Last month, New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan took on the New York Times in his blog — and had some particularly sharp words for columnist Maureen Dowd.
Now, the paper’s Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, has decided to look into Dolan’s charges of anti-Catholicism.
Dolan seemed particularly offended by Dowd’s column, in which she wrote that the Vatican was hoping to herd nuns “back into their old-fashioned habits and convents and curb any speck of modernity or independence.” She said the “über-conservative” Pope Benedict XVI, while a cardinal, had urged women to be submissive partners. She brought up issues like the pope’s conscription into the Hitler Youth, and his statement that condoms could make the AIDS crisis worse.
Dolan wrote that Dowd dug “deep into the nativist handbook to use every anti-Catholic caricature possible.” The subject she raised was legitimate, he said, but her language was more like the prejudice in Know-Nothing papers of the 1850s.
“Far from being anti-Catholic, my column was an expression of one Catholic’s anger and anguish about the moral crisis in her church,” Dowd told me. “It’s not right to call legitimate — and widely shared — complaints about the church hierarchy anti-Catholic, any more than it’s right to call opposition to the policies of a White House anti-American.”
Dolan said he was not trying to stifle dissent. “We welcome criticism of the Catholic Church,” he said. “We need it. What I’m talking about is the ‘how’ of it. Is it measured? Is it temperate?” He said Dowd was serving up “raw red meat.”
Dowd said the issues she raised went to what she sees as the pope’s extreme conservatism and his judgment. “Should I blandly express outrage at the church continuing to treat women as second-class citizens?” she asked. Bland is not what Dowd does. I thought she was well within a columnist’s bounds.
Check out the rest of Hoyt’s column.
But don’t expect to find his final conclusion surprising.
posted November 7, 2009 at 11:38 pm
It appears that the Archbishop did not endear himself to the New York Times. From now on they will probably have it in for him.
I read the Dowd piece and thought it was nasty, and I agree with Fr. Martin’s comment.
posted November 8, 2009 at 7:54 am
The sad reality is, setting aside Dowds inflammatory comments, is that many women within the Catholic family are disaffected. Many are falling away from the Church and are failing to raise their families within the Church because they truly feel like they are looked down upon or cast out as unimportant.
I personally do not feel this way – but know several women who are. Some quietly remove themselves from the traditions and practice of their faith – others are more like Dowd and are quite vicious in their commentary about the Catholic Church.
Perhaps as a body – we lay people, the Clergy and the Church hierarchy need to do a better job of reaching out and addressing those concerns/issues they have?
posted November 8, 2009 at 10:59 am
Thinking back, I suspect that Cardinal Law thought the Boston Globe was anti-Catholic when it started printing articles on sexual abuse. I believe he called the wrath of God down upon the paper. Yet without the Globes persistence, I strongly suspect the problem would have been swept under the rug until it got much worse. I think that many see the Church through the lens of that crisis because they still believe (perhaps with good reason) that the Church is still trying to cover up events and maintain secrecy.
So long as the Church continues to keep its records secret, to deny that the state has the right to see its papers, and fights all abuse claims, it continues to ask for scrutiny from the press and it will continue to be mired in the sexual abuse crisis.
There seem to be conflicting reports over whether the findings of the Apostolic Visitation will be made public or not. Once again the Church moves in secrecy and makes itself a target for the press.
I don’t think it is so much anti-Catholicism as it is curiosity.
posted November 8, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Strange way of showing curiosity.
When someone attempts to discover “what is the exact situation here?” one does not encourage participation by tossing confidentiality.
For example, in mediation, the important role of confidentiality in fostering frank, candid discussion is well known.
On the other hand, the lies that persist and that are sometimes fostered by the adversarial process are also well known.
posted November 8, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Dowd’s defense of her nastiness and bile was typical in that she points out her Catholic roots. However, some of the worst haters in history have been those attacking “their own.”
And as far as the media’s role in challenging authority as the Timesman put it. He forgets that to many people the mainstream media may not have “authority”, but its power and influence over our society many find far more oppressive than that of any church. Their ability to control debate and choose what issues and stories shall be foghorned and headlined gives them the power to destroy on a level no church has. Yet to read some defenses of their power they try to make you ignore the ability to disembowel with their pens.
