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)
Sorry but it is not about loving or not loving, condemning or not condemning. This is a parade about a Catholic saint, and there is no reason for anybody to march with a banner to “promote” something that the parade is not even about. Besides, anybody can march; straight, gay, whatever, but if we are honest, the only agenda of the gay movement is to promote their sinful behavior as normal.
AMEN and I didn’t hold my thoughts on the matter!
Those are not good analogies. First, the person chosen as person of the year doesn’t get to say yes or no to it — whoever TIME picks is put on the cover. And second, the person on the cover of TIME is not ever expected to approve of the contents of the magazine. In this case, what the Grand Marshal of this parade usually does is irrelevant. This one is the Archbishop, and people do assume that his presence implies his agreement.
Well, to me, you simply just reiterated my points.
How? What I said is the opposite. Pope Francis, for instance, could not refuse to be on the cover of TIME magazine; Cardinal Dolan could refuse to have anything at all to do with the parade. I’m not saying he should — I’m saying that is an option, while refusing to be on the cover of TIME is not. And while it may be true that the grand marshal of the St. Patrick’s Day parade has no say in who is in the parade, it is also true that people BELIEVE that the Archbishop of New York does, and all the blog posts in the world explaining otherwise are not going to change that perception, because most people do not read them. No one, however, believes that the person on the cover of TIME endorses what’s inside it. So your points do not support your argument.
Absolutely correct!
I’m confused. Cardinal Dolan says that the new policy doesn’t violate Catholic moral teaching, but I was lead to believe (from media reports) that this new parade policy actually allows groups to promote active participation in homosexual acts at the parade – and homosexual acts are something the Catholic moral teaching is quite clearly opposed to, as Cardinal Dolan rightly points out.
It would be different if this new policy simply removed a ban on persons with same sex attractions from participating in the parade, but it doesn’t do that, it actually allows groups to endorsee and promote active participation in homosexual acts.
So I’m struggling to see how this is compatible with Catholic teaching.
Or have I missed something here?
He has no duty to preside.
Shaun,
If the group in question was marching as a gay but chaste, say as Courage, in support of Catholic moral teaching I would say there is validity in Cardinal Dolan’s remarks. However, from everything I have read they are marching as gay, and active, homosexuals who see nothing wrong with those acts.
Would we be OK with allowing people to march under the banner of active adulterers, thieves or fornicators, (surely there are many in the parade doing those activities but none under those banners), and be OK with Cardinal Dolan leading the parade? If not, why not? After all, who are we to judge?
Perhaps I do not understand the purpose of the group and if I am in error please let me know.
Sincerely,
KCHawk
You ask the same question I ask myself. My problem is, I don’t have all the facts to answer all of them.
However, I hardly see it fair for everyone to politically crucify Dolan for this, as if they are better informed or more educated than he is to make a better decision.
You ask the right hypotheticals, but they’re just hypotheticals.
Shaun,
The organization marching in the parade is OUT@NBCUniversal, http://diversity.nbcuni.com/meet_the_employee_resource_groups/outnbcuniversal-lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-straight-ally-employee-alliance-out, which is an organization in support of LGBT lifesytle, including homosexual acts. They also participate in local Pride parades which are not parades expousing a Catholic view on homosexual acts or human sexuality.
Is not Cardinal Dolan hypothesizing that the group is not in defiance of Church teaching when he says the groups participation does not “compromise the integrity” of the parade? If this group is, as it certainly appears from all evidence to bein defiance of Church teaching, how could it not be compromising the integrity of a parade allegedly to honor a Catholic Saint?
What facts are missing which would convince you Cardinal Dolan is mistaken for participating?
I see no evidence of any political crucifixion in place, just Catholics questioning a prudential decision by a Cardinal. We are welcome, and required to do so, as faithful Catholics.
Sincerely,
Lance
Dolan has continually waffled in the face of evil. This is not new, Shaun. Get informed, please
This is not about politics. It is about standing up for Jesus and His Church. It is time to do that and start calling things for what they are, and not trying to please everybody.
cannot dolan ask for the necessary information and if the information is refused to him take that as a negative?
The “facts” on this were laid out of EWTN’s “The World Over.” The sponsors of the parade insisted on having this particular group participate or they would not televise it. To me it doesn’t matter whether Dolan had any say in their inclusion or not. What does matter is that Catholics seeing him as grand marshall will get the wrong idea–but then it goes along perfectly with the scandal provided by the prematutre report of the synod on the family. If homosexual activity is sinful, why celebrate it in any context? Same-sex attraction is NOT a “gift” to be used in the church.
Exactly.
“…as a gay…” Gay is not a person, persons are sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers. It is demeaning to identify oneself or someone else as an object of sexual desire/orientation and a violation of God’s Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery. The question is, how can one be honoring St.Patrick while condoning and promoting the violation of God’s Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery, simultaneously?
Sorry, It’s not the same to say that: a person with an disordered attraction can march in the parade, and that that disordered attraction should have it’s own separate group to “celebrate” that attraction. The two things are very different.
It’s also not valid to say that the Cardinal does not, did not, have a “decision” to make here, he may have no control over the parade’s choosing which groups march, but he does have a decision on whether he participates and in what manner he participates.
This is not unlike whether or not a Catholic should attend if invited to a gay wedding to “celebrate” such an unnatural union.
The Cardinal’s actions, yes “actions”, will now make it very very difficult for any Catholic or Christian to make a stand for true marriage in NY, whether it be a cake, photos at a wedding or their very livelihood.
Give it up Shaun, seriously. You are part of the problem
Lee,
While I disagree with Shaun on his conclusions I think he deserves a more gracious response.
He is taking the risk of putting his own name on a blog and accepting the praise and criticism which goes with it. More than most commentors, including me, are willing/able to do.
He is a fairly recent convert, according to his profile, and probably doing his best to ascent to the Church. (I am delving into mind-reading here so I might be way off). If a recent convert who runs a blog, takes interest in Thomistic philosophy and who in his goodwill is supporting a wayward Cardinal is”part of the problem” then we are in real trouble.
It is each of our duties as Catholics to agree with a certain level of respect and try to help our wayward brothers, as we all are at times, rather than just demean in a trite comment.
Trust me, as a lover of the Tridentine Mass, I am used to be called names and it does not help convince me of my opponents arguments.
Pax et Bonum,
Lance
Thanks, Lance.
Judging by your comment history, Lee B., I in turn think you are part of a much larger “problem.”
Really? What larger problem is that? That I don’t compromise my faith or beliefs and some call it intolerance. That I am not a muslim or AlBakar sympathizer like you may be. You called St Paula a mass murderer, where is the proof actual murder by St Paul? Or is that your exegetical opinion that you paraded as a fact.You compared him to the leader of ISIS, who is a mass , murderer, is promoting true islam, raping, kidnapping, crucifying, be-heading… Oh yes, he is just like St Paul. I will pray for you.
Lance, shaun puts his name out there for one thing most likely, probably for Shaun. I cant be sure of that, though but I suspect like many self promoting, so-called professional “catholics” .Hence, his defensiveness! May God Bless you all. Shaun, have you read humility of heart by Cajetan? You may find it helpful, I have and I still do.
actual mass murder by St Paul, we all know he was complicit in St Stephens Martyrdom
Sadly I can’t agree with Cardinal Dolan’s reasoning. Though i don’t doubt his heart is in the right place.
The core problem with his reasoning is to assume that a self labeled gay group is not advocating that active homosexuality is ok and that the perception of people will not be that the group is advocating the gay lifestyle.
The Cardinal’s comments would be appropriate if Courage or some other gay group that publicly supports the Church’s call for gay chastity were marching.
However everyone in the universe will believe that the gays marching the parade are proud of their active homosexual lifestyle.
