The New York Times's Maureen Dowd spent some time in Catholic school as a youth, but judging from her latest rant/column, she didn't learn too much about actual Catholicism.
Dowd's anti-Catholic screed reveals that of someone who knows almost nothing about the Catholic faith. She also deceives her readers about a number of topics, including a 2004 letter issued by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict XVI.
1. Dowd writes:
"In 2004, the cardinal who would become Pope Benedict XVI wrote a Vatican document urging women to be submissive partners, resisting any adversarial roles with men and cultivating 'feminine values' like 'listening, welcoming, humility, faithfulness, praise and waiting.'"
Ratzinger "urged women to be submissive partners"? Uh-uh. In fact, Ratzinger opines almost the direct opposite of what Dowd implies. Among Ratzinger's passages:
"[T]he Church, enlightened by faith in Jesus Christ, speaks instead of active collaboration between the sexes precisely in the recognition of the difference between man and woman."
"[W]omen should be present in the world of work and in the organization of society, and that women should have access to positions of responsibility which allow them to inspire the policies of nations and to promote innovative solutions to economic and social problems."
And look at what Ratzinger wrote about the so-called "feminine values" of "listening, welcoming ...(etc.)":
"It is appropriate however to recall that the feminine values mentioned here are above all human values: the human condition of man and woman created in the image of God is one and indivisible."
In other words, Dowd flat-out lies about Ratzinger's letter. (By the way, the letter is called, "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World." Interested readers should check it out.)
2. Dowd also tries to dupe her readers with this doozy:
"The Vatican is now conducting two inquisitions into the 'quality of life' of American nuns, a dwindling group with an average age of about 70, hoping to herd them back into their old-fashioned habits and convents and curb any speck of modernity or independence."
Needless to say, the apostolic visitations to which Dowd refers have little to do with "old-fashioned habits and convents." They're about dissident nuns who openly oppose fundamental Church teaching. They're about an order that allows its nuns to volunteer at abortion clinics and have no clue that Church teaching on abortion dates to the first century.
3. Dowd also misrepresents the actions of the Franciscan order after one of its priests fathered a child. Dowd falsely claims that the order "was stingy with money for college and for doctors, once the son got terminal cancer." As the her paper's own story revealed, the order was pretty generous to the boy's mother, ponying up tens of thousands of dollars in child support. In addition, "[T]he Franciscans agreed to pay half of Nathan’s college expenses, plus $586 a month, until he turned 21." And as far as helping with the boy's cancer treatment? "The Franciscans agreed to pay 50 percent of any 'extraordinary' medical costs, until he turned 23. Ms. Bond said she was greatly relieved. She was involved in a messy divorce with her third husband ..."
When the Franciscans balked at covering a lengthy hotel stay in New York after already giving her $1000 for the trip, the woman went public with her story, even though she had signed a confidentiality agreement.
In other words, Dowd deceives her readers again.
4. Dowd also appears to exhibit no clue as to why women simply cannot be priests. As I've written a number of times before, "Holy Orders" is a sacrament, and sacraments were instituted by Jesus himself. The Church simply does not have any authority to change the nature of a sacrament. I don't suppose Ms. Dowd has ever heard of John Paul II's 1994 letter, "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis," which covers this exact topic.
5. Dowd also writes that Pope Benedict was "once a conscripted member of the Hitler Youth." She conveniently omits, however, that conscription was compulsory in Hitler's Germany and that he deserted the group.
6. Dowd also dishonestly tries to portray Pope Benedict as a Nazi sympathizer. Writes Dowd, "Benedict pardoned a schismatic bishop who claimed that there was no Nazi gas chamber."
Dowd doesn't tell her readers that it is "absolutely baseless to say or even insinuate that the Pope had been informed earlier of the positions" of the bishop before he lifted his excommunication. Needless to say, if the Holy Father had been aware of the bishop's awful remarks, he never would have lifted his excommunication. (The excommunication, by he way, had to do with another issue entirely.)
Honesty? Facts? Truth? Not from Maureen Dowd.
(NOTE: As I was writing this post, I saw that the Catholic League released a statement that included Dowd's column among a series of anti-Catholic pieces that have appeared in the media in the past week.)
-=-=-=-=-
See also: TheMediaReport.com: Los Angeles Times - Anti-Catholicism
TheMediaReport.com: Los Angeles Times - Clergy Abuse and School Abuse
TheMediaReport.com: Attorney John Manly
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I need to sell my house!
October 28, 2009 - 20:51 ET by obageegeeI think I'll bury Maureen in my backyard.....
God Almighty
October 28, 2009 - 21:00 ET by BondPlainBondWhat is wrong with these people?
Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do.
cultivating 'feminine
October 28, 2009 - 21:03 ET by Radical1979cultivating 'feminine values' like 'listening, welcoming, humility, faithfulness, praise and waiting.'"
As a woman, a Christian, and a Catholic, I don't know what is so vile about these statements.
Good Old Maureen
October 28, 2009 - 21:24 ET by justbob223Never let the facts or truth get in the way of a hatchet job.
have to disagree somewhat
October 28, 2009 - 21:29 ET by michiganruthyou make some good points, and in general, I think Maureen Dowd is an idiot. but in this case it sounds like both you and she are overstating the case. two examples:
-there are plenty of valid reasons why women shouldn't be priests, but "Jesus said so" is NOT one of them. you might as well say that Jesus decided only men named Peter could be pope. "On this rock I will build my church" means to you that women can't be ordained? sorry.
-as far as the "schismatic priest" mentioned: to quote another newsbusters article (about Obama's czars), "don't these guys have google?" For the pope to plead ignorance on that is unacceptable. anybody who was paying any sort of attention knew that Fr. Williamson was a complete loon. and one would hope that if you're about to let someone back into the Church, you'd check them out first. clearly, this was not done.
having said that, tho, I completely agree about Dowd and her level of vitriol toward the Catholic Church. but since she is a liberal--no, QUEEN of the liberals--we should not expect anything more balanced from her anyway.
-there are plenty of valid
October 28, 2009 - 23:29 ET by Dim Bulb-there are plenty of valid reasons why women shouldn't be priests, but "Jesus said so" is NOT one of them.
Perhaps I missed something, but I can find nothing in this article to suggest that its author, Mister Pierre, ever asserted the "Jesus said so" defense. Indeed, I'm not aware of any competant authority who has claimed that a non-female clergy is the result of "Jesus said so." As far as I can tell, "the Jesus said so" statement is only an excuse to open the door to the "you might as well say that Jesus decided only men named Peter could be pope" argument.
-as far as the "schismatic priest" mentioned: to quote another
newsbusters article (about Obama's czars), "don't these guys have
google?" For the pope to plead ignorance on that is unacceptable.
anybody who was paying any sort of attention knew that Fr. Williamson
was a complete loon. and one would hope that if you're about to let
someone back into the Church, you'd check them out first.
First, regarding this aspect of the post by Mister Pierre: "According to an Associated Press report, the Swedish TV program doesn’t suggest Benedict knew about the remarks before he lifted the excommunications. Instead, it singles out Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who had been
leading efforts to bring reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X,
as having knowledge before the excommunications occurred." If Michiganruth has any other proof than an assumption, please let us know.
As for the Pope's stand on Jews and Ecumenism: A few days after the events, the lifting of excommunication from the
four Lefebvrist bishops is increasingly manifesting itself at the
Vatican as a double disaster, of governance and of communication.
In the disaster, Pope Benedict XVI found himself to be the one most exposed, and practically alone.
Both within and outside of the curia, many are blaming the pope for
everything. In effect, it was his decision to offer the Lefebvrist
bishops a gesture of benevolence. The lifting of excommunication
followed other previous gestures of openness, also decided personally
by the pope, the last of which was the motu proprio "Summorum
Pontificum," dated July 7, 2007, with the liberalization of the ancient
rite of the Mass.
