Cardinal Dolan responds to criticism regarding St. Patrick’s Day Parade

Cardinal Dolan writes:

While a handful have been less than charitable in their reactions, I must admit that many of you have rather thoughtful reasons for criticizing the committee’s decision: you observe that the former policy was fair; you worry that this is but another example of a capitulation to an “aggressive Gay agenda,” which still will not appease their demands; and you wonder if this could make people think the Church no longer has a clear teaching on the nature of human sexuality.

Thank you for letting me know of such concerns. I share some of them.

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.

So, while actions are immoral, identity is not! In fact, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us, people with same-sex attraction are God’s children, deserving dignity and respect, never to be treated with discrimination or injustice.

To the point: the committee’s decision allows a group to publicize its identity, not promote actions contrary to the values of the Church that are such an essential part of Irish culture. I have been assured that the new group marching is not promoting an agenda contrary to Church teaching, but simply identifying themselves as “Gay people of Irish ancestry.”

If the Parade Committee allowed a group to publicize its advocacy of any actions contrary to Church teaching, I’d object. As Cardinal John O’Connor remarked, we do not change the Creed—and I’d add, the Ten Commandments—to satisfy political correctness.

Interesting.  I would be cautious though about speaking about “being gay”  as if this is something as fixed and God-given as one’s sex or race.  That, it seems to me, is a change in Catholic teaching, albeit a subtle one.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Cardinal Dolan responds to criticism regarding St. Patrick’s Day Parade

  1. At best the Cardinal is very naive.

  2. Rev22:17 says:

    Deborah,

    You wrote: Interesting. I would be cautious though about speaking about “being gay” as if this is something as fixed and God-given as one’s sex or race. That, it seems to me, is a change in Catholic teaching, albeit a subtle one.

    In western culture, nearly all cases of homosexuality stem from the sins of others.

    >> The classic pattern of male homosexuality involves the combination of (1) a father figure (biological, foster, step, adoptive, etc.) who is either abusive or absent, either physically or emotionally, coupled with (2) a mother figure whose efforts to shield the child from the abuse or neglect smothered the homosexual man and his emotional development, typically at a very young age. (The incidence of homosexuality in Polynesian culture has a very different underlying dynamic that is not rele

    >> The classic pattern of female homosexuality involves abuse at the hands of a significant male that has scarred the lady so badly that she is emotionally incapable of trusting or sharing intimacy with a male. The abusive male may have been a father figure, a teacher, or a “significant other.”

    In neither case is the individual culpable of the sin that created the condition.

    I firmly believe that God can heal these injuries if the individual is open to such healing.

    But then, I don’t believe in miracles. I rely on them! ;-o

    Norm.

    • EPMS says:

      These outdated Freudian explanations have been completely abandoned by psychologists.

      • Thomas Torck says:

        The same psychologists who capitulated to the brownshirt tactics of homosexuals who wish to destroy the institution of the family.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        EPMS,

        You wrote: These outdated Freudian explanations have been completely abandoned by psychologists.

        Yes, but only in the name of political correctness. They actually have NOT been disproven.

        In fact, I know quite a few homosexual individuals — men and women — and I have yet to find a case that does not match these patterns.

        Norm.

  3. Thomas Torck says:

    Cardinal Dolan is the homosexualists’ useful idiot.

    It is not just the actions, but the lifestyle. In acknowledging that their state in life is normal, reality and therefore truth is skewed, because it turns a blind eye to their deficiencies. For what? To avoid the suffering state of same-sex attraction.

    You take the abnormality and turn it normal by supporting the lifestyle that revolves around the praising of abnormality and all sorts of rationalizations that follow. It’s like how criminals who go to prison become tougher because of the sub-culture prevalent in prisons; a corrective facility that gives prisoners comfortable living by feeding them, giving them leisure time, and all these “charity” gives them no reason to strive against the abnormal behavior they exhibit in society, but validates it. In fact, those who grow up in the streets would find it better to be in prison because they get shelter, they get fed, and they get some sort of perverse camaraderie with murderers, rapists, and other criminals.

    With homosexuals, it has been their intention since at least 1987 to portray themselves as victims, and use “charity” to incrementally normalize what would otherwise be a perverted lifestyle. This is why there is a seemingly coincidental attack on the family and children, while the media and the political arm keeps talking about equality for minorities, especially homosexuals and the ever-increasing amount of orientations being invented. The enemy is relentless, and he works day and night to destroy any resistance to this.

