----- Original Message -----

From: James J. C******
To: Bill Fitzhugh
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 9:58 AM
Subject: CROSS DRESSING

Dear Bill,

I am approximately half-way through your novel and I am enjoying it to a moderate degree. However, I am troubled by the manner in which you portrayed two of the novel's characters; namely, Cardinals Cooper and Goddard. While all the Princes of the Church have not been exemplary prelates, I feel you were most unfair and unduly misleading to the reader with respect to these characters. You may have guessed, I am a Catholic, but I am not a member of the clergy. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to defend the Church on this point.

I would be interested in learning of your logic in creating such a horrid image of the Cardinals.

Signed James C******

So I wrote back.

Dear Mr. ******:

Thank you for writing.

I portrayed Cooper and Goddard the way I did for the same reason I portrayed Father Michael and Monsignor Matthews the way I did. Because the church, like all large organizations, is made of both good people and bad. Quite frankly I don't think I portrayed either of them as particularly awful men, certainly nowhere nearly as awful as history (or current events) would justify.

Goddard is stern and uses some coarse language (as do many men of the cloth, as I suspect you will acknowledge) but he's simply doing his job in this small scene. The church doesn't run on faith alone. It requires cash. The proper management of money in modern times is frequently left to those with education and experience in the business world. Goddard is simply a hard-ass with a business degree. In my catholic upbringing I ran into more than a few priests (and monsignors too) who acted this way from time to time. By the way, this scene is also an homage to a scene from the film version of David Mamet's 'Glengarry Glen Ross' (Mamet attended Goddard College, I believe) where the character portrayed by Alec Baldwin attempts to intimidate a group of miserable real estate salesmen into reaching their sales quota.

As to Cooper -- The worst he can be accused of is losing his temper and excommunicating Father Michael. Otherwise all we see him do is the same thing we've seen the current pope do on many occasions, viz., ride around in what is commonly known as "The Popemobile" waving to his followers, the vast majority of whom will not in their lifetime earn enough money to ride around in such opulence. Granted, I made up the bowl of nuts and the soft drink, but for all I know the pope has a snack and a beverage with him while he travels. How bad is that?

Does the scene mean The Church is bad? Of course not. No more than the portrayal of Father Michael means The Church is good.

I suspect your point is something along the lines of, "yes, not all men of the cloth are perfect, after all they are merely men and we must allow for human foible etc..." I understand this. But here's my point. Because the church and its representatives essentially claim to be God's agents on earth, and under this guise do they take money from people and tell them how to live and how not to live etc., I believe they should be held to a higher standard of behavior than, say, an advertising executive. Why? Because an ad exec doesn't purport to be God's representative.

I think one of the problems we face in this world and certainly in this country is that we have lowered our standards to the point that now, when a person merely does his or her job (and no more), they stand to win an award of some sort. Take Richard Nixon as an example. He was almost certainly guilty of obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and failure to comply with congressional subpoenas -- fortunate for him Gerald Ford granted him a pardon. But people still talk about Nixon as a great president and a great man. "Look what he did with China," his fans say. So what, is my reply. Foreign policy was simply PART OF HIS JOB.

It's the ABSOLUTE LEAST we should expect and get from a president. (Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy to use Bush, Reagan, or Bill Clinton as examples, but we have limited time here). Now if Nixon had found a cure to cancer while doing the job for which he was elected then maybe he starts to qualify for 'greatness' but as it is, he's simply another politician who got caught committing a crime and otherwise abusing the public trust.

As this applies to the church and its representatives: priests should give a good sermon, counsel trouble youth, give moral guidance etc., because that's their job. The higher ups in the church should be expected to carry out their administrative duties or whatever they're supposed to do because that's their job. It is the absolute minimum we should expect from them. But when we find them fondling altar boys or sweeping such scandals under the rug (to the tune of millions of dollars) or behaving in any number of less scandalous, but no less improper, ways, they should be held accountable -- very accountable because of who they say they are.

As Merriam Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature says of satire, it is my job to hold up "human vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods sometimes with an intent to bring about improvement." Why ridicule the church? It's my job. It's the least you should expect of me.

As an interesting side note, I received an email from a woman identifying herself as a nun (Sisters of the Perpetual Adoration of Jesus Christ). She and an unspecified number of her fellow sisters (to whom she had given the book at a retreat) said many of my points about the church were "unfortunately correct." It's not much, but I cling to it.

I hope you will finish reading the book and get a sense of what I'm trying to say. Humans are capable of greatness -- I've seen it. We should aspire to it and we should shine a bright light on it when it happens so everyone can see it. But we should shine an even brighter light on hypocrisy because greatness will never harm us, hypocrisy will.

Best regards,

Bill Fitzhugh

So he wrote back.

Dear Bill,

Thanks for your e-mail. Clearly you value the opinions of your readers and I appreciate the time and effort you took to reply to my question promptly and in much greater depth than I expected. Also, the explanations of your motives in presenting the characters as you did are quite persuasive.

While I still feel you were a little hard on the Church, I am more comfortable with the issue as a result of your clarifications. I am nearly finished the book now, and I am most anxious to learn of its conclusion.

I look forward to reading your other works.

Thanks again for responding.

(Incidentally, I did recognize the scene from 'Glengarry Glen Ross'; it was a most captivating moment in both your book and the film.)

Sincerely,

J. *********

Back to Home Page

©2000-2001, Reduviidae, Inc. - All rights reserved