This has been a very troubling week for college football fans, for those of us who believe in universities that run clean programs for student athletes, for students and graduates of Penn State University for the residents of Happy Valley, Pennsylvania and the surrounding areas of Western Pennsylvania. It has been a troubling and disturbing week for Joe Paterno, a man, a coach, and mentor to hundreds if not thousands of young people over the course of a 45 year football coaching career at Penn State. As troubling and disturbing as the week has been; for a group of disadvantaged boys who were allegedly raped by one of Coach Joe Paterno’s assistant coaches, the past 15 years has been an unspeakable hell: lost childhoods, shattered lives and unimaginable emotional damage and scars. As I watched the news unfold over the past few days and listened to sports talk radio out of New York City, it is difficult to explain just how big a deal this is to my Toronto community. This is not only a story of one man, a pedophile committing unspeakable crimes to young boys. I remember arriving in Toronto a few years ago and hearing about a Junior Hockey coach engaging in “sexually inappropriate” behavior with players. I remember hearing NHL players admitting that they were victims of these predatory types of coaches. What makes the 15 years worth of criminal activity at Penn State so troubling was the role of a highly revered institution and the role of the de facto leader of that highly revered institution. This highly revered university, revered for running a clean program, revered for embodying the definition of the student athlete, revered by young boys in Pennsylvania and parts of New York and New Jersey as the ideal place to play college football; this highly revered institution proved to be morally decadent and consumed with self image than caring for the disadvantaged. This highly revered leader, Coach Paterno, by all measures a decent, moral, religious, upstanding individual who prided himself on making sure his players graduated and made something of their lives outside of football, this highly revered leader misplaced his moral compass and perversely showed more concern for his program, his reputation, the University’s reputation as opposed to the welfare and the safety of those so disadvantage. This highly respected and revered leader showed more concern for the institution than for the victims of these heinous crimes and lending a voice for these victims.
So how do I explain just how big this is to my Toronto community? Perhaps the best modern day comparison is the recent case of the Catholic Church covering up the pedophile behavior of a very small number of priests and the Church’s misplaced concern for the priests and institutional welfare at the expense of the victims. The similarities between what occurred at Penn State and the Catholic Church is absolutely stunning. Just as stunning is the fact this news story occurred this week during Parshah Vayeira and the narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah. We are all familiar with the narrative. God tells Avraham that Sodom and Gomorrah must be destroyed. Avraham negotiates with God and God agrees that if ten righteous people can be found in Sodom and Gomorrah then he will not destroy the city. Meanwhile two of the three men (Rashi explains that these two men were angels) head towards Sodom in order to warn Lot of the impending disaster. Lot, like his uncle Avraham demonstrated Hachnasat Orchim (hospitality) and offers food and lodging to these men. However the residents of Sodom demand that Lot sends the guests out to the mob so that they can have their way with them. Lot pleads with the mob and offers his own daughters instead. The mob desires the two guests. The guests save Lot and they manage to keep the mob at bay until morning. The guests urge Lot, Lot’s wife and daughters to flee to the nearby mountain without looking back. Lot and his family flee; his wife looks back and turns to a pillar of salt.
If we read the narrative closely, God never tells us Sodom and Gomorrah’s crime. We understand from the narrative that the mob wanted Lot to Hotziem Eileinu V’Neidah Otam (to bring them out to us so that we may know them Gen. 19:5) Biblical scholars and the classical commentaries agree that the mob wanted to engage in sexual relations with Lot’s two guests. However nothing happened, the mob was turned back and nothing actually happened to these two guests. Besides God was intent on destroying Sodom and Gomorrah even before this event. So what was crime of these two cities?
The prophet Ezekiel offers some insight. "Behold this was the sin of Sodom…She and her daughters had pride, excess bread, and peaceful serenity, but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy" (16:49). Quite clearly Ezekiel pointed out that the sin of Sodom was the failure of its institutions to help the needy, to care for the vulnerable, feed the hungry and shelter the homeless. Sodom’s sin, according to Ezekiel was the city’s failure to look after those people who lived out on the socio-economic margins of life. A Mishnaic opinion in Avot 5:10 further strengthens this picture of moral depravity when it defines the Sodomite as one who says, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours." The Mishnah decries a man who wishes to remove himself from the social responsibility of welfare by closing himself and his wealth from others. For ChaZaL, (the Sages of Blessed Memory) the perversity and the moral depravity is the assumption that in Sodom the goal is to just worry about and take care of oneself. The perversity and the moral depravity is the assumption that one should not care about the welfare of anyone else. However the Mishnah only communicates the behavior of an individual citizen of Sodom.
More revealing and perhaps more indicative of the institutional perversity that transpired for 15 years at Penn State is a Midrash of Pirkei D’ Rebbi Eliezar. In examining the 18:21 God speaks to Avraham and states: Eirah Nah V’Eireh Haktza’akatah Eilai Asu - I will descend now, and see whether they have done all together the cry of it, which has come to me… The word Haktza’akatah – the cry of it is in the feminine form. It is unclear what feminine noun is being modified by this feminized verb. The previous feminine noun is Ir or city (i.e. Sodom and Gomorrah). This would suggest that the cry came from the city of Sodom and Gomorrah itself. However this common understanding diminishes just how twisted, perverse, amoral and evil Sodom was. The Midrash of Pirkei D’ Rebbi Eliezer explains that the feminized “cry” came from an actual female and this is her story. “They issued a proclamation in Sodom, saying: ‘Everyone who strengthens the hand of the poor and the needy with a loaf of bread shall be burn by fire. Lot’s daughter, Pelotit, was married to one of the noble citizens of Sodom. She happened to see a pauper in the street and her soul was so grieved by the sight of this man. Every day when she went to the well she put all kinds of provision in the water pitchers. She would empty the provision that were in the pitchers to the pauper and then continue on her way to the well and fill the pitchers with water. The Sodomite nobleman wondered how this poor man managed to still be alive as they assumed that he should have been long dead. They realized that Pelotit was bringing him food. She was arrested and brought to forth to be burned. She cried out ‘Sovereign of all worlds! Maintain my right and my cause at the hands of the men of Sodom!” And her cry ascended before the throne of glory. In that hour the Holy One blessed be He said ‘I will go down and see whether they have done altogether according to her cry which has come up to me.’ The Midrash teaches us that the perversity, the moral depravity was institutional. The very laws that should have been designed to help the needy and care for the most vulnerable members of society were now turned upside down. “They issued a proclamation”. The deplorable and depravity were not done in secret suggesting embarrassment or shame. Rather this proclamation suggests that it was the law of the land and punishable by death.
No, there was no legal statement or proclamation saying that Penn State football coaches were permitted to commit heinous crimes to young boys. However, when the most powerful person at Penn State, the face of Penn State, merely reports the issue to his the Athletic Director (in fulfillment of his legal obligation but certainly not his moral obligation) then what proclamation is being made? The fact that no action was taken back in 2002 except for removing the keys from the assistant coach suggests that for nearly the last ten years, the institutions concern was for itself, and Joe Paterno’s concern was for his record of most football victories in Division 1A and his reputation. Sadly how many more victims were there because of a coach’s and a university’s silence. Finally, the deafening cry of these victims as well as the Grand Jury’s report were heard by Penn State’s board of Directors. With the immediate removal of Coach Paterno, and the school President, perhaps the Penn State football program can right its moral compass. Hopefully now, and in the future trial of Mr. Sandusky, the perpetrator of these crimes, may these victims some of whom are young men, know some semblance of peace and begin putting their lives back together.
Peace,
Rav Yitz
No comments:
Post a Comment