When one reads both Ms. Dowd’s piece and what the Archbishop of New York wrote, it’s readily apparent who the victor is in response to Mr. Townsend’s headline. It should have been noted that the Gray Lady tellingly declined to publish the op-ed presented by Archbishop Dolan. This isn’t surprising since the effective motto of the NYTimes is “all the rumor/uncivilized discourse/diatribe that’s fit to print.”

My reading of both articles see it like this. The issues raised are all issues of horror - that they were carried out by the catholic church makes it doubly so. I see little if any “Catholic bashing”, however I do see a great deal of concern over the sexual abuse of women and children and past practices of this church in its habitual process of covering up the crimes of its clergy.

Perhaps now that the bishop is eager to have his opinion heard in regards the issue of the sexual abuse of children and women could he respond to the following.

Given the public availability of the attached document (English
searchable format)

Why is it possible for an institution to continue when its hierarchy
and its supporters are openly aware of the implications and the results
of incorporating the Decree Crimen Sollicitationis (freely available online) into
the Canon Law of the Catholic church and we simply ask why is this the
situation when all of us simply understand that religions are free to
operate within our country so long as they abide by our laws.

The Decree simply states that the sexual and other crimes of the
Catholic clergy must be kept a secret. This is obviously against our law
as well as our notions of justice.

The linked document was re-enforced in 2001 when the following document
was distributed globally to bishops of the Catholic church.

If our politicians and community leaders are serious about doing
something for the people and their children it would provide its
subscribers with an opportunity to provide their opinion on this as it
goes to the heart of a great many of our social ills as well as the
safety and the protection of our children, their right to be protected
and our obligation to protect them.

Religion is often described as a “way of life” or a life stance.

Keeping secret the sexual abuse of children and adults facilitates further sexual abuse of children and adults - no group, system or religion should be permitted to operate in our communities while any aspect of these “religiously” sanctioned crimes remain in existence.

No group, system or religion can call itself humane if it follows this style and depth of deceit when it is carried out against the entire religious community and subsequently the entire community of our country. This is the most abhorrent and unacceptable way of life possible.

Followers of a religion or way of life who do not act against this within their own religious setting simply aid and abet the continuation of these crimes.

Governments support these practices when they support, protect or trade any such religion or way of life.

JohnB

(English translation of original Latin)

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER
sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
to Bishops of the entire Catholic Church
and other Ordinaries and Hierarchs having an interest
REGARDING THE MORE SERIOUS OFFENSES
reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

[Translation of the text was printed in Origins 31:32, January 24, 2001,
and posted at http://www.austindiocese.org/epistle/2002/graveoffenses.doc

In order to fulfill the ecclesiastical law, which states in Article 52
of the apostolic constitution on the Roman Curia, "[The Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith] examines delicts against faith and more grave
delicts both against morals and committed in the celebration of the
sacraments which have been reported to it and, if necessary, proceeds to
declare or impose canonical sanctions according to the norm of common or
proper law,”(1) it was necessary first to define the method of
proceeding in delicts against the faith: This was accomplished through
the norms titled Agendi Ratio in Doctrinarum Examine, ratified and
confirmed by the supreme pontiff, Pope John Paul II, together with
Articles 28-29 approved in forma specifica.(2)

At approximately the same time, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, through an ad hoc commission established, devoted itself to a
diligent study of the canons on delicts both of the Code of Canon Law
and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches in order to determine
“more grave delicts both against morals and in the celebration of the
sacraments” and in order to make special procedural norms “to declare or
impose canonical sanctions,” because the instruction Crimen
Sollicitationis, issued by the supreme sacred Congregation of the Holy
Office on March 16, 1962,(3) in force until now, was to be reviewed when
the new canonical codes were promulgated.

