the cardinals in this country do need his good advice and directions.
KEYES: Well, but isn't the first step going to have to be — because I find that I know that the words say I'm going to go back, and I'm going to assure confidence, and I'm going to make sure that no child is abused,” but one of the great problems, Bill, is that as I have listened and looked at the words and actions of some of the prelates, there has been what appears to be a decided indifference to the enormous gravity of the moral dereliction that has been involved in this whole business. And to say that Cardinal Law, who sadly has given evidence of just that kind of dereliction, is now going to solve the problem, why should one have confidence that someone who showed such a decided errors of judgment has the ability to solve the problem now?
DONOHUE: Well, first of all, he's not going to solve the problem. That's exactly why you've got the cardinals going over to Rome to meet with the pope next week. And then there are over 400 bishops in the United States. And they will sit down with all of them in June, and they will collectively come to a consensus.
But they can't come to a consensus unless the cardinals are onboard first. The cardinals themselves, some of them haven't done a particularly good job on this, which is why the Holy Father should intervene. This is a crisis. For the Holy Father to sit back and say, “Fellows, business as usual,” would be an abomination.
PADOVANO: May I say something on that, if I might?
KEYES: Sure. Come on in.
PADOVANO: Part of my concern is this. I think the way the Vatican thinks is that if we have a single cardinal resign, then we're giving into the laity. In some way, we're giving them a voice. We're legitimizing their outrage. And, therefore, we may start a process that we are not able to control.
But the irony in all of that is that by not listening to the laity on this, the longer that Law and some of these other bishops are there, the worse the crisis will get. In a sense, it's the very perpetuity of keeping a person in that position that makes the outrage harder for the institutional church to turn around. They're acting against their own self-interests.
DONOHUE: But, Anthony, there's the laity and there's the laity. I mean, you were part of a movement a few years ago which was a monumental flop. When your church group said you were going to get a million signatures to change the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality. You got 37,000 after a year-and-a-half and all kinds of money. A third of those 37,000 weren't even Catholic. You bribed kids and gave them a buck for every name.
I mean, look, where you're at, I'm sure you're a good man, Anthony. But the fact of the matter is you're on the left wing fringe. You're not in the position to solve the problem, which is something that guys like you helped to create.
PADOVANO: Bill, you know all the Gallup polls, all the surveys, all the studies that have been done show that about 80 percent of the American people want a married priesthood. And 80 percent of the American people are against...
(CROSSTALK)
PADOVANO: ... birth control.
DONOHUE: Well, we have got 63 million Catholics in this country, and you have 80 percent of them, you should have gotten about 40 million Catholics. You had 37,000 sign your petition.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: If I may intervene for a moment here, I have to say that I think we're seeing an illustration of two sides of this problem.
PADOVANO: Sure.
KEYES: On the one hand, I happen to believe that the notion that having a cardinal resign gives into the laity or gives in to the media or something is a huge mistake. In fact, right now it would be an assertion of papal authority that would, in fact, preserve the health of the church, focus attention on our needs to be subject to that authority within the church, and give the pope a tremendous opportunity to set the terms of renewal in the context of this necessity for his healthy intervention.
To miss this opportunity is, in my opinion, a great mistake. And I am kind of dismayed at the thought the Holy See is looking at this situation and not realizing the kind of help that is really needed.
But on the other hand, Anthony Padovano, I think Bill is right. One of the roots of the problem is prelates, who because of the secularizing influence of a lot of people who don't want to take seriously the implications of doctrine with respect to human sexuality, we're looking the other way and trying to be tolerant of things that were grave sins in total contradiction with the church's teaching about the nature of the relationship between men and women and the real nature of human sexuality. In one respect, we can't ignore either element of this crisis, the moral spiritual element that is based on these wrong-headed notions of human sexuality, or the element of leadership that I think now requires that the pope assert his authority in such a way as to renew and change that leadership.
PADOVANO: But the very crisis, Alan, has been caused by the fact that people were making light — the leaders of the church were making light of this sexual deviation. That's the whole source of the problem. Wasn't there healthy sexuality in the response of the Catholic laity at large that said this is an abomination and an outrage that we cannot tolerate? Where was the healthier sexual leadership there?
DONOHUE: Yes, but, Anthony, most Catholics agreed that there are a lot of acts of perversion that have been committed by some of these priests. You have been associated with movements, which you want to legitimize this. So, I don't quite understand where you're coming from.
PADOVANO: That would want to legitimize this? How do you figure that, Bill? How do you argue that?
DONOHUE: If you go right down the line between abortion, homosexuality, adultery, which one of the churches teachings do you accept?
PADOVANO: Bill, you know that I do not favor that whole list of things...
DONOHUE: Answer me. Answer me.
PADOVANO: ... that I'm in favor of adultery. Now, Bill, come on, we've got to be honest with each other...
DONOHUE: (INAUDIBLE) sexuality...
PADOVANO: ... No, listen, we're both responsible people who love the church. And both of us I think are healthy in what we want for spiritual development.
DONOHUE: Do you agree with the Catholic Church's teachings on homosexuality? Yes or no?
PADOVANO: No, I do not agree...
DONOHUE: (INAUDIBLE)...
PADOVANO: ... Wait, wait, wait, now let me finish. I don't agree, nor do I think you do that sexuality is an intrinsic perversion. Do you really believe that?
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Excuse me, can I introduce a moment? This whole discussion, Anthony Padovano, I think, shows that you have a misunderstanding. The whole notion that you can consider sexuality apart from God's plan for marriage and procreation is totally contrary to faith and doctrine. So, the whole consideration of any such thing in the context of homosexuality is absurd from the point of view of the Catholic faith.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: But I'm sorry, we've reached the end of our time. Sorry. We've reached the end of our time. I'm going to have to thank both of you. I really appreciate you coming. This is obviously just the beginning of a discussion that we're going to continue to get back to over time.
Next, we get to the heart of the matter when we will ask these questions. Is the crisis managerial or spiritual or in both? What kinds of reforms are needed? And will the Holy Father's intervention be decisive?
But first, tell me, do you think this makes sense? In Iowa, I believe, you have two teams competing in a math contest. Hours after finishing third behind Iowa City High and Cedar Falls at the contest, the University of Northern Iowa on Saturday, the West High School team returned to Iowa city to recheck the scores. Well, it's a good thing they did, because there was a 60-point scoring error, which had been made by the teachers scoring the test. Well, it sure is a good thing that the teachers weren't competing in that contest, isn't it? Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: With friends like these, well, we will get into that in the next half hour. Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
A reminder that the chat room is humming tonight. And you can join right in now at chat.msnbc.com.
Let's get back, though, to the crises in the church. Joining us now to get to the heart of the matter, Keith Fournier, the founder and president of Common Good, an organization dedicated to promoting Christian social values. He's also a married deacon.
With us also, Monsignor Tom McSweeney, a MSNBC religion analyst, and former national director of Christophers.org, a Catholic media outreach organization. And Linda Pieczynski, the spokeswoman for Call to Action, a Catholic grassroots organization that promotes church openness in its structures and practices.
Everyone, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
MONSIGNOR TOM MCSWEENEY, MSNBC RELIGION ANALYST: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: Thank you. Some important and dramatic developments in the church crises, including an intervention from the Holy Father that seems to offer some hope, paralleled with some signs that, I think, maybe the Catholic hierarchy still doesn't get the real nature of the problem. And the question, what is all of this going to add up to in terms of the meeting in Rome and the kind of reforms and approaches that we can expect to come out of it?
Let me start with you, Tom McSweeney, in terms of your sense of where all of this is taking the Catholic Church and whether we can expect this intervention from the Holy Father to be a decisive one.
MCSWEENEY: Indeed, I think we can expect a great deal on the issue of child abuse. Cardinal McCarrick revealed that a week-and-a-half ago when he was in the Vatican and he sat with the pope, the pope was brought close to tears as he expressed, “How could this happen? How could this happen to the children?”
The Pope's primary concern is the abuse of these children, children. His love for children has been the — I would say right up there as one of the primary hallmarks of his papacy, his love for youth. Look how he traveled around the world to all these youth conferences.
The pope is going to get to the bottom of this sexual abuse of children. He is not going to tolerate that. And Cardinal McCarrick led us into the direction to understand that the expectation of the cardinals when they get over there is that he is going to insist that they come up with a coherent policy that can be adapted in this country nationally.
One of the problems that we have in the Catholic Church systemically is that all of the 400 or so dioceses operate almost autonomously from one other. Each one has a different policy. You've seen that develop in this particular incidence where Brooklyn has a different policy from, say, Hartford does on (INAUDIBLE)...
KEYES: Tom, if I could interrupt for a second...
MCSWEENEY: ... but what the pope is going to insist is that when the bishops get together in June, they have a coherent, national policy that can be applied throughout all diocese.
KEYES: See, but I think one of the problems, and I think you're accurate and right that to deal with the managerial problems, something like that is going to be needed. But what I wonder is the answer to that very question — Why did this happen? — is in fact not addressed by that kind of policy.
The why is not about management and policy structure. The why particularly of the reaction of the hierarchy, the willingness in some of these cases to cover up and cooperate in sweeping these things under the rug.
Let me turn to Keith Fournier. And, Keith, in following up on what Father Tom has said, don't we have a moral-spiritual dimension here that needs to be addressed here in terms of what understanding or misunderstanding made it possible for some of these prelates to have such grave misjudgments in this case?
KEITH FOURNIER, DEACON, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, COMMON GOOD: Alan, I think you're right. And that's why I have such hope because we also have a pope in the chair of Peter who is profoundly spiritual, who is a man of deep prayer, and a man who knows in the first instance that what is going on in the church right now is a time of purification. And I know that he hopes it precedes what he has called for, a new springtime.
So, I was not surprised to hear that he summoned the cardinals to Rome. And I expect that we are going to see something very, very significant occur.
Yes, we're going to see a uniform approach to dealing with the systemic problem. Yes, we're going to see reforms in the whole process of inviting men to consider the priesthood, perhaps a seminary system. But I think we are going to see also a new outpouring of prayer, spiritual renewal, and dealing with the deeper issues. This is a time of purification for the church...
KEYES: Well, let me ask you a question.
FOURNIER: ... and she will come out the other side.
KEYES: In terms of that purification, I have got to tell you, part of the problem that I see here is that there was an influence of a secular and worldly understanding of human sexuality...
FOURNIER: I agree, Alan.
KEYES: ... within the context of the American hierarchy, the adoption of understandings that had nothing to do with Catholic doctrine with respect to human procreation and so forth. Are we going to see an effort to present and apply the actual principles of the Catholic faith to the challenge of human sexuality?
FOURNIER: Alan, I think that's the only solution. And remember, this is the pope, who perhaps more than any other pope in history has written extensively on this subject. We've spoken before, the entire five-year catechesis that he delivered, it's been summarized and called the theology of the body.
He has so much to offer. And it is time the church hear what he has to offer, but not only hear it, incorporate it, and make it part of the catechetical instruction, the preparation for marriage, the discernment process for priesthood, or a call to the deaconate, religious life. The whole teaching of this pope on human sexuality is the solution and the way out of this problem.
KEYES: Linda Pieczynski, do you think that this Holy Father in terms of his background and teaching and the kind of approach he is likely to take offers hope for getting beyond this crisis?
LINDA PIECZYNSKI, SPOKESWOMAN, CALL TO ACTION: Well, one would hope, obviously, that he would address the problem of the victims above anything else. And I'm sure that is his intent.
However, in order to truly do that, he is going to need to clean house. And that means he needs to ask the cardinals to step down who have been accountable for the abuse of children.
Cardinal Law put people in positions where children were abused. And those people's lives have been destroyed because of his action, in addition to the priests who were doing these terrible deeds. And I don't have a lot of hope that the hierarchy is going to be able to restore trust among the Catholic people without the input from the Catholic people.
The first thing that needs to be done is the church has to be out of the business of investigating these child abuse allegations and leave it up to law enforcement because, in addition to it being a managerial and a spiritual problem, ultimately it's a criminal problem. As a former prosecutor, I personally know of instances where the church has just done the wrong thing just to try to hide, basically, its sins from the people and make the church look good on the backs of victims. And that has to stop.
And I don't know if the pope, given his current frailty, from what we're hearing is that he is very ill, that many days he is not fully engaged in what is going on. And the question is, who is really making the decisions, and who is going to be making the decisions in this matter?
I read that they're going to be members of the curiae that are going to be involved in this discussion. And people who should be involved in this discussion are the people, for example, in Boston who have suffered this terrible tragedy. They should be at the table giving advice as to what they think will lead to the healing of people.
KEYES: Now, following up on what Linda is saying, and this I address now to Keith and Tom both, I have to tell you that when I read Cardinal Law's statement, which just came out in the last couple of hours in which he basically says that he met with the pope, met with the folks at the Vatican, and gives the impression that he is just going to go on and be charged with improving the situation and so forth and so on, Keith, Tom, I have to tell you, I don't feel much confidence in that. And I don't think many people do.
We need words. And we need thought. And we need certain kinds of action. But don't we also need some sign that the hierarchy in America understands that it is one element of the problem here? The problem isn't just priests that abuse.
(CROSSTALK)
FOURNIER: I think it remains to be seen what is going to happen. Watch for the next two or three weeks. And this notion that this pope is to weak to lead I completely reject. This is an extraordinary, vital pope.
PIECZYNSKI: Well...
FOURNIER: Also remember, the prelates you mentioned, ma'am, you are coming — people like Cardinal Ratzinger, who is one of the strongest leaders in the church today — and he is going to speak to the issues that we addressed earlier, doctrine of the spiritual dimension.
But the most important thing — and, by the way, I'm a former prosecutor — is it's not either-or, it's both-and. We have got to deal with the criminal realities there. There has to be full prosecution. There has to be restitution to the victims. Everyone agrees. But at another root level here, we have to deal with the spiritual malady.
PIECZYNSKI: But our leaders need to take — I agree we need to deal with the spiritual level — our leaders need to take responsibility.
FOURNIER: I don't disagree with that.
PIECZYNSKI: But what we are hearing are excuses. Cardinal Law chalks this up to bad record keeping. I mean, that is a slap in the face to the victims. How can the victims heal when one of the people that caused the terrible tragedy to them is still in a position of power? It's like being victimized all over again.
KEYES: If I can add to that, if I can add to that, Tom, I alluded when the show opened to a statement by Archbishop Keeler in Baltimore basically saying this is a media assault and so forth and so on. I think the notion that somehow or another this problem results from a media attack is a denial of reality.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Wait a minute. Doesn't that suggest, Father Tom, that the American prelates have not faced up as yet to their own responsibility here?
MCSWEENEY: Indeed. There are seriously issues right now with cardinal law avoiding this camera lens. To direct his message that he's not going to step out of the job through his priests was really kind of a diffusion. I think that he's trying to negotiate himself into a position where he can step out gracefully.
Make no mistake of it. I can see the pope sitting there, even in his feeble state, looking at Cardinal Law and saying, “Bernie, what would happen if you stepped out? What would be the good of that for the church? And what would be the good of that for all of those that we have already injured?” Again, those abused children are his first concern.
And they are going to discuss the domino effect. You know, if Cardinal Law goes, what about the two bishops that were a part of the structure that allowed that abuse to take place? They're going to have to get into those issues. And I tell you this pope is going to say this has to be a part of your discussion when you get together with the rest of the bishops in Dallas in June.
KEYES: I want to thank all of you for coming tonight, and I think that I at least am rendered hopeful by the Holy Father's intervention. But I hope that the American prelates will go to Rome with the sense that one of the things that must be looked at is their own responsibility and the fact that confidence wasn't just shaken in priests, it was shaken in these prelates.
Next, Saudi Arabia. Are they praising terrorism, and what does it mean?
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia's going to be visiting with President Bush next week, and, of course, he comes to America under the guise of friendship with the Saudi Arabians saying that they support us in the war against terrorism and so forth.
Now there are a whole lot of reasons, as I've pointed out on this show before, to question Saudi Arabia's relationship with terrorists — the flow of their money, the involvement of their citizens, the support they have given to various front groups for terrorism around the world.
All of these things are on the record, on the table, raising serious questions about whether the Saudis aren't, in fact, part of, even sponsors of the terrorism problem. This is the difficulty. This is the question.
Now one would think they'd want to be really careful not to feed these suspicions in any way, and yet the Saudi ambassador to Britain, a renowned poet, has praised Palestinian suicide bombers and criticized the United States in a poem published Saturday in a Pan-Arab daily.
Ghazi Algosaibi wrote in “The Martyrs,” a short poem published on the front page of the London-based daily, “Al Hayat,” he wrote the following — quote — “May God be the witness that you are martyrs. You died to honor God's word. You committed suicide. We committed suicide by living like the dead.”
And he's referring to the suicide bombers who have gone against Israelis, gone against Israeli civilians, and so forth, and that becomes even more clear as we move along in his poem.
