Obama and his willing accomplices in the media are now targeting Cardinal Dolan

TheyHatinDolanNo one should deny that The New York Times serves at the behest of Barack Hussein Obama and the leftist ideology they both embrace.

And no one should deny that Cardinal Dolan is the face of the opposition to the HHS Mandate being foisted upon Catholics by this administration.

So this hit piece from the New York Times can’t really be surprising.  Cardinal Dolan must be taught to bow to Obama and digging up alleged dirt on him is the Chicago way. The Old Gray Hag is of course willing to do her level best to teach Dolan a lesson, to punish him, to smear and discredit his name.

Will it work?

To the unthinking and those prone to pile on to that which feeds their hatred of the Church, of course.

But to those who care to go deeper, those who see this for what it truly is, the hope is that it won’t.

For the latter, I give you first Jimmy Akin who fisks The New York Times piece effectively and who offers up what I consider to be effective counters to the smears.

And then I give you Mark Shea who I think sums things up rather smartly:

There is much dudgeon in the article. There is no dudgeon–none whatsoever–about the fact that exactly the same tactic is used to get rid of pervy public school teachers. This, and the lionization of the Right Sort of Roman makes me rather inclined to think this a specimen of the Times indulging in fake dudgeon because of Dolan’s leadership against the HHS mandate. In short, it’s a hit piece in the service of another agenda.

In the end, the story seems to be that Dolan tried to get rid of bad priests as fast as possible, which used to be a good thing according to the Times. Since the state did not see fit to get rid of them by putting them in jail and the canonical process might for all I know, have cost *more* than this route (has anybody done the calculations?) I don’t think it’s particularly a slam dunk that this was a bad way to go. In the end, the tradeoff is between asking, “Do you want a long expensive process in which the perv remains a priest on the payroll while he games the system endlessly or do you want a short process in which he gets some money and we are rid of him?” I, for one, am not ready to have hysterics about Plan B–at least till I know the cost of the full canonical rigamarole for laicizing a perv.

You pays your money and you makes your choice: is it more important to get rid of the perv swiftly even if it costs you something (that used to be the very sensible demand of the Times, if you recall)? Or do you keep the perv around for months or even years (while it still costs you something and perhaps costs even more than it would cost you to just get rid of him)? I care more about getting rid of the perv fast than I do about money. So even if the long canonical process were cheaper than $20,000 (and I strongly suspect it is not) I think I’d be inclined to favor the fast route. The only drawback is that the perv gets the money. So is it more important to me that the perv not get the dough or that innocents are protected from a perv? I opt for innocents protected over my desire for vengeance.

I suspect this is the first of more attacks to come against Archbishop Dolan, after all, it is the Chicago Way and we know with certainty that Obama is quite the thug-in-chief.

The question is how far will the attacks go?

Time will tell.

In the mean-time, allow me to plug a movie I’m hearing has relevant undertones.

For Greater Glory is playing at theatres near you.  I plan on seeing it this weekend.  I think you should as well.

Racine Tea Party Rally for Scott Walker/Kleefisch (Also Paul Ryan, Dana Loesch, Tony Katz, More)
Oops! Brett Kimberlin featured in national news story
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest()

  • GarandFan

    So when will Barry ‘protest’ the hit piece?


  • I went to see “For Greater Glory” last night and enjoyed it.  However, it was sobering to realize what people would be willing to suffer for their faith.  I hope that I would have such character if I was called upon to do something similar.

  • Guest

    Ahhh yes, love those “family values Christians” and the way they display their hypocrisy by standing up and defending known pedophiles.

    First we have the right wing’s love affair with Ted Nugent, a self admitted pedophile and draft dodger.

    Why weren’t these known abusers of children turned over to the authorities and exposed these vultures as they vultures they are? Cause that isn’t the Catholic way….

    Now we see rick defending sexual abuse of children in the Catholic church by suggesting anybody who dares speak against it is politically motivated.

    The first 3 paragraphs of the linked article:

    Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York authorized payments of as much as $20,000 to sexually abusive priests as an incentive for them to agree to dismissal from the priesthood when he was the archbishop of Milwaukee.

    Questioned at the time about the news that one particularly notorious pedophile cleric had been given a “payoff” to leave the priesthood, Cardinal Dolan, then the archbishop, responded that such an inference was “false, preposterous and unjust.”

    But a document unearthed during bankruptcy proceedings for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and made public by victims’ advocates reveals that the archdiocese did make such payments to multiple accused priests to encourage them to seek dismissal, thereby allowing the church to remove them from the payroll.

    An article exposing this travesty is defended as being politically motivated.

    How thoroughly and utterly disgusting.

    • Cecil Bordages


      Did you read the fisking of the article? Or do you just assume as an article of faith that everything printed in the NYT must be true?

    • Grumpy,

       “Cause that isn’t the Catholic way….”

      Public school teachers are more likely to commit sexual abuse of children than Catholic Priests. http://www.academia.org/nyc-public-school-pedophiles/

      Are you going to complain about the NEA or the AFT?  Probably not, since it doesn’t fit the liberal mindset.

      • Commander_Chico

        The difference is that the female public school teachers are more likely to be f-ing 16 year old boys.  

        Priests are more likely to be anally raping 12 year old boys.

        Yes, I will say there is a difference,however politically incorrect that is.

        • jim_m

           Yes and you are already on record saying that you find it perfectly OK that female teachers are having sex with 14 year old boys.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yes, because I remember the woodies I got looking at young Mrs. Gordon’s small but pert breasts when she was teaching 14 year old Chico Latin.

        • Commandante,

           “The difference is that the female public school teachers are more likely to be f-ing 16 year old boys.”

          That is somewhat sexist.  I know that abusing female public school teachers get in the news (“man bites dog”), but there are many male public school teachers as well.  Only a tiny fraction are abusers, much like clergy.  However, we should use the actual statistics and put the bigotry of Grumpy into context.

          • Commander_Chico

            I am a sexist.  Call me that and a homophobe, but I think there’s a difference between the incidents of teachers and post-pubescent high school students, and priests using their authority to anally rape 12 year old boys.

          •  Commandante,

            I repeat myself, but there are male public school teachers.

          • jim_m

             Chico doesn’t care how many public school teachers rape little girls.  They aren’t his ideological opponents.

          • Commander_Chico

            Nobody denies that there have been public school molestations of all types.  The issues are:  (1) the incidence per student by priests was higher; (2) the type of molestation was extremely egregious (homosexual rape of young boys, not seduction of the post-pubescent), and (3) the Catholic hierarchy engaged in systematic cover-ups and legal stonewalling of these incidents.

            BTW, did you read the story about how Dutch priests in the 1950s had boys who complained of abuse by priests castrated??


            This is evil of the lowest order.

      • Guest

         I’m certainly not going to defend rapists.

        Why are you defending child abusers by suggesting that “not just priests do it”.

        That’s just f&cking sick  and that’s my point. It takes a sick mind to find reasons to stand up and speak up in favor of child abusers.

        And when you have people who espouse “family values” defending child abusers, it’s very f&cking sick.

        • jim_m

          I’m certainly not going to defend rapists.

          Unless, of course, they belong to OWS, in which case they are as pure as the driven snow.

    • Commander_Chico

      Dolan is another corrupto cleric who should serve time in prison before he burns in Hell.

      • jim_m


  • retired.military

    How many priests have you heard of in the past 5 years that were abusing children?   I am not talking about accusations 20 years old. I  am talking about accusations of abuse that took place in the past 5-10 years. 

    how many accounts in the past year have you heard of teachers abusing children.  I can think of at least 5 in the past year.  Just last week I saw 2 articles on teachers sexting with students.  

    Where is your outrage Grumpy aka chickenshit?


    • Guest

      There are 6,200,000 teachers in the United States.

      There are 40,000 Catholic priests in the United States.

      Are you a f&cking idiot? There are 150 teachers for every Catholic priest. And naturally you “hear about it” when it happens. It’s an awful crime.

      And one of the reasons you don’t hear as much about Catholic priests is that the cathollic church uses their tax-free charity proceeds to buy silence and hide the truth.

      Go spew your family values bullshit somewhere else. It ain’t selling here.

      Why are you defending men who sexually abuse and annaly rape 12 year old boys?


      Come on, ‘chickenshit’ – explain why defend men who sexually abuse little boys?

      • jim_m

         You mean the way you defend public school teachers?

        The only one defending anyone is you with the school teachers.  No one is defending the Catholic Church’s failure on this score.  What we are doing is pointing out the rank hypocrisy on the left which means that they can point out the flaws in their ideological opponents but will totally ignore those very same flaws when exhibited by their union buddies.

        But then maybe it’s just because the unions pay the left to shut up.

      • retired.military

        I call bullshit.  Only a small percentage of priests accused were ever even taken to trial and of those ever fewer were convicted.  Noone likes child molestors except for democrats.  After all Manbla is in nancy pelosi;s distrct.

        You never hear about the innocent priests that were accused by some druggie or idiot out to make a fast buck from the church.  Yet every chance the lame stream democratic media get a chance to attack the church it takes it and chickenshits like you wnat to bring up the abuse scandals.  The scandlas were horrible and never should have happened.  But not every priest was guilty and I am sick and tired of your ilk trying to paint with a broad brush. 

        You dont mention all the teachers accused who are still on the payroll for years afterwards while the unions fight their battles for them.  Yet you want to mention the church every chance you get when the world abuse is mentioned,.

        Personally I think anyone convicted of child abuse should be executed.  Oh wait we cant because of chickenshits like you who want to try to fix them even though there is ample proof that they cant be fixed.   You want them out of jail and around kids and everything else.   That is unless they are a priest in which case you just want them around to beat a dead horse and use it to attack an instution which does more good during the year than the govt does.

        :”And one of the reasons you don’t hear as much about Catholic priests is that the cathollic church uses their tax-free charity proceeds to buy silence and hide the truth”

        This is a total lie. Why not call up a priest and ask them. I know I had a friend who is a priest accused by a druggie. Turns out the guy wasnt even a member of the parish or lived in the county when my friend was the priest there so it would be kinda hard for my friend to have molested him when the was supposedly the altar boy there. My friend got ZERO financial or other support from the church and was told that it was up to him to pay for his attorney and prove that he didnt do it.

        Next question asswipe. Isnt it strange that the paper decides to print this now instead of before Cardinal Dolan was the face of the adversary for Obamacare’s provisions for abortion and birth control? No coincidence there now is there.

        Speaking of clergy isnt it strange the MSM never seems to find abusers of other faiths, just the catholic faith? Oh wait we do have Jesse jackson and Al Sharpton having affairs but nothing to see there time to move on.

  • Sky__Captain

    While Grumpy and Comrade_Chico continue their “look at this shiny bauble” tirades, they willingly miss the point of the thread.

    • LiberalNightmare

       I don’t think that Grumpy “willingly” misses the point, so much as he just misses the point.

      • I don’t think it really matters why. The outcome is the same either way: he makes himself look stupid, and brings down the average IQ of every thread he infests.

      • I don’t think it really matters why. The outcome is the same either way: he makes himself look stupid, and brings down the average IQ of every thread he infests.

    • LiberalNightmare

       I don’t think that Grumpy “willingly” misses the point, so much as he just misses the point.

    • retired.military

      And this is new how?

  • retired.military

    Here you go grumpy


    In the 2001 San Francisco “Gay Pride” parade, Nancy Pelosi walked along side of the NAMBLA advocate, Harry Hay, who has stated “ If the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what 13-, 14-, and 15- year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.”

    From the same article we have Obama and Nambla

    Yet, NAMBLA has a working relationship with the Democrat party. President Obama appointed Kevin Jennings as the Safe School Czar. Jennings expressed his admiration and praise for Harry Hay, who is a long time advocate for NAMBLA and the legalization of sexual abuse of young boys by older men.As an educator, Jennings was approached by a 15-year-old boy who sought his advice about a relationship he was having with an older man. Instead of reporting this felonious act to police or encouraging the boy to talk to his family or seek counseling, Jennings told the boy to “use a condom” with the man. This is our Safe School Czar? Jennings also wrote the forward to a book called “Queering Elementary Education,” which promotes homosexual doctrine to be taught in elementary school, even to children in first grade. Jennings has already stated he will promote his “homosexual agenda” into our public school curriculum

    Then we have Howard Dean who wants federal funding for Nambla

    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    Democrat Howard Dean Supports Gay Marriages & Federal Funding Of NAMBLA

    Then we have “good pedophiles”

    Dan Savage “We Should Acknowledge The Existence of Good Pedophiles”Posted by F.R Newbrough on April 30, 2012 at 12:30am
    There has been considerable controversy over recent comments by Dan Savage, a radical gay rights activist, when he said “we can learn to ignore the bulls–t in the bible..” The YouTube video of the event is below so you can watch it yourself. However this is not the first or the worst or most radical of this man’s hateful outbursts. He is also very outspoken on issues such as pedophilia

    And the list goes on. 

    Yep the dems are really interested in the children.  Just not protecting them unless of course it was stuff that took place 30 years ago by a Catholic priest.

  • SteveCrickmore075

    The problem for the Catholic Church is that they only allow men as priests and celibate men at that, other than ordained, already married Anglican ones! I’m told that celibacy really wasn’t forced on priests until the early Middle Ages, in part, to prevent priests and bishops from leaving their estates to any would-be heirs or wives. Instead the Vatican acquired their estates. So we are are left with a priesthood, with a much higher than average propensity for homosexualty, than other demographic samples, maybe with the exception of the Swiss Guards.

     1,854 Roman Catholic priests (in the USA), reported that 80% referred to themselves as “mostly” heterosexual, with 67% being exclusively heterosexual, 8% leaning toward heterosexual, 5% completely in the middle, and 6% leaning toward homosexual and 9% saying they are homosexual, for a combined figure of 15% on the homosexual side. Among younger priests (those ordained for 20 years or less) the figure was 23%.

    Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of the Archdiocese of Detroit suggested, “Gay priests and heterosexual priests didn’t know how to handle their sexuality, their sexual drive. And so they would handle it in ways that were not healthy.” The whole approach of the Church, to sexuality is rather medieval, but I suppose it is meant to be, like much of the religion.

    • jim_m

       The problem for the Catholic Church is that they only allow men as priests and celibate men at that,

      OMG!!!  How dare they have religious beliefs and actually decide to let those beliefs effect how they run their church and lead their lives! 

      The church is flawed because man is flawed. The trouble with the left is that they think it is the other way around.  But they do so because they believe that there is no god and that religion is made up by men so therefore religious doctrine should be a matter of personal choice.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

      • SteveCrickmore075

        I suppose this is the truth, and not the secularist point of view of the largely left. God must love  American democracy since, “forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans, (May 3-6, 2012 survey)  is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question”..

        • jim_m

           The left loves to use surveys like this to accuse the American people of ignorance, but what this really exposes is the failure of the science community to come up with a reliable and testable explanation for how life evolved to where it is today. 

          Evolution cannot explain the explosion of diversity we see in the fossil record.   Slow, incremental genetic change does not produce the sweeping changes in biology that exist and in the the case of life evolving from inert matter, the earth simply has not existed for long enough for man to have evolved in that manner.  Some have proposed great leaps in evolution to solve this problem, but there is no known mechanism of genetics that would justify such a theory.

          Ultimately, evolution relies upon at least as much a religious faith as creation.  Maybe someday, someone will fill in the science that makes it an actual fact, but until then we are left with little more than a system of faith. 

          Many people who believe otherwise understand that evolution as failed in this way.  Unfortunately the scientific community, rather than push for new thinking on the origin of life has become dogmatic and punishes heretics from the faith by excluding them from the scientific and academic community.  Apparently, belief in the right scientific theory is more important than being able to actually conduct good science.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            Here is as good an explanation as to how evolution functions as I have read recently, by Richard Dawkins:


            Evolution, then, results from the differential survival of genes in gene pools. “Good” genes become numerous at the expense of “bad.” But what is a gene “good” at? Here’s where the organism enters the stage. Genes flourish or fail in gene pools, but they don’t float freely in the pool like molecules of water. They are locked up in the bodies of individual organisms. The pool is stirred by the process of sexual reproduction, which changes a gene’s partners in every generation. A gene’s success depends on the survival and reproduction of the bodies in which it sits, and which it influences via “phenotypic” effects. This is why I have called the organism a “survival machine” or “vehicle” for the genes that ride inside it. Genes that happen to cause slight improvements in squirrel eyes or tails or behaviour patterns are passed on because individual squirrels bearing those improving genes survive at the expense of individuals lacking them.

          • jim_m

             Exactly.  They can “explain” evolution.  They just cannot elucidate any actual genetic mechanism that implements it.  As I said the slow incremental model doesn’t happen fast enough for evolution to happen in time for life to have evolved as it has on earth from nothing.

            Evolution is very good at creating a story.  It is terrible at finding the “how” part of how enough change can occur and how totally new organ systems (let alone organisms) can come into being.  Nor can incrementalism explain the development of the highly interconnected systems on the cellular level where multiple changes must occur all at once and where chemical intermediates have no function in nature.  Such intermediate compounds would never have evolved and evolutionary theory suggests that they would have been selected against.

            I don’t want some lofty explanation.  I want a detailed, scientifically-based mechanism that demonstrates exactly how these changes can and supposedly have happened.  Dawkins offers only the former because that’s all he has.  And that is all you have because that’s all anyone can give you.

            It really shows my point.  I am not arguing for creationism or ID, but rather I am pointing out the bankrupt nature of evolutionary theory.  It has become a religion where evolution is invoked to explain the why of existence when science has shown that it is incapable of explaining the how.

          • jim_m

             As I mentioned above incrementalism cannot explain the many interdependent systems found in cellular biology and no evidence exists for anything but incrementalism. 

            Science needs to get back to doing science and questioning the received wisdom.  Once upon a time academia was better at that than it is today.  Then again once upon a time academia wasn’t under the control of radical leftists who believe their purpose is to indoctrinate others into their ideology.

    • “The problem for the Catholic Church is that they only allow men as priests and celibate men at that […] So we are are left with a priesthood, with a much higher than average propensity for homosexualty…”


      This seems at odds with the claim that gay people don’t choose to be gay, rather, they are undoubtedly born gay.

      If that is true, then being celibate should have no influence at all on sexual orientation.

      It should stand to reason that if people truly are born homosexual, as we are constantly reminded they are, then there can’t exist a “propensity” to be homosexual. That would suggest that people can either make a conscious decision to be gay, or that sexual preference can indeed be a product of a person’s environment or outside influences.


      • SteveCrickmore075

        I think it is only very partly genetic, there is no  gay gene more a case of  environmental factors ,such as the” where’s daddy syndrome”, having an absent father, plays a  stronger role in determing sexual orientation.
        Who knows with the growing acceptance of  gay marriage,and gays adopting children, the unanticapated consequence for the Catholiic church, may be, that more homosexual men may be less willing to take up the dificult life of celibacy and the non -marriage vows of becoming a catholic priest.

        • retired.military

          Funny how the left has absolutely no problems with gays being boy scout leaders because everyone knows that being gay doesnt mean you are  pedophile.  Yet Steve just tries to use the gay = pedophile mime for priests.

  • Rick, regarding that NYT article, do you have links to opposing viewpoints that are not Catholic sources?  

    For what it is worth, that NYT story has nothing to do with President Obama. It is a straight forward news story about some of the inner workings of the Roman Catholic Church inside the USA.

    Sure, the news story reveals information that may be embarrassing to Roman Catholic officials, but is it proper to attack a party for revealing that information? We criticize Brett Kimberlin for attacking bloggers who exposed Kimberlin’s past conduct. Should we be attacking a news outlet because it exposed the past actions of Roman Catholic priests and leaders?

    It would be a mistake to claim that there is zero objectivity in all NYT reporting. Even a broken clock is correct at least once a day.

  • No matter how you slice it, the bigoted anti-gay Catholic Cardinal paid off pedophile priests. You can call it a smear job, I call it telling the truth. It’s the only job where you can commit a reprehensible crime, and get $20,000 for it.

    Mess In Milwaukee — The Morally Bankrupt Cardinal Bankrupted The Archdiocese of Milwaukee


    Cardinal Dolan should be forced to relinquish his crown, his pretty ring, and
    all those big red dresses he wears to mass all the time. As for calling him “your eminence,” that style of address should be eliminated too. The only thing eminent about Cardinal Dolan is his waistline, and it’s impolite to call attention to that.

  • Well Rick, you’ve certainly managed to flush out all the anti-catholic and anti-christian bigots with this post.

    • jim_m

       Bruce hasn’t posted.

      • Brucehenry

        I  grew up Catholic. I find all religious dogma equally implausible. I don’t find Christianity, Catholic or otherwise, (or Islam, or Judaism)  any more believable than Greek or Norse mythology.

        That said, I respect the good that Christians do in the world, as far as charity, helping others, etc. I hate bullies, so I get pissed when fundamentalists or other so-called religious people try to tell other Americans how to live their lives, whom to love and marry, etc. Or just generally “act better” than others, for that matter. And I’m both angered by and contemptuous of folks who go on and on ever so piously about “values” and then get caught violating those same values. Haggard, Vitter, Senator Widestance, and so on.

        I laugh at Cafeteria Christians who howl about the “sanctity of life” but love the death penalty and never saw a war they didn’t support. Those who “defend the unborn” but have no regard for the born once they arrive, if they’re poor.

        I definitely feel sympathy for victims of clerical abuse, and angered by the systematic cover-up that went on so long in the Catholic Church, but believe it or not, I find myself having some some sympathy for the arguments made by the Church’s defenders. People are weak and imperfect. I think the Church is, now, sincerely trying to make amends for the situation it allowed to fester for too long.

        And it DID go on too long. My grandfather, born in 1894, was abused by a priest in a Catholic orphanage in the very early 20th Century, and he wasn’t the only one in that orphanage who was. The fact that this did not become a huge, public scandal until 2002 speaks volumes to me. My grandfather, by the way, hated priests and the Church with a flaming passion until his death in 1973.

        • jim_m

           I think the real point is that whenever you put children into the hands of people who are not their parents the likelihood of abuse goes up dramatically.  It isn’t anything particular about the church since we see it in public schools and in foster homes.  There isn’t anything magical about the religious element this is about the depravity of the human condition in general. 

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t particularly appreciate your implication that I am one of the “anti-Catholic bigots” to whom Rodney G. Graves refers, Jim. I don’t think I have any history here of anti-Catholic bigotry. Are you aware of something I have failed to remember?

          • jim_m

             No such implication was meant in my response to your comment.  I was merely elaborating off of your what you had said. 

            If you are responding to my snide comment above to Rodney, I do not have any specific instance in mind but given your own admission regarding your views on religion I believe that my recollection is likely correct when I feel that we have butted heads previously over remarks that I thought were prejudiced and unfairly characterized religion.

          • Brucehenry

            The fact that one has developed a distaste for many, or even most, of the supposed followers of a given religion doesn’t mean one is a “bigot.” For instance, I doubt you would call yourself an “Islamophobe” even though you have made many disparaging remarks about Muslims.

          • jim_m

             A phobia is an irrational fear.  My opinions are based on the actions of muslims and therefore based on a reasoned interpretation of their behavior and their history.  Does that make me prejudiced?  Perhaps in your eyes.  Then again I think you are a fool if you do not think that there is a significant faction in islam that wants to see you dead because you are an infidel and an even larger portion of islam that will do nothing to stop them.

          • Brucehenry

            Maybe they are, Jim.

             And MY opinions are based on the actions of so-called Christians and other religious people and therefore based on a reasoned interpretation of their behavior and history. I gave several examples above of behavior I find objectionable, contemptible, and ridiculous on the part of people who call themselves Christians. But, as I have  said, I acknowledge that many religious folk do a lot of good and lead exemplary lives, so there’s that.

            Having a generally negative opinion of organized religion in general, and busybody hypocrisy in particular, does not make one a bigot. I think you owe me an apology. I won’t hold my breath.

            And, to the moderator who edited my comment: I promise not to refer to Rodney with a “W,” as long as I’m not provoked, in the future. LOL.

          • jim_m

             Sorry.  I was extrapolating from our discussion of Christians and you have shown that you have ample reasons to criticize the Catholic Church and any criticism on your part has valid roots and should not be considered bigotry.

          • Brucehenry

            Thank you sir.