"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Cdl. Dolan: Yes, We Pay For Murder, But Under Protest

My mind would boggle if I had any boggles left.

Cardinal Dolan, head of the USCCB and the ostensible leader of the fight against the unholy Obamacare mandates, admits that his own Diocese directly pays for employee health plans that cover contraception and abortion. Yes, the Cardinal Dolan and the Archdiocese of NY pay for the killing of children. Their excuse? They do it under protest.

Well, I am sure that will make the dead babies feel better to know that they were killed 'under protest.'

via NYT

But even as Cardinal Dolan insists that requiring some religiously affiliated employers to pay for contraception services would be an unprecedented, and intolerable, government intrusion on religious liberty, the archdiocese he heads has quietly been paying for such coverage, albeit reluctantly and indirectly, for thousands of its unionized employees for over a decade.

The Archdiocese of New York has previously acknowledged that some local Catholic institutions offer health insurance plans that include contraceptive drugs to comply with state law; now, it is also acknowledging that the archdiocese’s own money is used to pay for a union health plan that covers contraception and even abortion for workers at its affiliated nursing homes and clinics.

“We provide the services under protest,” said Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York.
I am sure the usual suspects will try to explain this away, these are Union rules, he inherited it, he has no choice.

THERE IS ALWAYS A CHOICE.

When it comes to the sanctioned and funded murder of innocents, the choice couldn't be clearer.

Cardinal Dolan and the Archdiocese of NY are complicit in a grave and intrinsic moral evil.

There needs to be complete and total moral outrage over this issue by Catholics. We need to force Cardnal Dolan to do the right thing, for the babies' sake and for his sake.

redpost*subhead*Outrage!*subhead*

Your Ad Here

77 comments:

Pedro Erik said...

Oh my God. May Cardinal Dolan do the right thing. This is terrible.

ronconte said...

Paying for health insurance, that includes contraceptives and abortifacients, is material cooperation, not formal cooperation, and so it can be justifiable in some circumstances.

Viva Cristo Rey said...

http://prolifecorner.com/dolan-has-taught-us-a-few-important-things/

This article says it ALL.

Aloysius Beckett said...

This is a scandal of epic proportion! I think His Eminence should either immediately stop this, or resign. If not, great damage will be done to the reputation of the Roman Catholic Church.

MaryW said...

What, you think the good Cardinal is going to give up his cushy lifestyle for a jail cell? Our clerics have lost their zeal, it's all P.C. these days.
All Christian martyrs, pray for Holy Mother Church.

Rick said...

Either God or Mammon. Dolan chose Mammon - but under protest. That's what a lot of cheesecake will do to you. Big fat celebrity must have stopped meditating such that he no longer hears God's voice.

Or he hears it but has become accustomed to a life of ease and canapes that he'd rather give in and compromise a little the faith that martyrs are dying for to this day.

He is a huge poster boy for tepidity and lukewarmness that will be spat out when the Lord comes. No wonder the spiritual life of NY is what it is and the Islamists have taken a foothold. Simply disgusting and shameful. The Vatican must do something.

William Meyer said...

We can live our faith, or not. Our bishops, apparently, are prepared to be selective. How can they expect to be taken seriously in the appeal on the HHS mandate? How can they expect to be taken seriously by the faithful? When will they find their spines?

Proteios1 said...

I realize few like to hear this and the suggested solution even less, but...
The Church in the west is in a period of contraction both in number and in public support.
I suggest we serve Catholics only in our churches, schools, hospitals, etc. and circulate our own money to and from fellow Catholics. This may minimize our being shackled to government funds and therefore influence...dependence. Also, Catholics do well, so money isn't an issue. Concentration our resources rather than diluting them by teaching only Catholics by Ctholic teachers at Catholic schools may also help us reclaim our strength, catches is and confidence throu faith and knowledge...among other things. We're so dilute. We have become.."of the world" and need to regroup.

Sherry Antonetti said...

This hurts. It hurts the public trust. It hurts the flock. It hurts the capacity to witness to the reality that cooperation with evil is itself evil. It hurts the capacity to educate the faithful and the world that there are some limits to the demands of Caesar that should not be tolerated. This is pretending that nuance eliminates culpability. I'm not sending them to the gas chamber. I'm just watching the trains go by. If the Good Cardinal cannot see that this is worth fighting against, then what would the Good Cardinal fight against?

Sherry Antonetti said...

http://cardinaldolan.org/index.php/the-gift-of-life/

He needs to reread his own words.

Steve Dalton said...

The more I read about this pompous ass, the more I long for a Pope who will kick the same into a monastery for some deep penance!

Jeffrey Stuart said...

I've been extremely disappointed in Cardinal Dolan.

Harry Seldon said...

I think that, in order for this to be of any use at all, rather than the ineffectual sniping that usually goes on in internet-land, the authors of this blog need to immediately publish a follow-up piece entitled "Here's exactly what Cdl. Dolan should do:". And, then, actually write down what it is you (we) want the Cdl. to do.

I am sympathetic to this position, I agree the Cdl. is not leading well, but it's meaningless unless someone takes the time to understand what the Cdl's options are and how he should proceed. If no one is prepared to do that research, or prepared to spend the time to understand the issue well enough to make a concrete recommendation, then those people should not write blog posts about it. It's useless detraction.

If there is some concrete action Dolan should take today (I have no idea what it would be. Call the insurer and cancel some policy? Fire a certain group of employees? Call a particular union rep into his office and re-negotiate a contract? What would effect the necessary change? Does anyone know?) than I charge the Archbolds to actually figure out what it is and post it here.

Or shut up about it.

Deacon Greg Kandra said...

The Archdiocese posted a more detailed response on its website yesterday

... http://www.archny.org/news-events/news-press-releases/index.cfm?i=29417

Jason said...

It's not like we want another Ambrose or Maximus as bishop

Harry Seldon said...

So, if God sent Ambrose down to NYC right now, and he walked into the chancery, kicked Dolan out of his office, called up the Archbolds on the phone and said "I've been out of the loop for over a millennium, get me up to speed, what do you think I should do about this contract with SEIU1199?"....I'm really, really interested to know what the Archbolds would say to him.

ProudHillbilly said...

"I'm not sending them to the gas chamber. I'm just watching the trains go by."

Bingo! The culture we live in weaves a tangled web. How do we stop being everyday German citizens of the Reich and stop the trains passing through our lives because of situations such as (fill in entanglement here)?

elm said...

"Our noblest citizens are worried about America. They are not so much distracted by events from outside the country in the realm of international politics, but rather what is happening to the soul of America. Lincoln never feared that America would be conquered from the outside, but he dreaded decay from within. Of the two kinds of barbarism, external or invasion from without, and inner barbarism of spiritual dry rot, the second is the more subtle and dangerous. Snakes which attack put us on the defensive more quickly than cancer which unseen mines all within: 'It is easy to slide to hell.'" Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen

Harry Seldon said...

Armchair quarterbacking is cheap and easy. Who is going to send the NY Chancery a substantive suggestion? I really would like for someone who understands the situation to explain to us exactly what Dolan should do. I'll gladly copy and paste it into an email to his offce. There does have to be a move that can be made...but those of us who don't know what it is should not call out bishops for not doing whatever it is that we don't know about. Get it?

Harry Seldon said...

BTW, Archbolds, this is on you. Find a guest blogger who actually knows this situation so that you have some content on this matter besides detraction.

Half Heathen said...

Per the Archdiocese's website:

"However, ArchCare had no other option but to pay into the fund which administers the union members’ benefits “under protest” to continue to offer insurance to its union workers and remain in the health care field in New York."

The Archdiocese's priorities are clearly stated. It is more important "to offer insurance to its union workers and remain in the health care field in New York" than to give full resistance to the culture of death. A review of the Cardinal's and Archdiocese's statements and actions, and lack of action, shows that giving full resistance to the culture of death is a lower priority than many things.

Harry Sheldon, your demand is unreasonable and impractical. The Cardinal's and Archdiocese's statements, on their face, are problematic and show a probable failure on their part. The Archdiocese, which styles itself in the healthcare business, has the staff and resources -- and the profound moral obligation -- to fully vet such issues. Your demand that anyone and everyone, the vast majority of whom will not be in the healthcare business or whatever other business the Archdiocese puts itself in (how about the salvation of souls?), must fully research and provide solutions to an issue would have the practical effect of silencing all comment and criticism. Or is that your whole purpose?

Harry Seldon said...

So, does it mean that this is a decision between paying the union and closing the hospitals? Is that it? Do you know? Is the contract due to expire? When? Do you know? If it is due to expire in one month, should Dolan close the hospitals over that month? A year? Two years?

You don't know a thing. I don't. No one here does, apparently most of the Archbolds. We have no idea what moves are open to the Cdl. I'd love, absolutely love to tear him a new one because he deserves it over the Dinner and Biden...but I'm also about being honest and in this case everyone is talking out of an inappropriate orifice and should shut it.

Jay Anderson said...

Half Heathen says: "... would have the practical effect of silencing all comment and criticism. Or is that your whole purpose?"

Harry Sheldon says: "Or shut up about it."

I think you have your answer, Half Heathen.

"Shut up," he explained.

Sherry Antonetti said...

I went to Cardinal Dolan's twitter and asked him to clarify how "Under Protest" is any different than doing nothing? I asked him to clarify how capitulating even under protest in any way makes it possible for any other diocese or institution that is Catholic to protest further than his reasonable accommodation of yielding under protest. I suggest others do the same, to ask the Cardinal to explain how what he is doing/allowing is something other than tepid acceptance of an immoral but now legal law.

elm said...

A local parish has on it's bulletin an ad from a OB/Gyn office with a link that shows up on the the first page of the website announcing services for sterilizations and a myriad of contraceptives. When the pastor was asked about this ad, his response, "I can't control everything in this parish." Hmmm. I no longer attend that parish as it is impossible to know what the intentions are with staff and pastor. Apparently, one of the OB/Gyns is a parishioner and probably gives big bucks. Faith has a price.

Harry Seldon said...

"A local parish has on it's bulletin an ad from a OB/Gyn office..."

OR perhaps the pastor really has delegated the responsiblilty for taking ads to someone else, and maybe he hasn't made a policy that a parish employee must review the website of every advertiser. And maybe he's tired of people calling every single thing in parish into question. I see his point, as I see yours...but your response should have been to offer to help with bulletin NOT TO DETRACT AND SLANDER HIM ON A WEBSITE. "Faith has a price"...GMAFB.

Harry Seldon said...

"" "Shut up," he explained. ""

Everyone here who knows what detraction actually is raise your hand.

Elizabeth said...

He's a dangerous, scandalous buffoon.

Harry Seldon said...

"He's a dangerous, scandalous buffoon."


Perhaps. On the other hand, what did it profit you to comment that? Riddle me this: Did you perhaps cooperate in a sin of detraction? If that is possible, then what did you gain that made it worthwhile?

The whole world?

Half Heathen said...

Mr. Sheldon,

Yes, it could very well be a decision between paying the union and closing hospitals. The Archdiocese's priority is always and everywhere and only the salvation of souls. Everything else is less than secondary, it is subsidiary. If any action does not tend to that end, it must be cut off. Better to enter into eternal life with no hospitals than to go to Gehenna with the finest healthcare system in the world.

The Catholic Church teaches a good many things that require the faithful to give up things that are good in themselves, but nonetheless hinder our eternal salvation. For example, asking a married couple to be fully open to children and not use artificial contraception requires many sacrifices - for example, having less resources to spend on any individual child. Given the direction of the world, these sacrifices will only become greater.

Again, the Archdiocese's actions in the case are problematic on their face and create a public scandal because they appear to contradict the Church's teaching. If there is a good explanation, the burden is on the Cardinal to give it, not the Archbolds. Really, do you expect that any such explanation would ever be forthcoming if someone did not force the Cardinal's hand? Bravo to the Patrick for pushing this.

Your demand might be more reasonable if this were the first such apparent scandal. Once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, thrice is a pattern. The Cardinal is well beyond three.


No, we don't know everything. To quote a respected early 20th Century philosopher, I only know what I read in the papers. But what we read in the papers is a problem.

Half Heathen said...

It is not detraction to repeat a fact that is already public knowledge. Neither is expressing a negative opinion about what is already public knowledge.

Harry Seldon said...

"If there is a good explanation, the burden is on the Cardinal to give it, not the Archbolds."


There is an exception in the teaching on detraction for journalism. Journalism involves research. Research brings the truth to light. If the Archbolds are journalists, then I am Mickey Mouse. If they are not journalists, then they are just lay people who have a big microphone. If so, and they are teaching the rest of us to detract people, we are all in big trouble.

If they see it differently, then why in the world not lay THAT out in a post? Oh yeah...theology is hard.

Harry Seldon said...

""It is not detraction to repeat a fact that is already public knowledge. Neither is expressing a negative opinion about what is already public knowledge.""

And what is public? The inner workings of the negotiations with this union? Of course not. We have no idea what is going on in there. It's not public. This is the same sort of Monday morning QBing that has been going on about P Pius XII and whether he stood up to the Nazis enough. What was the good pope weighing? The lives of priests and nuns in Germany? The lives of Jews hiding in the vatican?

I wonder what the Archbolds would have posted about Pius XII in 1942? I wonder if anyone would have commented "He's a dangerous, scandalous buffoon."

Maybe, I think.

Magdalene said...

I expect most of the bishops, lead by the squishy C. Dolan, to also cave in to the HHS mandate "under protest" which means exactly NOTHING! Dead bodies float downstream and go with the flow and so do most of our bishops.

But then there are the few, the brave, the true men who may risk jail or fines or whatever the murdering administration wants to throw at them and in them lives the spirit of St. John Fisher.

For the rest of us, we need the spirit of a St. Thomas More.

Half Heathen said...

To fair to the Cardinal, there may very well be a (partial) good explanation. It might be, for example: "We have a contractual obligation to pay. If we stop paying now, the union will sue us in court and it will win and we will be forced to pay anyway. So stopping now will accomplish nothing."

But just saying that would be insufficient. At the very least the Cardinal should order a review of all contracts and procedures and policies to prevent this ever happening again. Some heads should roll. The Archdiocese should also use every other practical means to get out of the contract or push the union to drop coverage of contraception and abortifacients -- up to and including "strong arm" or heavy-handed tactics to lean on the union.

Harry Seldon said...

Heh, I wonder if the comments will disappear again.

Harry Seldon said...

"" At the very least the Cardinal should order a review of all contracts and procedures and policies to prevent this ever happening again. Some heads should roll. The Archdiocese should also use every other practical means to get out of the contract or push the union to drop coverage of contraception and abortifacients -- up to and including "strong arm" or heavy-handed tactics to lean on the union.""

Indeed, all of these seem like things the Cdl. should be doing, let us hope that he is.

Sherry Antonetti said...

Again, this is lost energy if we do not start asking the princes of our Church to clarify..if it is a legalistic argument that puts them in this position, say so, but this middle mushy ground does not affirm the teaching of the church or illustrate witness against those who push a policy antithetical to the church, on the face, the Cardinal's statement seems a distinction without a difference, whereas we are called to always witness our difference from the world by calling to mind and heart, the distinctions which matter. I do not yet see how the decision to follow the HHS mandate and provide coverage for practices deemed immoral is in any way "under protest" other than the Cardinal has said so. He should clarify publically, what this means and why it matters. This we can do in full charity, asking and allowing the Cardinal the benefit of good faith, to explain himself or reconsider.

Agnes B. Bullock said...

Cardinal Dolan will not do a thing- he is all talk and no action- continuing to provide cover for teh Democrat party, to whom his loyalties lie first

Harry Seldon said...

"This we can do in full charity, asking and allowing the Cardinal the benefit of good faith, to explain himself or reconsider."

Hear, hear.

Perhaps you should submit an application to the Register to become an official blogger. If you just promise not to proclaim that a Cardinal is complicit in grave and intrinsic moral evil in your posts, I'll vote for you.

Harry Seldon said...

""Cardinal Dolan will not do a thing- he is all talk and no action- continuing to provide cover for teh Democrat party, to whom his loyalties lie first""

Ah, Agnes, I do hope you negotiated a good deal for yourself. Alas, since I still have my stuff, I don't think you even got the entire world. That's too cheap.

Half Heathen said...

A New York Times article is not public? (Okay, maybe not. It's readership is declining precipitously.)

It is not necessary (and generally not possible) that every fact be public. When the publicly known facts, by themselves, are problematic as they are here, the burden is on the Cardinal to provide an explanation, including the revealing of non-public facts. We the faithful have both the right and responsibility to demand that explanation. Really, Mr. Sheldon, are you saying that the faithful do not have that right? Or are you saying the public facts in this particular case do not require an explanation? Are you positing some expansive always-give-the-benefit-of-doubt rule that would get the Cardinal off the hook in this case? And you appear to contradict yourself. How can the Archbolds provide your demanded solution when they do not, and cannot, know all the facts you say are relevant? Should the Archbolds have gone undercover and ferreted out what happened in the closed-doors negotiations before commenting? Do you really want "real journalists" snooping about and cultivating moles in the chancellery?

Your "arm-chair quarterbacking" analogy is not appropriate here. The question is not whether the Cardinal should have run or passed, it's whether or not he threw the game.

At the very least, this is a potential teaching moment. All Catholics face the difficult choices of being true to their faith while negotiating the practicalities of living in a heathen culture. If there is a good explanation to be given, the Cardinal has the responsibility to give it so that the faithful can learn.

Harry Seldon said...

Half Heathen posted:

""If there is a good explanation to be given, the Cardinal has the responsibility to give it so that the faithful can learn.""

Pat Archbold posted:

""Cardinal Dolan and the Archdiocese of NY are complicit in a grave and intrinsic moral evil.""


I think, on that, I will rest my case. I can sum it up no better however many times I try. Your quoted statement is congruent with Catholic thought. Pat's is not, and I believe the point has been demonstrated.

Half Heathen said...

Fact (undisputed): "the archdiocese’s own money is used to pay for a union health plan that covers contraception and even abortion for workers at its affiliated nursing homes and clinics."

Patrick Archibold conclusion: "Cardinal Dolan and the Archdiocese of NY are complicit in a grave and intrinsic moral evil."

Does the fact support the conclusion? Change "complicit in" to the more neutral "participating in" or "involved in" and I cannot see how the conclusion is not supported. But "Complicit"? - "choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act" (dictionary.com). There are possible scenarios where the Archdiocese did not "choose" to be in the situation. It may merely have been negligent in failing to investigate when the contract was entered into. We do not know. We need to know. The Archdiocese has an obligation to come clean.

So, Mr. Sheldon, I think we agree. Patrick overstated his case. Whether or not that is technically "detraction," I'll have to look it up. It was at least irresponsible.

I would say that Patrick's irresponsibility is considerably less than the Archdiocese's, actively complicit or not.

Harry Seldon said...

Fact (undisputed):

"My money is used to support abortions domestically and internationally through taxation."

Thankfully, we are all aware that the IRS will put me in jail if I do not pay and any cooperation with evil on my part is unwitting and certainly under duress, and that therefore I am not culpable.

I am not aware of the ramifications to the diocese of the Cdl. refusing to pay the money the SEIU is demanding. In other words, I do not have sufficient information to judge culpability, or even cooperation.

Ergo, this blog post should never have happened, and we should have had nothing to comment about.

veneremurcernui said...

If you read the full article, you will find that, as far as those involved in administering the plan and representing the union side in whatever negotiations go on, there has been no public or private complaint from Church officials about having to pay for these intrinsic evils for 12 years or more. If you're hanging your hopes on Cardinal Dolan being involved in super-secret negotiations to end this moral travesty, your hopes are ill-founded. This issue did not just develop - it in fact began under Cardinal O'Connor. But Cardinal Dolan, according to the article, has done nothing to end it. "Under protest."

All the defenses of Dolan by Mr. Timeonhishands come down to the error of doing evil that good may come of it. Sorry, if the choice is operating hospitals or committing a grave evil, guess what, the hospitals have to go. If there is really no choice to operate the hospitals without keeping the abortion/contraception plan, they must be shut down.

Harry Seldon said...

"All the defenses of Dolan by Mr. Timeonhishands come down to the error of doing evil that good may come of it"

I like the false dichotomy. To be against unnecessarily detracting a cardinal is to defend evil. Well done. You've got me, I'm actually an abortion doctor and Democratic party activist. We've been in negotiations with Dolan to have Jesus replaced with Obama on all NYC crucifixes. Good work sniffing me out.

Back in the real world..how many of you would refuse to kiss his ring? I'd kiss the ring, no matter the hand, and I've give extra deference to the hat, no matter the head. I'd certainly not go 'round convicting Cardinals of grave sins on widely read blogs. Some things, I admit, I am too afraid to do.

Lori said...

"If there is really no choice to operate the hospitals without keeping the abortion/contraception plan, they must be shut down."

If the Catholic hospitals are shut down, what happens then? They are all taken over as public hospitals. And you can be sure the culture of death will then reign supreme in health care in New York. Abortion, contraception and sterilization can be forced on all Catholic health-care workers (especially if Gov. Cuomo's new "reproductive health" bill passes). No toehold at all for Catholic doctors, nurses or patients for treatment in accordance with Catholic morals.

Once again, do you have a workable alternative? In order to keep a toehold for Catholic practice of health care, the Cardinal has to tolerate an evil, while working to undo it. This is what Cardinal Dolan is doing with the HHS mandate - fighting for the legal principle that will help undo this situation.

Calling names does not help at all.




Harry Seldon said...

Oh, and it's my day off. I had to work over the weekend, so I feel like I deserve it. And if I want to spend it on here, that's my business. I've been around the internet long enough to know that "Mr Timeonhishands" is just an insult and a debate tactic. I could have called you "Mr. JudgeofallincludingprincesoftheChurch". I didn't.

As Catholics we must presume good intentions where intentions are not known. Further, if I sin, I go to a priest and I certainly have never had one tell me I'm a "dangerous, scandalous buffoon" and so if I see a priest commit an apparent sin, what should I do? Call him a scandalous buffoon? Tell everyone about it?

Go ahead. Tell me about this Catholicism you speak of.

newguy40 said...

FWIW, seeing the false defense of Dolan's sophistry reminds me of a similar recent comments I saw on another site using false charity and even more false tolerance to explain a decision for on going support of a Boys Scout troop at a local parish.

There may be more than the usual human foolishness involved. There is much more likelihood of direct demonic influence. For myself, I'm going to avoid these web sites and insure my devotions to St. Michael and the Holy Mother of God.

Lori said...

Harry Seldon, thank you for your good and sensible words.

veneremurcernui said...

Better some insults, than the excommunications you've pretended to hand out to several here today. In terms of judgment, you've not only assigned guilt of sin, you've gone so far as to dole out eternal judgment, such as telling others they have sold their souls. Nice. You seem to be an expert on detraction, perhaps you would be better off spending some time on hypocrisy.

Were you not asking for alternatives? And when I provided them, you immediately changed the subject, yet again.

There is no justification for maintaining these plans. None. If all the Catholic services in the country have to be shut down to avoid the commission of grave evil, so be it, but evil cannot be done that good may come of it. Period.

Cardinal Dolan has had several years to address this situation. According to those involved in the negotiations, he has uttered no complaint, made no move to change things in the slightest.

This is hardly Cardinal Dolan's first foray into scandal. It's about the 17th in the last year. I can quite understand that people's patience is wearing thin. But I would still kiss his ring, certainly, for the sake of his office.

veneremurcernui said...

Lori:

What you just uttered was technically a heresy. You cannot claim that someone HAS to commit evil. You are falling for the trap that in order to do some good, we have to tolerate some evil. Even if it's the greatest good in the world (outside of God, natch!), we cannot commit even a small evil act to permit that good. Cannot be done.

Did you think I was calling names? Because of time on his hands? Sorry, I thought it was funny.

Mack Hall, HSG said...

"As for the faith, I find it comfortable; as for the faithful, I find THEM intolerable."

-- Hadrian VII (the novel)

Sherry Antonetti said...

This is a deeply troubling thing, to know that our Church has allowed itself to turn a blind eye to evil "for the greater good." Christ turned the other cheek but never a blind eye. He did not ever parse things such that you could hate a little and still love. You could not look at a woman with less than chaste intent/thoughts and commit adultery.

I have spent some time reading about this and the article by Katherine Lopez at National Review and skimmed the New York Times article. What is clear is the following:

The Arch diocese capitulated on a critical point regarding the conscience clause as part of an accommodation of labor agreements back in 1993, undermining its own moral authority and blunting its ability to speak out on issues such as contraception and abortion to the world. If you allow it some of the time but declare it immoral, you are at best a hypocrite, but if you know it is immoral and you supply another with the means to engage in immorality, you have the double effect of leading another to sin, and having caused scandal. Cardinal Dolan may have fought then, the Arch diocese may have lost then, but then they should have said, fine, we're not playing this game. There are always alternatives which hold to the Holy Spirit, but they cannot be found if they are not sought. After losing, they chose to simply remain silent. How under protest is it to pay for immoral things without complaint for 20 years?

Mary De Voe said...

What is important about this post is that now, the truth has come out and many comments about Cardl Dolan will help him see himself.

Harry Seldon said...

Veneremurcernui said to Lori -

""What you just uttered was technically a heresy. You cannot claim that someone HAS to commit evil. You are falling for the trap that in order to do some good, we have to tolerate some evil. Even if it's the greatest good in the world (outside of God, natch!), we cannot commit even a small evil act to permit that good. Cannot be done.""


Follow:

We cannot commit any evil to accomplish good.

To detract the Cardinal, to insult the Cardinal, to judge the Cardinal are all sins.

Many here are apparently committing these sins to bring about some vague good of reform.

This is my point. It is parallel to your point, so why are we arguing? I submit that the Cardinal cannot commit evil to bring about good, and so he has to figure a way out of his problems, and quick. Likewise, Catholics cannot sin against him or against justice in the name of reform, so they should not be blogging about how he is complicit with evil or posting useless insults against him.

Nobody should be sinning.

I hope that is clear.

Harry Seldon said...

Oh, an Veneremur,

You can descend into a spiral of judging me as being guilty of judging another of being guilty of judging another or being guilty of judging someone else. That way lies madness.

I have a simple point. Don't detract Cardinals. Don't insult them, don't accuse them of things you cannot actually know. Don't call them scandalous buffoons.

Feel free to demand that the NY Archdiocese close its hospitals. Feel free to demand that the Chancery staff stage a sit-in at the state capitol. Feel free to demand anything you want, you can do that. What you can't do, in my estimation, is what Pat did today. I will submit to any Bishop who says otherwise, and wear virtual sackcloth for a year.

Harry Seldon said...

One more.

I notice above that the Cardinal is actually accused of apostasy, someone accused him of having loyalty to the Democratic party, not the Church.

The fact that my critics are hectoring me, instead of howling over that, says more than I ever could.

It profits a man nothing to get involved in another's sin, why not just leave it alone? If Dolan is sinning, his enemies will out everything. They don't need any help from you or me. And for darn sure not from the Archbolds.

Lori said...

veneremurcernui said...

"Lori:

What you just uttered was technically a heresy. You cannot claim that someone HAS to commit evil. You are falling for the trap that in order to do some good, we have to tolerate some evil."


I did not say that someone has to COMMIT evil. I said he might have to tolerate it for a time while trying to remove it, because there are no options that might bring on a worse evil. These are quite different things.

The Church has many nuances in her teaching about these things. Indirect and remote material cooperation with evil is not always a sin, for instance.

Our Pope Emeritus Benedict, back when he was at the CDF, if I'm not mistaken, said that even voting for a pro-abortion candidate for office was not always a sin, if there were grave enough reasons, i.e. all the other candidates were even worse on the life issues, and this candidate might do the most to "limit the evil." Please note the language used.

I have no idea of who is sinning, and how badly, in this scenario, and frankly, neither do you. So please give it a rest and do some good by praying for everyone involved.

Paul Zummo said...

You can descend into a spiral of judging me as being guilty of judging another of being guilty of judging another or being guilty of judging someone else. That way lies madness.

That way lies truth. You have written some 20 comments in which you have pretty much insulted or impugned the character of every single person you have disagreed with. So before striking a sanctimonious pose, perhaps you ought to note the log in your eye.

Sand Mama said...

My reaction to this is 'oh no, oh no, oh no...please not again!' It does often seem as if our bishops are fighting tooth and nail to undermine every scrap of moral authority they might have left.

Gretchen said...

Mr. Seldon has worked somewhat effectively to deflect attention from the issue at hand--that the Archdiocese of NY, led by the head of the USCCB, pays for abortions and contraceptives, all while urging the flock to stand strong against the HHS mandate. The hypocrisy is more than stunning. That this archdiocese has been participating for years in the ending of human lives is, apparently, less of a scandal than the supposed sin of detraction against a cardinal. Excuse me, but what a crock.

Mary Katherine said...

Well I'm sure glad he didnt' become Pope. We would all be paying for contraception and abortion, 'under protest' if he were in charge of the Church. Like one person said, I'm sure the babies are thankful they pay under protest. They are still dead. Our bishops need to wake up. What saint said that hell is paved with the skulls of bishops?

Mary Katherine said...

Well I'm sure glad he didnt' become Pope. We would all be paying for contraception and abortion, 'under protest' if he were in charge of the Church. Like one person said, I'm sure the babies are thankful they pay under protest. They are still dead. Our bishops need to wake up. What saint said that hell is paved with the skulls of bishops?

ronconte said...

Most of the above commentators assume that Cardinal Dolan is in the wrong. Only a few mentioned the magisterial teaching on cooperation with evil. Conservative Catholics boast of their faithfulness to the Magisterium and the Bishops -- until something is said that contradicts their own ideas, assumptions, and limited understanding. Then they rail against any Bishop who contradicts their own views.

Kathy said...

Limited understanding, ronconte? What is there Left to understand here? It speaks for itself.

gothmog said...

"If the Archbolds are journalists, then I am Mickey Mouse."

Isn't this the part where someone gets punched in the face by Indiana Jones?

Donna M said...

...is this Crdl Dolan's attempt at talking "turkey"?

...then please, get someone in there that can translate "gobble-dee-gook"!

...because, we need an "EXORCIST" now!

Donna M said...

...Pat and Matt,

Just another day at the office, huh!...;)

Out of charity...
Tomorrow is the Blessed Mother's feast day of the Visitation lqast day of May!

I'd like to give "evil" some indigestion, let it chew on that bit of knowledge!
...they're is going to be, a whole lot of, choking, gagging and carrying on!

Correct all in error BVM!

veneremurcernui said...

Well, Harry, I spoke with my priest in the confessional about this last night, and he says that it is no sin, and no detraction, to point out the obvious - both Cardinal Dolan and the Archdiocese of NY are complicit in grave sin. He was aware of the facts of the matter at the time and said that this is public knowledge, there is enough information available to make a judgment, and no exculpatory information has been presented by the archdiocese. He agrees that Pat did nothing wrong.

This man is by far the best, strictest, most hardcore old school Catholic Confessor I have been blessed to receive this incredibly necessary Sacrament from. He has helped me change my thinking on a number of matters. He continually adheres to the moral Doctrine of the Faith and all the Dogmas (which is another matter - upon which of the 400 odd Dogmas of the Church are you excommunicating those who disagree with you?) in a way that frequently repudiates both mass error in the Church and the dominant evils in our culture. And his sermons - posted anonymously - are very frequently heard by many many thousands of souls to great effect. But I'm sure he's also an excommunicate to you.

Something has disturbed me about your comments. They are a facsimile of truth, both slippery and insulting at the same time. They are not edifying, and they seem to have the sole purpose of defending the indefensible. You are confating the office with the man. But most of all, it's your near presentation of truth with subtle twists into error and unedifying broadsides against others that I think are the most disturbing. There is something very much not right here.

For Pat, good post. If our bishops are to stop behaving like wolves in shepherd's clothing, it is up to the laity, as Bishop Sheen said, to hold them to account.

Gretchen said...

Ronconte, there is no 'assume'. By any reasonable Catholic standard, the cardinal and the archdiocese is in the wrong, have been in the wrong, and what do you want to bet, will continue in the wrong. They are not for us. They are not for the unborn, obviously. Questions going forward should include: How much money do I contribute to this organization that cooperates in the evil of abortion and contraception? Where do I go to worship with those who are NOT cooperating with such evil? What do I say to my children and potential converts about the situation? Should I ask my bishop if this is going on in my own diocese? What if it is? Etc...

A tangled web for us all, yes?

Jay Anderson said...

Well done, veneremurcernui! Exactly right!

Rick said...

Re: the "magisterial teaching on cooperation with evil", the only precept that comes close is Aquinas' principle of double effect. And this does not apply to Dolan's predicament.

The others e.g. lesser evil et al. never qualified as magisterial teaching although some Jesuits must have taught them.

ronconte said...

@Rick
Magisterial teaching on cooperation with evil is found in Evangelium Vitae (formal and material), the CCC (formal), and JP2's address to the Roman Rota: "For grave and proportionate motives they may therefore act in accord with the traditional principles of material cooperation."

@Everyone
Is the Church your teacher, or not? Why do you ignore the magisterial teachings on the three fonts of morality and on cooperation with evil? Have you not read that Jesus permitted the paying of taxes to the Romans, despite the misuse of some of that money to commit grave sins?

Rick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rick said...

Here is the context of that quote. I don't think it applies to bishops who must teach and exemplify the faith.

"Professionals in the field of civil law should avoid being personally involved in anything that might imply a cooperation with divorce. For judges this may prove difficult, since the legal order does not recognize a conscientious objection to exempt them from giving sentence. For grave and proportionate motives they may therefore act in accord with the traditional principles of material cooperation. . . . Lawyers, as independent professionals, should always decline the use of their profession for an end that is contrary to justice, as is divorce. They can only cooperate in this kind of activity when, in the intention of the client, it is not directed to the break-up of the marriage, but to the securing of other legitimate effects that can only be obtained through such a judicial process in the established legal order."

Post a Comment