Cardinal Dolan takes issue with Gov. Cuomo's move to protect abortion

From the NY Daily News:

  • “I am in a bit of consternation as to why in a time when there seems to be kind of a sobering up about these horrors of the unfettered access to abortion, why in New York we are talking about even expanding it further,” Dolan said.

    When asked how Cuomo could still consider himself a Catholic in good standing while also promoting abortion legislation, Dolan responded: “That’s something that I talk turkey with him about.”

    Dolan spokesman Joseph Zwilling later said the cardinal did not mean to suggest that Cuomo would not be a Catholic in good standing if he went forward with the bill.

The question is if Zwilling mis-spoke…or did he accurately speak for His Eminence, walking back the comments.

I would hope that Cardinal Dolan “talks turkey with” Mr Zwilling and shows him the door.

I hope the Cardinal talks turkey with both of them.

How can someone who supports abortion be a good standing catholic!!!:mad:

I would have to assume that Cardinal Dolan certainly thinks Governor Cuomo would not be in good standing if he goes through with the bill; but at the same time they are being very cautious PR-wise for now. It’s all a delicate balance in things like this.

Its not delicate. its black and white!!!:mad: Someone who thinks its OK to murder babies is not a good Catholic… let alone supporting abortion… :mad:

Is Cuomo a “catholic”? Only a “catholic” (as in C.I.N.O) would support abortion. I think he should be publicly excommunicated and denied the Eucharist. Its time for Bishops to PROTECT the Eucharist and not let HIM be treated this way - received by Pro Abortion politicians that is.

this obsession with expanding abortion will only come back and slap the country in the face when we are in deeper debt in 20 years with NO WORKERS to pay for social security because they were ALL eliminated through abortion.

I think he might be interpreting the words, “Catholic in good standing” as someone who is given a canonical penalty, like excommunication. In itself doing what he just did does not under canon law merit excommunication, though of course it is a grave sin. Cuomo currently has been notified by his bishop in Albany that he cannot approach for communion. Perhaps this is true for Dolan as well, though for good reason such declarations are rarely made privy, and even then it’s usually on the part of the incorrigible subject of the ban.

Talking turkey (ie. the pastoral approach) doesn’t seem to be working, now does it?

Maybe now we’ll see whether the Pope’s latest words and actions and example regarding giving communion to pro-abortion politicians will actually be heeded and followed.

But if I were a betting woman, I would bet that Cardinal Dolan continues to give communion to them and I also wouldn’t be surprised if what Zwilling said about what Cardinal Dolan said was accurate.

I guess time will tell if I’m right or wrong. I hope I’m wrong.

PR. In moral matters, there should be no PR concerns. In fact, the Church should, like the Pope said, annoy others when speaking the Truth.

aaaah, Lucky - you beat me to it!!

Since when do they trade courage for PR enabling a weakening faith? Of course, Cuomo was not shot down from the get-go!

Open letter to Cardinal Dolan:

"Your Eminence,

I have a question. If a nominal catholic politician were an active member of the KKK, would you publicly repudiate that man’s claim to being a catholic in good standing? (for discussion, we’ll say that he is publicly vocal about being a ‘devout catholic.’) Would you give him communion if he presented himself? If you’d deny such a man, does this mean you consider racism more heinous than the killing of unborn children?

As St. Francis reminded us, our actions preach our convictions much more profoundly than our words do. I wonder what the average American on the street concludes from this difference in treatment? Sadly, I suspect that they conclude that we really aren’t very serious about catholic moral teaching on the matter of abortion.

Sincerely, Manualman."

Are you serious about the link between abortion and social security or are you intentionally being hyperbolic to drive home a point? If you are serious, it seems to me a bit of a stretch, not that social security faces no problems in the future.

I would agree with you there. Seems like contraception, natural or artificial, is more to blame with the decline of birth rates, which is I believe what’s behind the worry that not enough will be paid into the social security fund. Or any other type of fund, for that matter.

I’ve seen the statistic that roughly 1 in 4 of my generation (GenX) are missing due to abortion. I’m guessing you haven’t run across that statistic before (otherwise you wouldn’t have been surprised by jediliz’s post), so I did a quick search for some hard numbers for you.

Here’s a table with reference sources listed. Look at the years 1973 (the year abortion was legalized) through 1980 (generally considered the ending point for GenX):

If we add the number of abortions per year 1973-1980, the total is 9,634,560 (reported). Surely all those “missing taxpayers” would have some impact? Of course ProVobis is also correct that contraception adds even more “missing taxpayers”, but I don’t think that ~25% of a generation being snuffed out in the womb is insignificant, either.

Caveat I: Yes, I know that not all of those 9.6 million would’ve been taxpayers, for various reasons. But even accounting for that, these are some big numbers … and remember that this is just one generation. GenY is also missing a large percentage of taxpayers, and their generation is larger than mine.

Caveat II: I don’t mean to imply that people only matter if they’re taxpayers. I was just addressing the issue that social security is certainly impacted by all the missing people (many of whom would’ve been taxpayers, had they been allowed to live). asked Zwilling if Cardinal Dolan would be willing to consider taking this step [deny communion] with Governor Cuomo. The archdiocesan spokesman, however, did not answer the question and instead referred LSN to the statement provided to the Times.

I see they refer to this statement a couple of times in the article. What statement are they talking about?

From the Daily News (see the OP):
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]Dolan spokesman Joseph Zwilling later said the cardinal did not mean to suggest that Cuomo would not be a Catholic in good standing if he went forward with the bill.[/FONT]*
*Or from the NY Times:

  • But on Wednesday, Mr. Zwilling said that the cardinal, who is the archbishop of New York, “would not, and did not, suggest the governor might not be a Catholic in good standing going forward.”

Mr. Zwilling also said that another of Cardinal Dolan’s remarks — “That’s something that I talk turkey with him about” — was meant to address the issue of abortion, not “the governor’s faith.”

“I do realize that was part of the question he was asked, and so I do understand how the answer could have been misinterpreted,” Mr. Zwilling said in an e-mail. “But I assure you that was not what the cardinal was saying.”
*In other words, Zwilling said that Cardinal Dolan didn’t really mean what he said in this exchange, When asked how Cuomo could still consider himself a Catholic in good standing while also promoting abortion legislation, Dolan responded: “That’s something that I talk turkey with him about.”

Now we all know that Cardinal Dolan is a good, strong, orthodox Catholic Bishop … and a fervent shepherd who would gladly go to jail or go to his death for his sheep. I know he doesn’t allow tom-foolery in his Archdiocese…like the distribution of Holy Communion to blatantly pro-abortion politicians…or allowing gay Masses … or any of that sort of foolishness.

Therefore, the only possible interpretation of this is that his spokesman Zwilling was acting on his own when he attempted to walk back the Cardinal’s comments.

And, therefore, Mr. Zwilling (not a member of the clergy, just a layman) must go.

[the above clarification about layman vs clergy is to ensure that there is no misinterpretation that my post is in violation of the rules regarding rendering proper respect to Catholic clergy]

I honestly can’t tell if this is said in sarcasm or not. Tomfoolery in his archdiocese?

Distribution of Holy Communion to blatantly pro-abortion politicians:

Allowing gay Masses:

Other sorts of foolishness:

Part of the CAF rules:

Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.

You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.

I don’t want anybody to be able to interpret a post I make as being disrespectful to Cardinal Dolan. Therefore, any tomfoolery must be attributable to the ***lay ***people who work in his chancery, and not to the Cardinal himself.

If I wish to speak disapprovingly of His Eminence, CAF is not the place for me to do so…there are other places on da Interwebz where I can do so if I so chose…not that I would ever do so at any place, of course.

Yes, of course it is…

except Joseph Zwilling has been Director of Communications for the Archdiocese of NY for over 30 years. He’s worked for Cardinals Cooke, O’Connor, Egan as well as Dolan. He’s probably really good at his job/speaking on behalf of our leaders in the Archdiocese of NY.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit