Catholic MAUREEN DOWD Strikes Again

I am sorry but why oh why does the NYT put her a the main Op-Ed person on all things Catholic. We have a real dozy here. See The Church’s Judas Moment

These are some highlights.

Vatican II made me wince. The church declared casual Friday. All the once-rigid rules left to the whim of the flock. The Mass was said in English (rendering useless my carefully learned Latin prayers). Holy days of obligation were optional. There were laypeople on the heretofore sacred ground of the altar — performing the sacraments and worse, handling the Host. The powerful symbolism of the priest turning the Host into the body of Christ cracked like an egg.

There is actually a LITTLE to what she is saying here. I think some things confused the role of the Laity and the Ordained. Which in a way is a form of horrible clericalism when the Laity is robbed of their mission and dignity by trying to make them something they are not.

However Holy Days are not optional and no lay person is "performing" sacraments.

In his book, ‘Goodbye! Good Men,’ author Michael Rose writes that the liberalized rules set up a takeover of seminaries by homosexuals.
Vatican II liberalized rules but left the most outdated one: celibacy. That vow was put in place originally because the church did not want heirs making claims on money and land. But it ended up shrinking the priest pool and producing the wrong kind of candidates — drawing men confused about their sexuality who put our children in harm’s way.

Needless to say Dowd seems unaware that there are huge child abuse scandals in places where the Clergy is not celibate. Also she is wrong about the historical background of celibacy.

We must reassess. Married priests and laypeople giving the sacraments are not going to destroy the church. Based on what we have seen the last 10 years, they would be a bargain. It is time to go back to the disciplines that the church was founded on and remind our seminaries and universities what they are. (Georgetown University agreeing to cover religious symbols on stage to get President Obama to speak was not exactly fierce.) .

Again I have no idea what she is talking about "Laypeople" giving sacraments.

The storm within the church strikes at what every Catholic fears most. We take our religion on faith. How can we maintain that faith when our leaders are unworthy of it?” .

Ok fair enough about criticism of the Clergy. However notice something missing. As the old expression goes when you point one finger at someone you got four pointing back!!

Does the Laity itself come in for any criticism whatsoever?

Does the Laity bear any responsibility for the horrible job it has done in recent decades in passing the knowledge of the faith to their children?

Does the Laity bear any responsibility that a significant number of them have embraced the Culture of Death in many forms

Does the Laity bear any responsibility that it has embraced some of the worse aspect of the sexual revolution that now has had horrific results?

Does the Laity bear any responsibility that they very much like and empowered Priests, Religious, and even Bishops that basically empowered them to make the Gospel in their own images and not of Christ.

Does the Laity (like certain Op-Ed writers at the New York Times) bear any responsibility in the heresy that Faith is a purely private matter and should not be influencing the public square?

Does the Laity bear any responsibility that they were more interested in promoting MBA vocations for their children and not vocations to the religious life?

Dowd talks how she wants to empower the Laity but with power becomes responsibility. What about that failing Maureen? Why don't you talk about that? Is it because you might offend your readership (the laity that can do no wrong).