MORE ON MARRIED CLERGYMEN

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Max
Date: May 21, 2003

You seem to know a good deal of the history, but this old Catholic Encyclopedia article may be instructive [See "Married Priests in Iceland," The Rittenhouse Review, May 20.]:

Finally, in 1123, at the First Lateran Council, an enactment was passed (confirmed more explicitly in the Second Lateran Council, can. vii) which, while not in itself very plainly worded, was held to pronounce the marriages contracted by subdeacons or ecclesiastics of any of the higher orders to be invalid (contracta quoque matrimonia ab hujusmodi personis disjungi…judicamus -- can. xxi).

This may be said to mark the victory of the cause of celibacy. Henceforth all conjugal relations on the part of the clergy in sacred orders were reduced in the eyes of canon law to mere concubinage. Neither can it be pretended that this legislation, backed, as it were, by the firm and clear pronouncements of the Fourth Council of Lateran in 1215, and later by those of the Council of Trent, remained any longer a dead letter. Laxity among the clergy at certain periods and in certain localities must undoubtedly be admitted, but the principles of the canon law remained.

The only thing Lyndewode makes clear, quoted above, is that the English Church in the 15th century refused to recognize the existence of any such entity as the priest's "wife." It knew of nothing but concubinage and denied to these any legal right whatever or any claim upon the property of the partner of their guilt.

Basically, priests were breeding through the 17th century. The practice became increasingly scandalous -- and rare -- with time. Nonetheless, it remained common in rural areas, particularly those isolated from Rome. Legally, of course, there was no such thing as a priest's wife, but whether called a concubine or not, her sons often inherited the land/position of the father.

I wish I could think of a good book on the subject, but this was not my specialty when I studied such things. Le Roy Ladurie's book Montaillou gives a somewhat sensational (but entertaining) picture of village life in the late middle ages. It is based on the inquisition records of Jacques Pamiers, which are a fantastic source -- and some of them are on-line here.

You might also look into Natalie Zemon Davis and Carlo Ginzburg if you are interested in semi-anthropological accounts of pre-modern village life -- which is the context that clerical marriage needs to be viewed in, not councils in Rome.

Max

DAVID FRUM: WAYWARD CHILD

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Kevin Briand
Date: May 20, 2003

After reading today's post about David Frum, I was reminded (again) of how far he falls short of the standards set by his mother. [See "David Frum: Swimming With the Fishes," The Rittenhouse Review, May 21.]

His mother, Barbara Frum, was one of the most respected and influential woman journalists that Canada ever had (though she was born in Niagara Falls, N.Y.).

To really appreciate just what an idiot he is, you need to realize that he didn't just crawl out of the woodwork. In fact, he had a highly respected, admired, and competent role model to facilitate his future career.

Those of us who can remember what a quality journalist she was are truly saddened and disgusted whenever we come across the latest contribution from her son (whom I'm increasingly convinced was adopted).

Information about Barbara Frum can be found at this CBC website.

Kevin Briand
Houston

BUFFY: NEITHER SLUT NOR BIMBO

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Chris Lark
Date: May 22, 2003

Could you please elaborate more on your beef with "Buffy The Vampire Slayer"? [See "There Truly is a God," TRR, May 19.]

Was it actually worse than "Xena:Warrior Princess," "Sabrina The Teenage Witch," "La Femme Nikita," and "Charmed"?

Also how do you argue with this point I constantly hear from Buffy's female fans?: It gave young women a role model to identify themselves with on TV. Buffy was a true modern heroine who wasn't a slut or a bimbo.

Am I fan of Buffy? Not exactly. Will I take her over, oh, let's say Ally McBeal? Oh yeah.

One last question before I go, how come Joss Whedon and David E. Kelley get to make big TV shows and we don't?

Chris Lark

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

I don't know why you don't make "big TV shows," but the reason I don't is because I'm just too damned lazy.

ABOUT THOSE ICELANDIC PRIESTS

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Bruce Webb
Date: May 22, 2003

Although my graduate training was in medieval history, my particular emphasis was Britain before 1066, and so while I am not an expert on the subject of Icelandic priestly celibacy and marriage or cohabitation, I do have some background in this area. [See "Married Priests in Iceland," The Rittenhouse Review, May 20.]

First I would refer to you this article, which explains that Pope Alexander VI, elevated in 1490, was the father of the Borgias -- yes, those Borgias -- and openly secured riches and lucrative offices for his many children.

And while the Icelandic Bishop Jón Arason may have been ignorant of the finer points of the Second Lateran Council, presumably some of his near-contemporaries at the Vatican were at least vaguely aware of the strictures incumbent on priests.

Although Alexander VI was not typical for Roman Pontiffs he was fairly representative for the clergy at the time. The point you have missed, but one that is clear on first examination of the texts, is that clerical celibacy is not at all about sex, it is about marriage. And even more clear is that in medieval Europe marriage was not about sex, it was about legitimacy, which means inheritance.

The one constant of medieval history is the attempt by king and bishop alike to keep property from being permanently alienated from their control. Property rights that initially were granted in return for a specific service (whether war or preaching) were constantly being transformed into inheritable property. While on the whole this was a losing battle for kings, who gradually had their income base shifted from property to taxes, it largely was won by the Church.

Property that accrued to the church remained under its control. And while there are multiple examples of "nephews" of high clergy being granted lucrative clerical offices, the principle of clerical celibacy prevented large chunks of property being permanently alienated.

To your specific example, note that your quote was "priests commonly lived with women and had children." Now there is nothing in that that implies "marriage." And my reading leads me to conclude that priests openly cohabitating and procreating with women was rather the norm than the exception in Western Europe, particularly as you move down the income scale. And, generally, where property rights were not at risk, the Church really didn't care.

Bruce Webb
Everett, Wash.

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

Thank you for your interesting and informative letter.

As relates to the example of married or cohabitating Icelandic priests in the 16th century, as discussed in A Brief History of Iceland, by Gunnar Karlsson, I presumed, probably incorrectly as you imply, that the phase "priests commonly lived with women" implied marriage.

However, lacking access to Karlsson's text in the original Icelandic, I cannot offhandedly determine what the author actually wrote. I suppose I am filtering the English translation by Anna Yates through a decidedly 21st century view, keeping in mind that this is a book that runs to just 72 pages, implying a need for Yates to be brief and concise.

I think a definitive finding on this matter would require an investigation into the prevalence of cohabitation in Iceland during the period, among the clergy and the populace at large, but that is a topic for another day.

I must disagree, however, with your point that "clerical celibacy is not at all about sex, it is about marriage." This may have been true centuries ago, but I don't think this notion applies to the Church today. But that, too, is a topic for another day.

BUFFY'S THE BEST!

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Mark Gisleson
Date: May 20, 2003

I'll keep reading The Rittenhouse Review, but I'm sorry I gave in and started checking out TRR, per your cajoling.

Now that I know you didn't like "Buffy The Vampire Slayer," I will always think less of you and your opinions. [See "There Truly is a God," TRR, May 19.]

In a one-on-one contest with Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), you'd have my vote (if I lived in Pennsylvania), but otherwise I have to question your decision-making process.

If you are saying that 99.99% of all TV is rot, that's one thing, but "Buffy" was clearly in the top 0.01%.

Let me stand in solidarity with my young blonde comrade, as you should as well: vampires, demons, Satan, Karl Rove, the GOP...What's the difference?

Mark Gisleson
St. Paul, Minn.

COMMON PROBLEMS IN CATHOLICISM AND BUDDHISM

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Michael Siegel
Date: May 21, 2003

There is a historical parallel to what which recently has been going on in the Catholic Church that has been largely ignored. [See "Married Priests in Iceland," The Rittenhouse Review, May 20.]

A very similar situation occurred in China and Japan in Buddhist monasteries. (A good account is given in Bernard Faure's The Red Thread.) Priest and monks often took young boys as sexual partners.

Now, the interesting thing is that in many sects, Japanese monks and priests are now allowed to marry. This perhaps solved the problem of molestation, but introduced new ones as well.

Traditionally, the teacher had passed his lineage on to his best student. Once monks had families, however, it became a matter of course to pass it on through the family. Priesthood became a fairly lucrative profession, a "trade" like anything else. Many say this has degraded the practice.

Michael Siegel
Newton, Mass.

ON TARGET ON "BUFFY"!

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Curtiss Leung
Date: May 21, 2003

I'm glad someone is willing to go against the grain and say out loud what I've been thinking for a while: "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is garbage. [See "There Truly is a God," TRR: The Lighter Side of Rittenhouse, May 19.]

It's teen porn with intellectual pretensions.

I visit your main site regularly, but this is the first time I've looked at "TRR The Lighter Side." I'll make a point to be back.

Signed,
Curtiss Leung
Brooklyn, N.Y.

WARREN BUFFETT'S TIMING

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Andrew W. Cohen
Date: May 21, 2003

The timing of Warren Buffett's recent Washington Post op-ed may be spot on. [See: "A Rational Voice Amid the Cacophony of Absurdity," The Rittenhouse Review, May 21.]

I assume he's trying to get fellow Nebraskan Sen. Ben Nelson (D) to change his vote on the bill that comes out of conference.

Signed,
Andrew W. Cohen
Assistant Professor of History
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs
Syracuse University
Syracuse, N.Y.

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

Ah...Very good point. I think you're right. And I hope it works!

IT'S ALL ABOUT ME!

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: "Kaspu" kas2416@yahoo.com
Date: May 20, 2003

Never in all my born days, have I ever, ever, seen a more self-referential blog than yours.

Signed,
"Kaspu"

Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:

Thanks for visiting the site. And so often! I'm glad you're enjoying it.

"Kaspu," by the way, for readers unaware, is a psuedonym for a little -- and I mean that -- swamp monster otherwise known as the Babylonian Sewer Rat, who, despite his self-styled he-man insult-flinging, likes to hide behind fake names. When and why the little rat developed his unrequited schoolgirl crush on me has not yet been determined.

DRINKS ARE ON ME (OR HER, ACTUALLY)

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Vicki Roush
Date: May 16, 2003

If you come to Key West for a visit, your first few cocktails are on ME.

Love your site and grieve with you for Ashleigh Moore.

Lots of working-class lefties at the bar. You'll like it.

Signed,
Vicki Roush
Green Parrot Bar
Key West, Fla.

MURRAY DUBIN WRITES

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Murray Dubin
Date: April 1, 2003

You made mention last week of the Philadelphia Inquirer's "Conversations on War" series. [Ed.: See "'Conversations on War': With Rittenhouse Reader Susan Madrak," The Rittenhouse Review, March 26.]

As its [Ed.: the series's] author, I wanted you to know that the series began on Wednesday, Oct[ober] 29, and has appeared weekly except for the week of January 1[, 2003]. The interview [conducted] on Wednesday, April 2, will be the [published on the] 22nd.

Murray Dubin
Philadelphia Inquirer
Philadelphia

DON'T FORGET FEINSTEIN

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: V.W.
Date: April 1, 2003

Speaking of continually disappointing, you omitted my senator, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). [Ed.: See "Is Your State Being Underserved? Senators of the 108th Congress," The Rittenhouse Review, March 30.]

Sen. Feinstein can speak very well but vote very badly when the vote counts: e.g., pro Bush tax cut, pro rollover for Bush resolution on Iraq in spite of overwhelming opposition from her constituents. My other senator, Barbara Boxer (D), and my representative, Susan Davis (D), both took the courageous high road and voted against conceding authority to President George W. Bush.

To quote Sen. Feinstein's Senate floor speech of October 10, 2002 regarding her position on the Iraq resolution:

I serve as the Senior Senator from California, representing 35 million people. That is a formidable task. People have weighed in by the tens of thousands. If I were just to cast a representative vote based on those who have voiced their opinions with my office and with no other factors, I would have to vote against this resolution.

But as a member of the Intelligence Committee, as someone who has read and discussed and studied the history of Iraq, the record of obfuscation and the terror Saddam Hussein has sown, one comes to the conclusion that he remains a consequential threat.

Although the ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda are tenuous, there should be no question that his entire government is forged and held together by terror.

In other words, Sen. Feinstein knows more than her constituents and their opinions are irrelevant.

By the way, 2002 was not an election year for her, so a difficult reelection campaign wasn't a factor.

V.W.

FROM MAINE TO GEORGIA

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Rick O'Leary
Date: March 31, 2003

Other bloggers, Mary Beth Williams of Wampum, for example, may disagree, but Maine should not be on the list. [Ed.: See "Is Your State Being Underserved? Senators of the 108th Congress," The Rittenhouse Review, March 30.]

Sens. Olympia Snowe (R) and Susan Collins (R) were instrumental in beating back the special protection for Eli Lilly & Co. last fall. Sen. Snowe was a leader of the group of moderates who defeated the President's $726 billion dollar tax cut proposal at a time of ever growing deficits and war. And both senators voted against oil drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I live in Georgia. I wish we had senators as good as Snowe and Collins.

Dwight Meredith
P.L.A. - A Journal of Politics, Law & Autism

UNDERSERVED? TRY NOT SERVED AT ALL

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Steven desJardins
Date: March 31, 2003

You left out Washington, D.C. [Ed.: See "Is Your State Being Underserved? Senators of the 108th Congress," The Rittenhouse Review, March 30.]

