Maureen Dowd and Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times

The New York Times has shown yet again that the abuse of children does not really bother them unless it involves the Catholic Church. But if there were still any doubt, the Times has now made it perfectly clear that the decades-old abuse of minors by Catholic priests is simply a rhetorical tool with which it can bludgeon the Catholic Church because it does not conform to the paper's left-wing liking.

It was only a week ago when a New York Times editorial fretted about the Catholic Church's efforts to align the dissident leadership of a conference of left-wing nuns with Church doctrine, and the paper predictably used the scandals as a useful cudgel to promote "progressive" dissent.

Now Times' opinion writers Maureen Dowd and Nicholas D. Kristof have double-upped on the Grey Lady's predictable tactic with similar Church-bashing columns running just a week later in the same Sunday issue.

Maureen Dowd: Off the rails

Maureen Dowd's deep-seated animus towards the Catholic Church is nothing new. Yet one cannot help but wonder if she may have outdone herself this time.

Dowd smears the Church by claiming that leaders are "more offended by the nuns' impassioned advocacy for the poor than by priests' sordid pedophilia."

In fact, as we have repeatedly shown, the Catholic Church's efforts to establish safe environments for children are unprecedented anywhere.

In other words, Dowd resorts to false statements and bogus attacks – again – in her latest effort to attack the Church.

Nicholas D. Kristof looks to dissent

Kristof's attack is remarkably similar to Dowd's in its content, tone, and disregard for truthfulness.

Kristof falsely accuses the Church of claiming that nuns are "worrying too much about the poor and not enough about abortion and gay marriage."

After displaying an ignorance of basic knowledge of the Bible and Catholic teaching, Kristof then promotes the views of a number of angry Catholic dissidents.

These figures include Mary E. Hunt, whom Kristof merely identifies as a "Catholic theologian," but who openly cohabitates with her woman 'partner' and whose theology is barely distinguishable from some wacky brand of Universalist-Unitarianism.

Kristof then cites Sr. Joan Chittister, whose public work has been so problematic that she has actually been banned from even speaking in some dioceses.

An obsession and a delusion

The Times' obsession with the Catholic Church has clearly become pathological. It is unwavering in its ideological commitment to bludgeon the Church by any means necessary, and the principle means by which it does this is to endlessly rehash the sex abuse scandals.

Anti-Catholicism is indeed pervasive at the Grey Lady. The paper intensely dislikes the Catholic Church and what it represents. And it cannot countenance the fact that the Vatican is finally pushing back against openly dissenting individuals who have opposed the Church by speaking favorably on "progressive" issues with which the Times aligns itself.

Unfortunately for the Times, the ranks of "liberal" and "progressive" Catholics are now shrinking and increasingly geriatric. "Traditional Catholicism is Winning," despite what the Grey Lady wants you to believe.

The Times can get as huffy as it wants to, but it will simply get even more frustrated if it continues to think it will somehow bully the Catholic Church into changing its 2,000-year-old teachings.

Dowd's article lashes out against New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan's stance against the implementation of gay 'marriage' in New York. Dowd takes issue with a recently released report commissioned by the United States Catholic bishops that sought to examine the "causes and context" of the scandals. Dowd belittles the report and writes, "It concluded, absurdly, that neither the all-male celibate priesthood
nor homosexuality were causes."

Whoa! Her opinion seems pretty clear: Homosexuality was a direct cause of the sex abuse of minors in the Catholic Church.

Indeed, the heralded 2004 John Jay report, which thoroughly examined Church abuse data from 1950 to 2002, reported that over 80 percent of abuse victims were male, and the vast majority were teenagers. (In society as a whole, most abuse victims are female.)

Most clear-headed observers reached the obvious conclusion that the scandals largely entailed criminal homosexual priests preying upon innocent adolescent boys. However, you would be hard-pressed to hear that conclusion in the politically correct "liberal" or "progressive" circles in which Dowd resides. (Even the authors of the study went out of their way to publicly state that homosexuality was not a cause, even though their own data suggested otherwise.)

