“narrow, nationalistic protectionismrnbased on racial and cultural nativism,”rnand perhaps fascism. Fascism arose, hernargues, in response to dislocations causedrnby capitalism—yet fascism was weakestrnwhere economic liberalism wasrnstrongest, and vice versa.rnBut Greider has a larger agenda. Understandingrnglobalization’s “deepest socialrnmeaning” to be that we are citizensrnof one world, Greider calls for a “globalrnhumanism” grounded in the reality thatrn”we are all in this together.” He wantsrn”equitable”—meaning egalitarian—rndistribution. While speculating thatrnglobal industrialization and affluence arerneconomically and environmentally untenable,rnhe seems to deem affluence arnuniversal entitlement. Universalizingrncapital ownership and recycling wasternproduced by “closed-loop” productionrnprocesses are his favored escapes fromrnthe bind. One wonders how all thisrncould be implemented without a globalrnsuperstate of unprecedented power.rn]ohn Attarian is a freelance writer livingrnin Ann Arbor, Michigan.rnPedophiles,rnEphebophiles,rnEcclesiophobesrnby Ellen Wilson FieldingrnPedophiles and Priests: Anatomyrnof a Contemporary Crisisrnby Philip JenkinsrnNew York: Oxford University Press;rn214 pp., $27.50rnSurveying the clergy sex scandals ofrnthe past decade, one is reminded ofrnChrist’s prediction that “from him whorndoes not have, even that which he seemsrnto have shall be taken away” (Matthewrn25:29). The rather prurient glee withrnwhich the media have covered these casesrn—primarily those involving RomanrnCatholic priests—highlights as it exacerbatesrnthe low morale of priests in thernpost-Vatican II world of dwindling numbersrnand confusion about their role. Kickrn’em when they’re down—that’s the mediarnway,rnThe cases, of course, exist, though notrnall accusations have proved true. Thernnotorious false accusation against CardinalrnBernardin of Chicago marked thernmoral low point, and tabloid circulationrnhigh water mark, of the run of priestlyrnpedophile stories. What remains unclearrnfrom media coverage is how commonrnpriestly pedophilia actually is,rnwhether the incidence is significantlyrnhigher than in the past, whether the incidencernvaries greatly among religious denominations,rnhow they are related (orrnunrelated) to current political footballsrnlike priestly celibacy, and to what extentrnthe priestly perpetrators are rehabilitable.rnEnter Philip Jenkins, a professor of historyrnand religious studies at PennsylvaniarnState University and no stranger to thesernpages. In Pedophiles and Priests, Jenkinsrn(who is not a Catholic) brings great coolnessrnand a laudable ability to make finerndistinctions within a normally overheatedrnand polemical topic. Those inhabitingrnthe world of the clergy and religiousrnjournalism, as well as fair-minded mediarncritics, will be glad to consult this book tornunderstand what precisely is going onrnand why it is being reported in this way.rnJenkins’ book is not an inventory of contemporaryrnsexual abuse by the clergy butrna retracing of the journalistic route takenrnby these stories and an informed lookrnat how priestly pedophilia became, inrnthe late 1980’s and early 90’s, a mediacertifiedrncrisis.rnLike many journalistic injustices, thernoverwhelmingly Catholic portrayal ofrnsexual abuse by the clergy was in part accidental.rnIt is true, as the author shows,rnthat the celibacy/pedophilia “connection”rnwas initially seized on by the liberalrnCatholic press, which had its own ax torngrind, and true also that the conservativernCatholic press saw in priestly sex scandalsrnof every variety evidence that thernpost-Vatican II Church had fallen downrnon the job of properly weeding out seminaryrnapplicants and of appropriately discipliningrnand spiritually forming itsrnpriests. In addition, sex scandals involvingrnpriests gain a frisson of excitementrnfrom a long history of anti-Catholic materialrnof the Maria Monk variety, full ofrnsecret tunnels between convents andrnmonasteries, sadomasochistic scourgings,rnand seductions in the confessionalrn(a very uncomfortable place for them, Irnwould have thought).rnYet the resolve of the secular media torntreat priestly pedophilia as a speciallyrnCatholic problem also owed much tornseemingly neutral and nonpolitical factors,rnsuch as the greater ease in assigningrnresponsibility upward in a hierarchicalrnchain of blame when dealing with arnhighly centralized Church, and the centralizedrncoffers that proved available forrnsettling lawsuits by the victims of abuse.rnBy contrast, isolated instances of abusernby ministers of local congregations werernlikely to remain just that—isolated—inrntheir coverage and effect.rnJenkins argues that the vocabularyrnchosen by journalists in covering sexrnscandals by priests, the spokesmen selected,rnthe footage used—all played offrnnegative images of the Catholic Churchrnas a closed secret society, a religiousrn”Mafia.” The David-and-Goliath imagernof an accuser confronting a priest backedrnby a huge complex organization was reinforcedrnby terms like “whistle-blowers”rnand references to the Exxon Valdez orrnWatergate. Television footage lingeredrnon stained glass, incense, and vestmentsrn—so much more exotic than thernaccoutrements of the Church’s post-rnReformation cousins.rnBefore and even into the decade of thern1970’s, the news media almost universallyrncovered up church scandals (as theyrndid scandals involving other reputablerninstitutions, like the Boy Scouts, and famousrnindividuals, like adulterous Presidents).rnIn the post-Watergate era, newsrncoverage became increasingly sensational,rnand media entertainment—novels,rntelevision, movies—more explicit. Atrnthis juncture, the liberal, hierarchy-baitingrnNational Catholic Reporter assembledrna group of priestly pedophile storiesrnin a June 1985 issue that traced a patternrnof (as Jenkins summarizes it) “uncaringrnand hostile diocesan authorities, ofrnbruising litigation, and of a church thatrndefended its priests while treating parishionersrnas liars or enemies.” Secular mediarnbegan covering incidents of sexualrnabuse by clergy as part of a religious andrninstitutional Catholic crisis. And like thernNational Catholic Reporter, secular journalistsrnand the experts they chose tornshow off did not distinguish betweenrntrue pedophilia (lusting after prepubescentrnboys) and other kinds ofrnsexual abuse involving clergymen andrnadolescents, or young adults of eitherrnsex.rnThose experts solicited for their commentsrnin the late I980’s helped cementrnthe stereotype of this being a Catholicrnproblem because they were themselvesrnCatholics or ex-Catholics or had repre-rn36/CHRONICLESrnrnrn