Wednesday, June 06, 2012

Sister Act: Dealing with Maureen Dowd's Discontents with the Catholic Church

The New York Times is where liberals opposed to dogmatism issue their anathemas.

Maureen Dowd complains in yesterday's Times that the Catholic Church is not keeping up with the modern world. That crusty old Pope. He's such a square. He's not hep to the jive. And wassup with this grampa being down with these nuns anyway?

Dowd is panting so hard trying to keep up with the times that she doesn't realize that the advice she's giving the Church today will, a few years down the road, itself sound hopelessly out of date. That's what happens when your moral code is nothing more than a cultural weather vane.

Dowd's own doctrinaire secular liberalism is offended by the Church's opposition to contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, divorce, and abortion. According to liberal dogma, sex is for pleasure. Period. And anyone who dissents from this view is to be hauled before the politically correct tribunal and charged with Intolerance.

Secular liberals don't like the Bible too much, but they consider the Kama Sutra to be holy writ.

The immediate occasion of Dowd's denunciation was the Vatican order that the Sisters of St. Joseph be reformed. The problem with the sisters? Not much, except they're basically against everything their own church is for.

Dowd seems particularly enamored of Sister Margaret Farley who wrote a book championing "self-pleasuring."  Self-pleasuring. Yeah, that's why you give up all worldly possessions, don a habit and spend long hours in prayer and meditation.

I mean, isn't that what you do when you're looking for fun? Get yourself a Chrysler and head on down the Atlanta highway looking for that funky little monastery where we can get together? That's where I wanna spend my jukebox money.

It's spring break. Let's head on down to Gethsemane Abbey. 

After condemning the Church for being consistent with its teachings, she then condemns it for being inconsistent with them, pointing to the recent pedophile priest scandal. Maybe we should just be thankful that Dowd's ever changing secular morality still considers pedophilia wrong. We should probably enjoy it before this stray vestige of Christian morality too is wiped away on the journey toward the utopia promised by the sexual revolution.

Dowd (who wrote an entire book questioning whether men are necessary) talks about a "thuggish crusade" by the Catholic Church, Hell-bent on sending Catholic women "back into moldy subservience." You know, like Saints Teresa of Ávila, Catherine of Siena, and Thérèse de Lisieux, all of whom are considered doctors of the Church.

I'll take any one of these over the liberal's patron saint, Alfred Kinsey, any day.

I'm not normally in favor of sending women into moldy subservience. But in Maureen Dowd's case, I'm willing to make an exception.


22 comments:

Lee said...

> who wrote an entire book questioning whether men are necessary

Getting dumped by Michael Douglas was an epiphany.

KyCobb said...

"Maybe we should just be thankful that Dowd's ever changing secular morality still considers pedophilia wrong.
We should probably enjoy it before this stray vestige of Christian morality too is wiped away on the journey toward the utopia promised by the sexual revolution."

That's funny coming in a defense of a Church which spent decades protecting and facilitating pedophiles. The reality is that conservatives only care about protecting children before they are born; Lee even believes parents should have the right to abandon their children.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

You need to think your point through a little bit. The whole point is that some in the Church violated the Church's own ethic. The very fact that the Church is being charged with hypocrisy is a testimony to this. If the Church didn't hold to an ethical system in which pedophilia was considered wrong, the very charge of hypocrisy wouldn't make sense.

KyCobb said...

"The whole point is that some in the Church violated the Church's own ethic."

And yet you think it totally wouldn't be hypocritical for a secular ethic based on expanding humans rights would suddenly support the sexual exploitation of children. That's kind of my point.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

My point is that the secular ethic is in a constant state of flux and that things like incest and pedophilia are in its future line of trajectory.

Lee said...

> Lee even believes parents should have the right to abandon their children.

Along the same vein, Ky believes we should re-institute slavery and debtor's prison.

That remark is just about as fair as Ky's.

KyCobb said...

"My point is that the secular ethic is in a constant state of flux and that things like incest and pedophilia are in its future line of trajectory."

Your point is false. An ethic which accepts the right of adults to engage in private consensual sexual activity is not on a trajectory toward the sexual exploitation of children. In fact, the modern trajectory has been in the opposite direction; it wasn't so long ago in Kentucky that parents could assent to their child's marriage at any age.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Is this the ethic you accept?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

As I think I've mentioned before, I believe in a universal application of the Golden Rule as a matter of enlightened self-interest. The greatest likelihood I have of having my rights respected is in a society in which everyone's rights are respected. Its the guiding principle behind the establishment of our nation, and over time we have haltingly moved to ever more universal application of that principle.

Lee said...

> As I think I've mentioned before, I believe in a universal application of the Golden Rule as a matter of enlightened self-interest.

So then, it follows that whenever the Golden Rule is no longer in your enlightened self-interest, it is okay to not observe it.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"So then, it follows that whenever the Golden Rule is no longer in your enlightened self-interest, it is okay to not observe it."

That's one of the great things about living in a democratic society with a Constitution. I can't just make that decision and liberate myself from being required to live by the rules of our nation, and its always going to be to the benefit of the vast majority to live by the Golden Rule. Of course, the danger is that with the power of their money the 1% have been getting closer to fooling the rest of us into believing the Golden Rule should be repealed and its every man for himself, or to be more accurate, every man for the corporation.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"That remark is just about as fair as Ky's."

Perhaps you can explain why my comment is unfair when you believe that child support orders should not be enforceable. On a related note, there is an article on Slate about whether there even can be a discussion about if fathers should have the right to abandon children they never wanted.

Lee said...

> "So then, it follows that whenever the Golden Rule is no longer in your enlightened self-interest, it is okay to not observe it."

You didn't answer the question.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

I'm just wondering how something like ncest threatens your enlightened self-interest.

KyCobb said...

"I'm just wondering how something like ncest threatens your enlightened self-interest."

Its in my self-interest to prevent birth defects caused by incestuous relationships. Though I'd point out that since I don't have the power to make laws all be myself, Congress and the General Assembly aren't going to pass laws based on the criteria of whether or not it benefits me personally, since I'm not a billionaire and I can't buy that many politicians. My benefit comes from living in a society which respects the rights of people in general.

KyCobb said...

"So then, it follows that whenever the Golden Rule is no longer in your enlightened self-interest, it is okay to not observe it."

That's why we have laws to keep people from acting in manners harmful to others for their own self-interest. Like when a non-custodial parent would rather spend his money on himself rather than his kids.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Your current version of morality of enlightened self-interest is already out-of-date. There are plenty of ways to avoid pregnancy these days, making this danger marginal.

Incest is no longer necessarily productive of children with birth defects.

So I'll ask again: what's the problem, in you moral system with incest?

Lee said...

> That's why we have laws to keep people from acting in manners harmful to others for their own self-interest. Like when a non-custodial parent would rather spend his money on himself rather than his kids.

So when someone can get away with not paying, it must be alright from a moral perspective.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

Unintended pregnancies happen all the time. That's sufficient reason to justify anti-incest laws.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

No. When I'm referring to enlightened self-interest, it concerns the community as a whole. So the Golden Rule can never conflict with enlightened self-interest. When I think about what is best for me alone, that's not enlightened, its just self-interest. But we don't make laws and community standards for individuals.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

So, then, you would have no objection to a law prohibiting, say, marriages between people, one of whom has AIDS, and another of whom doesn't?

Old Rebel said...

KyCobb,

"It's in my self-interest to prevent birth defects caused by incestuous relationships....My benefit comes from living in a society which respects the rights of people in general."

Then you'd agree we can enact and enforce immigration laws that keep incompatible cultures out of our country.