• RSS Queering the Church

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS Spirit of a Liberal

    • Gonna Stick My Sword in the Golden Sand September 15, 2014
      Gonna Stick My Sword in the Golden Sand: A Vietnam Soldier's Story has just been released. The title comes from a stanza of the gospel traditional, Down by the Riverside, with its refrain--"Ain't gonna study war no more." Golden Sand is a bold, dark, and intense retelling of the Vietnam experience through the eyes of an army scout that is […]
      Obie Holmen
    • Gay Games Symposium July 21, 2014
      I am pleased and honored that the UCC has asked me to moderate a symposium during the games entitled Queer Christians: Celebrating the Past, Shaping the Future. [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
      Obie Holmen
  • RSS There Will be Bread

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS The Wild Reed

    • Michelangelo Signorile on the Rebellious Purpose of Queer Pride June 18, 2018
      Since 2009 I've shared every year during the month of June a series of "Queer Appreciation" posts. Each series is comprised of a number of informed and insightful writings to mark Gay Pride Month . . . or, as I prefer to call it (since 2011), Queer Appreciation Month. I always made a point of including in each series a diverse range of writers […]
      noreply@blogger.com (Michael J. Bayly)
    • Time by the River June 17, 2018
      Twice now in the past two weeks I've spent time at the same spot by the Mississippi River in Minneapolis. I was at this spot by myself on Tuesday, June 5, and then again last Sunday, June 10, with my friend Mahad (above). We both found this time by the river to be a very peaceful and grounding experience.This particular area of urban wilderness is close […]
      noreply@blogger.com (Michael J. Bayly)
  • RSS Bilgrimage

  • RSS Enlightened Catholicism

  • RSS Far From Rome

    • the way ahead March 23, 2013
      My current blog is called the way ahead.
      noreply@blogger.com (PrickliestPear)
  • RSS The Gay Mystic

    • Mystical Czech artist, Marie Brozova February 22, 2018
      About Life, Universe and All…The luminous Czech artist, Marie Brozova, creator of the wonderful 'Forest Shaman' painting featured on my blog, lives with her husband and seven cats deep in a Czech forest - without electricity or running water. No computers, no cell phones, no TV. Only the silence and the sounds of nature and the spirits. Artist Mari […]
      noreply@blogger.com (Richard Demma)
    • SPICING UP THE CHURCH: February 14, 2018
      Here is the website of the wonderful meeting group for gay Christians in the Czech republic, Logos. And below is their position statement. Check them out. Logos – Gay Christians in the Czech RepublicWe are an ecumenical fellowship of gay and lesbian Christians and their friends, in which we share our faith in all its diverse manifestations, and try to suppor […]
      noreply@blogger.com (Richard Demma)
  • RSS The Jesus Manifesto

    • Another World is Neccessary: Anarchism, Christianity and the Race from the White House July 30, 2008
      I’ll be presenting at the upcoming Jesus Radicals conference in Columbus, Ohio. My session (on the relationship between Church and State) will be on Friday afternoon. If you’re in the area, drop by. I’d love to meet some of the folks who frequent this site. Here’s the info: August 15-16, 2008 St. John’s Episcopal 1003 W Town Columbus, OH [...]ShareThis […]
      Mark Van Steenwyk
  • RSS John McNeill: Spiritual Transformations

  • RSS Perspective

    • A bridge too far? Maybe. June 18, 2018
      ANOTHER UPDATE: Trump admin discussed separating moms, kids to deter asylum-seekers in Feb. 2017UPDATE 6/18: Today both Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen commented on their policy of separating children from their parents. Trump, as usual, lied, blaming Democrats. Nielsen took the Nazi route, saying in essence that she was following orde […]
      noreply@blogger.com (crystal)
  • Advertisements

When a Failure to Assume Leadership Becomes Toxic

In numerous different circumstances spanning the globe — from the halls of the Vatican in Rome, to Berlin, to the White House right here in our very own United States — it seems that concrete, sensible, and decisive leadership has been conspicuously absent from the domestic arena when it comes to solving problems that usually don’t have easily found or quick-fix solutions. The question arises: how long can this undesirable status-quo be maintained without stoking the ire of all those who look to their leaders (whether they be civil or spiritual) for guidance in difficult times? How long can the hard questions be avoided? How long will it be before the systems and catalysts that have given rise to these pressing issues are tackled head on; before they either disintegrate or are forcibly altered (even potentially obliterated) by disenfranchised individuals who have been yearning and looking to these institutions for leadership?

As the Vatican sponsored “Year for Priests” within the Catholic Church has drawn to a conclusion, the world has witnessed a period which was supposed to be an opportunity set aside to exalt and celebrate the glories and gifts of the celibate, uniquely male priesthood. Instead it has turned into a year which has been wrought with horrible, stomach-turning revelations of clerical abuse on a massive scale — spanning the European continent in countries such as Ireland, Belgium, and the Pope’s own Germany all the way to cases in Latin America.

As each new heinous crime came to light the Vatican entrenched itself further and further and became ever more on the defensive. Even as certain acts seemed to directly implicate the then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, during his tenure as the leader of the archdiocese of Munich and Freising, the Vatican offered nothing to explicitly explain how or if the future Pope was directly connected to these incidents. Eventually, even the Pope’s own brother, Fr. Georg Ratzinger, admitted candidly to having corporeally punished students when he was the director of the Domspatzen (the boys choir of the Regensburg Cathedral).

It then came to light that the priest who had abused children while Joseph Ratzinger led the archdiocese of Munich and Freising had been transferred several times to various parishes. After having undergone “psychological evaluation” he was deemed fit to return to his former ministry, and his new assignments dealt directly with ministry to youths and minors! The Vatican explanation for this was that the chancellor of the archdiocese at the time had approved and authorized these motions without the involvement of the then-Archbishop Ratzinger.

Given the time and climate of the Church this is not that hard to affirm as potentially being true. The abuse of children was something that was not only not talked about when the facts were known, it was something that wasn’t even acknowledged as happening when the truth became apparent. This was mostly because of the nasty details of these heinous acts which were committed against underaged children and the fact that they were of a grave sexual nature. It was well before the point when leaders of the Catholic Church were even comfortable talking about sexuality as a normal human experience, much less implicating, acknowledging, and cracking down on their own who were pedophiles — using their sexual urges in a depraved and demoralized fashion. So it is very possible that Ratzinger may not have even known of these cases, potentially because of their very debauchery.

However, it is also possible that Archbishop Ratzinger may have known, and done what seemed best to him at the time with the advice and the facts that he was given. Traces of this misguided approach in the future-Pope’s style of handling these cases became more readily available when he was appointed head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ( or “CDF,” the main entity responsible for theological and doctrinal declarations from the Vatican, formerly known in the past as the Inquisition). 

One notable example is the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy. From 1950-1974 Fr. Murphy worked at a school for deaf boys in Wisconsin. As time went on, reports were revealed that show that Fr. Murphy molested as many as 200 boys during his period spent at the school. When these actions of his had been discovered he was never officially disciplined or reprimanded for them but was simply transferred to another diocese in the state —as we have seen was standard practice at the time— and was allowed to carry out his ministry there unencumbered, yet again, involving youths and children.

Eventually, in 1996, the Archbishop of Milwaukee wrote to then-Cardinal Ratzinger, in his position as prefect of the CDF, seeking to have Fr. Murphy defrocked after allegations of his clerical impropriety and abuse had become so scandalous that they could no longer be ignored. Permission was given by the CDF to begin an ecclesiastical trial among the bishops of Wisconsin that could have potentially led to Fr. Murphy being expelled from the priesthood. Yet all of this changed when Cardinal Ratzinger received a letter from Fr. Murphy himself in 1998 in which he begged that the diocesan trial against him be reconsidered because of suffering “poor health”, the fact that he was 72 at the time, and firmly insisting that he had “repented of any past transgressions.” He closed the letter by stating, “I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood”  After this, the diocesan trial process was suspended and no other formal motions against the priest by the ecclesiastical authorities within the Church were pursued. Fr. Murphy would die later that year and be buried with all the rites and dignities proper to that of a priest.

It was probably this final portion of Fr. Murphy’s letter that struck the most sympathetic cord with Joseph Ratzinger. To him the priesthood is a theological reality and a dignity so great that it cannot be shirked off –lackadaisically– by the whims of this temporal world, but is a sanctified and higher calling that one carries for life. It seems that this ideological bias clouded the future-Pope’s judgment so much that he felt compelled to drop the case against Fr. Murphy, even though he had abused scores of innocent minors.

