Cardinal Dolan Speaks Out Re. the NY Times’ Inflammatory Anti-Catholic Ad


Last week, I told you the story of the full-page ad against Catholicism which appeared in the pages of the New York Times on July 3.  Funded by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the ad sneered that “Dogma should not trump our civil liberties,” and chalked the Hobby Lobby decision up to the fact that the Supreme Court has too many Catholics among its members.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York, didn’t like the ad, either; and he addressed the ad in his blog on the archdiocesan website.  Cardinal Dolan said:

“I smiled in relief as a friend called to ask me—ironically, on the day before Independence Day, celebrating what is most noble and freedom-loving in our beloved country—if I had seen the anticipated ad in the New York Times. I had not, since I stopped reading that paper years ago, on the advice of so many New Yorkers who warned me that the Church rarely gets a fair shake in those pages. But, that day, I went to find the issue, and, there it was, on page A13, a whole-page sneer at “dogma,” and an “all male Roman Catholic majority.”

“…Here I simply want to welcome the grey, full-page ad, and thank the anonymous militiamen at FFRF for giving me yet another handout for my students when I give my next talk on “Anti-Catholic Bigotry in the United States.”

There’s much more from the cardinal, who pulls no punches in exposing the FFRF and the NY Times for their discrimination against Catholics and other people of faith.  Read the rest here.

"I'll follow you over Kathy. I was probably in more sympathy with your point of ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"If you're at all interested in knowing . . . the Catholic Dogma . . ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"Thank you, Mrs. Harris! Christmas blessings to you. I hope to see you over at ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • What’s surprising and great to hear is that he stopped reading that paper years ago. A lot of people consider it the national paper, and all sorts of important people, whether they agree with its view or not, find they must read it. I stopped reading it myself years ago. It really stopped being objective around 2000. At least that’s when i noticed it. Everyone should stopped reading it. Kudos to the Cardinal for saying it.

  • Jim Dailey

    The New York Times is a viciously anti-Catholic bird-cage liner.
    This is the second anti-Catholic ad that I know of posted in the “old gray lady” by the wing-nuts at FFRF. The first ad, published in 2012, was “It’s time to leave the Catholic Church”. The ad itself was several paragraphs of malicious lies and hateful hyperbole aimed at Catholics.
    The Catholic League of New York submitted an ad to the NYT which substituted in the words “Muslim” or “Islam” for “Catholic”. The NYT refused to publish the ad on the grounds that it was “offensive.”
    I think it is time that the “old gray lady” undergoes a full-blown, media-inspired “investigation” into her dealings. I have seen other stories about he “enlightened” bunch at the NYT, including a story that he undercut, underpaid and ultimately fired his first female executive editor in a case of blatant misogyny.
    I am prud to say that not only did I stop reading that pile of trash years ago, if anyone starts a conversation with me that they read something in that offensive stink-rag, I immediately halt the conversation and say I d not want to hear whatever it is those greedy, money-grubbing scum have bothered to put on paper. I am still dismayed however, that so many otherwise intelligent people (Catholics especially) still view the NYT as some sort of paper of record.
    I am encouraged as I follow the dwindling revenues of the fishwrapper, and eagerly await the day I can go buy some relic (perhaps the publishers desk) at a foreclosure sale and take it home and burn it.

  • kpm

    Obama and Hillary Clinton have been pushing freedom of Worship not freedom of religion here in USA & Overseas.

    While overseas they say Christianity should respect Host countries religion ISLAM and have Freedom of worship,no prostelytizing.
    In Usa we must respect ISLAM as we are freedom of Worship country!Christianity is ignored while administration is peppered with ISLAMIC advisers of Muslim Brotherhood taint!

  • chasjay

    The NYT is not an archdiocesan house organ. It is not the job of NYT to stop publiation of such ads. Can’t Dolan teach his Catholics about it?

    • Of course it’s their job. Part of it anyway. They approve and reject ads all the time.

      Many people wouldn’t have a problem with this if the NYT would give equal time to such ads that are about the Muslim faith rather than Catholic. But they don’t, they reject those.

      That’s the real problem here. A clear bias against Catholicism and Christianity by the NYT.

      And no, I’m not Catholic. I don’t have any religion. That doesn’t mean I’m unable to see an obvious bias.

      • satanaugustine

        Can you prove your assertion that the Times has had ads that critique Islam submitted to them which they have then rejected?

        • Uh, yeah. It’s not exactly a secret. Which you would have known if you’d bothered to take 30 seconds to Google it rather than have me do it for you.

          • satanaugustine

            False equivalence fallacy. The FFRF ad criticizes the “Supreme Court’s ultra-conservative, Roman Catholic majority” who are “all male.” They criticize religious dogma. The Pamela Gellar-backed ad criticizes all Muslims, as if they are one monolithic group.

            The FFRF ad is not anti-Catholic at all. It addresses 5 specific Catholics. You and every other Catholic in the world (including the author of this blog and any other Catholic commenters here) are not addressed by the FFRF ad. How can you be offended by such an ad?

    • Peggy M

      You have missed the whole point. The anti-Catholic bigotry of the FFRF is the point, not the NYT’s (predictable) publication decisions. Can’t Cardinal Dolan address the FFRF anti-Catholic bigotry? Don’t you think he is morally obligated to do so, considering his position? Don’t you think “his” Catholics expect it? It is right and proper that the leader of the Catholic archdiocese of NY responds to a bigoted attack on his co-religionists in a NY paper.

      • Tish Morgna

        “…Here I simply want to welcome the grey, full-page ad, and thank the anonymous militiamen at FFRF for giving me yet another handout for my students when I give my next talk on “Anti-Catholic Bigotry in the United States.”

        Yes. Yes he does teach catholics about it.

        • Peggy M

          As he should, and I thank him for it.

      • Jim Dailey

        I am pretty sure you have missed the whole point. The FFRF is obviously a bunch of dopes a half-step removed from neo-Nazi skinheads.
        The NYT is the “paper of record” for many misinformed people. The NYT has an “impact factor” that gives whatever appears in it’s pages – advertisement, story or editorial, a veneer of respectability. The fact that the NYT chooses to run exclusively anti-Catholic screeds belies the source and validity of it’s “impact factor.”
        The NYT has been losing impact factor, readrship and revenues over the last decade. It’s slanted, stupid and bigoted editorial policy are in no small part to blame for this. However, as the moron Arthur Ochs Sulzberger loses more and more money, he is desperately hoping to increase readership by bashing Catholics. Nothing like stoking hatred to get your circulation increased, eh “Pinchy”?

        • Peggy M

          You make a good argument. I agree. Thanks.

        • satanaugustine

          Your comment about the FFRF could not possibly be more uninformed. It sounds like you haven’t even read the ad that’s being mischaracterized as anti-Catholic. Stating that “The FFRF is obviously a bunch of dopes a half-step removed from neo-Nazi skinheads” can only be made by someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Many neo-Nazis are Christians. Christianity invented antisemitism after all. Jews have been persecuted for the past 2,000 years for allegedly being “Christ killers.” The New Testament gospels contain antisemitic elements, but the Catholic church took this to new levels of persecution and even murder. Many protestant denominations and some Catholic sects carry on this tradition. The current Catholic church is not antisemitic, having eventually and officially sworn it off years after the Holocaust (Vatican II). The FFRF is made up of a group of very intelligent people who resemble “neo-Nazi skinheads” to the same degree that Catholics resemble Hindus. Your response seems to be a hypersensitive knee-jerk response to the idea of an “anti- Catholic” ad which in fact is not anti-Catholic at all. The ad criticizes the all male conservative Catholic majority on the Supreme Court who allowed their religious dogma, rather than the Constitution, to effect their decision. No other Catholics are addressed by the FFRF ad. Your outrage is misplaced.

          • Jim Dailey

            You are obviously an ill-informed, prejudiced moron. My bet is that you are an FFRF member.
            Go shave your head, and tattoo something like “Hooray for eugenics” on your ass, and march around somewhere protesting a creche you imbecile.

          • satanaugustine

            You have no argument (you don’t even attempt one). That’s why your responses are nothing but insults and strawmen. If you are able, please explain how my comment is ill-informed, how you came to the conclusion that am prejudiced, and how you determined that I am a moron and an imbecile. Please use quotes from my comment to explain how you came to your conclusions. Again, I don’t think you will be able to do this. If you respond again I’m sure it will simply be a series of more insults. Based on your comments here, I doubt that you are able to respond in a civil manner.

            You are reacting like someone who realizes that your position is absurd, yet instead of being truthful you hurl insults at anyone who disagrees with you or those you perceive as criticizing what, you? Your religion? What exactly are you angry about? (Your anger is clear as evidenced by your use of insults and by attributing to FFRF and by extension, atheists, negative characteristics we don’t possess). And what if I were a member of FFRF (who you’ve chosen to demonize for unstated reasons)? That doesn’t in any way invalidate my argument. In fact, you’re engaging in the ad hominem fallacy. In other words you are dismissing my argument based on my alleged membership in a group you fervently despise.

            I look forward to your next insult-laced response.

    • chasjay

      Cardinal Dolan, relegated to the shadow sidelines in recent months under a new pope, is using this issue to regain some visibility and assert his faux outrage. This ad does nothing in comparison with what the bishops themselves do to themselves with their antics and arrogance.

      Perhaps the archbishop of Gotham could must a bit of genuine outrage that his now-being-renovated cathedral (to the tune of over $170 million) lacks public bathrooms. He surely wants people to come to purchase overpriced votive candles and shop at the in-house gift shop, but to acknowledge a universal human need is beyond his capability.

  • Flora

    So, Hobby Lobby poking its nose into the private behavior of its employees is now “freedom” in your twisted logic? Your freedom ends where in impinges on the rights of others, and that includes all religions, none of which I personally have any use for, but if they leave me alone, I return the favor. As long as religious bodies and their minions (SCOTUS etc.) try to dictate how others who do not share their beliefs should live – especially considering the ludicrous idea that the Catholic Church should have anything resembling moral authority after all the crimes it has committed against women, children, Jews and so-called heretics over the centuries. Just BUTT OUT of everyone’s business except your own, and do no harm. It’s that simple. Really.

    • John

      Here, here! Why don’t you get this outraged about your child-molesting priests?

      • John

        By “you” I mean Catholics, not you, Flora.

  • RegularJoe

    Dolan has no bias, no obvious reason to to trash the NYT about an ad run in their publication. He has no vested interest in promotion an organization that turns a blind eye to the suffering of children, that promotes the subjugation of half the population, that preys upon the poor and simple-minded, that seeks to impose its rules upon countless millions who aren’t among their membership.
    Dolan is just as credible as Catholicism itself.

  • thinkerfromiowa

    I am a paying member of FFRF, and I am proud to be such. I find it absolutely ludicrous and hilarious that Dolan would be so worked up over the ad — at the same time that he and his peers are working their butts off to avoid ANY mention of their horny boy-punking priests. Who in the hell gave them any moral credibility anyway?