COMMENTARY: Ken Starr’s scarlet letter for Clinton

c. 1998 Religion News Service (Andrew M. Greeley is a Roman Catholic priest, best-selling novelist and a sociologist at the University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center. Check out his home page at http://www.agreeley.com or contact him via e-mail at agreel(at)aol.com.) UNDATED _ The president should don sackcloth, pour ashes on his head, wear a […]

c. 1998 Religion News Service

(Andrew M. Greeley is a Roman Catholic priest, best-selling novelist and a sociologist at the University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center. Check out his home page at http://www.agreeley.com or contact him via e-mail at agreel(at)aol.com.)

UNDATED _ The president should don sackcloth, pour ashes on his head, wear a dunce cap, and parade each morning across the White House Lawn while a choir intones the Dies Irae, beating his breasts as he walks.


Or maybe he should ask his wife to embroider a scarlet”A”on his jacket. Better yet perhaps Ken Starr should brand the A on the president’s forehead.

These measures might just satisfy the demands of media morons, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and other assorted crazy Calvinists in our country for ever increasing expressions of sorrow.

Lieberman’s religious heritage apparently does not prevent him from assuming the role of the prophet Nathan to the president’s King David _ though a considerable amount of chutzpah must be required for the Senator to think he’s prophet material.

But for followers of Jesus of Nazareth there is a clear-cut rule for how they should behave:”Let the one without sin throw the first stone.” Also:”Judge not that you might not be judged”and”remove the beam from your own eye before you admonish your brother about the mote in his.” All of which can be summed up in the single line,”There go I but for the grace of God.” There are apparently a lot of self-proclaimed Christians around who think they are without sin, who are not afraid of being judged, who feel there are no beams in their own eyes and who think their own virtue is not absolutely dependent on the grace of God.

One righteous fellow wrote me and said that he would be perfectly happy to cast the first stone at the president. I think he misses Jesus’ point.

Some other folks write to tell me I am a disgracefully bad priest because I don’t condemn an adulterer. I guess priests are supposed to be in the condemnation business. Heaven knows a lot of us can’t do much more in our weekend homilies besides condemning.

In fact, however, if we listen to Jesus, we know that condemnation is reserved to God alone. We may deplore the sin but we have no right to condemn anyone as a sinner. Neither does any Christian worthy of the name.


God, and God only, knows the extent of a person’s moral responsibility. The rest of us should keep our big mouths shut.

The world understandably thinks we’re a nation of self-righteous and hypocritical Puritans. The prime minister of Ireland, who stood by ruefully when the media morons pushed Clinton for more sorrow, is in fact involved in what one might technically call public adulterous concubinage. This fact does not in the least bother the citizens of conservative and Roman Catholic Ireland.

However, research data show the Irish are the least Calvinist people in the world. They are not eager to reach for the first stone and they understand that there indeed they go but for the grace of God.

To be fair, most Americans are neither Calvinists nor Puritans on this issue. They are not prepared to make judgments about someone’s private life. The puritanical noise comes from inside the Beltway and from the media morons. Three quarters of the population thinks Clinton’s first apology was adequate.

History, we are told, will judge Clinton as a failed president. Perhaps.

But it is dangerous to write presidential history based on contemporary impressions. Harry Truman was reviled in his own day and is now hailed as one of the great presidents of the century. Bill Clinton should be left not only to heaven but also to history _ real history.

However, it is fair to predict history will puzzle over the peculiar symbiosis between reactionaries and the liberal establishment to bring down the president. Both groups seem convinced they have the right to cancel the results of two presidential elections.


Their leaders _ for example, archconservative millionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and The New York Times editorial page editor Howell Raines _ have probably never spoken to one another. Yet their implicit cooperation in the destruction of the president has gone on for six years. Scaife’s motives are understandable. But why has The Times attacked everything the president has done since the day he was elected?

Beneath all the righteousness, I suspect, one finds prejudice against Southern whites, the conviction that no”cracker”from Arkansas has any right to be president _ especially a smart and charming cracker.

So let’s throw all our stones at him. Now!

END GREELEY

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!