As time went on however, it does appear that Joseph Ratzinger did gradually adopt a more realistic, stringent and just approach to the situation at hand. At some point he must have realized the true scale and scope of this crisis as well as the fact that these instances of pedophilia were not just the missteps of a few bad apples in the priesthood that could simply be brushed under the rug and forgotten. He had the chance to demonstrate this renewed attitude once he had been elected Bishop of Rome following the death of Pope John Paul II.

In 2008 Pope Benedict XVI ordered the Mexican Fr. Marcial Maciel (a favorite of the late John Paul II) —founder of a conservative and prestigious religious order of priests christened “The Legionaries of Christ”–to a life of “prayer and penance” at a monastery after it was discovered that he had molested numerous minors over the course of his priestly ministry as well as even fathering children by several different women. This year, an investigation of the Legionaries of Christ was also made known to the public by the Vatican.

Yet, even with Benedict XVI’s forthright and welcomed handling of the priestly sex-abuse crisis there is an element that he refuses to allow to be brought to the table for discussion in evaluating the whole picture of this detestable phenomenon — that of the question of priestly celibacy and the role that it plays as a potential catalyst for breeding unhealthy sexual repression among men within the priesthood. Many psychologists have said that this culture of institutionalized, mandated celibacy could very well give rise to unhealthy expressions of one’s sexuality among persons who have never had any other experiences in which to cultivate a normal understanding of this very intimate and crucial facet of their personalities. In the wake of this deplorable scandal even prelates among the higher echelons of the Church’s hierarchy –most notably the bishops of Austria– have called for a reevaluation of this rule (which does not have its origins in Sacred Scripture or in the will of Jesus Christ, but is a medieval invention of a pope from the twelfth century).

Yet the Pope has remained unwavering in his firm belief that clerical celibacy is a “gift” rather than a detriment to members of the priesthood. Initially, it took several months for Benedict XVI to even address the crisis directly — which emanated shock waves throughout the world sending the message that Pope Benedict really didn’t care or understand the scale of the problem at hand.

In every instance in which he did, the Pontiff never really acknowledged that the clerical system that has become the status quo over the centuries could have been the very thing that precipitated the trends that caused this dilemma. Instead, Pope Benedict said this in his most recent comments on the sexual-abuse crisis during a recent celebration of Holy Mass with 15,00o priests from around the world on the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, “It was to be expected that this new radiance of the priesthood would not be pleasing to the ‘enemy’, he would have rather preferred to see it disappear, so that God would ultimately be driven from the world. And so it happened that in this very year of joy for the sacrament of the priesthood, the sins of priests came to light — particularly the abuse of little ones “

It is of course true that the sins of human beings and the very real influence of evil in the world have most definitely played a large role in this atrocity that has afflicted the Catholic Church. Yet the Pope’s comments almost seem to downplay the free, voluntary cognisance with which all those priests operated who perpetrated these actions. Their actions are indeed gravely sinful, but can these acts be reduced simply to the sins of individuals or should the Church –and its leaders– as a whole take responsibility for them when the culture and environment within it could have given rise to such undesirable conditions?

The Pope implying that “the Devil” influenced these priests and was the main cause behind their actions misses the big picture and fails to answer the commanding question at hand when it comes to solving this crisis within the Catholic Church. Thus, it must be asked, as well-intentioned as he may be — is Pope Benedict really intending to wholeheartedly prevent further occasions of abuse when he refuses to ask whether the clerical system, rather than solely the sins of individuals, is to blame for the crisis?  Is this really confronting this monumental catastrophe head on and taking all factors into account –even ones that may seem hard to come to terms with and accept–appropriately and with objectivity? Is Pope Benedict truly exercising genuine leadership on this issue?

Here in the United States, it has been two months since we learned of the disastrous oil rig spill in the Gulf Coast region of our nation. Eleven lives have needlessly been lost, and thousands more have been thrust into a state of uncertainty — with the scope and effects of this disaster threatening to end the very livelihood of thousands of fishermen, entrepreneurs, and scores of other individuals who make their livings on the resources found and protected in these waters.

We have watched the CEO of British Petroleum, Tony Hayward, half heartedly profess to sincerely have been affected by this tragedy and pledge all of his support to righting what has been wronged to the families of the victims who perished in the explosion of the oil rig. Yet, candidly he says that he, “wants his life back” — while the family members of the victims of the spill and the deceased themselves have no way of even exercising the option to restore their lives to the way it had been two months ago. When questioned by Congress on his role in this crisis he refuses to answer any questions as if he is somehow detached from all responsibility because he is the CEO and had no idea of how it occurred. Doesn’t the very fact that you are in charge of a company mean that you should have some idea of how and what makes it run?

