Comments for Affirmative Orthodoxy at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 17 out of 17 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Wed, 22 May 2013 19:00:34 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/affirmative-orthodoxy.html#comment-9546 To Bart: "As if a man of God and a man of and for the people are mutually exclusive" Of course a many of God and of the people are not mutually exclusive. I would have added that comment I I hadn't already written so much. It was the emphasis and the first impression that I was referring to. Without searching my Concordance, I seem to remember that, in the Gospels, the first reaction to our Lord's speaking was always (loosely speaking), "Who is this man that he speaks with the authority of God?" If our new bishop had been described first as a "man of God," I would have been assured that his concern for his people would be rightly ordered, anchored in the Faith. A "man of God" is always a man of the people. A "man of the people" may be simply a politician. - Louise Tue, 17 Jan 2012 03:44:46 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/affirmative-orthodoxy.html#comment-9545 This is an interesting piece, I can sympathize with some of the other commenters here, eg Tony Esolen's concerns, although acknowledge this is in the end a prudential situation. Fr. Lockwood's impressions mirror those of friends of mine with ties to the Archbishop: rumors of his heterodoxy are greatly exaggerated (cf Morley Safer's televised piece a few months back). I too found it somewhat odd that Mr. Miner focused so much on traditional Catholic response although think there is merit in pursuing it (the tone and caricature arguments are fair game though). If we strip the controversial imagery, the typical response of *some* trads is a perfect example of why Msgr Pope (Archdiocese of Washington) recently compared being a bishop to "herding cats". A quibble of my own. Allen has been describing Pope Benedict with the moniker "affirmative orthodoxy" since only months or even weeks after the beginning of his papacy. I strongly disagree that Allen's line "what Catholicism is for rather than what it’s against” is meant as a shot at the pope. I strongly suspect that the Holy Father is greatly impressed with the Archbishop's affirmative orthodoxy (eg, Feb 18), and sees him as a great example of how he sees the Church to be, and cannot see how Allen doesn't see the same. Another minor point. Given that most of Allen's book is Dolan's own words, Allen's own contribution is quite limited. And in my view it suffers because of it. Allen usually does a good job of pointing out that while Church issues can be viewed through the lens of secular Left vs Right thought, that is inadequate to really understand how the CHurch fits into things. But in this book, he is far to simplified and gives the impression of Dolan-conservative-vs-ADNY-liberal without the usual contextualization. - Thinkling Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:31:05 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/affirmative-orthodoxy.html#comment-9544 To Louise who wrote : "On no," thought I, I was hoping that he would be a man of God." As if a man of God and a man of and for the people are mutually exclusive. I believe Jesus was very much a man of and for the people, but hey maybe i'm wrong. - Bart Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:03:42 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/affirmative-orthodoxy.html#comment-9543 Louise is absolutely correct. The Catholic laity is being set upon on all sides and we are at WAR with the secular society which surrounds us. We need STRONG GENERALS-the A-TEAM if you will, to lead and protect us. Instead what do we get? A feckless, imprecise bishop who utterly failed in his first major contest, to stop pseudogamous marriage from becoming State law. I called this one back in July, i.e., the deal was to receive State funding for Catholic schools, the NY bishops would look the other way on "same-sex marriage". I know Abp Dolan loves the Church, he is a great guy, he is personally pious, he kisses babies, he smiles at dogs; but he is just another mediocrity wearing a miter which the laity is forced to wait for to either die or retire. How long do you think a board of directors would tolerate a CEO of this caliber? - Manfred Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:50:49 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/affirmative-orthodoxy.html#comment-9542 I felt very sad after reading this article. I decided to dismiss my feelings and give Mr. Miner the benefit of the doubt. I admit that every time I see the Archbishop on television, I am left with mixed feelings, and I end up no better off than before. I often feel as if I were being patronized, patted on the head, talked down to, as if I'm not bright enough to understand a straightforward, declarative sentence. Yes, one may be warm-hearted and accepting and casual and