Having carefully considered opinions and having made the appropriate
consultations, the work of the commission finally was completed. The
fathers of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith examined the
commission’s work carefully and submitted to the supreme pontiff
conclusions on the determination of more grave delicts and the manner of
proceeding to declare or impose sanctions, with the exclusive competence
in this of the apostolic tribunal of this congregation remaining firm.
All these things, approved by the supreme pontiff himself, were
confirmed and promulgated by the apostolic letter given motu proprio
beginning with the words Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela.

The more grave delicts both in the celebration of the sacraments and
against morals reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith are:
-Delicts against the sanctity of the most august eucharistic sacrifice
and the sacraments, namely:
1. Taking or retaining the consecrated species for a sacrilegious
purpose or throwing them away.(4)
2. Attempting the liturgical action of the eucharistic sacrifice or
simulating the same.(5)
3. Forbidden concelebration of the eucharistic sacrifice with ministers
of ecclesial communities which do not have apostolic succession and do
not recognize the sacramental dignity of priestly ordination.(6)
4. Consecrating for a sacrilegious purpose one matter without the other
in the eucharistic celebration or even both outside a eucharistic
celebration.(7)

-Delicts against the sanctity of the sacrament of penance, namely:
1. Absolution of an accomplice in sin against the Sixth Commandment of
the Decalogue.(8)
2. Solicitation in the act, on the occasion or under the pretext of
confession, to sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, if it
is directed to sin with the confessor himself.(9)
3. Direct violation of the sacramental seal.(10)

-A delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric
against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the
age of 18 years.

Only these delicts, which are indicated above with their definition, are
reserved to the apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith.

As often as an ordinary or hierarch has at least probable knowledge of a
reserved delict, after he has carried out the preliminary investigation
he is to indicate it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
which unless it calls the case to itself because of special
circumstances of things, after transmitting appropriate norms, orders
the ordinary or hierarch to proceed ahead through his own tribunal. The
right of appealing against a sentence of the first instance, whether on
the part of the party or the party’s legal representative, or on the
part of the promoter of justice, solely remains valid only to the
supreme tribunal of this congregation.

It must be noted that the criminal action on delicts reserved to the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is extinguished by a
prescription of 10 years.(11) The prescription runs according to the
universal and common law;(12) however, in the delict perpetrated with a
minor by a cleric, the prescription begins to run from the day when the
minor has completed the 18th year of age.

In tribunals established by ordinaries or hierarchs, the functions of
judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly
be performed for these cases only by priests. When the trial in the
tribunal is finished in any fashion, all the acts of the case are to be
transmitted ex officio as soon as possible to the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith.

All tribunals of the Latin church and the Eastern Catholic churches are
bound to observe the canons on delicts and penalties, and also on the
penal process of both codes respectively, together with the special
norms which are transmitted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith for an individual case and which are to be executed entirely.
Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret.

Through this letter, sent by mandate of the supreme pontiff to all the
bishops of the Catholic Church, to superiors general of clerical
religious institutes of pontifical right and clerical societies of
apostolic life of pontifical right, and to other interested ordinaries
and hierarchs, it is hoped not only that more grave delicts will be
entirely avoided, but especially that ordinaries and hierarchs have
solicitous pastoral care to look after the holiness of the clergy and
the faithful even through necessary sanctions.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, May 18, 2001.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Prefect

Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, SDB
Secretary

[Notes added from the Latin text]

[1] Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Constitutio Apostolica Pastor bonus, De
Romana Curia, 28 iunii 1988, art. 52, in AAS 80 (1988) 874.

[2] Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Agendi ratio in doctrinarum examine,
29 iunii 1997, in AAS 89 (1997) 830-835.

[3] Suprema Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii, Instructio Crimen
sollicitationis, Ad omnes Patriarchas, Archiepiscopos, Episcopos
aliosque locorum Ordinarios “etiam Ritus Orientalis”: De modo procedendi
in causis sollicitationis, 16 martii 1962, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis
MCMLXII.

[4] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1367; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum
Orientalium, can. 1442. Cf. et Pontificium Consilium De Legum Textibus
Interpretandis, Responsio ad propositum dubium, 4 iunii 1999.