Similarly every gay in America will view this as a victory over the Church. It will be used by those supporting so called same sex marriage to show that the Church talks one thing but does another.
Faithful Catholics knowing that the gays marching are not marching as persons afflicted with a cross but as people rejoicing in their life style will be disheartened.
It’s one thing to reach out to gays. It’s another to do things that, irrespective of the Cardinals intention, will be perceived, especially by poorly catechized Catholics, as Church endorsement of active homosexuality.
Your analogy to Time magazine is also flawed in that to the best of my knowledge Time would have run the article with or without the Popes permission. Cardinal Dolan however has to agree to show up at the parade.
Right, Time would have run the article. My point is that people are upset over the association of secular, sin, and ecclesial.
I think however that there is a significant difference between uncooperative association–Time covers whomever they want–and cooperative association–showing up at the parade.
the cardinal should just reveal that he has examined the bylaws of the group in question and has determined that they DO NOT support the performance of homosexual acts by their members or anyone else.
it is an official group recognized by NBC. it would seem that to be a recognized group it would have bylaws and policies and procedures for what the group is supposed to do.
if the group will not make those policies and procedures and bylaws available for the cardinal’s examination, the cardinal should decline the honor.
the real question is whether or not the group in question is a lobby for behaviors the Church finds seriously disordered, socially damaging and mortally sinful.
that is really the only relevant question. what does the group really represent?
we should not hide behind confusion and uncertainty.
I do believe it is incumbent upon the cardinal to examine the groups aims and motives, to inform the faithful what his examination has revealed, not his conclusions but the actual facts identified, and to then act as any RC should act as regards the group.
the above article does not indicate that such an examination has occurred. perhaps there are others who could provide the information about the group if the cardinal will not.
The last line of the biblical quotation makes the point….”I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” If a group of REPENTENT homosexuals were marching that might cast a positive light on events. But in point of fact these folks want to promote sodomy and homosexual marriage and are not in the least interested in repentance.
it is incumbent upon the cardinal to inform himself. I do not know the nature of this group. but if it can be cast as a lobby for the celebration and normalization of homosexual sex acts, the cardinal should not be in front of its banner and leading it. that is what the grand marshal of a parade does. he leads it. he officiates over it.
It makes about as much sense as a group of repentant adulterers marching in a parade identifiying themselves, as a group, as adulterers with the implication not of shame and contrition, but of pride and celebration. In other words, it makes no sense at all.
You made the very point that was on my mind as well!
In other words, the shepherd sees that his lost sheep are wounded, but the wolf has convinced them that they don’t want to be carried home and healed, so the shepherd decides that it would be okay to walk at the head of the parade in which his lost sheep are celebrating their wounds and carrying the banner of the wolf.
I pray that during the times that I am in the clutches of the wolf, the shepherd will fight harder for me.
For me allowing a homosexual group to march in the St. Patrick’s parade under a banner that tells the world they are homosexual is reason enough for the Cardinal to remove himself but if it’s true that a pro life group was denied the same privilege and he knows this then it’s even harder to defend his actions
Yes, I agree that is a shock. It’s not fair. But again, is is reason to protest the Cardinal?
Not sure what you mean. It is a reason the Cardinal should have protested the parade. He didn’t. We are not allowed to have an opinion? A wise priest once told me not everything that a priest, bishop, etc. including the Holy Father says or does is from the Holy Spirit.
Fr. Mitch Pacwa had a great suggestion. He said he does not understand Cardinal Dolan’s decision. He said he wished the Cardinal would have scheduled a Eucharistic procession at the same time as the parade.
I think we can all get behind that idea! When in doubt: Eucharistic Procession
Here’s a thought…..Cardinal Dolan tells the parade committee that he will march in the parade. But he wants it known to all that he will march with the homosexual group and he won’t have time to wave much because he will be sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with his fellow marchers. In fact he will have a Catholic Bible and the Catechism available so he can explain the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church.
God desires we overcome our disordered inclinations so that we are not led into temptation, but become transformed through Salvational Love, God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy, as we learn to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are grounded in authentic Love. If Bishop Dolan desires Salvation for his beloved, he would desire to help those who have developed a same-sex sexual attraction overcome their disordered same-sex sexual attraction and see themselves not as objects of sexual desire/orientation, but as young men and women, worthy of being treated with Dignity and respect in private as well as in public.
Shaun: Thank you for this great article. You are spot on. How would the gospel message be saving if Jesus refused to go in to the tax collectors and sinners? What if he refused to allow the prostitute to wash his feet because of her unnatural acts with many men? A small contingent of pharisees would have been made happy while the sinners would have never come to repentance because of his rejection of them. Thanks for speaking up .
I appreciate the positive comment. Thank you!
I think you need to revisit the gospels, russ. The sinners that followed Jesus were people who RECOGNIZED their sins as being sins and REPENTED from them; not people who felt comfortable in sinning to a degree where they PARADED them about demanding acceptance of them. The woman who washed the holy feet of Jesus was forgiven because she had love much….That is, because she had truly loved Jesus. And Jesus defined what “loving Him” meant: following His commandments…That is, recognizing and accepting sins as sins; that is, offenses against God and turning around from sin. The tax collector would not have marched in a parade with a banner reading TAX COLLECTOR. The tax collector stopped tax collecting and gave away most of the fortune he had immorally made while tax collecting. He turned around from his sin so much that he accepted God’s call to become one of the first bishops!
Nice try! Cardinal Dolan seems to be a very confused guy! Someone should ask him to step down for a while until he learns to see things through the prism of Christ rather than through the eyes of the world. First of all, defining one’s self by one’s sexual orientation is abominably reductionist and therefore, unreal (therefore, false). Secondly, no Christian should feel complacent about any disordered attraction, much less an intrinsically disordered one. Thirdly, no Christian should feel so at ease with such an attraction that he/she would feel entitled to “parade it” about. Cardinal Dolan is giving bad example, one of the worst things that a fisher of men should do. May God have mercy on his soul.
Kudos for your quality blog site and welcome to you and your family to our Catholic family. I would like to add that Cdl. Dolan himself raised a contentious point by claiming that he’d been assured that Out@NBC Universal does “not promote actions contrary to the values of the Church”. Life Site News published several examples which pointedly contradict this assertion. He might have contact Bill Donahue -a veteran of N.Y. politics- first. The cardinal is obviously a blessing to the Church and a sincere man but this makes him “easy pickins” for the many manipulators and ideologues in the Big Apple.
I’m sorry, but Cardinal Dolan cannot split hairs with the people of New York and get away with it. I read his explanation that the Church does not condemn people who identify as homosexual, and thus he sees not conflict being Grand Marshall of the parade. I do not buy it. We New Yorkers have long memories. It is true that the Archdiocese of New York is completely separate from the Ancient Order of Hibernians who have the parade permit. The day begins with the Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. As tradition has it, as the parade progresses up Fifth Avenue, the Grand Marshall and Hibernians, in their top hats and tails, greet the Archbishop on the steps of the Cathedral, exchange pleasantries, and then proceed uptown to the official reviewing stand. All tradition and all New York.
Yet WE all remember 1983. It was the opening story on the NBC nightly news. The doors of St. Patrick’s Cathedral were shut. Tom Brokaw read the news story. Our saintly Terence Cardinal Cooke denied traditional greetings to Michael Flannery, the Grand Marshall of the parade who was an outspoken supporter of the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Now, Flannery was in top hat and tails, and did not march armed and in camouflage, but he was IDENTIFIED with the IRA, and thus Cardinal Cooke denied him greetings. After Flannery and the his entourage marched by, the doors of the Cathedral opened, and the Cardinal came out to watch the parade. The symbolism was sharp enough to slice through the corned beef at McSorley’s Ale House that evening.
The Archdiocese is dependent the money interest, and New Yorkers know it. Dolan cannot bear to give up the Irish parade for the sake of Catholic identity when the sponsors threaten to bolt, he is dependent on the money that rolls in on the Alfred E. Smith dinner, and willing to invite anyone, as long as the bucks keep rolling in, and sells the real estate out from under conservation Catholics at the Church of the Holy Innocents. He is a mistake for New York.
Bravo. Seriously. That is some fantastic history on the parade.
Thanks, Dan, for that background on Cardinal Cooke. That story is indicative of why Cardinal Cook’s cause for sainthood is being pursued!
“From my review, it does not. Catholic teaching is clear: “being Gay” is not a sin, nor contrary to God’s revealed morals.”
Christ in Matthew 5:28 says otherwise. Lusting after another man, which is what ‘being gay’ fundamentally is, is a homosexual act and a mortal sin. And being subject to the temptation thereof, if that is what is meant here by ‘being gay’, may not be sinful itself, but the temptation is of the devil. And Romans 1:26 makes it abundantly clear that sexual perversion is the result of sin.
There’s a presumption here that Catholic teaching even recognises the existence of ‘homosexuals’ as defined by modern psychological theory. Show me the dogmatic prouncements on that one, dear Cardinal. And please don’t come up with some blasphemous nonsense about Victim Souls, as if such joint suffering with Christ extended to God choosing people to be caught up in lifelong temptations to mortal sin.
” or does he want to let these people know that God accepts them? Not their sin, but them.”
Half-truths are half-lies. God accepts those of us who come to Him to be baptised and obey His commandments. God does not ‘accept’ unrepentant sinners: he condemns them to an eternity in the lake of fire and brimstone prepared for the Devil and his angels.
He’s wrong–it’s not about inclinations , but about celebration od intrinsically disordered sin, hence scandalous approval. Honoring unrepentant homosexuality is not much different than Notre dames scandalous honoring of the most aggressive culture of death president in history.
His response is pure spin….or he lacks intelligence and theological education sufficiently to remain at his post. Which is it?
Yes, but gays marching in the St. Patrick’s Day parade also promote their actions, not just “being gay.” And a person is not “gay,” anymore than someone with a drinking problem is an “alcoholic.” They are a person with a disordered sexual attraction to those of the same sex.
I seem to recall St. Paul avoiding certain restaurants rather than give scandal, he understood that not being God, he should be careful in his actions, since only God would know how scandalized or not people may be by certain public behavior. additionally, I fail to see how the new parade policy does not violate catholic morals and the catholic faith since the inclusion of a group which by its presence means to represent and promote a sinful life-style as a positive thing is certainly sinful. The Cardinal however has a history of selling-out, starting with the yucking it up at the Al Smith dinner with the most obnoxiously anti-life president in history, but all for a buck. Cordiality and civility are different things. Being civil and kind to sinners or anyone does not include pretending there were “lots of good catholic candidates” to choose from and thereby including the anti-life ones in the same endorsement. The cardinal says one thing, and talks one way with one group and behaves another way. His actions have been wrong with the Al Smith dinner, wrong with the parade, and those are just the things we see publicaly, he should resign his office and spend some time somewhere in prayer and getting to grips with facing God’s enemies in real ways like St. John The Baptist, he can start with calling the Catholic governor of New York to repent of his fornication as a life- style and advocacy of the destruction of marriage. Then the archbishop can be the actual thing he is meant to be, instead of just another conductor on the train to hell.
This bizarre position of Cardinal Dolan in no way justifies his being used as a symbol of tolerance for deviant behaviour. Obviously, the homosex people marching in the parade are not celebrating conversion. They are celebrating perversion. I can’t believe the amount of kissing of the posterior of this disgraceful excuse for a prelate that goes on in catholic blogs. It is just disgusting.