Timothy Cardinal Dolan continues to be the perfect Company Man. Matt Abbott gives us the details:
In addition to the embarrassing saga involving Holy Innocents Church and Father Justin Wylie, we now have this:
- A homosexual activist group will march in New York’s St. Patrick’s Day parade next year, with the tacit approval of Cardinal Timothy Dolan. Organizers of the parade announced on September 3 that Out@NBCUniversal – described as a ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual support group’ – will march under its own banner. In the past, the parade organizers refused to allow gay-rights groups to carry signs….
- Cardinal Dolan has been named as grand marshal for the 2015 parade.
Excuse me for being blunt, but by all appearances, the cardinal has (yet again?) capitulated to the “almighty” lavender lobby. Sure, the parade’s organizers may have capitulated first, but if the cardinal had some guts, he could – and should – have told the organizers, “Don’t change the rules simply to pacify homosexual activists. And if you do change the rules, I’ll publicly withdraw my support for the parade.”
Alas, Cardinal Dolan didn’t do that, and now we have more scandal.
The cardinal issued the following statement in response to the parade’s amended rules:
- The Saint Patrick’s Day Parade Committee continues to have my confidence and support. Neither my predecessors as archbishop of New York nor I have ever determined who would or would not march in this parade (or any of the other parades that march along Fifth Avenue, for that matter), but have always appreciated the cooperation of parade organizers in keeping the parade close to its Catholic heritage. My predecessors and I have always left decisions on who would march to the organizers of the individual parades. As I do each year, I look forward to celebrating Mass in honor of Saint Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, and the patron saint of this archdiocese, to begin the feast, and pray that the parade would continue to be a source of unity for all of us.
A source of unity?
In addition, Dolan, inexplicably has pulled out the rug under the drive to canonize Bishop Fulton Sheen:
From the Diocese of Peoria:
It is with immense sadness that the Most Reverend Daniel R. Jenky, CSC, bishop of Peoria and president of the Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen Foundation, announced today that the cause for Sheen’s beatification and canonization has, for the foreseeable future, been suspended. The process to verify a possible miracle attributed to Sheen had been going extremely well and only awaited a vote of the cardinals and the approval of the Holy Father. There was every indication that a possible date for beatification in Peoria would have been scheduled for as early as the coming year. The Holy See expected that the remains of Venerable Sheen would be moved to Peoria where official inspection would be made and first class relics be taken.
Subsequently, the Archdiocese of New York denied Bishop Jenky’s request to move the body to Peoria.
After further discussion with Rome, it was decided that the Sheen cause would now have to be relegated to the congregation’s historic archive.Countless supporters, especially from the local church in Central Illinois, have given their time, treasure and talent for this good work, with the clear understanding that the body of Venerable Sheen would return to the diocese
. Bishop Jenky was personally assured on several occasions by the Archdiocese of New York that the transfer of the body would take place at the appropriate time. New York’s change of mind took place as the work on behalf of the cause had reached a significant stage
.
Bishop Jenky is what is technically called the ‘actor’ of the Sheen cause. The Diocese of Peoria and the Sheen Foundation have prayed and labored for this good work for the last twelve years. The bishop is heartbroken, not only for his flock in Peoria, but also for the many supporters of the Sheen cause from throughout the world who have so generously supported Peoria’s efforts. It should be noted, however, that saints are always made by God, not by man. Efforts for many causes have sometimes taken decades or even centuries. Bishop Jenky urges that those who support the Sheen cause continue their prayers that God’s will be made manifest.No further comment will be released at this time.
Certainly Cardinal Dolan had a hand in this perplexing decision to deny Bishop Jenky’s request to move Archbishop Sheen’s body to Peoria. The question is: Why? It’s quite obvious that Bishop Jenky is very displeased with the Archdiocese of New York’s “change of mind.” I don’t blame him one bit.
Go here to read the rest. As I said in an earlier post on Dolan: Timothy Cardinal Dolan, of the Archdiocese of New York, is the epitome of the company man. When the powers that be in his company, the Church, were orthodox and perceived to be conservative, that is what he was.
Now that the wind from the Vatican has changed, so has Dolan. I actually have more respect for real heterodox Catholics than I do for Dolan. At least they have convictions they actually believe in. Other than his belief in his career, I seriously doubt if the same can be said about Dolan.
In past years, didn’t various organizations withdraw from the parade because the homosexuals were not allowed (as such) to march? The children of this world are not only wiser in their generation than the children of light, but also have greater courage of their convictions.
Cardinal Dolan would like to be like Fulton Sheen – holy,witty, telegenic popular… He was a brilliant teacher, sincere, and good, committed to the Lord. When Cardinal Dolan dies I don’t imagine any dioceses fighting over his relics.
.
“When Cardinal Dolan dies I don’t imagine any dioceses fighting over his relics. ”
Comment of the week Anzlyne! Take ‘er away Sam!
The Saint Patrick’s Day parade is an excellent opportunity to include the Holy Eucharist in procession. Perhaps the Knights of Columbus can impress upon Cardl. Dolan. In the same vein, the Mass ought to be celebrated immediately before the Alfred Smith Dinner.
.
As Mother Angelica of EWTN says: “We are Catholic. Let’s live our Faith.”
Surpise, surprise! I am aghast! He supports communion for openly and long unrepentant adulterers, so what is the big deal?
Mary De Voe.
Your idea is absolutely the “comment of the decade.” You have it!
Procession of Jesus Christ Body Blood Soul and Divinity is the key to this otherwise shameful lack of discernment from brother Doland. No disrespect Cardinal.
In all seriousness, this procession is perfectly timed. Please folks. Pass this idea on. Let it be for Gods glory. All else is vain and for mans glory.
Mary De Voe! Your beautiful!
Not sure the venues are the place for a Eucharistic Procession/Exposition/Mass.
“Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.”
Cardinal Dolan in NYC. Bishop Hubbard in Albany. No wonder Andy Cuomo and RFK Jr get away with the crap that they do. Adulterers, supporters of homosexual marriage, legitimatizers of baby murdering. Yet they parade themselves up for Holy Communion with full clerical approval. Did I mention that they are anti-nuclear activists, too, bent on shutting down my alma mater, the Indian Point Energy Center, provider of 2000 MWe of safe, clean, pollution free electricity and 2000 high paying jobs? Yet Dolan will receive news of that shutdown will high praise for environmental consciousness. I am beyond disgusted. The people of New York fully deserve both Dolan and Cuomo. Fully and completely. Let them all freeze in the dark this winter. Maybe spring at St Patrick’s Day and the gays prancing about will thaw them out. Sorry. Am in a foul mood at what these jerks are doing and how Dolan encourages it.
Glad you posted this Donald before I did, otherwise I would have used language that would have led to my banishment from Tito.
Is this not a war?
A battle for souls?
Who better than the King of all Nations to stir the hearts of His wayward sons and daughters.
Let Havard’s black mass remind us of His Presence in public. Pearls before swine……not in this case.
His Eminence offers us his excuse that he has nothing to do with the
selection of the groups that participate in the St. Patrick’s Day parade.
So I have to wonder: would he still agree to be Grand Marshal if the
parade included groups less loved by the zeitgeist– say, a group
advocating pedophilia or anti-semitism or racial segregation? Would
we still be treated to the sight of His Eminence grinning and waving
at the head of the parade, or would he finally stop it with the lame
rationalizations and act as a Catholic should?
The question of Cardinal Dolan’s decision to accept the office of Grand Marshal in the St Patrick’s Day parade should serve as a reminder that an important part of moral theology is casuistry, in the technical sense, that is, the application of admitted moral principles to concrete situations.
One recalls the well-know episode of Napoléon’s marriage to Marie-Louise, Archduchess of Austria. Cardinal della Somaglia told M. Emery Supérieur of St. Sulpice and a notable moral theologian that he could not attend without wounding his conscience. M. Emory told him that, in that case, he should on no account do so, for any consideration whatsoever. It transpired that M. Emory had been consulted by a number of the other 18 cardinals, then in Paris and he had told them he thought they could attend the ceremony with a clear conscience. In a letter to Cardinal Fesch, the Emperor’s uncle, M. Emory explained this apparent inconsistency. He personally saw no harm in attending, but he had given his advice to Cardinal della Somaglia on the basis that “one should never act against one’s own conscience, even if it were erroneous.” [qu’on ne devait jamais, agir contre sa conscience, même erronée] In the event Cardinal della Somaglia kept to his view, contrary to M. Emery, and did not attend the marriage ceremony. Both men, we may suppose, shared the same principles on the indissolubility of marriage, the jurisdiction of the Holy See, remote material cooperation and the obligation not to give scandal; they differed on the application of these principles in the particular case and who is to say which of them was right?
I would caution against jumping to any conclusions at this time regarding the Sheen relics dispute. It COULD be — based on what I’ve read — just as much or more a case of intransigence on the part of the Peoria Diocese as it is of intransigence on the part of the NY Archdiocese.
Abp. Sheen chose to be buried in New York, and it appears his surviving relatives want that to remain the case. The dispute, from what I can gather, centers on how, or if, the remaining requirements of the Sheen sainthood cause for examination of the body/relics can be handled by the Peoria Diocese without going against that. Without knowing all the details, it’s hard to say which side is right and which is wrong here.
I have been stunned by both ‘news accounts’. I would be a bit more hesitant about seeing this Parade decision in light of Pope Francis’ Petrine ministry but that is a different subject. I believe that both decisions arise within the Archdiocese of New York and with Cardinal Dolan.
In reading up on the subject of the Parade I realize that the Parade really has been ‘secular’ at least since the mid-nineties. The relationship between the Parade and the Church (Archdiocese) seems to be tenuous at best. There certainly have been storms between Parade organizers and the Cardinals of New York before. I certainly applaud the earlier Cardinal Archbishops in how they dealt with those disputes. However, I am left scratching my head on this one. I can not read Cardinal Dolan’s heart nor mind, so I will not get into possible motivations etc. I do think that the time has come to have a divorce between the Archdiocese of New York and the Parade, once and for all. We can all read the handwriting on this wall and what direction the Parade and its organizers are going in.
The second news blurb, concerning the ‘canonization’ process of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen on a semi-permanent hold really has me fuming. I am old enough to remember watching his shows when they were originally aired. Because of my age at the time I did not understand all of what he said, but to have a bishop of our Church on TV for all to see and hear, communicated a great deal to me even on the symbolic level. I would later be blessed with actually going to hear him speak within the last year of his life. While older and more frail, the fire was still within him and emanating from his eyes.
I could not believe in this day and age two bishops (dioceses) fighting ‘over the bones’ of a saint. It sounded so Medieval. Here I am not in any way downplaying the cult of saints, but criticizing two bishops acting as if we have not learned anything from the history of the Church. Good grief. Again, to be honest, of the two bishops I found more just cause with the bishop of Peoria. Peoria was the ‘hometown’ of Bishop Sheen as well as the diocese that was promoting his cause, especially since New York had not simply failed but actually refused to do so in the past. Now New York and its Cardinal get into the act when an American saint’s cause is nearing canonization.
On one level it seemed to be a matter of who would have the ‘relics’ in order to have a pilgrimage site. However, I read one commentary that has given me pause in my thinking. The pundit pointed out just how ‘incarnational’ all this was. As George Weigel points out in his Letters to a Young Catholic, the Catholic Way is a “habit of being’ and this ‘habit’ is incarnational, very gritty, touchy etc. It really does count ‘who has the bones’.
I know that the Vatican tried to mediate the situation but it seems that New York and its Cardinal are playing hardball with Peoria-I would be scandalized if I was not a student of Church history. This too will pass. However I would encourage coming to a mutual agreement so that the real issue, the canonization of Fulton J Sheen take place.
The Archdiocese of New York and its Cardinal have not assisted themselves at all this week. It has not been a good week. Perhaps some people need a vacation etc 😉 but the ‘thinking’ has not been clear at all. Time to get back to work and be Catholic, faithful to the whole teaching of the Church [Parade issue] and not tribal or even petty [Sheen issue]
Philip: “Mary De Voe.
Your idea is absolutely the “comment of the decade.” You have it!
Procession of Jesus Christ Body Blood Soul and Divinity is the key to this otherwise shameful lack of discernment from brother Doland. No disrespect Cardinal.
In all seriousness, this procession is perfectly timed. Please folks. Pass this idea on. Let it be for Gods glory. All else is vain and for mans glory.
Mary De Voe! Your beautiful!”
.
Philip! You’re beautiful.
.
Botolph: It would appear that Archbishop Sheen’s third great miralce is to be the restoring of order between the two dioceses.
.
Let me add that if the Diocese of New York abandons the Saint Patrick’s Day Parade, the organizers and the church must take back Saint Patrick’s name as St. Partick’s name belongs to the Catholic Church and no one else, as the Catholic Church gave Patrick the title of saint, and as someone else has already pointed out to take back Saint Nicholas, Santa Claus, as a Catholic saint.
In the interest of fairness, justice and charity I must make a correction concerning the Bishop Sheen issue. It seems that it was the Bishop of Peoria who is the one responsible for bringing the canonization process to a halt. The venerable remains of Bishop Sheen could be inspected etc in New York but apparently that is not enough (or desired) by Peoria. This is nuts! It is Medieval! With all the issues going on facing the world and the Church and this cannot be straightened out by the two ecclesiasts????
Botolph
Can one imagine the fuss, if Trier were to lay claim to the relics of St Ambrose of Milan, on the grounds that he was born there? Or if Smyrna were to claim the relics of St Irenaeus from Lyons?
The old calendars are full of feasts of the translation of this saint or that. Thus, one finds the feast of St Martin (a Scottish term day, “Martinmas”) on 11 November and the feast of his translation on 4 July. The dedication feast of Westminster Abbey is 13 October, the translation of St Edward the Confessor.
The history of how such relics were obtained is not always edifying. There is an intriguing story of how the relics of St Nicholas (Santa Claus), born in Patara and bishop of Myra in Cappadocia ended up in Bari; war between the Duchy of Apulia and the Most Serene Republic was only narrowly averted.
Mary De Voe wrote, “Saint Patrick’s name as St. Partick’s name belongs to the Catholic Church and no one else.”
But the Cathedral St Patrick built in Armagh in Ulster belongs to the Church of Ireland (Anglican), so the Dean and Chapter might dispute your point. They were incorporated by a charter of Elizabeth I, procured by Lord Sussex, Lord Deputy of Ireland in 1560, “for the maintenance of the Protestant Reformed Religion, by law established.”
MPS
Yes, sadly I am aware of many of the stories of these ‘translations’ [not always done peacefully or even uprightly (some frankly were stolen!)] While the ‘cult of the saints’ has been part of our tradition from the beginning, and the veneration of their sacred remains cherished from earliest times [note well that there has never been a claim to have the ‘relics’ of the Virgin Mary], the focus on relics as sacred powerful things in an almost Indiana Jones mentality seems to have come relatively much later with the influx of various Germanic peoples into the Church
I just thought we had grown up more, to be frank. Stop the nonsense and let’s get on with Venerable Fulton J. Sheen’s canonization process!
Regarding the case of Venerable Archbishop Sheen, perhaps a solution
could be found in the Judgement of Solomon– perhaps the two dioceses
could share the relics by dividing them? That is certainly a solution the
Church has used in the past…
.
MPS, regarding your suggestion that the Vicar of Bray, er, the Cardinal
Archbishop of New York is acting on his conscience by remaining as Grand
Marshal of a parade that includes a homosexual advocacy group– I’m
at a loss to understand how his conscience could be demanding he not step
down. Your post seems to suggest that His Eminence’s well-formed
conscience could be demanding that he remain as Grand Marshal, scandal be
damned.
.
In short, I could see how stepping down could be due to the promptings of
His Eminence’s conscience. But how on earth could it violate the Cardinal’s
conscience — how could he believe it to be sinful— to resign as
Grand Marshal?
Great post!
Regarding Cardinal Dolan and the St. Patrick’s parade, I heard an interesting argument in his defense yesterday from Al Kresta on Ave Maria (EWTN) radio. I didn’t catch the entirety of the show but this is what I gathered:
Why should the Church, in essence, give up or concede its presence in an otherwise morally neutral event, in which the Church has participated for generations, just because a small fraction of the participants happen to be gays or gay activists? Apparently, the parade is not an official Archdiocesan event and the Cardinal no longer has control over who does and does not march (if indeed he ever did). The powers that be have decided to let the gay/lesbian group participate, but they are also willing to let the Church be represented as well. So does the Church have to “pick up its marbles and go home” or should the Cardinal stand his ground and say, we have just as much right to be here as they do?
If this event were a Gay Pride parade or a pro-choice march specifically intended to celebrate something inimical to the Catholic faith, then Kresta agreed that it would be wrong for the Cardinal or any Catholic to participate. But that is not the case here — the parade is a celebration of Irish-American heritage, of which the Church has long been a part.
Also, I note that holiday and civic parades usually attract a wide variety of groups that don’t always agree with one another — such as competing political candidates. If GOP Candidate X marches in a community parade several blocks behind Democratic Candidate Y, are we to assume that Candidate X endorses Candidate Y, or vice versa, merely because they are both in the same parade?
If the mere presence of a gay group at an otherwise neutral civic event requires Catholics to bow out, what kind of precedent does that set? Does this stance really maintain the moral integrity of the Church, or does it, in essence, allow us to be “bullied” out of the public square when we have as much right to be there as anyone else? It’s a question I think is worth considering.
Clinton wrote, “But how on earth could it violate the Cardinal’s conscience — how could he believe it to be sinful– to resign as Grand Marshal? But how on earth could it violate the Cardinal’s conscience — how could he believe it to be sinful– to resign as Grand Marshal?”
Well, to recur to my earlier example, in much the same way that Cardinal Fesch and M. Emery felt they should attend Napoléon’s wedding, whilst Cardinal della Somaglia felt that he should not.
As M. Emery put it, “Not that the inconveniences could authorise an attendance that was illicit, but these inconveniences are the strongest reason [une raison très-forte] to consider the more attentively whether it is possible, whether attending is really illicit and whether the conscience one has formed on that subject is not, perhaps, an erroneous conscience.”
The “inconveniences” are rather similar in the two cases: wounded feelings, disappointed expectations, indignation, or at least, displeasure provoked, the souring of relations, &c, &c.
“Why should the Church, in essence, give up or concede its presence in an otherwise morally neutral event, in which the Church has participated for generations, just because a small fraction of the participants happen to be gays or gay activists?”
Because it purportedly honors a Saint, and because the Archdiocese has always had a large role to play in it. Dolan has now cravenly allowed the gays to have yet another platform to convince people that their is nothing wrong with the intrinsically disordered lives they lead. Don’t think for a moment he did not sign off on this. I await with eager anticipation his reaction when the Satanists now cue up to join the march.
Elaine Krewer
A very interesting post.
I wonder how the parade organizers would respond to a request by the Orange Order, or the Apprentice Boys for a place in the parade?
If the parade is truly civic and non-sectarian, a celebration of Irish nationality, why should not the vibrant Loyalist tradition be represented?
Perhaps, it is. Does anyone know?
MPS: “But the Cathedral St Patrick built in Armagh in Ulster belongs to the Church of Ireland (Anglican), so the Dean and Chapter might dispute your point. They were incorporated by a charter of Elizabeth I, procured by Lord Sussex, Lord Deputy of Ireland in 1560, “for the maintenance of the Protestant Reformed Religion, by law established.”
.
Sadly the St. Patrick’s Cathedral built in Armagh by Saint Patrick has nothing to do with Saint Patrick’s sainthood.
[…] Msgr. Ch. Pope Samizdat: Here Is St. Patrick’s Parade Post by Msgr. Charles Pope – RC Cardinal Dolan: Company Man II – Donald R. McClarey JD, TACatholic Dolans Mendacious History – David Alexander, Man […]
As depressing as this news is: a Cardinal caving in to a homosexual group, agreeing to marshal what appears now to becoming a false parade, and a bait and switch over a future canonized saint, there is a silver lining…
The silver lining is that this putrid colored lampshade has been put on a pedestal for all to see.
[…] here to rest. Well, Dolan is clearly a Company Man. Go here and here for prior posts making that case. Whatever the boss wants is whatever Dolan will do. When […]