skip to main |
skip to sidebar
AC360 today was slammin. There's a story they ran that's one of those that causes your insides to turn. There was a woman, Pat, who 22 years ago carried on an affair with a catholic priest, Father Henry, some place in US that resulted in a beautiful bouncing baby boy, Nathan. As it happens, catholic priests are not allowed to have children, I guess because they're supposed to be celibate and all, so he should have been compelled to give up the priesthood, get a real job (hehe) and take care of his family. Apparently the affair had gone so far that this Patricia had actually left her husband for the priest. They had, you know, fallen in love with each other. Enter the child and everything went downhill from there. Rather than make him leave, the church saw it fit to stand up for one of it's own - no, not the congregant, the father. They assembled this high powered group of lawyers and negotiators, went and bombarded Pat with tonnes of legal speak and grand promises of them paying for everything to do with Nathan (this was a stay-at-home mum without means, mind you) and when she broke down that's when they presented her with the confidentiality agreement. In it, Father Henry admitted that he was the father, the Franciscan Church agreed that it would pay child support through Nathan's life and all Pat had to do was keep the affair secret. She couldn't tell a soul. Of course she took the deal - what else could she have done.
So fast forward 22 years to last month and the boy gets diagnosed with cancer in the brain, and it's too far gone to remove so he's gonna die. As Pat told it, the church abandoned her at her hour of need. It's important to remember that in this story "the church" literally means the church, it's not figurative, coz it was actually the church Father Henry worked for that was meant to be making the payments, not even Father Henry himself. Anyway, she called, wrote letters, pleaded, went down on her knees, and then the church sent her $1,000. This was like 2% of what she really needed to cover the hospital bills and all. Anyway, she somehow made do, and I think it's at that point that her story got picked up by the media, first the New York Times and then Anderson Cooper which is where I saw it. Of course the church was embarassed, came out all guns blazing saying how over 22 years Pat had received in excess of $223,000 from them. That translates to just over $11,000 a year, hardly enough to raise a child on for a person with no other source of income. But that notwithstanding, looking at this picture through the eyes of the insititution that is supposed to be the moral beacon to the masses, was that really the biggest thing wrong with the picture? That they hadn't been paying child support?? Why even sign the agreement to begin with? Why cajole the woman and leave her with no choice? Why allow Father Henry to continue serving as a priest, knowing what they knew about him? Apparently as far as the church was concerned they'd done nothing wrong.
And that's the thing that's most jarring about this story. That this was not just one errant person who could have been the sole bad apple or could have acted impulsively in a moment of weakness. This was the entire church administration. This was something premeditated. Something they sat down and thought about. This was something they did and did over and over again for 22 years and did not feel anything. If a troubled soul can't find reprieve from the church, where else? If this is how the church treats, not a stranger, but one of its own, how about the millions of other people who obviously mean significantly less to it? People to whom it's supposed to be preaching the gospel of love, morality, kindness, responsibility, truthfulness? Think about Nathan, even, how's he supposed to get saved, and believe in an all-loving and all-caring God? When his own father, God's image on earth, abandoned him. She sat there, Pat, and she said she was sure the church would actually rejoice when her baby died because then he wouldn't be a pain to them any more. Imagine - the church actually leading someone to think that way about them and not being bothered one bit by it. Instead of even coming out with an apologetic face seeking forgiveness they have their lawyers draft a letter to Pat saying they will cover 100% the funeral expenses of Nathan. It's like money is just supposed to make everything right. That's the mind of a catholic board. And even that letter comes after the story gets wide coverage in the media. If they hadn't picked it up who knows?
Then for me this story is coming on the heels of another one I'd heard some time back about (this time a local church) a pastor who refused to marry two people who've been going to his church for a while, who had made every arrangement and were just waiting for the wedding day, because he discovered the groom wasn't a believer. The hypocrisy of it all!! Isn't salvation supposed to be a deeply personal decision? One that you do not take lightly? Doesn't the Bible say to work on our salvation with fear and with trembling? What if this was to be the man's epiphany? How is he now supposed to know Jesus if the church that should be bringing him into the fold turns him away? How's he supposed to interpret the meaning of salvation if the pastor basically gives him an ultimatum - get saved or go get married somewhere else?
Nathan died, a week ago. And the church covered all funeral expenses as promised. This woman left her husband, gave up her life, for the church, and all she got was $11,000 a year and funeral expenses. Does that seem inhuman to anyone else? Father Henry finally got suspended by his new boss - but on the strength of new allegations that he once carried on an affair (at the same time as with Pat, btw) with an under-18 girl. See that second affair is actually illegal, and it's that offence that he gets suspended for, as explicitly stated by his boss. Imagine that... You'd think the church should at least have a higher standard than the bare minimum required by law, wouldn't you? As it turns out, you'd be surprised.
END
Do you have one of those names that is just so easy to mistake? Like Collins vs. Colin? And is the other name, the one that's not yours, the better-known one? You ever told people yours is the one without the S so many times you finally just gave up and resigned to answering to both names? The story of my life. It was Shakespeare himself, was it not, who penned the all-important question. "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet," said Juliet to Romeo, as she went ahead to convince him that it mattered very little to her that his name was that abominable Montague and hers was Capulet.
