Scandalized: Cardinal Dolan & Cuomo

Creative Minority Report ^ | May 28, 2013 | Pat ARCHBOLD

[NYer]

**I originally wrote this a week ago for another publication.

This past Pentecost Sunday, I sat in my pew and listened to the reading. I heard how the Apostles, our first Bishops, after receiving the Holy Spirit preached to the multitudes gathered in Jerusalem. I heard how each person, no matter their language, could clearly understand everything said. I thought to myself, what a great miracle. Some of our Bishops speak the same language as I do, but I don't understand what they are saying at all.

Last week, during a radio interview, Cardinal Dolan was asked several questions about Governor Cuomo's proposed legislation that would actively promote and further legally entrench abortion in New York State. Cardinal Dolan rightly criticized the legislation. When the interviewer asked if Governor Cuomo could still consider himself a Catholic in good standing while also promoting abortion legislation, Cardinal Dolan responded, “That’s something that I talk turkey with him about.”

A short time after the interview, Cardinal Dolan sent out his spokesman Joseph Zwilling to say the Cardinal did not mean to suggest that Cuomo would not be a Catholic in good standing if he went forward with the bill.

In response Governor Cuomo, now publicly declared a Catholic in good standing, said of abortion, Cardinal Dolan, and Church teaching "We agree to disagree, respectfully, and that is where we are.”

Yes, that is where we are.

I find it very difficult to understand Cardinal Dolan. How can Governor Cuomo, a man who has moved beyond vague support for a pro-choice position to the active promotion and legal entrenchment of abortion, a divorced man who very publicly lives with his girlfriend, and a man who obstinately and publicly disputes Church teaching with his 'agree to disagree' statements still be considered a Catholic in good standing? And why would a Cardinal of the Church go out of his way to make this clear?

In my mind, this moves way beyond any reasonable 'pastoral' approach toward the Governor and can only lead to confusion among the faithful and to further imperil the Governor's soul. To publicly declare such a man to be a Catholic in good standing, which the Cardinal's spokesman has clearly done by rejecting the opposite assertion, is the very definition of scandal.

The Gospel reading on Pentecost speaks of Jesus appearing to the Apostles in the upper room where he breathed on them saying, "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

After hearing the words of Cardinal Dolan last week, an ordinary Catholic could surely wonder, if a man can actively promote abortion and a married man can publicly live with his girlfriend and be publicly declared a Catholic in good standing by the leading Bishop in the U.S., exactly what has not been loosed on earth?

[Alex Murphy]

The problem isn't Cuomo...The problem is the Cardinal...Why is it conservatives continue to accept this guy as being the head Catholic in the U.S.??? Why isn't he denounced like he should be??? Why does your pope(s) allow this guy to lead when he appears to be in opposition to your religion???

Bishops enjoy a position of absolute authority, not delegated authority. They are not "answerable" to the Pope, meaning that their authority is not delegated and therefore cannot be stripped from them - it can only be voluntarily laid down. Dolan cannot be deposed without his own cooperation in the matter.

But the question assumes that Dolan's lay critics have an authoritative understanding of Catholicism, and that Dolan's actions are in opposition to the Catholic religion. I'm not convinced of that myself. Critics will quote Canon 915, but how many bishops agree with the way that the lay critic understands it? Who is authorized, who has authority to infallibly interpret the Canon and to challenge Dolan's actions? Could the layperson's private interpretation of the Canon be wrong?

Could it be that Dolan is actually in line with his religion?

[Rashputin]

"who obstinately and publicly disputes Church teaching with his 'agree to disagree' statements still be considered a Catholic in good standing?"

I wonder how much longer a Cardinal who teaches 'agree to disagree" under the pretense that thumbing his nose at Canon Law is being "pastoral" can still be considered a Catholic in good standing.

Dolan is past the point of no return as far as I'm concerned, and I say that as someone who thought he might do something of a Becket type about face when he became a Cardinal. Now he's made such a spectacle of refusing to uphold Church Teaching he's more than likely incapable of even trying to change his ways.

He's a "Too Cozy" wrapped tightly around the New York political machine the same way a Tea Cozy wraps around a Teapot hiding cracks, flaws, and filth on the teapot even though you can still see the general outline of it.

I was wrong. He's obviously a Leopard who doesn't see any reason to change his spots even if he could.

[savagesusie]

There is a “war” inside the Catholic Church-—Satan infiltrated as was warned in Pascendi by Pope Pius X in 1907. Bella Dodd wrote about the Marxist homosexual infiltration in the 30’s and 40’s and then Fr. Oko’s recent report talks about the homoheresy (homomafia) who force Vatican policy or Blackmail and intimidate priests/bishops/cardinal.

We need to support the Truth in the Catholic Church——not excuse these Bishops and Cardinals in destroying the teachings of the Catholic Church which destroys the understanding of faith in the children and laity.

Catholic Church has to be clear on its doctrines-—on Truth-—and Cardinal Dolan should have excommunicated the Satanist Cuomo on the spot. That the Cardinal was skirting the Truth and siding with the Devil—tells me who is is fighting for-—and it is not God’s Side.

We need to study the reports below and help the clergy take back the Catholic Church from the evil “modernists” whom Pope Pius X condemned and warned about.

Fr. Oko’s Report commissioned by the Vatican last year about the infiltration of the homomafia into the CC: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02/fr-dariusz-okos-major-article-with-pope.html

This is Bella Dodd-—the ex- Communist who was baptized by Archbishop Fulton Sheen: The audio is really bad, but the info is good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEmzdQrlAZI

[Brian Kopp DPM]

But the question assumes that Dolan's lay critics have an authoritative understanding of Catholicism, and that Dolan's actions are in opposition to the Catholic religion. I'm not convinced of that myself. Critics will quote Canon 915, but how many bishops agree with the way that the lay critic understands it? Who is authorized, who has authority to infallibly interpret the Canon and to challenge Dolan's actions?

There is one man who authoritatively interprets Canon Law in this regard. He is the head of the Apostolic Signatura, Cardinal Raymond Burke. And he has been crystal clear on Canon 915:

PERIODICA DE RE CANONICA
vol. 96 (2007) pag. 3-58

The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy
Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering
in Manifest Grave Sin

R. L. BURKE

ROMA
PONTIFICIA UNIVERSITÀ GREGORIANA
PIAZZA DELLA PILOTTA, 4

PERIODICA 96 (2007) 3-58

CANON 915:
THE DISCIPLINE REGARDING
THE DENIAL OF HOLY COMMUNION
TO THOSE OBSTINATELY PERSEVERING
IN MANIFEST GRAVE SIN

[Secret Agent Man]

every cardinal, archbishop, bishop, is a politician. they are political officers of the vatican, both its own state and head of a religion.

[tomsbartoo]

All bishops are not equal. The President of the USCCB has enormous power––much greater than any of his counterparts. There may be worse bishops when simply looking at the wrongs that each of them do, individually; but as we are told, “to whom much is given, much is expected”. Dolan is an absolute disgrace, and there will come a day when Dolan and most of the other bishops will answer for their part in leading so many souls astray. God will demand an accounting.

[Ransomed]

Good post. The lack of public discipline for public Catholics who publicly support and facilitate abortion in this public-media driven era will be looked back at as a scandal that dwarfs the homosexualist priest scandal, in my opinion.

It simply gives the impression that despite what the bishops say, it must not really be too big of a deal when you get right down to it. Any sane first grade teacher knows that you can’t teach without public discipline.

Freegards

[PeevedPatriot]

Thanks for the Bella Dodd link. I’ll have to listen to it when I have time. Not long ago I caught a rerun of one of Abp Sheen’s old tv shows and he was telling her story. Should be interesting to hear from a different angle. Thanks again!

[verga]

The most charitable thing I can say about the cardinal is that there are bishops who are worse than him.

And sadly we might get one to replace this clown.

[verga]

Who is authorized, who has authority to infallibly interpret the Canon and to challenge Dolan's actions? Could the layperson's private interpretation of the Canon be wrong? Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion

Shacking up with his live in Girl friend. Publicly supporting every single piece of abortion legislation.

Grave sin, Check.

Manifest, Check

Persevering, Check.

Yep that seems to cover it. Could it be that Dolan is actually in line with his religion?

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=691

Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, D.D., J.C.D., a doctor of canon law, Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz, D.D., S.T.D., of the Lincoln, NE, Bishop Robert Francis Vasa, M.Div., J.C.L., Bishop of Baker, Oregon, among others say the Cardinal is wrong.

[johngrace]

When America goes Down It will be NY Babylon first. I pray for my family up there. Ever since Cuomo took office We had two fifty year hurricanes in his first two years. I lived there we never had it like that at all of my 49 years of living there. I am now 51. That is not just so called nature. The Hurricane came right after the non vote homosexual pass for marriage. I worked in Manhattan there is a spirit there like nowhere. The prince of Persia lives there. Look at the United Nations. A joke to mankind. All the nations of the world go there. I delivered to all different businesses. Occultism and even outward satanism at deliveries in some spots.

The Cardinal needs to close up shop on manhattan Island or be totally bold against Coumo. Also look at all the surrounding areas. The Long Island medium. huh! What a joke.

We will be more harshly judged than other nations because we once were a christian nation. Chastisement is coming. Some of our professed Christians will be severely handled here in America. I believe the seals are opened and opening in the book of Revelation. I had a dream vision on our nation being broken not whole. I really believe there will be no other president of the whole fifty states after Obama.

[RobbyS]

I cannot imagine John Hughes pussyfooting like this.

[Heart-Rest]

The other day, I happened to hear a rerun of an old Catholic radio show of Fr. Mitch Pacwa giving a talk. In that talk, I heard him saying something about Jesus letting that great sinner Judas take communion at the last supper, so why should we stop our slimy politicians who are in opposition to Church teachings from taking communion. That bothered me a lot coming from Fr. Pacwa, who generally takes a very strongly conservative stand on these issues in his programs and in his homilies. I decided to try to find that old quote of his online today to see if I heard it right, and I finally found it here:    Judas, Last Supper, Communion

(Go to that link and do a search on "Pacwa" you will see what he actually said about 2/3 of the way down the page.)

However, upon checking it out, I found that I actually had heard it wrong. In that show from 2011, Fr. Mitch was just quoting something Cardinal Mahoney had said to try to justify his giving communion to various rebellious Catholics, and Fr. Mitch sort of made fun of what Mahoney said (without mentioning him by name). After reading this thread today, it makes me wonder if Cardinal Dolan takes the same misguided approach that Cardinal Mahoney took, relating to Canon 915. Dolan would be well advised to not take the same approach that Mahoney took on many things, including what to do about Canon 915 and these "Catholic" politicians who publicly oppose Church teachings.

(By the way "NYer", the link I just found about Canon 915 and Fr. Mitch Pacwa (above), coincidentally, also featured some commentary from that same "Edward Peters" Canon Lawyer you referenced in your "Boy Scouts of America" thread the other day.)

[Alex Murphy]

Dr. Kopp: There is one man who authoritatively interprets Canon Law in this regard. He is the head of the Apostolic Signatura, Cardinal Raymond Burke. And he has been crystal clear on Canon 915

verga: Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, D.D., J.C.D., a doctor of canon law, Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz, D.D., S.T.D., of the Lincoln, NE, Bishop Robert Francis Vasa, M.Div., J.C.L., Bishop of Baker, Oregon, among others say the Cardinal is wrong.

If Dolan is "wrong", when was the legal suit brought against him? Was a sentence proclaimed in the matter? What document recorded the judgment against the cardinal for posterity?

Does this body of canon laws have a temporal enforcement body, a set of teeth that backs it up? It is strange that, within Catholicism, there appears to be no corrective mechanism for the enforcement of canon law.

[Salvation]

[firebrand]

Slightly off topic, but Cuomo’s recent pronouncement about the nefarious Shelly Silver shows his mixed-up morals. He said Lopez’s crime (groping) was worse than Silver’s (covering it up by paying off the women with over $100,000 of taxpayer money).

Lopez’s crime was one between two people. Silver’s was against the taxpaying public that he is sworn to represent. And so is Cuomo’s, by making that exculpatory statement on behalf of Silver.

These people have their values upside-down in many ways.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

We are living in an age of apostasy but this too shall pass.

[markomalley]

Bishops enjoy a position of absolute authority, not delegated authority. They are not "answerable" to the Pope, meaning that their authority is not delegated and therefore cannot be stripped from them - it can only be voluntarily laid down. Dolan cannot be deposed without his own cooperation in the matter.

You're not 100% correct here, Alex. A person who is ordained a bishop has that sacramental character forever, they are supposed to be answerable to the Holy See:

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

In addition, a bishop can receive canonical penalties, including suspension and excommunication...but the practical likelihood of such a thing happening is virtually nil.

Cardinal Burke's writings notwithstanding, I am not optimistic that anything would ever happen to force wimps like Dolan to actually get a backbone when it comes to the reproof of left-wing, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual politicians. No matter how much noise lay people, like the Archbold brothers, make about the situation.

[sitetest]

Dear tomsbartoo,

I understand your point, but I think it's the wrong perspective. Although Cardinal Dolan is no prize, there are many worse bishops. If one of them were president of the USCCB, the effect would be even worse. And, in actual fact, then-Archbishop Dolan was an upset over the favorite, Bishop Kicanas, who was widely regarded as a “moderate” compared to Dolan, the “conservative.” As bad as one might think Cardinal Dolan is as president of the USCCB, Bishop Kicanas would have been far worse, from all reports.

As well, I take issue with your understanding of the power of the presidency of the USCCB. Formal power of the presidency comes from the formal power of the USCCB, which is nearly nil. National bishops’ conferences enjoy no canonical authority worth mentioning. They are mostly gasbag societies.

Now, there is a power of the pulpit, so to speak, that Cardinal Dolan has used quite liberally, and not always well. But even that doesn't amount to “enormous power.” It merely allows him to personify the ordinary American bishop - part-time Catholic, full-time Democrat, eager for public accolades given with very fine food served with the best wines at gala affairs.

sitetest

[Alex Murphy]

You're not 100% correct here, Alex.

How close did I get?

A person who is ordained a bishop has that sacramental character forever, they are supposed to be answerable to the Holy See:

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

In addition, a bishop can receive canonical penalties, including suspension and excommunication...but the practical likelihood of such a thing happening is virtually nil.

Thank you for the correction. Let me tell you, in part, where I got the idea - the Vatican's defense lawyer, in the Wisconsin and Kentucky circuit court appeals:

In Los Angeles, as in previous cases in the U.S. and elsewhere, the local diocese has essentially shouldered all of the administrative blame — and taken the financial hit — for the priest perpetrators and the bishops who failed to prevent their crimes, with no reference or responsibility assigned to the hierarchy in Rome. Still, victims' lawsuits frequently cite the Holy See, the Vatican-based juridical headquarters of the 1.1 billion-strong Catholic Church, and the Pope himself.

Since the issue exploded in 2002 with the scandal in the Archdiocese of Boston, it has been difficult to force the Vatican to respond directly to the innumerable court cases that have arisen, since, according to the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, the Holy See is outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. But two recent cases, in Oregon and Kentucky, have cracked open the door for the first time to the possibility that the Vatican could one day be held financially responsible and officials in Rome could be forced to testify. Lawyers are trying to prove in both cases that the abusive priests can be considered employees of the Holy See.
-- from the thread Should the Vatican Pay for Abuse?

"....there has been no factual determination that the priest who committed the abuse is an employee of the Holy See. Without a showing of the priest's employment by the Holy See, there is no jurisdiction. In fact, Father [Andrew] Ronan was a priest of a religious order, the Friar Servants of Mary. In our view, the indicators of employment simply are not present. The Holy See did not pay the salary of the priest or provide his benefits or exercise day-to-day control over him or have any other connection with him indicating the presence of an employment relationship. This priest was a member of the Friar Servants of Mary. His very existence was unknown to the Holy See until after all the events in question. I do not believe that the plaintiff has any information to contradict that view...."

"....The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act is built upon the existence of certain precise exceptions. Here, the required exception is that the priest be an "employee" of the Holy See. This is simply factually inaccurate. Prior to this time, the case has been about whether the plaintiff's complaint was "adequate." Now the question is whether there are any facts to support the plaintiff's complaint...."

".... One of the most important parts of that defense is to help people understand that the Church is not a monolith. It is composed of different entities that operate with relative autonomy and make their own decisions about the hiring and firing of personnel. Thus, just because a priest is a member of a religious order, it does not make him an employee of the Holy See."
-- from the thread Defending the Holy See [Vatican Lawyer Discusses the Supreme Court’s Decline of Abuse Appeal]

“Mythology about the Catholic Church to the contrary, the Holy See is not responsible for the supervision of the more than 400,000 priests around the world,” he said. “Attorneys in this case knew that, and their knowledge of this fact is precisely what made the filing of this lawsuit so pernicious in the first place -- such misuse of the legal process leads to disrespect for lawyers and courts, and never helps the pursuit of legitimate legal claims.”
-- from the thread Wisconsin Court Case Dismissal "Enormously Important"

So if we're interpreting Canon 333 correctly, the Pope (via canon enforcement) has the authority to act against a bishop, and thus ultimately shoulders the blame for failing to act in priestly abuse cases, at least for the bishops' complicity in the same. The Vatican's legal team was engaging in legal obfuscation (straining camels) by focusing on precise definitions of employment, and shielded the Pope (swallowed a ton of gnats) by not acknowledging his complicity via Canon 333.