Catholic-bashing is all the rage in liberal circles and in the mainstream media. As a Catholic, that’s infuriating. I love the church, and I hate seeing it slandered over and over again. The old “all priests abuse children” meme is back in the press again, and Catholicism is taking a beating again. The biased media likes to act as if this is a crisis within the church. The reality is that the Catholic church does not abuse children any more than Protestant churches or even the general population. But you won’t see the mainstream media pointing that out anytime soon. They’re too busy painting priests as evil child rapists who are trying to abuse their positions of authority. And while those evil men do exist within the Catholic church, they also exist everywhere else — teachers, preachers, Boy Scout leaders — because anytime a position of authority exists, there will be the rare person who will come along and abuse it. The overwhelming majority of priests uphold their vows and the mainstream media doesn’t care. It’s because “the church covers it up!!!!!”, they’ll say. But why does it for some reason not matter if Protestants are abusing children at the same rates, and are not reporting it?
Attacking the Catholic church is nothing new. And that’s all they’re trying to do.
I don’t know that I’ve seen something so ridiculous and slanderous, though, as Maureen Dowd’s latest column, where she asserts that Catholic women are just as oppressed as Islamic women in Saudi Arabia.
When I was in Saudi Arabia, I had tea and sweets with a group of educated and sophisticated young professional women.
I asked why they were not more upset about living in a country where women’s rights were strangled, an inbred and autocratic state more like an archaic men’s club than a modern nation. They told me, somewhat defensively, that the kingdom was moving at its own pace, glacial as that seemed to outsiders.
How could such spirited women, smart and successful on every other level, acquiesce in their own subordination?
I was puzzling over that one when it hit me: As a Catholic woman, I was doing the same thing.
I, too, belonged to an inbred and wealthy men’s club cloistered behind walls and disdaining modernity.
I, too, remained part of an autocratic society that repressed women and ignored their progress in the secular world.
I, too, rationalized as men in dresses allowed our religious kingdom to decay and to cling to outdated misogynistic rituals, blind to the benefits of welcoming women’s brains, talents and hearts into their ancient fraternity.
To circumscribe women, Saudi Arabia took Islam’s moral codes and orthodoxy to extremes not outlined by Muhammad; the Catholic Church took its moral codes and orthodoxy to extremes not outlined by Jesus. In the New Testament, Jesus is surrounded by strong women and never advocates that any woman — whether she’s his mother or a prostitute — be treated as a second-class citizen.
Negating women is at the heart of the church’s hideous — and criminal — indifference to the welfare of boys and girls in its priests’ care.
She then goes on to agree with a Newsweek writer who criticizes the “senior executives” — aka priests — for being celibate, refusing to marry, and not having children. Apparently, priests should bring need to “familiarize themselves with the earthy, primal messiness of families and children”.
What does having a family have to do with being a priest? If a man chooses to become a priest, he does so voluntarily, and voluntarily takes the vow of celibacy. A priest is the head of his church, and as such it is his responsibility to administer to his parish. It is his responsibility administer sacraments, see to the poor, the sick, the old… and it is literally a 24 hour a day job. If someone in his parish, for example, gets in a car accident at 3:15 in the morning and is in critical condition, then the priest must get up, go to the hospital, and administer the Last Rites. When my brother was in his motorcycle accident, our priest was there within an hour of being notified. This is the job of a priest. He does not marry because he is married to the church. He is celibate because he is not married, and the church requires sex to only take place within a marriage.
But of course, it’s typical liberal nature to wonder why anyone should even bother restraining themselves. Liberals think that we should just do whatever we feel like doing, as if we were animals incapable of thinking through our primal urges. The idea that any person would willingly dedicate their life to the church as a priest or a nun, and be forever celibate, is astonishing to them.
But all of this is nothing compared to Maureen Dowd’s assertion that the Catholic church is just as oppressive as Saudi Arabia. It is so far out there that I can’t help but believe that she must be living in some kind of alternate reality. Women are not repressed in the Catholic church. To the contrary, as The Anchoress points out, women are celebrated in the church. There number of women in leadership positions in the Catholic church is comparable to the number of women in leadership positions in the workforce on the whole. There is nothing to stop women from serving in the Catholic church if they feel called to it. Look at Mother Theresa, Catherine of Sienna, Teresa of Avila. When it goes against the liberal meme of “the Catholic church is sexist”, women like these — and the thousands and thousands of nuns around the world — are ignored. There are far more nuns than there are priests currently serving the church, but what does that matter to Maureen Dowd? The church is still somehow oppressive.
But oppressive to the level of oppression that women face in Saudi Arabia? A statement like that shows just how out of touch modern feminists are with reality. Saudi women are segregated and oppressed. Women there have to live under sharia law, where if a woman is raped she can be stoned for it — unless, of course, she can find four men willing to speak for her. Women can be educated in Saudi Arabia, but very few of them are able to work. Most of them end up doing nothing but taking care of their husbands and children, whether it is their will or not. Women are not free in Saudi Arabia, they face actual persecution, oppression, and segregation.