Will Dowd be criticized for "demeaning," "stereotyping," and/or "demeaning" gays? Will there be a demand that Dowd retract her claim?

—-

A couple other quick points:

1. The all-male/celibacy requirements had nothing to do with the scandals. Dowd is wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that Catholic priests abused more than clergy of other denominations where celibacy is not a requirement. (One of many sources: Newsweek, 4/7/10.) In addition, there are massive abuses and cover-ups happening today in our public schools. Obviously there is no celibacy requirement to be a teacher.

2. Dowd refers to the scandals as an "unending horror" to imply that abuse is still a rampant problem in the Catholic Church today. It isn't. In 2010, there were seven credible contemporaneous accusations of abuse against Catholic priests in the entire United States. While even seven is seven too many for any caring person, this figure is indicative of an organization that has worked hard to put a serious problem behind it. (In 2009, the number was six.)

Dowd's recent rant, released on Easter Sunday (Sun. 4/24/11), contains a number of false statements.

1. In addressing the papacy of Pope John Paul II (JPII), Dowd claims that the former pontiff "forfeited his right to beatification when he failed to establish a legal standard to remove pedophiles from the priesthood, and simply turned away for many years."

First of all, long before JPII, there was already a "legal standard" to remove those who abuse children. It is called the Code of Canon Law. As someone who claims to have attended Catholic schools for many years, Dowd already should have known this.

And in 2001, the Pope issued a very important document (“Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela”) outlining the handling of these serious abuse cases. (Reminder: This was before the scandals erupted in the media in 2002. (Read: CWNews.com, 1/7/02.)) 

In addition, in 2002, JPII helped to oversee the measures the United States bishops took to address abuse crimes.

While massive abuse and cover-ups have flared in school districts like Los Angeles, no one would ever think to point the finger at President Obama or even Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. The finger would rightfully be pointed at the local school authorities. But those with an animus against the Church have no problem pointing the finger at a guy all the way across the ocean for the sins and crimes of local prelates thousands of miles away. That is simply unfair.

It is the duty of local bishops to supervise priests. JPII did not "turn away" or "fail to establish" anything. Dowd is simply wrong. It was John Paul II who exclaimed, "People need to know that there is no room in the priesthood for those who abuse children."

2. Dowd also repeated the oft-heard anti-Catholic lie that Pope Pius XII, the World War II-era pontiff, "remained silent about the Holocaust as it happened."

This grossly false tale has been roundly debunked repeatedly:

• In a December 25, 1941, editorial, the New York Times wrote, "The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas… he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all… the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism … he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace."
• An August 6, 1942, headline in the New York Times read, "Pope is Said to Plead for Jews Listed for Removal from France."
• In his book, Three Popes and the Jews, Israeli diplomat and scholar Pinchas Lapide has asserted, "The Catholic Church under the pontificate of Pius XII was instrumental in saving lives of as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands." Lapide adds that this "figure far exceeds those saved by all other Churches and rescue organizations combined."
• Michael Tagliacozzo, "the foremost survivor on the October 1943 Nazi roundup of Rome's Jews" and "a survivor of the raid himself," said Pius' actions helped rescue 80 percent of Rome's Jews. Said Tagliacozzo, "Pope Pacelli was the only one who intervened to impede the deportation of Jews on October 16, 1943, and he did very much to hide and save thousands of us." (Rabbi David G. Dalin, p. 83)
• In the June 21, 2009, edition of the Boston Globe, Mordechay Lewy, Israel's ambassador to the Holy See, is quoted, "It is wrong to look for any affinity between [Pius] and the Nazis. It is also wrong to say that he didn’t save Jews. Everybody who knows the history of those who were saved among Roman Jewry knows that they hid in the church."

So much for Dowd's claim of Pope Pius XII "remaining silent." There have been scores of books, research papers, and articles (list 1, 2) that outline what Pope Pius XII really did during World War II.

3. Dowd also uncritically cites writer Jason Berry, whom I've shown can have a dubious grasp of honest journalism.

Dowd needs to straighten out.

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.)