27

Cardinal Dolan: Company Man III

Hmmm,  a debate has arisen on Saint Blogs as to whether Timothy Cardinal Dolan is a fool or a careerist.  Kevin O’Brien at Waiting for Godot to Leave addresses the controversy:

 

For those of you who haven’t been following, let me summarize in brief.  Cardinal Dolan has given what I consider to be a poorly reasoned, condescending and annoyingly folksy rationalization of his decision to serve as Grand Marshal of New York’s St. Patrick’s Day parade, which will now show the children along the route a group of “gay Irish” marching under a banner identifying themselves as such.  Dolan rightly points out that we condemn the sin, not the sinner – and of course gays have been marching in parades for centuries (though not parading about as gays).  He wrongly points out that if a man or a woman marches under a Gay Pride banner, it’s merely a way of indicating his or her sexual identity, and is in no way an endorsement of the sins that such a sexual identity seeks out.

I countered with an Open Letter to Cardinal Dolan in which I asked to march under the banner of IRISH ADULTERERS.  I point out that, even though the sin of adultery is condemned, and even though I have not given in to consummating fully the temptations of adultery, I still consider this my sexual identity and the Church should not judge me for that, and certainly by marching under a banner in which I identify myself as having an inclination to adultery, I’m not endorsing adultery.  Heavens no!  I’m simply Proud of my inclination.  I simply identify with my temptations.  I could have said more.  I could have suggested groups marching under such banners as GREEDY IRISH EMPLOYERS, or LAZY SLOTHFUL IRISH DRUNKS, or IRISH CHILD MOLESTERS.  I mean, we can’t judge a child molester’s soul, only his sins – although if Dolan is affirming anything in this scandal, it’s that we are defined by our sins.  

So that’s our story so far.  And the general take on this situation is that Cardinal Dolan is a naive fool.

Today, however, Kevin Tierney comments on the Dolan Situation at Red Cardigan’s blog (my emphasis)…

Maybe we have to consider the unpleasant possibility that His Eminence knows exactly what he is doing, he is not the fool, and that these are conscious choices.

Too many events have happened in Dolan’s history to suggest naivete or [foolishness]. There’s something else at work here.

No, it’s not him being a heretic, modernist, or whatever you want to say. Plain and simple, Dolan is a careerist. All of his controversial decisions from the Sheen dustup, to his role in the abuse scandals, to Holy Innocents, to now the parade have been about what’s best for the bottom line … his bottom line. What advances his profile is what is best for business.

This is one of those theories that fits all the facts – which means it’s probably true.

Go here to read the rest.  Well, Dolan is clearly a Company Man.  Go here and here for prior posts making that case.  Whatever the boss wants is whatever Dolan will do.  When orthodoxy was in flavor that is what Dolan promoted.  Now that the wind has shifted, apparently, at the Vatican, Dolan shifts too.  However, being a complete careerist does not mean that a man can’t also be a complete fool.  Most careerists I have encountered fit firmly in both categories, and that might well be the case with Dolan.

Share With Friends
  •  
  • 22
  • 2
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    24
    Shares

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.

27 Comments

  1. I absolutely agree that Keven Tierney’s analysis– the Cardinal Archbishop
    of New York is all about what’s good for the profile of the Cardinal
    Archbishop of New York. Imagine for a moment if the parade included
    a group less sanctioned by the zeitgeist– say, a group marching under
    a banner promoting racial segregation. His Eminence would drop his
    absurd I-don’t-pick-who-marches rationalizations and resign as Grand
    Marshal before you could say “Vicar of Bray”.

  2. Yup. Careerism doesn’t preclude making foolish choices. Maybe foolish choices is a higher risk for careerist, because of the changing winds and need for speed and doublespeak.

  3. Dolan rightly points out that we condemn the sin, not the sinner

    Agree with O’Brien – it is not about gays marching, it is about gays marching their sin. FWIW, my vote goes for careerist.

  4. I read Cardinal Dolan’s “apologia”-the reasoning behind his decision to be the Parade’s ‘guest of honor’. I honestly was not persuaded nor impressed

  5. Timothy Cardinal Dolan is the guest of honor at the upcoming Catholic Charities of Pittsburgh benefit dinner. Had I known this BEFORE I made my United Way donations, Catholic Charities of Pittsburgh would not be getting a dime from me. I would have directed my money at another Catholic charity.

  6. I’m not sure its as much of “do what the boss wants”, as a Cardinal kind of always does that. They are the boss’ closest advisors.

    For me, when I used the term, I saw it more as he acts like the administering and politcking is his job, not an unfortunate byproduct of a fallen world. His actions have always been about how to advance in the hierarchy, or how to further increase his profile.

    Buearcracies are normally good things. They exist for a reason. But they also have those who kinda forget why they are there. that’s what a careerist is. It might be rash, but I can’t fathom a situation where dolan would ever turn down the chance to have all the major news networks honed in on him and be endlessely debated in the media.

    That’s a wise business decision, but how much should the Church of God be run like a business?

  7. How about marching under a Banner that reads: Catholics Against the Common
    Core Catholic Identity Initiative ? I don’t think it is a sin to oppose the adoption of
    CC by 100 Catholic dioceses.

  8. It’s nice to see TAC finally coming around on Dolan. If I’m not mistaken, McClarey and Zummo were company men as well.

  9. Thank you, Mary, for your comment, which calls attention to the American Catholic Bishops’ ecstatic embrace of the Common Core educational standards. My heart is confused and deeply saddened, recognizing the Shepherds are more concerned with the bottom line than with their duty to protect Christ’s flock.

  10. The parents have a right and duty to repel Common Core. It is time for tar and feathers, especially since the powers that be have forbidden our speaking with and to God. These people have placed themselves between our God-given freedom and their opinion.

  11. If Cardinal Dolan disregards this excellent opportunity to have a Eucharistic procession in public to drive the devil under a rock as St. Clare did with the invading barbarians, the cardinal serves Obama better than the cardinal serves God.

  12. To Penguins Fan and others who donate to United Way: Have you looked at all the charities under this banner? Many of them support abortion and/or embryonic stem cell research. And many of them, and United Way, collect donations through PayPal, a part of eBay, which is not a pro-life corporation by any means. Its sad that we have to constantly be on the watch for the devil in the details – like the Catholic school boards who refuse to drop the Box Tops for Education program, (BECAUSE IT PUTS SO MUCH MONEY IN THEIR COFFFERS?)even though it puts profits in the pockets of the very very-abortion Gen. Mills, a huge donor to Susan G. Komen.

  13. I have never heard of a county in Ireland named Gay. Is that in Northern or Southern Ireland. The parade is about celebrating one’s Irish Heritage, not one’s sexuality. I have to believe that The Cardinal’s perspective is more akin to The Episcopal Church of the Holy Accommodation than it is to Roman Catholicism.

    Having watched a man who obviously enjoys his celebrity, perhaps he should consider another vocation.

  14. This idea that Dolan broke bad only after he and his brother cardinals decided to plant Jorge Bergoglio’s backside on the Chair of Peter is complete crap and Mr. McClarey knows it. If Dolan had done this two years ago, Donald would have been silent or come up with some BS excuse defending Dolan.That was exactly he did two years ago when he was shilling for Dolan regarding the 2008 Al Smith Dinner despite the fact he already knew Dolan was an unrepentant slanderer. He gushed on like a tween girl in the presence of Justin Bieber about how “shrewd” Dolan was. My hunch that it was inconsequential and that it might have actually helped Obama a little bit borne true in spades. But that’s beside the point.

    When I expressed outrage over Dolan’s calumnious attack on Arizona’s SB 1070 in race baited language that Jeremiah Wright would be proud of, Donald responded thus: “You have an axe to grind against Dolan because he does not share your support for the Arizona law and it colors your perception of what I think was a clear defeat for the South Side Messiah.” http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/10/18/barbed-laughs/#sthash.D2khkRpC.dpuf

    Once again, Donald knew this was blatantly untrue. My problem with Dolan had nothing to do with his not agreeing with me on the law, but the fact Dolan used the race card to launch a vicious calumnious tirade against the State of Arizona. Donald has been, rightly I believe, terse with those on the left who play the race card in this way. Bet yet he got whiplash from looking the other way when Dolan did it.

    All this anti-Dolan sentiment on Donald’s part since the election of Pope Francis has less to do with Dolan himself than a club to beat Pope Francis with. As bad as his latest decision to be Grand Marshall in the St Patrick’s turned LBGT Pride Day parade and his “Bravo” comment about Michael Sam, it is not all surprising in light of the fact that he has taken pages out these people’s play books to smear good people’s efforts to protect those entrusted to them long before Pope Francis was even a figment of imagination. In fact, I would say it rather pales in comparison. Just think of this latest capitulation on Dolan’s part as royalty payment

    Some of Pope Francis’ actions are certainly blameworthy. But Cardinal Dolan’s actions have nothing to do with Pope Francis and everything to do with Timothy Dolan

  15. Hello, Edie,
    I use the United Way to donate money to clearly Catholic specific charities. I select them personally. United Way and my employer often push other so-called charities. I ignore those.

  16. “If Dolan had done this two years ago, Donald would have been silent or come up with some BS excuse defending Dolan.”
    Rubbish.

    “That was exactly he did two years ago when he was shilling for Dolan regarding the 2008 Al Smith Dinner despite the fact he already knew Dolan was an unrepentant slanderer.”

    Wrong. Dolan provided a forum where Romney got in several good jabs at Obama. How that was blameworthy eludes me.

    “He gushed on like a tween girl in the presence of Justin Bieber about how “shrewd” Dolan was. My hunch that it was inconsequential and that it might have actually helped Obama a little bit borne true in spades.”

    No Greg, the outcome of the election had nothing to do with the AL Smith dinner. Romney got excellent press from it, and he lost the election for other reasons.

    “You have an axe to grind against Dolan because he does not share your support for the Arizona law and it colors your perception of what I think was a clear defeat for the South Side Messiah.” http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/10/18/barbed-laughs/#sthash.D2khkRpC.dpuf
    A completely accurate comment on my part, just as your current animosity to me stems entirely from my willingness to take Mark Shea at face value when he made a public apology.

    “All this anti-Dolan sentiment on Donald’s part since the election of Pope Francis has less to do with Dolan himself than a club to beat Pope Francis with.”

    Untrue. Dolan adjusted his positions to be in step with the Vatican and I have no use for trimmers, especially when they hold high religious positions in my Church.

  17. First of all, I never said that the 2012 Al Smith dinner had any impact on the election. But it did help Obama in the sense that he came away from it looking better than he did prior to it. If you really think Dolan did with the purpose of giving Romney a venue to jab at Obama, boy have I got a deal on some oceanfront property in Kansas.

    Speaking of rubbish, this idea that Dolan simply adjusted his position to be in line with the Vatican is a steaming pile of it. The hacts clearly demonstrate that Doaln is jsut being who he hasa been all along. But let’s say for the sake of argument that that is the case. That you would have a problem with someone who hold “high religious positions” in the Church being a “trimmer”, but have no problem when that same individual engages in Al Sharptonesque race baiting calumny is reason why I find you loathsome. And why any honest person would as well.

    I am kind of shocked that you would bring up your embarrassing defense of Mark Shea’s public non-apology apology. Common sense would dictate that you let that die a quiet death,

  18. “But it did help Obama in the sense that he came away from it looking better than he did prior to it.”

    Rubbish. Romney scored on Obama that night.

    “If you really think Dolan did with the purpose of giving Romney a venue to jab at Obama, boy have I got a deal on some oceanfront property in Kansas.”

    That is the function of the Al Smith dinner Greg in presidential election years. I am surprised that you think that did not enter into Dolan’s calculations. The audience was pro-Romney judging from the applause he got.

    “That you would have a problem with someone who hold “high religious positions” in the Church being a “trimmer”, but have no problem when that same individual engages in Al Sharptonesque race baiting calumny is reason why I find you loathsome.”

    Nah, Greg, the reason why you find me loathsome is because I do not share your obsessive hatred of Mark Shea. Since you find me loathsome I will spare you further interaction with me by banning you from this website. Peddle your bile elsewhere.

Comments are closed.