In its concern about CCH's "motives" in attempting to publcize charges of the Reverend Peter J. Gomes' possible misdeeds, the staff betrays its unwillingness to consider CCH's charges on their merits.
Certainly, CCH has an interest in Gomes' resignation, for whatever reason. That fact should detract nothing from the facts--and the University's unwillingness to disclose them.
The staff, in questioning CCH members' sincerity, attempts to discredit the charges against Gomes. Despite its call for full disclosure of the University's 1987 investigation, the staff clearly feels that, because CCH is the organization which questions Gomes' character, the charges of misconduct are not to be believed.
Such reasoning is rank nonsense, and should be treated as such. Facts are facts, no matter who tells them to us. Right now, we don't know what the facts are, and have little reason to doubt or believe what CCH has charged about Gomes.
The staff also charges that CCH is some sort of conservative cabal, directed by Peninsula and AALARM. But it's not the same as Peninsula or AALARM; some Council members of Peninsula don't feel compelled to call Gomes to the carpet.
Gomes is, after all, a Protestant minister, and some writers and officers of Peninsula are Catholic. They may have views about Gomes' interpretation of the Bible, but they are not about to interfere in what is, at bottom, a Protestant dispute.
And after all, Peninsula is a political and social magazine, not a religious one.