Yet in Maureen Dowd’s twisted, warped reality, this is the same thing as the “oppression” in the Catholic church? Stonings are still reported in Saudi Arabia, yet somehow this is equal to… what? What is there in the Catholic church that can possibly compare to the hell that women endure in Saudi Arabia?
The answer is there is nothing. And like every other unimaginative liberal in the mainstream media, Maureen Dowd is grasping at straws to try to find another pitiful, pathetic argument to wage against the Catholic church.
Cross-posted at The Green Room, Stop the ACLU, and Liberty Pundts.
Daredevil says: I do agree with you such abuse of children is not limited to Catholic church, but does take place in other churches. The key difference though is that if it happens in other churches, the offenders would be defrocked and thrown in jail, not have their crimes covered-up, and them being transferred to other place where they can continue to harm others.
I do think much of the liberal bashing of Catholicism is over the top, but in this one issue, the church itself is not blameless at all for it.
On things like moral stance for life, theology, etc., yes, the church is correct to stand by its teachings, against those who say the church needs to “progress.” My saying to those liberals in that church is start their own faith, not claim to be Catholics while disregarding the faith then wanting the church (and God) to change for them, not the other way around. So while I am not Catholic, in those areas, liberals do make me laugh when they attack that church over refusing to change so to fit their agenda. It is God a church needs to please first.
On the abuse issue, ignore what everyone including me say. Aim to please God. Examine itself to see how it handled past and present cases of abuse is pleasing to God.
I disagree that all other churches toss out the bad eggs. During the height of the Catholic church scandal, there was a lesser-reported story about a large protestant (I think Baptist) church where the pastor had been abusing members of the congregation, and it had been repeatedly covered up. People are still people, and they cover for those in power. See: Clinton, William; Edwards, John; Harding, Warren…
The Catholic church has to show that it’s changed and work to regain the trust of those. You can’t just assume that all is fixed and move forward. Well, unless you’re a golf star, apparently.
Daredevil says: “I disagree that all other churches toss out the bad eggs.”
I didn’t say all do. I said most of them do. And I am talking about conservative churches here, too.
Because we both know that liberals are going after conservative RCC and Protestant churches. If it had been liberal from either, the liberal media would have left the story alone or spin that as another example of conservatives gone wrong.
There is a reason why when it occurs in Protestant churches, the culprits usually end up getting exposed publically and brought to justice.
(a) There are far more cases every year of public school teachers abusing children then there are of priests or ministers of any denomination doing so. Yet I have never once heard a liberal commentator say that this proves that the public schools are an inherently corrupt and evil institution, or that this means that all teachers should be viewed with suspicion.
(b) Priests who abuse young boys have two things in common: 1. They are Catholic priests. 2. They are homosexuals. When these incidents come out, liberals always demand that the Catholic church be reformed and apologize and grovel. Yet I have never once heard them say that this reflects in any way on the gay community. Why aren’t they declaring that this proves that all gay men are potential pedophiles and abusers?
Mat says: Oh no, Maureen Dowd said something about something. I tremble in my shoes. Oh yeah, I forgot. It’s only Maureen Dowd. Never mind…
Cylar says: The reality is that the Catholic church does not abuse children any more than Protestant churches or even the general population.
I find this statistic highly questionable and would like to see some hard backing for it. Not to say there have NEVER been any incidents in the 500-year history of Protestant thought and worship, but I am unfamiliar with any waves, epidemics, or similar patterns of abuse in Protestant churches – be they Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Pentacostal, whatever. (I am also unfamiliar with any examples of this in the Mormon church, for that matter.)
Perhaps it’s because most Protestant denominations are more decentralized and don’t answer to a parent organization, but I haven’t heard of any leaders in those churches being asked to answer for abuses of this sort by their underling clergy.
Perhaps the reason is that Protestant clergy are free to marry. This may defuse the sex drive and make it less likely to be channeled into such evil ways as abusing little kids. Or it could also be that homosexuals are drawn to the priesthood, knowing that some parishes or whatever-you-call-them (can you tell I’m not Catholic?) will protect the abusers and/or just move them around?
All that having been said, childhood sexual abuse has also been known to occur in secular environments such as public schools.
KimWW says: To the liberal mind any establishment, government or religion, which restricts a woman’s right to abortion, by law or decree, is oppressive.
The quoted article makes it sound like all little Maureen wanted to be when she grew up was a priest. To my knowledge, that is the only option available to men that is not to women in the Catholic church.
Stan25 says: The Catholic Church has been under attack for the last 500 years, every since Martin Luther decided to form another religion. The major attacks were made by England in the late 16th Century when Henry VIII decided to divorce his first wife and marry Ann Boleyn. Then his daughter, by Boleyn, was made Queen and she really attacked the Church by hanging and burning the priests and stealing the remaining property of the Church.
