FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Cardinal Dolan says "Bravo!" to open sodomy
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
I think the title to this thread totally ignore MOST of what Cardinal Dolan says which is:

"I don't think, look, the same Bible that tells us, that teaches us well about the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people. "

Where does the Cardinal say sodomy is OK? He specifically talks about  "the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage."

And though asked about one particular football player the Cardinal is not just talking about the one guy, but about and to the many Catholics who are homosexual, yet who strive to live lives of chastity and purity.
I think this is a huge problem among us trads...instead of confronting the enemies of tradition with thoughtful, logical arguments in favor of Tradition, we use propaganda to gain attention, which hugely discredits us.  And I'm definitely not bashing you, NorthernTrad, I've seen this story elsewhere, I'm just making an observation. 
Speculation about the actions of Cardinal Dolan and/or Church/Church officials was an act of Gossip, Slander, Calumny and/or Detraction on my part. I apologize and retract.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son,
and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,
world without end. Amen.

Here's the post:

Quote: Cardinal Dolan says "Bravo!"
"Who am I to judge?" makes a triumphant entry in the American subset of the College of Cardinals, in an interview granted to the highest-rated political debate program on US television, to be broadcast tomorrow:

    Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York praised University of Missouri football star Michael Sam for coming out as gay, saying he would not judge the athlete for his sexual orientation. "Good for him," Dolan said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" airing Sunday.

    "I would have no sense of judgment on him," Dolan continued. "God bless ya. I don't think, look, the same Bible that tells us, that teaches us well about the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people. So I would say, 'Bravo.'" [Source]


OK, then. Naturally, the Cardinal did not have to say anything at all regarding a specific individual, even if asked. But silence and discretion are one thing, explicitly refusing moral discernment is another, and raising such refusal to the status of "good" and "bravo" is quite noteworthy for a Prince of the Church, because it is in itself a moral judgment, a positive moral judgment.

It is quite easy to see that no moral debate in which the Catholic Church takes part, of any kind and on any level, can ever anymore advance even one inch if the parameters become simply an isolated reading of "not judging" - and much less if "not judging" is elevated to the positive judgment of "good" and "bravo." Politicians quote a pontiff when casting immoral votes, and what can the Church say, from now on, on any legal matter (that presupposes a moral order)? It can always be used to stop any social debate. What can poor pastors and vicars say regarding any sin, even personally to a parishioner, when the isolated presentation of "no sense of judgment" becomes normative? Or even regarding, for instance, an inclination that our judgmental Catechism of the Catholic Church defines as "objectively disordered" (regardless of the practice or not of the "intrinsically disordered" acts attached to it)?

And if you do not like this post, who are you to judge us?...

Nowhere in there does he say anything about sodomy being OK. He said he wouldn't judge the athlete or his sexual orientation (which is NOT a sin, no matter how badly some folks apparently want to see it that way). I think it is brave for folks to come out in certain circles (some of the trad ones, for ex. All of the folks on this forum who've admitted to having SSA are people I consider gutsy). Cardinal Dolan has, to any of our knowledge, no information whatsoever about what this football player does with his sexual desires. As far as any of us know -- and as far as any of us, as Catholics, should assume -- he is sexually continent.

Being open about one's sexual orientation does not equate to being open to sodomy (or even "open sodomy"). It simply doesn't. And until folks figure out the differences between being a homosexual (i.e., having a homosexual orientation, being attracted to members of one's own sex, which is NOT a sin) and acting on homosexual desires (which IS a sin), and stop messing with people for being homosexual (which, one more time, is NOT a sin), the more we're going to see things like this:


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2...s-pro-gay/


Evangelical Pastor Turns Pro-Gay
March 6, 2014 By Tony Jones 31 Comments


Ken Wilson, pastor of Vineyard Church in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has just published a book entitled, A Letter to My Congregation, in which he explains his change of mind and heart on the issue of homosexuality. He may be the first active pastor of a large evangelical congregation to make such a switch. David Crumm at Read the Spirit has an interview with him:

    DAVID: Since David P. Gushee is also putting his name on the line with this book, the two of you were invited to speak at the California LGBT film festival, called Level Ground, last week. The festival was covered in the Los Angeles Times and other news media. Do you feel the eyes of the world are upon you?

    KEN: No, I don’t feel that way and I don’t want to focus on the psychological pressure. My first responsibility is to lead my church through this transition successfully. Yes, I know there is a lot at stake here. There are many evangelical pastors out there whose hearts are inclined to go in this direction, but they can’t even begin to talk about this. I think once we can demonstrate that, yes, it can be done—then I think there are going to be many evangelical congregations that will follow. Before long, there is going to be a strong and growing expression of evangelicalism in America that is making space for gay people.

    DAVID: How do they start? I can imagine a lot of readers of this interview—and readers of your book—wanting to know: How did Ken do it? How can I start this process?

    KEN: The first thing is to convince pastors that they should give themselves permission to start asking the questions. There are so many pastors and other church leaders who want to do that, but they are inhibited from even starting the process. They see this as a “loser” issue for them. They don’t see any way to build a coalition around this—no way to build a consensus in their congregation. So, they don’t even start lifting up the questions that their hearts want to ask.

    DAVID: You found the courage. Now, you have opened up the conversation in your church to a point at which you realize how deeply many families care about this issue. But we’re talking here about the very first, private steps—the first moral questioning. Give us a little sense of how that began for you.

    KEN: Well, for me, I asked myself: Why am I willing to make so much space in the church for people who are remarried after divorce—despite the Bible’s very strict teaching against that—and I’m not willing to make space for gay and lesbian people? And I kept asking myself: Why does this particular moral stance of the church about LGBT people cause so much harm?

______________________________________________________________________________


Read the rest of the interview here:  http://www.readthespirit.com/explore/int...gregation/  The take-away quote, IMO:

Quote:"...10 years ago, as an evangelical pastor I didn’t know gay people and a lot of the people in my congregation would have said they didn’t know gay people—but that has shifted dramatically. Now, most people say they have at least one gay friend. And, even more importantly, for young people this is a non-issue. Of Millennials who leave the church, a large number leave over the church’s exclusionary stance on LGBT people. Young people just can’t understand that exclusion. They know plenty of LGBT people personally and they don’t want to be part of a church that excludes their friends."

Of COURSE "LGBT" people should not be excluded! And in the Catholic Church, according to the Catechism, as known by most priests and the laity who have two brain cells to rub together, we are taught that we are to treat homosexuals -- and EVERYONE -- with love and respect, without unjust discrimination. But for some people, the only responses to someone letting others know he is homosexual are shunning, name-calling, and a BOATLOAD of assumptions that no Christian should ever make about another -- along with a prying, nosy attitude that betrays a belief that the nosy one has a right to private information so he can make "the proper judgments," as if the nosy one has the power and authority to judge in the first place.

If the only so-called "moral" response to the existence of homosexuals, according to the clueless and/or malicious, is to shun them, assume the worst about them, equate their very existence with the activity of sodomy, assume all of them are clubbers out getting some strange every night while high on meth, think that sexual continence is impossible for them (and thereby denying the efficacy of God's GRACE, an attitude that I consider blasphemous), think that every homosexual wants to have sex with every other homosexual in the world and therefore going on about the eeeeeeeeeeeeevils of two homosexual men being in a room alone together even if that situation is not, in fact, a near occasion of sin for them, etc., etc., ad NAUSEAM, then we WILL see our children fall away from the Traditional Catholic movement.  And you know what? We will have had it coming. Two gay men -- even the "worst of the worst" in terms of acting on homosexual impulses, are, IMO, with everything else being equal, much better off spiritually that the the type of folks at a certain other forum who have MALICE in their hearts toward people with disorders and "issues," who engage in name-calling toward others, who, bottom-line, hate others and use homosexuals as their special little scapegoats, their designated sinners upon whom they think they can blame all the world's woes, whose very existence make themselves feel "superior" somehow.

I promise you, Trad Mom and Dad reading this:  if you speak about homosexuals qua homosexuals (i.e., folks with the disorder of same sex attraction) without charity and respect for their humanity, if you shun them, if you don't treat them as rounded human beings who are more than their sexual orientation, if you don't distinguish between being homosexual and acting on homosexual impulses and let your recognition of the differences show in your behavior and attitudes, if you mock homosexuals, you WILL lose your children and you WILL turn them away from the Faith. Your kids will no longer be Catholic by the time they're 19 years old. That is a promise.

And food for further thought:  I think that this issue will explode even more in the next 10-15 years as we see the number of homosexuals skyrocket because of the prevalence of children being raised without fathers.

What the Church teaches is very simple:

The Catechism Wrote:Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Sacred Scripture Wrote:Matthew 22:36-39
Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

P.S. The next time I hear a toxic trad going on about the "sins that cry out to Heaven," I'm going to ask that person to think about his feelings about a married man and woman who engage in anal sex -- vs. two homosexual men who never do that, but who do engage in mutual masturbation. I betcha a hundred bucks that they'd still be associating the phrase "sins that cry out to Heaven (which include three others:  murder, oppressing the poor, and defrauding a worker of his wages) with homosexuals alone, would still be hating on them and engaging in name-calling, etc. I bet if such a toxic type were presented with an almost always sexually continent homosexual who stumbles very occasionally and repents, and some restaurant manager who took his wait-staff's tips, it'd be the same story. Homosexuals ARE the toxic trads' designated sinners, the scapegoats, the "witches" who should be hunted down and pressed under rock-covered boards 'til they can no longer breathe. There is real and true HATE going on, and I am deathly sick of it -- EVEN AS I BELIEVE EVERY WORD IN THE CATECHISM ON THE TOPIC.  I get accused of so much nonsense by people who hate -- who hate homosexuals, who hate me because I love homosexuals, who hate me because I've banned them. They put words into my mouth, attribute beliefs to me that I do NOT have. They LIE about me and engage in extreme calumny. Some go way, way out of their way to do things to make this website fail. If what I go through with those malicious souls is even a taste of what Catholic homosexuals go through, even as they try to remain chaste, then my heart is broken for all of them. And I will side with homosexuals AS homosexuals over the malicious and ill-willed, the judgmental Pharisaic type, ANY day.  And I truly believe Lord Christ would, too. That He IS, even as we speak. The New Testament has the Lord getting mighty angry at times, and the folks he gets angry at are those who blaspheme, and those with malice and judgmental attitudes, the "holier-than-thou" types. He'd go after them while allowing a (then) WHORE to dry His feet with her hair. I refuse to judge anyone's soul, but I will judge actions born of judgmentalism (g'head and laff if you think that line is funny. It makes perfect sense, however), malice, and sheer hubris. The toxic trad is a veritable cartoon of such behaviors. I pray they WAKE UP, beg forgiveness, and ask Jesus to teach them how to Love, to send the Holy Ghost to FILL them up with Love. Before it's too late.

Vox Clamantis Wrote:As far as any of us know -- and as far as any of us, as Catholics, should assume -- he is sexually continent.

Is this what we are to assume of someone who, for several months out of the year, willingly puts himself into a near occasion of sin (i.e. inside a locker-room with fit, naked men own his age)?
(03-10-2014, 02:12 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
Vox Clamantis Wrote:As far as any of us know -- and as far as any of us, as Catholics, should assume -- he is sexually continent.

Is this what we are to assume of someone who, for several months out of the year, willingly puts himself into a near occasion of sin (i.e. inside a locker-room with fit, naked men own his age)?

He's a football player. It's part of his his job to put on a uniform. I'd assume he keeps custody of his eyes and carries on getting dressed if he's attracted to one of his teammates, and I wouldn't assume he's turned on by any let alone all of his teammates.

Some men are doctors and have female patients, too. Some women are doctors and have male patients. Some cops have to look at porn --- even child porn -- in order to enforce the laws against it. Life happens. Folks have to get real.




I agree that we aren't supposed to hate the sinner and trads tend to go too far.

BUT...

There's no sense coming out, as a Cardinal of the Church, and saying "Bravo." It's completely the wrong message IMHO.

Do I think that Cardinal Dolan is the spawn of Satan for saying it (like many would say)? Absolutely not. I simply think he is wrong for saying "Bravo." Look at what they are doing with "Who am I to judge?"

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/...28191.html

We can argue that it's not their fault for having their words twisted, but I disagree: people in positions of authority are responsible for their words. If they are ambiguous or unnecessarily wordy, it's their fault when they are misinterpreted.
(03-10-2014, 05:04 AM)damooster Wrote: [ -> ]I agree that we aren't supposed to hate the sinner and trads tend to go too far.

BUT...

There's no sense coming out, as a Cardinal of the Church, and saying "Bravo." It's completely the wrong message IMHO.

Do I think that Cardinal Dolan is the spawn of Satan for saying it (like many would say)? Absolutely not. I simply think he is wrong for saying "Bravo." Look at what they are doing with "Who am I to judge?"

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/...28191.html

We can argue that it's not their fault for having their words twisted, but I disagree: people in positions of authority are responsible for their words. If they are ambiguous or unnecessarily wordy, it's their fault when they are misinterpreted.

I think "bravo" or "oh yeah? interesting..." or "thanks for being honest" are all appropriate reactions to someone having the guts to tell the world he's homosexual.  We can't control that some people want to twist innocent things to mean what they don't. The Catechism says what it says, Francis says he's a son of the Church, I'm sure Dolan agrees with the Catechism, etc.  Being kind to homosexuals, lauding their being honest, knowing that "Who am I to judge homosexuals' souls?" does NOT mean "Who am I to judge sodomy?" (which was actually said on this very forum in the past couple of days and is implied by this thread's title!) -- anyone who thinks any of those things equates to thinking that sex outside of marriage is not a sin are simply stupid, extremely ignorant, or playing games. God will know what to do with the stupid and ignorant. And the game players, for that matter. And at some point, we have to just follow the Catechism straight-up, get real, start caring a lot more about saving souls (including the souls of homosexuals), stop acting like the Church is a Club for the Perfect, and let the chips fall where they may without worrying how some dumbass in whatever fishwrap is going to spin it.

What needs to change, IMO, is the toxic trad reactions to homosexuals and the topic of homosexuality. They need to stick with the catechism and stop attacking people with disorders. If people with certain problems feel excluded from Christ's Church -- not because of what the Catechism says, but because of some of the toxic trad nonsense -- then we've got major, serious problems and are harming souls -- not just the souls of homosexuals, etc., but also the souls of our children who, pray God, will not want to live in a toxic trad world but who might throw out the baby with the bathwater and chuck religion altogether because they come to associate it with legalistic Pharisaism and judgmental nastiness rather than Love.


I thought this article struck a good balance, it had an excellent discussion of Courage but also briefly addressed the issue of coming out.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/03...it-is.html

" The pro-gay movement in fact prepares young people very thoroughly for this step of coming out, for this is a key moment. It’s a rite of passage into a large, enthusiastic, and seemingly attractive movement, and this is how one joins that community and that movement.
...
"Coming out" serves a double purpose for the person who decides to take that step:

1. Psychological and social identification with the homosexual life by going public, an act of self-labeling which effectively blocks other possibilities for growth.

2. The delivery of a challenge to those who might question that life. The person delivering the challenge adopts a victim posture, when actually he or she is very much on the offensive. "Coming out" is at the same time an act of vulnerability and an act of aggressiveness."

I've said this before and I'll re-iterate. People with SSA are called to chastity whether they come out or not. People who are divorced are called to chastity. People who are single are called to chastity. I think part of the problem here is that there is a constant call from external, and these days internal, pressures for the Catholic Church to conform to society. Coming out, divorce and remarriage, birth control, abortion, etc.. Unfortunately there is a dearth of leaders that teach the church because they are scared or do not believe.

This article, that contains an opinion about the SPLC putting ALL Catholic church on the SPLC's hate list, summs up the Church teaching teaching on homosexuality well.

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/adam-cassa...s-hate-map

"The Church teaches that engaging in homosexual acts is immoral and should be avoided. Those living with same-sex attraction are called to lives of chastity, not told that they must be attracted to members of the opposite sex to be good people. This from the same Catholic Church that also teaches engaging in heterosexual acts outside of marriage is sinful. But nobody ever accuses the Catholic Church of "hating" unmarried, sexually active straight people.

No one who is truthfully communicating the Church's teaching on homosexuality is promoting anything to "demean gay people" or "cause people to attack gay people." But we've allowed our culture to decay such that any opposition to homosexuality at any level is now considered "hateful" and "bigoted.""

If the bishops are Cardinals would just come out (pun intended) at state the aforementioned message clearly and consistently it would do a couple of things

1. It would clarify the position of the Church for both those inside and outside the Church
2. It would pacify some of the bunker mentality in the church and quell some internal bickering
3. It could defend accusations of being "anti-gay" by clearly stating this is also what the Church teaches for divorced heterosexual people, unmarried people of any sexual orientation, etc.

The Church needs to clearly and concisely teach what it believes and leave the rest up to God.




Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11