Maureen Dowd Links Sister Investigation to Welcome for Anglicans.
In her October 24 column, Maureen Dowd links the Vatican investigation of US women’s apostolic religious communities to the welcome extended to disgruntled Anglicans.
Money quote: “As the Vatican is trying to wall off the “brides of Christ,” Cask of Amontillado style, it is welcoming extreme-right Anglicans into the Catholic Church — the ones who are disgruntled about female priests and openly gay bishops. Il Papa is even willing to bend Rome’s most doggedly held dogma, against married priests — as long as they’re clutching the Anglicans’ Book of Common Prayer.
‘Most of the Anglicans who want to move over to the Catholic Church under this deal are people who have scorned women as priests and have scorned gay people,’ [author Kenneth] Briggs said. “The Vatican doesn’t care that these people are motivated by disdain.”
Thoughts?
on October 27th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
My wife thought this was the best thing in the Sunday Times.
For a stronger opinion on the Anglican business at al, see James Carroll’s op -ed in the Boston Globe today -Rome is endangering the future of our planet.
Whether you agree with these strong views, I personally finfd it hard to rationalize the Instittion’s leadership moves which continually alienate the left and frequently other belieivers.
I think we’re going to see more and more kickback against the Roman curialist moves, despite the best face(s) Rode, Sr. Millea, Rowan Williams and cardinal Kaspar or even John Allen or Rocco can put on them.
on October 27th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
There’s also this:
http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/can-we-talk-about-religion-please/
on October 27th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
I know this is Maureen Dowd we’re talking about but still: embarrassing.
I didn’t realize “The Ethicist” was commenting on the news now — another columnist I’ve learned not to read. Oy. Which is worse?
on October 27th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Dowd is much more with facts in this column than her usual stinging metaphors. Which makes it all the more powerful. And how riveting can you get than this quote, mentioned above, by Briggs: “The Vatican doesn’t care that these people are motivated by disdain.” That is the crux. Welcome the misogynists and gay bashers and go after the nuns.
on October 27th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
I don’t think she would know a dogma if it ran over her karma.
on October 27th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
“Thoughts?” Not in the Dowd column. Just lots of attitude and a parade of ignorance. “Il Papa is even willing to bend Rome’s most doggedly held dogma, against marrying priests…” Not a dogma at all, actually, and certainly not Rome’s “most doggedly held.” Either Dowd doesn’t know what a dogma is, or she does and just doesn’t care because it sounds good with “doggedly.” Either way, not a good sign for her or the Times. O tempora.
on October 27th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Although I have serious problems with the Apostolic Visitation, I think Dowd was way out of line. I think her far too many cheap shots undermined her argument. Now, I know she is infamous for her rapier wit, but a cheap shot is still a cheap shot.
Calling the pope a “conscripted member of the Hitler Youth.” That’s an excellent example of the worst of her cheap shots.
Also, I think Michael Sean Winters did an excellent job at the AMERICA blog parsing this column. It is worth checking out
on October 27th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Oh, and Bill–this line is out-of-line:
Welcome the misogynists and gay bashers.
I personally know good Catholics (and I would suspect good Anglicans too) who may have strong theological problems with ordaining women or gay people in committed relationships. It is downright offensive to call people names who have different opinion that our own.
Mind your manners, Bill.
on October 27th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Yes, that’s right, let’s refuse to take Ms. Dowd seriously because she is insufficiently acquainted with the precise details of the inside baseball on the Catholic Church.
It’s like a sickness, this dogged insistence on not taking an opponent seriously because they aren’t informed about the minutiae, while conveniently refusing to address the basic point, which everyone else on the planet, including substantial numbers of Catholics, got right away: the pope appears to be willing to show a lot of doctrinal latitude to Anglicans whose love of Catholicism is premised on hatred of gays, but is beating nuns who have made a lifelong commitment to the Church with a stick for perceived insubordination in matters of mostly style.
Is that the cartoon version? Yes. It is. But Maureen Dowd is nothing if not establishment, and you would be nuts not to see that this is the version that many, including most people under the age of 30, for instance, are fast internalizing.
I mean, do any of you talk to teenagers about their thoughts on the normalization of gays in society?
on October 27th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Barbara, the problem is Maureen Dowd is not taking her subject seriously. Not seriously enough to get her facts straight, or even to make an argument; it’s just a lot of snide insinuations. She’s an opinion journalist, and a prominent one, so it’s not unfair to expect her opinions to be informed ones. (It’s unrealistic, of course, given her track record, but that’s the NYT’s fault.) She ought to do better than just regurgitate the worst possible interpretation of events she’s noticed on the front page, regardless of how widespread that interpretation may be.
on October 27th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Mollie, I understand what you are saying, and most of the time I don’t read Mo Do for exactly that reason. But dissing her because she is snide just totally misses the function she serves, which is to restate emerging consensus in her own smart alecky style. She is a bellwhether. So even though she doesn’t take her subject seriously, it’s probably a bad idea to dismiss her “argument” purely on those grounds because there is a very good chance that she has perfectly captured what many people are thinking, for the wrong or the right theological reasons.
on October 27th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Barbara-
I certainly haven’t dismissed her argument. And I think you are right in that she represents the views of a large number of Catholics. That said, when writers resort to all sorts of snide and nasty comments and get facts wrong, I think it is important that we recognize that and “correct” it. I think you can reject the messenger without rejecting the message.
on October 27th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
And one more point. I wonder if she read Briggs’ book which she quotes. I did read the book (and reviewed it for COMMONWEAL) and had serious problems with Briggs’ thesis. It seems to me that she does a lot of cut and paste (and didn’t she get into a little hot water for this in the spring?)
on October 27th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I guess I take her more seriously when she writes about politics, because she strikes me as knowing quite a bit about politics. I don’t know anything about her background but assume she’s done some actual political reporting at one time or another. On religion I have no reason to suppose that she brings anything more to the table than a word processing program, a sorta-Catholic-sounding name and strong opinions. That description would fit literally thousands of my fellow parishioners. Religion writers are expected to have significant expertise in their subject. Why should I take her any more seriously than I would have taken, say, Mark McGwire or Joe Mantegna on the church?
on October 27th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Barbara:
Your “cartoon version” of the “basic point” is almost as bad as Dowd’s. Whatever you think of the Vatican’s investigation of U.S. nuns, it is not “mostly about style”; nor can it be fairly described as the pope “beating nuns…with a stick.” Sister X was much more careful, and I doubt she was pleased with the tone of Dowd’s column.
It isn’t the job of a Times columnist to exemplify common confusion or flatter her readers’ lazy preconceptions. Her job is to make reasonable arguments and to challenge bad ones. To suggest that the only members of the Anglican communion who may be interested in becoming Catholic (if they are allowed to keep what they have not, until now, been allowed to keep) are those opposed to ordaining women as bishops, and that the only Anglicans opposed to ordaining women (or gays) as bishops are all bigots is simply to add to the confusion and flatter the laziest preconceptions.
on October 27th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
My cartoon version was an accurate summary of her points, nothing more nothing less.
I get the frustration with Mo Do, I usually don’t read her, but trying to define “her job” is to overlook the fact that this piece is perfectly exemplary of what she has been doing for a decade. Seriously, fact checking is not how you respond to her. She’s all gestalt, all the time. I don’t like her style of writing, I hope that’s clear enough, I just think it’s silly to engage it as if she were a serious journalist and not simply a mouthpiece of conventional opinion.
on October 27th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
“Yes, that’s right, let’s refuse to take Ms. Dowd seriously because she is insufficiently acquainted with the precise details of the inside baseball on the Catholic Church. ”
Right. Why do we have to defend the indefensible. Anthony, no one is disrespecting Catholics who don’t get women nor gays. Benedict and Co should know better. Remember one gets a lot of mileage in restorationist circles with downing women and gays. And Benedict is way too lenient on Nazi Germany. Especially with that Cardinal (his hero) who stated that he took no position on the Jews in Nazi Germany.
As for Dowd, how can we say she is not serious here? Do we have to define satire? And her example of her experience with the nun is spot on. Nuns were taught to worship priests and held them up as gods. They must have matured. That is why they are subject to the new inquisition.
How we can divorce this matter from contempt for women and gays is astounding to me? Then again maybe we had too thorough a catechesis.
on October 27th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Barbara:
The problem is that in this case the conventional opinion, as expressed by Dowd, is based at least partly on the kind of errors and misunderstandings that the Times would not tolerate on its opinion page if the subject were, say, health care. If Dowd wants to write frivolously about frivolous things, it is only a waste of newsprint and a mild embarrassment to one of our last newspapers of record. If she wants to trivialize and distort a serious story, no one should be surprised if people call her out. And if, in the course of her trivialization, she quotes an article from Commonweal, no one should be surprised if some of us call her out.
Bill:
You confuse satire with snark.
on October 27th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
“To suggest that the only members of the Anglican communion who may be interested in becoming Catholic (if they are allowed to keep what they have not, until now, been allowed to keep) are those opposed to ordaining women as bishops, and that the only Anglicans opposed to ordaining women (or gays) as bishops are all bigots is simply to add to the confusion and flatter the laziest preconceptions.”
Matthew, this seems a departure from your usual sound reasoning. What else is this about if it is not Anglican bishops seeking to run because they are against women and gay bishops. And your “until now” part is historically incorrect. Someday it will be irrefutably shown that Junia was a female apostle. And don’t we all agree now that Mary Magdalene was an Apostle as well as the woman at the well?
on October 27th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
She should have written “dogma” with suitable scare quotes to indicate that it is not a dogma but some act as if it were.
on October 27th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
” Do we have to define satire?”
Bill, did you take this as a satiric piece? I have to admit that didn’t occur to me, but it does explain just about everything she says.
on October 27th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Just a couple of though-ts:
:I think we can all agree that Ms. Dowd is not the most knowledgable (as some her) on matters Catholic;
-I think though Barbara has a point that’s really important: is Dowd reflecting a broad perception that may in fact continue to grow, snarky or not?
There’s lots of snarky feelings out there about BXVI’s recent actions and you can write them off, but they influence behavior and belief.
I think the perception oabout BXVI and the curia’s actions has lots of Catholics with it and it’s divisive and to my mind more lousy management by the Roman center.
I’m also not so sure, as Matthew says, that the convential opinion is based more on error than a presumed goodness of will in Rome, if I read him right.
on October 27th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Bob and Barbara,
There seems to be some wobble in your critique of our critique of Dowd’s critique: We have to take her seriously because her response represents what many Americans, Catholic and non-Catholic, are thinking; but we mustn’t take her seriously — after all, it’s Maureen Dowd. Which is it? If we take her seriously, her errors and excesses matter, because they mislead. If we decide she’s just too silly to be taken seriously, it’s no answer to say her silliness is a good barometer of the sensus fidelium.
on October 27th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about each of the various events Dowd alludes to in her column. But she hasn’t identified those reasons; she’s content to imply that the pope is a woman-hating Nazi, so everything he does is bad. She comes off as a caricature of the angry liberal who doesn’t let ignorance about the Church stop her from having strong opinions about what it should do (a satirist could hardly do better). So this column irks me because, by living up to the worst stereotypes about progressive Catholics, I think she’s making it harder to tease out and seriously discuss all those legitimate concerns.
on October 27th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Satire: 1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.
I have reread Dowd’s piece again to see what I may have missed that some here are appalled about. Joe Gannon made the distinction that Dowd should have made. But as Barbara points out loud and clear why are we going after the messenger when the message screams for our attention? Moreover, have none of us read Erasmus who is merciless on the hierarchy in his Praise of Folly. Granted, Erasmus had to pooh-pooh what he clearly wrote to fend off an inquisition, Dowd has no such constraints.
We might be more conscious of being Catholic/Papal than being Christian. Charlie Chaput would love it. (He reads this blog faithfully.)
on October 27th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
More Cartoonists Please! It is what the Vatican deserves. Hans Kung is not above it from time to time.
on October 27th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
I stopped taking her seriously the minute she referred to priestly celibacy as “Rome’s most doggedly held dogma.” It’s not a dogma, it’s a discipline. Married priests have always been allowed in the Eastern Catholic Churches.
on October 27th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
I agree with a lot of what was pointed out about M. Dowd, but you cannot dismiss her. She writes for the NYT,and, whether you like it or not , she has a ton of faithful readers. I read first every Sunday because I believe she has a great way with words. Usually, (even this Sunday) your going to get some kind of a laugh from it. The vatican should have such good writers. She may not have all her Catholic facts in line like you like it, but she sure knows how to plant a seed for the common man. I think she is a great satirist when she wants to be, and she has a great feel for what a lot of Catholics are thinking, but neither have the platform nor the ability to express it.
on October 27th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
“Dowd is much more with facts in this column than her usual stinging metaphors.”
Ah yes. Such as the fact that Pope Benedict is a former Hitler Youth member who just “pardoned” (whatever that means) a Holocaust denier.
She invokes Godwin’s law ever earlier in her columns these days – particularly where Joseph Ratzinger is concerned.
Her pop culture snark is still effective when it comes to unpacking politician peccadilloes. But in matetrs religious, she’s at sea.
on October 27th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Hello Barbara,
“Yes, that’s right, let’s refuse to take Ms. Dowd seriously because she is insufficiently acquainted with the precise details of the inside baseball on the Catholic Church.”
The problem is not that she’s ignorant per se, but that – as Michael Sean Winters puts it so well – she’s quite contentedly ignorant. The refusal to engage seriously with the Other (in this case, the Church’s current theological self-understanding, whether you agree fully with it or not) is what Dowd is guilty of, much more so than her critics here.
I get that she’s unhappy with this development and with the Church in general. That’s her right. But she’s clearly smart and a gifted writer. She’s capable of a lot better than this. She’s capable of a lot more than condescending snark – nearly the only hammer in her toolbox she seems to use much these days.
on October 27th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
“Ah yes. Such as the fact that Pope Benedict is a former Hitler Youth member who just “pardoned” (whatever that means) a Holocaust denier.”
She is talking about the SPPX bishop who was invited back to unity with Rome. Benedict knew the bishop’s record but pretended not to know when crticism followed. And Benedict’s denial about Gemany’s involvement is acknowledged to be a real problem.
on October 27th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Ever since the column appeared, I’ve been hoping for a Catholic Leon Wieseltier to shred it for the shabby piece it is.
But I’ll settle for Mollie: “She comes off as a caricature of the angry liberal who doesn’t let ignorance about the Church stop her from having strong opinions about what it should do (a satirist could hardly do better). So this column irks me because, by living up to the worst stereotypes about progressive Catholics, I think she’s making it harder to tease out and seriously discuss all those legitimate concerns.”
on October 27th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Hello Bill,
“She is talking about the SPPX bishop who was invited back to unity with Rome.”
I knew full well she was referring to Richard Williamson.
” Benedict knew the bishop’s record but pretended not to know when crticism followed.”
What evidence do you have for that? How much familiarity do you really imagine he knew about the views on the Holocaust of one SSPX bishop? If you’re going to make such an accusation – which I have seen no evidence of anywhere, and which the Vatican denies – I think you ought to substantiate it.