  4. Thomas Torck says:

    I am sorry, this is the right video discussing the situation.

  5. EPMS says:

    It’s seems difficult to have a “teaching” on something that has an objective basis. I am not declaring this to be the case with sexual attraction, but it is possible that it is a genetic predisposition. Stuttering and bedwetting were once thought to have a psychological origin; we know differently now.

    • Thomas Torck says:

      Something that has an objective basis has uniformity that cannot be found with subjective things, hence there can be a teaching on those things.

      If we rely overly on the materialistic causes for sin, then we do the task of the devil by putting him or God out of the picture, and reducing everything to the material and chemical.

      Do we honestly believe that in 100 years, there won’t be some “breakthrough” that would tell us the reason for homosexuality, bedewetting and stuttering? If science marches on, then there’s no real reason to consider the material causes of homosexuality or whatever it is, as the absolute, objective cause.

      FYI, the entire notion of sexual orientation was brought about by closeted homosexual in Prussia, who wanted the anti-sodomy laws repealed. He argued that God did not make us man and woman, but it was the beginning of a poisonous ideology that separated sex from gender. We can see it now, with the validation of so many abnormal psychological conditions. Ironically, you may find those who accuse Catholic priests of pedophilia of being supporters for that depravity in the future. All they need is to adopt the gay tactic of incrementalism, of corrupting the masses with any means necessary, from institutes of higher education to a song on the radio.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You wrote: It’s seems difficult to have a “teaching” on something that has an objective basis. I am not declaring this to be the case with sexual attraction, but it is possible that it is a genetic predisposition.

      The hypothesis that homosexuality is genetic is utterly absurd.

      >> If there were a dominant gene for homosexuality, those who possess it, being homosexual, would not engage in sexual relations with persons of the opposite sex and thus would not reproduce. It thus would disappear completely in the next generation.

      >> And if there were a recessive gene for homosexuality, it would diminish very rapidly in the gene pool. In this case, there would be three types of people: those who possess two genes to be heterosexual (S-S), those who possess one of each gene (S-g), and those who possess two genes to be homosexual (g-g). Only the last actually would be homosexual, so there would be three types of reproductive relationships:

      >> Type S-S+S-S, in which both parents are S-S, so all of their children are also S-S,

      >> Type S-S+S-g, in which one parent is S-S and the other is S-g, so half of their children are S-S and half of their children are S-g, and

      >> Type S-g+S-g, in which both parents are S-g so 1/4 of their children are S-S, half of their children are S-g, and 1/4 of their children are g-g.

      If you start with a pool of parents who are S-g assume that S-S and S-g enter relationships and reproduce with equal probability but that g-g do not reproduce, here’s what happens.

      >> First generation: Parental unions all S-g+S-g; children 1/4 S-S, half S-g, 1/4 g-g; parents of next generation 1/3 S-S and 2/3 S-g

      >> Second generation: Parental unions 1/9 S-S+S-S, 4/9 S-S+S-g, 4/9 S-g+S-g; children 4/9 S-S, 4/9 S-g, 1/9 g-g; parents of next generation 1/2 S-S and 1/2 S-g

      >> Third generation: Parental unions 1/4 S-S+S-S, 1/2 S-S+S-g, 1/4 S-g+S-g; children 9/16 S-S, 3/8 S-g, 1/16 g-g; parents of next generation 3/5 S-S, 2/5 S-g

      >> Fourth generation: Parental unions 9/25 S-S+S-S, 12/25 S-S+S-g, 4/25 S-g+S-g; children 16/25 S-S, 8/25 S-g, 1/25 g-g; parents of next generation 2/3 S-S, 1/3 S-g

      >> Fifth generation: Parental unions 4/9 S-S+S-S, 4/9 S-g+S-g, 1/9 S-g+S-g; children 25/36 S-S, 5/18 S-g, 1/36 g-g; parents of next generation 5/7 S-S, 2/7 S-g

      >> Sixth generation: Parental unions 25/49 S-S+S-S, 20/49 S-S+S-g, 4/49 S-g; children 36/49 S-S, 12/49 S-g, 1/49 g-g; parents of next generation 3/4 S-S, 1/4 S-g

      >> Seventh generation: Parental unions 9/16 S-S+S-S, 3/8 S-S+S-g, 1/16 S-g+S-g; children 49/64 S-S, 7/32 S-g, 1/64 g-g; parents of next generation 7/9 S-S, 2/9 S-g

      >> Eighth generation: Parental unions 49/81 S-S+S-S, 28/81 S-S+S-g, 4/81 S-g+S-g; children 64/81 S-S, 16/81 S-g, 1/81 g-g; parents of next generation 4/5 S-S, 1/5 S-g

      >> Ninth generation: Parental unions 16/25 S-S+S-S, 8/25 S-S+S-g, 1/25 S-g+S-g; children 81/100 S-S, 9/50 S-g, 1/100 g-g; parents of next generation 9/11 S-S, 2/11 S-g

      >> Tenth generation: Parental unions 81/121 S-S+S-S, 36/121 S-S+S-g, 4/121 S-g+S-g; children 100/121 S-S, 20/121 S-g, 1/121 g-g; parents of next generation 5/6 S-S, 1/6 S-g

      In the nth generation, the fraction of the children who would be homosexual drops to 1/(n+1)^2 where the carat indicates an exponent.

      Now, I realize that human relationships are not as neat as this model assumes, but this should still be a reasonable indication of the trends of successive generations.

      You wrote: Stuttering and bedwetting were once thought to have a psychological origin; we know differently now.

      What IS known, in any case, is that psychological and emotional stress greatly exacerbate both stuttering and bed wetting. In other words, somebody who stutters will stutter much more profusely when under serious psychological or emotional stress, and a bed wetter will wet his or her bed much more frequently when under psychological or emotional stress.

      Norm.

  6. EPMS says:

    I should not have used “genetic’, a word about which I clearly know little. But children are born with every possible physical deformity, most of which are not conducive to “survival of the fittest”, so a physical basis for sexual attraction does not seem out of the realm of possibility. I agree that the APA was under the pressure of political correctness, but that does not mean the point was wrong. Most of us of a certain age have one or more friends with a homosexual child. Do you really believe that their home life resembled this description? To bedwetting and stuttering I should have added autism. How many women were labelled “refrigerator mothers” before the Freudian explanation of this disability was abandoned?

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You said: I should not have used “genetic’, a word about which I clearly know little.

      Why not? That’s the term appearing in psychological journals these days, even though it’s utterly nonsensical.

      What IS true, though, is that the family dynamics related to homosexuality, especially in men, are often present at a very young age.

      You said: But children are born with every possible physical deformity, most of which are not conducive to “survival of the fittest”, so a physical basis for sexual attraction does not seem out of the realm of possibility.

      Unfortunately, this sentence meanders through several misconceptions.

      >> 1. Many physical defects are not genetic, but some are. Now, compare the incidents of those defects with the seemingly sudden explosion of homosexuality in modern culture. Why no similar explosion of genetic physical defects?

      >> 2. Darwin’s theory of “survival of the fittest” does not say that there won’t be some who are less fit. Rather, it says that those who are less fit genetically will die without reproducing, and thus will diminish in the overall population.

      >> 3. In fact, a physical basis of sexual attraction may be precisely what determines who is the fittest under Darwin’s theory. Those who are not attractive to members of the opposite sex naturally won’t mate to bear offspring, just as those who are sexually attracted to others of their own sex will not bear offspring.

      You wrote: I agree that the APA was under the pressure of political correctness, but that does not mean the point was wrong.

      As a matter of general principle, a conclusion forced by political correctness or other external coercion is not scientifically valid and thus is utterly meaningless.

      In this case, however, “the point” does not even pass the “snicker test” because it cannot be true for the reasons that I explained in my previous post.

      You asked: Do you really believe that their home life resembled this description?

      I know more than a few homosexual individuals.

      When I find a case that does not substantially conform to the patterns that I previously described, I’ll let you know.

      You wrote: To bedwetting and stuttering I should have added autism. How many women were labelled “refrigerator mothers” before the Freudian explanation of this disability was abandoned?

      Hey, Freud was not necessarily right about everything. It’s fallacious to throw out all of his work just because one hypothesis did not validate. Good scientists frequently refine their theories as they gather additional evidence.

      Norm.

  7. EPMS says:

    I was conflating two issues regarding the APA diagnostic manual. It is true that “homosexuality” was removed as a category of mental illness under political pressure, and that is problematic, regardless of the objective truth of the matter. But the Freudian explanation of developmental psychology and consequent problems was purged from the APA dignostic manual many editions ago, in reference to all forms of mental illness. Since at least the 1980s students of psychology and MDs preparing for careers in psychiatry have received little exposure to Freud except as a historical footnote.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s