Opinion
Page 4 Daily Nebraskan Monday, January 22,2001
ZM/vNebraskan
Since 1901
Editor Sarah Baker
Opinion Page Editor Jake Glazeski
Managing Editor Bradley Davis
Hats off, chief
New presidency a chance
to unite, not divide
The nation’s capitol was a place of mixed
emotions this inaugural weekend.
On the one hand, President Bush delivered a
hopeful message, urging the country to unify
in its greatness. On the other hand, protesters
decried the election, claiming it was stolen
from the American people, vowing never to
stand behind President Bush.
In the face of such contrasting and conflict
ing sentiments, we support Bush’s call for civil
ity.
Bush said in his inaugural address that
“civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the
determined choice of trust over cynicism, of
community over chaos.”
We view the protesters’ sentiment as against
such civility and further, against any sort of
constructive cooperation which is necessary
to affect any sort of change in the government.
While their issues - including abortion
rights, uniform polling procedures and civil
rights - may be relevant, the protesters chose a
means and a language to make their point,
which will serve only to divide the country.
Even if one disagrees with the procedure by
which Bush was named president, the fact
remains that he is our president now, and it is
our duty as citizens to support him in that role.
Protesting his inauguration serves only to
insult him. The protesters Saturday did little to
help their goals.
Indeed, creating an antagonistic atmos
phere in Washington is the easiest way to
ensure that liberal initiatives are dismissed.
They should work instead to build a consensus
with the man that is president, regardless of
their objections. They should work to show
that civil rights are human rights, that abortion
rights are human rights and that creating uni
form polling procedures is the only way to
ensure that last year’s election debacle won’t
recur.
Further, all citizens should recognize this
fact: President Bush is our president. Let us all
unify behind him - and when necessary, let us
do our best to educate him.
But now that the inauguration is over and
the protests have died down, the challenge
falls to President Bush as well.
Consensus building, after all, is no easy task,
and we are concerned that President Bush may
lapse into the partisan double-speak that is a
historical tradition of the Republican party.
He might be tempted to ignore the people
represented by those who protested his inau
guration. He might be tempted not to pursue
his goal of civility quite as strongly as he prom
ised in his inaugural address.
But if he is to “build a single nation of justice
and opportunity,” President Bush will have to
reach out to his most vocal opponents and
prove that they can have confidence in him.
He must never forget that the majority of
Americans voted against him. While this does
not serve to invalidate his presidency, it should
sober his policy-making. He must keep in
mind that he works for the concerns of people
with whom he disagrees, politically and philo
sophically.
And doing so requires more than eloquent
speech-making. It requires action.
It requires careful cabinet member selec
tion, careful Supreme Court appointees
(should the opportunity arise) and conscien
tious social policy.
To that end, good luck, Mr. President.
Editorial Board
Sarah Baker, Jeff Bloom, Bradley Davis, Jake Glazeski,
Matthew Hansen, Samuel McKewon, Kimberly Sweet
Letters Policy
The Daly Nebraskan welcomes briefs, letters to the editor and guest columns, but does not guar
antee their pubflcation. The Daly Nebraskan retains the right to edit or reject any material submitted.
Submitted material becomes property d the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned. Anonymous
submissions w* not be published. Those who submit letters must identify themselves by none,
year in school, major and/or group affifaiion, if any.
Submit material to: Daly Nebraskan, 20 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St Lincoln, NE 68588-0448. E
mail: lettarsOunlinfo.unl.eda
Editorial Policy
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the Fall 2000 Daily Nebraskan. They do not necessarily
reflect the views of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, its employees, its student body or the
University of Nebraska Board of Regents. A column is solely the opinion of its author a cartoon is
solely the opinion of its artist The Board of Regents acts as publisher of the Daily Nebraskan; poli
cy is set by the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. The UNL Publications Board, established by the
regents, supervises the production of the paper. According to pokey set by the regents, responsi
bility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of its employees
V f v f /
Bill intends to increase M1F joenalty.
YEAH MAN, PRlNklN^
IS tJUST^ETriN^
TOO OAM^EROUS
ANYMORE.
» .. _____
Catholicism at the crossroads
“The greater the power,
the more dangerous the
abuse.”
—Edmund Burke
We can usually best judge
the measure of a man by
what he does, not what he
says or thinks.
The same holds true for
religions. Although the doc
trines of each religion are
r.
equally irrational, the fascinating differences
between them lie in how they affect society (and in
turn are affected by it).
By such a measure, the Catholic Church has
become largely indistinguishable from the
Southern Baptist Convention/The modern
Catholic Church spends most of its time condemn
ing homosexuals and abortion, issuing proclama
tions about how it offers the only full means to sal
vation, actively influencing political elections and
generally stifling dissent from within or without.
