In the first part of our serial drama, we learned that Ms. Dowd can’t complete a thought. Let’s see where the second part of our analysis of this column leads, shall we?

Now we get to the meat of Ms. Dowd’s column, and it turns out she’s as predictable as a next-morning, four-hour intestinal purge after eating late night bean burritos topped with Huy Fong chili garlic sauce. (‘Puter’s eldest calls it “taking a Number Three” because it’s definitely not a Number One, and it’s not exactly a Number Two; therefore, it’s a Number Three.). Ms. Dowd hates the Catholic Church and is willing to lie to destroy it. ‘Puter realizes that’s a strong accusation, but Ms. Dowd’s own words prove ‘Puter’s case.

Ms. Dowd’s knickers are in a twist because the Supreme Court has six Catholic members, each of whom plans on attending the Red Mass. The Red Mass is a Roman Catholic Mass held annually prior to the opening of the Court’s session in October. Ms. Dowd is offended that the Church uses this opportunity to remind the Justices in attendance of the Church’s position on abortion, gay marriage and “humanism,” which term Ms. Dowd leaves undefined. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Catholic Church, at a Mass, on its own property, reminding its freely attending congregants of the Church’s position on issues of the day, no matter how much Ms. Dowd may disagree with those positions. Simply because Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, arguably the most liberal member of the Court and a non-Catholic, refuses to attend because she finds it “outrageously anti-abortion” is no reason to tar attendees as somehow in the thrall of the nefarious Holy Mother Church.

Ms. Dowd next notes “[i]n 2007, there was a kerfuffle about Catholic dominance on the court because the five justices who pushed to uphold the ban on “partial-birth abortion” were all Catholic men appointed by conservative presidents.” Ms. Dowd nowhere explains what the kerfuffle was. She does not state what the gentlemen’s Catholicism has to do with their decision, much less whether or not their decision was contrary to the law or to precedent.

We are to assume that the justices’ decision as related to partial birth abortion was wrong because the majority was comprised solely of (1) Catholics and (2) men. This is the equivalent of arguing that because a woman was dressed suggestively, she is solely at fault for her rape because she was asking for it. Nice work stereotyping your alleged faith as comprised of slavering morons, obedient to the whims of an unelected, sexist, doddering monarch in Rome. Avowedly anti-Catholic groups through the ages couldn’t have done a better job themselves.

For the record, there is nothing nefarious about Catholicism or Catholics. Heck, our entire religion is an open book, literally. The Bible, the Missal, the Catechism and much of the Magisterium is available on line, for free. Masses are open to the public. Drop by your local parish some Sunday morning (or Saturday evening) and see for yourself. We’ve got nothing to hide, except our good music, which goes unheard in favor of a bunch of Woodstock era Grateful Dead wannabees tunelessly strumming guitars, playing bongos and singing horribly written music atonally.

In paragraph twelve (12) of Ms. Dowd’s anti-Catholic tract we get to her real problem with the Catholic Church. Ms. Dowd disagrees with the Church’s positions on abortion. Because abortion on demand is a central tenet of her true faith, Liberalism, Ms. Dowd needs to discredit the Roman Catholic position on abortion. In order to do so, Ms. Dowd dishonestly (and angrily) conflates abortion with just war and capital punishment. This is trick used by many nominal Catholics bent on discrediting the Church, so ‘Puter’s going to break it down in detail for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

‘Puter’s hopes the reader, on seeing the Church’s position laid out, will better understand it. The Church’s position on abortion is consistent with its teachings on capital punishment and warfare. There is a beauty in the Church’s consistency (and constancy) that even opponents ought to respect. That said, ‘Puter does not expect to convince his readers that the Church’s position is correct. ‘Puter simply hopes to convince the reader that Ms. Dowd is a dishonest, shrill harpy, content to libel her nominal Church to advance her true liberal faith.

Ms. Dowd alleges:

The church has aggressively meddled in politics on abortion, trying to defeat candidates who support abortion rights and prevent some liberal politicians from receiving Communion. But American bishops have been inconsistent in preaching their values.

The Church has every right to participate in the political arena. Priests and nuns, as well as laity, are free to vote their conscience. The Church can opine on matters of faith that touch on politics, such as abortion. Further, the Church has the right to discipline its adherents up to and including excommunication. While the government is not permitted to have a religious test for employment, the converse is not true. That is, religions are free to discipline politicians who do not follow the Church’s teachings. ‘Puter’s looking at you, Cuomo and Kennedy families. Ms. Dowd has presented nothing to show there is anything wrong with this.

And while Ms. Dowd is certainly correct that American bishops have been inconsistent in preaching the Church’s values, this is not a flaw of the Church, but rather of the men running the dioceses and archdioceses in America. ‘Puter would be perfectly delighted to have American bishops return to forcefully preaching and defending the Church’s doctrines. But ‘Puter knows this is not what Ms. Dowd means. She wants bishops to abandon the Church and preach liberalism under the guise of Catholicism from the pulpit. This is why we’ve heard nary a peep from Ms. Dowd about renegade priests cramming Marxism down the congregation’s throat under the guise of social justice.

But back to Ms. Dowd’s allegation concerning the Church and politics. ‘Puter has never once in all his years of going to Mass heard a priest instruct his flock to vote for a certain candidate. Not once. Ever. We may be reminded of the Church’s teachings on abortion, etc., and reminded to vote, but nothing else. Ever. Even an anti-Catholic bigot such as Ms. Dowd cannot possibly mean that the Catholic Church can have no role in the political arena? ‘Puter wonders if Ms. Dowd felt the same way about Fr. Robert Drinan, a hard-left social justice faux Catholic congressman from Massachusetts? Probably not, since Ms. Dowd likes his politics.

What does Ms. Dowd mean by bishops being “inconsistent in preaching their values?” ‘Puter notes with interest Ms. Dowd uses the third person plural possessive pronoun to modify “values,” rather than the first person plural possessive. To ‘Puter, this indicates Ms. Dowd believes the values of the Catholic Church are not her values at all, despite her noisy protestations otherwise.

Ms. Dowd writes in a feeble attempt at explanation:

They [American bishops] do not try to bring down politicians who supported the Iraq war, even though Pope John Paul II spoke out against it and sent a Vatican cardinal to warn W. [President George W. Bush] that the war would be a “disaster” that would “destroy human life.” They [again, American bishops] do not express outrage at Republican audiences that cheer for executions, or target pols who brag on the death penalty, even though John Paul [John Paul II, not to be confused with John Paul I] issued an encyclical against “the culture of death,” saying modern states have so many ways to protect citizens that the necessity for executions is “very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

And there you have it. The refuge of a nominal Catholic who understands nothing about her Church and its teachings, except that they conflict with her one true god, Leftist Politics. Let’s dive right into the intellectual beat down, shall we?

The Catholic teachings on just war, abortion and capital punishment all can be found in the Catechism, in the section explaining the Church’s doctrine on the Fifth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill. It’s found in the Catechism, Part III, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5. ‘Puter has removed citations from within the Catechism quotes as they are distracting, but you really ought to go read them. The citations are as fascinating as the doctrine.

Let’s start with Catechism section 2258:

2258 Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.

Note that we Catholics are not permitted to destroy innocent human life. The Catechism expressly does not forbid taking a human life, but only an innocent human life. One simple word changes the whole darn meaning. You’d think a Pulitzer Prize winning writer like Ms. Dowd would understand that concept. Unless she just chooses to ignore inconvenient facts that sink her entire world view. But she wouldn’t do that.

Here are the pesky facts on the Church’s Legitimate Defense position, including an allusion to the just war doctrine, Catechism sections 2263-65:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…. the one is intended, the other is not.”

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful…. Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.

Please note that nowhere is the state prohibited from protecting those in its charge by killing others. We are cautioned not to do so unnecessarily without consideration of the grave responsibility we have to protect the innocent where possible. What the Church warns against is the intentional killing of the innocent. Defense of self and others, while a horrible thing and to be avoided, is permissible under Church teaching where there is no other course of action.

Here’s the Church on Capital Punishment, Catechism section 2267:

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

The Church condones the state prudentially administering the death penalty, subject to the strictures outlined in its teachings above. Does ‘Puter think America is administering the death penalty in accordance with the Church’s teachings? No. But reasonable minds, such as those of Justice Scalia and ‘Puter, can differ as to whether there exists another “practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively.” Contrary to Ms. Dowd’s implication, however, the Church, the death penalty does not outright prohibit capital punishment. Capital punishment is not an absolute moral evil, because the life being taken is not innocent.

And now we come to Ms. Dowd’s true problem with the Church: abortion. The Church takes a very, very tough line on abortion, in all circumstances, as it is the intentional killing of an innocent human life. Here’s the Church on abortion, section 2271:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.

This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.

Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.

Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

The stupid, backwards Church also challenges Ms. Dowd’s Liberal Faith in Catechism section 2272 where it advises:

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.

“A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.

The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.

Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

As you can see from the Church’s Catechism, Ms. Dowd is playing fast and loose with the facts. As a nominal Catholic, Ms. Dowd should sure as Hell know better. Abortion is separate and distinct from war and capital punishment, and she knows it. Either that, or her much bragged about Catholic education was crappy, and the nuns responsible for her catechesis should be ashamed. More likely, the nuns did a fine job, and Ms. Dowd chose to ignore their tutelage where it conflicts with her own personal 1960s dirty hippie code of “if it feels good, do it.”

It is one thing to disagree with the Church’s teaching, and to vigorously attack it. ‘Puter and all Catholics should be happy to defend their Church and its moral and ethical code. It is wholly another thing to misrepresent the teachings of the Church to others, attacking positions you know the Church does not hold. Ms. Dowd goes it one better. She holds herself out to be a Catholic, then misrepresents the Church’s positions and attacks them. This is abhorrent, and Ms. Dowd should be ashamed of herself. Yet ‘Puter knows Ms. Dowd is proud of her infidelity, since she uses her cultural Catholicism in service of advancing her liberal faith.

If the reader takes nothing else away from this discussion other than that Maureen Dowd ‘s statement on the Catholic Church’s doctrine cannot be believed, ‘Puter will have done his job.

Remember, in Catholic doctrine, abortion is always wrong because it involves the intentional killing of an innocent life. Warfare and capital punishment involve the intentional killing of non-innocents. While still killing, and to be avoided where possible. Capital punishment and warfare are not equivalent to abortion, despite Ms. Dowd’s wishes to the contrary.

Boy, ‘Puter’s tired of this explainy stuff. It makes his feeble mind sweat. Part three of the MoDo Trilogy may have to wait until tomorrow.

'Puter

Always right, unless he isn’t, the infallible Ghettoputer F. X. Gormogons claims to be an in-law of the Volgi, although no one really believes this.

’Puter carefully follows economic and financial trends, legal affairs, and serves as the Gormogons’ financial and legal advisor. He successfully defended us against a lawsuit from a liquor distributor worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid deliveries of bootleg shandies.

The Geep has an IQ so high it is untestable and attempts to measure it have resulted in dangerously unstable results as well as injuries to researchers. Coincidentally, he publishes intelligence tests as a side gig.

His sarcasm is so highly developed it borders on the psychic, and he is often able to insult a person even before meeting them. ’Puter enjoys hunting small game with 000 slugs and punt guns, correcting homilies in real time at Mass, and undermining unions. ’Puter likes to wear a hockey mask and carry an axe into public campgrounds, where he bursts into people’s tents and screams. As you might expect, he has been shot several times but remains completely undeterred.

He assures us that his obsessive fawning over news stories involving women teachers sleeping with young students is not Freudian in any way, although he admits something similar once happened to him. Uniquely, ’Puter is unable to speak, read, or write Russian, but he is able to sing it fluently.

Geep joined the order in the mid-1980s. He arrived at the Castle door with dozens of steamer trunks and an inarticulate hissing creature of astonishingly low intelligence he calls “Sleestak.” Ghettoputer appears to make his wishes known to Sleestak, although no one is sure whether this is the result of complex sign language, expert body posture reading, or simply beating Sleestak with a rubber mallet.

‘Puter suggests the Czar suck it.