Everyone talks about “hate radio.” However, what we have here is HATE PRINT. I wonder if there should be a fairness doctrine advocated for the NY Times.

As if Ms. Dowd had any credibility left. Honestly, she’s been little more than a side show for the Grey Lady since the early ’90′s, and treated as such by left, right and center.
One could speculate if she wrote this sober.

I think Dowd has a point. It’s pretty clear that the Church is more willing to negotiate married clergy over ordained women and that the rug-sweeping involving sexual misconduct in the priesthood is and should be alarming. I don’t see where she is incorrect in these assessments.
On a lighter note, Maureen Dowd does bear a slight resemblance to Ingrid Bergman:
http://dowdreport.blogspot.com/2009/10/ratting-on-ratzi.html

Why is it that any time someone shines a light into the practices of the Catholic Church that, to outsiders, appears to be hypocritical at best, that the old guard inevitably dismisses the examination as “hate?”
Way to absolve yourself of ever having to do any deep thinking about the topic. “It’s hate. I can completely shut down any thought on the matter.”
Well here’s how it looks to people outside of the Communion. To those who do not understand Catholic theology, there’s a double standard at play. Follow my logic here:
1) The nuns in Dowd’s story were helping people in need: gays and unwed mothers. They were disciplined immediately for ministering in ways that are against Church doctrine.
2) The priest in Dowd’s column was a horrible person – got a woman pregnant, made her *fight* for child support – and is also involved sexually with a teenager. He also acted in ways that ran counter to Church doctrine, but he was not disciplined until it came out about the teenager – never mind the callous way the woman who bore his child was dismissed.
To those on the outside, that’s a hypocritical double standard.
Why are we within the church unwilling to acknowledge that? Why must we put our fingers in our hears and go “NANANANANA – YOU HATE US – YOU ARE A CATHOLIC HATER” instead of listening and repairing some of the damage such actions do to our ability to be the light of the world?

I’m of two minds on this. I recognize that rarely does a church outsider have the inside information to connect the dots, be they theological or pastoral, and lots of nuances in a complex Church can be missed.
That said, when people outside the fold point out what they see as inconsistency, if not outright hypocrisy, let keep in mind one important fact: this is how non-believers see us. If our own behavior is an obstacle to belief, what does that say about heavy solid objects, the bottom of a deep ocean, and believers who find themselves stuck with both?
The “Catholic hate” schtick does tend to get whiny. I remember lots of difficult discussions with non-Catholics in 2002 over Cardinal Law and others. There were even more tough talks from Catholics themselves. There is a serious breach in credibility in the varied way in which the Church appears to treat sinners. Sometimes, we’d be better off to send Bill Donohue on retreat, and take our licks.
I’m aware the Church is theologically sensitive to the issue of ordained women to the point of where excommunication is a matter of course. However, from the outside, non-Catholics judge membership in the Church as a pretty grave affair, and all of us Catholics should wonder why sexual escapades of clergy get off relatively light in comparison.
The bishop can’t rack Fr Cutie or pull out his toenails, and excommunication isn’t likely at all, but the Church does need a better response to deal with the seeming incongruities in its own public approach. Especially when women seem to get punished more substantially than priests.

I suggest everyone does a search of Sister Jeanne Gramick on the WEB. In the search you will find information in which she admits that Ratzinger wasn’t against her ministry – just her open and hostile dismissal of church teaching on homosexuality. What is this teaching? It is not “anti-homosexual” persons- this is how it is interpreted. It is that homsosexual acts are a sin against God – as is heterosexual sex outside of marriage, as is lying, as is disobeying your parents, and we can continue on. Sin is an equal opportunity discriminator which is why the Church is a Church of sinners! How homosexuality has become the battleground to take down the Church I don’t know but perhaps we should all reflect upon the whys of it and how WE the laity misshape the very message when we take it to the world.
eanwhile nuns take vows – promises. No one put a gun to their heads to become “Brides of Christ”. That many of them in the 21st century have declared themselves to be the new Magisterium and that their cause is shaping the Church according to the doctrine of Women’s rights should grab all of us to also reflect on the validity of this and upon how we enact our own vows. Do we get married and make promises that not only we don’t intend to keep but then go about destroying the very thing we vow to love. Many of us do – reflection shows that our inability to rise above our self interest and understandings often leads to trouble.
Maureen Dowd, feminist nuns and others do not speak for me – a Catholic woman who wonders why people would buy the change the Church arguments related to patriarchy. Maureen Dowd states she is a parochial school graduate, if true, then she also experienced Matriarchy. Power and lies are gender blind. What is the truth? 1) God is Love 2) We are called to Love 3)We are all sinners in need of Redemption 4) God is gender blind but Christ was a Man who did call God “the Father”. Is this just a concept or perhaps – a truth – unless of course Christ is only your philosphical lodestar as you seek a systems approach to ministering to the the male oppressed victims of this world (please see the leadership of sister’s conference WEB page where this cynical statement grew its roots) in which case – I’m just stupid and naive and angry sounding. And, I am angry – Who will speak up for the complexity of this issue and how much longer do we have to suffer gender wars that divide and deny under the fiction that they free the oppressed.
PS as a professional social worker – married priests will not stop or solve sex abuse – Your local caseworker knows of the abuse on every block of your hometown by the fathers and mothers sitting next to you at the local PTA meeting. Let’s stop the trashing of the priesthood and the Church – please!

The problem is not that Ms. Dowd disagrees with Catholic teaching, or the investigation of religious orders, it is how she represents it. She begins with the premise that she is an expert on Catholic matters because she was a student Sr. Hiltruda’s first grade class. She misrepresents the Vatican document (which is actually very beautiful and appreciated by many women). She sprinkles her criticisms with disgusting and unfair innuendo like…the pope’s membership in Hitler youth (he was a kid from an anti-nazi family who was unwillingly forced into service…nice touch) and puts it into context with the Holocaust denying bishop (which the pope was unaware of and certainly had nothing to do with the excommunication lifting). At least she doesn’t perpetuate the lie about Prada shoes, by labelling them merely as expensive loafers. She claims to care so much about the well-being of the sisters, but fails to see how the purpose of this investigation (or inquisition as she calls it) is to revitalize religious orders. She reduces tradition minded Anglicans to homophobes and misogynists. She so jaded that she views every action in the worst possible light and distorts the facts to fit her angry world view.
Everyone of us who fall within the range of liberal to conservative, believers to nonbelievers, have been offended at some point by Ms. Dowd’s treatment of a world figure (usually male) that we admire. She is always brutal and doesn’t care about how her evidence and innuendo stand up to the light of truth. Sadly, ignorant people will buy her product. May I suggest that if you really want to understand the issues she discuss that you do your research elsewhere. Maureen Dowd is merely an entertainer disguised as a journalist.

She reduces tradition minded Anglicans to homophobes and misogynists.
There’s no reduction involved.

Who cares what Maureen Dowd thinks? She’s a nasty piece of work — a warped, bitter human being. Yuck!

Maureen Dowd is one of the key reasons the NY Times is slowly sinking into oblivion. Her column is about as narrow-minded and ignorantly snarky as one can get. It isn’t just the rise of the internet that is killing the print media as liberal print people keep rationalizing, but the constant giving of a “bully pulpit” to people who are more haters than they are accomplished writers.

Well, here we are – a decidedly snarky writer calls out something that should be discussed seriously (because it *is* how many people outside of the Communion view us) and all that happens is a series of examinations of what a nasty piece of work the writer is.
I shouldn’t be surprised. It wouldn’t matter if Dowd wrote sweetness and light while pointing out out apparent internal inconsistencies – we’d find some way of castigating her for talking down to us.
One supposes that even if Christ himself were to point out fallacies in the way we live and conduct ourselves, we’d find some reason to ignore him. “What does he know? Dirty hippie. Did you see those people he hangs around with?”

My take on Dowd is that she writes not so much as one outside the Communion, but as one opposed to the Communion. If she doesn’t hate the Church, she certainly hates what the Church teaches, or what she understands the Church to teach. Based on her history of articles on things Catholic, I really wonder if there’s anything the Church could do to address her concerns, other than cease to exist.
This particular article is filled with so many half-truths, whole lies and false charges, it’s hard to take it seriously. Unfortunately, those who don’t know better will take it seriously.
That being said, it would be wonderful if elements in the Church didn’t make Dowd’s job so easy. The way the Franciscans handled Fr. Willenborg’s situation was disastrous and scandalous. The financial settlement, in my mind, was reasonable, but his actions should have made him forever ineligible to be a pastor, at the very least. More appropriately, he probably should have been laicized and instructed to get a job and take care of his son.

The newly announced desire of the Holy See to embrace conservative Anglican priests wishing to cross over (however partially) into Roman Catholicism is the “right cross” — and the investigations, the spying on and policing of nuns in their convents (homes) is the “left lead” — of a ”one- two punch” designed to send a message to the many (a majority I suspect) Catholics who support the ordination of women.
Many Catholics, lay and religious, believe that the costly witch hunt the Vatican calls “Apostolic Visitation” is designed to root out women who are called to ordination and crush this movement before it grows. Some Catholic woman priests first respond to the call to ordination by becoming nuns. Some traditionalist Church leaders fear progressive communities are hotbeds and think tanks for the Women’s Ordination movement. (I think they’re right.)
In reaching over into the Anglican branch of Christianity to welcome Protestant priests is, the Vatican sends a clear message: “We’d rather have married, homophobic, sexually active, heterosexual Protestant men as priests, than Catholic women. This, despite the truly immense theological differences between Protestant and Roman Catholic worship.
It is entirely possible to conduct this kind of argument without resorting to the transgression of name-calling, and it is disheartening to see how quick some Catholics are to insult those Catholics with whom they disagree.
Those who question Maureen Dowd’s authority to discuss her own religion in her opinion column need to remember that while it is certainly interesting to listen to theologians discuss Catholic doctrine and dogma, the heart of any religion is its people – expressing their views in thoughtful, curious, conscientious and sometimes critical ways — not its scholars.
Not only is it possible for Catholics who have not parsed Vatican documents to have worthy, logically sound opinions relating to such matters as the reasoning for the Apostolic Visitation, it is essential to a vital Catholic life to strive to probe and question.
For too long the Vatican has used the expertise of theologians as a way to silence Catholics, yet one of the chief obligation a Catholic has is to bring discernment to his/her understanding both Church teaching and the teaching of Jesus on earth we experience through the Gospels.
If for no other reason than that she is Catholic, Maureen Dowd’s opinion counts.
Those Catholics who find distasteful that Maureen Dowd notes that Joseph Ratzinger was a member of Hitler Youth ought to remember that Joseph Ratzinger was a member of Hitler Youth. A truth no Catholic should ever dismiss, nor set aside.
Those “traditional” Catholics who question the validity of Maureen Dowd’s authority to comment and opine on Church matters need to remember that if she has been baptized in the Church, she is of the Church. If she has been initiated into the Sacramental Life of the church, she is part of what Catholics call “the Body of Christ” and her status as such is not thrown into question by individual Catholics who feel she ought to see her religion, a religion that has been evolving for 200 years,in the same way they do, as a church that ought to stand still in time, as a church that should cease to grow.
One need not agree with Maureen Dowd’s views on Church leadership, but those who exhort her to leave simply because she believes the pope is wrong in the matter of the “inquisitions,” fail to recognize the power and sanctity of the Church. As well they fail to realize that the Church is not some club of which the Pope is president. The Church is the communion of all who belong to the Body of Christ.
The Church belongs as much to Maureen Dowd as to any other Catholic, bishops and popes included.

Ms. Somerville,
You say, “It is entirely possible to conduct this kind of argument without resorting to the transgression of name-calling…” Verily, verily! May I recommend that you lead by example and stop calling those who disagree with you on the morality of homosexual acts “homophobic.”
You say, “… the heart of any religion is its people…” That may be true for other religions, but I beg to differ when it comes to the Catholic religion. The heart of the Catholic religion is Christ Jesus our Lord. He is the vine, we are the branches.
You say, “The Church belongs as much to Maureen Dowd as to any other Catholic, bishops and popes included.” I happily agree. The Church belongs to everyone equally, which is to say that the Church belongs to no one. The Church is the Body of Christ. Some are eyes, some are hands, some are pinkies. I do not belong to my pinky. My pinky belongs to me. Christ does not belong to us. We belong to Christ. The Church does not belong to us. We belong to the Church.
You say, “… one of the chief obligations of a Catholic is to bring discernment to his/her understanding both of Church teaching and the teaching of Jesus …” Again, I beg to differ. What you are essentially proposing here is classic Protestantism and/or relativism (not much difference, really). As Catholics, we believe God has revealed His truth to us and that that truth can be known. The Catholic’s obligation, then, is to form his/her will and life according to the truth God has revealed to us. The ultimate question, after all, is not “What do I believe about God?” but “What has God revealed to us about Himself?” St. Paul calls the Church “the pillar and foundation of truth.” So, the Church is God’s instrument for revealing those truths that our necessary for our salvation.
You claim that the truth that Joseph Ratzinger was a member of the Hitler Youth is one “no Catholic should ever dismiss, or set aside.” But the truth that Ratzinger was a member of the Hitler Youth is only a half-truth. The whole truth is that he was listed as a member against his will and never participated; that his family were active anti-Nazis and paid a heavy price for it; that he was conscripted into the German army and, as soon as he could, deserted. To tell the half-truth instead of the whole truth is to manipulate the truth for the purpose of one’s agenda.
You accuse “the Vatican” of initiating an “inquisition” and “witch hunt” against women religious, you accuse “the Vatican” of being willing to sacrifice the centuries old teachings of the Church in order to embrace “Protestant priests”, and of employing theologians to “silence Catholics”. All of these are scurrilous charges. One would hope that, in the future, you might consider granting to “the Vatican” the deference you extend to one, such as Ms. Dowd, who so often and eagerly attacks your Church.

Issues aside, Maureen Dowd is one of the most graceless, emotionally and intellectually stunted writers drawing a cushy paycheck. That she is a woman just makes it worse. You’d hope for some sort of insight from a woman, something more than a rehash of her dreadful book, “Are Men Necessary” and helping number 12,005 of “whaaaa, the boys are mean.”
There is no sin in being a perpetual adolescent, but it sure does make for tiresome reading.
And she gets a lot wrong. But I don’t think Dowd is about getting right beyond her High School Prom Queen tone.
Aw, is that too snarky? Am I not sympathetic enough to the Catholics stuck in the 1970′s? Too bad. The most narrowminded Catholics I’ve ever met have been the ones lecturing everyone else for the past 40 years for being “too narrow.” Damn straight the way is narrow; that’s what Christ told us. Tiresome writer. Tiresome generation.

Ms. Somerville,
You accuse “the Vatican” of initiating an “inquisition” and “witch hunt” against women religious, 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.
Dowd also appears to exhibit no clue as to why women simply cannot be priests. “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.

dear (Mr.) Bob:
Thank you for responding to my comment.
If one believes “homophobia” to be a grave sin (as I do), one must not shrink from calling it by its name. Better, in this case to be accused of “name calling” than to use a euphemistic term or misnomer in making reference to bigotry.
The heart of the Church is the Trinity; the heart of religion, which is “man-made,” is its people.
“Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” which I have read, does address the matter of ordaining women, but a preponderance of Catholics, a majority perhaps, including bishops in good standing and many of the most prodigious Catholic theologians teaching and writing today (all of whom are likely familiar with papal documents addressing the question of ordaining women) support the ordination of women.
I am grateful to know that some of these Roman Catholic bishops are ordaining women today. The Church has been changing for 2000 years. The ordination of women will be a great blessing to the Church.