In cases such as these, the American people have naturally turned to the President to find capable and ready leadership in dealing with this disaster. Ironically, the nation has unfortunately been at a loss for this commodity in several respects.

From the very beginning of this disaster the President did not really go about dealing with this problem in an objective manner. We can assume that this has come as a result of decisions made by President Obama personally or from suggestions that he has received from his advisors (some of them who have been accused more than once of undermining his agenda and credibility in office by their actions). Still, even after all of the containment efforts have been employed and are now underway –essentially– there has been no effective and indefinite end to the plumes of oil (now estimated to possibly number hundreds of barrels each day) that continue flowing into the Gulf of Mexico.

All the while, the Obama administration has insisted that they have had a firm grip on everything that has transpired in the Gulf during the past few months. The President –and his other advisors– try to bolster this claim by dropping the names of important individuals who have been involved with helping to organize efforts to contain the spill. Dr. Stephen Chu, the Secretary of Energy –and Nobel Prize winner– is the one most often mentioned, in this attempt to allay the frustration and rage of the American people. Still, it seems that the combined brilliance of Dr. Chu and the minds of British Petroleum have not figured out how to put an end to this toxic stream that continues to infest, and ultimately, terminate all of God’s creation which has thrived for so long in the Gulf.

The Pope and President Obama seem to have much the same problem when it comes to putting up with the status quo. If something you’ve tried over and over again has not worked why not try something new, revolutionary and innovative?

This past week, the former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, suggested that the President enlist the help of the Dutch –who have tested experience with dykes, dams, and a whole assortment of water-related mechanisms. To me –and I’m sure to countless other individuals– this solution seemed like a no-brainer from the very beginning. If British Petroleum is not doing what they’ve said they were going to do, and had no clear plan of what to do in the event of a disaster of such scope in the first place –why continue taking advice from and enlisting their support as the main source of trying to put an end to this spill if they don’t have the technology available? Why not bring in outside help from elsewhere, from some other entities who are equipped to tackle –and truly control, and stop– this stream of death from pouring into the Gulf day after day?

It is the failure to conceive of alternative solutions such as these that has stoked the ire of the American people. Everyone knows and believes that President Obama is sincere in trying to do all that he can to put an end to this tragedy and deliver justice to all those who have been wronged by this disaster. Yet, the integrity and credibility of his actions are rightly questioned when he continues to employ the same failed approach that has —as of yet— not successfully stopped the spill or significantly mitigated its continued, deadly, effects that continue to wreak havoc in the Gulf of Mexico. Is the President exercising the leadership for which he solemnly swore he would almost two years ago? Leadership is not simply listening to advice and making decisions on the information that has been presented before you. It is also having the courage and determination to see beyond the present situation, and conceive of ever new directions and methods necessary to tackle the cause at hand.

Across the Atlantic, the usually mighty nation of Germany is going through its own batch of bleak times. The oft-celebrated –first ever female chancellor–Angela Merkel has now come under intense criticism, from those within her own Christian Democrats center-right party as well as from members of the opposition in the German legislature, for measures she has taken to try to reel in her country’s recent budget deficit. 

Merkel accomplished this through a controversial 80 billion euro austerity package –which combined budget cuts as well as tax hikes in certain areas– that would come to fruition over the next four years. Mass protests and public outrage has arisen throughout Germany because the package is composed of mostly devastating cuts in federal jobs as well as trimming benefits for the unemployed (sound familiar?).  The once popular Merkel is now facing her most unpopular season yet as the leader of Europe’s strongest economy.

Polls have shown that 79% of the German public disapproves of the chancellor’s most recent austerity measures. In addition to the vocal outrage to these most recent initiatives, Merkel’s party suffered a major setback after it lost its majority in the Bundestrat (Germany’s parliament) during regional elections last month — probably as a result of the deeply unpopular fiscal policies the chancellor was beginning to champion.

The question here is: of course a country’s deficit must be reduced in a rational and reasonable way when its fiscal independence is threatened due to debt, inflation, or other economic perils — but are terminating people’s sources of employment as well as other institutions that provide social welfare to those who are less fortunate the right approach to going about this solution?

