The end of October proved to be a wild time for the Catholic bashers. Perhaps anticipating Halloween, they unleashed a fury. What was most noticeable was the origins of the attacks: they came from the MSM, or mainstream media. Specifically, they came from some of the most influential newspapers in the nation.
On October 28, in the Washington Post blog, “On Faith,” English atheist Richard Dawkins took after the Catholic Church by claiming that it was “surely up there among the leaders” as “the greatest force for evil in the world.” He labeled the Eucharist a “cannibal feast,” adding that “possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite.” These aren’t the words of a person who disagrees with the Catholic Church. These are the words of a bigot.
Dawkins also blamed the Church for sending missionaries “out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans” regarding condoms. The Church’s outreach to Anglicans, he said, makes it “a common pimp,” noting that those who convert “will be joining an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture.” It must be difficult for this Brit to see all the Anglicans lining up single file to bolt from his nation’s official religion for Catholicism.
The next day, a Los Angeles Times editorial said that “church leaders, including popes, have changed their thinking over the years about everything from usury to the culpability of Jews for the Crucifixion….” It concluded, “You don’t have to be Catholic (or Anglican) to realize that society as a whole would be better off if the church’s views of women and gays underwent a similar evolution.” In other words, the problem with America is that the Catholic Church doesn’t take its cues from the deep thinkers in L.A.
The following day, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd recalled that when she was in grade school, “Nuns were second-class citizens then and–40 years after feminism utterly changed America—they still are.” She called Pope Benedict XVI the “uber-conservative pope,” a.k.a. “God’s Rottweiler,” who was once “a conscripted member of the Hitler Youth.” She also accused the Church of enabling “rampant pedophilia.” Amazing how this talented writer is factually wrong about everything.
James Carroll in the Boston Globe completed the fourth consecutive day of attacks by calling the outreach to Anglicans “a cruel assault,” “an insult to loyal Catholic liberals” and “a slap at women and homosexuals.” He characterized the outreach as a “preemptive exploitation of Anglican distress.” Question: Why would an ex-priest care who his former religion was welcoming in? And why are Catholic liberals insulted to learn of new members? Would they be happy if more left? Finally, why would women and gays claim victim status because unhappy Anglicans are looking for a new home?
Bill Donohue did not hold back in his assessment of this onslaught: “These deranged comments—all voiced in America’s premier newspapers—demonstrate that anti-Catholicism is the most virulent expression of bigotry in the U.S. It also shows why these newspapers, quite unlike the Catholic Church, are dying. As for the writers, they need to go to church. Either that or check into an asylum.”
Dawkins is perhaps the world’s most famous atheist. The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times is occupied by full-throated secularists. Maureen Dowd is one of those “raised Catholics” whose specialty is whining. And James Carroll is so angry at himself for joining the priesthood that he lives every moment seeking revenge.
What’s also sad, and a telling commentary on contemporary anti-Catholicism, is that these newspapers thought such rubbish was worth publishing.
