A bitter blow in Zimbabwe

Perhaps because no one else would?

The same reason Senator Vitter hangs with prostitutes while proclaiming virture and denouncing gays. Hubris.

So only the sinless should ever speak up in the face of injustice? You'll be waiting a damn long in silence if you hold the world to that kind of a standard. As a matter of fact, you might as well shut down this blog. I'm going to venture a guess that, since you're a human being, you've sinned too. You're probably currently sinning. Even today, I bet you've sinned. Therefore, shouldn't you follow your own reasoning here and cease your criticisms of the war and everything else? No? Why not?

I think you're hyperventilating over this, Rod. You're starting to sound like the Church Lady. Oh no, Catholic clergy found to be sinners just like the rest of humanity. I'm shocked. Or not. What the hell does this have to do with the injustice in Zimbabwe, and Ncube's stand against it?

Not only that, but I can't really see the purpose in your posting of this. By implying that the Archbishop's sin - if true - somehow negates his entire stand against Mugabe (and indeed is a "blow to the cause of justice and liberty in Zimbabwe" - w t f??!! how do you figure that? You're making one man responsible for the entire cause of justice and liberty in that nation?) you're really contributing to Mugabe's attempts to discredit Ncube. Does that make you feel good? Do you really want to make yourself a part of that?

Thomas Becket should have kept his yap shut as well. With a past like his, who was he to castigate the king?

One should be careful about what one believes about this. Most of the articles about it are derived from a couple of articles what appeared in the state-run media. One would NOT expect accuracy there. While looking around, I did find at least one article in which the archbishop's lawyer claimed that the person in the pics (at least the ones which are incriminating) is too blurry to make out. Unless we see these pics and it is clear that they are actually of the archbishop and not photoshopped, we should probably suspend judgement.

someone once told me that all great men were abnormal in their sexual appetites: either promiscuous or celibate. I don't know if this is true, but there does seem to be a great deal of this out in the world. Look at MLK or even Thomas Jefferson. Would we say that they were not great men because they were given to sexual sin? (And I, of all people, am not trying to minimize sexual sin by asking this.) It's a thorny problem, I think. Honestly, I'm not quite sure what to do with these sorts of situations. However, they do seem to be the norm rather than the exception.

Anne: Not only that, but I can't really see the purpose in your posting of this. By implying that the Archbishop's sin - if true - somehow negates his entire stand against Mugabe (and indeed is a "blow to the cause of justice and liberty in Zimbabwe" - w t f??!! how do you figure that? You're making one man responsible for the entire cause of justice and liberty in that nation?) you're really contributing to Mugabe's attempts to discredit Ncube. Does that make you feel good? Do you really want to make yourself a part of that?

Oh please, don't be so naive. Ncube was making himself a leader of the opposition by his really courageous public stance. I've written in praise of him before. Ncube discredits himself by carrying on with a married woman, if the photos are accurate (and Ncube's public self-defense hasn't been all that inspiring). He's given the evil Mugabe a great gift, I'm sorry to say.

Newt Gingrich's adultery doesn't undermine the case for conservatism, but it does undermine the conservative cause. Similarly, if these charges stick to Ncube, it will undermine the (completely just) anti-Mugabe cause. This is why the communist secret police in Poland always tried to compromise Catholic priests: because they knew that moral authority was power, and a power that was being used against them. Rob the leader, especially a religious leader, of moral authority, and the battle is halfway won.

Rod I think the charge of "naive" sticks better to you here. I'm not the one squeezing my hanky over finding out that the Archbishop has fallen short of the glory of God in the sexual morality department.

Of course men with evil intent in corrupt regimes attempt to discredit their opposition. That's what they do. You mention Poland, we could make a long list of other governments that did the same. The problem here is that you seem to be falling for Mugabe's propaganda war against Ncube. The piteous cry of "why on earth did he take on this ruthless dictator?" and your pronouncement of the Archbishop's actions as "baffling" seem to show that you think Ncube is completely discredited. You know better. We all know better. We know that regardless of the Archbishop's personal failings, his stand against Mugabe is right, and he has the courage of which martyrs are made for making that stand. It would be one thing if you reported this straight up with either no comment, or with a comment to the effect of "damn, I hope this doesn't silence the Archbishop". But you didn't do that - you questioned his ability to even make the stand he has. I honestly ask you, would you rather he had never spoken up? Should he have shut up and compromised himself? Who else would have spoken up? The Anglican bishops seem compromised, and as the article you linked to stated, they have remained loyal to Mugabe. I hear nothing about any Orthodox leaders, if there even are any in Zimbabwe. So again, I ask, who else will speak up?

You say that Ncube was "making himself a leader". Says who? You? By virtue of his role as Archbishop, he is already a spiritual leader, not a political one. He has a duty to speak when his flock is threatened with injustice. Would you have had him remain silent? I can't see you giving him a pass if you found out later that he remained silent because he might have been compromised by this. You have spoken harshly, again and again, against bishops who remained silent when they should have spoken; haven't you even hinted that you know of some in the American episcopacy who remained silent because they might themselves be compromised? Well here we have a bishop who spoke out, regardless of what the personal cost to him might be, regardless of physical danger, and your reaction is to criticize him for opening his mouth, and acting shocked to find out he's a sinner.

I don't see how this undermines any cause at all, honestly. Maybe its some strange streak of puritanism that runs through American protestantism (and your protestant background comes through loud and clear on issues like this), but I can never understand the faux righteous outrage in this country over sin - especially sexual sin. I think you're going to find that this undermines the anti-Mugabe cause very little, except among a handful of people for whom pelvic issues are the be-all, end-all of their religious beliefs. If folks can't see beyond this to the bigger issues that Ncube has been pointing to, then we're a lot worse off than even I have thought.

I can't see the folks in Zimbabwe getting as worked up over this as I'm sure some folks in America will be.

Maybe I'm just using this story to bring up one of my own favorite points, but I don't understand on what basis the RCC denies its priests the basic human need for intimacy.

It doesn't. When a man becomes a Priest, he knows what he is undertaking, and he is free to choose not to undertake it and instead get married. It's like a married man who joins the military and then is away from his family for a year. What did he expect? If he didn't want to make the sacrifice, then he shouldn't have.

Jason,
Many married military men fail in that regard--and that's even though they know that they are only away from their wives for a limited period of time. RCC priests are expected to be celibate for the rest of their lives.
Granted, I'm not saying that Ncube didn't "fail" in that he did not break the vows he took upon ordination. That he did is obvious. Nor am I trying to give him a pass because of whatever else good that he's done.
What I'm saying is that even if their best priests--such as the ones who take courageous stands against dictators--can't maintain this level of asceticism (as opposed to the garden-variety cowardly abuser), shouldn't the RCC review this doctrine? Or is it really preferable to have an entire clerical class afraid to do what is right because they know inside that they're hypocrites? Or that they're blackmailable?
Demetrio

Demetrio,

The fundamental point is that if they do not think they can handle it, then they don't have to become Priests. There is no shame in not being a Priest. If you want to be married, then that is a great and holy vocation.

If a man doesn't know after 8 years of Seminary whether he can handle celibacy, then he will never know. What we need is not to abandon the discipline (not doctrine) of celibacy, but to make sure that men know what the vocation entails, and that they are prepared for that sacrifice.