The Thinking 

Dolan Says “Bravo” to Homosexuality

March 10, 2014



INTERVIEWED on Meet the Press yesterday, the anti-Catholic “Cardinal” Timothy Dolan said that “Pope” Francis’s  recommendation that the Church “look into” the reasons why homosexual civil unions have been adopted was wise. Here is the full transcript. And here is another nugget from the interview:


Michael Sam, from your home state, the football player– revealed that he was gay, first in the NFL. And you saw the celebration from the President, the First Lady, and they were saying what a courageous step that was. How did you view it?


Good for him. I would have no– no sense of judgment on him. God bless ya. I don’t think– look, the same– the same bible that tells us that– that– teaches us well about the virtues of chastity and– and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people. So I would say, “Bravo.”

This man’s mind is mush. The same Bible also tells us that sinners go to hell. And the Church — ever hear of it, Mr. Dolan? — teaches that one who praises or flatters a sinner is an accessory to sin. Just imagine him in the confessional. “You did what? Oh, God bless ya! Bravo!”

Dolan also whines that the Church is being picked on for its pedophiliac priests, as if the Church shouldn’t be held to a higher standard than the rest of the world. How ironic that he defends homosexuality, a major cause of pedophilia, at the same time.

— Comments —

Aditya writes:

I am reminded of an exchange between a Diplomat and an Aristocrat in Camp of the Saints discussing an even more “humble” and guilt-ridden “Pope” where the Aristocrat says that a couple of centuries prior the Nobility would have declared such “humble Popes” Anti-Popes and would have removed him from office by force.

Alas, there is neither Nobility nor Yeomanry that can do anything similar. In fact, the most dangerous aspect of this Pope’s policy is that he will create a Church that doesn’t outrage the current dispensation. A Church that doesn’t outrage any government at any given time isn’t doing its job. A Church indistinguishable from the current zeitgeist has utterly failed and will fade away into irrelevancy just like the other High Church traditions.

That, then, should be the greater anxiety. Is “Jorge the Humble” a symptom or is he the disease? I, for one, hope he is the former.

Laura writes:

Is “Jorge the Humble” a symptom or is he the disease?

He is both. But more importantly, he is not Catholic. Nor is Dolan.

Paul writes:

Part of the problem might be that Cardinal Dolan and Pope Francis are the victims of a communication revolution.  (That’s enough weaseling.)  The culture is being bombarded by hundreds of TV channels, newspapers, radio talk shows, and last but not least, the Net.  These Media outlets let people give their personal opinions without asking for supporting reasoning and questioning the reasoning.

Instead of reasoning we get triteness. “Hey, go for it.”  “You tell ‘em girl.”  “With respect, I disagree.”  Why should someone say “with respect” to someone such as the non-reverend Al Sharpton or to the bully Alec Baldwin or to anyone with which someone is debating?

The Media give cameras and microphones to biased newsmen, to panels of so-called experts, and to anyone that can speak or gesticulate.  And they let them say and do almost anything.  The result is hearing and seeing a lot of jawboning and coarseness, which is better left to our familiars, that is, our families, friends, and fellow travelers (such as those here).  Today the fundamental law of communication is we should discuss everything in public in the way we do with our familiars.  This behavior gives leaders license to do the same thing in public.

Under these circumstances, I could allow the interpretation of Cardinal Dolan’s text to be that it was good the man confessed he is a sinner.  But this is not an interpretation that many Catholics reasonably find suitable.  Did he later say the man needs to repent and to ask for Jesus’ grace to overcome his desire?  I doubt it given the short answers demanded by the Media and the failure of our leaders to choose their words and venues carefully.

 Laura writes:

You obviously have not been following the story of Michael Sam. He did not confess to being a sinner. Quite the opposite. He proudly announced that he is “gay.”

As for the communication revolution, “Cardinal” Dolan has had practice communicating with the press. And it doesn’t matter whether he was speaking off the cuff in this pre-arranged formal interview. He said what he said and so we can take it as a reflection of his thinking.

Here’s another excerpt from the interview:


Final question. Beyond this first year, what most– must this Pope do to help the Catholic church remain relevant, particularly in America and throughout North America at a time when there is a big secular push around the world? What must he do?


What he’s gotta do, David, and he knows it, and he’s off to a good start, okay, his first year has been good– he’s got to restore the luster of the church. See, for us as Catholics, what– our core belief and where we differ from others is that we believe that god has revealed himself in Jesus, and that Jesus remains alive in his church, okay?

People today say, “Hey, we like god and Jesus, we don’t need the church.” For us as Catholic, we’re saying’, “Uh oh, that’s– that’s not how we understand god’s design.” Pope Francis is saying’, “We’ve got to restore the luster, the appeal, the intrigue, the mystery, the romance, the invitation to the church.” And he’s doing’ it on steroids. And that’s his major agenda, I think.”

Dolan apparently cannot see the luster of immutable truth or that the ongoing project to accommodate the culture has resulted in a massive loss of faith by Catholics. Pope Pius X’s Oath Against Modernism is one of many, many papal condemnations of this belief in “luster,” in “appeal,” in making the Church adjust to the world. From the oath:

I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.


Share:Email this to someoneShare on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest0Share on Google+0