Yes, social programs can be expensive, and it is tempting to simply see them as being the source of all of a nation’s economic woes because of the seeming weight that they level on the respective country’s economy. But what about countries such as Brazil, Canada, and China? All three have a nationalized, single-payer healthcare system and none are currently undergoing recessions –in fact, Brazil and China were the only nations to almost completely avoid a recession during the recent economic downturn. Could the fact that all of these nations’ economies have some sort of regulatory measures which have become standard over the years be part of why they have avoided a recession?

Is it really exercising leadership when choices are made that save one’s respective country money but will serve to destroy the lives of countless individuals for years to come? Is it true leadership to find quick, obvious cuts at the expense of the lives of others? Isn’t leadership not only about exercising rational judgment but also about enacting and carrying out the dispensation of justice?

Leadership in any capacity –whether it be spiritual or temporal– is always a daunting task to carry out effectively. Yet, just because one has been placed in a position of leadership does not mean that they can simply take that position for granted. Leadership is not preserving the status quo, nor is it the stubborn refusal to be receptive and considerate of new possibilities in light of ever-changing realities, and it certainly isn’t exercising decisions at the expense of those who have no voice in the matter. Leadership is an appointed task which is ultimately meant to be of service to the people. Whenever they are not being listened to, protected, and respected to the utmost degree — this unique and fundamental task for the good of a well-maintained society has failed to be executed genuinely and prudently.



13 Responses

  1. You Got It Right-! However, the knowledge to lead is available in these TRYING times; however, this knowledge comes to this world in a way that is contrary to the Status-Quo. Sarah Palin’s advise tp Pray is negligence! People are truly expected to be responsible and accountable, and the opportunity for self-correction has been available for 2000 years; so the real truth is, Sarah Palin is telling people to continue be negligent and irresponsible. It took a lot of hard work to create this disaster, and it will only be fixed and cleaned-up by a LOT of HARD WORK. So, tell Sarah Palin to go to the GULF for a week, and work “hard” to clean-up the crude oil, or,… SHUT-UP!!! > Sarah is the true Whitchy-Woman >>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/29382543/The-Pope-s-Sex-Abuse-Trial <<<<<<<<

  2. Wow, an impressive and far reaching article. It’s refreshing to see people criticize Benedict where it is certainly deserved without going over the top and giving the sense of trying to win credit for one side of wars of the idealogues within the Church.

    It is true, it feels like everywhere in the world our leaders are failing us. Here in Canada, there is also a deep disillusionment with our political figures. The reigning government is spending 1 billion dollars of tax money on the G20, but the consistent visionary failures of the Opposition [the Left] leave many of us apathetic to who holds the reigns.

    Renewal, both political, economic and spiritual, is going to have rise up from the grass roots, I think.

  3. Mr. Clark,

    It seems to me that all 3 leaders whom you cite have taken fairly strong leadership positions for the positions which they have assumed.

    Benedict has certainly grabbed control of a number of areas of the Church. Obama has been an exceptionally strong leader if one considers that he occupies only one branch of the government. And, the German chancellor has not been afraid to lead Germany in a direction of trying to limit government.

    It is possible to raise a fairly strong argument that any one of the three are leading us in the wrong direction. On the other hand, all 3 are probably more adminstrators than true leaders. All have been charged with the responsibility of administering rules and regulations that have preceded them. Prudent administrator dictates that administrators not be too bold.

    • I agree with some of what you said David. But one can’t seperate being an administrator from being a leader when it comes to such a large institution or even a country — considering the Pope, the President, or the Chancellor of Germany’s roles.

      This was merely the point I tried to make — that in certain decisions, or lack thereof, that all three aforementioned individuals have at certain times failed to live up to the expections thrust upon them in the hour of need. This reality is most distressing to those who look to them for leadership under their respective categories — whether they be spiritual or temporal.

      My hope is not to bash all of the individuals that I mentioned, but to hopefully offer a reflection of constructive criticism where it is due.

    • Mr. Clark,

      I think that you expect too much of our leaders. They are not the Savior. Even our Savior was viewed as a failure by many of his time, especially those Jews who thought that he was going to be the new King David.

  4. I think some of this depends on how you define leadership. In these three cases, as Phillip has outlined his thinking, LEADS me to see that relying on past solutions to present problems is systemic in the West.

