Cardinal Dolan - Explaining My Decision to Serve as Grand Marshal

[pnewton]

Yet the verdict is in for the Catholic Church. Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered for whatever physio or psychological reasons it may have. Read the whole text. The decision has already been made.

“…homosexual orientation is an objective disorder … and evokes moral concern.”
See:

Keep repeating the same over and over. Like each other post. Pat each other on the back. I am not disagreeing that homosexuality is objectively disordered. I was speaking to how it is innate. I bolded the part that I mean. There is much that is not understood as to how it is innate. Genetics are not a matter of doctrine and faith. Psychology is not a matter of doctrine and faith. No science is a matter of doctrine an faith. Continue with the strawman if you want. I do no disagree that homosexuality is disordered, but hey, if it makes you feel better to go on, do so.

Maybe we can transit to geocentrism.

 

[SirStephen]

The difference, unlike Voris’ business, this is a Catholic apostolate. It’s money, again unlike Michael Voris’ business, will not be allowed to promote the sins of slander and rash judgment. I listened to his tirade on this topic and found it to be very unlike Christ, devoid of charity and very brazen, in that he elevates his own opinion and judgment to a level humility should preclude.

What sophistry you are forced to rely on to validate the Cardinals scandalous activity. Your parsing of the CCC is in line with the Cardinal’s. Yet you accuse Voris, without specificity, of engaging in sinful behavior for making an argument that does not require torturing the understood plain meaning of Canon law, the CCC, or biblical revelation. State with specificity his errors in his comments please. I think he’s stated the official and unofficial position of the Catholic Church for the last 2000 years.

Unlike Christ how? Uncharitable how? Under the postmodern definition of charity, to not say anything that offends, you may be right that Voris is uncharitable. But in its historic and defined usage, charity is always in line with the truth and is never to be left unexpressed if true even it it ruffles some feathers. As a Catholic, he and all are under some obligation under Canon law to speak up on issues they reasonably believe to be objectively sinful.

When speaking of “minders” in an earlier posting, I wasn’t referring to the moderators, who I think are way to quick to pull the trigger, I was speaking of lurkers who feel an need to inject postmodern constructs that turn Catholic theology into its own negation.

People who are offended at the Cardinal’s actions know why they are offended and know that its wrong and know why. Those in the LGBT community who are raving over it also know what the Cardinal’s actions indicate. To pretend otherwise is simply disingenuous.

 

[pnewton]

What sophistry you are forced to rely on to validate the Cardinals scandalous activity. Your parsing of the CCC is in line with the Cardinal’s. Yet you accuse Voris, without specificity,.

Specificity? He calls him:
“wicked”
“diabolical”
“in the grip of the Devil”
“you are blind”
“You are not fit to be a successor of the apostles”
“you sully the bride of Christ with your wickedness”
“What the Hell is wrong with you”

Anytime we take it upon ourselves to kick Jesus off His judgment seat so that we can take his place, it is uncharitable. He goes beyond the issues and actions and judges the Cardinal’s heart in a way that no one has the right to do.

Under the postmodern definition of charity, to not say anything that offends, you may be right that Voris is uncharitable. …I was speaking of lurkers who feel an need to inject postmodern constructs that turn Catholic theology into its own negation.

Postmodern? You keep using that word. Do you have any specific meaning other than “bad” or “any part of Catholic doctrine I don’t like?” Here is a definition. I have no idea of what bearing it has on this conversation though.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-is-postmodernism

Cardinal Dolan in his explanation stated clearly:

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.

Homosexual actions are sinful, as Cardinal Dolan points out. However, the mercy of Christ still serves as a stumbling block to many who want these people treated as sinful in a unique way. Homosexuals can find mercy in Christ and forgiveness in the Catholic Church. Active homosexuals can find mercy in Christ and forgiveness in the Catholic Church, just as active liars, gossips and thieves can find mercy. That is what confession is for. One is required to confess their sins and strive to sin no more, not actually be perfect from that point on. It is the Pharisee that is quick to pick up the stone for one guilty of a sin that he does not understand and finds no particular affection for. Yet we all have sin. Moreover, we all have sin we have struggled with, that we still are “active” in. We all still need the same mercy of God. This is Catholic doctrine, as much as all sexual activity outside of marriage being sinful.

Scandal? It is the cross that is the scandal, both then and now.

 

[SirStephen]

Specificity? He calls him:
“wicked”
“diabolical”
“in the grip of the Devil”
“you are blind”
“You are not fit to be a successor of the apostles”
“you sully the bride of Christ with your wickedness”
“What the Hell is wrong with you”

Anytime we take it upon ourselves to kick Jesus off His judgment seat so that we can take his place, it is uncharitable. He goes beyond the issues and actions and judges the Cardinal’s heart in a way that no one has the right to do.