If not having any senators isn't embarrassing, then what is?

Signed,
Steven desJardins

ON WISCONSIN

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Rick O'Leary
Date: March 31, 2003

Inasmuch as Sen. Russ Feingold (D) is single-handedly responsible for Attorney General John Ashcroft's confirmation, and whereas Sen. Herb Kohl (D) is a moderate non-entity, despite being rich enough to take a real stand every now and then and weather the storm…I nominate my state: Wisconsin. [Ed.: See "Is Your State Being Underserved? Senators of the 108th Congress," The Rittenhouse Review, March 30.]

Rick O'Leary
Milwaukee

ANYTHING GOES!

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: M.P.
Date: March 17, 2003

Thank you for your recent post about the essay published in The Wall Street Journal praising insider trading. (See "We're The Wall Street Journal! We'll Print Anything!," The Rittenhouse Review, March 17, 2003.)

These guys are what George Soros calls "market fundamentalists." Anything goes -- On the assumption the market will adjust to insure fairness for all. That, of course, is completely wrong.

There's a huge problem associated with informing the public in a timely manner (say, about a company's "unreliable" bookkeeping), and Mr. and Mrs. America don't have the time to study the data and make decisions based on it. That's why we have regulation: Regulation makes an efficient market possible by ensuring there are common financial practices that we don't need to include in our analysis of a particular company's condition and outlook.

Anybody who wants a no-holds-barred approach to the market is merely making it easier for the scam artists to ply their trade. This extreme libertarianism leads to things like non-FDA-approved drugs (let the customer learn about and decide who to trust), unsafe products (if you get hurt, sue in court), and so on. [Ed.: Though the same "market fundamentalists" are now eagerly at work to limit liability for product manufacturers, physicians, and others.]

The after-the-fact pursuit of justice this philosophy leads to huge transaction costs that burden the economy writ large.

But as bad as the Journal article is, I think it does some good, demonstrating that Wall Street, or a portion thereof, is still unrepentant despite the massive scandals uncovered during the past several years.

No wonder the average investor continues to shy away from the market.

M.P.
(Name withheld by request.)

REGARDING THE CAMPAIGN

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: David Salkin [ d_salkin@msn.com ]
Date: March 21, 2003

I must say that since you started talking about running for the senate, I have almost completely stopped visiting your site. I don't know why exactly, and it doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for you (because I probably would). I guess it's because I don't expect fair commentary on politics from someone wanting to be on the inside.

Best of luck with it anyway.

David Salkin

YOU MARCH, I'LL VOTE (FOR YOU)

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Rich Fritzson
Date: March 21, 2003

I recommend you try attending one of the larger anti-war marches or demonstrations. (See, "Who Marches Against War in a Cold Rain?", The Rittenhouse Review, March 20, 2003.)

I went to Washington, D.C., in October and again in January. I'm 49 years old. I don't like attending protest marches. I didn't like it during the Vietnam era and I don't really like it much now. They make me feel powerless, like I'm shouting at someone who has already left the room, slammed the door and locked it behind them. Nevertheless, I don't want my children (ages 19 and 16) to share that feeling.

When there are hundreds of thousands of people protesting there, are more than "true believers" around. We marched alongside people of all ages. For a while, I helped carry a banner held up by 10 people none of whom was younger than me. There were former hippies, current hippies, college students, lots of former military, senior businessmen, mothers and grandmothers, fathers and grandfathers.

We met a woman who had brought her 10-year-old grandson. She was legally blind; her thick glasses gave her an owlish appearance. He said they were going to look out for each other.

We learned something. We were marching to the Navy Yard along a street on which I'd never walked before. The crowd began to chant, "What do we want?…Peace!", etc. But on the sidewalks, the observers, the people who lived on that street, shouted "Justice!" whenever we shouted "Peace!" And I knew they were right.

Of course, being at a newsworthy event and then reading about it later teaches you to distrust what you read about other events. And we all need regular reminding of that.

One thing we all noticed on those days in Washington, one of which was very cold, was that no representative of the government, no congressman, no senator, no member of the executive branch, no judge, came out to address the crowd. It made it quite clear that no one in the government represented us.

I wasn't planning to mention this but it seems like a good closing:

If you decide to run for Senate against Arlen Specter, I'll send you a check. Don't get excited. I'm nobody. I'm only good for a few hundred dollars in political contributions. But I live in the conservative suburbs. I'll go door to door. I'll try to inspire political action in our church. I'll write letters. And I'll vote for you.

Rich Fritzson
Paoli, Pa.

MANNE IS STILL SINGING THE SAME TUNE

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: A Boston Attorney
Date: March 17, 2003

Your readers may not be aware that Henry G. Manne has been making his argument about insider trading in more or less the same form since 1966. [Ed.: See "We're The Wall Street Journal! We'll Print Anything!", The Rittenhouse Review, March 17, 2003.) The argument, while radical, has a certain plausibility, and accordingly has provoked a great deal of productive thinking and writing on the subject of market efficiency. However, the consensus view is that insider trading does indeed harm stock market efficiency. The only serious disagreement among most authorities is whether it hurts a little or a lot.

Robert Clark, a professor of corporate law at Harvard Law School who is now dean of that institution, addressed Manne's arguments in detail in his 1987 treatise on corporate law. With respect to Manne's claim that insider trading provides incentives for managers, Clark remarks, "It is simply implausible to believe that explicit executive compensation schemes are inadequate to induce managers to work vigorously for corporations." I doubt our experience with executive compensation over the last 15 years has changed Dean Clark's opinion on that subject.

(Also, Frank Easterbrook, a professor of corporate law at the University of Chicago, appointed by former president Ronald Reagan to a federal court of appeals, in 1981 observed that where managers engage in inside trading, they actually have perverse incentives to engage in risky ventures: If a risky bet pays off the manager can capture the gain by insider trading and if it doesn't the shareholders bear the cost. Clark refers to this as the "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose nature of insider trading.")

Clark further notes, "Insider trading allows managers to profit from their bad management….By using advance knowledge that the company's fortunes have taken a turn for the worse, they can sell their shares and avoid participating with other shareholders in the disaster."

This is the allegation currently directed at Sam Waksal of ImClone Systems Inc. and his friend, Martha Stewart. While I have no knowledge of the details of that particular case, Clark is plainly correct that there is no social benefit from permitting someone in that situation to profit from their advance knowledge of bad news.

Clark agrees with Manne's claim that insider trading helps to correct prices -- indeed, any trade on an open market has that effect. But Clark goes on to cite the landmark 1984 paper by Ronald Gilson and Reiner Kraakman, arguing there are far more efficient ways of ensuring that a company's stock price reflects material information about the company, such as requiring that the company's officers publicly disclose such information. That is in fact what the federal securities laws require.

(Gilson and Kraakman are themselves noted authorities on corporate law. The former is now at Stanford Law School and the latter is at Harvard Law, but I believe they wrote "The Mechanisms Of Market Efficiency" when they were both on the faculty of Yale University Law School.)

In short, a great deal has been learned in the last 30-odd years from thoughtful consideration of Manne's once-provocative suggestion. Unfortunately, if unsurprisingly, none of that is conveyed in Manne's essay for The Wall Street Journal.

Signed,
An Attorney (Name withheld by request.)
Boston

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE DISABLED

To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Annie Cataldo
Date: March 6, 2003

Yes, in response to your recent question, disabled Americans face discrimination daily, and they have one hell of a case to prove when they do.

I have permanently dislocated joints. My past employers did not want to spend a dime extra to accommodate me, unless I complained and mentioned the provisions of the Americans with Discrimination Act.

I have had to specifically ask for "anti-fatigue" rubber mats to stand on in laboratories where I have worked. I once worked as a federal contractor in an office that would not provide me with a chair needed for my degenerated disks, and I was assigned to work in a cold hallway. But it was a job -- with health benefits. How many choices do I have?

And I have been cursed and glared at often as I park in disabled parking spaces. Although I am disabled, it doesn't appear that way to the casual observer, in part because I'm not in a wheelchair. All too often at my last job I would find culprits in the disabled parking spaces, and management did nothing after three complaints. I had to quit.

I have had to quit jobs that would not accommodate my needs. But try proving their lack of cooperation with their employees' needs, let alone their lack of compliance with ADA. Most employees will tolerate their bosses' discriminatory attitudes so as not to "stir the pot." Besides, one doesn't receive unemployment benefits when one quits a job.

The disabled don't get many breaks in the real world. And I find it quite telling that we live in a nation where the only people to have guaranteed medical service are prisoners. Try being a disabled woman in Oregon, which I've begun calling the "Mississippi of the West."

This is definitely a silent form of discrimination. It's hard for disabled people even to tell their employers they are disabled, a reluctance I have experienced in the past, though thankfully I still have the right of privacy.

Thanks for bringing up this discussion.

Signed,
Annie Cataldo
Hood River, Ore.