Columnist blasts conservative Catholics

[Riley259]

fix:

Check out the views of this man and compare them to the views of the columnist. I did. One is consistent with the magisterial techings of the Church and one is consistent with hard left relativism.

I agree. CJ Doyle consistently writes for the Archdiocesian newspaper “The Pilot” and his views are consistently in line with the Magisterium. In other words, he’s a faithful Catholic who puts his neck on the line all the time in this hostile area of the country. Eileen McNamara has consistently used her columns to criticize and belittle the church in an effort to pursue her liberal secular agenda.

 

[Riley259]

malibu364:

I read the linked article, and this entire thread and, quite frankly, I don’t see where the woman’s opinion is an anti-Catholic rant. Her charge in the column, which is an opinion, not straight news, is that she feels the Boston archdiocesan hierarchy is using anti-abortion “zealots” as the columnist calls them, to counter the clamoring of the “reformers”, who want to change the hierarchical structure of the Church in the wake of the clergy sex abuse scandals.

Now I don’t really believe that the Boston archdiocese is promoting any such activity, but if it were taking place, it certainly would deflect attention from the impact of the scandals that have rocked the Boston archdiocese, as well as, those in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and elsewhere.

It appears to me that she is suggesting that real answers to the future of that diocese and the Church will come from neither the “fanatical” faithful Catholics, nor the “dissident” faithful (I know, I know, it’s an oxymoron), both seeking attention, but from, as she puts it, those “sincere people in the pews [who] are struggling with how best to rebuild the trust that was shattered by revelations of official complicity in the clergy sexual abuse scandal.”

In as much as I believe this is the point she is trying to make, I agree, in large part, with this general proposition and but not necessarily her characterizations of any person or group of people. In my opinion, those charging anti-Catholic bias are looking for things that aren’t there.

If being faithful to the Pope and Magisterium is fanatical then count me in as one of them.

 

[Michael_C]

With her inflamed descriptions of the protestors and assumptions of what they think she wrote a coloumn that doesn’t tell me much and doesn’t make much sense.

 

[miguel]

malibu364:

It appears to me that she is suggesting that real answers to the future of that diocese and the Church will come from neither the “fanatical” faithful Catholics, nor the “dissident” faithful (I know, I know, it’s an oxymoron), both seeking attention, but from, as she puts it, those “sincere people in the pews [who] are struggling with how best to rebuild the trust that was shattered by revelations of official complicity in the clergy sexual abuse scandal.”

Somehow, I don’t think she includes “antiabortion zealots” with “those sincere people in the pews…” And she obviously doesn’t want the reader to either.

 

[vern_humphrey]

BillP:

Just out of idle curiosity, is any part of what Ms. MacNamara wrote untrue?

Are the quotes acurate? Is her characterization of those people factual?

Here’s another example:

They are a tiny band of antiabortion zealots, being exploited by the hierarchy in hopes of promoting a backlash against reformers outraged by the criminal conduct of predatory priests and the bishops who protected them.

And another:

This is what Mom has to say on her website, Magisterial Fidelity, about Governor Mitt Romney’s view that all hospitals are required to obey a new state law mandating that emergency contraception be offered to rape victims: ''Romney Now Says Catholic Hospitals Must Be Forced To Kill Children."

I’d say that Mom’s statement is accurate, and to call her a “zealot” – a perjorative term – is unfair.

 

[Celia]

steveandersen:

who, the author or the web site she was critiquing?

The author, Ms. McNamara. I feel bad for people who hold such misled views. Like I feel bad and pray for anyone who doesn’t know the Truth…by her article you can pretty much tell that she is pro-abortion, for gay “marriages” and the like.

 

[steveandersen]

Celia:

The author, Ms. McNamara. I feel bad for people who hold such misled views. Like I feel bad and pray for anyone who doesn’t know the Truth…by her article you can pretty much tell that she is pro-abortion, for gay “marriages” and the like.

how?
I didn’t see her mention any of those specifically

 

[malibu364]

Steve:

Exactly.

People continue to read and interpret things that aren’t there.

And…they continue to miss the point of the column itself. If you want to see ghosts badly enough you’ll see them. If you want to see anti-catholic bias in that column badly enough, you will see it.

To my reading, she considers herself neither part of the "fanatical " right conservatives or the “radical” left VOTF, but one of the many centrist people in the pew. But for those who think differently, believe what you want to believe.

 

[miguel]

steveandersen:

how?
I didn’t see her mention any of those specifically

Calling people with the courage to protest baby killing “antiabortion zealots” is kind of a hint that she’s a proabortion zealot.

 

[fix]

malibu364:

Steve:

Exactly.

People continue to read and interpret things that aren’t there.

And…they continue to miss the point of the column itself. If you want to see ghosts badly enough you’ll see them. If you want to see anti-catholic bias in that column badly enough, you will see it.

To my reading, she considers herself neither part of the "fanatical " right conservatives or the “radical” left VOTF, but one of the many centrist people in the pew. But for those who think differently, believe what you want to believe.

Calling those who reject Church teaching reformers is hardly a “centrist” postion.

 

[Riley259]

malibu364:

Steve:

Exactly.

People continue to read and interpret things that aren’t there.

And…they continue to miss the point of the column itself. If you want to see ghosts badly enough you’ll see them. If you want to see anti-catholic bias in that column badly enough, you will see it.

To my reading, she considers herself neither part of the "fanatical " right conservatives or the “radical” left VOTF, but one of the many centrist people in the pew. But for those who think differently, believe what you want to believe.

I read Ms. McNamara’s column regularly and she frequently will espouse her views on cultural issues. Believe me, she is definitely pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and in favor of ordaining women priests and contraception - she’s addressed all of these issues in the past. During one particularly offensive column two or three years ago regarding the topic of woman’s ordination, she longed for the day when John Paul II would die so that a new more liberal pope could reverse all those pesky teaching about sexual morality, etc. In my opinion, this woman is an enemy of the Church.

 

[BillP]

miguel:

Calling people with the courage to protest baby killing “antiabortion zealots” is kind of a hint that she’s a proabortion zealot.

Only to another “antiabortion zealot”.

 

[steveandersen]

miguel:

Calling people with the courage to protest baby killing “antiabortion zealots” is kind of a hint that she’s a proabortion zealot.

zealots are by nature…zealots
each side has to put up with their own

whether you agree with them or not, it is their methods not their goals and opinions that set them appart

 

[Michael_C]

The problem with the article is Eileen Mcnamara spends more energy labeling the people in her sites than she does making her point. A couple of sentences into the article I completely lost track of the fact there was a protest. She also doesn’t clearly explain what was being protested and what the positions of the poeple on either side were.

As a Catholic I am anit-abortion and I oppose gay marriages. The majority of her article was spent describing the people she disagreed with rather than making her point.

 

[Riley259]

Michael C:

The problem with the article is Eileen Mcnamara spends more energy labeling the people in her sites than she does making her point. A couple of sentences into the article I completely lost track of the fact there was a protest. She also doesn’t clearly explain what was being protested and what the positions of the poeple on either side were.

As a Catholic I am anit-abortion and I oppose gay marriages. The majority of her article was spent describing the people she disagreed with rather than making her point.

Exactly - she uses her column as a vehicle to espouse her own views which are in direct contradiction to the Church. She needs to paint these individuals in the worst possible light to make her views more “reasonable”. Faithful catholics can see through this facade but many cafeteria catholics can’t or won’t.

 

[miguel]

steveandersen:

zealots are by nature…zealots
each side has to put up with their own

whether you agree with them or not, it is their methods not their goals and opinions that set them appart

Opinions and goals lead to actions and/or inactions. Protesting injustice is as American as apple pie. Denying equal protection under the law to a group, just because it’s members have not been born (or because they’re black, or because they’re women, or because they’re Jews, or because they’re fill-in-the-blank), is tyranny. Taking a principled stand against tyranny is not zealotry, it’s the highest form of good citizenship.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

BillP:

Just out of idle curiosity, is any part of what Ms. MacNamara wrote untrue?

Are the quotes acurate? Is her characterization of those people factual?

Here another quote from McNamara:

Sadly, Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley and Bishop Richard G. Lennon are willing to exploit them as long as their antics distract attention from the real challenges confronting the church.

What’s her evidence for this. If fact, her quotes of other Pro-Life activists are contratry to this slanderous assertion.

 

[Riley259]

Gabriel Gale:

Here another quote from McNamara:

What’s her evidence for this. If fact, her quotes of other Pro-Life activists are contratry to this slanderous assertion.

Your right - that quote is slanderous and viciously untrue. There’s no evidence that the Archbishop would use them for those purposes. Anyone that has seen Archbishop O’Malley in action knows that he is a very humble and sincere man who wouldn’t think of engaging in such cynical actions - but this is how her mind works and probably what she would do herself to further her own liberal secular agenda. Talk about projection.

 

[Celia]

steveandersen:

how?
I didn’t see her mention any of those specifically

I think it’s rather obvious from the language she is using, etc. I don’t think it’s meant to be an objective article here.

And as I’ve now read a couple more posts, apparently this is common in her articles…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Riley259:

Globe columnist Eileen McNamara rants about “conservative catholics” in Massachusetts. She cleverly paints a picture of overwrought zeolots who are on the fringes of the Catholic church. Ironically, she ends up demonizing the only group of Catholics in this state that are actually faithful to the Magisterium - so it goes here in this crazy state.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/12/11/zealots_mask_real_struggles

]

“Conservatives” are capable of behaving like “zealots” - as some of them tend to “demonise” others, even when those others have done nothing to deserve such treatment, it’s entirely understandable if some Catholics “rant” about them now and again. That doesn’t make it good - only very understandable.​

And no issue of doctrine is involved in giving this award - so neither is the Magisterium. If the late Pope can honour a “pro-abortion politician” (whatever “pro-abortion” may mean), why can’t other Catholics ? ##