“And Benedict’s denial about Gemany’s involvement is acknowledged to be a real problem.”
Denial about Germany’s involvement? What are you talking about?
on October 27th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
A question about rhetoric How does stuff like this affect people? I think it breaks down into five groups.
1. Group 1, takes it a face value, thinks it’s true to the letter. (probably not many in the NYT).
2. Group 2, recognizes its snarky, but thinks the snark is deserved, and the underlying point is good. (ticked off progressive Catholics who like the fact that they can vicariously experience her outrageousness without catching fire in return)
3. Group 3, progressive liberals who think she make their cause look bad.
4. Group 4–people who support the pope’s moves, and think this is an unfair argument and unfair nasty snark.=
5. Group 5– people who support the pope’s moves, and worry about the fact that Dowd’s influencing people.
I wonder if you always have these five groups in response to political snark (roles reversed for conservative snark).
And the question I have is whether stuff like this actually CONVINCES anyone, or just makes them more comfortable in their prior beliefs (Group 2).
on October 27th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Bill-
You still haven’t apologized for calling Anglicans who may want to be received into full communion in the CC as gay-bashers and misogynists (or now as you have more delicately put it “don’t get women nor gays.”) Or maybe I misread your first post on this topic? Didn’t you write “Welcome the misogynists and gay bashers” in reference to these Anglicans who may cross the Tiber?
on October 27th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
As long as we’re nit-picking on Dowd, there is no Anglican Book of Common Prayer. The national churches each has its own. The one used in the C of E is quite different from the one used in the U.S. Episcopal Church. So it’ll be interesting to see which one the Vatican approves for common use.
Re Cathleen’s question, whenever I read something by Maureen Dowd that I agree with (not the above particularly), I always re-examine my position. It’s her job to make flip, amusing little observations, but she has neither the brevity nor wit of Dorothy Parker.
on October 27th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
” Benedict knew the bishop’s record but pretended not to know when crticism followed.”
What evidence do you have for that? How much familiarity do you really imagine he knew about the views on the Holocaust of one SSPX bishop? If you’re going to make such an accusation – which I have seen no evidence of anywhere, and which the Vatican denies – I think you ought to substantiate it.
The Pope must have been aware of the aanti-Semitism of the SSPX as he knows them well and they have a long history of anti-Semitism.
Here’s a quote from the wikipedia article on the Society of St. Pius X about Lefebvre and Benedict …
In June 1987, Lefebvre announced his intention to consecrate a successor to the episcopacy [of the SSPX]. He implied that he intended to do this with or without the approval of the Holy See. Under canons 1013 and 1382 of the Catholic Code of Canon Law, the consecration of a bishop requires papal approval. Consecration of bishops without papal approval had been condemned by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis, who described the sacramental activity of bishops who had been consecrated without such approval as “gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious”. The Roman authorities were unhappy with Lefebvre’s plan, but they began discussions with him and the SSPX which led to the signing on 5 May 1988, of a skeleton agreement between Lefebvre and Cardinal Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the future Pope Benedict XVI.
In 1989, French Nazi collaborator and war criminal Paul Touvier was found hiding in the Society of Saint Pius X Priory in Nice. A Traditionalist Catholic priest of the Society of Saint Pius X sat beside him at the defense table, acting as his spiritual advisor during his trial.
And this from a Tablet article, Not yet back in the fold, 31 January 2009 …
The Lefebvrists reject, for instance, the teaching of the Vatican II decree Nostra Aetate, including its key repudiation of the charge of “deicide” (literally god-killing, because of the supposed Jewish role in the death of Jesus).
And … Lefebvre movement: long, troubled history with Judaism by John Allen (NCR)
on October 27th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
“You still haven’t apologized for calling Anglicans who may want to be received into full communion in the CC as gay-bashers and misogynists..”
Anthony, I was and am referring to those bishops who want to enter the church because they oppose women’s ordination and gay bishops.. Those are not the right reasons I submit. Amazing that they do not have pangs of conscience over the blatant coverup of the bishops of pedophile priests which is still going as witness the dioces of Fairfield which will be the next blockbuster.
So they are against women’s ordination and gay bishops but feel ok to join a body which fostered and still does the abuse of children. Who should apologize Anthony?
on October 28th, 2009 at 4:52 am
Oops – the article at NCR, Lefebvre movement: long, troubled history with Judaism, seems to have been written by Thomas C. Fox – link
on October 28th, 2009 at 6:46 am
Bill-
In no place in your first post did you mention Anglican bishops. So at the very least you should apologize for inadvertedly calling all these Anglicans gay-bashers and misogynists. Second, how do you know their consciences? How dare your presume to judge others, especially since we have almost no idea the exact identity of these Anglican bishops.
And Bil, I am sorry: I just don’t see the exact connection between the sexual abuse crisis with this issue. Unfortunately, you tend to connect far too many issues when there is no natural connection. Suprisingly, the ghost of Constantine has not appeared in any of your postings? Is he on vacation?
And you condemn Anglican bishops for joining a body which fostered and “still does the abuse of children”? How does your conscience allow you to remain part of this body?
on October 28th, 2009 at 8:36 am
“How does your conscience allow you to remain part of this body?”
Anthony, your ad hominems proliferate. I have not judged you but you have judged me. Remember what the Lord said about judging which means you are talking about yourself.
Since you asked. Constantine bought the hierarchy with money and money has been its theme ever since. It only shows the power of the Spirit that Christ’s reign has been present throughout history. Now you are supporting a hierarachy that is Europe based and still more concernce about power grabs. You can keep Constantine if that is your choice. Remember you brought it up.
I am really surprised at your direct venom. I assure you this is my last post on this matter.
on October 28th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Dowd sounds like the NYTimes version of Glenn Beck. The article is more an anger fueled rant than an argument, but I’ll admit I’ve exorcised my own frustrations in print before. So, people in glass houses… But, calling the Pope a Nazi sympathizer is simply libelous, and it makes her look as ridiculous as Glenn Beck did when he called Obama a racist.
on October 28th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Hi, Cathleen, there is also a Group 6, istm: general readership who is not usually engaged in the issue, had not heard of it until reading Dowd wrote about it, and whose initial impression is therefore set by Dowd’s approach. No doubt the largest group of all.
(And I’m sure I’m probably revealing my group identity with this whine! :-))
on October 28th, 2009 at 9:40 am
But, calling the Pope a Nazi sympathizer is simply libelous, and it makes her look as ridiculous as Glenn Beck did when he called Obama a racist.
Eric,
Dowd did not call the pope a “Nazi sympathizer.” She said, “Once a conscripted member of the Hitler Youth, Benedict pardoned a schismatic bishop who claimed that there was no Nazi gas chamber.”She stated facts, although not very clearly. I am not sure if lifting an excommunication is a “pardon,” and of course the pope’s “pardon” had no real connection to Williamson’s anti-Semitism. The pope also ordered Williamson to renounce his Holocaust denials, but Williamson has not, and that has not resulted in his being excommunicated again.
ON THE OTHER HAND . . . Glenn Beck said of Obama, “This guy is, I believe, a racist.” This is not an objectionable remark from which you would infer that Beck may think Obama is a racist. He called Obama a racist.
So I don’t think Dowd’s statement was libelous, and I don’t think it is comparable to what Glenn Beck said. I do think it was on the level of a political campaign attack add, and I can’t for the life of my understand why the Times wants Dowd as a columnist.
on October 28th, 2009 at 10:59 am
I believe that most of you are missing the point. Maureen Dowd wasn’t out to inform the “insiders” or the “theologians” about what is going on in her piece. She was informing the
general public what is occuring with the American Sisters. And she wrote in a language style that a 12-year-old could comprehend.
Most of the average Catholics coming to church had no idea—NO IDEA—that this investigation was going on. The ones who approached me were shocked that this is happening. They were ANGRY—wanted to write a letter to their pastor, their bishop (who as a bishop is extremely pastoral—certainly head and shoulders above some of his brother bishops) complaining about “How can they (Rome and American Bishops) do this to the Sisters.
You can argue over the fine points of her column. But the bottom line is this—-Maureen Dowd informed the average American Catholic—the guy/gal who pays the bills—the guy/gal who doesn’t get on Catholic websites—-that this investigation is going on. No theologian, no pastor, no bishop, none of you were able to do this. She did it and got the message across!
on October 28th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Little Bear: the fact that people are getting their “information” on this topic (or, really, any topic) from Maureen Dowd is precisely the problem.
on October 28th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Wow, leave it to MoDo to stir the pot. While I almost always find her stuff/fluff over the top–gimme Gail Collins!–I think she was on the side of the angels here, and being more Jon Stewart than Glenn Beck. I don’t think anyone raised in the church of a certain time and with a familiarity with nuns is not unsymapthetic to her anger or her point.
As to the Hitler Youth comment, that seems pretty unobjectionable. Many have found it surpassingly odd that Benedict, with his eyewitness experience of Nazism and the Holocaust, has been beyond tone deaf in dealings with Jews and things related to that era, of which Benedict and the German Church were such key players, if not in any way collaborators in his case.
The interesting thing about this thread is the anger over Dowd’s style, as opposed to what I thought was the bizarro substance of Ross Douthat’s column of the same day on the Anglican outreach–or “proselytizing,” as he called it–and all in the name of fighting Islam…?! I haven’t seen any analysis that got the story more wrong, or managed to offend everyone involved, from the pope to Rowan Wiliams to liberal believers to Anglicans. And yes, Muslims.
I think Mark Silk has described Douthat as “underperforming,” and that certainly seems to be the case so far. I especially loved that he is a child of privilege who was given an op-ed column in The Times at the age of 29 and proceeded to chastise Obama for being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize without merit! He asked him to give it back…Perhaps Douthat should do the same with his column? And I was rooting for him. It takes a while to settle into those gigs, but still. maybe another decade or two of seasoning…Dunno, seems the Times can’t settle on a decent stable of columnists. Herbert and Kristof are very good, I think.
on October 28th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
“gimme Gail Collins!”
I agree! She’s sharp and funny, almost every time. Do they still relegate her to the Saturday edition? Put her on Sundays!
on October 28th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Gimme Msgr. Harry Byrne on this -see his latest Archangel blog.
I think he knows his Catholicism and I think the criticism he offers is quite germane.
I find nuch of the stuff here anti-Dowd -fair enough for those who like that posture.
But, I think Cathy’s number 3 group is the problem, viz.”progressive liberals who think she makes their cause look bad.”
I’m not clear what their “cause” is. Don’t let leadership get ridiculed, even if they deserve it?
Nor am I clear on what information people should be getting from the NYT on this.
Would also like to know if the”liberal progressive” group beleive the Roman/curial center is not an insular old boys club who are missing something?
Is the issue here the medium or the message?
on October 28th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Sorry, Mollie, but the good people that I am referring to: Christian Mothers, Ladies’ Guild Members, Holy Name Society, St. Vincent de Paul members, Food Bank members, women who cook the parishes’ suppers—literally the ‘arms, backs, and legs’ of the Catholic parishes—’ain’t’ got the time to be researching the divergent views of all types of writers.
And since Maureen Dowd is syndicated—these folks aren’t reading her column in the NY Times either—it is in the local town’s papers. Now, if some of you good folks would like to use a nice and easy style of writing, to refute Maureen in the local rags—fine.
But I don’t think that is going to happen anywhere in the near future. What Dowd wrote is out there on Main Street—-and the local folk are not happy with what they are reading.
I had an 84-year-old Grandma tell me she’s not giving a cent to the Bishop’s special collection now in the fall and certainly not to the Lenten Appeal in the spring. Said she’s ready to take her cane and give the Bishop a new necktie with it (her blood sister is a consecrated religious as is her niece). And she (and a good number of others) felt that “Maureen, said it like it is—and without varnish.”
As Jim Pauwels wrote—this is Group 6—who hadn’t heard about this before. This is a huge group of people (often the members who comprise the backbone of a parish)—and it is probably a group that the Bishops would not want to find out about this investigation, either. But they know now.
on October 28th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
“it is probably a group that the Bishops would not want to find out about this investigation, either. But they know now.”
I don’t think the bishops have particularly been trying to keep the visitation a secret, but – the bishops consistently get outgunned in the media. Until they can enlist a Maureen Dowd to spin the stories their preferred way, this will continue to be the case.
on October 28th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Little Bear – you have hit the nail on the head. Calm, percise analysis about her comments and the audience she is reaching.
For the past 12 months (given, I live in Dallas, TX), neither the diocese, bishop, nor our pastor has ever mentioned:
- the investigation of the sisters and their leadership
- the investigation of the LC/RC – we have one of their high schools & our bishop is ex-LC
- non stop single issue anti-abortion from the pulpit, Univ. of Dallas, visiting speakers/priests (e.g. Priests for Life), diocesan rag
- there has not been one mention of the economic situation that most catholics/public are facing; no connection to helping supporting the uninsured/underinsured; minimal mention of job seeking support groups; nothing connecting economics, social justice, and the gospel.
When you live in such a context (blinders and heads in the sand, denial), Dowd (whatever her shortcomings) is a breath of fresh air.
on October 28th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
BTW, anyone see this NCR piece about all the diocese who don’t want to pay for the visitation?
http://ncronline.org/news/women/few-dioceses-admit-willingness-pay-visitation
Wassup with that? I trust they haven’t been reading from the Gospel of Dowd…
on October 28th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I find the response of some of Dowd’s dotComm defenders very odd and a little alarming. It doesn’t matter if she’s flippant or cavalier with the facts, doesn’t matter if she relies on malicious suggestion rather than reasoned argument. She agrees with us, she despises the pope, and that’s all that matters. And she’s so effective! We know she’s effective because her column has made a lot of people who didn’t know anything about the visitation mad. See, she’s syndicated; you’re not; so her misrepresentations reach more people than all your highfalutin nuance. So, get a column at the Times or shut up.
on October 28th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
From the NCROnline piece linked by David Gibson just above, on dioceses paying for the visitation:
“We have no vested interest in this, as we have no institutes of religious in this diocese, so I see no reason to contribute,” Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Ore., told NCR.
That’s astonishing – that an entire diocese has no religious?
on October 28th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
“Little Bear,” you miss my point. Those people shouldn’t have to do all their own research; they should be able to expect that a syndicated opinion journalist has done some. That’s precisely why this is a problem — she’s feeding bad information and bad arguments to “good people” about topics that (I think) deserve actual analysis. Venting anger, and stirring up more anger, is not a service to the public. Dowd is not heroic; she’s just pushing buttons.
It’s not news to anybody here that the news of the visitation — what news there is — is upsetting to a lot of Catholics. Ditto the sex-abuse scandal, the outreach to the SSPX, the Church’s attitude toward women generally, and everything else Dowd tosses into her pot. All of these are complicated issues and there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about each and every one. Acknowledging that shouldn’t stop me, or anyone, from finding fault with Dowd’s carelessness; indeed I think it’s all the more reason to be dismayed.
P.S. What Matt said.
on October 28th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I did see a mention of Ross Douthat’s column by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com …. Calling for greater religious strife with Islam. That’s all we need, a new crusade.
on October 28th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Hi, Crystal, I would say that Greenwald seriously misreads and mischaracterizes Douthat. You might want to read the entire Douthat piece – it hits a number of right notes – rather than rely on Greenwald to filter it.
on October 28th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
My last:
It’s clear here that some find both sides of the discussion “odd and alarming.”
But…
I don’t think there are papal despisers here on this thread – that’s an easy straw man.
And it’s less than clear that those alarmed at the”Dowed defenders” have made clear their views on the matter other than a broad “these are important issues that deserve consderation, etc.
I do think the Dowd defenders, if that label is accurat,e are really saying we continue to see awful actions on the party of the Roman curial Vatican beauracracy and that the secular press has done a far better job of expressing the anger in some (large) Catholic quarters here than folks in our Catholoc press(whom, I guess, some of us think should be leading the way in sharp critique.
on October 28th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Jim,
I took your advice and read the original article – you were right, I think – it’s not as inflammatory as I had thought. I don’t know if Benedict’s approach to the Islamic challenge, as Douthat sees it, is the right approach (or even if that is indeed B16’s intended agenda) but the question of how to respond to increasing numbers of believers in Isalm is an interesting one.
on October 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Jim P: I certainly agree that Greenwald’s religious war motif was over the top. But what “right notes” did Douthat hit? I think he spelled his name correctly. But that’s all I saw.
on October 28th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
We have many professional writers and scholars on this blog. Why not submit a rebuttal to the Times, and as Bob Imb. said” tear it to shreds” if you can. I think the Times might love to publish it just because of the interest iwtwould generate in the paper. Maureen might welcome the challange to answer it. She already generated 61 responses on this Blog. I have had people call me from NY and they think she “it the nail on the head.”
on October 28th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Dowd is no Jon Stewart, and on this issue, Jon Stewart wasn’t even Jon Stewart. My guess is that both should stick to politics (or, in the case of Dowd, Jane Austen metaphors). The problem for Dowd or Beck or any “pundit” is that they are not comedians first and thus purport to trade in a kind of earnest analysis that just sounds angry when it trys to deploy satire. The genius of Stewart is that the serious commentary is always smuggled in with the expectation of a joke. For other “real” journalists, the jokes are too obviously agenda driven. That’s why folks like Dowd or Beck are so unsettling. They’re always transparently ideological, and you can see them coming from a mile away. Stewart is serving a higher master than the idea – the laugh. That’s how he avoids ideology. This is kind of akin to the way theology avoids ideology, by letting the ideas serve the relationship with God, rather than vice versa. For Stewart, the ideas serve the relationship with the audience. For Dowd and Beck, the goal is to manipulate the audience to serve the ideas. That’s how they get people to act without thinking for themselves. Stewart’s humor gives the audience the space to make up their own minds without the fear that he’s going to think your an idiot if you disagree. I have a feeling Dowd definitely thinks we’re all idiots.
on October 28th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Hi, David G., doesn’t spelling your name right earn you several hundred points on the SAT?
FWIW – I agree with quite a bit of what he says in the first half or so of the column – e.g. when he says that ecumenicism has borne real fruit, and that mainline denominaitons have lost members to more assertive denominations – until he gets to the part about the Pope reaching out to conservatives who are hovering on the margins. I guess I don’t see that. Then, when he springs his Muslim hypothesis – well, I’m not entirely sure what to make of that one. It’s an interesting angle, and it could have some merit – it’s some defensible connecting the dots on Douthat’s part, anyway.
on October 28th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
She agrees with us, she despises the pope, and that’s all that matters.
Matthew,
The defenses of Dowd here have been much like the defenses of Rush Limbaugh (and the others on the right)
when he goes much too far (It was satire! You have no sense of humor!) and not all that different from the defenses of John Derbyshire in recent thread here (wry British humor, likes to needle liberals, pulling our legs, etc. etc.).
But are you implying that people here despise the pope? Or like people because they despise the pope? I would have to say that of all the dotCommonweal contributors, I would be among the most likely to despise the pope, but I certainly don’t.
I think, a little like Maureen Dowd, you got angry and you went too far in what you said.
on October 28th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
“I would be among the most likely to despise the pope, but I certainly don’t. ”
Hi, David N., was most-likely-to-despise-the-Pope an award given out to your graduating class? :-)
on October 28th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
David Nickol is a spiritual master.
Eric B: To me the Jon Stewart take on the Anglican deal was hilarious. I’ll find it and post it.
I don’t see the Beck-Dowd comparisons, but that’s me. Dowd is trying to stir emotions to serve an agenda, and an agenda that can often be on the side of the angels, IMO. But even if you disagree with her agenda, I think it beats Beck, whose agenda is just himself. Also, he has a problem with the truth, and truths, large and small. Dowd hasn’t written anything that is just plain false. She couldn’t, as she’d get hammered and there would be corrections. It ain’t Fox News.
on October 28th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Maureen Dowd, answering the Proust Questionnaire for Vanity Fair:
If you were to die and come back as a person or a thing, what do you think it would be?
