I’ve held my tongue about the St. Patrick’s Day parade and the involvement of Cardinal Dolan from the beginning. I have a firm policy in blogging that it does no good to attempt to influence the masses if I don’t have enough facts to back up my opinion should those facts, once revealed, make me appear to preach contrary to the Magisterium or look like a fool.
I’m glad I didn’t say anything either because with the Cardinal’s new comments addressing the concerns of the faithful, there is now much more to discuss rather than poor accusations against a good and faithful servant of God.
First, we have learned that the Archdiocese of New York has no input in the decisions on policy of the parade.
Second, we now know that the choice of Grand Marshall is not something that falls under the purview of the Archdiocese as well.
I think most of us were sort of under the impression that things worked a different way, like the Archdiocese convened with the people in charge of the parade and helped them make decisions. I can see how the series of event would have caused problems for most people if that were true.
Cardinal Dolan then goes on about his reasoning in choosing to accept the position.
However, the most important question I had to ask myself was this: does the new policy violate Catholic faith or morals? If it does, then the Committee has compromised the integrity of the Parade, and I must object and refuse to participate or support it.
From my review, it does not. Catholic teaching is clear: “being Gay” is not a sin, nor contrary to God’s revealed morals. Homosexual actions are—as are any sexual relations outside of the lifelong, faithful, loving, lifegiving bond of a man and woman in marriage—a moral teaching grounded in the Bible, reflected in nature, and faithfully taught by the Church.
He’s right. And now the people who keep shouting that our ecclesial leaders are not clear enough in their language have no more to say. Here as has happened numerous times in the past, a Prince of the Church declares that acts are sins, not conditions. But let me make an analogy, something that we can compare this to: Time Magazine and the Pope.
The same magazine who chose to make our Commander-in-Chief, Barak Obama “Person of the Year,” twice, chose to give the same designation to the Pope. This is the same magazine that named Hitler, Stalin, and several other controversial persons, “Person of the Year.” Some of these supported genocide, abortion, and other human rights crimes. Surely not the bunch we might want our Holy Father to be associated with, right?
My question is: should Pope Francis have refused the choice of Time Magazine?
The Vatican has no input on the policy and decision of Time Magazine and they have no input in the decision on “Person of the Year.” I think it’s similar to the issue people are taking up with Cardinal Dolan, and it’s the same issue the Pharisees took up with Christ: is this man participating in sin, by act or support, or does he want to let these people know that God accepts them? Not their sin, but them.
And Jesus answered and said to them, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:31-32)