Dowd's "Devil of a Scandal": Guess Who Is Again Being Accused of a Diabolic Plot?

In an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "Devil of a Scandal", Maureen Dowd scolds the Vatican for its refusal to address its burgeoning pedophilia scandal and its attempt to hold itself out as the victim of a "New York Jewish Lobby". My online response, if The Times deigns to post it:

As noted by Ms. Dowd, the denunciation of Catholic priests suspected of pedophilia is being compared with anti-Semitism, and "La Repubblica reported that 'certain Catholic circles' suspected that 'a New York Jewish lobby' was responsible for the outcry against the pope."

But there's more. On Good Friday, “Let us Pray for the Conversion of the Jews” was recited, purportedly by mistake, by traditionalist Catholic congregations in Italy and the Society of Saint Pius X, whose bishops' excommunication was remitted by Pope Benedict in January 2009.

Elsewhere, Afghanistan's President Karzai has stated that the Americans, whom Karzai labels "invaders", are in Afghanistan because they want to dominate his country and prevent him from reaching a peace agreement with the Taliban. As observed in a recent article in The New York Times, Karzai's brother, who is allegedly involved in the narcotics trade, money laundering, election fraud and deals with the Taliban, is also allegedly in bed with the CIA. The response of certain persons in the Obama administration: Israel's failure to achieve peace with the Palestinians is endangering U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Heaven knows what the Jews or Israel have to do with the Catholic church's pedophilia scandal or U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, but they are always there to blame.

Maybe those at the Vatican who would have us believe that a "New York Jewish Lobby" is responsible for the current outcry against the pope are referring to AIPAC, which is also being pilloried by the new left for its alleged fiendish manipulation and control of the U.S. government. Peculiar, or not so peculiar, how the extreme left and right are always able to find common ground demonizing the Jews and Israel.

Pope Benedict, Leadership and Silence

Yesterday, Maureen Dowd of The New York Times took the position in her op-ed "A Nope for Pope" that Pope Benedict should go home to Bavaria for his silence regarding child molestation by priests. I agree with Dowd; however, I object to the "holier than thou" attitude of someone who remained silent in the face of depraved abuse, e.g., "honor killings", of Saudi women. Although Dowd is not the pope, she had the power, owing to her position at The Times, to make a difference. She also chose to remain silent.

Today, Ross Douthat of The New York Times , in an op-ed entitled "A Time for Contrition", pontificates on the issue of Benedict and child molestation from the other side of the spectrum. My online response, if The Times deigns to post it (The Times' "moderators", who have repeatedly demonstrated that they are anything but "moderate", refused to post my prior comment to Dowd's op-ed, but as is often said, miracles do happen):

Silence in the face of child molestation is not a matter for mere contrition. There is nothing more wicked and depraved than the sexual abuse of helpless children, and there should be no room for silence regarding this issue.

Also, in December Benedict approved a decree recognizing the "heroic virtues" of Pope Pius XII, moving Pius one step closer to sainthood. Notwithstanding the opposition of Catholic scholars from around the world who have implored Benedict to delay the sainthood of Pius, Benedict seems intent upon canonizing a pope who remained silent during the Holocaust.

Douthat writes "Popes do not resign." Not true: Pope Gregory XII resigned to end the Western Schism, and Pope Celestine V decreed it permissible for a pope to resign and did so.

Benedict, for the benefit of his flock, should call it quits.

Sorry, Ross, there is no room for contrition here. Contrition be damned! Leaders do not remain silent in the face of child abuse. Benedict must go.

A Nope for Pope? How About a Clean Maureen?

In an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "A Nope for Pope", Maureen Dowd holds Pope Benedict's feet to the fire for ignoring the horrifying sexual abuse of young boys by Catholic priests. My online response, if The Times deigns to post it:

A Nope for Pope? How about a Clean Maureen?

Dowd complains that the pope turned a deaf ear to the horrifying molestation of some 200 deaf boys.

Are you really any better, Maureen? You traveled to Saudi Arabia and ignored countless "honor killings" perpetrated against Saudi women and dared not lift your pen to describe recent instances where Saudi women were gang raped and then sentenced to prison and lashes.

Sorry, Maureen, but this is rank hypocrisy on your part.

Dowd would send Benedict home to Bavaria. I agree, and I think Maureen should also be shipped home for her willingness to turn a blind eye to Saudi barbarities.

[As might be expected, my online comment was censored by The New York Times.]