"The Vatican’s insistence on male prerogative is misogynistic poppycock"

Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. (1 Cor. 3:18-19)

What's the old saying? "Don't argue with a fool; onlookers won't know the difference." True enough, but I think I'm on safe ground in taking a look at Maureen Dowd's latest column of crazed Catholic-bashing claptrap as it doesn't make any attempt at argument. It is titled, "Rome Fiddles, We Burn"; it should have been titled, "Rome Delivers, We Bluster." Or how about, "Rome Breathes, We Rage"?

I know the prevailing wisdom among many good Catholics has been to lament, even strongly criticize, the way the norms for punishing various offenses involving grave sexual sin/actions were released. The Vatican handled it badly, many have argued, and missed a great PR opportunity. I disagree essentially with that perspective, and having thought about quite a bit the past 24 hours, I am, if anything, more convinced than ever that it wasn't handled badly, and that any and all attempts to somehow do it better would have resulted in the same sort of reaction: generally negative, often openly hostile, and mostly clueless. And while some might think Dowd is an extreme example of those in and of the world of big media, I think she is a perfect example. More on that in a moment.

An acquaintance who I respect very much left the following comment over at the OSV blog; the "they" in her remark refers to Vatican officials:

It makes you wonder what they were thinking. It's like handing your enemy a gun and then saying, "Oh here, let me give you a couple of bullets, too."

I then wrote, in disagreement:

No, it's more like the enemy already has the gun, is going to shoot you, and when you go to defend yourself, he runs to the police and claims you've attacked him. This is typical of the MSM and of those obsessed with "ordaining women" in the Catholic Church. They will do anything to ignore the good done by Benedict XVI re: sexual scandals. I think many Catholics are reacting wrongly to this and are letting the MSM set the agenda, rather than going about the Church's business as it needs to be done.

Fr. John Boyle, a canon lawyer, made a similar (but more serene) comment on the same post:

The Church has issued new canonical norms. In the interests of openness, it has published these norms. In the interests of coherence and to make the job of us Canon Lawyers easier, it has put all grave delicts in one document. For the media, Fr Lombardi issued a statement, the vast majority of paragraphs of which refer to sexual abuse and the public concern about this. Trust the media to miss the story! and follow its own agenda.

Exactly right. This isn't paranoia or media bashing or fortress mentality. This is observable fact. Which is not to say that Catholics should not do their best to present matters clearly, to engage with the media with calm charity, to work as best they can with the often frustrating and maddening beast called The Mainstream Media (perhaps a dying beast, but still a beast). They should do so as best they can. But why the belief that if only we present it just right, with the perfect combination of color, wit, humility, and winning ways, journalists will finally understand and will finally see that, yes, the Catholic Church is actually addressing matters, and, no, the current pope isn't an out-of-touch, ultra-right-wing reactionary? Why? Who are we trying to impress? And, far more importantly, what are we trying to accomplish?

"An attack on the Pope," a very wise man observed, "would get the first page in the New York Times any Monday morning." So wrote Archbishop Fulton Sheen back in 1974. Now, granting that Dowd is not a journalist, I think her rants are often instructive as to how most journalists at mainstream, large newspapers view the Catholic Church. And when Dowd draws heavily, as she does in this column, on the dreadful July 1, 2010, "news" piece, "Church Office Failed to Act on Abuse Scandal," the synchronicity is as obvious as her hatred for the Church. (See here and here and here for responses to that July 1st article.) Dowd begins:

If the Vatican is trying to restore the impression that its moral sense is intact, issuing a document that equates pedophilia with the ordination of women doesn’t really do that.

This might appear to be Exhibit A as to why, as many have argued, the canonical punishments relating to sexual abuse should have been dealt with completely separately from other issues, especially women's ordination. But are we really to believe that if the norms were released separately, the same "connection" would not be made? I think it would have still been a so-called "PR disaster," precisely because the two issues of sexual abuse by priests and women's ordination are tightly linked together in the minds of those who are intent on using the former to somehow bring about the latter. In other words, there are people from across the religious and political spectrum who really do wish to see sexual abuse by priests/bishops addressed in a thorough, logical, and serious way. And then there are those who see it as proof that women need to be ordained and as a mandate for the radical rewriting of Church teaching about ordination and the priesthood (and, logically, the entire Church). Dowd is clearly in the second group:

If Roman Polanski were a priest, he’d still be working here.

Stupefyingly, the new Vatican document also links raping children with ordaining women as priests, deeming both “graviora delicta,” or grave offenses. Clerics who attempt to ordain women can now be defrocked.

Actually, if Hollywood were the Catholic Church, Polanski would not only still be a priest, he would be supported and defended and probably given all sorts of awards by sycophantic sickos such as Woody Allen. As for the "links," this is like equating rape, evading taxes, and having a meth lab because all can result in long jail sentences; reasonable people know that all three are serious crimes, but no one thinks evading taxes is as horrible as rape. But, of course, Dowd is so clueless (or, more likely, dismissive) about the serious ramifications of a bishop attempting to "ordain" women, she states:

Letting women be priests — which should be seen as a way to help cleanse the church and move it beyond its infantilized and defensive state — is now on the list of awful sins right next to pedophilia, heresy, apostasy and schism.

If and when a Catholic says that women can and should be ordained priests, they are uttering heresy: "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith (Code of Canon Law, can. 751; see Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2089). There is no "right next to" in this case; it is the heresy in question. Heresy is very serious business, especially since it places souls in danger of eternal damnation. Sure, I know, I know, responsible journalists and angry columnists can't get caught up in the mumbo-jumbo of theology and Church doctrine (not the least because most of them seem incapable of comprehending any of it). But Catholics should care very deeply about heresy, especially when it relates to one of the seven sacraments established by Jesus Christ. As I wrote a couple of days ago:

A key problem here, in a nutshell, is that while everyone with a working conscience knows how horrible and vile are the sexual molestation and abuse of children, not everyone takes nearly as seriously the grave spiritual harm caused by the attempted ordination of women. This is especially true when the "ordination" is done by an actual bishop; it is a betrayal of the most serious sort, a violation of his holy orders and, ultimately, of the sacred calling granted to him by God. It is, put frankly, spiritual abuse.

Which is not to make light of physical or sexual abuse; the problem isn't that people take sexual abuse too seriously—it's that they don't take spiritual harm and abuse seriously at all. Especially since it requires believing that the attempted ordination of women is not a matter of ritual or "rights," but of fidelity, communion, and sacrifice. To throw away that fidelity, to break that communion, to spit on that sacrifice is to deeply wound the Body of Christ, the Church; it is a scandal that causes spiritual division—these are "ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 817); if not addressed correctly such actions can, in fact, lead to damnation. And those who scoff at such a notion show themselves the careless, irresponsible fools they are.

Dowd, if she is anything, is a scoffer:

Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, the chairman of the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, asserted, “The Catholic Church, through its long and constant teaching, holds that ordination has been, from the beginning, reserved to men, a fact which cannot be changed despite changing times.”

But if it was reserved to celibate men centuries ago simply as a way for the church to keep land, why can’t it be changed? If a society makes strides in not subordinating women, why can’t the church reflect that? If men prove that all-male hierarchies can get shamefully warped, why can’t they embrace the normality of equality? The Vatican’s insistence on male prerogative is misogynistic poppycock — enhancing American Catholics’ disenchantment with Rome.

There is surely much poppycock in the room, but its coming from Dowd, whose ability to misrepresent history, theology, doctrine, present-day situations, and basic facts is, admittedly, perverse and astounding. She mistakenly or misleadingly confuses the ordination of men (a matter of doctrine) with celibacy (a discipline); she takes it for granted that "society" (by which she means herself and her like-minded friends) should set the agenda for the Church; she says that the sexual scandals were the logical consequence of an "all-male hierarchy" (which doesn't help explain why nearly 10% of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct in public schools, which have many more female than male teachers); she brandishes silly and vapid sound bites about "the normality of equality" ("normality" defined by whom, and by what standard? and for what end?); she suggests that American Catholics are increasingly "disenchanted" with Rome, which a perfect example of wishful projection built on legless substantiation.