    Perhaps all three leaders are leading us to see that expecting the systems which created the problems to fix the problems is not a very good idea. This may not be what these three folks want to lead us to believe, but the Holy Spirit teaches with what is available to teach with and sometimes that’s quite the opposite of what the Spirit’s tools intend.

    • Everything depends upon how you define leadership, especially within the context of who or what the leader is supposed to be leading.

      Obama is an excellent example of a leader who has restrained his leadership. History has shown that strong leaders are more dangerous than weak leaders. For example, on the BP oil spill, the explosion was clearly an accident. Finding the right balance between overreacting and underreacting takes true leadership skills, which Obama has clearly shown.

      Germany and the EU are clearly in economic danger because of fiscal imprudence. Reigning in some of the spending is needs to be done to obtain sustainablity. It isn’t popular; but, it is necessary.

      Some problems, like original sin, are simply not fixable. These problems are only manageable.

  5. Mr. Clark is precisely on track with his fine reflections!

    And, just for the record, the BP oil “accident” is predicated on policies and practices that take risks which are not “warranted” which makes the “accident” not an “ethically pure” “accident.” Rather, the policies and practices that led to the oil “accident” are based on the ethical foundations of rapacious greed–for oil, for money, for….etc. These accidents are NOT morally/ethically neutral!

    Who is the neanderthal, anyway? Sounds like a reactionary, German, conservative Catholic Minnesotan, possibly a “good” Knight –yes of Columbus. I know this “category of person” for my family in Minnesota is full of them and I know their “minds” well from first-hand, years of experience! Hate to make an ad hominum remark here, but can’t believe the “wierd thinking.” Is it “thinking?” SJS

    • sjs,

      What is the relationship between reactionary, German, conservative Catholic Minnesotan Knight and “weird thinking”?

  6. David there is a tradition in Catholicism that defines original sin more a long the lines of original ignorance. Ignorance implies one can also learn to overcome the ignorance, not manage it as a permanent human issue. Perhaps this is why in the original garden story the fruit of the tree represents knowledge.

    Making a virtue of continuing past ignorance as traditional truth is not my idea of overcoming ignorance. It serves to enshrine ignorance and keep humanity enslaved to those who benefit from passing on the ignorance.

  7. Colkoch,

    I’m not making a virtue of past ignorance. What I am suggesting is that when we expect too much (or the wrong things) from our leaders and the institutions over which they have some control, we will be disappointed.

    President Obama didn’t cause the oil spill, nor can he fix the devastation. What he can do as a leader is manage his reaction and, in turn, manage the reaction of the American government and its people. With that as a criteria, he has done really well.

    In the same sense of leadership, Benedict didn’t cause the sex abuse crisis in the Church. Just like Obama, he has to avoid over-reacting and under-reacting. Considering the strong anti-Catholic bias in American and much of the western world, he has done a good job of balancing the tenents of the faith, including the tenet of forgiveness, with the demands of administration and public relations.

    History has shown that leaders who react too strongly and seize too much power are far more dangerous than leaders who use caution. That was certainly the case with George W. Bush and Iraq. Bush was decisive, and he had the backing of the American people to go into Iraq. In retrospect, we needed prudent and cautious leadership rather than bold and decisive leadership.

  8. David, I think you’ve hit on the underlying issue for me, and that’s trust in any leadership. I did not vote for GW, but I was one of those Americans who believed Colin Powell’s testimony to the UN. I supported the war in Iraq. I look back at that and wonder why I allowed myself to be that blind to the notion that the Bush Administration was engaged in inventifacting. I guess I just couldn’t fathom the notion that Bush would put American lives at risk for Haliburton’s profit margin.

    For me the lesson has been it’s not safe to make assumptions about any given leaders motivation. That’s part of Obama’s problem. A lot of us are not really questioning his leadership. We are questioning the motives behind his actions. Benedict is facing the same sort of thing.

  9. Colleen,

    Phillip’s article is entitled, “When Failure to Assume Leadership Becomes Toxic”. I thought his premise was that Benedict, Obama, and Merkel are not assuming true leadership roles, and that their failure to show a flair for thinking outside the box is causing harm. I hear you saying something different.

    I find it hard to question Obama’s motives. He is acting almost exactly like he said he would. Benedict has also been fairly consistent in his actions. There is a lot to not like about both leaders. But, both leaders are trustworthy, sincere, and dedicated. It’s hard to ask for more in a leader.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: