Hell’s Bible is again going after Archbishop Timothy Dolan, of New York.
In a front page article – not for a change written by Laurie Goodstein or Rachel Donadio, Archbp. Dolan is presented as the one who had been once such a source of hope to victims of clerical sexual abuse, only to turn out a huge disapointment.
While Archbp. seemed – and you find this key word in the first paragraph – "seemed a bright beacon of hope".
But when he was in Milwaukee, Archbp. Dolan – even though he spent time with victims, created a fund for them helped find counseling – refused to open up confidential files and then defended the Church in the courts. Can you imagine such a thing?
Hell’s Bible is now digging all the way back to Dolan’s time in St. Louis for any good dirt they can throw.
And they want those records. Actually, their bedfellow Jeff Anderson needs more income.
Today’s Time’s article is 3700+ words.
Keep in mind that Archbp. Dolan dared to suggest… imagine this… that the Times is anti-Catholic.
Loading ...
I hope the NYT ‘ducks’. I have a feeling that if Archbp. Dolan wants to have at ’em, he’ll come out swingin’ for the bleachers. Lord, give your strength to your servant, Archbishop Timothy Dolan!
Lord, grant strength to your servant, Archbishop Timothy Dolan. Have mercy on those who smear his good name.
Though I still have a hard time with His Excellency’s statement attempting to create an equivalence between those who oppose illegal immigration and Klansmen, Nativists, Know-Nothings, and APAers, he deserves none of what the NY Slimes dished out. He is fundamentally a good man trying to be the best shepherd he can be in a very challenging assignment.
Yes, I thought the Catholic League would have a handle on this. Her is the information and a request to contact the newspaper.
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1855
May Archbishop Dolan succeed in his bout with “Hell’s Bible”. However, I have to agree with markomalley’s issue with him on the illegal immigration issue. I know that is off topic. Can someone please, please, please explain to me the Church’s stance on illegal immigration. Likening people to Klansmen or in Cardinal Mahoney’s case, Nazis, I have to say don’t understand at all. Whenever I talk to anyone about this it, it becomes a foolish and silly emotional discussion. Reason trumps feelings. Always. Past generations came here in an organized manner. Not like what we have in the Southeast.
Oops, meant to say. Southwest.
Dear Father in heaven, watch over your servant Timothy in his mission to share the Gospel.
Our state wide paper, the Louisville Courier Journal is virulently anti-Catholic. I stopped my subscription years ago and when the nice lady called to ask why, I told her I was tired of having my faith insulted. I think Arch-Bishop Dolan can take on the Slimes. I’ll pray for him.
Actually, spock, I’ve barely heard a peep from the Slimes regarding the role of His Eminence, Cardinal Mahony, in the current coverage of the abuse scandal.
This, on March 24 (bottom of editorial): This has not been fulfilled, even though the board criticized management of rogue priests by Cardinals Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, the nation’s largest diocese
And this, on April 6, buried in the article that announced Abp Gomez’ appointment as his coadjudicator: But the news comes as the church faces revived criticism over its handling of sexually abusive priests.
And those two mentions are the only two throughout all of 2010.
Inquiring minds would like to know if there is any grave reason for that omission. Talk about low-hanging fruit!!
Maybe Bill Donohue will ride to the rescue. He knows how to handle the Slimes.
Mahony is a liberal. Hence, the lack of interest by the Slimes
TJerome,
Mahony is a liberal. Hence, the lack of interest by the Slimes
Say it ain’t so! ;-)
markomalley,
Cardinal Mahoney gets a (newspaper) pass on his issues with sexually abusive priests in his diocese because of his stance on illegal immigration? I take that to be your point and is likely valid.
All,
I am looking for a coherent explanation of the Church’s stance on illegal immigration. Free of emotion. Free of feelings. Something derived from a set of first principles. We do this because …. kind of thinking. Preferably by someone who isn’t part of the popular dissension in the church on contemporary issues. A statistical impossibility in my experience. Help.
Spock,
Here is Archbishop Chaput’s commentary on the Arizona immigration law.
Archbishop Chaput is impeccably orthodox, and so I think his counsel on this law should be heeded.
Archbishop Chaput’s commentary on this law is what led me to oppose it.
http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3858
And here is a document signed by the Catholic bishops of Arizona explaining, among other things, why the Catholic bishops of Arizona are concerned about the immigration law.
http://www.diocesephoenix.org/acc/documents/BishopsStmtonLegisREvulnerablepopulationsMarch2010.pdf
Blissmeister86,
The good Bishop (and I do believe that) says that the Arizona law is flawed. He states that the law points toward the need for reform. We can all agree with that I believe. He also points out avoiding tying the issue with other unrelated issues. I agree with that too. and he also says that our nation is built by immigrants. That is also true. We agree. What I don’t seem him stating is what should be done with people who break the law by entering this country illegally. I think a reason why this causes such hostility is the fact that no-one, not even the Church locally behaves in the way it wishes us to treat illegal immigrants nationally. It’s an issue of symmetry (or lack thereof). When Mass is over, typically, the church is locked. The rectory is locked etc. Why? It is done so people cannot enter the church. This impacts BOTH “the good” and “the bad” people. There is no distinction made. The lock works on all. When someone needs to get into the church, a phone call is made or some other LICIT mechanism occurs to allow people to enter the church. The same should be true with society as a whole. Now what should the church do here? Clearly, the church has to help the suffering and those in need but it belongs to the state to ensure that people licitly enter the country. Maybe the Church should assist in building society in Mexico as it built European Society? Many ways to help people. Not all of them are equal.
Re: immigration, here’s a statment from Bishop Slattery of Tulsa:
http://www.dioceseoftulsa.org/article.asp?nID=1458
If anyone wants it, the Arizona bishops also wrote a lengthy paper/booklet on the issue back in 2005.
At least it appears that the Arizona bishops may have actually read the law (unlike the Attorney General or the newspapermen).
Nothing in Abp. Chaput’s message indicates that he did.
But since the law as revised by the House version explicitly applies only to second and third-tier stops (what’s known as a “Terry” stop of a suspect, and a probable cause arrest) the bishops’ concern about *victims* of crime being harassed seems to be unfounded.
The further the clerics get away from the black-and-white issues (like abortion, about which there can be little if any disagreement) and into the shades of gray (like immigration), the more I am concerned that they are dealing with something that they aren’t trained to handle.
I wouldn’t hold myself out as a theologian or canon lawyer . . . similarly, the bishops probably should not be giving a legal opinion without some formal training in the rules of statutory construction, etc., any more than they should be practicing medicine without a license.
As C.S. Lewis said — political opinions from the pulpit generally only tell you what newspapers are taken at the rectory.
Can someone please, please, please explain to me the Church’s stance on illegal immigration. Likening people to Klansmen or in Cardinal Mahoney’s case, Nazis, I have to say don’t understand at all
I too find the position of the Church as expressed through various Bishops to be at least confusing, and possibly troubling. To have COMPASSION and minister to those who are being persecuted in their own country is well within the historical role of the Church. The statements by Card. Mahony et al seem to go beyond that into the realm of political activism.
Bishop Slattery’s commentary is the best I’ve seen yet on the issue. Thanks for sharing it, everett!
Yes, illegal immigration is wrong, and we need to secure our borders. However, deportation is an infeasible and, in the case of those who have broken no other laws and who have established families here, an inhumane option. Yes, justice should be served, but it should be tempered by mercy. There should be some sort of penalty, such as a fine or community service, for those who broke the law, but, unless there was a felony committed, like a murder or rape, deportation should be off the table.
Justice and mercy are not served by rewarding bad behavior or encouraging the same.
Actions have consequences. A monetary fine? The ubiquitous warm and fuzzy ‘community service’?
Sorry. No. There are established ways of legally entering and settling in this country. Try doing this anywhere else and see whether the justice or political systems there are as soft-headed about the whole thing.
Oh, that’s right. We’re the US. You can do what you want without repercussions.
Actions have consequences.
If anyone’s interested, Bishop Taylor of Little Rock also has a lengthy pro-immigrant paper published: http://www.dolr.org/bishop/iwasastrangerletter/pastoralimmigration_english.pdf
Thanks, Son of Monica! Bishop Vasa has a very good article on the topic as well, which can be found here, and uses a different approach than Cardinal Mahony or the USCCB. He reminds us that illegal status does not deprive a person of his/her human dignity.
http://sentinel.org/node/11078