As he had done before, this time as well Benedict XVI did not
demand in advance anything from the Lefebvrists in return. So far, all
of his acts of openness have been unilateral. The pope's critics have
seized upon this in order to accuse him of naivety, or appeasement, or
even of wanting to take the Church back to before Vatican Council II.
In reality, Benedict XVI has explained his intention absolutely
clearly, in one of the key addresses of his pontificate, the one
delivered to the Roman curia on December 22, 2005. In that speech, pope
Ratzinger maintained that Vatican II did not mark any rupture with the
Church's tradition...
In that speech, Benedict XVI was speaking to the entire Catholic
universe. But at the same time, he was also addressing the Lefebvrists,
to whom he pointed out the direct route for healing the schism and
returning to unity with the Church on the points that they oppose most
vigorously: not only religious freedom, but also the liturgy,
ecumenism, relations with Judaism and the other religions."
-there are plenty of valid
October 29, 2009 - 18:57 ET by Jcon96-there are plenty of valid reasons why women shouldn't be priests, but
"Jesus said so" is NOT one of them. you might as well say that Jesus
decided only men named Peter could be pope. "On this rock I will build
my church" means to you that women can't be ordained? sorry.
Did you in fact read the Ordinatio Sacerdotalis link posted in the article? If you had, you would see the biblical basis for the reason why. The decisions of the holy father on this matter are based in the decisions of Christ himself. They are not negotiable, nor given to debate, nor altered due to the whim of society.
Your argument falls apart the moment you apply the discussions outlined in the above mentioned document. Careful to not fall into the same trap as Ms. Dowd, and make false statements based on a skimming of the facts.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.
George S. Patton
Old Grey Ho Of New York
October 28, 2009 - 21:44 ET by Dim BulbI recall Bill O'Reilly talking about a rather nasty column Dowd wrote about Ratzinger shortly after he became Pope. He sounded shocked at her language, noting "she's a Catholic!"
I remember thinking that Judas was an Apostle; Brutus was a friend; Benedict Arnold was a General in the Continental Army; and Jayson Blair was a journalist. Mo Dowd and the "grey old ho of New York" keep some pretty dubious company. Probably because it used to make them money.
Well done...
October 28, 2009 - 21:48 ET by MightyMouthI see you chose an antonymical user name. :-)
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
Huh
October 28, 2009 - 23:39 ET by Dim BulbKlearly u ain't never red my blog
No but maybe I should, I thought I was being...
October 28, 2009 - 23:49 ET by MightyMouthcomplementary... my mistake!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
Apparently vocabulary isn't
October 29, 2009 - 05:02 ET by motherbeltApparently vocabulary isn't DB's strong suit. ;-)
Jayson Blair
October 28, 2009 - 21:57 ET by pgrossjrSomeone had to take Blairs place. Dont have any ideas for a column? Make something up!
Pelosi must belong to that order of nuns that is unaware of the Church's teaching on abortion.
Apparently MoDo is the same
October 28, 2009 - 22:08 ET by motherbeltApparently MoDo is the same kind of "ardent Catholic" as Her Speakerness.
IOW, they were born into Catholic families. They wouldn't dream of leaving and aligning themselves with another church. But that doesn't mean they really believe what the Church teaches. They just like the tradition, maybe the old Latin Mass, or the hymns, the rites and celebrations.
I'm betting that if one asked either of them if they believe that the Holy Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ, they would hedge. Since they are both pro-abortion, they obviously disagree with the Church's teaching on abortion, and I would bet that neither has a problem with divorce.
But they are ardent Catholics, you know!
best friend in High School
October 28, 2009 - 23:50 ET by doug1950was a Catholic and he would refer to folks like Ms. Dowdy as a "convenient Catholic". In other words they were only Catholic when it was convenent for them to be one.
Not a "belief thing"
October 29, 2009 - 06:59 ET by CO2Maker"But that doesn't mean they really believe what the Church teaches." I think your analysis is a bit off.
It's not that Pelosi and Dowd [is that PeDo?or DoPe? Maybe there's something useful in this rap sh*t!] do not believe the Church's teachings. They don't understand them. Throw in Patrick Kennedy, John "I was for my Catholic beliefs before I was against them" Kerry, and others. Remember, the other knives in the drawer are the sharp ones.
As a Catholic
October 28, 2009 - 22:38 ET by richb313As a Catholic I am used to a lifetime of baseless hatred. From some older fundamentalist Christan Sects to all sorts of Educated, Liberal Thinking Professor types. I am 58 years old and usually let this type of non-thinking hatred roll off my back. Some people think we still live in the times of the Dark Ages when dispensation was sold. When the Pope was a bought and paid for position. This was the reason for the Reformation. The church has undergone many changes since then. You would not know it by listening to Miss Dodd.
You should know that Baptists...
October 28, 2009 - 22:44 ET by MightyMouth...who are not Protestents of the Reformation do not hate Catholics, we just disagree on a few(ok several) points....
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
Ah, the memories
October 29, 2009 - 07:14 ET by CO2MakerMy mother was a Catholic from Pennsylvania; my father was a Southern Baptist from North Carolina. It took a World War to bring them together in England. They married after the war and set up housekeeping in N.C., and his family, although they were unfailingly polite (Southern manners, etc.), never quite got the Catholic stuff. For my mother's family's part, they just couldn't understand him half the time (accent, or so my uncle said on several occasions). We were raised Catholic, I was an altar boy and learned the Latin responses phonetically, went to parochial schools for half my K-12 years, moved around a lot because my father was a career Army officer, etc. Mass was the same everywhere (and Latin, no less, until 1963).
Okay. End of reverie.
Hey, Mo the ho Do!
October 28, 2009 - 22:50 ET by B-townGiantYou think this global warming stuff is bad, wait until you see the afterlife!
Whoooo! Is it warm down here, or is it just me?
Fry, bee-yotch!
I won't even click on the
October 28, 2009 - 22:59 ET by bse5150I won't even click on the link to give her and the New York Times a hit.
And I have no desire to read anything that bitter pill of a woman writes.
Go Palin!
Thomas Nast, She Isn't...
October 28, 2009 - 23:30 ET by The7SticksAs I have said before, leave the anti-Catholicism to us professionals, Miss Dowd. You can claim to be Thomas Nast all you want, but you are no Thomas Nast, you never were, and you never will be. And don't come crying to me if Rep. Grayson starts referring to you as a "ho".
She really is ignorant...
October 29, 2009 - 02:01 ET by caiobabeAnd by that I don't mean stupid.
She just doesn't have the ability to understand why the Catholic Church even exists. Dowd doesn't know why the Church is attacked by the sorts like herself or how the Church has lasted this long despite all the human corruption throughout the centuries.
It's called faith, and it isn't found in the Bible. The religion was once known as the 'One True Church'.
and, she's still an idiot.
Still is ...
October 29, 2009 - 04:31 ET by TomsPlaceknown as the "One, True Faith," and/or "The Full Deposit of the faith." Now, whether people accept that is a separate issue.
God Bless.
A shame she would never
October 29, 2009 - 09:11 ET by Southern votervisit the thriving orders of sisters 'in habits' all over the country where the average age of young women entering these convents is 22yrs old ...try the Dominicans in Ann Arbor Mi and Nashville Tn ....talk about HOPE in the Catholic Church... all we have to do is look around ...
The 'so called' nuns who support abortion are no different than the liberal Catholic polititcians that do the same ...the same liberal Catholics who supported Obamas' visit to Notre Dame...
We just sometimes need to be reminded that 'failh' is a gift from God...just because you are Catholic in name doesn't mean you understand or have the gift of faith...
dowd
October 29, 2009 - 09:26 ET by charlietexasJournalism is dead. What a hypocrite she is to write about Catholic Nuns when she herself is a street slut.
NYT Dowd's Anti-Catholic
October 29, 2009 - 11:04 ET by moderncommentaries83In other news, water is found to be wet.
Seriously. The more these liberals - from liberal Anglicans to "journalists", to Richard Dawkins and others - chiming in with nothing but anger over the Apostolic Constitution offered to the Anglicans, the more it convinces me what the Pope did was the right solution, and that Catholicism is the correct faith.
No other faith, no other denomination of Christianity, has as much falsehood and vitriol aimed toward and written about it as Catholicism.
And you think liberals would be happy that the Pope is allowing those Anglicans who don't believe in women's ordination or gay marriage a place to call home! It's really freeing up Anglican churches for, well, certainly not growing numbers, but freeing up Anglican churches for something. At least the bigots would be gone, right?
More to the point, do any of you notice how these liberals never, EVER bother asking Catholic women (such as myself) or Catholics who have same sex attraction (SSA) but live chastely in accordance with their faith, WHY we practice the Catholic faith?
The Catholic Church is supposedly misogynistic, but liberals think we Catholic women who have no qualms about the all-male priesthood (and are smart enough to understand the theological reasons why) are stupid and that they know what's best for us. Which is more condescending, in reality?
The Catholic Church is supposedly homophobic, but it's teachings on sex are clear, and remarkably equitable. The Catholic Church teaches sex outside a sacramental marriage is a sin - be it between one man and one woman, or two persons of the same gender. We all commit the same thing; there is no greater penalty or weight if the fornication is straight or gay. Unlike the Fred Phelps of the world, we do not believe having SSA makes you a sinner in and of itself; it's no more sinful than being straight. It is the behavior that's the sin. And liberals and fellow gays are some of the nastiest, harshest critics of Catholics and other Christians with SSA who either live chastely or believe their faith changed their orientation from gay to straight.
But the Dowds of the world turn to the Joan Chissiters and Call To Action folks for the views of "Catholic women" and "Catholic gays" who - time and again - parrot the same talking points as the DNC.
They never bother to speak to women like me because they wouldn't like what we have to say. And, contrary to what they believe, women like me comprise a larger portion of the Catholic Church than "Catholics" like Dowd.
And this is all about control. The liberal Anglicans are upset because they've lost the ability to browbeat conservative Anglicans into accepting things they find objectionable; liberal Catholics are upset because Pope Benedict has put a stop to their attempts to liberalize Catholicism by allowing people who'll be unsympathetic to their causes to enter into communion with Rome. As we see in the political arena, when liberals are in power, it's about making everyone agree with them or be hanged for dissenting. Many people don't have an out in that situation; Pope Benedict just gave Anglicans a big out to adhere to their beliefs, their liturgy, and still have a place to call home. And it makes liberals ANGRY.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Anyone who is a Christian can tell, via the Holy Spirit,
October 29, 2009 - 18:55 ET by BO STINKSthat Pope Benedict and the Pope before him (please forgive - his name escapes me) were strong men of God. I only mention those two because I made Jesus the Christ my Master during the previous pope's tenure.
Anyhoo, these amazing holy men are examples that we can follow. They have consistently illustrated God's love, forgiveness and power. Their influence in ALL Christians' lives is immeasurable and should be respected.
Unless, of course, you are a liberal - in which case - you are incapable of understanding, let alone respecting something as profound as faith in the Trinity.
I hope he is impeached, soon.
Is there anythign Maureen Dowd isn't sour on?
October 29, 2009 - 19:20 ET by lareeImus guest this morning Chris Christie Republican candidatefor Governor of New Jeresey. Imus: I got tell you the truth Chris, I need you to win, it will make me look good. I am guessing Maureen's in the Corzine camp?
Chris Christie Republican Candidate for Governor of New Jerseys, tells Imus “I’m Going To Be A Big Fat Winner”
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/10/imus-guest-chris-christie-pleasing.html
No, Nope, Nada, Nunka, Nadae... She is a perpetual toxic
October 29, 2009 - 19:28 ET by pahuberwaste chemical spill that overflows with unlimited toxic writing.
Mo Dowd
October 30, 2009 - 01:50 ET by Big MommaDowd is only carrying out her orders from H. O. and So Ro.
H. O. is a Chicago punk who sold himself to the fattest checkbook he could find....and he still can't get it right. Look Ma....I'm king of the world !
Beware the Puppet Master....