It always amazes me how people in the media always cover topics about which they know nothing. I would never be asked to teach a math class or biology not becuase I do not have opinions on those subjects, but becuase I do not have the necessary training in math or biology to teach those subjects. Likewise if I was a reporter or person of the press I would hope to never be asked to cover golf, as I know nothing about golf other than Tiger Woods is good at it.
However, Maureen Dowd, who from her recent op-ed for the NYTimes, is not hindered by her lack of knowledge on a subject that she is clearly ill equipped to speak of in an educated and respectful manner that should be the cornerstone of journalism.
Here are some quotes, with my commentary in red.
"If only his church had been as ferocious in fighting against the true perversity against nature: the unending horror of pedophile priests and the children who trusted them. " [Seriously? They way she writes makes it seem like every member of the catholic faith under the age of 12 is being constantly approached by priests for abusive purposes. I've been Catholic my whole life. I know many many priests. Never did a priest try to molest me. Plus, I grew up living across from our parish priests whom I got to know very well.]
"Governor Cuomo was already on the wrong side of the church for his support of abortion rights, his divorce and his living in “sin” with the Food Network star Sandra Lee. He was accused by the Vatican adviser Edward Peters of “public concubinage,” as it’s known in canon law, and Peters recommended that Cuomo be denied communion until he resolved “the scandal” by ceasing this “cohabiting.”" [Ok, let me get this straight, church letting some priests wrongfully get away with abusing teens and pre-teens and the church is a hypocrite. Someone within the church restates the church's teachings on an issue and all of a sudden Dowd has a problem with it. What it boils down to is that Dowd wants a religion/Church in which she makes all the rules.]
"Dolan insists that marriage between a man and a woman is “hard-wired” by God and nature. But the church refuses to acknowledge that homosexuality may be hard-wired by God and nature as well, and is not a lifestyle choice." [Commonsense can figure this one out. Just because some men like other men and some women like other women means that homosexuality is no more hardwired in to a person than kleptomania. One would think that if homosexuality is indeed hardwired into people that it would have been eliminated from humanity millennia ago by means of evolution and natural selection as it provides humanity with no beneficial advantage over other members of the species.]
"The church refuses to acknowledge the hypocrisy at its heart: that it became a haven for gay priests even though it declares homosexual sex a sin, and even though it lobbies to stop gays from marrying." [She acts surprised to find sinners in the Church. That's like being shocked at finding sick people in the hospital. The Church is for Sinners! Moreover, has Dowd not paid any attention to the press? The Church has admitted its mistakes on it for trying to handle some of the abuses cases inhouse. It has been doing it for over 5 years? How much longer do you want to the church to admit it. The Church also teaching it is not a sin to be a homosexual. It is a sin to have gay sex. Why? Because they aren't married! Same rules for straight people too.]
"The report suggested that the problem was caused by permissive secular society rather than cloistered church culture, because priests were trained in the turbulent free-love era. It concluded, absurdly, that neither the all-male celibate priesthood nor homosexuality were causes." [Go read any book on church history and with will surprisingly find that the church is not immune by the surrounding culture. She should also go read "Goodbye Good men" which goes into more depts as to how many more gay men were let into the priesthood and how some seminaries became know as pink palaces because in some of these seminaries the only way to be let in is if you supported gay rights.]
"If God and nature are so clear about what marriage is, why do the well-connected have an easier time getting the church to sunder their marriages with annulments? (Yes, we’re talking about you, Newt Gingrich.)" [It would have been helpful to research the topic. Clearly she things an annulment is the same as divorce -- they are not the same. Annulment simply means that the sacrament never actually occured do to several reasons:coersion, not freely giving of ones self, improper intent, improper sacramental form or matter etc . . . Simply put with an annulment, the marriage never happened. So the church is not sundering a marriage. There is nothing to sunder.]
"The Starchbishop noted" [You can tell a person knows they are loosing when the resort to name calling.]
“Last time I consulted an atlas, it is clear we are living in New York, in the United States of America — not in China or North Korea,” where “communiqués from the government can dictate the size of families, who lives and who dies, and what the very definition of ‘family’ and ‘marriage’ means.”
Yeah. Not like the Vatican. [The Vatican didn't define it. Go read the gosples. Sermon on teh mount might be a good place to start. I might change the definition of "tree" to include "upright, bi-pedal, rational animals" but I have not enhanced the mean of "tree" I have only destrioed what it means to be a tree and confuse people what it means to be a person.]
"And how about the right of a child not to be molested by the parish priest? " [Funny how when people can't think of any intelligent response they just throw the "priests touch little boys" argument. For instance: "The Church teaches that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus." In which the other person says, "No, I don't agree, I know this teaching is wrong becuase priests molested people." Seriously?]
"Dolan acts like getting married (when done by gays) is a self-indulgent act of hedonism when it’s really a leap of faith and a promise of fidelity." [He doessn't even talk about pleasure in the context of marriage in his article. An act of fidelity is what marriage is supposed to be. Like an ideal. The marriage vow does not guarentees faithfulness. If it did, 70% of marriages would not end in divorce. But the fact that 70% of marriages do end in divorce does not eliminate the ideal and the nature of what marriage is. If we got rid of the marriage vow people would still be unfaithful.]
Worn out by the rampant sexting of Anthony Weiner and the relentless blogging of Archbishop Dolan, I’m wondering if our institutions need to rejigger: Maybe pols should be celibate and priests should be married. [About once a week I read a news story about some teacher somewhere in the usa who is being arrested and charged for molesting a student. If we this country would only allow teachers to get married maybe then children and schools would be safe.]
Really what Dowd fails to see is that the body itself has a meaning and that meaning is expressed by means of the matter. Certain kinds of matter can only express and mean certain things.
Sorry for any typoes, I'm trying to type this quickly.