31 March, 2010

Maureen Dowd (NYT) hurls more insult and abuse at the Pope and the Catholic Church... read only if you don't suffer from hypertension!

Op-Ed Columnist - Should There Be an Inquisition for the Pope? - NYTimes.com

12 comments:

  1. Thanks for the disclaimer. I did not suffer from hypertension prior to reading that tripe.

    Ms. Dowd is a carrier though, and I feel it coming on.

    Now, I am going to have to waste the ink in my own printer to print this out, so that I can wrap some garbage in it. What a waste of ink.

    That sad woman is in need of our prayers, and deliverance in that order.

    May God have mercy on her sin sick soul, and on mine too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I didn't see anything I would label as insult or abuse. She has a pretty visual writing style.

    And she's doing her job.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sounds like a lot of ranting to me. Here is a good link to a first-hand account of the Father Lawrence case http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601
    I always wonder why people don't bother going right to the source to check their facts? Is this not what ethically responsible reporting is all about?
    CA

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah, CA, Maureen Dowd is a bad person and an incoherent ranter.

    This guy Murphy sodomized 200 boys. He was doing it and being reported for it by the boys he did it to, as early as the 1950s. Nobody listened to them. In order to escape repeated rape, victims had no choice but to escape the custody of the school, be labeled incorrigible, juvenile deliquent and generate a criminal record.

    What about the fact that the Catholic Church didn't decide to do anything about it for 40 years, do you find exonerating and why would you find someone incredulous about the fact, to be doing a lot of ranting?

    Ratzinger, by his own admission, read every dossier, on every report of priestly sexual abuse, going back decades. He was more than aware of this situation. If he didn't act, simply because no one asked him to, then he is negligent and a defacto accomplice.

    ReplyDelete
  5. She's not a reporter. She's a commentator.

    It's not her job to spew out facts. It's her job to give an opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. reddog: Read the documents Bud! They are posted by the NYT and given to them by the lawyers representing his victims so you can't say that it is just Church spin. Here's the address:

    http://documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case?ref=europe#document

    By exaggerating what he did and how the matter was handled, you (inadvertently) are belittling many other victims who actually suffered the abuse you are accuse Murphy & the Church of.

    There are times when you are correct. This is not one of those times.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lady Janus:

    So Ms. Dowd is a commentator to you.

    Wrong, dear lady. She is a liar.

    Do the research that she had available to her, and you know in your heart she is a liar, unless like her you are tied to an ideology.

    You are beyond that, Lady Janus.

    What if those who choose to defend the faith, are not all idiots as you seem to contend, but actually in their hearts believe in something that is very sacred to them, and is something they are prepared to defend to their own death?

    Are you prepared to defend to your own death, your ideas?

    ReplyDelete
  8. MBrandon, Maureen Dowd's working title is "Op-ED Columnist." The "Op" in that means "opinion," in case you're unaware. And "opinion" is what she gives.

    You are free to disagree with her. That does not make her a liar. And "in my heart," I don't really care one way or another.

    "You are beyond that, Lady Janus."

    :lol: Oh, nice try... Are you some kind of salesman by profession? But I know those sales tricks, and I don't fall for them. Hint: don't try to appeal to attributes that do not exist. State your opinion plain and simple, without all the appeals to useless emotions of which you have no knowledge.

    "What if those who choose to defend the faith, are not all idiots as you seem to contend..."

    First, if that's the attitude you're reading from me, you're reading wrong and I suggest you stop it before you tie yourself in knots over it. If I think someone is an idiot, I'll be up front about it and call him an idiot. Do NOT try to read between the lines. There's nothing there.

    As for "defending the faith" I wonder why "it" needs defending. If you believe something, that's fine for you. But you need to leave others alone to believe as they do, as well. Faith and belief is so personal and individual that it does not translate well to anyone else -- not in substance, subject, or degree.

    "Are you prepared to defend to your own death, your ideas?"

    I don't have to. I don't push them on to anyone else, so why would I need to "defend" them? One of the precepts by which I live: Do not engage in useless activity.

    ReplyDelete
  9. OK, Lady Janus:

    So, you are not beyond that.

    I do know what Op-Ed means. It is just hard to find any Op or Ed ing in Ms. Dowd's fatuous writing here. It is filled with lies and half truths, so since it is only an "Opinion", it doesn't matter if it's a lie. Just so I know your rules.

    You might believe that you are not pushing your opinions on anyone else, but the truth is you are doing that all the time.

    Father Tim writes a blog here about the Catholic faith, which he and many others in the world believe.

    If you don't believe, and are not interested in seeing if there is anything here worthy of thought, but merely come here to criticize, don't try to make me believe your statement that "Faith and belief is so personal and individual that it does not translate well to anyone else -- not in substance, subject, or degree." But, I am sure that it sounded good to you when you wrote it.

    You are very busy evangelizing your beliefs for those of us who read your comments.

    If, as you say, you "Do not engage in useless activity," then why pray tell, are you constantly commenting on this blog. What is your purpose?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Expressing an opinion is not "pushing" it on anyone else. I have not said you have to agree with me, have I?

    If I'm such an evangelist to you, tell me what you think I said I believe.

    Don't just go around calling people names and putting labels on them, like flinging pasta against a wall in the hopes that something might stick.

    "What is your purpose?"

    As pertains to the context in which you asked that question, who says I have to have a purpose other than enjoyment? And -- just to set the matter straight -- I'm the one who gets to say whether or not something in which I engage is a useless activity.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Even if Dowd is merely a "commentator", she still should do her research. Proper research requires going to the source, otherwise you risk spewing out lies.

    For example, if an eye-witness says that the police was called at a given moment in the Murphy case and that no one did anything about apprehending the man, I believe this eye-witness more than a ranting anti-catholic.

    In fact, the above would not surprise me. A friend recently recounted how a friend of hers called the police to report child abuse that had taken place a few years back in her own family. Well, the police dismissed it. Perhaps they have too many of these types of calls?

    The Church was bound to have an internal investigation, but its mandate, like that of any "professional organization" was not of a legal nature, but of a professional disciplinary nature.

    Of interest is that medical experts in the Murphy case claimed he had "borderline" pedophilia….. what is that supposed to be??

    More disturbing, in Germany in the 1990's psychiatrists decided to redefine pedophelia as only existing if the person felt guilt pangs or suffered as a consequence of his actions. If these are the kinds of experts who are giving “expert” advice to disciplinary committees, is it any wonder that there has been so much confusion?

    To sum up, the entire blame does not lie with the Church. It also lies with the mental health professionals who do the advising and with the police departments who fail to act when summoned.

    Now how is that for an op-ed?

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Now how is that for an op-ed?"

    Not bad. But too much research and not enough opinion. However, good enough that you could probably get a job at the Times... ;D

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics