Demythologizing some recent Catholic history

The National Catholic Reporter recently saw fit to mark Cardinal Timothy Dolan’s 75^th birthday by perpetuating two myths—falsehoods, really—about events in contemporary Church history in which the cardinal was involved.

As it happens, I was, too. So I’m in a good position to play demythologizer.

Myth Number One: “At the outset of [the 2015] synod, Dolan joined 12 other cardinals in signing a controversial letter authored by his longtime friend and eventual vociferous papal critic, Cardinal George Pell. The letter, sent to the pope on the synod’s first day, cast suspicion over the entire gathering.”

Myth Number One Demythologized: On Saturday, October 3, 2015, I was present when a group of Synod fathers met to discuss their concerns about procedures for the Synod that would begin the following week.

Most urgently, the “rulebook” circulated by the Synod general secretary, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, did not seem to make provision for votes on propositions by the Synod fathers—the method previous synods had used to register the bishops’ considered judgments. Concerns were also expressed over the proposed composition of the committee that would draft the Synod’s final report, which seemed skewed in one theological direction, and over the lack of time for open debate by the entire Synod. These concerns were not idiosyncratic; they were widely shared by Synod members from around the globe.

I suggested that a letter be sent to Pope Francis, politely asking him to ensure that there would be an open debate leading to real votes and a final report that accurately reflected the Synod fathers’ views. The group agreed and determined that the letter, which I helped draft, should be signed by cardinals only. Cardinal Pell having observed, in his typically Aussie way, that “I’m supposed to be the bull who carries his own china shop around with him,” urged that someone else be the lead signatory, and Cardinal Dolan immediately agreed.

The letter was not “authored” by Cardinal Pell, although he agreed to give it to the pope, personally and privately, on the Synod’s first full working day.

Everything requested in the letter was subsequently granted by the pope, and the Synod was all the better for it. Not only did the letter not “cast suspicion over the entire gathering,” it saved it from charges of Curial manipulation. The only people who seemed to find it “controversial” were those whose plans to drive the Synod in a certain direction had been thwarted.

Myth Number Two: “Further insult was added when, in 2020, Dolan took the unusual step of sending copies of a book reflecting on the next pope to all members of the College of Cardinals — a move viewed as brutta figura [bad form] by many on the receiving end.”

Myth Number Two Demythologized: The book in question was my small volume, The Next Pope: The Office of Peter and a Church in Mission—a brief description of the qualities I deemed necessary in a pope who would intensify Pope Francis’s call that we be a Church of missionary disciples. Cardinal Dolan did not send it to the College of Cardinals; Ignatius Press, the publisher, did.

The mailing included a one-sentence cover note from Cardinal Dolan that read, in full, “I am grateful to Ignatius Press for making this important reflection of the future of the Church available to the College of Cardinals.” Cardinal Dolan subsequently received one critical letter from a brother cardinal, who, some while later, apologized. When new cardinals were named later in 2020, Ignatius Press sent the new members of the College copies of the book with another cover letter from Cardinal Dolan, which included the following: “I am careful to note that the book is not about candidates and is not a criticism of Pope Francis.”

The NCR story concluded with a crack about Cardinal Dolan’s influence, or alleged lack thereof, in the immediate future.

Well. Since his translation to New York in 2009, Cardinal Dolan has been the face of the Catholic Church in the United States, a role he has played with a gracefulness and generosity of which his critics seem incapable. To walk with the cardinal through Manhattan is to experience a city whose people know they have a bishop, who love him for his warmth and friendliness, and who, in their various ways, experience Christ through him.

All the more reason, then, to clarify some recent history in which the cardinal was engaged—and, in this Jubilee Year of Hope, to hope that, one day, such distortions of the historical record in aid of partisan ecclesiastical purposes cease.