Good ... grief. Shouldn't a
writer for a self-professed Catholic newspaper actually know a
few things about Catholicism?
Tom Roberts'
November 9 post for the liberal National Catholic Reporter
is so rife with errors, falsehoods, and misrepresentation of the
Catholic faith, it is truly stupefying.
While attacking Archbishop
Timothy Dolan's
recent
post about the rampant anti-Catholicism at the New York
Times, Roberts airs a number of outrageously warped statements:
1. "It is once
and done for divorced Catholics. No mistakes can be tolerated.
It's either perfection or don't remarry, and if you do, stay
away from the Eucharistic table."
That's right. Catholics can't
remarry. And that can be a tough one, indeed. But this rule does
not come from some arbitrary decision by the Church. It comes
from Jesus himself. (See
Matthew 5,
Matthew 19;
Mark 10, and
Luke 16. Does Roberts even own a Bible?)
Matthew 19:7-9:
[The disciples] said to
[Jesus], "Then why did Moses command that the man give the
woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?"
He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts
Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the
beginning it was not so.
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage
is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."
And the last time I checked, one
of the Ten Commandments said, "You shall not commit adultery."
Does Tom Roberts, editor at
large at NCR, actually oppose Jesus?! It sure seems like
it.
2. "An entire
continent can face devastation from the AIDS epidemic, but the
church refuses to budge on its absolute opposition to the use of
condoms."
The truth is that the Church's
position against the use of condoms saves lives. And this
truth is scientifically proven!
Edward C. Green is the director
of Harvard's AIDS Prevention Research Project and a
self-professed liberal. In
a must-read, eye-opening March 2009 interview, Dr. Green
admitted that the Pope was entirely correct that condoms
aggravate the spread of AIDS in Africa:
INTERVIEWER: Is Pope
Benedict being criticized unfairly for his comments about
HIV and condoms?
DR. GREEN: This is hard for a liberal like me to admit,
but yes, it's unfair because in fact, the best evidence we
have supports his comments — at least his major
comments, the ones I have seen.
INTERVIEWER: What does the evidence show about the
effectiveness of condom-use strategies in reducing HIV
infection rates among large-scale populations?
Dr. GREEN: It will be easiest if we confine our discussion
to Africa, because that's where the pope is, and that is
what he was talking about. There's no evidence at all
that condoms have worked as a public health intervention
intended to reduce HIV infections at the "level of
population." This is a bit difficult to understand. It
may well make sense for an individual to use condoms every
time, or as often as possible, and he may well decrease his
chances of catching HIV. But we are talking about programs,
large efforts that either work or fail at the level of
countries, or, as we say in public health, the level of
population. Major articles published in Science, The
Lancet, British Medical Journal, and even Studies in Family
Planning have reported this finding since 2004. I first
wrote about putting emphasis on fidelity instead of condoms
in Africa in 1988.
In other words, the Church is
right, and Roberts' position of flinging condoms at Africans
endangers lives and kills people.
3.
"On the matter of homosexuality, the church claims to know
the mind and intent of God so intimately and perfectly that its
officials confidently pronounce that a whole category of humans
who have a homosexual orientation are intrinsically disordered
and are forever condemned to a life of sexual abstinence in
order to remain within the community."
First of all, the Church's
stance on homosexual acts does not come from a belief that it
"claims to know the mind and intent of God." The Church's
teaching on homosexual acts comes straight from the Bible.
Any clear-thinking individual,
whether they agree with it or not, can see that the Bible
clearly teaches that homosexual acts are sinful. (Romans
1,
1 Corinthians 6,
Jude 7 etc.). And because "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2
Tim 3:16), God has clearly spoken on this issue.
Second, Roberts is flat-out
wrong in saying that the Church asserts that all homosexual
persons are "intrinsically disordered." Rather, the
Catechism of the Church clearly states that homosexual acts
and homosexual inclination are disordered (2357).
The Church clearly discriminates between the person and
the sin. The very next paragraph (2358)
says,
This inclination, which is
objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a
trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion,
and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in
their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to
fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are
Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross
the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Roberts may also want to look at
the 1986 pastoral letter,
"Letter to the Bishops of The Catholic Church on the Pastoral
Care of Homosexual Persons." (Check out the author, too.) ("It
is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the
object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such
treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors
wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others
which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy
society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be
respected in word, in action and in law.")
4. "[N]o
organization on earth -- not other denominations or faith
groups, not the Boy Scouts or teachers or families -- has the
equivalent capacity and culture of the Catholic Church for
hiding and protecting sexual abusers ... it's why Cardinal Roger
Mahony in Los Angeles has spent millions in legal machinations
attempting to keep documents secret."
First, Roberts' assertions are
flat-out lies. Did the Church make mistakes in its handling of
abuse cases? Of course. But the Church's misdeeds in this
regard are history. And there's every indication that decades
ago the Catholic Church handled abuse cases in the very same way
that every other large organization did. (Take the 1980's case
of
Terry Bartholome in the Los Angeles Unified School District
(LAUSD). LAUSD hired the guy even though they knew he had been
arrested for publicly exposing himself. Then, while Bartholome
was a teacher, people complained about abuse by him
for years. Despite numerous people having
knowledge of abuse, no one at LAUSD called police!) (And
as recently as 2007 (!), LAUSD placed an administrator in a
middle school even though it had concrete information that he
was investigated for having sex with an underage student. And
after he was placed, the administrator molested again.)
Second, Cardinal Mahony has not
"spent millions in legal machinations attempting to keep
documents secret." Although the L.A. archdiocese challenged a
court order years ago regarding the release of documents, it
lost its appeal and subsequently obeyed the court. As a result,
any documents in question
have been in the hands of a judge for years. And Los
Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, hardly a friend of the
Church, has stated that he has "not had one report from any
source" (including the fact-challenged
John Manly) saying the Church in Los Angeles has violated
its mandatory reporting statute.
5. "No bishop
has yet given a detailed report of his complicity in the
scandal. No bishop has detailed, without being forced by public
pressure or civil authorities, his personal culpability in the
scandal."
Another flat-out lie by Roberts.
In fact, many bishops have repeatedly and publicly apologized
for their mishandling of the scandal. For example, in his 2004
"Report to the People of God" (over three years before the
huge settlement$), Cardinal Mahony wrote:
"Once again I sincerely
apologize to anyone who has suffered from sexual misconduct
or abuse by a priest, deacon, lay minister, employee or
volunteer of the Archdiocese. I acknowledge my own
mistakes during my eighteen years as your Archbishop.
Apologies are vitally necessary, but, of themselves, are
insufficient. My goal as your Archbishop is to do all in my
power to prevent sexual abuse by anyone serving our
Archdiocese now and in the future."
In the same report (see
page 21 of the pdf), the Cardinal outlines specifically
how terribly he mishandled the case of Father Michael Baker.
The Church has paid out well
over a billion dollars to victims. (What other organization has
done this? Not LAUSD!) And the Church has instituted
several programs to try and prevent these awful crimes from
happening again. (And as someone who has attended Mass in
Southern California weekly, I can attest to the fact that
every week in my church bulletin, I was reminded of the
scandal and the programs that the archdiocese has put in place
to prevent abuse.)
6. "The reality
is, of course, that it is increasingly difficult to establish an
anti-Catholic case of any substance or depth in the culture when
so much -- industry, politics, finance, academia, the Supreme
Court itself -- is in the hands of high-profile Catholics ...
The cry 'anti-Catholic!' has become a cheap and easy
accusation."
With the exception of citing the
Supreme Court, Roberts does not give a single example of
a "high-profile" Catholic. Though they certainly exist, who is
Roberts thinking of as a "high-profile" Catholic? Nancy Pelosi,
who thumbs her nose at fundamental Church teaching? Patrick
Kennedy? Joe Biden? In other words, many of these so-called
"Catholics" don't adhere to the faith at all.
And the fact that Catholics have
seats on the Supreme Court has produced a number of
anti-Catholic attacks. (See
Tony Auth's 2007 cartoon, for example;
MoveOn.org ...)
If Roberts doesn't believe
anti-Catholicism is alive and thriving in the United States,
he's simply delusional. Roberts needs to get off the computer
and get some fresh air. The mountains of evidence showing
anti-Catholicism are overwhelming.
The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice
by Philip Jenkins
The
Catholic League
TheMediaReport.com
7. "[Archbishop
Timothy Dolan's]
recent
blog posting accused The New York Times and the wider
culture of indulging in rampant anti-Catholic activity."
First of all, there was nothing
"cheap and easy" about Dolan's article. It was extremely
well-written with several supporting examples.
Second, Roberts makes no mention
of the fact that Archbishop Dolan edited his post and submitted
it as an opinion piece to the Times. And even though Archbishop
Dolan is the shepherd of the New York archdiocese, the Times
declined to publish it.
Good ... grief.
Anti-Catholic? Without a doubt.
-=-=-=-=-
There's even more to say
about Roberts' error-ridden piece, but I'll end it here.
Suffice it to say, judging from
his article, Tom Roberts does not believe in the Catholic
Church. He believes in the church of ... Tom Roberts.
Roberts writes, "Everyone wishes
this horrible period would come to an end." If this "horrible
period" is the publication of the dreadful National Catholic
Reporter, I hope it ends, too.