Missing Sinead's Point

I am writing in response to Joe A. Acevedo's brainless condemnation of Sinead O'Connor ("Hairless Heathen Heckles High Priest," Oct. 20). I am not sure which I found more disturbing, his blind defense of the Catholic Church, or his vicious attacks on Sinead for expressing her beliefs. Both were riddled with factual half-truths and logical inconsistancies.

Acevedo begins by denouncing the entire music industry for attempting to make their fans aware of some of the problems in today's world. His evidence of the sins of musicians include the work they have done to improve the environment and help bring about gun control.

Evidently Acevedo believes that a musician's job is only to entertain his or her fans, but unfortunately, some of today's music stars recognize that some things are more important than selling albums and making money. Sinead O'Connor does not care if her album sales suffer as long as she makes people aware of an issue that she rightly sees as important.

Acevedo claims that O'Connor "left even her most devoted fans without much of a clue as to her motives." This is sheer and unadulterated nonsense. Did he bother to talk to any of her "devoted fans" to substantiate his fantasy? As one of them, I would have been very happy to explain to him her motives, which are as noble as they are modest.

Sinead O'Connor wants everyone, Catholic or otherwise, to reconsider what they have been taught about the church. She neither desires nor expects people to leave the church en masse or to go around ripping up their own photos of the pope. All she wants is for people everywhere to realize that there are some inescapable problems with the Catholic hierarchy that have persisted for over a millennium and will not go away simply by stifling dissent.

It is not surprising that the Catholic clergy would want stifle dissent. After all, they have a vested interest in keeping their titles and privileges, even if it means withholding the truth from their followers. It does not take a bleeding-heart liberal or a historical revisionist to acknowledge that countless atrocities have been committed over the years in the name of the Catholic Church.

Of course no individual then or now has ever been solely responsibility--after all. Boniface VII did declare that "every human creature" was "subject to Roman Pontiff." Although this edict has recently been ignored, popes do not have a very good record of taking the side of justice.

Acevedo notes that the pope has been "revered since Christ made the apostle Peter the first pope almost two thousand years ago." Revered by whom? The countless millions of Muslims, Jews and Protestants slaughtered by and in the name of the Catholic Church? Or the pious Catholics who were bullied into donating huge sums to the church to fund the lavish lifestyles of the clergy? While these were not the Pope's personal doings, his failure to stop them did not earn him the reverence of the sufferers.

While today's secular checks on the Church's power may prevent the mass executions of the past, they cannot prevent the church from causing havoc in other ways. The pope and teh Catholic hierarchy have been alleged supporters of oppressive militaristic regimes in the Dominican Republic and throughout Latin America.

Furthermore, the concentration of power in Rome prevents individualism within the church by telling its members what they must believe about social issues. Any attempts at reform or modernization of the church are quickly suppressed. Furthermore, the church continues to enrage its members by covering up all evidence of possible wrong-doing by clergy members, including especially damning evidence of patterns of sexual harassment and abuse.

The above points should not be construed as a total condemnation of the Catholic Church. It unquestionably has a long list of extraordinary accomplishments of which all Catholics can be proud. Furthermore, many of Sinead O'Connor's allegations against the church are just that--unproven allegations. Although some are well-based in fact, others seems to border on the unbelievable.

Nevertheless, they all merit some amount of discussion, which should include greater openness from the Vatican. Sinead's point is not that Pope John Paul II is fully responsible for all the world's problems, but that he, and the church, are partially responsible for some of them. Because so many people disagree with that so virulently, Sinead felt she had to do something drastic to get their attention. Evidently, it worked. Ezra Perlman '93