Sunday, April 11, 2010

Maureen Dowd's Latest Column on the Catholic Church Like A Dishonest Campaign Ad

Related to this screed of Dowd's is the Anchoress's excellent post at The Myth of Held-back Catholic Women

You those types of ads that mislead on a politicians votes in an outrageous way. All the networks and newspapers go out of their way to do those "is this true" as to too ads. No one thinks to do the same to people like Dowd.

Here is her latest Worlds Without Women

I, too, remained part of an autocratic society that repressed women and ignored their progress in the secular world.
I, too, rationalized as men in dresses allowed our religious kingdom to decay and to cling to outdated misogynistic rituals, blind to the benefits of welcoming women’s brains, talents and hearts into their ancient fraternity
.

Sigh

“In the Roman Catholic corporation, the senior executives live and work, as they have for a thousand years, eschewing not just marriage, but intimacy with women ... not to mention any chance to familiarize themselves with the earthy, primal messiness of families and children.” No wonder that, having closed themselves off from women and everything maternal, they treated children as collateral damage, a necessary sacrifice to save face for Mother Church.

Dowd I actually does think of her Church as an Corporation. I really do. Where she is a shareholder and can vote. Children as collateral Damage!!! It is Dowd that and her ilk that find children as collateral damage. Abortion on demand and other matters. In fact her generation contributed greatly to the demographic crisis we have as we have seen children as potential collateral damage to their careers!!

By the way Maureen Dowd lecturing the world on maternal stuff and the primal messiness of families and children. She is 58 never been married and has no kids. Hey that is ok. Maybe that is her state in life. However goodness get off her high horse honey

As to maternal the Church is full of the Maternal. Starting with the Holy Mother Church imagery.

But lets skip this and get to the distortions/ lies

The Associated Press broke the latest story pointing the finger of blame directly at Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, quoting from a letter written in Latin in which he resisted pleas to defrock a California priest who had sexually molested children.

Ah the word DEFROCK again. The Priest has been removed from the Ministry (why can't Dowd acknowledge that) and the issue was if he could be dispensed from his vow of celibacy before the age of 40. Why can't Dowd mention that. Why is she in a hurry for this guy to get married and "familiarize themselves with the earthy, primal messiness of families and children"

As the longtime Vatican enforcer, the archconservative Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI — moved avidly to persecute dissenters. But with molesters, he was plodding and even merciful.

Ahh ENFORCER!!! He persecutes!!! He is an Archconservative (what nonsense as any one that has Pope Benedict would know). No doubt the Pope wanted child molesters to seek repentance but how was he exactly merciful. In fact he has been pretty aggressive.

As the A.P. reported, the Oakland diocese recommended defrocking Father Stephen Kiesle in 1981. The priest had pleaded no contest and was sentenced to three years’ probation in 1978 in a case in which he was accused of tying up and molesting two boys in a church rectory.

Actually the Priest himself wanted it which again is ignored for obvious reasons
In 1982, the Oakland diocese got what it termed a “rather curt” response from the Vatican. It wasn’t until 1985 that “God’s Rottweiler” finally got around to addressing the California bishop’s concern. He sent his letter urging the diocese to give the 38-year-old pedophile “as much paternal care as possible” and to consider “his young age.” Ratzinger should have been more alarmed by the young age of the priest’s victims; that’s what maternal care would have entailed.

"God's Rottweiler" sigh. Let me ask does the NYT thinks this is appropriate? Does it thinks it furthers discussion?

Now here is the where the BIG LIE COMES IN and my when she wrote that column she should know that "the paternal care" in the Latin implied a watchful eye (again he was out of the Ministry but the Pope said watch him). The YOUNG AGE has to deal with the underlying issue. Pope John Paul II saw the scandal of Priest leaving their vows when they left the Priest hood. Just discarding them aside. So a rule came in unless they had kids no one gets an dispensation from the vows of celibacy till they are 40. NO ONE!!. The child abuser was no longer in an active Priest ministry role. HE HAD BEEN REMOVED Which is again ignored so to mislead.

As in so many other cases, the primary concern seemed to be shielding the church from scandal. Chillingly, outrageously, the future pope told the Oakland bishop to consider the “good of the universal church” before granting the priest’s own request to give up the collar — even though the bishop had advised Rome that the scandal would likely be greater if the priest were not punished.


Dowd again is well lying. First as to the punishiment!!! This is a weird punishiment since the priest himself actively wants it. The Bishop does not use the word punish. In fact how is being relieved of the obligations of the vows you made punshiment? The scandal Pope Benedioct is referring to is the overall scandal of Priest discarding their vows like it was nothing. I actually agree with The Bishop here by the way. As we see in full living color in Dowd's column's she is distorting what is going on here to make it out like the Church is doing something dirty.

While the Vatican sat on the case — asking the diocese to resubmit the files, saying they might have been lost — Kiesle volunteered as a youth minister at a church north of Oakland. The A.P. also reported that even after the priest was finally defrocked in 1987, he continued to volunteer with children in the Oakland diocese; repeated warnings to church officials were ignored.

Wow DOWD. Guess what THAT IS A LAY ROLE!!! Though I am not sure he was "Youth Minister" he was volunteering with kids!!! A LAY ROLE which he could have been doing perhapsif he has been as she puts it "defrocked" . I will have to go back and actually see if was working with children after 87. If that happened that was a local major goof up that now would have been corrected in this day and age as to oversight nationwide. Still we have a man in the community that is in the full lay role. Just like Dowd was screaming for.

No comments: