Maureen Dowd Compares Catholic Church's 'Hostility' to Women to Saudi Arabia (Again!)
Another day, another vitriolic attack from New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd on the Catholic Church comparing its treatment of women to Saudi Arabia. The Vatican has recently censured a 2006 book on sexual ethics by Sister Margaret Farley as “not consistent with authentic Catholic theology." According to a Times report Tuesday, the book, Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics, "attempted to present a theological rationale for same-sex relationships, masturbation and remarriage after divorce."
Dowd responded in her Wednesday column, "Is Pleasure a Sin?" Ignoring questions of theology and Catholic teaching, Dowd simply called it another "thuggish" attack by a rigid male hierarchy against women, including the de rigueur comparison to Saudi Arabia.
Just the latest chapter in the Vatican’s thuggish crusade to push American nuns -- and all Catholic women -- back into moldy subservience.
Even for a church that moves glacially, this was classic. “Just Love: a Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics,” by Sister Margaret Farley -- a 77-year-old professor emeritus at Yale’s Divinity School, a past president of the Catholic Theological Society of America and an award-winning scholar -- came out in 2006.
The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which seems as hostile to women as the Saudi Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, spent years pondering it, then censured it on March 30 but didn’t publicly release the statement until Monday.
The denunciation of Sister Farley’s book is based on the fact that she deals with the modern world as it is. She refuses to fall in line with a Vatican rigidly clinging to an inbred, illusory world where men rule with no backtalk from women, gays are deviants, the divorced can’t remarry, men and women can’t use contraception, masturbation is a grave disorder and celibacy is enshrined, even as a global pedophilia scandal rages.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Dowd looks at the finger not what it's pointing at...
Submitted by c5then on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:34pm.
Like the cartoon dog staring at the hunters finger pointing to the field instead of looking at the field...
There is no hostility to women in the Catholic Church, just hostility to promiscuous sex and the abortions that come from it. That is the issue. Dealing with the world as it is is a good thing. However it's when someone advocates for sin and calls it good and deplores the virtuous and calls them evil that the problem comes in.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
EXACTLY RIGHT!!!
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:37pm.
They don't hate the sinner (Either of them) but they do hate the sin which IS NOT WRONG!
Who put the sand on Dowd's communion wafer?
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:42pm.
There's an easy answer for those who disagree with the tenets of the RCC: Leave it. Folks have been doing it for over 500 years. Exercise your religious freedom.
A fact that Dowd doesn't get.
Submitted by texastommy on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:51pm.
A fact that Dowd doesn't get. Saudi women can't leave SA, however.
I wish she'd move there for about, oh, ten years. Would change her perspective ... maybe.
Ms Dowd*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 4:10pm.
Ex Catholics are called protestants or agnostics. Free to go. Muslim women however leave Islam and they are "infidels". Which will get you stoned or beheaded. It's minor but see the difference?...
Oh really? Sister Margaret is allowed to drive...
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 4:39pm.
I know, because just last night I saw her peeling out of the parking lot behind O'Halloran's Happy Pint.
Bird Watcher
Submitted by CJohnson on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 5:01pm.
So is it a Catholic or a Moslem female bird stuck on a nest outside, hatching eggs while the male is off flying about? I will assume she is a Moslem robin as she has resisted all my efforts to try and liberate her.
The Catholic Church treats women how?
Submitted by ohio granny on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:03pm.
Does the Catholic Church stone women, make them cover their faces when in public, not allow them to drive or go to school? The last time I checked married Catholic women are allowed to go outside with a male that is not their husband. As far as I know the Catholic Church has never said a female is the PROPERTY of the father or husband. The Church does not kill a female for DISHONORING them.
Maybe Maureen Dowd should try living like a Muslim woman in Saudia Arabia. Hopefully then she will be able to recognize the difference in how women are treated.
Does the Catholic Church stone women?
Submitted by updoc101 on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 10:01am.