[5] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1378 § 2 n. 1 et 1379; Codex Canonum
Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1443.

[6] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 908 et 1365; Codex Canonum
Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 702 et 1440.

[7] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 927.

[8] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1378 § 1; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum
Orientalium, can. 1457.

[9] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1387; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum
Orientalium, can. 1458.

[10] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1388 § 1; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum
Orientalium, can. 1456 § 1.

[11] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1362 § 1 n. 1; Codex Canonum
Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1152 § 2 n. 1.

[12] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1362 § 2; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum
Orientalium, can. 1152 § 3.

The following shows where responsibility lies with a foreign
non-democratic nation who through the distribution of the following
simply displays its determination to maintain the cover up of the sexual
abuses by clergy of women and children and of the global extent of these
crimes.

We deserve and require your direct action and your direct response as
your silence or obfuscation in regards this matter can only be seen as
your approval or your desire to see these crimes remain unaddressed.

rgds

JohnB

Archbishop Timothy Dolan is way to close to the Roman Catholic church to be an impartial critic. He brings his own set of prejudices to the subject of anti-Catholicism - however it is defined. In this country, government is criticized all the time. The Catholic church is also a government and its entanglement with other governments may be the reason why we have a tradition of “anti-Catholicism” in this country. Is it possible to be critical of the Roman Catholic church (government) without being labeled an “anti-Catholic”? Apparently not.

The journalism in the Times may be biased against Catholics on the sensitive issue of clergy sex abuse. The problem, according to Dolan, may be blamed on “a tiny minority of priests.” The evidence that is surfacing proving that authorities in the Catholic heirarchy were aware of abuse and moved this “tiny minority” around gives Maureen Dowd something to talk about.

The response to Davel’s question, which he could have answered himself had he done the required reading, is given by Archbishop Dolan in the piece in question: “The Catholic Church is not above criticism. We Catholics do a fair amount of it ourselves. We welcome and expect it. All we ask is that such critique be fair, rational, and accurate, what we would expect for anybody.”

The most effective response to crtiticism is to accept it. Posturing a defense escalates it.

Leaders know this and engage it as strategy to appease the base. For a country as experienced as we are in politics, we are not easily drawn in, the result is entertainment.

Stepping into the context will generate only more of the same. The key is the context and who establishes it. It requires discipline to stick to the message.

Score one for Dowd.

Another,
If what you write is true — that the most effective response to criticism is to accept it — then the Times should have accepted and printed Dolan’s piece. Score one for Dolan.

The New York Times story about Fr. Willenborg was anything but “a quarter-century old story of a sin by a priest” and it’s disingenuous of Dolan to suggest this.
It cited a study that concluded 20% of America’s priests are romantically involved.
It quoted a group that has helped 2,000 children who were fathered by priests.
It raised questions about the duty of church figures to support those children.
It used the word “tight-fisted” to describe how Franciscans have treated one family.
And it included an accusation that Willenborg’s sexual misdeeds weren’t ‘isolated incidents’ and may have involved at least one teenager.

Journalists often highlight one case or situation as a ‘window’ into broader terms. That’s what the Times did here, plain and simple. And Dolan knows this.

Barbara Blaine, President, SNAP, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, PO Box 6416, Chicago IL 60680 (312 399 4747) SNAPnetwork.org

Well, Dolan IS of Irish descent, and a fighter.

But Our Blessed Lord has already warned us Catholics what to expect: ‘No servant is greater than his master, if the world hates you, know that it has first hated me.’
This is, of course, not hatred of the Church, it is hatred of Jesus Christ.
‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute ME?’

But He has also given us a comforting promise to let us know we are in the right if we are hated - indeed, our being hated is the demonstrative proof of the utterly universal necessity of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church as the sole means of salvation:
‘Blessed are you when men revile you, and persecute you, and speak all manner of calumny against you falsely for my sake; rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in Heaven.’

Another,
If the most effective response to criticism is to accept it, then the NY Times should have accepted Dolan’s written submission. Score one for Dolan.