easy-going in one's speech, and there is a time and a place for that--a parish meeting in the church hall where everyone understands the implications of the "might" and "perhaps" under discussion. There is also a time to be precise and exact in one's diction, to say nothing of exhibiting a level of seriousness, dignity, and clear thinking-- in public or published speech, for example. Demeanor may not be all, but it is a lot. Casual speech can do a lot of damage by creating unwarranted expectations as well as misunderstandings. A good interviewer would have insisted on knowing what the "might" and "perhaps" meant--exactly. (Does anyone remember the presidential campaign of 2008 when Mr. Obama's words could be taken to mean whatever a listener wanted them to mean? How is that any different from the Archbishop's "might" and "perhaps"?) I fell in love with Cardinal Ratzinger on reading the first paragraph of the first book of his that I read. Here is a man who speaks with gentleness--as well as gentility--, precisely, cogently, profoundly, and he never violates the first rule taught in English Comp. 101: "Never confuse your reader." Do they teach English Comp. 101 anymore (or even a remedial class in seminary? I also agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Esolen. To Bart who wrote: "You are a man of and for the people and after all isn't that what a pope should be." How disappointed I was when someone who had just listened to a homily by our new bishop some years ago. She said, "He is a man of the people." "On no," thought I, I was hoping that he would be a man of God." - Louise Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:57:21 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/affirmative-orthodoxy.html#comment-9541 Take it easy on Mr. Miner, everyone. The man admits he struggles with anger: http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/room-for-the-devil.html This article indeed proves it is so. - Wade St. Onge Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:57:07 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/affirmative-orthodoxy.html#comment-9540 Fr. Lockwood has it right...Archbishop Dolan loves the Church, Her teachings, and His/his flock. He is a gifted thinker and speaker who invites and attracts conversation and understanding. I (a traditionalist) find self-righteous orthodoxy pharisaical, off-putting and dialogue ending. - Seanache Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:41:50 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/affirmative-orthodoxy.html#comment-9539 "Just a brief comment about traditionalism. I made a point of specifying 'sedevacantist.'" If 'sedevacantist' is what you really mean, then this piece badly needs editing. You use the term "sedevacantist" twice. Thereafter it's: "chiggers of traditionalism," and "traddies," suggesting the two are the same. But you don't stop there. You also mention "nit-pickers," "nits," "'conservatives' [in quotation marks]," and people who tap bony fingers. Perhaps you might focus on substance instead of name-calling. - John Sobieski Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:34:44 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/affirmative-orthodoxy.html#comment-9537 I've known the archbishop for many years; he uses language in a mitigating way to gain a hearing without cutting off dialogue. He's orthodox and a thoroughly decent man. People can differ concerning pastoral solutions to difficult situations (I personally would resonate to Tony Esolen's misgivings mentioned above), but I do not doubt Archbishop Dolan's love for the Church or her teachings. I do take issue with the tone of the article, using traditional Catholics as cartoon cutout crazies examining a bishop's every move for signs of the "Spirit of Vatican II." As a priest for almost 25 years, I have seen folks from every point on the compass get off course occasionally. They all still belong to Holy Mother Church, as does the author. People who have been marginalized are easy targets. - Fr. Gregory Lockwood Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:59:36 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/affirmative-orthodoxy.html#comment-9536 What I would dare to say to the beloved soon-to-be Cardinal is dare to dream. Dare to imagine. It's not a fantasy. We are not all radtrads or sedevacantists. We also are watching and listening and we like what we see and hear. You are a man of and for the people and after all isn't that what a pope should be. - Bart Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:32:01 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/affirmative-orthodoxy.html#comment-9535 Just a brief comment about traditionalism. I made a point of specifying "sedevacantist." - Brad Miner Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:22:11 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/affirmative-orthodoxy.html#comment-9532 What a bizarre piece. It is ostensibly about a pastor who "open doors," yet it slams doors in the faces of Catholics with traditional leanings. And it suggests that the Pope himself is among the cheerless, negative traddies! I'm glad Miner puts me (a cheerful traddie) on the Pope's side. But I can't help asking: what is The Catholic Thing's point? Why? - John Sobieski Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:36:07 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/affirmative-orthodoxy.html#comment-9529 People do seem to have gotten rather over-concerned about Mr. Miner's article. Several comments come to mind. First, His Excellency's phrasing and mannerisms are not the end of the earth. If His Excellency says one "might" hear that sodomy and fornication are sins, he is clearly using litotes (have we all read Virgil?): if he were actually heterodox himself he would not even have addressed the issue. If Archbishop Dolan is more familiar than some of his predecessors, he is so because the circumstances of the world and his see make it appear beneficial; we live in a very strange world. Perhaps Mr. Miner could have weighed the benefits and costs of the Archbishop's approach without referring to perceptions. But it is not as if he actually called everyone traditionally minded or who prefers formality a sedevacantist. And that really was not the point of the article. As for Allen's "what Catholicism is for rather than what it’s against," that's merely silly: one cannot be for the doctrine of the Trinity unless one is against Monophysitism. - Titus Mon, 16 Jan 2012 04:47:35 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/affirmative-orthodoxy.html#comment-9528 I have to say, I disagree with the Cardinal on the issue of allowing the adopted child of a homosexual couple to attend Catholic school. The moral hazard to the other children is continual, visible, and formidable. Since people these days are not inclined to think of universals or of absolute truths, they -- especially children -- will see the ordinariness of the child and conclude that the pseudogamous relationship of the "parents" is no big deal. I wouldn't want my kids near it. - Tony Esolen Mon, 16 Jan 2012 04:24:28 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/affirmative-orthodoxy.html#comment-9527 Thumbs down on Archbishop Dolan's use of 'probably's and 'might' in relation to doctrinal issues. You don't need to be a traditionalist to assert that this is the same wishy-washy teaching-- under the guise of pastoral sensitivity--that you get from many American dioceses. This walking-on-eggshells approach --so as not to offend liberals-- is part of the crisis. It's hardly leadership, and it's far from orthodoxy. - James Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:23:17 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/affirmative-orthodoxy.html#comment-9526 Since I lean somewhat to the traditionalist side naturally I wonder just how large a segment of the Church falls within the ambit of your contempt. It's ironic to read a column about such an irenic, pastoral man and be left with the thought that the column is essentially schismatic- schismatic as in scissors. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf styles Pope Benedict XVI "the Pope of Christian unity" and very probably the rise of Archbishop Dolan is due to that fact. I imagine they would both find it helpful if The Catholic Thing would at least do what it could to foster Catholic unity rather than hurling brickbats here and there within the Church. No, all is not well, but specific issues need to be addressed specifically and as charitably as possible. Stigmatizing whole segments of the Church with contemptuous nicknames and prophesying what they will likely do doesn't seem quite up to the mark for a site that purports to be a venue for serious Catholic conversation. Please withdraw or re-write the column. Thanks! - Lee Gilbert Sun, 15 Jan 2012 21:28:44 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/affirmative-orthodoxy.html#comment-9525 Brad: Why are sedevacantists and traditionalists mentioned in this piece? Most trads. in my experience look upon the Church the same way Pope Benedict does. See the changes which will occur in this Year of the Faith, the 50th anniversary of the start of Vat II. There will be many blockbusters. Dolan refers to Abp Rembert Weakland on the sex-abuse issue and says: he "did take it seriously". Weakland paid his male lover Marcoux $450,000 to settle a suit that he, Weakland, had embezzled from the Archdiocese of Milwaukee while he was its abp. Has Weakland ever paid it back? Was he arrested, tried and jailed? Of course not. Since June, 2011, pseudogynous (Dr. Esolen's term) marriages have been legalized while Abp Dolan was on watch. Parents will have to deal with this pernicious influence in the schools while the leader of the Archdiocese just throws up his hands. That is all I have to know about Tim Dolan. - Manfred Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:36:38 +0100