Catholic Sensibility

Dealing with Hudson as Hudson Deals? At the risk of being a gossip hound, I found this admission at National Review Online: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/hudson200408181000.asp followed by this piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/19/politics/campaign/19resign.html to make for an interesting sequel to the adventure I blogged about on March 22nd (check my archives if needed). There's no accounting for Mr Hudson's taste in presidents, but even so, the question: is he a victim of his own brand of journalism? I think the American penchant for watching bigwigs take a big fall has struck here. It looks to me like Mr Hudson's case is more like that of our immediate ex-president or Martha Stewart than an eye-for-an-eye effort on behalf of Ono Ekeh, the USCCB staffer outed and pink-slipped earlier this year for computer violations uncovered by hard-hitting, incisive, and relevant journalism. To be sure, Deal Hudson is not a household name across the land. But some people are perhaps themselves awash in glee to take out a Catholic Big Name influential with power politics. Hudson's victory shout in getting a minor bureaucrat fired seemed to be a little off-kilter given the stakes of the pro-life movement in the current election cycle. Sort of like blowing up a hot dog stand during a war. Sure, the enemy might get well fed on an occasional coney dog, and heaven knows a mustard or ketchup squirt bottle can be a serious weapon, but is that the objective? Is that what the pro-life movement is all about: going after people who support people who support people who support people who provide people with abortions? I'll withhold final judgment until I read the piece outing Hudson. At first glance, it appears to be a more tactical strike than his own effort. (You take Ekeh, we take Hudson, let's call it even.) No question there is a media market for this kind of dealing, but I find it distasteful, even if I disagree with Hudson's politics (misguided) and his journalism standards (need perspective). If it comes back to bite him, I pause for a moment to say, "hm." Then I continue by stating that his past misconduct is none of our business. If his actions are significant to his family, previous colleagues, or acquaintances, fine; I'm not in those categories and if you're reading this, you're not either. I conclude by saying that if Hudson is mistreated as he mistreated Ekeh earlier this year, it may be a poetic justice of sorts, but ... 1. I'd rather leave justice of this type in the hands of God, and ... 2. It's still wrong, even if it victimizes a victimizer.