My God! The only two MAJOR regular daily newspapers available here in the Boston area are the NY Times and its wholly owned Boston Globe. Thus the Times information near monopoly is far, far, far greater than that of any church, including the large Catholic Church. But they act like everyone but them has great, immense power.
posted November 9, 2009 at 10:52 am
What is Dolan so afraid of? If the Catholic church is truly of God, it doesn’t really matter what anyone says. As Shakespeare said, “I think he doth protest too much.” We all know that the “investigation” of women religious by the Vatican is, indeed, and Inquistion. The old boys’ club definitely does not want sisters speaking their minds – unless those minds adhere to the bihsops’ minds. And we all know that Benedict would like nothing more than to return the church to what it was before Vatican II – preferably before Trent! He would like the Mass said in Latin, no lay persons on the altar, and the priest facing the back wall. That way, it all remains a mystery, and the priest is in complete control. The only way that the Catholic church is the United States is going to change is if we secede from the Roman hierarchy. They have the Anglican priests now, what more do they need? Dolan, maybe you need to spend more time repairing your church and the souls that have been murdered by sexual abuse by priests, than writing blogs
posted November 9, 2009 at 12:25 pm
We Cathoics are tired of sex abuse scandals, priestly child porn scandals, parish closures, reports of embezzlements, and all of the other unsavory incidents emerging from our our church leadership. The arrogance and petulance we have experienced in response to our inquiries have been disheartening and infuriating. Some of us stay and fight. Some of us leave. None of that should be happening. Something is gravely wrong in our church’s leadership with the very fact that we have to deal with such behavior then be fearful if we try to do something about it. Something is gravely wrong.
posted November 9, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Deacon John M. Bresnahan talks about the media’s “ability to control debate and choose what issues” is rather laughable, considering what his brother clergy have been up to. Cases in point:
- The muzzling of Church employees who dare to raise their voices in support of seriously debating the ordination of women to the Catholic priesthood.
- The punishment of voices in the wilderness like Fr. Tom Doyle who decry the Church’s responses to the clergy sex abuse scandal
- The use of the pulpits across the nation to enjoin Catholics that they MUST support anti-same-sex marriage referenda
- The punishment, in Maine, of a Mass lector and communion minister who dared to write an Op-Ed in the local paper in favor of civil (not religious) marriage for same-sex couples, in political opposition to her bishop
- The censure not just of pro-Choice Catholics, but of pro-Life Catholics who don’t accept hook, line, and sinker not just the end of ending abortion but the precise means to that end
- The use of the bishop’s pulpit (as with the recent robo-calls from the Bishop of Brooklyn) in support of politicians who serve the financial interests of the church in opposing statutes of limitation extensions (even if they happen in this case to be pro-choice)
- The attempt by Bp. Lori of Connecticut to suppress the release of historical evidence (including that of Cardinal Egan’s complicity) around ecclesial mishandling of clergy sexual abuse cases, in order to let history have the primary sources for passage of judgment
And the Rev. Mr. Bresnahan has the audacity to accuse the press of “controlling debate?” Remove, sir, the beam from your own eye before addressing the mote in that of the Times!
posted November 9, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I am a 63 year Roman Catholic and, as stated by “Your Name”, I am sick of church leaders stalling, delaying, hiding and posturing about the evils that exist in our church, just as though all that is wrong wil eventually go away.
posted November 9, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Women raised catholic have a distinct moral responsiblity to speak about the investigation of women religious by the very men who gave us the clergy sex abuse crisis. Someone might want to remind Mr. Dolan that he works for and with these men, and that being a papal apologist does not a catholic make, even if he is a bishop.
Ms. Dowd certainly has ruffled the bishop’s feathers. If she keeps it up she may trigger another whimper from him.
posted November 9, 2009 at 3:24 pm
What’s the average age of commenters here, 65?
Gabe, you’re as uninformed as unifnormed gets, considering you don’t know what an inquisition is or Ratzinger’s history, writings and actions.
Your Name, the Church has been ever thus. If you’re looking for perfection, hold your breathe and await the Eschaton.
Greg Bullough, Reality called and said it would like to become acquainted with you, if you can get some time away from Hyperbole.
Janet, Me Too!!!
Sam Sling, is there an ERA rally you could be attending?
posted November 9, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Isn’t anyone here disturbed by the fact that the NYT printed an article with many factual errors (which were easily verifiable) refused to print a rebuttal, then offered a rebuttal to the rebuttal! The NYT missed a great opportunity to have a real informed discussion on a high level. If there is an abuse of power here, I believe it lies not with Dolan, but with the editors of the NYT.
I am baffled by many of the commenters here who don’t seem to grasp the facts of this incident!
Sadly, this has just become a venue for anyone who has problems with the church to vent.
posted November 9, 2009 at 6:25 pm
With a few exceptions, you folks who made such “compelling and erudite” comments are the epitome of either Catholic bigots or clueless Catholics (and I mean TOTALLY CLUELESS). Wait, there’s a third option, “The ME ME ME, damn it the CC doesn’t fit my lifestyle ‘catholic’.
Annie your aren’t one of the bunch, but do know that “reaching out” can only be successful when done in Truth, as there is no love without Truth. Most of the “catholics” who have a problem with the CC usually have their root problem in never having been properly catechized. You can always pick them out because they know EVERYTHING about the church, including that fact that the teachings of Christ are “changeable.”
Do you guys even realize that the CC is the keeper and protector of the full (unaltered down version) of the teachings of Jesus Christ? That’s it; no more, no less, and no dogma can ever change (disciplines can change with culture, like meat on Friday, but dogmas have never changed in 2000 years and never will).
You can also pick them out by their limited and always predictable topics: crusades, birth control, women priest, pedophile priests, same sex ‘marriage’, and divorce (God forbid if someone engages you to discuss an encyclical).
The sad reality is that when former Catholics stop going to church, it’s almost always because of divorce or birth control. Instead of actually making an effort to understand “WHY” the church teaches what it does, pride and lifestyle usually win out, consequently, the mocking starts. Gabe and Greg B, you two are the worst; suspect you aren’t even Catholics.
Dcn. B great post and point about the NYT’s. Indeed it is OPRESSIVE, just like the lifestyle many fallen Catholics live falsely thinking they are FREE when in reality, they are living in enslavement to their sinful passions.
For the record, I’m not saint, and I’m happy to engage in any serious debate, but have zero tolerance for bigots or mean spirited ‘know it alls’. If you guys who are so concerned about the “priest abuse scandal”, it would be logical that you would have done some serious research on from independent sources. If you, not only would you realize that the problem is more about homosexuality than pedophile priests, but that the lowest sexual abusers of kids ARE priests.
Funny how you have no problem ignoring the “cover up” of the Jewish sexual abuse C Dolan writes of in his column. You also ignore the horrible sexual abuse in schools, magnitudes higher than the 2% or so of Catholic priests. Sexual abuse is everywhere, but it only matters to people like you if it’s out of the CC, consequently, your actions speak louder than your words and say far more about you than the ‘sins’ of the CC.
To all you ‘catholic haters’, the loss is yours!
posted November 10, 2009 at 1:33 am
Ms Dowd’s piece was tart, but compared to other Catholics on the internet, fairly tame.
The archbishop is fighting a losing battle if he thinks bluster and whining about “anti-Catholicism” is going to gain traction. Sometimes you’re not in a position to do anything more than to take your licks. Sometimes you just need to keep a disagreement private, set an example and take the high road. It doesn’t elicit the same cheers as a high school debate, but it’s considerably less juvenile.
posted November 10, 2009 at 10:35 am
Todd, the only “battle” AB Dolan is fighting is to defend the faith, period. All Catholics have an obligation to defend the truth of Jesus Christ, regardless if it falls on deaf ears.
posted November 10, 2009 at 11:09 am
Klaire, thanks for responding.
I have no question that Archbishop Dolan’s job is to preach and defend the faith. The problem is that he’s not doing that here. He’s engaging in a public disagreement with a member of his own flock in which he’s misdiagnosed a problem, then offered a most unhelpful solution.
I have every reason to root for the archbishop and hope his ministry is a fruitful one. Included with that sensibility is the stance, when needed, of criticizing him, urging him to do better–not at all unlike Bishop Tobin’s approach to Mr Kennedy.
As for Ms Dowd’s piece, I don’t share her style nor do I think much of the points she attempted. I think a much stronger and deeper argument could be made to draw out the faults of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. But then, I don’t write for the NYT.
Getting back to Misdiagnosis: Anti-Catholicism, what the archbishop has uncovered here is simple ignorance of the Church, not a campaign against it. I don’t know why outraged Catholics should be bothered about it, to tell you the truth. The mainstream press is generally incurious not only about religion, but also other things like science, corporate economics, history, geography–you name it. They can’t get the facts straight on an article about biology or some particular of European history. But they’re not anti-science or isolationist. They just don’t know.
Archbishop Dolan, if he thought about it, would realize that though real anti-Catholicism and ignorance of Catholicism, might, on the surface, use the same vocabulary, they are not, in fact, the same thing. Just because I use a hammer doesn’t mean I’m a carpenter. Especially when I miss the nail and pound my thumb.
posted November 10, 2009 at 7:27 pm
As painful a decision as it was and remains, even three years later, it is always a comfort to read Todd’s comments, wherever they are, for their anaesthetic properties over my decision to leave the Church.
Not all of us who stop going to Church over divorce do so because we think the Church has not kept up with the times, Klaire. Some of us know, very well, of the open duplicity among the Catholic clergy regarding marriage and have voted with our feet. Some of us leave when we continue to see the hierarchy openly encouraging adultery, civil remarriage and the vilification of valid spouses. When we are ignored, year after year after year we decide to leave. So be it.
The “good” Catholics like you do not care, Klaire, usually, nor do the “good” Catholics like Todd. You are all “honorable”.