-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
There’s nothing new in Maureen Dowd’s lazy, lazy attack on Archbishop Timothy Dolan in her latest column, and so there’s no point in addressing her ideas. If, however, she’s going to continue singling out and defaming Church figures, the New York Times could at least stop allowing her to include simple factual errors.
For example, in yesterday’s column, Dowd wrote:
In yet another attempt at rationalization, the nation’s Catholic bishops - a group Dolan is now in charge of - put out a ridiculous five-year-study last month going with the “blame Woodstock” explanation for the sex-abuse scandal. 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.
In this passage, Dowd creates the impression that the Catholic bishops performed the study. They did not — the secular, respected John Jay College of Criminal Justice did. The only sense in which the bishops “put out” the study is that they funded it and announced the findings, which of course was the proper thing for them to do (would Dowd disagree?). Perhaps that’s what Dowd meant by “put out,” in which case her statement would be merely wildly misleading, and not outright false. Except for the first clause: there is no sense in which the independent study commissioned by the bishops could be considered an “attempt at rationalization.” Dowd’s claim is simply wrong, and should be corrected.
In her previous column on Church matters, Dowd made other factual errors and gross distortions, caught by Michael Sean Winters. Without those misstatements, Dowd would have had no column whatsoever. Maybe the Times should ask her to stick to other topics.
View all comments (9) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/20/dowds
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
MikeBee| 6.20.11 @ 11:08AM
Maureen Dowd's writings about the Catholic Church are simply another example of those folks in the press who are trying their hardest to bring the Catholic Church down, to discredit it. Most of these writers are people who were raised Catholic, and simply do not embrace all of the teachings of the Church.
But, in the bigger picture: most of us are completely aware that there are folks out there who disagree with the Catholic Church's teachings. That's fine; there will always be people who disagree. There are some people who would disagree with God, if they had a conversation with Him. No problem. (It doesn't help that the Church makes plenty of its own mistakes.) But, editors of newspapers allowing these people to air their personal grievances by continually attacking a societal institution should cease. When an editorial writer's personal issues begin to show through in their columns, this hurts the credibility of the newspaper.
The bottom line, though, is that editors agree with Dowd's personal views about the Church, and also believe that it is their place in society to make changes for the better good of all, not simply to report the news. They have decided that society will be better off without a Catholic Church, in direct defiance of historical record.
pat omalley | 6.20.11 @ 11:41AM
Here is the honest truth about the John Jay report, which you seemed to miss.
It was paid for by the Catholic church (50%) and a bunch of Catholic charities, so it was ridiculously biased. Here is one simple example:
They said the number of priests abusing minors was only 22% when in fact it was 73%. They did this because Catholics hate the phrase "Pedophile priests". The way they did this was to change the definition of the word "minor" from a cut of f age of 13 to a cut off age of 10.
Down reports honesty. Try it.
MikeBee| 6.20.11 @ 1:15PM
Pat,
There is a very specific definition of "Pedophilia." There is also a very specific definition of "Ephebophilia." There are very specific age ranges which each encompasses. What the Jay report recognizes is that most of the sexual abuse performed by Catholic priests was not Pedophilia. Most of the abuse was Ephebophilia, the sexual abuse of boys between the ages of 11 and 16 by older boys or men. This is the distinction which is made, and which is also made in the realm of Psychotherapy. All the victims would be considered "minors," but very few victims were victims of pedophilia.
Most folks out there have been mislead by the legacy Media to think that Pedophilia was going on. Nope; most of it was Ephebophilia, a crime committed by gay men. But the legacy Media, supporting all lifestyles like they do, couldn't bring themselves to report the truth on this issue.
W| 6.20.11 @ 11:59AM
What is your source or authority for the figures?
By your definition, if you pay for a study then it is always ridiculously biased. This would then include any study done by the congressonal budget office, or any other governmental agency.
Occam's Tool| 6.20.11 @ 12:34PM
The NYT thinks it would be great if all of the institutions of our society were trampled down. They never think the Devil would turn on them. It was that way in the battle against Communism, and it is that way in the battle against sharia.
Cheap Golf Drivers | 6.21.11 @ 8:37AM
so nice post
Mike Malone| 6.21.11 @ 10:49AM
One thing the above piece did not speak to is whether or not Maurine Dowd's factual errors are deliberate, I believe they are. As such Ms. Dowd is nothing more than an anti-Catholic drum beater and her columns should carry a warning lable accordingly.
Hank Woods| 6.22.11 @ 12:19PM
Maureen Dowd is a graduate of Catholic University in Washington D.C. and a practicing Catholic. Most likely, she is a liberal Catholic. I believe the church includes liberal, centrist, and conservative Catholics, all included under the same umbrella. I imagine that Maureen Dowd argues for a liberal view of Catholicism, just as others argue for a conservative view. Nonetheless, we are all Catholics. I find it difficult to call a fellow Catholic "an anti-Catholic drum beater."
OperaNerd1986| 6.22.11 @ 2:27PM
If she's a practicing Catholic, one would think that she wouldn't write articles that childishly denigrate Church teachings (in this case, homosexuality). She may go to Mass, but whenever there is a conflict between Catholicism and fashionable leftism, she sides with fashionable leftism every time.