EDITING DOLANBy Charlie SykesThe New York Times refuses to run a column by New York's new archbishop, Timothy Dolan. But Dolan is a hard man to shut up. Here's some of what the Times didn't want to publish: Finally, the most combustible example of all came Sunday with an intemperate and scurrilous piece by Maureen Dowd on the opinion pages of the Times. In a diatribe that rightly never would have passed muster with the editors had it so criticized an Islamic, Jewish, or African-American religious issue, she digs deep into the nativist handbook to use every anti-Catholic caricature possible, from the Inquisition to the Holocaust, condoms, obsession with sex, pedophile priests, and oppression of women, all the while slashing Pope Benedict XVI for his shoes, his forced conscription -- along with every other German teenage boy -- into the German army, his outreach to former Catholics, and his recent welcome to Anglicans. True enough, the matter that triggered her spasm -- the current visitation of women religious by Vatican representatives -- is well-worth discussing, and hardly exempt from legitimate questioning. But her prejudice, while maybe appropriate for the Know-Nothing newspaper of the 1850’s, the Menace, has no place in a major publication today. |
|


Thursday, Nov 5 at 5:37 PM btycrkr to Dave P wrote ...
Apology accepted. Sorry for flyin' off the handle.
31663324 Flag for moderationWednesday, Nov 4 at 11:24 PM Hank wrote ...
Dave P. is a gentleman... as usual, the LIBS have tried to deflect the issue of this blog - it's not about pedophilia, it's about the suppression of opposing viewpoints to the Lamestream Press, as represented by Dowd, etc. Whether Dolan is right or wrong, he should have his opportunity to respond. The NYT displays its bias by its censorship of Dolan's response. People, please get a clue about the Lamestream Press.
31615364 Flag for moderationWednesday, Nov 4 at 9:43 AM Dave P. to btycrkr wrote ...
My response was directed to John H's comments, and in your defense. I messed up on the name field (should have read "Dave P. to whoever...). I do apologize for any confusion caused, and in no way did I mean to offend you.
31574086 Flag for moderationTuesday, Nov 3 at 5:12 PM btycrkr to whoever wrote ...
I ASSume you were referring to me with your childish name-calling. Sorry I couldn't immediately respond to your post. I was not ignoring you. I still have a job and cannot be at the computer at your convenience. I dn't recall discussing doctrine versus dogma. I believe that was someone else. Before you go off half-cocked, you might want to get your cr_ap together. Thanks!
31539929 Flag for moderationTuesday, Nov 3 at 12:36 PM Whoever replied "To Butcrkr" wrote ...
I see you've disregarded my previous post on what a "discipline" (changeable policy) is. Meatless Fridays and clerical celibacy are both instances of these, and neither are dogma. Also, the reasons you state for these disciplines are historically inaccurate, and sound like they've been pulled from a Jack Chick comic book. Lastly, if you don't know the difference between discipline and dogma, you're a poorly educated and/or willfully ignorant Catholic.
31524816 Flag for moderationTuesday, Nov 3 at 12:00 PM BV wrote ...
Gotta love how the liberal media nit picks on the acts of a few and generalizes those acts on the rest of the catholic religion. Wait, isn't that discrimination? Oh the hypocrisy.
31522669 Flag for moderationTuesday, Nov 3 at 11:39 AM JTR wrote ...
Has anyone seen Dowd on TV lately? She needs to update her picture in the Times. It must be from about 20 years ago. How about some truth in journalism.
31521264 Flag for moderationTuesday, Nov 3 at 11:38 AM To Butcrkr wrote ...
Eating meat on Fridays used to be a sin. Why, because the Church agreed to support fisherman in the middle ages, for a profit. Priests used to be married until the Church realized that they were losing money when the priest died and he left things to his family. If the Church can change their beliefs how can you say that Catholics who do not believe in every bit of dogma are not Catholics? When they hid pedohiles it limited their ability to use the "must believe everything" lie.
31521184 Flag for moderationTuesday, Nov 3 at 11:28 AM John H to Dave P wrote ...
Dave everyone breaks rules they don't like. To be a pastor one must be an Adminstrator they go hand in hand. To pretend you can separate one from the other is not facing reality. And trying to turn this into a liberal conservative issue is just as stupid. I was around in the 50-60-70's and there were more conservative priests than liberal. After Vatican Council many liberal priests left the church as the Church was not becoming liberal enough in their eyes.
31520576 Flag for moderationTuesday, Nov 3 at 10:13 AM Dave P. to John H. (cont') wrote ...
3) Liberals (and those who go along with them) break rules they don't like. The offenders should never have been ordained, according to church law. This was routinely ignored. Those dioceses and religious communities who follow the rules get rid of anyone showing such tendencies, usually early on.
31515864 Flag for moderationTuesday, Nov 3 at 10:08 AM Dave P to John H. wrote ...
Two reasons why it matters (and one on why it doesn't) 1) A good number of bishops have been administrators first and pastors second, which means when a crisis comes up, the CYA mindset comes into play. That's why Cardinal Law (a "conservative") aided in covering up matters, instead of throwing the perverts out. 2) The liberal mindset towards sexuality aids and abets perverts. The vast majority of offenders were in the "liberal" camp.
31515614 Flag for moderationTuesday, Nov 3 at 8:55 AM John H to Dave P wrote ...
What the hell does liberal or conservative have to do with covering up pedophilia? I think that is the dumbest post I ever read.
31510909 Flag for moderationTuesday, Nov 3 at 8:53 AM John H to btycrkr wrote ...
Then you better tell those Catholics with vasectomys distributing Communion that they are not welcome,and also the spouses of men with vasectomys doing the same. Let me know what they tell you. Or let me know whey your pastor is going to tell them? There are Cafeteria Catholics on altars every Sunday, using your definition. Did it ever occur to you, that the people making the rules are the Cafeteria Catholics and the rest of us have figured it out.
31510834 Flag for moderationTuesday, Nov 3 at 7:51 AM Anonymous wrote ...
wow jordan, "dumba**", "s-bag"--you continue on your pathetic, lonely ways.
31506941 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 11:17 PM Anonymous wrote ...
Anonymous the Bargain Basement Lawyer has astounded us all with his brilliantly reasoned proof that the NYT is entitled to print or not print whatever it wishes. Well, DUH! IF the NYT wanted to maintain a credible pretense of objectivity, they'd check their facts and cover both sides. Again, duh. It appears they don't. What a surprise.
31496631 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 10:33 PM Protestant wrote ...
Dolan is absolutely right in his comments. The NYT can choose to print Maureen Dowd and not Dolan, but they do so at their own peril - (not suggesting anything violent, DEMS - just talking about business decisions)
31495339 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 8:50 PM Jordan wrote ...
Good god Anonymoron, nice post: "A newspaper can be as one-sided and biased as it wants to be. It's called freedom of the press." Very true... Your colleages at the Shep Express take full advantage of freedom of the press. The thing is everyone with a functioning brain knows the SE is a complete and total liberal joke... The NY times, however, poses itself as a source of credible news dumbass. GET IT? The Onion has FOS too but they don't portend to be a credible news source u idiot.
31492339 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 8:40 PM Jordan to Anon wrote ...
Hello... You called me pathetic a post or two ago, saying u know my type.. who hide behind computers... I ain't hiding s-bag.. I am asking you (ort any other liberal who hates me) to have a lil' chat... face to face... :) Come on Buddy.. It'll be a hoot!
31492054 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 7:41 PM DAve P. to John H. wrote ...
2) Unfortunately, both liberal and conservative bishops had the CYA mindset when it came to the Scandal. But most of the offending priests were ordained in the 60's and 70's, and most of them could be termed "liberal". Paul Shanley is one egregious example. Lastly, the worst episcopal offender in coverups is a liberal - Cardinal Mahoney in LA. A lot of Catholics are disgusted by his actions, and there's even money he could be made to quit his see and his place as a Cardinal.
31490154 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 7:37 PM Dave P to John H wrote ...
There's this thing called "discipline", which are items which can be changed as circumstances dictate. Fasting days or times of fasting fall under this category. If you want a Biblical example, read the Acts of the Apostles, in which the Council of Jerusalem prohibits eating anything bloody. That discipline no longer applies.
31490004 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 6:42 PM btycrkr to John H. wrote ...
Perhaps you should re-read my post. I did not say cafeteria Catholics don't count. I said they are not Catholic. Not FOLLOWING Catholic doctrine is a sin. Obviously it is wrong to sin, and in my opinion, the pedophile priests were even more egregious as they held a position of trust and violated that trust. Not BELIEVING all Catholic doctrine means you are not Catholic. Just because they call themselves Catholic does not make them so.
31488136 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 6:30 PM John H to Amy and btycrkr wrote ...
BS Cafeteria Catholics don't count, they count alot. Just because the Church says it is a sin, does not always make it so. Eating meat on Friday was once a mortal sin, not fasting from midnight same, not now. The Church anulling marriaes of divorced Catholids simply for a price mainly to keep the money train rolling. Very few Catholcis, real or Cafeteria, continue to make their Easter Duty. Protecting pedhophiles should be a sin,and it is not Cafeteria Catholics committing that travesty.
31487789 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 6:23 PM btycrkr to anonymoron wrote ...
Um, trying to force the American people to PURCHASE ANYTHING is unconstitutional, ya know, like health care??????
31487521 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 6:13 PM Anonymous wrote ...
enlighten us--in what way has the obama administration violated the constitution?
31487144 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 5:57 PM Dragondazin wrote ...
Whats really rich is the libs telling us that we dont understand the constitution, Especially after all the butt wiping the current administration has done with it so far!