A crisp, perfectly salted French fry.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2005/12/proust_dowd200512
on October 29th, 2009 at 8:28 am
Brilliant!
on October 29th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Eh, she probably stole it from some blog. ;-)
on October 29th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Hi David G.,
I thought Stewart’s bit on the Anglican thing was definitely funny, but I guess I felt it didn’t show his usual amount of insight. Though analyzing it in terms of “market share” is, I think, an interesting angle.
As for Dowd-Beck, I take your point that Beck is working for a network and an audience that have a different tolerance level for the flagrant flaunting of fact. Dowd would never “assert” anything verifiably “false.” (Though, technically, I believe it is wrong to say that clerical celibacy is the Church’s “most doggedly held dogma.” It has been the case, I think, that married Anglican priests who convert are able to stay married priests. Also, as others have pointed out, celibacy isn’t a “dogma,” but a discipline. So that part of her column is, technically, false. Incidentally, Jon Stewart got this wrong too.) She does seem content to make implications, particularly when it comes to assuming motives, that have little basis in reality and are even questionably plausible. Take this positive spin on Obama’s possible sexism from her column yesterday (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/opinion/28dowd.html?_r=1&em):
“As long as I’ve covered politics, there were always women running up against “The Boys.” In 1984, Geraldine Ferraro complained about the “smart-ass white boys” from Walter Mondale’s campaign who tried to boss her around. As first lady, Hillary Clinton had to deal with Bill’s coterie of cocky “white boys.”
It was a bit surprising that the same dynamic recurred with the first black president. But it is the very enormity of the change Obama represents that makes him cautious at times about more change.”
So, Obama’s not *really* gender exclusive, he’s just waiting for the right time to reach out to women? I guess gender equality is more a second term thing? Now, I’m all for defending Obama, but once again, Dowd seems to stretch when implying his motives, this time in a positive way, as she gave the Pope a negative spin. With Dowd-Beck, one rhetorical strategy is about confirming people’s suspicions of the bad motives of the people that they and their audience naturally fear, and trumping up the good motives of their heroes. Though, I do take your point that Beck seems to have a more obvious ideological arsenal, I’m not sure that Dowd’s is any less harmful for all its subtlety and innuendo.
on October 29th, 2009 at 11:04 am
David Nickol,
I’m not sure what it means for you “to be among the most likely to despise the pope” (because you’re among those who disagree with him the most often?), but if it’s any reassurance I didn’t have you in mind when I used the word you object to. Do I think (all) people here despise the pope? Of course not. Commonweal is built on the idea that, in ecclesial as in political controversies, one can be critical without being scornful. Do I think there are people here who despise the pope? Well, yes. Don’t you? The Commonweal blog is a tolerant place. You can write just about anything here as long as it’s not obscene or malicious and demonstrably false. That leaves room for things we don’t like — for example, scornful remarks about Rome.
on October 29th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Matthew,
I didn’t believe your remarks were directed at me, particularly because I don’t believe I have defended Maureen Dowd. If I did despise anyone, she would be a more likely candidate than the pope, although I probably agree with her more than I agree with the pope. I think a lot of the time she’s just nasty.
I don’t think that making scornful remarks about Rome is necessarily an indication that one despises the pope.
on October 29th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I’m sorry, but I think the semantics here, that David touched on, just fuzzy things up.
I’m not sure what Matthew thinks “scornful” means and if it connotes or denotes despising.
I tried to say that many here are angry toward BXVI and his curia about not only these but many other issues and at the same time deeply saddened by the drift from Rome.(e.g. Susan’s post on Trautman nicely captures the spiriit and the problem area seen there.)
If that approach is scorn/despising. count me in, but I feel that that semantic is as useful as Ken’s “boomer” mantra on another thread.
As to Dowd. some find her approach nasty/over the top etc. some think it’s a necessary satire based in the conventional opinion. I don’t see that folks can’t agree to disagree about that without getting in a huff.
I also think it needs to be clear whether some think Rome is above satire or ridicule; and, if that’s based in the conventional opinion, is that view (to go to another thread) “elitist?”
To return to the original point, just saying Dowd’s horrible and it’s misinformed what folks think is not a clear statement of what positions are held.
Hence my problem with Cathy’s “liberal progressive” category which here seems to me to be not very liberal and not very progressive.
If anyone wants to stick the d. (or s.) label on me for saying that. I thinks that’s illustrative.
on October 29th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
But the bottom line is this—-Maureen Dowd informed the average American Catholic—the guy/gal who pays the bills—the guy/gal who doesn’t get on Catholic websites—-that this investigation is going on.
I think you’re way overestimating the number of people who have ever heard of Dowd or have any interest whatsoever in what she or any other NY Times columnist says about anything, ever. Reminds me of the great New Yorker cover on the stereotypically parochialist NYC view of the world.
As for the claims that Dowd never says things that are false, here’s a good link: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh100204.shtml .
Re: Douthat . . . Up to the point where he mentions Islam, what does he say that’s even arguably false? Take it sentence by sentence. Joke about Elton John? Fine. The Anglican communion will survive? Probably so. What the Vatican did was a “bombshell”? Seems to be the sentiment around here. Could produce a few conversions or a few million? A waffling statement that can’t even possibly be wrong. An “unusual effort at targeted proselytism”? Again, that seems to be the sentiment around here and elsewhere too. Etc., etc.