Cardinal Dolan…Pope?

Habemus Gotham?

Is it possible?

According to this story, the New York prelate’s name is being mentioned with increasing frequency in Rome, as cardinals from around the globe begin arriving for the official farewell of Pope Benedict XVI next week.

Of course, speculation is just that – speculation.  Nonetheless, the Italian newspaper La Repubblica is reporting that Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, one of the most seasoned and influential members of the College of Cardinals, is quietly promoting Dolan as a possible choice in the upcoming conclave.

Cardinal Dolan himself of course has displayed his usual humility and good humor, and responded to inquiries with typical candor:

You know, listen, all the cardinals are really embarrassed to talk about that, and we’d be uncomfortable talking about it, so I’ll leave it at that.

Of course, the conventional wisdom has held that the cardinals will not elect an American out of a reluctance to see a “super-power papacy.”  Moreover, Cardinal Dolan has only been a cardinal for a year, an historically very short time in the College to be seriously considered.

Young, full of energy and boundless joy, from an unlikely country…

Nah, can’t happen.

7,488 views

Categories:Featured

68 thoughts on “Cardinal Dolan…Pope?

  1. Elizabeth says:

    Good Lord, I pray it’s not Cardinal Dolan.

  2. Ben Anderson says:

    I suppose it makes sense that since +Dolan endorsed CV, CV returns the favor. +Dolan would certainly not be my first choice. He’s much too cozy with evil forces within the church (I’m not talking about Obama here). This is in stark contrast to the speech the Pope just recently gave on V2. We need someone who recognizes just how bad the liberal “catholic” agenda is and does more than just talks about it.

  3. I’m going to guess “no.” Nothing against His Eminence, and I’d be thrilled to see him as pope if that is the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but…

    1) I see too much angst around the concept of an American pope right now. Not because he’d be partial to Obama (quite the opposite, I’d think), but because of the issues with the American church in general. Which brings me to

    2) on a selfish note, he’s needed here. ;-)

  4. If Cardinal Dolan gets the Papacy, he will be remembered as “Obama’s Pope.”

    1. chris scanlan says:

      I doubt that, as the next papacy may last over 20 years, while Obama’s reign will last 3 1/2

      1. toddyo1935 says:

        Maybe Barry will wake up one night in a cold sweat after a “Scroogean Dream” and repent of his hatred for all we hold dear. Then he would have a chance to be a great President.

      2. abadilla says:

        Chris,
        Omaba may be a lame duck President but he will live through other leftists who are determined to stay in power and give anything to voters to get their way.

    2. Not likely since there is no “love” lost between them. Dolan treats him with courtesy when required but he never backs down on essential Catholic beliefs.

  5. naturgesetz says:

    What’s disturbing is that Bertone is pushing him. From what I’ve been reading these past few days, Bertone is a big part of the problem, and the next Pope needs to put him out to pasture.

  6. Janet Baker says:

    May God forbid – especially after his dismal conduct with the Al Smith Dinner fiasco.

    1. chris scanlan says:

      His dismal conduct?? You mean being a witness to the light and joy that Christ can have in our lives and by sharing a few jokes with the president? That is hardly dismal conduct. Did you expect him to treat the sitting president of the United States rudely? If he did, do you think that behavior would be appropriate for the Holy See? I sure hope not.

      1. abadilla says:

        No Chris, on this one I take Janet’s side. He had dinner with the man after telling all of us the man from the White House was violating our religious liberty with the HH Mandate. Think about it, Cardinal O’Connor refused to eat with Clinton because he would not eat with a man who supported and still supports abortion, but Dolan didn’t have a problem with that.

        You might say I’m being too harsh, but Pius XI closed the Vatican and forbid anyone there to show the Vatican to the Führer when Hitler visited Italy. Of course Obama is no Hitler but the Pope and O’Connor acted out of principle. Many of us sent letters pleading with Dolan not to be used by the President and he did anyway. If that is his idea of being pastoral, I’m at a loss for what pastoral means.

        Cuomo has proclaimed time and again he is a Roman Catholic as he openly promotes immorality in New York before a silent Cardinal. I know many people are very impressed with the Cardinal but folks like Janet and me are not. Also, it does not look good for Bertone to be openly campaigning for the next Pope when Pope Benedict XVI himself has not said a word about whom he thinks should replace him on the throne of Peter.

        You asked Janet, “Did you expect him to treat the sitting president of the United States rudely?” Perhaps Janet expected what I expected, that our Cardinal would not invite the modern Herod to a place of honor with a very public Catholic figure. Was Cardinal O’Connor rude to Clinton when he refused to break bread with the man who supported the butchery of the unborn?
        Having written all this, I will respect whomever the Holy Spirit chooses to become the next Pope.

        1. chris scanlan says:

          A snipet of Dolan’s response to folks who disagreed with his decision:

          “The teaching of the Church, so radiant in the Second Vatican Council, is that the posture of the Church towards culture, society, and government is that of engagement and dialogue. In other words, it’s better to invite than to ignore, more effective to talk together than to yell from a distance, more productive to open a door than to shut one. Our recent popes have been examples of this principle, receiving dozens of leaders with whom on some points they have serious disagreements. Thus did our present Holy Father graciously receive our current President of the United States. And, in the current climate, we bishops have maintained that we are open to dialogue with the administration to try and resolve our differences. What message would I send if I refused to meet with the President?”
          I would like to point out what Cardinal Dolan pointed out, that even our Benedict XVI opened his door to President Obama. And I do believe if Cardinal Dolan refused, that it was a lost opportunity to engage in dialogue with not just Obama, but Romney as well.
          Another thought: The very purpose of the dinner was to invite those with differing positions to have a pleasant evening, one where opening dialogue could take place and where both sides make an effort to understand one another.
          and finally, though cliche and most times i disagree when people pull this example out, Jesus sat down and had dinner with sinners, now he may not have sat down with Herod, but I think the point remains.

          1. Your closing comment was my exact thought – Jesus sat down and had dinner with sinners.

          2. Janet Baker says:

            Usually He was an honored guest at their homes, never vice versa. He did so after they publicly left their evil ways and repented. And if anyone really thinks Obama wanted to “make an effort to understand one another”, they really need to take off those rose-colord glasses. Unfortunately that goes for Cardinal Dolan as well.

          3. abadilla says:

            Correct, and He also called them to repent!

          4. BenM says:

            Exactly! What better occasion to invite sinners to repentance and conversion than sharing a meal with them? Jesus understood it this way, and this is exactly how Cardinal Dolan intended it from the very beginning.

            It’s just that our society thinks that by sitting down and sharing a meal and a laugh with someone, we are suddenly a complete compatriot of that person. Which is why some people think Jesus was non-judgmental and okay with sinners remaining sinners. As if to say “He ate with them, so He must have been okay with everything they did.” Nope. He ate with them to get their attention and engage them in dialogue, so He could point out what they were doing was wrong, without them shutting Him out or disregarding His message.

            Cardinal Dolan was following a pretty good example on that one. And his message never failed or faltered. It was consistently on the side of life and religious liberty. Go watch a recording of him giving his “Benediction in the Lion’s Den” if you think he is too compromising.

            http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ryan-robertson/2012/09/07/networks-ignore-dnc-benediction-archbishop-dolan-defends-right-life-

          5. abadilla says:

            “Exactly! What better occasion to invite sinners to repentance and conversion than sharing a meal with them? Jesus understood it this way, and this is exactly how Cardinal Dolan intended it from the very beginning.”
            Well, how is that “repentance” and “conversion” working for Obama these days? Let’s see, he continues to support the butchery of the unborn as any modern Herod would. He wants the tax payers of America to pay for Miss Fluke’s contraceptives and for anyone who wants them. He is persecuting us with the H.H. Mandate. He did not lift up a finger to protest the fact that God was taken out of the picture at the Democratic National Convention. He continues to support NARAL and Planned Parenthood and is spreading his love to Third World countries by killing their children through abortion. Forgive me for my cynicism, but I see no signs of “conversion” and “repetance” anywhere, but the scandal of the Cardinal breaking bread with him remains.

          6. BenM says:

            Abadilla, you ignore two things:

            1) We cannot allow the actions, or inaction, of our neighbor to dictate who we are and how we encounter the world. We must let only God, through the example of Christ and the direction of the Holy Spirit dictate how we behave and engage our fellow man. Whether the message takes hold now or 200 years from now, the message does not change. Love your neighbor. Engage them with confidence, but above all, in true charity. Pray for those who persecute you.

            2) It is not the actions of Cardinal Dolan that have caused Obama to ignore his message or fail to repent or convert. No one can force conversion, and even though it hasn’t happened yet, that doesn’t mean that it won’t, or that it can’t. As St. Padre Pio says, “Pray. Hope. And don’t worry.” To do anything else is a sin against the the virtue of Hope itself. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it most certainly wasn’t converted in a day, or even in a century. It was the sacrifice, unbridled charity and persistent profession of faith of the early Christians that eventually changed the society and the empire. Do you hold it against St. Peter that he was unable to convert the Roman Emperor in under 50 years?

          7. abadilla says:

            1) ” We cannot allow the actions, or inaction, of our neighbor to dictate who we are and how we encounter the world. We must let only God, through the example of Christ and the direction of the Holy Spirit dictate how we behave and engage our fellow man. Whether the message takes hold now or 200 years from now, the message does not change. Love your neighbor. Engage them with confidence, but above all, in true charity. Pray for those who persecute you.”

            O.K.

            2) “It is not the actions of Cardinal Dolan that have caused Obama to ignore his message or fail to repent or convert. No one can force conversion, and even though it hasn’t happened yet, that doesn’t mean that it won’t, or that it can’t. As St. Padre Pio says, “Pray. Hope. And don’t worry.” To do anything else is a sin against the the virtue of Hope itself. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it most certainly wasn’t converted in a day, or even in a century. It was the sacrifice, unbridled charity and persistent profession of faith of the early Christians that eventually changed the society and the empire. Do you hold it against St. Peter that he was unable to convert the Roman Emperor in under 50 years?”
            Then, explain to me how St. Thomas More and St. Thomas a Becket defied their monarchs to defend the Church? Explain to me how Cardinal Mindszenty defended the Church in Hungary and why. Explain to me why Pius XI ordered Cardinal Innitzer of Austria not to allowed the Nazis to fly the swastika from Catholic churches. Explain to me why Cardinal O’Connor refused to have President Clinton in the same dinner Cardinal Dolan had with Obama when Obama holds the same position Clinton still has toward the unborn, “it’s O.K. to butcher them because it is a woman’s right.” Were all these folks lacking in the virtue of hope when they confronted evil or is it that our Catholic Church is no longer into defending principles but accommodating the enemy with “dialogue?” Do I need to give you more examples for you to get what I mean? Now, you may disagree with my position until you are blue in the face, but you can’t say I don’t have “reasons” for my position.
            As for Peter, somehow I missed that he tried to convert any Roman Emperor in 50 years.

          8. BenM says:

            Well, to use your own example, has President Clinton been converted via the dinner-snub method Cardinal O’Connor used? If anything, Mr. Clinton is just as entrenched in a pro-abortion mindset now as he ever was.
            +++
            And Card. Dolan has not capitulated to any wayward position or relaxed his opposition. He has gone so far as to call for civil disobedience in opposing the mandate. That hardly sounds like advice issued from a luke-warm position.
            +++
            My whole point in all of this is that Cardinal Dolan has been a strong and even defiant leader of his flock when the situation called for it, but he has also grasped every attempt at opening dialogue with those who hold positions gravely contrary to our beliefs, in order to secure an open line of communication. (It’s hard to convert or change minds when the persons you are trying to convert dismiss you, and thereby your message, as unreasonable without ever actually hearing the message.) Cardinal Dolan successfully engaged in dialogue and gained the attention of his opponents without compromising any of his own beliefs or positions, in precisely the same way Christ sat down and ate with sinners of all ilks, without compromising His perfection or His message in any way. There is a strong and undeniable parallel.
            +++
            Your argument against Cardinal Dolan’s methods is that they have not (yet) yielded a conversion or repentance. Well, as of right now, neither have the methods of any of your examples, and they’ve had longer to take effect. St. Peter’s methods did take effect, a few hundred years later, converting an entire empire using the methods learned from the first-hand example of Christ (so we know they work.) :-)

          9. abadilla says:

            Correct. Mr. Clinton has not changed one bit but no one can accuse O’Connor of not exemplifying principle.
            Yes, Cardinal Dolan can talk all he wants about civil disobedience but he already compromised himself by eating and saying jokes with the avowed enemy of Catholicism in this country. Obviously his lack of principle did not affect you and many Catholics, but it affected many of us.
            I don’t know how you interpret the man as “strong.” I don’t see that part of him. What I see is a jovial Cardinal who moves very well among the press and the lights of New York.
            No, my main argument is that one cannot call Catholics to defend against religious persecution and then sit with the persecutor. Conversion is up to God whether the Cardinal is present on a dinner or not. Conversion can take place with our prayers.
            As far as St. Peter goes, he was willing to die for the faith and so many of the first popes and martyrs of the Church were also willing to die for the faith. Please, don’t compare them to this man we are talking about who was not being martyred by sticking to principle, but he didn’t.
            I just heard John Allen Jr, and he said Cardinal Dolan is very popular indeed but he is a long shot to becoming Pope and I hope so. However, if the College of Cardinals chooses him and the Holy Spirit chooses him, who am I to oppose his election?

          10. abadilla says:

            “posture of the Church towards culture, society, and government is that of engagement and dialogue.”
            To me these are crucial words. I would say to Cardinal Dolan, any Cardinal or any Archbishop, “well, after 50 years, how is this engagement working for you?
            I don’t think this type of engagement worked. Pius XI and Pius XII were absolutely anti-communist and then under Paul VI we decided “detente” was the policy to follow. The Communists took advantage of detente to the point that they had spies in the papal apartment reporting to the communist regime in Poland all the moves of Blessed John Paul II.
            See Chris, there are Catholics like Dolan and you who believe in “engagement” and there are those of us who have seen through a lifetime that engagement does not work with an enemy dedicated to destroy us, not to engage us because ultimately, they despise what we represent to them.
            Look at our so-called “Catholic” politicians. They are a shame to the Church. They stand for the opposite of any church pronouncement on any moral issue. The bishops want to “engage” them, not deny them Holy Communion, and where has this engagement taken us in this country?

          11. chris scanlan says:

            I think we have very similar views.
            I think the “Catholic” politicians are a shame to the church. and the bishops should take a stronger stance in regard to shepherding their flock.

            That said, Obama is not part of the flock. So I see the engagement as evangelizing. By giving constant examples of the true Catholic joy of Christ, we have the best opportunity to convince our politicians to open up the door of the hearts to Christ. From there, its up to them and if they will allow God’s grace to work.

            As far as the Ostpolitik example. This is before my time and can’t speak on this with confidence. However, in the end, Soviet Russia crumbled and JPII was a significant factor in ending that regime. So on first glance, I don’t know if Ostpolitik was very successful or slowed down our progress. I don’t have time to research this, but will do my best in the upcoming days.

            On a separate note, i share in your frustration, but I think the key to our success having a consistent strategy. Playing footsies with the Devil is not a good strategy. We either have to take a very hard stance on heresy (because that’s what the catholic politicians are spewing) or we have to take the road of patience and joy.

            At the end of the day, its all in God’s hands. We just have to be his foot soldiers and we will win in the end.

          12. Janet Baker says:

            The point I was making way above was that when Jesus dined with the sinners, He was a guest of honor at their homes. He never invited them to be guests of honor at His venues. When He did partake of the meals at the homes of Matthew and Zaccheus, the latter two had already taken public steps indicating repentance. As far as how we the Church engage the civil structures and power-that-be, perhaps the model of John the Baptist would be more appropriate. Or maybe that of the current Pontiff with Nancy Pelosi in Rome a few years back – a private chat with no photo-ops.

          13. Slats says:

            Janet, I don’t necessarily disagree with you about Card. Dolan and the Al Smith dinner, but I respectfully disagree with your characterization of “eating with sinners.” I believe Jesus clearly ate with sinners as a means of converting them, e.g. Zacchaeus – Jesus invited Himself to his home in order to convert him.

          14. Janet Baker says:

            Zacchaeus at that point had already taken extraordinary measures to see Jesus. He climbed a tree. Yes, Jesus did invite Himself to dinner, whereupon Zacchaeus immediately repented of his past life. So when Jesus set foot in Zacchaeus’s home, the latter was already repentant. And again, Jesus was the honored guest in his home. Jesus never invited an unrepentant (or even not-yet-repentant) sinner to His venues as an honored guest. Dolan did; in my opinion, he caused scandal not only to the Catholic faithful but to Obama himself by not treating Obama’s sinful stances with the gravity and yes, sterness for which they cried out.

          15. BenM says:

            Janet, go read Matthew 9:9-13. Or Mark 2:13-17.

            Who, in that story, sounds the most like you and abadilla?

          16. JohnE says:

            I think another “dinner” scripture to balance this out would be Luke 7:40-47, noticing how Jesus deals with the Pharisee, who like the woman is also a sinner, but essentially rebuked.

            http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/7

          17. BenM says:

            Yes, but if Jesus hadn’t gone to dinner with Simon the Pharisee in the first place, would Simon have been attentive to what Jesus had to say?
            +++
            That’s my point. Go to supper to get their attention, and once you have it, teach. Whether they understand the teaching or take it to heart depends on them. Going to supper with them is not scandalous. Jesus is not scandalized by dining with a Pharisee or by allowing a prostitute to clean and anoint his feet.
            +++
            Cardinal Dolan caused no scandal by attending the same dinner as President Obama. It’s Obama’s own fault that he missed the opportunity to cry on Dolan’s feet and anoint them with oil, while begging God’s forgiveness. :-)

          18. JohnE says:

            Unfortunately, I don’t think this was or was seen as a teaching moment. What teaching took place at the dinner? The cardinal is a good man and has a difficult job, and he has clearly spoken out against the HHS mandate both before and after the dinner, but he himself even wondered if he was doing the right thing (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/catholic_agita_over_show_at_al_smith_4p77gPzyhaitvCJ9cTPWDK).

            To me, it came across as communicating that although we have some serious disagreements, they’re not so serious that we can’t have dinner and enjoy some jocularity. Somehow I don’t see Jesus laughing it up and slapping the pharisee on the back after the pharisee reveals his displeasure with the woman, all with the hopes of keeping the lines of communication open. It is probably likely that Cardinal Dolan acted in a shrewd and charitable manner and that I’m the one who’s clueless. I’m just not convinced. If he’s the right man to be pope, so be it. Whoever ends up being pope, may he be a good one in the eyes of God. What I think doesn’t matter.

          19. Janet Baker says:

            The Cardinal didn’t merely attend the same dinner as Obama. He allowed Obama to be an honored guest at a very prominent Catholic event. Why do you fail to acknowledge that distinction?

          20. abadilla says:

            “That’s my point. Go to supper to get their attention, and once you have it, teach.”

            True, but the Cardinal taught nothing with words but with his invitation he said it all and Obama did not miss the message. Obama is a first-class manipulator.

            “Cardinal Dolan caused no scandal by attending the same dinner as President Obama.”
            If he caused no scandal among us, why are we having this converstion? Obvioulsy he did cause scandal. It was no ordinary dinner, it was a dinner sponsored by a Catholic Cardinal inviting the man who continues to support the butchery of the unborn. That very day, I am sure thousands of unborn babies were butchered as the Cardinal had a jovial dinner with the enemy.

          21. abadilla says:

            Are you accusing Janet and I of entertaining evil thoughts simply because we disagree with the actions of a Cardinal?

          22. Janet Baker says:

            What we have in these passages is the call of Matthew. Did you note, Ben, that Jesus dined with Matthew after the latter left his booth and followed Jesus? Yes, the sick need a doctor – but first they have to acknowledge their sickness before the doctor can help them. Ben, your usage of Scripture is sloppy; I am not going to humor you by allowing you to dictate the direction of this conversation.

          23. abadilla says:

            BenM, get off your high moral horse. I know the Scriptures and because you interpret them differently from Janet and me, that doesn’t mean we are wrong.
            You have your reasons for believing the Cardinal did the right thing. Janet and I and others also have reasons for believing he blew it. Now, two of us can’t be right, but we can agree to disagree.

          24. abadilla says:

            “in my opinion, he caused scandal not only to the Catholic faithful but to Obama himself by not treating Obama’s sinful stances with the gravity and yes, sterness for which they cried out.”
            I fully agree with your statement. Blessed Mother Teresa sat at breakfast with the Clintons but pointedly reminded them of the “butchery” of the unborn. The Clintons did not converst to a pro-life message, but Mother showed principle and courage.

          25. abadilla says:

            “I believe Jesus clearly ate with sinners as a means of converting them, e.g. Zacchaeus – Jesus invited Himself to his home in order to convert him.”
            I don’t know if that were the intention of the Cardinal but obviously if that was his intention, it didn’t work and the Prince of the Church ended up compromising himself with Catholics like me.

          26. abadilla says:

            “Well, Chris you and I are usually on the same page on many issues, but while Obama is not a Catholic, he has the power to create lots of problems for our Church here in the States.

            “we have the best opportunity to convince our politicians.”

            I shall remind you than none other than the Pope spoke to Pelosi and Ed Kennedy before he passed and neither one of those politicians changed their minds in their support of abortion. Frankly, I believe those politicians are “Catholic” just in name.

            Correct, Blessed John Paul and Reagan were able to defeat the Soviet Union but had Blessed John Paul practiced Ostpolitik, trust me, the Soviets would still be in power.

            “Playing footsies with the Devil is not a good strategy.”

            And, unfortunately, that’s how I interpreted Dolan doing with the President and afterwards the President used the dinner to proclaim everything was fine between him and Catholics. That’s exactly what I was afraid of.

            “At the end of the day, its all in God’s hands”
            And that is all we can do, acknowledge everything is in God’s hands and pray. I eagerly await for the next conclave and its result.

          27. abadilla says:

            ” And I do believe if Cardinal Dolan refused, that it was a lost opportunity to engage in dialogue with not just Obama, but Romney as well.”

            They sat to eat, not have a dialogue, and knowing there are 55 million unborn children who have lost their lives because of folks like Obama, I was not laughing at the jokes.

            “The very purpose of the dinner was to invite those with differing positions to have a pleasant evening, one where opening dialogue could take place and where both sides make an effort to understand one another.”
            Again, where was the dialogue? Did I miss something about that dinner?
            If a dinner takes place where a Cardinal can have a true dialogue with Obama or with a pro-abortion politician be he Catholic or not, I don’t have a problem with that, but I know for certain the enemy is used the dinner to undermine our principles before the very nose of the President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, therefore I do have a problem with that.

          28. BenM says:

            If Cardinal Dolan had held a position of keeping himself distant and issuing condemnations from afar in the direction of the President, do you think Mr. Obama would, today, give Cardinal Dolan’s statements any weight or credit?
            +++
            I’d argue that by dining with him, the Cardinal gained the attention of the President. He did not compromise his position or scandalize the truth. He opened the President’s mind to the fact that the Cardinal is a joyful, intelligent and reasonable person. And that has to improve the odds that if the Cardinal speaks out tomorrow (as he already has in the intervening past) about the grave issues on which we differ, the President will be listening.

          29. abadilla says:

            Obama does not give any credit to Dolan’s words in any case, whether the Cardinal condemns him or not. He now knows the head of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops can’t possibly be taken seriously as the battle between the forces of good and evil continue to fight one another in this country.

            “He opened the President’s mind…” Are you serious? Have you read the papers and the INTERNET lately. The man in the White House is the worse enemy Catholicism has had in this country and you think jovial Dolan opened his mind. Really?
            And yes, Cardinal Dolan spoke out lately about how much he supports the President on gun control. Nice move on his part, at the same time that Cuomo, a “Catholic” continues to distribute contraceptives in New York and welcomes abortions all over the place.

          30. BenM says:

            So, if one Cardinal tried civil discourse, and stands by civil disobedience to change the mind of the “worse enemy Catholicism has had in this country”, and that has failed, and another tried snubbing the enemies of his time from our dinners in order to, I guess, shame them into submission (?) and that has also failed, what is left?
            +++
            Oh, that’s right. Love our enemies. Pray for those who persecute us. So, let’s love him into submission, and keep him ever in our prayers. Not praying that he might perish or be cast down, but pray for him, as a person. Our president, too, is a person created in the image and likeness of God. He has inherent dignity, as such, and is thus deserving of our love and respect.
            +++
            We can attempt in any way we can think to try to “instruct the ignorant, council the doubtful, and admonish sinners” but we also need to “bear wrongs patiently and forgive offenses willingly.” And keeping in mind the mothers and children involved in these crimes, we will “comfort the afflicted and pray for the living and the dead.”
            +++
            Oh, and Dolan HAS spoken out, numerous times, against the abortion and contraceptive policies of Cuomo. Cuomo is not under any illusion that he is operating with the blessings of the church or his Cardinal Archbishop in these matters.

          31. abadilla says:

            I never read about the “civil discourse.” Did I miss something?

            What is left is simple. A New York Cardinal has the Al Smith with Catholics and other non-Catholics who respect our faith. Dinners are not meant to be opportunities for dialogues or for trying to convert anybody.

            No one here has deny prayers for either the Cardinal or the President. As a matter of fact, every time there is a Mass or liturgy we pray for the President, don’t we?

            “instruct the ignorant, council the doubtful, and admonish sinners”
            Again, I don’t think the Cardinal exercised the spiritual works of mercy on the President. The news transmitted a jovial Cardinal and a President having fun while the butchery of the unborn went on.
            Oh yes, Dolan “decries” this or that, but does he ever threatened to excommunicate or at least deny Holy Communion as a consequence of recalcitrant ant-Catholic behaviors from Catholic politicians? NO! He can “decry” the situation all he wants as the unborn children continue to be butchered and so-called Catholics challenged his authority and the authority of the Church in every major front. I’m not impressed as I’m not impressed with my own Archbishop in this city of Angels either.
            How many times do you think you have to write to Janet and I to convince us of the backbone of the Cardinal?
            Now, am I impressed with Chaput, Burke, Cordileone, Paprocki, DiNardo, Finn and the retired bishop Bruskewitz? Yes! Do I care for my own Archbishop and Dolan? No, but I pray for them nevertheless!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.