31486469 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 5:37 PM Anonymous wrote ...
alright, if you people are experts in journalistic ethics, tell me according to what source a newspaper has an ethical duty to present opposing views on their op-ed page. and why doesn't this supposed duty apply to papers like the washington times and the wall street journal? i'll tell you why---because there is no such duty.
31485589 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 5:33 PM btycrkr to JPH wrote ...
Amy P is absolutely correct. You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe in a religion. If you do not believe in all the tenets of that faith, you are not of that faith. Start your own "religion" if you are unhappy. But don't call yourself Catholic if you want birth control and abortion.
31485411 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 5:31 PM btycrkr to Dave P wrote ...
Unfortunately "journalistic ethics" is now an oxymoron! Anonymass is just a moron....
31485231 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 5:27 PM Anonymous wrote ...
"elementary" and dave p.--no. this was an opinion which was written on the op-ed page. it's not in the news portion of the paper. by definition, the op-eds are not an objective part of the paper. the paper does not have any obligation to provide "both sides" in the op-eds. and no, it's not censorship. they didn't "remove" anything--they can choose what to print in their own op-ed section.
31485071 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 5:18 PM Dave P. wrote ...
...between what one may do, and what one should do. And you need to realize that saying that one ought to do something is not a violation of rights, but the free exercise of rights; that is, the freedom of speech.
31484696 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 5:15 PM Dave P. wrote ...
You're confusing rights and duties. Yes, a newspaper has a right to be as biased as it wants. I'm not arguing that. But we're talking journalistic ethics here. We're talking providing a public forum for the exchange of ideas, just as we're doing here. These are things which cannot and should not be compelled, but should be done by any periodical which values that exchange of ideas. Again, no one should be compelled to do this. But there is a difference...
31484571 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 5:08 PM Elementary language comprehension wrote ...
Anonymous doesn't do the "English" thing very well. Yes, they have a right to do it, but it's still "censorship" by definition, i.e. removing a material they consider objectionable. And "if-then" dependencies, like "IF they want to pretend they're objective THEN they have a duty...," I'm sure are way over his head. But they'll cover all that stuff when he gets to the 5th grade.
31484256 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 5:02 PM Anonymous wrote ...
No, Dave P. You're wrong. They don't have a duty to print a response. A newspaper can be as one-sided and biased as it wants to be. It's called freedom of the press.
31483994 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 4:43 PM Dave P. (cont') wrote ...
...which is that the NYT is a biased and out-of-the-times rag which market forces will take care of in due time...
31483064 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 4:40 PM Dave P. to Anonymous wrote ...
It is true that the Times, or any publication, has the right to print what it wants. So says the First Amendment. That being said, a periodical which supposedly welcomes diverse points of view has a duty to print a response, especially from someone who represents an organization, as the Archbishop does. That's a matter of honesty and objectivity, neither of which can or should be enforced. But I certainly have the right to express my opinion of the matter...
31482954 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 4:14 PM Anonymous wrote ...
you're completely wrong. the times doesn't have a "duty" to print both sides. that is completely contrary to the first amendment. i know that the right wing is ignorant of the constitution, but that's pretty basic stuff...
31481644 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 4:04 PM Amy P. wrote ...
Cafeteria Catholics don't count, JPH. You don't believe 100% in the teachings of the Church, you are NOT a Catholic. It's that simple, and the Episcopalian Church will welcome you. If the NYT wants to pretend they're objective, they have a duty to 1) print both sides of a story and 2) make sure they are factually accurate. Dowd's piece was nothing but lies; Dolan shattered each of them. Which is why the left wants power over the Net: it gives a voice to conservatives fighting liberal smears.
31481154 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 3:52 PM JPH wrote ...
Dowd is a Catholic. She doesn't have to agree with everything Catholic. I for one know of many Catholics who do not agree with their teaching birth control, and still consider themselves Catholics. This is just another lame attempt by Conservatives to taint the NYTimes, and liberals can do the same thing with Glenn Beck everyday, as he says things just as stupid. It is just spin.
31480361 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 3:46 PM Anonymous wrote ...
It's not censorship. The Times can print whatever it wants. Dolan doesn't have a right to have the Times print his apologist drivel.
31480009 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 1:09 PM Mary F. wrote ...
Powerful response by Archbishop Dolan. He is so good for us, especially in New York. Keep it coming, as we miss him.
31472059 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 12:11 PM Papa Z wrote ...
Milwaukee's loss is certainly New York's gain! Good for the Archbishop!
31468617 Flag for moderationMonday, Nov 2 at 11:22 AM Amy P. wrote ...
Editing is the wrong word. CENSORING is more appropriate. Dowd's column was nothing but talking points lifted from the likes of Bill Maher and her own anti-Catholic bias. If that's what passes for journalism, well, we know why papers are failing. It is good that Dolan is NY's Archbishop; Heaven knows we need someone like him to talk sense in the midst of such nonsense.
31465882 Flag for moderationAdd a comment
Most Popular