(A friend recently told me of hearing a guest on NPR say that "tens of thousands of Catholics are leaving the Church" because of the sexual scandals. No proof was given; no numbers presented. No need to: it must be true because that's what Mr. X or Ms. Y want to be true!)

I appreciate the desire and, to a certain degree, the need to continually engage with the media and try to clear away obstacles, explain Church beliefs, and so forth. But, again, I have to wonder: what really is the priority? Is handling public relations adroitly and jumping through hoops for journalists as important as defending the sacraments? Catholics should certainly be willing to address questions and seek to "clean house" in a sober and humble manner. But the temptation, it seems to me, to please certain groups and to prove ourselves to the MSM can get in the way of seeking to please God, to follow Christ, to give assent to Church teaching, to pursue lives of holiness and charity, to defend doctrine, to stand up for the sacraments and the priesthood, to put truth before "PR." It can also blind to us to the battle lines, the way the war is being waged, and the fact that some people do really hate the Catholic Church and cannot be persuaded to do otherwise by our most sincere and well-produced efforts. Isn't this, in fact, what Jesus spoke of shortly before he offered himself up on the Cross for the salvation of men?

If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. But all this they will do to you on my account, because they do not know him who sent me. (Jn. 15:18-21)

• The National Secular Society sort of gets it. The priestettes are clueless. (July 16, 2010)

Comments

[joe]

I have read only of Dowd's dissent from every area where the Church now confronts modernity. She may have been raised Catholic, but her attitudes seem far more 'Sex in the City' than "The Flying Nun." It is not the Church that is in danger of being left behind by members, but members who are choosing to leave. A crucial distinction. I think of someone who wants to wife-swap commanding their partner, "Either indulge me or that marriage is over!" Who is the one causing the problems there, the Bohemian or the 'prude'?

[Alice B.]

I work at a newspaper. The top two editors make sure the reporters are aware that anti-Catholicism is accepted and encouraged. Not in a direct way, but in a subtle way jokes and comments are put out there. Actually I have been horrified by some of the anti-Catholic comments I have heard from these supposedly open-minded educated men. Racist comments would certainly not be tolerated in the newsroom. Both were raised in a particular mainstream Protestant church and that local denomination gets LOTS of positive news print, usually front page. These editors are liberal, pro-gay marriage, etc. I am guessing this scenario plays out in many, many newspapers in the country. I would like to put out there that the local Catholic churches need to get their voices out there, letters to the editor, etc. These bigoted news editors are helped all the more by all the anti-Catholic AP stories on the wire that they get to use. AP news stories leave out a lot of the truth and put a lot of bad information out there. It is a real problem. Interestingly, few Catholics speak up in our community. I suppose they are afraid of being bashed.

[Robert Miller]

You are absolutely correct, Carl.

I think I might go farther: I think the Holy Father deliberately juxtaposed the sexual abuse and women's "ordination" delicta in order to offer a sign of contradiction to the contemporary world's brazen anti-Catholic self-righteousness. Indeed, I see this contradiction as a "strategy" of the Ratzinger CDF and Pontificate: the Regensburg Lecture; the pronouncement on the same day of Venerable honors for John Paul II and Pius XII (whom he eulogized as "Pastor Angelicus" and Pope of our youth"); (and I can't believe he didn't have a big hand in) the beatification of John XXIII and Pius IX by John Paul II on the same day.

The message of this latest initiative is that Church is taking the highest juridical cognizance of the filth that has arisen within the Church in connection with the sexual revolution. And the filth outside the Church can't stand it.

