The Angry, Lazy Bigotry of Maureen Dowd

The Angry, Lazy Bigotry of Maureen Dowd | Carl E. Olson | Catholic World Report

The New York Times columnist has passed caricature and is heading for complete farce

Maureen Dowd, as most readers know, writes a regular op-ed column for the New York Times. Her dislike for certain people and institutions is quite obvious, mostly because she fixates on them in nearly every column: men, the Catholic Church (specifically, the pope, bishops, priests), Republicans (especially men who are leaders in the GOP), and men. Oh—and men.

But what Dowd seems to have a special aversion to is not male or female, nor does it belong to a political party: facts. She avoids them like she apparently avoids straight, white, conservative Catholic men—with a snarky, snarling vengeance.

Her most recent screed, disguised as a column in a classic black-and-white serif font, is titled, "Bishops Plays Church Queens as Pawns" (Apr. 28, 2012). Not surprisingly, it is filled with sneering at Catholic bishops and Church authority; it is not, however, filled with facts, documented information, or even cogent arguments. That would be too much work, I suppose, for a liberated woman such Dowd, whose has been liberated not only from men but also from the reality and appearance of actual research and thoughtful writing. Sadly, she has a loyal readership, and her particular style of lefty, drive-by op-ed writing appeals to a swath of people who are, for the most part, practitioners of a convenient and trendy bigotry. It's not just that they, like Dowd, dislike and even hate the Catholic Church, but they do so with such an audacious lack of reason and intellectual integrity that they can best be described as lazy and self-serving—the two qualities being joined at the hip, as they usually are.

With that said, let's take a look at some of the howlers, mistakes, curiosities, and falsehoods in Dowd's screed:

It is an astonishing thing that historians will look back and puzzle over, that in the 21st century, American women were such hunted creatures.

Goodness, this is a badly written sentence. Does Dowd mean to say it is astonishing that historians of the future will be historians and look back at history with the intent of examining and analyzing the historical record? Should we be astonished that historians will do their jobs in the years to come? She meant to say, of course, the following: "It is astonishing that American women are hunted creatures in 21st century—and that historians will therefore study and puzzle over this fact." But that is hardly any better, for at least two reasons.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.