Of course, it wasn’t always this way. In the early
1960s, Pope John XXXIII brought new approaches
“in the fields of ecumenism, religious liberty, the
liturgy, Scripture studies and social action.” (Mead
& Hill, 1995) He believed passionately that religion
could bring about freedom instead of oppression
and hope instead of hellfire and damnation.
Priests of the “Vatican II” worked fervently to
achieve social justice: They helped feed the hungry,
shelter the homeless, secure civil rights for blacks
and more.
Unfortunately, some leaders of the modern
Catholic Church have returned to the mind-set that
brought about the Crusades, the Inquisition and
the trial of Galileo.
The Archdiocese of Omaha and its head,
Archbishop Curtiss, provide the perfect example. In
the United States, there are only 42 archbishops:
Curtiss is one of the most conservative of them all.
In the recent debate over Initiative 416, Curtiss
sent a flier to several thousand Catholic households
in Nebraska urging them to vote for 416. The fliers
included a picture and quote from the pope. Not an
unexpected action, but what happened next was.
When 12 Catholics (including a retired priest)
signed a full-page ad in the Omaha World-Herald
urging citizens to vote against the initiative, Curtiss
reacted angrily and promised to personally contact
each of the Catholics who signed it.
Later that same month, Michael Kelly of the
World-Herald wrote a column about Vincent
Mainelli. Mainelli, probably the most prominent
Catholic priest in Nebraska, was a pastor at St.
Cecilia, one of the 10 largest Catholic cathedrals in
the country.
However, Mainelli decided to retire from the
priesthood and get married, citing his dissatisfac
tion with the Church's movement away from social
justice teaching as the main reason for the change.
A World-Herald investigation showed that
Mainelli wasn't the only one.
Of all the priests ordained by the Omaha
Archdiocese since 1956, between 14 percent and 20
percent have left the priesthood entirely. "Many
had questioned church teaching on birth control,
divorce and remarriage, the need for celibacy
among the clergy and the ban on female priests.”
(OWH12-17-00)
Did Archbishop Curtiss listen to Mainelli’s con
cerns or try to open a dialogue? No. He simply com
pared Mainelli's actions to a husband breaking his
marriage vows and said that "(Columnist) Michael
Kelly, who is supposed to be a Catholic, should have
lamented the fact with all of us who love the priest
hood and love our archdiocese.”
Curtiss caused another furor by proclaiming
that Catholics should not vote for any candidate
who supports abortion rights, (i.e., most
Democrats). Why didn’t Curtiss tell voters not to
vote against any candidate who supports the death
The modern Catholic Church
spends most of its time
condemning homosexuals and
abortion; issuing proclamations
about how it offers the only full
means to salvation; actively
influencing political elections; and
generally stifling dissent from
within or without.
penalty (i.e., most Republicans), an equally noxious
practice under Catholic doctrine?
Governor Mike Johanns also is “supposed to be
a Catholic” and eagerly supports sending inmates
to the electric chair. Perhaps Archbishop Curtiss is
too busy calling lay Catholics who signed the adver
tisement against 416 to find the time to call the
Governor who supports having people killed.
Most recendy, Curtiss “said he would probably
publicize the names of Catholic university theolo
gians who don’t obtain his approval as being in
accord with the teachings of the church.” (OWH 1
07-01) The mandate is part of a document issue by
Pope John Paul U.
Many Catholics, including Archbishop Daniel
Pilarczyk of Cincinnati, don’t believe the mandate is
enforceable, and they do believe it threatens the
religious and intellectual freedom of Catholic the
ologians.
Curtiss, speaking with respect to Creighton, is
not dissuaded: “I'm just saying that if I declare that
this person doesn’t have a mandate to teach
Catholic theology in this university, (it’s) going to
have some impact.”
The Catholic Church has come to a crossroads.
Its leadership is increasingly conservative, yet its
membership is increasingly liberal.
A 1999 Gallup survey for the National Catholic
Reporter showed that 53 percent of Catholics
believed that a person could be a Catholic and sup
port abortion rights (up from 39 percent in 1987),
72 percent believed Catholics could make birth
control decisions contrary to the Church’s position
(up from 66 percent), and 63 percent supported
allowing women as priests (up from 48 percent) -
an issue Pope John Paul II said is closed to debate.
Another poll showed that 75 percent of Catholics
believed priests should be allowed to marry. (OWH
9-03-00)
The Church’s membership also is changing. The
Church is now facing a drastic shortage of priests,
while enrollment in its seminaries and private
schools is down. One study found that of nearly
7,000 active priests, almost 20 percent left between
1966 and 1985.
The Omaha Archdiocese itself is in trouble. In
1960, there was one priest for every 798 Catholic
members. Today, there is only one priest for every
1,449 members.