Well, I think there's a lot in a name. People grow up loving their names, so much so that it's become universally accepted that the easiest way to leave a legacy is to leave something behind that bears your name. For some, the children are enough - but that's a legacy that'll probably only be known amongst about six people unless you're Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and you happen to have a child called Benazir Bhutto. A different way is to start a company with your name on the letter head. Like Saks Fifth Avenue, as in Andrew Saks, or McDonald's, as in Dick and Mac McDonald, or if you're immensely powerful, Pennsylvania, as in William Penn. You ever imagined whether Hilton would be such a household name today if Conrad Hilton was instead called Quinane Bartholomew? Paris Bartholomew just doesn't have the same ring to it as Paris Hilton, does it? Or if JW Marriott was, in fact, not called Marriott? Or if Donatella Versace had gotten married to a Jordanian and adopted an islamic name? I tend to think that a little wind would have been taken out of the sails. Those names became so famous so easily because they were already imposing to begin with. You're called Christian Collinsworth and you send in an audition article to New York Times and just like that you've got the job. You know, names with grandeur around them.
Lord Lexington wasn't a particularly difficult moniker to name a town after, and later an avenue in Manhattan. Or Queen Victoria the Victorian Age. See those were stately names. So, I think, is one Denis Pritt, or Argwings-Kodhek, or Haile Selassie. Imagine if either Ludwig van Beethoven or Wolfgang Amadeus Morzart had had less statuesque names, like say Scott Joplin. Would one sound so educated and cultured saying they listen to them? Thomas Edison invented some things and also the all-important light bulb, Nikola Tesla invented six hundred thousand other things that were infinitely less significant, and in fact Tesla actually worked for Edison at one point, and yet it was Tesla that history chose to honor with a whole metric unit, the tesla. Why do you think it is that rap stars [other than designers and models, the single group of people who're the most concerned with appearance] don't use their birth names on stage? Why instead they opt for names like Master P and Chamillionaire? It's an image they're trynna project - we gangster, we loaded. No one's gonna listen to a rapper called Calvin Broadus, so he instead calls himself Snoop Dogg, and goes on to sell a million records. Doesn't change anything else, just his name.
And all this is before I even start to consider the cultural importances of the name - which among other things point to one's tribe which is a seemingly crucial issue over here. I frankly couldn't care less about the tribes if I tried, I think it's enough to just say we're all Kenyans, so I'm staying out of that one. But all these things start with the name. Just the name. "What's in a name?" asks the Bard, well I say quite a lot. History. Origins. First impressions. Influence. Legacy. So no, I don't think a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. I think if a rose was called a skunk we wouldn't even touch it with a ten-foot pole. And I really don't think my name can be interchanged with the other one! When Jesus came down and gave His life for us, God was so impressed with Him that what did He give Him - the NAME that is above all names. The guy gave his life, and got just a name in exchange. Seriously, do we still think names don't matter? Call someone by their name today, see how many points that earns you with them.
END
I met a guy over the weekend, nice guy, called Ian. He's a preacher, preaches mostly in prison, but is part of a church that rents a hall some place in Ngara. This guy talked a good game about purpose, place in life, wealth and the importance of money (or lack thereof) and destiny. Of course, being a pastor, there were little bits thrown in there about God and being christian and walking by faith. He's a bit of a motivator so there was also a bit about role models and how they impact the people that follow them. See, Ian is a rich guy, by anyone's standards. If he's as good as his word, and I think he is, he owns the houses one of which he'd hired out to us (like nine in all) in an exclusive area, houses that made even me oooohh and aaaaahh. Lives in one and hires out the rest to people who want to stay here for short spans of time but don't want to do the hotel thing coz of that homely feel. Did the interior design all by himself ("You see I believe everyone is born with some art in him. You don't go to the interior designer with an empty space and tell him to decorate it, you tell him exactly what you want done and in the process of realizing it, he adds his own flair to make it better.") and it looks GOOD! Seems like he's always on the lookout for people whose lives he can change, as all good preachers should be ;)
Ian struck me as the kind of guy who's really big on purpose. Passion. "Everyone was created with a specific spot into which they were meant to fit. Find what it is you were meant to do, you won't have to compete with anyone there. No one can do your bidding better than you can." Told us about one of his tenants whom he knows runs a commodities trading website or shizznit like that, has only one customer, works only four hours a day, and still makes almost as much money as my employer (who has us work like 100 hours a week!). Told us this other story about himself, about how he loves organizing and planning for conferences, so much so that he can do it in his sleep, but his wife, who went to school for that and is a professional, would need a week, coz there's no passion there. He's a preacher, so he works just one day a week (Sunday, all you atheists! :), and still gets enough zest in that one day of work to keep him through the rest of the week. Used also the example of musicians. They do like two shows a month, and the rest of the time is spent preparing for the next outing. The thing they have in common: passion. It matters not how much, or little, time you spend at something. You don't even need to love what you do, apparently, you just need to have a passion for it.
On faith, he told us how he originally got those houses he owns. One day he drove down Gitanga Road, turned into Hatheru, stopped at the black gate, and there was a guy standing out there. Asked the guy if there were any houses available. The guy bent over (Ian was in a "small" car - as we found out later, a C200) and told him, "Inside here there's YOUR house." Guy walks him in, shows it to him and all he needed to see was the basement, and he told the guy to seal it and consider it bought. Ian's net worth at the time: KShs. 2,000. Faith. When you hear God talk to you through other people, do you heed? Do you follow through? Or do you start second-guessing and walk away, thinking when the deal is too good...(?) The things you study, the things you follow others into, those have nothing to do with what you're meant to end up doing. What did you maker create you for? Where does your maker intend that you go? Those are the important questions.
It really could just be me, but have you ever noticed that the only people who say money isn't important in life are people who already have money? I guarantee you, you'll be hard-pressed to find a clerical level government employee tell you how he values things like family, friendship, love, belief in Christ. In the end, it always comes down to the mortgage. Ian is one of those people. Thinks very little of money. Has massive disdain for the rat race, keeping up with the Joneses. See, he believes there's as many places to fit in in the world as there are people. Ian doesn't dissect projects and ventures to death. When he feels himself being steered left, he turns and goes left. Doesn't care how everyone else who went there has done, if it's his time, God's gonna see to it that he succeeds. Or, if he gets into a ditch, well, you live, you learn. Picks right back up and starts over. He oozes success, you know, the kind of person for whom it's worked out more often than it hasn't. Confidence.
All in all, the one thing you cannot fail to pick up on when you talk to this guy is purpose. And passion. Find out what it is you're meant to do, and pour your all into it. Don't necessarily follow the well-beaten path. When you find your ordained purpose, all these other things shall come. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God," says Ian, and also the Bible. Anyway, like I said, I've been noticing a lot that the only people who think like he does are people who already have money. Faith is a really easy thing to have in hindsight. It's when you're heading into the dark that your faith really gets tested. It could just be one of those unexplainable coincidences, but you've gotta agree with me; you tend to speak with a lot more conviction when you're saying, "I tried this and this is what came of it," than when you're saying, "I'm going to try this and this is what will come of it," right? Riiight...?
END
So that ICC prosecutor shows up and all of a sudden all of the wounds of two years ago come rushing back to the forefront. Yesterday on News they showed a man who during the now infamous PEV hid in a bush as bandits burned his house down - his family inside it. He listened helplessly first as they desperately screamed, then as their screams slowly started to fade, turned into chokes, until there was deathly silence. You never forget that kind of thing. You never get over the day you hear your loved ones burn to death. You never forgive yourself for being unable to do anything about it. You never get over the fact that they (or you) had done nothing to deserve it, except try to eke out a peaceful living, and that whoever perpetrated the crime rises and sleeps in the knowledge that such a thing will probably never happen to them. One day you'll just be walking, going about your business, and then you'll hear that song play that your baby used to like singing or you'll smell your wife's scent on a random person in the street, or maybe just the smell of smoke, and it's gonna hit you like a tidal wave. Forgiveness sounds like a very noble concept in theory, but you never forgive these people, because the pain never really goes away.
The depth of the human soul is an interesting thing. Impressions that take seconds to form can take a lifetime to wipe out. Remember that time you were a kid and your neighbour came with lollipops and gave everyone else and skipped you? because earlier in the day you'd refused to share your juice with them? That's how early the vengeful spirit is implanted in us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. From then as we get older the stakes only get higher, so the feeling only grows deeper. We define justice as nothing short of revenge. And people like St. Augustine [who was actually a Christian theologian btw] don't help any - he's the guy who says an unjust law is no law at all. We read and we find out that revenge is actually a legal principle (the law of retaliation under retributive justice - reciprocity should be equal to the crime: "life for life, wound for wound, stripe for stripe"). It's seemingly in the constitution, so how can it possibly be wrong?
But even then, the supremacy of the individual being posited by such scholars as Henry David Thoreau - "Any man more right than his neighbours constitutes a majority of one." - a concept whose most horrific representation became Adolf Hitler, tends to vindicate us when we harbor such [for want of a more extreme term] ill feelings towards others. It's not as if we need anyone else to validate our dark desires, after all, they haven't been through what we have, have they? No one can understand our loss, so what qualifies them to pass judgement? But as if to add fuel to a fire that's already burning, here comes the law telling you you're actually right in demanding for that head on a plate. How can you not?
Louis Moreno-Ocampo is just one man. The quest for justice runs deeper than can be imagined by any of us. It's probably gonna take more than just him, and more than just one investigation cycle, to set matters right. But, that said, seeing to it that those guilty are made to face up to their crimes seems as good a first step as any. I haven't lost anything/one worth dying over, so I can't speak intelligently on the subject, but the guy on TV was saying if he can't get his family back, then at least he'd like to be able to see the people who took them away be brought to book. He will not be content with the matter just resting like that. All he wants is to know that yes he's suffering, but so are the people who ruined his life. And that's why this ICC prosecutor's coming is so monumental. Ocampo is just one man, but he represents a larger, more deep-seated principle. Revenge. Retribution. Justice. Where does one end and the other begin?
END
