EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnMANAGING EDITORrnTheodore PappasrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, ]r.rnEDTTORIAT ASSISTANTrnChristine HaynesrnART DIREGTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnJohn W.Aldndge, Harold O.].rnBrown, Katherine Dalton, SamuelrnFrancis, George Garrett,rnE. Christian Kopff, Clyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrn]anet Scott Barlow, Bill Kauffman,rn]ohn Shelton Reed, David R. SlavittrnEDn ORIAL SECREIARYrnLeant! DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnAllan C CarlsonrnPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy C ReffettrnCOMPOSTTION MANAGERrnAnita FedorarnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnRochelle FrankrnA pulilication of The Rockford Institute.rnEdik)rial and Advertising Offiees:rn934 North Main Street, Rockford, IE 6110?.rnEditonal Plione: (SIS) 964-50i4.rnAdvertising Plione; (815) 964-5811.rnSuhscription Dcpartnrent: P. (). Box 800,rnMount Morns, IT. 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnTor infonrration on advertising in Chronicles.rnplease call Rochelle Frank aM815) 964-5811.rnU. S. A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., I HO Cleveland Road,rnSanduskv, Ol I +4S70.rnCopyright © 1995 by The Rockford Institute.rnAll rights reserved.rnChromdes (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthlv for $24 per year by The RockfordrnInstitute, 934 North Mam Street, Rockford,rnIL 61103-7061. Second-class postage paidrnat Rockford, IL and additional mailing offices.rnPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tornChronicles, P. O. Box 800, Mount Morris,rnIL 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not neccs.sarily reflectrnthe views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscnpt.s cannot bernreturned unless accompanied by a sclf-addrcsscdrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol. 17, No. 4 April 1995rnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn ‘Clerical Celibacy’rnProfessor Jenkins bears false witnessrnagainst me in “Priests and Pedophiles”rn(December 1992) when he implies thatrnsomehow I am an opponent of elericalrncelibacy. The only thing Pve ever writtenrnon the subject has been in supportrnof celibacy. I have consistently arguedrnthat most pedophiles are married menrnand that the pedophilia syndrome is acquiredrnearly in life, usually by being arnvictim of sexual abuse oneself, and doesrnnot result from celibacy.rn—Father Andrew GreeleyrnProfessor Jenkins Replies:rnFather Grcclcy accuses me of misrepresentingrnhis views and says that he hasrnnever linked the problem of priestlyrnpedophilia to the issue of clericalrncelibacy. I am interested to hear thisrnstatement from a writer whose opinionsrnon Catholic matters rightlv receivernwidespread respect and attention. However,rnnot once does my article attributernto him the view described. My referencesrnto his work state, quite correctly,rnthat he has gone on record as emphasizingrnthe scale and seriousness of thern”abuse” problem and as criticizing thernhandling of that issue by the Church. Irnwas particularly quoting his op-ed piecernentitled “Priestly Silence on Pedophilia,”rnfrom the New York Times. I did notrnrefer to his position on celibacy and dornnot think I can fairh’ be described asrn”bearing false witness” against anybodyrnin this matter. On the other hand, itrncan be amply documented that otherrnwTiters on “priestly pedophilia” do indeedrndraw the connection with celibacy.rnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnA s THIS ARTICLE and this issue ofrnChronicles go to press, the United StatesrnSenate Judiciary Committee will be consideringrnwhether Dade County State AttorneyrnJanet Reno is, b’ her character, fitrnto serve this nation as Attorney General.rnMy own opinion is, no. In the 1988rnDade County, Florida, general election,rnI was Attorne’ General-Designate JanetrnReno’s Republican opponent. I ranrnagainst her and lost bv a two to one marginrn—the most respectable margin anyrnof her opponents has ever garnered—rnknowing I could not win in a townrnwhose sole newspaper, the Miami Herald,rnhas turned her over the past 15 yearsrninto an icon of political correctness.rnI ran against Reno because of ourrnwildly divergent views on the aims ofrnthe criminal justice system. That is whyrnthe Fraternal Order of Police endorsedrnme, even knowing full well I could notrnwin. The rank-and-file officers whomrnthe FOP represents had grow n to haternReno because of her long-held animusrntoward police and legitimate law enforcementrnefforts, and they were desperaternto express that hatred. Here’s anrnexample of the hard lesson Dade policernofficers had already learned in the streetsrnand in Reno’s courtrooms, hi the onlyrndebate of our campaigns against one another,rntclc’ised from the studio of WLRN-rnTV in Miami, each of us was askedrnour highest priority as Dade State Attorney.rnI said; “To put awav as man-rncriminals for as long as possible.” Renornsaid: “My highest priority has alwaysrnbeen not to convict criminals but ratherrnto protect their rights.” Straight out ofrnthe ACLU policy manual, as is her penchantrnto prosecute law officers for “excessivcrnuse of force” when no crediblernevidence of same exists.rnThe demoralizing effect AttorneyrnGeneral Reno vvill hae upon tlie federalrnlaw enforcement community will berndevastating; just ask any South Floridarnlaw officer. But it is Reno’s characterrnand not her policies that will be the focusrnof debate during her nominationrnhearings. The “adxise and consent”rnclause conferring confirmation powerrnfor Cabinet and other offices upon thernSenate has, for better or worse, devolvedrnto make “character” the only ostensiblern4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn