Archbishop Dolan on '60 Minutes'

Norman, I just tried it ... http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7360248n ... and it did work for me.  Give it another try.

Dolan is a great guy, perfect for the job. But he (and much of the Church bosses) appear pretty distanced from reality, especially concerning the sex abuse scandal.  Increasingly people can see that the Church as an institution feeds and condones this type of abuse; the abuse is not accidental to the structure of the Church, nor the perversity of a few particular bad guys.  No, an all-male celibate power structure that cannot be questioned is a recipe for disaster. Sure, a few guys join because they feel a vocation, but such an instutution, especially where one has such "magic" power over children, is a siren call for sickos.  It's hard to imagine a job more alluring for people massively confused about their sexuality, or worse, people looking to abuse kids.  Somehow all Dolan's roaring laughter seems sad and hollow given what the Church has done to some many children.  He can fiddle away, but Rome is burning. At some point the Church will hopefully see that it is they (the heirarchy) that is holding the arson torches. But I guess not Timothy Dolan...not today anyway.

OK, that's a good theory. Now, being the scientific, moderns that we are, what evidence can we muster to show that an all male, celibate hierarchy is worse than any other religion or major global institution of comparible service with children?

Fortunately (or unfortunately) we DO have plenty of evidence that child abuse and child sexual abuse is not at all unique to the Catholic Church but occurs on a regular but non-hyped basis within the Public School system, at universities, among Protestant and Jewish groups and in secular society.

In short, the unique traits of Catholicism are not 'obvious' causal factors - otherwise, how do we explain married clergy among Protestants being arrested for the same crimes or women teachers regularly being arrested for serial child abuse with teenage boys, or Jewish rabbis being nailed on pedophilia, etc.?

The real problem seems to be one of transparency and accountability when one is found to be guilty. Currently no other group scrutinizes its employees as the Catholic Church does since 2005. It's a good start, we can improve, but to paint a picture as though the hierarchy is the problem is to assert as fact what is your conjecture.

It's like claiming women priests are the will of God but then ignoring the actual evidence of the Anglican Church which is dying despite having women priests, gay priests, etc. Something tells me that if a novelty doesn't work outside the Catholic Church (as in boom in membership, boom in vocations, boom in social involvement, etc.) then proposing it for the Church is a 'faith-based' initiative, not a "the science is settled, modernity wins". thing.

Boy, I wish people would stop referring to the Anglican Church as "dying."  We aren't exactly growing, at least not compared to Islam and Pentecostalism. 



The Archbishop seems like a great guy-someone you would want to invite to your Super Bowl party etc. But, as long as the hierarchy resist complete transparency and thwarts the view of those outside of the inner circle, he and his brethren are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I wasn't really surprised by any of Archbishop Dolan's responses-he hewed the Church line, though in an affable manner. I thought he came off well as someone down to earth for a person in his position-e.g., those shots of him riding his exercise bike were not exactly mediagenic, but I give him credit for showing people that priests can have everyday problems, too.

One question: Was it my imagination, or was it perhaps Abp. Dolan's accent, but did the Abp. refer to Morley Safer as "Marley" every time he used the interviewer's first name?    

My own feelings about Dolan are pretty negative.  I think he's an example of a triumph of form over function:  his greatest strength seem to be his image as a "regular guy" who likes beer and sports, but if we look at what he believes and how he acts on issues, he's just a conservative with a jolly rather than dour demeanor.

Interesting Crystal; some political conservatives would take some umbrage at a recent letter he sent to the Congressional leadership.  The sexual abuse crisis has become, unfortunately, a Rorschach Test for everything "wrong" with the Church on both left and right.  I think we are fortunate to have faces like Dolan, O'Malley (despite his lapse of judgment with the Kennedy funeral), and now Gomez in LA replacing those of Law, and hopefully soon, Rigali.  Anyone waiting for the Catholic Church to morph into the Episcopal Church should probably punch their ticket now, but I've found that the Episcopalian Church can be just as doctrinaire on the left as anything you find in the Catholic Church; just ask the thousands of African Episcoplians who've found their voices ignored on the issue of homosexuality (so much for Liberation Theology).  Nonetheless, Church leaders make a grave mistake when they confuse obstinancy for counter-culturalism; praying the problem away will not solve it.  Much like the Maciel case, the culture that festered that allowed such abuses must be take out by the root.

If charm is the essential Catholic virtue I must have missed that class. Preferential option for the poor/marginalized would be what I would call an essential virtue/teaching and  that teaching was not at all mentioned in that 'charming' interview.

Jeff,

I don't know - Dolan has'nt the greates record on handling the sex abuse problem,  according to BishopAccountabilit.org

The Anglican Communion and Africa and homosexuality:   I think, if I'm not mistaken, that there is a conservative wing of the Communion - The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans - that has lots of room for Anglicans that are homophobic.

Sorry - BishopAccountability.org   ...   http://www.bishop-accountability.org/

"that has lots of room for Anglicans that are homophobic."

wow, what a charitable assumption about a large segment (and the only growing segment) of the Anglican communion.  I find it ironic that folks whose Christianity centers around Liberation Thelogy and social justice suddenly think that when a vocal segment of the Communion express their opinion, those folks ought to go back to dancing in the jungles or something, and let the WASPs handle things as they see fit.

I am a fan of liberation theology, but in some parts of Africa, the attitude towards gays is literally lethal .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill ... Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill, from Wikipedia

Let's not confuse being faithful and obedient to Christ's teachings (a.k.a., orthodoxy) with a political label.  After all, isn't obedience to Christ and what He teaches through His original Church the true criterion for judgment for those who claim to be His followers?

Regarding BishopAccountability whatever, are there any bishops and priests they actually like? 

Homophobic - a "smoke and mirrors" word used to marginalize those who call a spade a spade.  

Regarding the origin of the Anglicans, I just finished watching "The Tudors" and it seemed to me that they portrayed that origin quite well.  Of course the Anglicans I know don't seem to want to admit that they came into existence because Henry VII broke away from the original Church of Christ.  Whether or not they are imploding, I don't know but from what I have read they have a two-tier system, those that want to follow the Gospel and those that want to follow the zeitgeist and still claim to be Christian.  


 

"Let's not confuse being faithful and obedient to Christ's teachings (a.k.a., orthodoxy) with a political label.  After all, isn't obedience to Christ and what He teaches through His original Church the true criterion for judgment for those who claim to be His followers?"

 "Christ's teaching" .... what did Jesus say about those things Dolan  was  so against in the 60 Minutes interview -  birth control, women's ordination, celibacy, same-sex marriage?  Nothing, that I recall.  I think that to define the present church's idea of orthodoxy  as what Jesus taught requires making some assumptions.

Oops - he said something about celibacy, but didn't require it as some of the apostles, including Peter, were married.

"I think that to define the present church's idea of orthodoxy  as what Jesus taught requires making some assumptions."

Yes, it certainly does, Crystal; it's called "Theology" and we've been practicing it for centuries now.

A couple of short takes:
VOTF had asked the Abp to order an investigation into the Philadelphia sex abuse mess and whether the charter was being folowed elsewhere.
I am unaware if he responed, but his comments that the Church will continue to be "haunted" by the crisis but that it had done a good job, will hardly satisfy them or victim advocates.
I also thought it interesting that he acknowledged there is a divide in the church but he will take the position that no major change has his support.
I guess he is then a divider and not a uniter of a church currently in deep division or as some would say "crisis".
Obviously he is a very pleasant individual but I'm not sure that's the major criteria one would point to as the head of USCCB.
He also seems close to Cardinal Egan, whom some thought to be  a very problematic head of the church in New York, except when it came to balancing the boks.

Actually, Jeff, many of these notions simply reflect the knowledge (and lack of it - especially scientific knowledge), cultural assumptions, and prejudices of earlier eras.  These notions were codified by fallible human beings, and often have little to nothing to do with advancing knowledge of God or God's will, as theology supposedly attempts to do.  It is right to seek to understand God but it is arrogant and presumptious to believe that human beings will ever have a full understanding of God and God's will.  By definition, human beings cannot fully understand God.   Unfortunately, the church often simply suppresses those theologians whose thinking might take them beyond whatever the status quo of church thinking is at any given time, and the personal prejudices and beliefs of the men in charge in Rome, men who are usually totally divorced from any lived understanding of the people of God for whom they presume to make moral and theological judgments.  Galileo was deemed a heretic for contradicting the theology of the church.  Many others have been deemed so throughout church history. Pius X (I think it was him anyway) declared that coeducation is against natural law, and wrote on the subject, whereas some earlier popes defended slavery as being in accord with natural law. The definitions of the natural law theology underlying these pope's declarations was clearly flawed, but was accepted by many in those times simply because the church "says so".

Theology must not remain smugly in its own little self-contained, human-defined, box.  It must not make God in its own frail human image, reflecting human weaknesses, lack of knowledge, and even prejudices.  This is especially true when attempting to come to moral understanding of complicated issues that Jesus himself never mentioned - they clearly weren't priorities for him, whereas the poor and outcasts from society were (you dismiss liberation theology?  Rome doesn't like it, so the discussion is closed, even though Jesus was clearly very concerned about it. Perhaps instead of closing off all discussion of liberation theology, it would be better to devote time to developing it and thinking it through some more).

Theology must be open in order to continue to seek truth - to seek it.  It will never fully possess it, but must continue to seek.  The Vatican too often simply ignores those theologians who do not come up with the answers it wants - for example, the report of the theologians who were tasked to see what conclusions about women's ordination that scripture might lead us to concluded that there is nothing in scripture that would prohibit the access of women to one of the sacraments (do you truly believe that Jesus created seven sacraments for men and only six for women? But, then Jesus didn't actually ordain anyone, much less Roman Catholic priests. The Roman Catholic church didn't exist, did it?  Jesus and his disciples were practicing Jews). The report on women's ordination was not what was wanted by Rome, just as the report of the Birth Control Commission was not what was wanted. So, both were simply ignored.  However, the institutional churchmen can ignore for only so long - eventually the Holy Spirit gets through, even if the men who run the church have to be dragged into new understandings, kicking and screaming all the way.

You tell a nice story, albeit a bit long, Ms. Champman.  But my objection was to the suggestion made that somehow we in the Church need to strip away all the ''fluff'', i.e. anything the Church teaches that Jesus himself didn't address.  That is ludricous; there is much in the letters of Paul that Jesus didn't address, including homosexuality.  In fact, Paul's comments on homosexuality reflect a decided counter-cultural view on the topic than existed in the Hellenic world at the time, so its actually quite difficult to dismiss them as merely ''cultural bias''.  But the larger claim that we need to re-make the Church into the model of a supposed 33 AD church is a harmful suggestion.  First, no one has a true full picture of what the early Church looked like.  Secondly, it denies the essential Catholic realities of Tradition and development of doctrine, and verges truly on a form of fundamentalism wholly incompatible with the Catholic intellectual tradition.  Moreover, the idea that someone can stand from afar objectively outside all cultural bias and winnow down all the cultural fluff to get to the ''True Church'' is a flawed epistemological claim, both from the perspective of theology and of post-modern philosophy.  Finally, assuming for the sake of argument that such a project could be undertaken, one thing IS clear from the Gospels - and that is that Jesus chose and formed a hierarchically-ordered community beginning with the Apostles, and with Peter as their leader.  Thus, authority and an ordered Church are as much a part of the early Church as anything.  Of course the Church and its bishops are flawed, and have been from the beginning, but I shudder at the thought of some of us winnowing down the Church into an image we ultimately like to think is our ''one true church'' because it is likely to look too much like our own agendas.  I like that I'm forced to deal with issues and perspective not my own; and that is what I find troubling about the Anglican experience.  One part (the rich white Anglo-American part, to be exact) just tells the rest of the Communion (the poor black and latin part, to be exact) to take a hike, we'll do what we want thank you very much, you're just being ''homophobic''.  That is NOT dialogue, or at least any that I want to be part of.

All of us (including you, me, and Archbishop Dolan) act, at best, on the basis of what we believe to be true, and, at worst, on the basis what we think we can get away with. If a disparity exists between words and actions, an individual's actions tell us who someone is. Draw your conclusions accordingly. 

All of us (including you, me, and Archbishop Dolan) act, at best, on the basis of what we believe to be true, and, at worst, on the basis what we think we can get away with. If a disparity exists between words and actions, an individual's actions tell us who someone is. Draw your conclusions accordingly. 

BTW, the video is unavailable so those that want to watch it can't. 

Building on what Jeff wrote, señorita or señora Chapman doesn’t seem to realize that Christ continues to guide the Church precisely through that hierarchy she so clearly disdains.

Now, a dear heterodox brother or sister may counter my statement with modern versions of the arguments used by the Donatists – for example, I can imagine him or her saying: “since the Bishops have sinned, the official teachers (at Christ’s explicit desire and command) should now be ignored so we can follow these other false teachers who really understand where Christ is leading His Church, blah, blah, blah.” – but that’s simply another form of Gnosticism.

No wonder Pope John Paul the Great gave us a universal catechism!  I personally think it would be very helpful if those that claimed to be Catholic actually read it and believed what was in it instead of claiming that some other teacher is now going to enlighten us.

Just to make one thing clear: in no way do I think that the Church can or should never be reformed, including the actions of bishops.  Obviously the sexual abuse crisis shows that reform is always needed.  I am only expressing a certain skepticism at wholesale re-boots of the Church which give fodder to a certain view among some clerics that the abuse crisis is in large measure guided by an attempt at harming the Church.  In my opinion, clerics like Law, Rigali, and yes, even Mahoney, need to retire out of view, well out of view.  It is interesting to note the disparate treatment Law & Rigali receive as opposed to Mahoney and that bete noir Weaklen, who is just as culpable in passing abusive priests around as the other 2, but gets a pass to some extent because he espouses more "progressive" views on other things.

Jeff; You do your points of argument ill service when you end your post with ..

"Weaklen, who is just as culpable in passing abusive priests around as the other 2, but gets a pass to some extent because he espouses more "progressive" views on other things'
Weakland resigned in disgrace. Rigali has not resigned. Mahony resigned in the last weeks because of age and with honors. Law resigned but was given 'cushy' job.
Four errors would negate what was previously argued by you. .

Bill: I think it is his midwestern accent. Lord is Lard, if you listen.

I fail to see the error of my comments.  My overall point is that a change in leadership is a good first step, and that I cringe when I see Law and others given cushy curial posts.  Their brother bishops should politely ask them to retreat from the scene; I find it curious to note that such a thing was routinely down my deceased monarch's widows who would withdraw from public life.

My second primary point is that there is some disparate treatment between certainly how Law is treated versus Mahoney.  Mahoney's actions with respect to transparency and moving priests around differ in no meaningful way yet their treatment in retirement is different.  You are correct to point out that Mahoney went out with "honors", which is a bit hypocritical given what I've said above.  Weakland, although he did resign in disgrace, is still regarded as a hero among progressive Catholics, and yet again despite his own mishandling and misbehavior.  So perhaps the better points of comparison should be Law and Weakland versus Mahoney and ultimately Rigali.  Something tells me Rigali will be regarded more like Law rather than Mahoney.

The video can be found here .... http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7360248n

I didn't mean the church shouldn't develope teachings on subjects that Jesus didn't address, what I objected to was the church then characterizing those teachings they created themselves as coming from Jesus.

I wrote my bit at #3 but I don't think Dolan's critics are being "dismissive and judgmental." We have given our considered reasons and we haven't called him any bad names.

Hmm, so I guess labels like "superficial", "homophobic", and "obsequious bunch" are "considered reasons"???  Typical.

"Typical"? Now that was uncalled for! :)

Re. "homophobic": that was used to describe some Anglicans who are seeking to come into the Catholic Church and who support pretty repressive measures against gays and lesbians, not the bishops per se.

In re-reading the comments of those critical of Dolan et al. I couldn't find "superficial" or "obsequious bunch" being used but that doesn't seem so harsh.  Geez (if I might use such harsh language), we've had people post comments here that question others' salvation. I'm actually impressed by the measured and reasonable comments people have offered in this particular post. 

You seem to be more concerned that the inner circle not get it's feelings hurt than in healing and justice for the victims.

p.s. Oh, I see now how Dale used "obsequious."  Big deal. Pretty tame stuff. You really need to stop running interference for the elite churchmen Jeff.  Dale's comment is totally within the bounds of acceptable language (and his point is compelling).

Have a nice weekend.

''You seem to be more concerned that the inner circle not get it's feelings hurt than in healing and justice for the victims.''

Oh give me a break, Vince!  That is totally inane; to state that I'm more concerned with the hierarchy's feelings than with the outrageous abuses both sexual and administrative made to cover it all up is, first of all, to ignore the comments I've made (see #23 in particular) in this and other posts on this topic, and secondly a blatantly unfair ad hominem.  It is typical, unfortunately, of you to combine a couterpoint with a snide back-handed ad hominem.  While not practiced by you alone, you seem to do it consistently with points of view with which you disagree - whether its anti-abortion, economics, or church politics.  It is unfair and unbecoming that you assume the worst about people with which you disagree (although I am coming to realize that responding to these nasty little remarks only encourages them). 

Contrary to your demonstrably false ad hominem, my primary concern with some of these comments is not a bishop's feelings, but rather that the quality of the discourse remains accurate and fair (isn't that what the left is always telling us conservatives??).  I don't think it accurate or fair to label someone who I dare say most of us have never met nor spent a sufficient amount of time with as ''superficial'', whatever their particular POV.

If you were interested in the "quality of the discourse" you would stop focusing on the political identities of other contributors (and then presenting yourself as the expert on what constitutes "liberalism"). 

It's  all about conservatives versus liberals with you & not much more.

"It's  all about conservatives versus liberals with you & not much more."

I rest my case.  No response to substantive points; all ad hominem (ad nauseum). 

PS - I made a similar criticism of some "conservative" comments attacking Matt Malone; so yet another demonstrabl false ad hominem.

Jeff-I responded to the single point you made in your e-mail.

You may, in fact, criticize a conservantive-it happens VERY rarely-but my point about you building nearly every response around one's political identity (often incorrectly) is valid.

You do like to use the phrase "ad hominem"!  Anyone who disagrees with you must be engaging in ad hominems, right?

I think that all of us would do well to remember to focus on the substance of comments made rather than going after the character or intentions of the PEOPLE making them; whatever our individual points of view, I like to think that the people who express them arrive at them from the uniqueness of the crosses and experiences they bear, and as such trascend easy categorization and certainly easy dismissal.  To dismiss the comments, point of view or opinon of someone as merely conservative, liberal, superficial, obsequious, homophobic or otherwise is to cheapen the discourse that gives such blogs their lifeblood.

Amen.

I was a little dissapointed with this programme or more precisely Archbishop Dolan.
 The guy Morley seemed to be a wiser head and in the end it seemed as if the Archbishop was selling him a secondhand car with dodgy brakes.
Archbishop Dolan is a nice guy but wanting to be liked can lead to people calling you "Great" but basically you just appear so and problems get put away for another day.
I agree with the teachings he was trying to defend but after listening to his defence of them I began to question them anew.
If all we can do is churn out the same tired answers on celibacy,homosexual marriage and women priests we are in trouble. Pope Benedict rightly points out that the first is only a discipline and can be dropped at a papal whim. 
The second explanation places the Church as a guardian of morality ,a role that Christ turned down in favour of  something a whole lot better.
The third can be explained without reverting always to the Blessed Virgin Mary."We give her so much etc" "She is the most revered human figure in the Church" ,guess what she took all of the glory ,praise and authority and theres none left for ya'll . I am of course exaggerating but only a little. 
I think that what Jeff Landry wrote above at 19 is worth reading a few times but I agree with Ed Gleason's point at 24. One thing we can probably agree on:) is that these are the sorriest bunch of bishops and Cardinals known to history and whoever picked them has some explaining to do.  

I have been reading Weakland Autobiography and he is a far more interesting man than one would imagine.He has a rare spiritual insight and I would prefer to confess with him than any of the others mentioned above.Now I've said too much or I haven't said enough!    

All this back and forth between "traditionalist" and "progressives" is tiresome, and misses the mark. The Church is not about your politics nor mine; although the old boy network ( hierarchy) has been practicing politics for 2,000 years. The Church will endure til the end of time as Christ promised. The Church is the People of God, not the corporate structure found in places like Madison Ave or Rome. The body of Christ has been wounded, and each of us will be accountable to God alone. The condescenion and smugness found on this blog is not worthy of a Catholic magazine. As the late bishop Sheen said, "some are educated beyond their intelligence", we would all do well to practice charity and pray for a healthy dose of humility.

"good old boy, back slapper, drinking buddy, big smile, chummy, superficial.  I can see the value of that, but he's not my kind of bishop."

This is the kind of judgment that I am amazed at continually being made by people who consider themselves liberal, tolerant and open-minded!  "Superficial"?!? How on earth can you tell that from an interview withouth knowing the man as a person?  I actually know some very good priests who were students at the North American College (I know that some here will automatically insert their pre-conceived judgment on these priests based on that fact alone) who to a person say he is incredibly gifted, not least of all as a spiritual advisor as well as administrator.  These are priests who have diverse views on issues facing the Church, so don't automatically assume their rear-sniffing cassock-wearing rubes. 

I agree with John Sullivan; some of the dismissive and judgmental comments on here show a real ugly side of "progressive Catholics".

David, it's ok that you don't like basketball; I didn't know it was a particularly catholic thing. Now if you had said bingo, I could understand. Seriously, Dolan may not be your "cup of tea" nor mine, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is well intentioned and sincere. That doesn't tranlate into agreeing with him on every issue because I certainly don't. We all want to be liked, even bishops.

"There is a tendency among some clergy, though - I think :O) - to fit in more easily with the boozing, basketball-playing crowd than with the rest of us.  It's apparently a Catholic thing."

I think it more likely an American trait seen frequently in our politicians, i.e. Obama's incessant basketball playing and hosting the infamous "Beer Summit".

My only original point is that whatever their individual styles, I think the current bench of leadership is an improvement over the outgoing folks.  I'll take Wuerl, Gomez, DiNardo, and yes even Dolan over Law, Burke, and a few others.  Whatever else one can say about Pope Benedict, I think one would have to admit that the quality of his episcopal appointments has been head and shoulders above that of his predecessor who tended to go more for punch than for nuance.  I mean I personally rather having Dolan as the most public face of Catholicism in American anyday over Raymond Burke and his Cappa Magna.  So let's pick our poison very carefully.

Personally, I think they are an obsequious bunch.   Just like corporate men they know who butters their bread, that's why you get the party line. They don't dare open up and tell you exactly what they are thinking or what they exactly believe out of loyalty to the one who appointed them. 
However, one insight into their thinking is to observe how they react to certain issues in their diocese.  Despite towing the ''official line'' I think he's more progressive than we give him credit for.  Over 100 priests in his former diocese in Wisconsin signed a document calling for the elimination of mandatory celibacy and Dolan received it when he got back from a vacation (talk about timing).  He met w/ them and said he didn't agree with their opinion but nontheless respected them and it.  I can't imagine what Fabian Buskowicz or Olmsted would have done! 
Give Dolan a beer or two, sit him down and talk to him off the record and I wouldn't be surprised if you got a completely different message.  Just my opinion.

sorry, Bruskewitz not Buskowicz.

Archbishop TM Dolan was heading back to the sacristy after his final Good Friday service at Saint John the Evangelist Cathedral in Milwaukee. He turned a corner and was face-to-face with a steady countervoice, even nemesis, (teller of this story) on the clergy sexual abuse problem. He stopped to sincerely wish Archbishop Dolan "all the best in New York". Without missing a beat, Archbishop Dolan replied, "Thanks because God knows I never got a break in Milwaukee."

Timothy mounts the gibbet of the cross.