Postmodern? You keep using that word. Do you have any specific meaning other than “bad” or “any part of Catholic doctrine I don’t like?” Here is a definition. I have no idea of what bearing it has on this conversation though.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-is-postmodernism

Cardinal Dolan in his explanation stated clearly:

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.

Homosexual actions are sinful, as Cardinal Dolan points out. However, the mercy of Christ still serves as a stumbling block to many who want these people treated as sinful in a unique way. Homosexuals can find mercy in Christ and forgiveness in the Catholic Church. Active homosexuals can find mercy in Christ and forgiveness in the Catholic Church, just as active liars, gossips and thieves can find mercy. That is what confession is for. One is required to confess their sins and strive to sin no more, not actually be perfect from that point on. It is the Pharisee that is quick to pick up the stone for one guilty of a sin that he does not understand and finds no particular affection for. Yet we all have sin. Moreover, we all have sin we have struggled with, that we still are “active” in. We all still need the same mercy of God. This is Catholic doctrine, as much as all sexual activity outside of marriage being sinful.

Scandal? It is the cross that is the scandal, both then and now.

I think those are terms Voris uses based on historic understandings of the Churches view on consorting with the world as he argues that the Cardinal does - and your recitation of his statements made in furtherance of the argument he makes is not a refutation of his argument - which he easily can back up with Canon law. He easily blew through the points you make in response. Did you listen to more than a few of his “Vortex” pieces where he dissects such sophistry posing as substantive arguments.

My use of postmodern would be the same as what P Benedict’s use of extreme relativism.

There is more to the use of the term scandal than you suggest but I suspect you know that. For a very high percentage of Catholics, the Cardinal’s actions are scandalous and your parsing arguments are less than substantive. The Cardinal’s parsing argument is less than genuine given that all concerned well know exactly what this is about in terms of who will show up to that parade and what posters they will be brandishing.

 

[zz912]

But it’s important to remember **she did it in private. It was NOT done in a public forum. **

And? Private communications have been done, even the Cardinal mentioned them in his letter. His stance hasn’t changed, and there is nothing wrong with public disagreement with a public act.

 

[zz912]

I listened to his tirade on this topic and found it to be very unlike Christ,

Specificity? He calls him:
“wicked”
“diabolical”
“in the grip of the Devil”
“you are blind”
“You are not fit to be a successor of the apostles”
“you sully the bride of Christ with your wickedness”
“What the Hell is wrong with you”

*John 8:44 **You belong to your father the devil **and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.

Luke 11:42 Woe to you Pharisees! You pay tithes of mint and of rue and of every garden herb, but you pay no attention to judgment and to love for God. These you should have done, without overlooking the others. 43 Woe to you Pharisees! You love the seat of honor in synagogues and greetings in marketplaces. 44 Woe to you! You are like unseen graves over which people unknowingly walk.”

Matthew 12:34 You brood of vipers, how can you say good things when you are evil? For from the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks.

Matthew 7:5 You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye. 6 “Do not give what is holy to** dogs,** or throw your pearls before** swine**, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Matthew 15:7 Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said: 8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’”

Matthew 23:16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.’ 17 Blind fools, which is greater, the gold, or the temple that made the gold sacred? *

Yep, totally unlike Christ. He was all kumbaya and stuff.

 

[Tigg]

Trying to shame others by accusations of being uncharitable on this issue will not work. The Cardinal has given his reasons for his actions and we can be grateful for his reply. However, consternation comes from deep within Catholic hearts which empathize with the bewildered and further, desire to protect the weak in faith. The discord flows from good intentions based upon our own prudential judgment. Our sympathies extend to those who, in the midst of confusion still try to follow the exhortation from the Church herself that respect for homosexual persons cannot in any way, lead to approval of homosexual behavior.

Not that the appearance of approval was in any way intended, but acts of blatant sexual identification to the point of waving a banner and knowing these groups intend to promote their cause celebre can and is, leading to misconceptions of the most serious kind.

 

[Path_Finder]

A good article on this situation, the first paragraph even deals with what I was a bit perplexed over.

lifesitenews.com/news/gay-group-marching-in-st.-patricks-parade-promotes-acceptance-of-gay-lifest

A homosexual organization given permission to march in New York’s Saint Patrick’s Day parade is not merely a “gay identity” group but actively promotes the homosexual political and social agenda, despite assurances to the contrary by parade organizers and the parade’s next “Grand Marshal,” Cardinal Timothy Dolan, LifeSiteNews.com has learned.

Picture as well.

This points to how to me, it seems the Cardinal’s statement and concept and as some here have indicated, the actual presentation of the group seems to be a bit at odds with each other.

 

[twoshoes]

Hey, we’re not talking child abuse here. We are talking about showing up at a parade.

He doesn’t owe anyone an explanation for such a matter.

Both traditional and more liberal Catholics have developed this pattern to questioning the action of those in the Church who have authority.

Wow!, Should we have questioned the actions of some clergy in regards to pedophile crimes.

 

[SirStephen]

Riding on the message just preceding, the idea that the faithful - especially those in good conscience - are supposed to sit back and not take a stand when they see something that they believe to be scandalous, immoral and intrinsically evil - and at the highest levels is ridicules. It also violates Canon Law. This is not a peripheral issue and, not withstanding some voices on this list, it is quite clear what is being objected to. It is objectionable. The scientism behind much of the faux science on this list that is used to obfuscate what is otherwise clear canon law and Church teaching - from the beginning of the Church with strong Old and New Testament grounding - is likewise in full swing.

§1, Canon 212, Title I, The Obligations and Rights of All the Christian Faithful, Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici) states: Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§3, Canon 212, Title I, The Obligations and Rights of All the Christian Faithful, Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici,states: Can. 212 §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

 

[pnewton]

*John 8:44 **You belong to your father the devil ***…
Luke 11:42 Woe to you Pharisees! You pay tithes of mint and of rue and of every garden herb, but you pay no attention to judgment and to love for God. These you should have done, without overlooking the others. 43 Woe to you Pharisees! You love the seat of honor in synagogues and greetings in marketplaces. 44 Woe to you! You are like unseen graves over which people unknowingly walk.”

Matthew 12:34 You brood of vipers, how can you say good things when you are evil? For from the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks.

Matthew 7:5 You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye. 6 “Do not give what is holy to** dogs,** or throw your pearls before** swine**, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Matthew 15:7 Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said: 8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’”

Matthew 23:16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.’ 17 Blind fools, which is greater, the gold, or the temple that made the gold sacred?

Yep, totally unlike Christ. He was all kumbaya and stuff.

Yes, Jesus spoke strongly. Do you note what brought out His holy ire? It was not homosexuality or adultery. It was hypocrisy, those “holy” men of his day who lived such clean lives yet utterly failed in mercy. These are the ones that were scandalized by the cross.

 

[pnewton]

I think those are terms Voris uses based on historic understandings of the Churches view on consorting with the world as he argues that the Cardinal does - and your recitation of his statements made in furtherance of the argument he makes is not a refutation of his argument - which he easily can back up with Canon law.

I was not trying to refute his arguments. You asked for specifics. I gave them.

My use of postmodern would be the same as what P Benedict’s use of extreme relativism.

I understand now. Since postmodernism is a critique of modernism, it can have the opposite meaning as moral relativism, which is a more exact term. It is still straw though, as no one is arguing moral relativism here. For my part, I am arguing just the opposite. My observation is the opposite. Homosexuality (the acts) is quite sinful. However, it is not the only sin.

There is more to the use of the term scandal .

It is the exact use of scandal that I intend.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, Jesus spoke strongly. Do you note what brought out His holy ire? It was not homosexuality or adultery. It was hypocrisy, those “holy” men of his day who lived such clean lives yet utterly failed in mercy. These are the ones that were scandalized by the cross.

Is it mercy to affirm sin?

 

[pnewton]

Riding on the message just preceding, the idea that the faithful - especially those in good conscience - are supposed to sit back and not take a stand when they see something that they believe to be scandalous, immoral and intrinsically evil - and at the highest levels is ridicules. It also violates Canon Law.

No, it doesn’t There simply is not action being asked on the part of the faithful that disagree. If the bishop told the faithful they should march in the parade against their conscience, then that first canon would apply.

As to the second, the last phrase is "with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons. " When calling a bishop demonic is being justified, as was just done, then there is zero reverence shown His Eminence. The “knowledge, competence and prestige” is noticeably lacking in most of the criticisms I have seen here. Anonymous posting does not rise to any level of any of these three, even if one is well versed in the more colorful pejoratives one can sling at Cardinal Dolan.

 

[pnewton]

Trying to shame others by accusations of being uncharitable on this issue will not work. The Cardinal has given his reasons for his actions and we can be grateful for his reply. However, consternation comes from deep within Catholic hearts which empathize with the bewildered and further, desire to protect the weak in faith. The discord flows from good intentions based upon our own prudential judgment.

This is the one point on which one can disagree with the Cardinal. Yes, maybe I think he is using poor judgment, horrendous judgment. Maybe I think that some of the weak in the faith will be scandalized. (I do think this). But the think is, is I that is thinking; my judgment, versus his. I may see my judgment as more historically validated, despite both my distance from the situation, the experience and the training of Cardinal Dolan.

If I were to give my view to him, I would tell him that I see the action as a stumbling block to the weaker brother, as St. Paul warned. Yes, homosexual identity is not the same as sexual sin, but there are many who will fail to understand this distinction and fall into sin of slander and gossip over this.

As to chaste homosexuals who might take this as a sign of approval of homosexual acts, those that have supported the Cardinal in this are quite clear they know the difference.

 

[SirStephen]

No, it doesn’t There simply is not action being asked on the part of the faithful that disagree. If the bishop told the faithful they should march in the parade against their conscience, then that first canon would apply.

As to the second, the last phrase is "with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons. " When calling a bishop demonic is being justified, as was just done, then there is zero reverence shown His Eminence. The “knowledge, competence and prestige” is noticeably lacking in most of the criticisms I have seen here. Anonymous posting does not rise to any level of any of these three, even if one is well versed in the more colorful pejoratives one can sling at Cardinal Dolan.

Are you like the hired minder to ensure that every doctrinally correct and orthodox response gets met with a postmodern challenge to create the illusion that the two are equally weighted?

He said his actions were demonic. That is certainly what he meant. There is a sizable percentage of the faithful who think that. The cardinal is engaging in activities that trade on his position to give cover to groups that are declared enemies of the Church. To not call that out when one sees it, especially if one believes it to be true, is a far worse sin than remaining silent out of some postmodern restatement for total obedience and silence (but note: only when it comes form leaders whose left wing orientation seems to eclipse their faith when acting outside faith and morals). Every major heresy that has taken hold in the Church has been caused by or come through a bishop.

To argue as if what’s happening is not true is to deny the truth and in-so-doing deny the Truth. The faithful will be forgiven if, when seeing something horribly wrong, they give active voice to what they see to try to avoid its happening. The Cardinal knows what he’s doing and he knows its an offense to the faithful. That is the scandal, not the faithfuls response to it. When St Nicholas struck fellow Bishop Arius at Nicea, he was bishop. The faithful are not supposed to be milk toast - Christ never demanded it of his Apostles. Being forcefully wrong, as the Apostles sometimes were, was always forgivable and even a teaching moment. Its the lukewarm Christ said he would vomit out. At least Voris is not lukewarm at a time when either the heat or a frigid blast is demanded.

What’s killing the credibility of forums like CA is that Voris called them out to be on record and they have not. I didn’t state that then (or now) to take Voris’ side, I did it to point out the truth of Voris claim not-with-standing whether Voris himself is correct.

I could easily cast this proposition as a simple marketing question where Voris is making a crass move to grab marketshare by manipulating the faithful with the truth of this situation. Voris sees a vulnerable demographic at CA that he can pull over. He’s just pulsing on issues he cynically believes will cause a sharp contrast to what he believes to be the obedient faithful Catholics demographic who will see that at least one Catholic forum speaks truth to power to what is on the minds of the lowly faithful who are uncomplicated, simple in their faith, but also recognize in simple terms what is wrong and evil (they are the sheep not the sheeple). Voris is arguing that the the Catholic media and blogoshere is compromised - or at least he argues that way. This is a serious challenge where not answering is an answer.

One final point, I am not a Voris-ista. For every minute I’ve heard of Voris, I heard one hundred on Catholic Answers Radio. 18 months ago, I would always turn it on when driving home or I would podcast it. Today, I’ve found that other things much more easily crowd it out. They’ve gone sideways on things in ways that would have been uncharacteristic earlier. I’ve contributed to CA Radio. I suppose I’m one of those people watching this and wondering if CA will “man up”. If there is no response, or one that is too calculated where clear simple language is demanded, Voris will prevail on the challenge - either by default or on points. The question, to me, and I suspect to quite a few, is this: Has CA become lukewarm to protect the bottom line? Not because I like Voris, but because my respect for CA is in question even though I wish it wasn’t. What makes me recognize this is not any deep thinking, but that I listen to it less and realize a part of me has taken note of it. I’ll bet I’m not an isolated event.

 

[pnewton]

Are you like the hired minder to ensure that every doctrinally correct and orthodox response gets met with a postmodern challenge to create the illusion that the two are equally weighted?

Uh… no. What a bizarre question.

What’s killing the credibility of forums like CA is that Voris called them out to be on record and they have not. I didn’t state that then (or now) to take Voris’ side,.

I reject the proposition that Catholic Answers has credibility issue. As a Catholic apostolate, it operates under the authority of the Bishop of San Diego, as opposed to some guy giving his own interpretations and opinions. If we were Protestants, then this distinction would be irrelevant, as would any distinction involving ecclesial authority, but then I tend to be rather traditional about such things.