[Carl E. Olson]

Robert: There may well be something to that; the pronouncement for JPII and Pius XII really stands out to me. At the very least, Benedict XVI hasn't fallen into the trap of second-guessing based on fear of media backlash. He knows the bashing comes with the territory, no matter what he does or how he does it.

[LJ]

While the circumstances are different in many ways, our present day situation bears some resemblance to the time of the Protestant Reformation. If we were to go back to that time, or just before it, and ask what three things, amongst many that we would do differently, it seems to me that we might say "catechesis, catechesis, catechesis."

Catechesis for the laity, so they would not be swayed by popular movements and trends, and would know the truth of Catholic teaching so they would repudiate those who were abusing the doctrine of indulgences, for example.

Catechesis for the priests, so that they would not be swayed by the same trends and would be able to bind the laity toegether in orthodox and licit participation in the sacraments.

Catechesis for the bishops so they would be forced to deal with their spiritual responsibilities to their flock and place politics and personal advancement out of their calculations.

The Holy Spirit would be the one to convert their hearts, but the teaching of the truth of the Word at all levels would have acted as the thorn in the side of those who would use the Church and the faithful as their own playground. And the heresies that resulted would surely have had a much poorer soil in which to grow.

To the extent that there are American Catholics leaving in droves today, we can truly say there is a great deficit of catechesis once more. At the time of their lives when they should have been told the truth they were fed pablum and now they think they have been betrayed because they are now hearing the truth from the Pope himself and are so far down the road of heresy that they believe they cannot reverse course.

I believe there are many American Catholics who are shocked by the apparent association of the sin of child abuse with the sin of attempted ordination of women. They should be. They need to be shocked. As you point out Carl, this doesn't mitigate the seriousness of child abuse but rather demonstrates the seriousness of attempted ordination of women.

Perhaps the greatest difference in our time is the fact that the Pope himself as well as many in the hierarchy, perhaps most, are on side with orthodoxy and steadfast in the truth, unfraid of speaking the truth in season and out of season. If this media backlash indicates anything it is that the truth is out of season in mainstream American.

JPII did an end-run around the boomers and went straight to the next generation. We as laity need to keep up with our efforts to do an end-run around the mainstream media. This blog is just one example of that. Keep up the good work Carl.

[TDJ]

I, on the other hand, find humor on what the Holy See did. Did they drive the mysandric feminists crazy with this double-whammy? Yes they did, and that counts for a laugh or two.

-Theo

[Margaret Yo]

Maureen Dowd: "If men prove that all-male hierarchies can get shamefully warped, why can’t they embrace the normality of equality? "

It is incorrect to assume that the ordination of women to the priesthood would necessarily un-warp anything. Women are equally good and equally sinful as men. Normality is the sinful state.

As I see it, women of feminist belief, for whom feminism is quasi-religion, who accept abortion as an acceptable method of birth control are as immoral and sinful as any sexually abusive priest. The murder of unborn children, the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, is not a moral position and should not be subordinated to women's right to choose. I would fear for these children in the advent of the ordination of women.

[Therese]

Your article and all of the commenters understand what is really at stake here - our eternal souls. To give in to the media or a Protestant view of theology can only happen when one "doesn't get it" - that Christ really did give Peter the keys to the kingdom. Non-Catholics and ex-Catholics and belligerently dissident "Catholics" don't understand the complete truth, yet - when they do, they will be Catholic. Isn't that why we are praying for unity?

[Stephen Cianca]

Maureen Dowd is a pompous ignorant fool, steeped in the vapid certainties of the left. She merits no consideration. Big Media has become a tool of the devil, which we must fight tooth and nail. Carl, I appreciate your efforts to rebut the diabolical nonsense regurgitated by Big Media, but we are not about to disabuse Big Media journalists of their pernicious mendacity. Our job is not to convince them--they too adamantly cling to their prejudices. Rather, our job is to defeat them. The Church should stop trying to appear reasonable to Big Media, for Big Media hates the Church and everything it stands for. The Church should boldly proclaim the truth, Big Media be damned

[Robert-Paul LeMay]

Ms. Dowd is at best a fool and at worst a tool, unwittingly or otherwise, of that collection of "progressive" Catholics, mostly in this country, naturally, who know that they know what is best for the Church if only they can get that roadblock out of the way called the Holy See. I am tired of loving my enemies, i.e. Dowd and her ilk, and if that is falling into the enemy's camp, for the moment, so be it. One could almost wish for a Grand Inquisitor and an auto de fe for this entire crowd but of course in our "let's all be nice to one another society" that won't happen. Let us consider for a moment the Church with ordained women. Does Ms. Dowd presume that we will never have to deal with the problem of lesbianism as some of the protestant denominations do? Or is that accepable to her. I really think that what we are dealing with is the same issue that the Episcopalian church is dealing with, or dying from, and that is homosexual clergy. I am so tired of hearing the label pedophile used when it is known that a miniscule number of these cases have been pedophilia but rather homosexual behavior on the part of men attracted to adolescent boys and young men who haven't reached the legal age of 18 where such behavior would be sinful, immoral & reprehensible, but not illegal. My prayer is thaat somebody, somewhere can shut that woman up.

[Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto]

There is no more useful duty to society one can perform that uncover, pull apart, show the ugliness, evil and hate that breeds in the hearts of those who aim incessantly at damage and destruction to the Catholic Church. A fact of such specimen is this woman whose energized hatred towards Catholics denotes an abnormality belonging only to those who have been trained to do so.

Foreasmuch Progressive undertaking and Deception are twin born, it ought not to surprise us that Maureen Dowd writes deliberate falsehoods; her constant criticism is uncarefully weighed. Like many of her kind she intrudes usurpingly into the Church's territory which is what she would not do to other pets the Media carefully protects.

[Carl E. Olson]

Carl, I appreciate your efforts to rebut the diabolical nonsense regurgitated by Big Media, but we are not about to disabuse Big Media journalists of their pernicious mendacity. Our job is not to convince them--they too adamantly cling to their prejudices. Rather, our job is to defeat them.

Thank you, Stephen, for the comment. I harbor no illusions: I doubt Dowd will read what I've read, and if she did, I doubt it would cause her to rethink her position or "logic". But I really don't write for her benefit. My hope is two-fold: first, that anyone who is running up against Dowd-like thinking and attitudes will benefit in some way from my posts; second, that those who might be taken to some degree by Dowd's spoutings will reconsider how able and fair of commentator she is about these and other matters.

Manuel: Well said; thank you.

[Mundabor]

"She mistakenly or misleadingly confuses the ordination of men (a matter of doctrine) with celibacy (a discipline)"

This is one of the things that drive me mad. *These people don't know the first thing about Catholicism* but hey, the Church must change according to their wishes. A bit as if would think of telling NASA how to land on Jupiter. Truly, for these people ignorance is strenght.

I also agree (and have written elsewhere) that the press vastly exaggerate the importance of PR (because they vastly exaggerate their own importance); that it is absurd to act thinking of what people might do...... who are bent on attacking you anyway; and that the average person out there doesn't give a penny about how the Vatican decides to wrap modifications of the discipline of delicta graviora. Most of those who criticise are those who wanted to criticise anyway, be they self-absorbed journalists showing us how terribly important they are or rabid atheists and feminists who will criticise all the time anyway.

If the PR people at the Vatican saw the objection coming *and decided not to change their ways to accommodate them*, kudos to them.

[Gabriel Austin]

Interesting is Ms. Dowd's observation:
"enhancing American Catholics’ disenchantment with Rome".

She presumes to speak for American Catholics. Was she elected spokes"person"?

And further is the chauvinism implicit in "American Catholics". Is there such a creature as an "American Catholic"? Or is she thinking of Catholics who happen to be Americans?

The usual term for this is Gallicanism - a church that is more rooted in the country than in the Faith.