Monday, September 08, 2014

The parade, the cardinal, and the frolicking sodomites

I heard a lengthy (and lively) discussion of this on Al Kresta on Catholic radio recently on the way home from work. It seems to have touched a nerve. While most people have seemed willing to give the cardinal a pass for many of his earlier dubious remarks, this decision seems to have marked a tipping point. Whether it will trigger a Catholic uprising remains to be seen, but Michael Voris' indignation and outrage come pretty close. [Advisory: Rules 7-9]





Update: Bill Donnohue, "More Gay Groups Apply to March"(Catholic League, September 9, 2014).


35 comments:








Mighty Joe Young

said...

This is but additional proof that sodomites are subversive by nature. Any organisation that accepts them as full members will witness their constant campaigning to change the beliefs of that accepting organization.

The feminisation and sodomisation of the modern church has left it bereft of virility and it's public face in America is now that of a glad-handing politician or uncountable numbers of epicene ecclesiastics.

Screw 'em all. There is not one thing - not one - that they can do to make me leave the Catholic Church because they left it a long time ago.

They represent a shadow church.





BenYachov

said...

I've asked this question before & have yet to be answered.

So I will try it again here.

Is it a sin or is it intrinsically evil per say for Cardinal Dolan to serve as Grand Marshal to this parade that happens to have a bunch of homosexuals marching in it under a banner that identifies them as such?

Or is the real problem it is merely very very very imprudent according to a reasoned judgement?

Any takers?

Mr B?





Anonymous

said...

Michael V. is way out of line...he needs to say a rosary and learn Charity...





BenYachov

said...

While I am at it any comments on this?


http://www.catholicleague.org/gay-groups-apply-march/





Charles

said...

Ben Y.

I don't quite follow what you're doing here, tossing out a question as thought it were a challenge or for sale, when the question itself doesn't quite seem to be framed right.

First of all, nobody gay or straight, has ever been forbidden to march in the parade that I know of. Various groups have only been forbidden from marching under their own self-identifying banners, such as, I suppose, skinheads, white racists, KKK, as well North America Man-Boy Love Association and Pedophiles for Jesus, etc.

Second, there has been a history of LGBT groups pressuring the parade organizers for permission to come out and march under their own banners. Neither Dr. John Lahey nor the Cardinal can possibly have been ignorant of that.

Third, if the parade "just happens to have a bunch of homosexuals marching in it" and Dolan "just happens" to be the Marshall of the parade, that would be one thing, though even then he might want to weigh the level of his willing complicity.

Fourth, "Cardinal Bravo" has a history of complicity and open support for LBGT groups. The current planning is hardly an accident.

Fifth, in view of the foregoing, Cardinal Bravo's grand gesture is MINIMALLY a judgment of catastrophic imprudence, and will have untold repercussions in the image and message it conveys. Voris is right about that much.





Steve Dalton

said...

I hate to sound like a broken record, but why is Cdl. Dolan always the focus of criticism? Oh, don't get me wrong, he deserves to be roasted for his shameful actions, but he doesn't bear the ultimate responsibility here. He couldn't be getting away with this filth unless his boss who made him a bishop and gave him his Cardinal hat was willing to turn a blind eye, or was soft on queers himself. Until our prayers and criticisms are focused on Mr. "Who am I to judge", nothing will change.





BenYachov

said...

It's a straight forward Question Charles.

>Fifth, in view of the foregoing, Cardinal Bravo's grand gesture is MINIMALLY a judgment of catastrophic imprudence, and will have untold repercussions in the image and message it conveys. Voris is right about that much.

Good too know. I will give my thoughts on your other points later.

Thanks for stepping up.

Cheer.





Pertinacious Papist

said...

Steve,

As a general principle, amply verified in all levels of experience, I agree that one can't run an efficient business, a disciplined naval crew, or anything else without good leadership. You also need at every level men inspired to be loyal or at least with a holy fear of discipline if they neglect their assignments.

I've thought long and hard about the psychology of those like Cardinal "Bravo" and those like him, and the best that I can imagine is that, besides the considerations offered above, there is also a significant factor in personal timidity, pressures of conformity, fear of criticism by the watching world, etc.

This, I think, is what sometimes seems to make traditionalists easier targets than liberal or modernist dissenters. Disciplining traditionalists or conservatives (like telling Michael Voris to stop using the name "Catholic") doesn't result in nearly the push back that disciplining half-secularized dissenting individuals or individuals. Can you imagine what would be the reaction of a bishop told a major (say, Jesuit) university that it could no longer publicly identify itself as "Catholic"?

In fact, I sometimes have a sense that this phenomenon is so pervasive that it may not be easily remedied with a quick fix at any level. My two cents.





Ralph Roister-Doister

said...

Cardinal Falstaff. Change you better believe in.





Ralph Roister-Doister

said...

"personal timidity, pressures of conformity, fear of criticism by the watching world, etc."

One would think the greatest fear of such a "leader" would be pushback from his boss. Apparently he does not fear pushback from that source. And, as you say, there is nothing to be feared from the pew boobs -- they're just, er, boobs. So we're left with a "leader" who kowtows to the enemies of his Church of Falstaffs.

FYI, there used to be a Falstaff beer. One of the largest brewers in the world back in the sixties. But alas, it began to fail in the seventies. "The Falstaff breweries were eventually closed and most of the equipment sent to China. The brand [was] discontinued in 2005."

www.falstaffbrewing.com

Take heed, Church of Falstaffs.





Steve Dalton

said...

PP, I'm afraid your right about the difficulty of a quick fix. There are a lot of termites in the woodworks, and barring a miracle, it will take years to get rid of them all.





Jacobi

said...

It always good, particularly in these confusing times, to step back from time to time and look at the facts.
Sodomy, or homosexual sex, is a greviuos Mortal Sin. That is a fact as taught throughout the centuries by the Catholic Church. Personal judgment does not come into it.

For a Catholic and particularly a Catholic bishop to give support to, or to speak or or act in any way which can be reasonably interpreted as giving support to that action or a life style based on it, is implicitly sinful and probably grieviously so. The duty of Church leaders, any Church leader is always to teach Truth.

if they fail to do so either intentionally or accidentally and do not subsequently correct, then logic suggest that they too are being grieviously sinful.

Now charity always comes into these situations. It is charitable always to tell the Truth and uncharitable always, or downright wrong, to hide or in any way be evasise with the Truth.

It's all quite simple really!





JM

said...

Dolan is the focus of criticism because he is the head of the diocese of "the capital of the world." And Catholics simply can't stand the thought that Pope himself is way off base.

I also think most of these guys either have latent SSA, or have so man close associates who do, that they believe they Church teaching with their head but not quite their heart.

It is alls shame. As Phil Lawler noted, "The greatest problem is not that the gay-rights movement has advanced, and the Catholic Church retreated, with the acceptance of an LGBT support group into the St. Patrick’s Day parade. The greatest problem is that the New York archdiocese will be perceived as endorsing a lie. Once you stop serving as a bulwark of truth, you can’t easily recover."

It doesn't even really mater what the official teaching is, since at this point the pastoral policy suggests "don't ask, don't tell,"followed by "Who are to tell them not to be themselves?" Ratzinger made a dent against the homosexual tide, and Bergolio has now let all the swept away water backwash in. He may be Pope, but I'll choke before I refer to him as "Papa."





JM

said...

After watching the clips again, I think Voris is right but on a bit of a bender (It's always risky to start saying lines like "How dare you..."), But the whole thing reminds of of the von Hilderbrands and Paul VI. And we know how that turned out: the Old Mass was never outlawed, it just disappeared! The fine print mattered not a wit. I'll add that I am astounded that in all of this no one seems to think that there is mass confusion on the whole question across our culture, and that many people who struggle with SSA are not being encouraged in that direction by the Church's doublespeak.





Mighty Joe Young

said...


Is it a sin or is it intrinsically evil per say for Cardinal Dolan to serve as Grand Marshal to this parade that happens to have a bunch of homosexuals marching in it under a banner that identifies them as such?

This just in; it's a sin.

One can be an accomplice to another's sin (and thus culpable) in quite a few ways. Let's count them

1. By counsel.
2. By command.
3. By consent.
4. By provocation.
5. By praise or flattery of the evil done.
6. By silence.
7. By connivance.
8. By partaking.
9. By defense of the ill done.

Ah, but there is a moral loophole, no?

Ever since the new theology has supplanted Tradition, this no longer holds, right?

Wrong. This is still operative.





Mighty Joe Young

said...

page 227 here

http://tinyurl.com/lgsnzkc





Mighty Joe Young

said...

1962 Roman Missal

Accessory to Another’s Sin

I. By counsel
II. By command
III. By consent
IV. By provocation
V. By praise or flattery
VI. By concealment
VII. By partaking
VIII. By silence
IX. By defense of the ill done

(No wonder the revolutionaries desired to destroy the Roman Rite - it was too focused on sin and not focused enough on dialogue or handing out baloney sammiches to the bums in the park)





Ralph Roister-Doister

said...

Right out of the corporate handbook. Da boss is always right. Of course, it seems likely that suddenly starting to jabber "who am I to judge?" like his Boss Who Shall Remain Nameless is no great stretch for Tim Falstaff. But even if it was it would hardly matter. From where he sits, stepping out of line is the true act of "catastrophic imprudence": leadership, whatever that is, has nothing to do with it.

Get used to this stuff, folks, if you haven't already. On issue after issue, this is your future as a Catholic pew boob, at least as long as The Boss Who Shall Remain Nameless is The Boss.





BenYachov

said...

>He couldn't be getting away with this filth unless his boss who made him a bishop and gave him his Cardinal hat was willing to turn a blind eye, or was soft on queers himself. Until our prayers and criticisms are focused on Mr. "Who am I to judge", nothing will change.

That would be Pope Benedict he made Dolan a Cardinal. Not Pope Francis.

Oy Vey!





BenYachov

said...

http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2014/09/11/st-patricks-day-drunks-and-gluttons-afraid-inclusion-of-gay-group-at-parade-will-make-mockery-of-feast-day/





Chris

said...

Ben,

You do know, I hope, that Eye of the Tiber is a satirical rag.





Steve Dalton

said...

BY, Benedict may have made him a Cardinal, but who's allowing him to stay one?





BenYachov

said...

Many of you "trads" have devolved over the past two decades and have become more vile then I remember ya.

Any idiot who reads English knows Pope Francis was talking about a hypothetical Christian with same sex attraction who is "of good will", "seeking God" and doesn't belong to a "gay lobby" when he said "Who am I to Judge?".

Yet in partnership with the Gay Lobby you help them spread the myth Pope Francis endorsed the gay life style & you lot are trying to hang Dolan on him.

Pope Francis also said a Male Prostitute who uses a condom to prevent the spread of AIDS can be showing "the beginning of a moral conscience and concern for others".

Oh wait....my mistake...that was Pope Benedict XVI.

So why isn't Dolan his fault? He appointed him.

Anyway seriously speaking. I was embarrassed last year to defend the St Patrick's Day Parade from the usual gay suspects.

The boozing and drunkness was out of control.

It stopped being a Catholic Parade decades ago.





Anonymous Bosch

said...

Ben,

I think you may be missing a couple of points here. (Notice I did not say "a couple of screws". I'm a gentleman.)

First of all, most of us "trads" (since you put it in those terms) may be well aware of the context in which these papal utterances were made. That mitigates the culpability of the pope who said them to a degree, but only to a degree. They are still incredibly reckless statements to make in an off-the-cuff way in a press interview, whether Francis or Benedict made them. Because they lend themselves so readily to misinterpretation, we've been reaping a whirlwind of public confusion (no less among Catholics than non-Catholics) ever since.

Second, regardless of how detached the St. Patrick's Day Parade is from any original religious intent, it still bears the name of the venerable Saint and thereby to the Catholic faith. And any prelate who associates himself with the event (a fortiori the Cardinal archbishop of New York City who agrees to be its grand marshal!) lends credence to that historical connection between the parade and the Catholic faith. Thereby he incurs culpability. I see no way around the fact. And that culpability extends, if at a distance, to the pope who does nothing about the scandalous matter.





BenYachov

said...


@Anon Bosch

>I think you may be missing a couple of points here. (Notice I did not say "a couple of screws". I'm a gentleman.)

But you did just all but say it? A man says what he means and is not cowardly about it. If you where motivated by a true
gentlemen’s spirit you wouldn’t have included your snark in brackets. I do despise false curtsy.

>First of all, most of us "trads" (since you put it in those terms) may be well aware of the context in which these papal utterances were made. That mitigates the culpability of the pope who said them to a degree, but only to a degree. They are still incredibly reckless statements to make in an off-the-cuff way in a press interview, whether Francis or Benedict made them. Because they lend themselves so readily to misinterpretation, we've been reaping a whirlwind of public confusion (no less among Catholics than non-Catholics) ever since.

I reply: It is irrational, naive & a person would have to have more than a few screws loose to believe the Supreme Pontif has to measure his words at all times in order to anticipate they may not be abused by liars with an agenda(i.e. the media).

Consider the words of this famous Churchmen.

"Therefore, do not make any judgment before the appointed time, until the Lord comes, for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will manifest the motives of our hearts, and then everyone will receive praise from God.”1 Cor 4:5

For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within?
God will judge those outside. "Purge the evil person from your midst.”1 Cor 5:12=13

I can see the CNN headlines. PAUL REFUSES TO JUDGE NON-CATHOLIC GAYS. PLEGES TO PURGE CHURCH
OF JUDGMENTAL PEOPLE!

Indeed I still remember the media saying Pope Benedict endorsed condom use because of his remark about a hypothetical male prostitute showing "the beginnings of conscience and a concern for others" if they use a condom to prevent the spread of HIV.
But I wait with baited breath to see Trads haranguing him for that 24/7.

Then you people wonder why you are stuck in the Catholic Fringe?

>Second, regardless of how detached the St. Patrick's Day Parade is from any original religious intent, it still bears the name of the venerable Saint and thereby to the Catholic faith.

Which is as meaningless as St Valentine’s day (which is no longer remembered for the Priest Martyr who gave his life to give the Sacrament of marriage to Christians). But is nothing more then an excuse for Eros and other immoralities.

> And any prelate who associates himself with the event (a fortiori the Cardinal archbishop of New York City who agrees to be its grand marshal!) lends credence to that historical connection between the parade and the Catholic faith.
Thereby he incurs culpability. I see no way around the fact. And that culpability extends, if at a distance, to the pope who does nothing about the scandalous matter.

Which begs the question why Benedict didn’t condemn the Parade when it was merely about public drunkenness(if we apply this screwball standard of yours fairly and consistently)? I guess being in danger of going to Hell over mere drunkenness is not so bad as long as you aren’t sent there for sodomy.


PS

@Chris

>Ben,

>You do know, I hope, that Eye of the Tiber is a satirical rag.

The key word is “satire”. For any satire to work it has to have a ring of truth about it otherwise it is mere mindless mockery.





BenYachov

said...

>BY, Benedict may have made him a Cardinal, but who's allowing him to stay one?

(If we remove the drunk behavior at the paradefrom the equation)

I think merely being grand marshal in a parade that will include a bunch of NBC employees marching under the banner OUT@NBC is not as bad as oh let us say Cardinal Law's mismanaging of the Sex Abuse Crisis. Why didn't Pope St John Paul or Pope Benedict go the extra mile and strip him of his Cardinal's hat?

Pope Francis removed the deputy bishop in Peru after sex abuse allegations.

I think he has more important things on his plate.

*Mind you for the record I think this is a very imprudent move on the Part of Dolan. But charging him with sin is over the top.





BenYachov

said...

I have said my piece on this matter.

The rest of you lot may have the last word.





Anonymous

said...

Okay, so I have to ask this. Why was this guy appointed by the Pope to be the Archbishop of New York?

Really, I am not trying to be snarky. As a protestant, I am really asking why this was done.





Mighty Joe Young

said...

‪BenYachov said...

Many of you "trads" have devolved over the past two decades and have become more vile then I remember ya.


When you write that I hear Nat King Cole singing, "Unforgettable" so I will be charitable and take your rebarbative insult as evidence of a significant loss in that part of your soul called, memory.

O, and we have not devolved; we have maintained the Faith which, to those who have surrendered to modernism and who confuse spiritual pertinacity with devolution, is an irksome reminder of the indefensible quality of their own spiritual cowardice.

O, and M.J. does not want to let this precious moment pass without writing that you have yet to respond to my repeated responses to your question you asked well over 24 hours ago.

You have had ample opportunity to not only acknowledge M.J's response but to respond to his response but you have failed to do so.

And the reason you have not responded is M.J's response laid bare your glaring lack of resipiscence.

The old timers in the hills of Vermont had an expression that fits certain people; He is as shallow as piss on a platter

As to whether or not that is a description that fits you, M.J. will leave it up to you to decide.

Some men just yearn to yirn, I guess.








JM

said...

"Vile" Trads. Talk about rhetorical internet overkill.





Pertinacious Papist

said...

Ben,

Please make your point(s) and move on. I'm not sure you're helping to bring out the best in your neighbors here. Comments should be about the post.

Thanks,
-- PP





Pertinacious Papist

said...

Dear Anonymous Protestant,

I can understand your puzzlement. A couple of things come to mind.

First, one could also ask how Jesus could have chosen Judas as one of His twelve disciples. Of course, any informed answer to that is going to have a few more variables than if we were talking about mere humans.

Second, episcopal appointments (appointments of bishops) are made by popes through a process of recommendations; and no matter who has the final say, it's difficult for any mere mortal to predict just how a man will work out once he is elevated to high rank.

Sometimes the most unlikely people turn out in the most unexpected ways -- even where the result is positive. As any survey of the Kingdom of Israel and its fate in the Old Testament would show, God often seems to "write straight with crooked lines."

God bless, -- PP





BenYachov

said...

>Please make your point(s) and move on. I'm not sure you're helping to bring out the best in your neighbors here. Comments should be about the post.

See my 12:34 AM post.

I have already said my piece.





Danielius

said...

I love the conservative Neo-Catholic habit of reformulating obviously problematic actions / statements in value neutral terms to make it seem like nothing is happening. It's so gloriously post-post-postmodern.





Lawrence

said...

The whole world will be watching ....