Not since they have started being held accountable for their actions by other civilized governments, which included stoning women, burning witches, torturing non-believers, committing genocide against non-Catholic nations and lets not forget the pedophiles without whose help they never would have built it's vast fortunes through the pillaging and plundering of Europe and the Americas for several centuries. There is nothing that is going on in the Muslim world that has not already occurred in the Catholic Church. Islam, after all, is a juvenile religion in that it is only about 700 years old. Where was Christianity when it was the same age?
the evils of Catholicism
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 10:16am.
As an atheist/agnostic and someone who has had a very bad experience with a member of the local Catholic church - I must state that your equivocations disguised as a meaningful comparison shows a deep lack of understanding of scope and essential power structures as they relate to history.
Before the Church, women were
Submitted by rbosque on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:09am.
Before the Church, women were considered property in many parts of the world, now mostly Islamic nations that keep women as second class citizens. Of course Dowd is just too slazy and stupid to exercise a little critical thinking, she prefers to let her intolerence of the Church do her thinking for her.
The Church does not throw acid on women, practice genetal mutilation, stone or cane women. Of course Dowd can do a little experiment and go over to Iran or Saudi Arabia and call Mohamed a pig. Maybe she'll find out the hard way how stupid she is.
The Church
Submitted by updoc101 on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 10:06am.
...does say that a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night must be stoned to death. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24.
For touching Mount Sinai: Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27
I mean really, I fail to see the difference between the two religions.
I think I can help you out on that difference thing.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 10:14am.
It's quite simple: one religion actually does that crazy sh*t, and the other doesn't.
3 year member, just starts posting recently.
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 10:14am.
Welcome back "Father Baracus".
You're even dumber in this sock-puppet account than the last one.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Yo Free:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 10:18am.
LOL
SoL
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 10:46am.
Yep! ;-)
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
The Liberal War on the Littleist Women
Submitted by berlet98 on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:16am.
The Liberal War Against the Littleist Women
In their desperate attempts to distract voters from Barack Hussein Obama’s 3 1/2 year record of abysmal failure, the president, his mainstream media, and Obama’s administration minions have resorted to every outlandish slander conceivable.
Among other lies, they have falsely claimed that Mitt Romney mistreated his dog Seamus, that Ann Romney “never worked a day in her life,” and that Republicans hate women.
As with their other pathetic strategies, all the shameless Democrat attacks have fallen flat, especially the canard that the GOP is engaged in a war against the fair sex.
Liberals seem to love wars, as evidenced by their wars against religion, against “the rich,” against anyone and anything that displeases them.
Disregarding an epidemic of attacks on women by libs, the Left focuses on conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and on specious allegations that congressional Republicans are “out to get” women.
Liberals ignore the incessant abuse of Sarah Palin, forgive Bill Maher for referring to Palin and other conservative women as c*nts, overlook Ed Schultz’ denigration of Laura Ingraham as “a right wing slut,” and excuse Keith Olbermann for saying S. E. Cupp should have been aborted.
The Left chooses to grant their resident misogynists a pass and instead have honed in on Limbaugh’s apt, if unfortunate, observation that Sandra Fluke is a slut.
There is indeed a war in progress against women, a war being waged by liberal Democrats and they’re taking no prisoners. In fact, libs are literally executing the most vulnerable and innocent females in American society, future women, the pre-born variety.
The Left regards abortion, what Ann Coulter called a liberal sacrament, as sacrosanct. They also have long endorsed, subsidized, and protected the nation’s most prolific abortionist, Planned Parenthood of America.
Apparently, killing pre-born girls (and boys) is perfectly acceptable to liberals, just as long as we protect the mysterious constitutional “right to privacy” of mothers-to-be and their unwritten right to choose if they want to give birth to girl babies as opposed to boy babies.
Whether potential moms opt for baby blue eyes over brown for their progeny or for no progeny at all, seems to be fine with the Left and for PPoA.
Neither vivid exposés of PPoA’s illegal activities–such as facilitating pimps when they want to abort the babies of their underaged prostitutes–nor Planned Parenthood’s exorbitant profits derived from murdering the pre-born, nor PPoA’s concerted efforts to seduce teenagers into accepting the normality of homosexual relations and promiscuity have deterred the Left from championing the efforts by PPoA to honor their sacrament.
Since the liberal MSM shows no interest in exposing what PPoA really does, it falls to independent sources to out the organization. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=25112.)
Predictability
Submitted by LaVallette on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 4:59am.
Predictability is the death of all Opinion wirters. Why bother if you know what they are going to say?
In any case I choose Saints Catherine of Siena, St Theresa of Avila, St Theresa of Lisieux and the thousands of female saints ahead of the Dowdy, the Frustrated One, and the increasingly "smart assed" women religious who have the impertinence to claim a higher teaching authority on Catholic faith and morals than the Catholic Church's teaching Magisterium established by Christ Himself.(Matthew 16.19)
But then Christ was a guy wasn't he? s/off
it's not mandatory
Submitted by superllama on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 5:16am.
for anyone to join any certain religion, at least if you aren't in a muslim ruled country. you don't have to like it at all, in fact, in our country. but for you to want to change it, like this "sister" wants...well start with the religions that will kill you for saying anything bad about them first, i say. here in the place that she writes her articles, no one cares if you insult or try to change another religion to obey your specific beliefs(as long as it's not islam). and that's why she is still living, because the catholic church has moved on past the 6th century, unlike some other religions she might be better off criticizing. the thing about religion, and belief, is that you actually have to obey what the religion says. that's a little thing called faith. and no matter how much they want to change the roman catholic church, they have a faith of their own, that goes against her.
i wonder, if she turned her head, to find another religion that oppressed women, if she would be under a fatwa like mr wilders, or others that have spoken out against true oppression? but, i guess, she is just like the PETA people...who will throw paint on rich people wearing furs, but never assault a hell's angel for wearing leather. because, at heart, she is a coward, attacking people she knows will not lift a finger against her for not believing as they do.
No, pleasure isn't a sin,
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:12pm.
No, pleasure isn't a sin, lust is; I thought she was a Catholic, she should know her religion. Part of what lust means is treating pleasure as an important thing in life, and also wanting material things so much that you build up associations of pleasure in getting them (which is part of the emotion in sex, sex is catharsis).
Dowd is of course is also misrepresenting how people thought in the past. Masturbation was never treated as a disorder,*excessive* masturbation was treated as a disorder, which most people still believe today. Most parents would be bothered if their kids spent hours locked in their room masturbating, just like they were 100 years ago.
And if she's interested, I could show her letters for Muslims visiting Europe hundreds of years ago, complaining about how women in Europe were crude and acted like men and weren't submissive and docile like the women back in the Middle East. That would destroy some of the illusions she has I think.
Then, she mentions the pedophilia scandal, while talking about how the culture changed; and never seems to be interested in linking some of the cultural changes to the pedophilia scandal. Its the fault of celibacy! Even though priests were celibate for centuries and the pedophilia scandal was just this century in the middle of cultural changes about sex. Christians didn't invent respect for celibacy either. In Rome, vestal virgins were expected to be celibate, in this case women priests, instead of men priests. I wonder if vestal virgins were caught molesting girls. And buddhist priests also stay celibate, why doesn't anyone cmoplain about them? Why is there no buddhist pedophilia scandal in the news?
Listen, Maureen, I'm celibate and I haven't molested a child yet, and its grossly insulting that you always insinuate that I'm a closet pedophile.
Finally, why are you so obsessed with having sex? Can't you accept someone can be celibate and happy, and not become a pedophile, and leave them alone? Or are you projecting your own problems onto everyone else?
The Anchoress had some words
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:17pm.
The Anchoress had some words for Dowd a while ago.I can't find the exact quote again, but it was something like
Oh, honey, give it up. At some point, it just gets old.....
The Anchoress had some words
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:17pm.
The Anchoress had some words for Dowd a while ago.I can't find the exact quote again, but it was something like
Oh, honey, give it up. At some point, it just gets old.....