ConanKong says: I see alot of false outrage in all this. With all the talk of who is doing the molesting, there’s nothing about who was being molested. It was other Catholics. Not Muslims or Atheists or any other “hip group. Am I supposed to believe that Maureen Dowd or Richard Dawkins actually care about little catholic boys. Well, I don’t. They couldn’t care less about the victims, they just want another excuse to attack the Catholic Church
Daredevil says: “The Catholic Church has been under attack for the last 500 years, every since Martin Luther decided to form another religion. The major attacks were made by England in the late 16th Century when Henry VIII decided to divorce his first wife and marry Ann Boleyn. Then his daughter, by Boleyn, was made Queen and she really attacked the Church by hanging and burning the priests and stealing the remaining property of the Church.”
Let’s not suppress what is true: 1) Luther was responding to corruptions at the time, especially dealing with indulgences, simony, 2) he at first wanted to reform not break off, 3) Liz might have persecuted the RCC, but her half-sister and previous queen Mary, did not get the nick bloody Mary for no reason (given her treatments of Protestant subjects). Liz’s persecutions of Catholics paled in comparisons to what Mary did to Protestants. And where did you get the idea Liz used burnings as forms of punishments for Catholics?
The bottom line is back in Reformation days, both RCCs and Protestants did ALOT of things NEITHER can be proud of today.
And to EOs, RCCs were the ones who formed a new religion in 1054. It is silly argument to use on RCCs by EOs, as it is silly argument to use on Luther and Protestants by RCCs.
Daredevil says: “Am I supposed to believe that Maureen Dowd or Richard Dawkins actually care about little catholic boys. Well, I don’t. They couldn’t care less about the victims, they just want another excuse to attack the Catholic Church”
Agreed.
Daredevil says: “Perhaps the reason is that Protestant clergy are free to marry.”
If that was the case how come it is not a big scandal in eastern Orthodox churches?
After all, while married men are allowed to become priests, unmarried men once they become priests are NOT allowed to get married.
Sex drive might be involved, but those guys did make a conscious choice to become priests. If they really can’t restraint then get out and let others be priests. So I won’t use that as an excuse nor the priesthood system as somehow to blame.
I see it more as lack of internal discipline and rooting out of these bad examples. If those things have done early on, we might not have other cases that we have now, because deterrent can be a powerful weapon: deflocking, having the offenders arrested, etc.
ConanKong says: I also want to add that I am in no way defending what happened. I think that the priests who did it, and the bishops who covered it up should either be defrocked and excommunicated, or sent to the Archdiocse of Antarctica for the rest of their lives.
Cristina says: Hey,
I am Orthodox Christian and I wanted to clarify the fact that in our Church a man can become priest only if he has been already married or already a monk.usually the young guys who graduate the seminar marry soon after their graduation and after that, they are ordained as parish priests.however ,the monks who become priests are not usually parish priests but they live reclosed in their monastery.This practice has remained since the beginning of the Church ,and it was as well in the Western Church until the great Separation between the Churches.so the Orthodox church remained with the same rule of having married priests whereas the Catholic church made a “reform” and imposed on priests to be celibatary.From the point of view of the Orthodox Church ,this celibat of the priests is not necessary ,since the priest doesn’t want to become a monk but to live in the world ,so it will actually be easier for him to understand his flock;having a family and children will expose him to a large variety of problems and force him find solutions which might be useful to his parishioners too.So maybe it wouldn’t be so wrong for the Catholic Church to come back to the orginal married priesthood;maybe it was an unnecessarily imposed sacrifice.
Unfortunately,apart from the malvolence of the media, the Vatican itself makes some mistakes:when I was in Rome three years ago ,in January,I saw in front of the Vatican that people could buy calendars with pictures of very handsome young priests,every month with its priest.I honestly couldn’t understand how the Catholic Church could think to present some young ,celibatary priests as being a kind of Holliwood stars .That was a mistake and unfortunately it was exactly in front of the Vatican.
Another thing that I didn’t like about the Catholic Church was in United States .the Catholic Church sold some of the buildings of its churches to different firms.in Pittsburgh one big church was turned into a restaurant.In the place of the altar (at East)there are some big containeers of beer.I understand that the Catholic Church is not in a very good financial position but still ,to accept that the building of a church to be turned into a restaurant?I felt offended when I entered that Church/restaurant and one colleague comforted me saying that since I was Orthodox ,I shouldn’t care.But I did care and so should the Pope .
About the way in which the abused children problem is treated by the media ,I completely agree that they only wish to discourage anybody who might still have faith in God.The media doesn’t actually care about the abused children,they are just trying to manipulate people.
Fortunately those who have faith can not be shaken so easily and the others can not lose what they didn’t have from the beginning.
19 Comments