Donna Freitas in the Washington Post: On remaking the Catholic Church

Donna Freitas, another Catholic, writes about how liberation theology can remake Roman Catholicism:


As the Catholic hierarchy sweats in the harsh glare of media scrutiny, as they backpedal about investigations into past and current abuse, and get defensive in all the wrong ways, the question "Should the pope resign?" is valid -- the man at the top has been harboring criminals. There is no defense for this. There is no defense for those who shuffled around priests known to be guilty of rape and assault and other forms of abuse, be you the pope, a bishop or cardinal.

But now is also a moment with extraordinary potential for grassroots reform in the Catholic Church, and Catholic theology offers a powerful history and tradition of ground-up resistance and civil disobedience in its feminist, womanist, mujerista, and liberation theologies.

So what can these theologies offer in response to the abuse crisis?

Well, they call for no less than a revolution.

At their core, feminist and liberation theologies are concerned with the abuse of power, righting injustice and discrimination, dismantling oppressive hierarchies, and clearing space for the disenfranchised to have a voice in the tradition and a central role in its transformation. By their very nature these theologies are grassroots and practical--they start and end with everyday Catholics, the very people who have been denied power, who have been oppressed and silenced. In the 1970's, the liberation theologies of Gustavo Gutierrez, Jon Sobrino, and Leonardo Boff were instrumental not only in addressing poverty, but toppling oppressive governmental regimes that perpetuated poverty and forbade dissent. For five decades feminist, womanist, mujerista, and asian-feminist theologians (all types of liberation theology) like Elizabeth Johnson, Lisa Sowle Cahill, Diana Hayes, Ada María Isasi-Díaz, Dorothee Soelle, among many others, have been speaking out about the rights of women and children, and in particular, addressing the problematic implications for all Catholics of an all-male, hierarchical governing body.

For these same reasons--how powerful liberation theologies are in restructuring oppressive hierarchies--the Vatican has issued statements lashing out against them, publicly silencing theologians for speaking out, perhaps most famously with Leonardo Boff. (See the following Vatican documents for examples, "Instruction on Certain Aspects of "Theology of Liberation," "Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation," and "On the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church"--all of which came out of the office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during Ratzinger's tenure.) [Editor: links are in Freitas' blog post.]

Isn't the average Catholic today--those of us still in the pews--now also the disenfranchised in the wake of this second wave scandal? The abuse and criminal negligence rampant throughout the hierarchy has marginalized all of us. Staying Catholic does not equal approval of the pope, does not make someone complicit in criminal behavior. Our faith and our tradition are being stolen out from under us by a powerful few who fear responsibility and are terrified of being held accountable for harboring criminals and perpetuating abuse for decades in the process.

But liberation theologies speak directly to us, the marginalized Catholics, and provide us frameworks to move from disgust, dismay, paralysis, and disempowerment toward transformation and change.

And if the vast majority of us are now the disenfranchised, it is from this place that we can begin to remake the church. The Vatican is so embattled and its power undermined by the scandal that the center of the Catholic Church has shifted sideways as a result--if we claim it from this place on the margins. If we speak in large numbers from this place as Catholics who are the Church.

We have strength in numbers. There are far many more of us than them. And liberation theologies empower the average Catholic to enter into theological discourse. They take theology from the hands of the few, from the pope, the cardinals, and the bishops, and put the task of theology into our hands. They anchor the Catholic Church in the laity and its ordinary priests and nuns, effectively dismantling the hierarchy's power and redistributing it on a grassroots level, where it obviously belongs if the hierarchy's behavior tells us anything at all.

These frameworks of resistance and reform are the very structures that empowered me to stay, to remake my own place and sense of Catholic identity in a way that gave me a strong voice and solid place to stand. I do not speak as a Catholic approving of the hierarchy--absolutely not. I speak as a Catholic disgusted by it, certainly, but who also knows that reform must happen from within and will happen via those of us who stay and make it happen. I speak as a Catholic empowered by liberation theologies.

We are living in a different world than in the 1980's when the Vatican lashed out at liberation theologians, requiring their silence. Between today's technologies and the widespread disgust at the Vatican, the places where and opportunities for lay Catholics and disenfranchised victims to speak up and out are many--and the Vatican can do nothing to stop this.

For the Catholic laity, for the theologians and clergy who want change--in not only leadership but overall institutional reform and what the Catholic tradition stands for--now is the time for us to speak up and loudly.

For a particularly powerful, thoughtful, and thorough perspective on reform, please see feminist theologian Mary Hunt's article, "Father Does Not Know Best: How To Fix the Catholic Church" at Religion Dispatches.

On Leadership: A step-by-step plan for the Catholic Church

Bill George, a management professor at Harvard Business School, has some management advice for Pope Benedict.


Q: Pope Benedict XVI's efforts to deal with the Church's sex scandal raises this question: Can a leader hold managers to account on an issue where his own past performance is in question?

Pope Benedict XVI is facing the greatest crisis of his long career. It's not just his leadership of the Vatican that is on the line, but the reputation of the entire Roman Catholic Church. If the Pope fails to face the reality that problems of pedophilia by priests have brought on the church, many Catholics may lose faith that their church leaders practice the same high moral standards that they preach. This situation is ironic for a Pope whose hallmark has been enforcing moral and sexual standards for one billion of the faithful. Does he have any choice but to require his priests to do the same?

Why is it so hard for the Vatican and especially this Pope to face reality? Is it denial? A cover-up? A double standard? Or simply a desire to protect its own leaders?

First of all, doing so means acknowledging that the church in not dealing as harshly with sexual deviants as civil law and basic morality would require. To suggest that these problems are limited to very few priests or a distant problem corrected long ago only accentuates public denial of the depth of these problems and widespread knowledge of them throughout the church hierarchy.

While addressing a crisis of this magnitude is painful, it must start with the Pope admitting mistakes the Vatican has made, including his own. Next, the Pope needs to deal as aggressively with past defenders as would be expected in a court of law. Then, he needs to install a compliance system that will prevent future occurrences and ensure the early identification of offenders. Finally, Pope Benedict XVI needs to make the Vatican itself much more transparent in order to prevent covering up problems in the future.

These steps, which are similar to what would be expected in government, public corporations, or other religious denominations, are required to protect children who believe in their church. Their protection is far more important than preventing wayward priests from being held to high moral standards.

The Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI and the child sex abuse scandals

I would like to never mention the Catholic Church and child sex abuse again. However, the issue has thrust itself back into the limelight. While Joseph Ratzinger was Archbishop of Munich in 1980, there are reports from the New York Times that he received a memo recommending that a priest who had reportedly molested several children be transferred. Archbishop Ratzinger denies having any knowledge of the recommendation to transfer the priest, which was approved by his subordinates. Indeed, another NYT article describes him as a theologian more than a manager. He may not have paid attention.

This may illustrate a leadership problem with then-Archbishop Ratzinger, although he wasn't alone in not giving this problem the seriousness it deserved:

Andreas Englisch, a leading German Vatican expert and the author of several books on Benedict, said that Cardinal Ratzinger “was never interested in bureaucratic stuff,” and noted that when he was first asked to be archbishop of Munich, he considered turning down the post because he did not want to work as “a manager.” In his autobiography, Benedict described taking the post as “an infinitely difficult decision.”

That said, as Archbishop, he was ultimately responsible for his archdiocese, including the personnel matters of the priests under his authority. Instead, he arguably abdicated that authority.

Mr. Englisch, the Vatican expert, said that transferring a problem priest was “such a difficult decision” that it would necessarily have required his opinion.

“I think the guy who handled it would have gone to his archbishop and said, ‘This case of transferring a priest is not common, and we should really have an eye on him,’ ” Mr. Englisch said. Referring to Benedict, he added, “I don’t think that he really knew the details; I don’t think he was really interested in the details.”

“As they say in the legal profession, you either knew or you should have known,” said the Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, who once worked at the Vatican Embassy in Washington and became an early and well-known whistle-blower on sexual abuse in the church. “The archbishop is the unquestioned authority in that diocese. The buck stops there.”

The Archdiocese of Munich did as every other Roman Catholic diocese at the time was doing: they cloaked the problem in obscure language and transferred the priest quietly. In many modern churches, that priest would likely be defrocked. We already knew that sexual abuse by priests had been widespread and had been covered up. I would not have mentioned this, because I would like to give the Catholic Church the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are attempting to improve their safeguards of priests who are sexually abusive. However, what is galling is that the Vatican has offered apologies but no consequences. In a normal organization, heads would have rolled by now. Furthermore, the Pope has been on the defensive, saying that he won't be "intimidated". The Catholic Church is giving the impression that it is more concerned about people going after their money and about avoiding scandal.

Now, money does weird things to people. There will always be someone after the church's money. However, their first priority should be to fix the problem and to prove to the public that this will not happen again. The rest will sort itself out. What does it tell the public if they're more concerned about protecting themselves?

The Catholic Church needs to remember that priests, bishops, cardinals and the Pope are all accountable to lay Catholics, and in fact, to the general global public. Jesus did not lord it over his followers, he washed their feet instead. All churches and clergy have leadership roles in society, but they are not kings - and yet the magisterium is acting like they were crowned kings over humankind.

NYT: Gentle Nudges Test White House Power of Persuasion

Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes for the New York Times. I invite readers to consider whether the President's preferred leadership style, as outlined here, is suitable for Congress in its current state.


WASHINGTON — Tempers were fraying in the White House Cabinet Room as night turned into morning on Jan. 15. President Obama had been cloistered nearly all day with House and Senate Democrats, playing “marriage counselor,” an aide said, as he coaxed, cajoled and prodded them on a health care overhaul.

As the clock neared 1 a.m., the two sides were at an impasse. Mr. Obama stood up.

“ ‘See what you guys can figure out,’ ” one participant remembers him saying, adding that the failed effort left the president mad. Another Democrat who was there, Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, said Mr. Obama left “frustrated that while he was putting out ways to bridge the problem, we hadn’t reached a conclusion.”

Ever since his days as a young community organizer in Chicago, Mr. Obama has held fast to the belief that by listening carefully and appealing to reason he can bring people together to get results, an approach that in Washington has often come up short.

He is not showing any signs of changing his style. But he is facing perhaps the toughest test yet of his powers of persuasion: winning the votes he needs, in the face of unified Republican opposition and a deteriorating climate for Democrats, to push his health care measure through a skittish Congress.

Mr. Obama has not been the sort to bludgeon his party into following his lead or to intimidate reluctant legislators. And while he has often succeeded by relying on Democratic leaders in Congress to do his bidding — the House and Senate, after all, both passed versions of the health legislation last year — it is not clear whether his gentle, consensus-building style will be enough.

“I wouldn’t mind seeing a little more toughness here or there,” said Representative Louise M. Slaughter, a New York Democrat, who contends that if Mr. Obama had pushed the Senate harder last year, the bill would have been law by now.

Like many Democrats in Congress, she praises Mr. Obama as intellectually gifted and a generous listener. But “if you are asking me if he dominates the room,” she said, “I would have to say no.”

White House officials strongly resist any suggestion that Mr. Obama is not tough enough, and they say the days are gone when a president can simply browbeat his own party into submission, especially on an issue as complex as health care.

“If the president weren’t tough, if the president weren’t committed, if the president didn’t believe that this was an imperative for the future of American families, businesses and the sustainability of our budget, this thing would have been dead six months ago,” David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, said in an interview. “I would love to live in a world where the president could snap his fingers or even twist arms and make change happen, but in this great democracy of ours, that’s not the way it is.”

One of the most persistent criticisms of Mr. Obama, especially on health care, is that he has given Congress too much latitude to engage in backroom deal-making and expedient trade-offs. His critics suggest that they want him to step forward more assertively to put his stamp on the process and the legislation.

But his defenders and some historians say that perhaps more than any modern president since Lyndon B. Johnson, Mr. Obama has been aggressive in trying to work his will with Congress. During his 13-month-old presidency, he has had countless one-on-one meetings with lawmakers — a technique that some scholars and strategists say evokes memories of Johnson, though their styles could hardly be more different.

“People make the L.B.J. analogy,” said John D. Podesta, who worked as chief of staff in the Clinton White House, “but the world is a lot different than it was during the 1960s. The president actually has to bring people along because they think it’s the right thing to do, because they think it’s in the interest of the country but also their own self-interest. His style is to convince people, not threaten them.”

If Johnson was a physical force — an arm around the shoulder, a full-body lean, a finger poking into the chest — Mr. Obama is an intellectual one. Members of Congress do not find him intimidating; they are more apt, said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, to view him as “a friend.” And while he shows occasional flashes of anger — “There is a sort of steel in his voice,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer, the House Democratic leader from Maryland — his emotions are always contained.

While courting Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, on the health care bill last year, Mr. Obama kept her in the Oval Office for an extraordinary 90 minutes. (She voted no.)

When Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, a West Virginia Democrat, hinted that he would vote against the Finance Committee’s health bill, Mr. Obama laid the personal attention on thick.

During their private Oval Office meeting, they sat side by side, the senator said, in front of the fireplace and underneath a portrait of George Washington, in the blue and beige striped chairs Mr. Obama uses when he meets with foreign leaders. Mr. Obama briefly rested his hand on the senator’s arm when making an important point — the same kind of gesture, Mr. Rockefeller said, that he uses to connect with voters back home. He made no promises, but Mr. Obama got his vote.

“Un-dictatorial, un-Caesar-like,” he said, describing Mr. Obama’s style.

Gerald Kellman, who trained Mr. Obama as a community organizer in Chicago and taught him the organizing philosophy of leveraging power by listening and forming relationships based on self-interest, said the future president liked to keep things civil.

“He didn’t gravitate toward confrontation, and would use it as a last resort,” Mr. Kellman said, “and it seems to me he’s still there.”

As he has implored Democrats not to let his health bill die, Mr. Obama has often used the kind of lofty rhetoric and appeals to conscience and history that were his hallmark on the campaign trail. (“This is why voters sent us here,” he often says.) Usually, he talks policy before politics, said Senator Evan Bayh, the Indiana Democrat who recently announced that he is retiring.

“He always starts off with a policy argument, making the intellectual case for his point of view,” Mr. Bayh said. “Secondarily to that, there might be a discussion of some of the political ramifications, but he always starts off with, ‘Look, this is why I think this is right for the country, and I respect your point of view, I know where you are coming from, but here’s why I think we need to do it this way. Can you help me?’ ”

But some Democrats say the road to passing a health care bill will not be lined with lofty appeals and gentle touch. Rounding up the necessary 217 votes in the House will be tough; tougher still will be persuading the Senate to pass a bill using the parliamentary maneuver known as reconciliation, which needs only a simple majority and averts a filibuster.

So whether he likes it or not, these Democrats say, Mr. Obama may have to engage personally in the kind of political horse-trading and arm-twisting that he has long left to hard-headed Congressional leaders, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi, or Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff.

Mr. Axelrod, mindful of the criticism, sounded a cautionary note.

“Everyone likes the president to twist arms,” he said, “unless it’s their arm getting twisted.”

Washington Post: Our leadership crisis: Where are the women?

Marie Wilson blogs on the Washington Post.

Marie C. Wilson is founder and president of The White House Project, co-creator of Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work ® Day and author of Closing the Leadership Gap: Why Women Can and Must Help Run the World.


In spite of Sarah Palin's prominence as best-selling author, Hillary Clinton's stature as Secretary of State, and 51% of the workforce now being female, we still face a crisis in women's leadership, according to The White House Project's just-published study, Benchmarking Women's Leadership.

The majority of Americans are comfortable with women leading in all sectors, but the reality is women hold only 18% of leadership positions across the 10 sectors we examined, including politics, business, law, sports, academia, journalism, religion, film/TV, nonprofit, and military.

In politics, for example, women have lost ground in the last decade as elected statewide executive officials and have made only incremental gains in Congress, where they currently comprise 17% of leadership. On a global scale, the U.S. ranks a dismal 71st out of 189 countries, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, in terms of women in legislatures, trailing behind nations such as Pakistan, Cuba, and United Arab Emirates.

At Fortune 500 companies, women hold only 15% of board seats, 16% of corporate officer positions, and a mere 3% of CEO positions, while women of color make up only 3% of board officers and 1.7% of corporate officer positions.

Even in sectors that have traditionally welcomed women - such as the nonprofit field - the numbers reflect the same disparity. Women comprise 75% of nonprofit employees, but hold only 26% of leadership positions. Women nonprofit CEO's make only 74% of what their male counterparts earn.

The list goes on: from sports and military to religion and journalism, women are underrepresented in the halls of power and underpaid when they get there. So why does this matter, particularly when our nation faces such trying economic times?

As our Benchmarks report illustrates, the rose-colored lens through which we have examined gender in the workforce clouds this grim reality: women - and particularly women of color -- are far from achieving parity in the arenas in which their participation and inclusion matters most: positions of leadership. And contrary to the popular talking points of today, the cultural ideal for women has not shifted to an all-encompassing and gender-neutral space, but remains firmly embedded in models of wifedom and motherhood. If anything, there is evidence that this cultural ideal is becoming further entrenched as the economy triggers anxieties about gender roles within both the public and private spheres.

I have been an advocate for women's issues for over 30 years. From the feminist and civil rights movements of the 1960s and 70s to today's "post-modern" struggles for equality, I have learned three important things: increasing numbers and changing culture are not mutually exclusive but mutually reinforcing vehicles; action must be taken from the top down and the bottom up; and instituting change cannot be limited to one sector, but must be tackled in every sphere.

When we set out to write The Benchmarks Report, we were determined not only to puncture the conventional wisdom that women are leading in record numbers, but to poll experts in each sector and determine what steps need to be taken to achieve a critical mass of women leaders across the board. Here are our recommendations for closing the leadership gap:

• Work to achieve a critical mass of women in leadership roles in every sector. A critical mass of one-third or more women in leadership positions is essential for implementing and maintaining the changes recommended in this report.

• Use financial resources strategically. In choosing which firms to hire or which non-profits to fund, look through a gender lens, considering the representation of women, and women of color, on the board and in top leadership.

• Amplify women's voices in the public arena. Prominently include women leaders in public forums and media so that they in particular--and women in general--are recognized as role models and considered for boards and other top-level positions.

• Collect and analyze the data. Surprisingly little information exists regarding the representation of women, and particularly women of color, in positions of leadership in individual organizations. Regular tracking and reviewing of the numbers - including the wage gap --- are essential for setting benchmarks and monitoring progress.

• Maintain accountability through setting targets. If you lead an organization, set specific goals for including women in leadership. Create a timeline to achieve targets and impose actual consequences for failure to meet these targets.

• Improve flexibility in workplace structures. For women and men alike, increased flexibility--and a recognition of the need for work-life balance--promotes career satisfaction and job retention.

Nothing has surprised me more in working to advance women's leadership than women's own measurement of personal success and the routes they must navigate to get there. As a young woman in a major financial firm told me, "They watch you here, and if you are perceived to be too involved with your children, you are not seen as a good candidate for leadership. If you are not involved enough, you are seen as a bad mother and not to be trusted." I was shocked to hear that an older woman pulled her aside after the meeting and remarked, "There are lots of children you can love; go find them. But if you want to succeed here, don't have children of your own."

Unfortunately, that naysayer seems to be right. Perhaps that's why so many executive women who have been on the leadership track have chosen to never marry or have children (52% and 61%, respectively, according to a UCLA-Korn Ferry study; for executive men, 5% and 3%, respectively). The sacrifices women must make to ascend the leadership ranks are still disproportionate to those made by their male peers. Numbers like this show that the lack of flexibility and childcare in the U.S. is not improving fast enough to allow the numbers of women stuck in the pipeline to really ascend. Instead, they remain in lower positions or opt-out completely from the workforce. In either case, the pool of ideas, talent, and experience among our decision makers shrinks.

Over the long term, I am optimistic about making change. Three polls conducted over five years as part of our Benchmarks report revealed that 90 percent of Americans are comfortable with women leading across the ten sectors profiled, from business and politics to film and journalism. As a 2008 Pew Research Center study found, the public thinks that women - even more than men - have what it takes to be leaders in today's world, scoring women higher than men in five of eight character traits they value highly in their leaders. The recent report from Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress, "A Woman's Nation," shows that, by and large, everyone believes that the inclusion of women at all levels, from government to business to our faith communities, is good for our economy and our country.

The acceleration in moving women into leadership will only occur if there is a thoughtful, creative, and committed approach to doing so. We must promote a national dialogue that sees women not as competitors for male jobs, but as allies in building a stronger economy and better institutions.

Most importantly, we need a cultural shift that values the unique leadership traits and diverse perspectives that both genders - men and women -- bring to the table, and a commitment to having them work side-by-side to tackle the challenges we collectively face. These are difficult times, indeed. Yet history has taught us that these are the moments which are ripe for greatness, if we dare to imagine and embrace a new way.

Leadership 3: Epistemology

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It enables us to figure out what distinguishes justified belief from mere opinion.

I am not a lawyer, and law was probably one of my poorer classes in grad school. However, my impression is that the legal world assumes there is objective truth, and that people can be objective.

As to the latter, women's studies has traditionally asserted that objectivity is bounded, that our perception of facts is linked to our social identities, like race, class and gender. The growing fields of behavioral finance and behavioral economics also assert that our rationality has limits.

Women's studies also teaches that subjectivity is good. Women's voices have too often been silenced, as have the voices associated with other marginalized social identities. Paying more attention to the subjective allows us to understand the worldviews of people we might have marginalized.

Leaders need to aim for a balance of objectivity and subjectivity. It's impossible to be completely objective. It's also unwise to do so - else, you might marginalize someone and tell yourself that you were completely justified to do so.

President Obama said he wanted to appoint a judge with empathy to the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the President's eventual nominee, once said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Conservatives have complained vociferously. To be fair, her remark could easily be taken the wrong way. However, in her comments, she has apparently distanced herself somewhat, in this WSJ article:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, parrying tough Republican questioning, distanced herself from President Barack Obama's comments about judicial empathy, saying, "We don't apply feelings to facts."

Republicans suggested Judge Sotomayor was changing her views to get through her confirmation hearings. They expressed dissatisfaction with her answers on questions such as what she meant when she suggested a "wise Latina" would make better decisions than a white man.

"I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging," she said.

"Had you been saying that with clarity over the last decade or 15 years, we'd have a lot fewer problems today," said Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) cited Mr. Obama's comments that in the hardest questions of constitutional law, when text, precedent and other legal tools reach their limits, the rest must be determined by what is in the judge's heart. The senator asked if Judge Sotomayor agreed.

"No, sir, I wouldn't approach the issue of judging the way the president does," she said. "Judges can't rely on what's in their heart...The job of a judge is to apply the law."

She added, "It's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it's the law."

Nonetheless, she still connects experience and empathy to sound judging. From the WSJ article:

On the "wise Latina" matter, Judge Sotomayor first said, to laughter in the hearing room, "No words I have ever spoken or written have received so much attention."

She said she had used similar lines for years in lectures to different audiences, particularly women lawyers or "young Latino lawyers and students."

"I was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system, because different life experiences and backgrounds always do," she said.

And from a New York Times article:

Still, Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”

She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that “to judge is an exercise of power” and that “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives.”

“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” she said.

Charles J. Ogletree Jr., a Harvard law professor and an adviser to Mr. Obama, said Judge Sotomayor’s remarks were appropriate. Professor Ogletree said it was “obvious that people’s life experiences will inform their judgments in life as lawyers and judges” because law is more than “a technical exercise,” citing Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s famous aphorism: “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.”

The corollary to her "wise Latina" statement, then, is that a White man could also be an excellent judge if he were truly wise - if he had balanced judicial objectivity with life experience, subjectivity, and empathy to other social or economic groups. Conversely, a person of color or a woman could easily act unwisely by attempting to be solely objective.

Leaders in other fields should similarly attempt to balance objectivity with subjectivity. It will allow them to make wiser decisions.

Leadership 2: Quack pastor urges his flock to bring their guns to church

I've heard that you should never start with telling people how NOT to do something. Michelle Obama is doing the right thing. This second post on the topic of leadership features someone doing the wrong thing in a spectacular way: the New York Times has a story on Pastor Ken Pagano, who urged his congregation to bring their guns INTO THE CHURCH this Saturday night where they will hold a raffle, firearms safety lessons and a picnic.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Ken Pagano, the pastor of the New Bethel Church here, is passionate about gun rights. He shoots regularly at the local firing range, and his sermon two weeks ago was on “God, Guns, Gospel, and Geometry.” And on Saturday night, he is inviting his congregation of 150 and others to wear or carry their firearms into the sanctuary to “celebrate our rights as Americans!” as a promotional flier for the “open carry celebration” puts it.

“God and guns were part of the foundation of this country,” Mr. Pagano, 49, said Wednesday as he sat in the small brick Assembly of God house of worship, where a large wooden cross hung over the altar and two American flags jutted from the side walls. “I don’t see any contradiction in this. Not every Christian denomination is pacifist.”

The bring-your-gun-to-church day, which will include a $1-raffle of a handgun, firearms safety lessons and a picnic, is another sign that the gun culture in the United States is thriving despite, or perhaps because of, President Obama’s election in November.

...

The celebration will feature lessons in responsible gun ownership, Mr. Pagano said. Sheriff’s deputies will be at the doors to check that openly carried firearms are unloaded, but they will not check for concealed weapons.

“That’s the whole point of concealed,” Mr. Pagano said, adding that he was not worried because such owners require training.

It is true that not all Christians denominations are pacifist. But we worship Christ, not guns and not the flag. This idiot worships all three, which means that he worships guns and the flag more than Christ. Jesus said you can't serve more than one master. I disagree, frankly, but when your masters are nationalism and violence, you certainly can't serve God.

Arkansas and Georgia recently rejected efforts to allow people to carry concealed weapons in church. Watching the debate in Arkansas was John Phillips, pastor of the Central Church of Christ in Little Rock. In 1986, Mr. Phillips was preaching in a different church there when a gunman shot him and a parishioner. Both survived, but Mr. Phillips, 51, still has a bullet lodged in his spine.

In a telephone interview, he said he found the idea of “packing in the pew” abhorrent.

“There is a movement afoot across the nation, with the gun lobby pushing the envelope, trying to allow concealed weapons to be carried in places where they used to be prohibited — churches, schools, bars,” Mr. Phillips said.

“I don’t understand how any minister who is familiar with the teachings of the Bible can do this,” he added. “Jesus didn’t say, ‘Go ahead, make my day.’ ”

Mr. Pagano takes such comments as a challenge to his faith and says they make him more determined.

“When someone from within the church tells me that being a Christian and having firearms are contradictions, that they’re incompatible with the Gospel — baloney,” he said. “As soon as you start saying that it’s not something that Christians do, well, guns are just the foil. The issue now is the Gospel. So in a sense, it does become a crusade. Now the Gospel is at stake.”

Radicalism can be a good trait in a leader if it is directed at the right cause. In Pagano's case, it is clearly not - what he is doing should be abhorrent to most Christians whether or not they are advocates of strong gun controls. Additionally, instability is not a trait that we look for in leaders.

Series on leadership: A First Lady Who Demands Substance (Washington Post)

During the Clinton efforts to reform healthcare in the US, I remember being a little uncomfortable at how much authority Hillary Clinton was assuming. The US elected Bill, but not Hillary. I recognize that that feeling is an effect of gender roles in society. I also do remember thinking that perhaps Hillary should run for Senate if she wanted a leadership role - at the time I didn't know that there was no Senate seat for DC. In any case, Hillary later ran for Senator, got it, and was nominated to be Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama were accomplished leaders in their own right before their husbands were elected as President. Clinton had several board positions, such as the Children's Defense Fund and Wal-Mart (urk). Obama held a VP of Community and External Affairs position at the University of Chicago Hospitals before her husband's campaign. She previously had several prominent government and non-profit positions.

Of course, now she's in DC. Her role as First Lady brings several expectations that conflict with her professional abilities. No doubt, after her husband leaves office, she will not have trouble finding leadership roles elsewhere. However, her present position constrains her.

What she makes of her office remains to be seen. It is a secondary office to the President's. I would say that she should seek leadership positions outside the White House, but I'm not sure that's really possible - any position she achieves might be seen as nepotism. However, the Washington Post does have a story on how she is aggressively moving to redefine her position.

For weeks, Michelle Obama had been telling her staff and closest confidantes that she wasn't having the impact she wanted. She is a woman of substance, with a background in law, public policy and management, who found herself relegated to role model in chief. The West Wing of the White House -- the fulcrum of power and policy -- had not fully integrated her into its agenda. She wanted more.

So, earlier this month, she changed her chief of staff, and now she's changing her role.

Her new chief of staff, Susan Sher, 61, is a close friend and former boss who the first lady thinks will be more forceful about getting her and her team on the West Wing's radar screen. The first thing Sher said she told senior adviser David Axelrod, whom she has known for years: When I call, "you need to get back to me right away."

...

In the past couple of weeks, Obama has been more vocal about the specifics of the president's health plan, and she will play a substantive role in promoting it. She will soon announce the creation of an advisory board to help military families. And she will be the face of the administration's United We Serve, a summer-long national service program, which she launched on Monday. Even her social events have a message: She let congressional families know that before the annual White House barbecue today, the 500 guests are expected to show up at Fort McNair to stuff camp backpacks with goodies for the children of military personnel.

Obama has also taken stock of her family life, which she has found to be more constrained than she expected. She has concluded that there's really only one road toward some semblance of a private life for them -- and it leads away from the White House.

Her role includes many elements of interacting with the community. The Post reports that she's recruited seasoned, driven professionals for her staff.

At work, Obama runs her office like a business in which she is chief executive. She doesn't want to micromanage, she has made clear; she wants to delegate. Up and down the hall are professional women with whom she has a longtime connection and whom she trusts to execute her vision. Rogers, another friend from Chicago, has an office just a few feet away. Also nearby is Jocelyn Frye, whom Obama met at Harvard Law School and who is the first lady's policy director. A family law advocate and expert on equal opportunity employment law, Frye is also a link to the D.C. community. She grew up in Washington and still lives a few blocks from her parents' house in the Michigan Park area of Northeast. She has pointed the first lady to homeless shelters, soup kitchens and schools.

She's also moving to support the President's agenda, and positioning herself within the Administration to do so.

Every morning, Rogers and Sher attend White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's 8:15 staff meeting. Johnston, a newcomer to Obama's circle but a White House veteran, and Katie McCormick Lelyveld, the first lady's press secretary, sit in on White House press secretary Robert Gibbs's daily message meeting. As part of the president's domestic policy team, Frye meets with its staff weekly. Senior aides David Medina and Trooper Sanders work on national service and international issues, and Norris remains close to the office in her new job at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

They're all focused on raising the stakes. "It isn't just about hugging," Sher said. "Whatever she talks about will bring press and interest, but it's important that she's not just talking [but] actually moving forward on those issues."

I want to see Michelle Obama assume a role that is commensurate with her skills. The US did not elect Michelle as President or to any other formal leadership position, and it will cause many people discomfort if she crosses a line by assuming authority she has not earned. However, it also does not serve society if we disenfranchise the spouses of our elected leaders.