JFK Jr.'s naked view of temptation

By CAL THOMAS

Most of the press reaction to John F. Kennedy Jr.'s George magazine essay on temptation focused on a paragraph in which he criticizes two cousins for behaving badly, one with a wife and the other with a baby-sitter. But there's more to the essay, and it is a testament to a generation that believed it could escape the consequences of discarding societal and moral norms.

The person People magazine once called the sexiest man alive writes that recent (recent?) experiences with temptation in his family has reminded him of "the possible perils of succumbing to what's forbidden."

Such forbidding, in his mind, "only makes (temptation) more alluring." Forbidden by whom?

JFK Jr. says he is "playing Hamlet with my willpower (should I or shouldn't I?)." Wonder how that makes the wife feel - any wife?

Women had better check with the priest, pastor or rabbi and avoid any sermons on adultery, lest their Hamlets be predisposed to engage in the practice after being reminded it is forbidden.

Then he writes about the "safety of the middle path." God didn't speak from a mountain, but the middle of the road? And those tablets of stone. Should they have been inscribed in such a way that we can invoke a line-item veto if we don't like one or more of the commandments?

After toying with the possibility of relativistic standards, JFK Jr. asks us to consider an immutable standard. Citing an unnamed article he recently read, he recommends we consider a life "governed by conventional norms of proper behavior." Governed? Conventional? Norms? Proper? Kennedy was a child when such things were rejected by the baby boomers, who declared God dead (Time magazine said so).

Now they are beginning to realize they can't live without Him, but they don't want the original because that God requires repentance as the first step toward restoration. Just give them a god who will accompany them on long walks, like a dog, but demands nothing other than contributions to their self-esteem.

Kennedy cites Mike Tyson (!) as an example of what happens when we "give in to (our) deepest longings." But in the next bite he says that our only alternative is to "conform utterly and endure a potentially dispiriting, suffocating life." How sad. So it's a choice between the cloistered life or the life of a rogue, is that it?

"To whom much is given, much is expected," he plagiarizes from Scripture. One might have expected better logic from a man to whom so much has been given, but apparently not enough in the categories that count.

"Since when does someone need to apologize on television for getting divorced?" he asks. He's right. Better to apologize to the children who didn't ask to be brought into the world and deserve better from those who helped bring them here.

As for the middle path, JFK Jr. should be reminded that the middle of the road is a dangerous place to stand, especially when naked (as he appears in his magazine). If this man ever contemplated a future in politics, about the only place he has a chance of being elected is in Massachusetts, where much does not appear to be required from those whose unquenchable desires also include politics.

Perhaps he should reconsider Hamlet's fate. The Prince of Denmark was deaf to a higher, nobler, holy and eternal voice. The avoidable disaster he experienced was a lesson to all who refuse to hear the Author of the moral law and recognize that within its boundaries is not a boring life, but an abundant one.

Los Angeles Times Syndicate