In an apparent reference to Arab leaders looking to the United States for help in ending Israeli-Palestinian violence, Algosaibi, who has served as ambassador to London for more than a decade, wrote, quote, “We complained to the idols of a White House whose heart is filled with darkness.” Now remember this is the Saudi ambassador to Great Britain, and he is writing in a tone that praises suicide bombers, refers to the United States as if we're some dark place of evil.
And, finally, in his poem, Algosaibi referred to 18-year-old female terrorist suicide bomber Ayat Akhras, who detonated explosives strapped to her body at a Jerusalem supermarket on March 29th, killing two Israelis and wounding 25, the following pane of praise to her. He writes, and I quote, “Tell Ayat, the bride of loftiness, she embraced death with a smile, while the leaders are running away from death. Doors of heaven are opened for her,” he wrote.
And it seemed to me that you look at this, and you would start — a reasonable person might conclude that this is a pane of praise to terrorism and that terrorist suicide bombers come in for the approval of the Saudi government. After all, this is Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Great Britain.
And you would say, “Oh, no, Alan. It was just a poem,” and so forth. Well, I know that when you're sitting in a country as an ambassador, everything that you do and say is scrutinized insofar as you represent and it represents your country amongst those people, and everybody who's been involved in diplomacy knows this.
So if he publishes a poem like this on the front page of the Arab daily, don't tell me that it doesn't have implications for Saudi Arabia's attitude on this score. And if it doesn't, then the government needs to reprimand him and make clear their separation.
Well, who are they? Friends? Enemies? Are they against terrorism, part of the problem?
Joining us now to discuss all this is Jean AbiNader, managing director for the Arab American Institute, a group representing Arab-American interests in government and politics, and Stephen Schwartz, author of the upcoming book “The Two Faces of Islam.”
Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JEAN ABINADER, ARAB-AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Thank you.
STEPHEN SCHWARTZ, SAUDI EXPERT: Thank you, Alan. It's good to be back.
KEYES: Jean, welcome back.
You know, Jean, since you know me a little bit now, that looking at the ambassador's poem, well, my mischievous mind just went to all kinds of places as I looked at this, but it sure does seem to me to raise a question about Saudi Arabia's attitude toward terrorism.
Do you think it's appropriate for Saudi Arabia's ambassador to a major country like the — Great Britain to be praising terrorists by name and suggesting that they get the great rewards of heaven for their terrorist acts?
ABINADER: Well, as you pointed out, Ghazi Algosaibi is a well-known poet in the Arab world.
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
KEYES: Jean AbiNader, go ahead.
ABINADER: Oh, I'm sorry.
KEYES: That's all right.
ABINADER: You know, he's a well-known poet. He — and I'm not going to sit here and have a literary excursus review about the poem itself, but I think it's very consistent with the way Arab poetry is constructed, and that is he's taking a case that's very, in his mind, spiritual and making a case for supporting it in terms of morality.
Now we're calling it terrorism. We're saying it is criminal behavior to kill innocent people. And he's saying that — as you've heard before, that people are driven to these kinds of acts because they think their life is so desperate.
So I agree the difficulty is should an ambassador be saying this as opposed to someone who is a political commentator or someone who is trying to create a case for a position that they're taking, but I don't think it reflects the attitude or the behavior of the Saudi government. Ghazi Algosaibi is known for this kind of behavior.
KEYES: Don't you think the Saudi government needs to make that clear, because it seems to me — we have on the record — see, this is my problem — a number of areas where the involvement of Saudi Arabians and Saudi money and other Saudi things — that aren't official, mind you, but that still raise some eyebrows about the role that Saudi Arabia's playing in the whole terrorist network —
Doesn't this kind of a poem and this kind of praise that seems to reflect the most extremist and violent views kind of suggest that, amongst the Saudis, who are most influential, like this ambassador, there is actually not just tolerance for but encouragement and support for this terrorism?
ABINADER: I don't think in their mind it's terrorism. You know, the Palestinians are being occupied. Their sense is that, if Israel is really interested in peace, that they would be working with the United States government over the past two years to try to forge something that would bring both parties to the table.
Obviously, the Palestinians have made some real mistakes. Colin Powell's trying to get some direction there. But Israel also has made some real mistakes.
But the question here, ultimately, Alan, is the one you asked at the beginning of the show, and that is can the Saudis bring something to the table that will helpful to the United States and end the violence in moving both parties toward negotiations, and I think that's really what we should be focusing on.
KEYES: Well, see — but I have a problem, and it's one thing that we mustn't forget here. When I listen to the Saudi ambassador praising suicide bombers who are going against who? You know, he identified the United States as a force of darkness there.
And this is an academic for us, you understand, because thousands of Americans are dead at the hands of Saudi citizens who took out the World Trade Center, killed our people...
ABINADER: I think if you look at...
KEYES: Now you've got to let me finish because I'm waxing a little outrage because it is outrageous, OK. We have been victims of this. He points to us, says we're the darkness, and then praises suicide bombers like the ones who killed our people, and we're then supposed to look at this...
ABINADER: I don't think that's what he said at all.
KEYES: ... objectively, like some kind of diplomatic maneuver?
ABINADER: I think what he's saying — he is not equating what happened at the World Trade Center with what's happening in Palestine. I think you're mixing the metaphors because you said you're angry and you want to vent something.
But the reality is, if you look historically, what happened when the Irish Republican Army was doing what they were doing in Britain and in Northern Ireland, which were clearly acts of terror. They were supported by a lot of Americans and by a lot of American politicians.
But we didn't have roundups of American politicians and say, “Shame on you for praising the Irish in the newspapers and saying”...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I didn't make the connection with the United States. He did in his poem.
ABINADER: No. He said the White House is the source of darkness?
KEYES: That's exactly right.
ABINADER: And Tom Payne...
KEYES: I think the White House refers to something...
ABINADER: ... said the same thing about the British during the Revolutionary War.
KEYES: The White House refers to something else than the United States, John? Let's not play games here.
Stephen Schwartz...
SCHWARTZ: Yes, sir.
KEYES: ... what do you think of all of this? I'm watching this...
SCHWARTZ: Well, first of all...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... raises a lot of questions for me.
SCHWARTZ: First of all, I think it is utterly ridiculous to talk about spirituality, morality, and desperation. We are talking about the Saudi monarchy and its wealthy representative sitting in a comfortable palace in London. This man is not moral, is not spiritual. He is not — definitely not desperate.
Another thing is this poem is not some symbolic literary work that you have to deconstruct. It says what it says.
Another thing is you can argue about whether it's terrorism. You can't argue about whether it's death. The Saudis are preaching death. The Saudis are preaching to the Palestinian people that they should not take the road of peace, that they should continue to take the road of suicide.
Now I'm sorry. This is based in Saudi Wahhabism, which is a cult of death. It's the official form of Islam in Saudi Arabia. It tells the Muslims of the world that it is better to die and go to paradise than it is to live. He says it in the poem.
He says that it's as if he committed suicide. I'm sorry. This man has not committed suicide. This man is not living in hell and is not dead. He is very rich.
KEYES: Hold on.
SCHWARTZ: He is very powerful. He is very influential. He is very corrupt, and he represents the most corrupt, most hypocritical, and, frankly, the most evil regime in the world...
KEYES: Now, Steve...
SCHWARTZ: ... and that regime exists because of our generosity.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I want you both to stick around now. I know it's very intense, but calm down just a little bit. Relax for a second here. We're going to you both back right after this break.
And later, just in case you haven't seen enough outrage yet, you're going to see my outrage of the day.
But, first, do you think this makes sense?
The principal at T.R. Smedberg Middle School in Elk Grove, California, held meetings last week for parents to discuss their childrens' scores on standardized tests. There were four meetings in all, with separate gatherings for whites, Asians, blacks, and Hispanics. Separate but equal. We've heard about this one.
The principal, who is ballistic, said the segregated meetings were designed to, quote, “get real honest answers” from black and Hispanic parents whose children were among the lowest scores and to allow them to speak freely without embarrassment.
Well, tell me, after all these years fighting against segregation, does it really make sense to reintroduce it on the flimsy excuse that people can't talk in the presence of other groups? Because if that's the case, it seems to me we're going to have segregation all over this very diverse society.
Do you think this makes sense, because I sure don't.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back.
We're talking about Saudi Arabia's ambiguous, not to say duplicitous stance in the war on terror. With us is Jean AbiNader of the Arab American Institute, and Stephen Schwartz, author of the upcoming book “The Two Faces of Islam.”
Now, Stephen, when we left, you were making some pretty strong statements suggesting that the apparent ambiguity here is really pretty deeply rooted both in religion and in practice in Saudi Arabia.
SCHWARTZ: There's a deep hypocrisy in the Saudi regime, and there is a deep evil in the Wahhaby death cult, and the fact is that the Saudi regime, to try to maintain its credibility and its legitimacy in the Muslim world, promotes the Saudi death cult.
The fact is they tell us on the one side they love us, they love the United States, they want to support us, they want to help us, and then this Crown Prince Abdullah comes up with this utterly hypocritical and phony peace offer.
I'd like to say one thing about this peace offer. I think that Crown Prince Abdullah insulted Israel and the Jewish people because he thought that the Jews would haggle for peace and that this would get the United States to quit asking the Saudi monarchy uncomfortable questions about 9/11.
And, frankly, the so-called Saudi peace offer is a peace offer that essentially takes the role of negotiator out of the hands of the Palestinians. It locks the Palestinians out.
And here's Crown Prince Abdullah, this incredibly immoral, corrupt, evil figure, coming and basically saying, “Well, I'll settle everything for you, and you won't have to worry about those Palestinians anymore.”
ABINADER: Alan, can I ask a question, please?
KEYES: Yeah. Jean AbiNader, go ahead. Yeah.
ABINADER: Yeah. You know, I first went to the Arab world — you know, I'm an American. I was born in this country. I went first to the Arab world in 1971, and I first went to Saudi Arabia in 1976.
I've never heard of Stephen Schwartz, and yet you have a byline that says he's a Saudi expert. He obviously doesn't know what Wahhabism is. He doesn't know anything about...
SCHWARTZ: Oh, now don't start with that.
ABINADER: ... Crown Prince Abdullah.
SCHWARTZ: You don't want to go there.
ABINADER: You know, it reminds me of like...
SCHWARTZ: You don't want to go there.
(CROSSTALK)
ABINADER: ... writing a book about security in Saudi Arabia having never been to the country.
SCHWARTZ: You don't want to go there.
ABINADER: Obviously, this is a guy who's....
(CROSSTALK)
ABINADER: ... Saudis and doesn't really understand, one, the dynamics of the Saudi society or, two, the role that Crown Prince Abdullah is playing...
SCHWARTZ: You don't want to go there.
ABINADER: ... among the Arab countries.
KEYES: Wait, wait, wait.
ABINADER: Steve, I do want to go there because...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Hold on, guys.
SCHWARTZ: First of all...
KEYES: Hold on a second.
SCHWARTZ: ... the Saudi regime does not allow journalists in.
KEYES: Stephen, hold on. I have a remark to make here that I think ought to be pretty clear.
Jean AbiNader, you'd be on less shaky ground with all of this if when dealing with the questions of the Saudi ambassador's support for terrorism and killing and other signs that we have seen of Saudi encouragement of this terrorism —
You'd be on stronger ground criticizing Stephen Schwartz in this regard if the response to that, meaning no offense, from you and others isn't just a lot of double talk that distracts from the facts that these folks have expressed their support for this outrageous terrorism. You say this man is lying, but the fact suggests that there's a dualism, that there is the support for death and terrorism.
Explain it please.
ABINADER: Gladly. Number one, I already said that I can't read Ghazi Algosaibi's mind, but I understand what he is trying to say — and remember his Ph.D. from the USC is in comparative literature — is that, in his mind, what people are doing is resisting an occupation by whatever tools they want to use. I'm not saying I agree with it, and I said that at the beginning, and I'm not saying that justifies suicide bombers.
(CROSSTALK)
ABINADER: I can't justify what Ghazi Algosaibi wants to say because that is not my job. My question to you is...
KEYES: Jean, hold on. We're up against a break.
ABINADER: My question to you is: Do we have a role, a constructive role that Saudi Arabia can play in terms of bringing peace to the Middle East, and I...
KEYES: John, let me answer that question.
(CROSSTALK)
ABINADER: Very quickly, let me answer that question.
The only person — way you can let somebody play a constructive role is if, on a given day of the week, you can trust what they tell you. If somebody is smiling in your face and supporting those who are killing your pop and stabbing you in the back, I don't see that their role is constructive. It's more likely to be deceptive.
Thank you both for joining me.
Next, on my outrage of the day, a little bit more on Saudi Arabia's — shall we call it — ambiguity on these topics, when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Here is my outrage of the day.
Can you believe that Saudi Arabia's American ambassador has said that George Washington is a terrorist like Yasser Arafat? Well, he didn't send any 18-year-olds out to kill innocent people. Thanks for being with me. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. See you tomorrow.