If we measure religions by the effect they have
on the world, the verdict is still out on Catholicism.
Lay members and some priests still work hard on
social justice issues.
In Nebraska, Catholics like Reverend Zuerlein of
Our Lady of Guadalupe Church advocate for immi
grants; others work building houses for Habitat for
Humanity or operating battered women's shelters.
Yet, how long can they continue without active sup
port from leaders who seem concerned only with
abortion or homosexuality?
“We haven’t left the church. The church has left
us,” said Mainelli when he quit the priesthood. The
Catholic Church, or what's left of it, must soon
decide whether it believes in compassion, freedom
and social justice - or hegemony, intolerance and
obedience.
It is increasingly clear that if Archbishop Curtiss
gets his way, the latter view will prevail.
Ietters@unl.edu
Please write back and tell us what you think.
Picking
through the
bad fruit
Work had
become the
kaleidoscope
through which I
was viewing the
world.
I was paid in
the excess of the
world. The lard
that encircles
the warm little
Dan
Leamen
rhythm of life. My paychecks were
bruised bananas, dropped apples,
brown lettuce and rotting potatoes
converted into American dollars.
Every other Friday, I received my 100
percent recycled lard paycheck stub -1
had it directly deposited in my bank.
This saved time - time I could
spend drinking cappuccinos and driv
ing my foreign-made automobile.
Time I could spend throwing half-bad
fruit into a box and down a trash com
pactor, slamming a heavy metal door
on its short existence.
I guess I had to do this - it was my
job. I was the metal screen sifting the
dirt from the world. I was ridding the
world of the grisde and fat around the
steak.
In the spirit of the great explorers of
the past, I culled over displays in
search of mild imperfections. I felt like
a NASA chimp combing and grooming
the back of another chimp. I filled lux
ury. I am the bruised bananas.
I guess that is where it had all start
ed, in the bruised bananas I was put
ting in bruised banana boxes - my job.
The bananas would end up in one of
the cubes of trash they would pull from
the compactor - devalued only by the
need for the upper 3 percent of quality.
The bad apples that I would find later -
the bad apples that weren’t all that bad
- would follow the bananas. Oranges,
sometimes; potatoes maybe; everyday,
lettuce. I suppose we couldn't avoid
lettuce, its flicker of shelf life was like
the click of a bumt-out light bulb when
vou turn it on.
We trashed a lot of things.
Sometimes, I just felt like I was holding
a bat, and I was breaking something
beautiful - like I was standing on a his
torical monument or piece of artwork
and was pouring all my weight into
destroying it.
Sometimes, I just stare at the world
blankly - let it blur, roll in every direc
tion, until it is out of focus. I feed those
who have never been hungry. I am 300
free minutes and free long distance on
your cellular plan. I am your pager.
Weekend retreats to the mountains. I
am designer end tables and $120
sweaters.
Then the colors pull together -
magnetized in their nonexistent polar
ity - they run together like people hud
dling before some sort of mass
destruction.
I watch them all piece together and
form this blob of clarification, of focus.
It isn't this that is focused though. In
the blob, everyone is engulfed like the
points of a pointillist painting.
Unfocused, I could see the people
individually - focused, I was absorbed
in the shadow of their blob.
People appreciate me because I
provide quality produce for their
Christmas Eve soups or office New
Year's party vegetable trays. They
appreciate my bruised bananas,
dropped apples and half rotting pota
toes because they are not there - they
appreciate my trash. They love their
pretty little worlds of comfort.
This is our luxury, the epitome of
civilization. We have whittled life into
specific specs. We opt for excess.
Some mornings I wake up and
hope that the lights in my room won’t
work. That there is no hot water in the
shower. Maybe there would be an elec
trical problem. I want to look in the
mirror and not shave or comb my hair.
I wish that everyone would wake up
just like me. Rock bottom.
I bet those bruised bananas would
n’t sound so bad.
I like to put on my orange sunglass
es. We try to liberate ourselves, free
ourselves in plucking our eyebrows,
pressing our pants or washing our new
car. We scrape happiness from the cor
ners of our showers. Your new mass
produced, four-colors-of-blue shirt is
not happiness. The clean, fresh fruits
are the advantage we take.
In reality, there is no need to dump
gasoline around your teepee and set
fire to all your worldly possessions. You
don’t have to let go of all the things you
enjoy. You don’t have to eat them to
appreciate the bruised fruit of the
world.
Ask yourself, what if you had to?
What if all the excess of the world was
gone? What if I quit my job and there
was no one to sift through all the shit
you like to pick up and complain
about? What would you have left?
Where would you get your produce?
So, how’s that treating you?
My job? I hope it works out for you.