And since when is the archbishop of New York a Third World potentate, whose will will be done owing to his mere presence? Anyone who thinks Andrew Cuomo would have made an about-face at the sight of Dolan skipped over the laughter and patronizing disdain in his recent conversation with Maureen Dowd.
The whole article was filled with questions like this.
Well, since Kathryn seems to like questions so much, here's a couple for her:
Why was Cuomo so happy-go-lucky, Kathryn?
Would a Catholic who had been interdicted or excommunicated be happy?
Why hasn't the good archbishop cut the divorced, co-habitating, pro-sodomy, public pro-abort off from the Eucharist, as is his duty?
Joseph Zwilling, spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York, said the controversy did not arise during the governor’s “cordial” lunch with the bishops.
“Thank God it didn’t,” Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan told reporters after the meeting, “because it was a bit of a tempest in a teapot.”
But Kathryn wasn't done:
And since when is the archbishop alone in this? What about the rest of us?
You know what, Kathryn?
I am truly SICK of hearing this gambit.
The archbishop has a duty to lead. If he ain't leading, there's no point crying about who ain't following. I was always under the impression that the bishops - by definition - consider us all SHEEP who follow their lead.
Isn't it odd how the bishops get so damned angry when we try to lead into places they don't want to go?
In fact, isn't it odd how they get nettled if we just ASK them why they aren't leading us into places they don't want to go?
What?
You don't remember anything like that?
How odd.
Think "priest abuse" or "vaccine waivers for Catholic school-kids" or "receiving Jesus on our knees" or "kneeling during the consecration" or "requesting the Tridentine Mass" or "washing only men's feet during the Mandatum" or "interdicting flagrant public sinners" or even "parents doing sacramental prep instead of parishes."
Has there been any upset about any of these issues?
Have any American bishops LED on these issues, instead of following cravenly behind whatever the liberal nutcases wanted?
Let's put this another way, Kathryn.
I'll use little words so you understand.
If Dolan isn't going to get on Cuomo's case for leading the charge on sodomite marriage or any other aspect of public sin, where in the name of heaven and earth do YOU get off screaming at US for NOT leading on these issues?
So, the orthodox laity get yelled at when they lead on something the bishops don't like (even though it is in perfect conformance with the Catholic Faith) and then people like you yell at us AGAIN when we notice the bishop hasn't done a whole lot of leading on issues he pretends to support? Is that how it's supposed to work?
"Shut up!" you scream, "Where were YOU when the bishop was hiding out on the West Coast?"
Why does this response remind me of nothing so much as the pro-abort who complains about how many children the pro-lifers haven't adopted this month?
Indeed, even if you have a legitimate beef against lay Catholics who notice how easily Archbishop Dolan rolled over (not that you do, but let's pretend for the sake of argument), then how do you explain the pro-abort, pro-sodomite factions who have been crowing over how easily the New York Catholic bishops rolled over?
It was befuddling to gay-rights advocates: The Catholic Church, arguably the only institution with the authority and reach to derail same-sex marriage, seemed to shrink from the fight.As the marriage bill hurtled toward a vote, the head of the church in New York, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, left town to lead a meeting of bishops in Seattle. He did not travel to Albany or deliver a major speech in the final days of the session. And when he did issue a strongly worded critique of the legislation — he called it “immoral” and an “ominous threat” — it was over the phone to an Albany-area radio show.
Kathryn, that's the New York Times, sweetie. Do you understand that the New York Times is calling Dolan a coward?
Kathryn, Cuomo knew Dolan wouldn't say "boo", honey. Dolan hadn't shown backbone on things like cohabitation, being pro-abort or being pro-sodomite, so why would he show backbone on Cuomo's support for sodomite marriage? Indeed, one could argue that Cuomo made a backroom deal in which Dolan would leave town and avoid addressing ANY comments to the legislature in exchange for... what?
Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and find out, won't we?
This is not North Korea, as Archbishop Dolan now famously blogged. And Andrew Cuomo isn’t torturing anyone. But he, and everyone who voted to redefine marriage, is torturing the truth.
Oh, there's one last point, sweetie. If Cuomo is "torturing the truth" as you yourself aver, then Cuomo IS torturing someone. The truth is not a thing, He is a Person - Jesus Christ.
Catholics know that.
Why don't you?
Now, I understand that headlinebistro.com is run by the Knights of Columbus, and that the K of C has a history of retaining high-level members who support sodomy and abortion, but this column is a bit much even for you people, don't you think?
The only reason anyone would have to write such a bone-headed STUPID defense is if she has a favor she wants from the bishop and she's shining her nose in preparation for making the request.
So, put on your make-up, go on into his office and ask already.
Quit wasting our time with your blond-haired essays.
6 comments:
Fantastic!!! Kudos. That was bracing to read. God Bless you, sir
Good work and well said Mr kellmeyer.
"he decided to invest in a more long-term and fundamental rebuilding of our culture"
By going to a USCCB conference?
Must be satire.
Doug
If Mr. Kellmeyer wishes to take the position that excommunicating politicians should be more the norm -- although most bishops, including the Bishop of Rome don't seem to agree -- I guess that's his right. But, he should at least be a little less sloppy in his research. The following is easily found through a Nexis search, and undercuts one of Mr. Kellmeyer's main arguments:
From the New York Times:
"Joseph Zwilling, spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York, said the controversy over the scheduling conflict did not arise during the governor's ''cordial'' lunch with the bishops.
''Thank God it didn't,'' Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan told reporters after the meeting, ''because it was a bit of a tempest in a teapot.''
Nonetheless, high on the list of concerns the bishops raised during the meeting, Mr. Zwilling said, were two issues of profound concern to the church: same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: An article on Saturday about Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo's relationship with Catholicism gave the incorrect context for a quotation by Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan. When the archbishop said, ''It was a bit of a tempest in a teapot,'' he was referring to news media coverage of a scheduling conflict involving a meeting between Mr. Cuomo and a group of bishops. He was not referring to the issue of whether Mr. Cuomo, who is divorced and living with his girlfriend, should be allowed to receive holy communion. (The archbishop has said that that issue is a private pastoral matter, and not an appropriate subject to address in the news media.)"
It might behoove Mr. Kellmeyer to get his basic facts right.
I am also glad that Mr. Kellmeyer must have such absolute faith in the integrity of the New York Times, to believe that they would *NEVER* do anything to discredit the Catholic Church. Why else would he include such a long quote from Michael Barbaro's (an openly gay reporter -- see the January/February 2010 issue of Mother Jones magazine's profile of Ross Douthat) piece lionizing Cuomo's passage of the bill -- something that the Times strongly supported, and something for which they repeatedly attacked the Archbishop for so strongly opposing?
Emily,
Thanks for the correction - I hadn't known that the Archbishop had been quoted out of context. I didn't see that correction in either the NYT or any of the major Catholic news services.
As for the rest of the article, I think it stands on it's own.
Sure, the NYT and the sodomites have an interest in displaying an ineffective Church, but they also have an interest in displaying an overpoweringly powerful Church.
They use the latter to raise fear, uncertainty and doubt (not to mention funds) from their own base, so that meme isn't going away anytime soon.
To argue that the magnitude of the victory is NOT in part due to Dolan's sudden trip west on "USCCB business" - business that no one seems even to know the content of - is uncontestable.
Of course, if Dolan had stayed in NY and lobbied personally, he might still have lost, albeit almost certainly by a narrower margin. But, given that even a Democrat lawmaker was fighting on his side, he might have won. We'll never know.
I'm just far too familiar with USCCB apparatchiks who have personally told me that the USCCB would not teach or support aspects of Catholic Faith because it was against US law to do so.
If you wish to believe the USCCB is relevant or useful, that's your right. But, as Rome herself has already pointed out, I am not required to do so.
Let's think about this a bit more. On the specific issue of 'gay marriage,' the diocesan spokesman Zwilling or Zwingli or whatever maintains that this topic was addressed. Obviously, the discussion failed to make the slightest impression on Cuomo, because his fervor in pursuing this policy goal did not abate in the least. So, the broader point remains, although Dolan may have brought the issue up to some extent in a private setting, his doing so failed to have any impact. Given that the sin/scandal being caused to the Church is very very public, doesn't it seem that greater public measures should be taken?
That was of course Steve's main point, that we haven't had the kind of public leadership the Church......the Truth.....deserves. We are told frequently by bishops and chancery staff that our bishops are fighting for the Truth in private settings with politicians and other major public figures constantly, but at some point these private efforts are simply not sufficient, as can be seen from the waning influence the Church seems to have.
Post a Comment