Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Dowd's Common Mistake

This morning NYT commentator Maureen Dowd turned over the majority of her column to her brother Kevin, a devout Catholic, in order to get an insider's perspective on the newest sexual abuse scandals coming to light. Once again the Catholic Church is in hot water for covering up a host of "sins".
The full commentary can be found here and makes the point that the Catholic church needs to increase the priest pool and end the celibacy requirement. This idea has been around for quite sometime and is supported by a wide range of Catholic laypeople. The piece also highlighted the unfortunate consequences of so many legal battles and court settlements, which is the depletion of funds that should be supporting social programs. Below is a long excerpt that contains all of Kevin's commentary.
“In pedophilia, the church has unleashed upon itself a plague that threatens its very future, and yet it remains in a curious state of denial. The church I grew up in was black and white, no grays. That’s why my father, an Irish immigrant, liked it so much. The chaplain of the Police and Fire departments told me once ‘Your father was a fierce Catholic, very fierce.’

My brothers and I were sleepily at his side for the monthly 8 a.m. Holy Name Mass and the guarding of the Eucharist in the middle of the night during the 40-hour ritual at Easter. Once during a record snowstorm in 1958, we were marched single-file to church for Mass only to find out the priests next door couldn’t get out of the rectory.

The priest was always a revered figure, the embodiment of Christ changing water into wine. (Older parishioners took it literally.) The altar boys would drink the dregs.
When I was in the 7th grade, one of the new priests took four of us to the drive-in restaurant and suggested a game of ‘pink belly’ on the way back; we pulled up a boy’s shirt and slapped his belly until it was pink. When the new priest joined in, it seemed like more groping than slapping. But we thought it was inadvertent. And my parents never would have believed a priest did anything inappropriate anyway. A boy in my class told me much later that the same priest climbed into bed with him in 1958 at a rectory sleepover, but my friend threw him to the floor. The priest protested he was sleepwalking. Three days later, the archbishop sent the priest to a rehab place in New Mexico; he ended up as a Notre Dame professor.

Vatican II made me wince. The church declared casual Friday. All the once-rigid rules left to the whim of the flock. The Mass was said in English (rendering useless my carefully learned Latin prayers). Holy days of obligation were optional. There were laypeople on the heretofore sacred ground of the altar — performing the sacraments and worse, handling the Host. The powerful symbolism of the priest turning the Host into the body of Christ cracked like an egg.

In his book, ‘Goodbye! Good Men,’ author Michael Rose writes that the liberalized rules set up a takeover of seminaries by homosexuals.

Vatican II liberalized rules but left the most outdated one: celibacy. That vow was put in place originally because the church did not want heirs making claims on money and land. But it ended up shrinking the priest pool and producing the wrong kind of candidates -- drawing men confused about their sexuality who put our children in harm's way.

The church is dying from a thousand cuts. Its cover-up has cost a fortune and been a betrayal worthy of Judas. The money spent came from social programs, Catholic schools and the poor. This should be a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. I asked a friend of mine recently what he would do if his child was molested after the church knew. ‘I would probably kill someone,’ he replied.

We must reassess. Married priests and laypeople giving the sacraments are not going to destroy the church. Based on what we have seen the last 10 years, they would be a bargain. It is time to go back to the disciplines that the church was founded on and remind our seminaries and universities what they are. (Georgetown University agreeing to cover religious symbols on stage to get President Obama to speak was not exactly fierce.)

The storm within the church strikes at what every Catholic fears most. We take our religion on faith. How can we maintain that faith when our leaders are unworthy of it?”

As you can see from the highlighted portion, this column makes a mistake that is made time and time again. It links homosexuality and pedophilia, implying that one is related to the other. Clearly the author had a childhood experience involving a priest and male child, so might make the assumption that the priest was attracted to men. However, pedophilia is a sexual preference to prepubescent children. It is not related to whether you are attracted to males or females. It's a completely different class. There is not a mature sexual attraction to other adults, therefore pedophiles are not what are classified as heterosexual or homosexual. The excerpt above states that "the liberalized rules set up a takeover of seminaries by homosexuals". So? This give the impression these homosexuals are the ones abusing children. However, homosexual clergy are not the ones abusing the children. Clergy that are pedophiles are abusing children. To make matters worse, a corrupt and shadowy system is working to cover up the abuse and pay-off victims across the globe.

While this seems like something easy to understand, articles like this (at the time of this post it's the #1 e-mailed article on the NYT homepage) perpetuate ignorance.

Update 1:

See post from BTB for info about the incorrect Vatican Council dates in the NYT article.

No comments: