I find Archbishop Timothy Dolan's crocodile tears and whining over anti-Catholic prejudice disingenuous at best and in reality full blown hypocrisy. It's possible that the good Archbishop and certainly many of his fellow sex abuse enabling bishops and cardinals ought to be in prison for what they allowed to happen for DECADES. He ought to be glad that news media coverage is all that he's undergoing. There are few worse hypocrites on the planet than the morally bankrupt members of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy who pretend to be so pious and demand that the laity constantly kiss their general fat asses. Meanwhile, they continue to get away with crimes and obstruction of justice in ways that no one else could get away with. It truly sickens me and I hope the media continues to expose these folks for the frauds that they are in fact. Rather than meddle in the civil rights of same sex couples and try to scuttle health care reform that doesn't fit with their religious views, the bishops and cardinals ought to be resigning from office and/or - for the minority who did not enable and cover up sexual abuse of minors - forcing a thorough house cleaning of the hierarchy. Here are some highlights from the New York Times' response to the ethically challenged Archbishop:*
Dolan himself has been under that microscope. The Times interviewed him months ago about his handling of sexual abuse cases in his previous posts in St. Louis and Milwaukee, and it continues to look into the subject. It is a natural inquiry given that advocates for abuse victims, while giving Dolan credit for transparency in Milwaukee, say he did not go far enough in resolving pedophilia cases there.
*
Times reporters defended the paper’s coverage. Laurie Goodstein, the national religion correspondent, said The Times had reported about sex abuse by clergy of many faiths but that the Catholics’ story was far bigger because there were more priests accused, more people making allegations, more legal wrangling and settlements, and a longer history. And Vitello said of his article about abuse in the Jewish community that his job was to provide information and let readers decide whether to be outraged.
*
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.
*
“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.”
I think it is hard to pick a handful of examples, as Dolan did, and make a case that The Times has been “anti-Catholic.” . . . Could the newspaper sometimes choose a better word in a story or pay more attention to transgressions in other parts of society? Yes. Has it been guilty of anti-Catholicism? I don’t buy it.
*
Dolan himself has been under that microscope. The Times interviewed him months ago about his handling of sexual abuse cases in his previous posts in St. Louis and Milwaukee, and it continues to look into the subject. It is a natural inquiry given that advocates for abuse victims, while giving Dolan credit for transparency in Milwaukee, say he did not go far enough in resolving pedophilia cases there.
*
Times reporters defended the paper’s coverage. Laurie Goodstein, the national religion correspondent, said The Times had reported about sex abuse by clergy of many faiths but that the Catholics’ story was far bigger because there were more priests accused, more people making allegations, more legal wrangling and settlements, and a longer history. And Vitello said of his article about abuse in the Jewish community that his job was to provide information and let readers decide whether to be outraged.
*
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.
*
“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.”
I think it is hard to pick a handful of examples, as Dolan did, and make a case that The Times has been “anti-Catholic.” . . . Could the newspaper sometimes choose a better word in a story or pay more attention to transgressions in other parts of society? Yes. Has it been guilty of anti-Catholicism? I don’t buy it.
*
The reality is that the leadership of the Catholic Church proved itself to be devoid of morality and decency and now the Church has a much needed spotlight shining on its internal rot and corruption. If the Church doesn't like the coverage, then fix the problem. Otherwise shut up and realize that mindless followers are dwindling in numbers outside of the third world - the only area where the Church is actually growing.
No comments:
Post a Comment