Milwaukee import Timothy Dolan today becomes the Archbishop of New York, reigning over a flock of parishioners four times the size he’s used to. So what do we know about the guy? He’s anti-stem cell research. He’s anti-abortion. And he’s anti-gay marriage. But he’s not anti-gay. Huh?
The illogical reasoning is one Dolan insists makes sense, but to our ears is akin to “I don’t want blacks and whites marrying, but I’m no racist.” THIS IS NOT A SOUND ARGUMENT.
Even still, local gay rights organizations are willing to extend an olive branch to the incoming religious leader. “My stance is one of conversation, not confrontation,” says Empire State Pride Agenda director Alan Van Capelle. “There are many core values that we share.”
Preaching hate? Not among them.
Adds Jeff Stone of gay Catholic organization Dignity/New York: “We need a leader who is a cardinal of all the people, including us.”
And if New York’s very present gay marriage debate doesn’t provide enough fodder, sports will: Dolan is a rabid Cardinals fan, which won’t go over well in Yankee/Mets territory.
Bullshit. Anyone who is anti-gay marriage is anti-gay. There is no sophistry.
And I’m not anti-Catholic, merely anti-Catholic church active in politics.
No representation without taxation.
TAX THE CHURCH!
Is it like a rule of the catholic church that all priests have to have a huge gut and be grossly out of shape? Aren’t there any younger, hotter priests who would present better to the public? I think that a set of ripped abs (or at least a flat gut) would be a powerful testimony and would help draw gays to hear the catholic message. Also, this new guy has a bit of a ruddy complexion to him–kind of like….the alcohol-induced type. We’ve all known priests who drank too much, but my question is whether it is in the best interests of the public image of the church to put a priest like this in such a high-profile, high-visibility position? Why can’t they get some hotter, younger priests who relate better to young, attractive parishoners?
This fat, stupid, white, bigot needs a smite! Is anyone disgusted with religious zealots imposing their disgusting morals, through law, into our private lives?
We need to destroy religion!
He’s just worried about the diminishing role of the Catholic Church in a wolrd being taken over by the gays! The RC church has always been about control, power, money. Nothing else. Save for some very good individuals like Mother Theresa.
kevin (not that one)
In their dogmatic approach, Catholic priests are without exception anti-marriage, since only those with uncontrollable urges should marry – although it comes with a life full of anxieties and distractions.
The Catholic eunichs take literally the Apostle Paul when he says in 1 Corinthians:
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. 9 But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. (This last bit is actually biblical case FOR same-sex marriage, btw.)
25 Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as you are. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin. Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that.
32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband.
Considering how inflamed with passions are most of the priests who act out their sexual urges with younger members of their congregations, the Catholic priesthood’s celibacy itself seems to be the driving force behind their sexual abuse scandals.
But the other part of these sayings is that the Apostle Paul believed that the End Times were right around the corner, and so he called on people to not change anything about their current situation – but rather to focus on the coming of the Lord. However, he was wrong about the “impending crisis”, just as the Catholic priesthood is wrong about their views on marriage, celibacy, the ordination of women, and gay people.
This view on celibacy and marriage is a prime example of how the Catholic tradition is completely out of touch with the world as it is…and it’s not just on the subject of homosexuality.
Who cares what catholics think, anyway?
Love the ignorant; hate the ignorance!
Is it like a rule of the catholic church that all priests have to have a huge gut and be grossly out of shape?
Tell me about it! I thought gluttony was a sin. When I was a kid, the priest at our church was so huge, they had to widen the door to his rectory, so he could fit through it. Yet he preached about how gays were abusing our bodies, so God sent AIDS to punish us for defiling our “temples”?
Catholicism has been on the wrong side of every argument since they persecuted Galileo for stating the world orbited around the sun.
Look, I know it’s awful that so many people oppose gay marriage, but this calling everyone who doesn’t support it a bigot or a homophobe holds NO WATER when not one single gay blog (including Queerty) would ever call Obama a bigot for his opposition to marriage. It’s a glaring hypocrisy and it’s starting to grate. Obama supports civil unions, adoption, repealing DADT, repealing DOMA, etc. – if this Archbishop supports all of this, too, but still opposes same sex marriage then he is not a bigot, at all.
@CitizenGeek: The Catholic Church and its clerics oppose domestic partnerships, civil unions, gay adoptions and any legitimization of homosexuality. They’re not equivalent to President Obama at all.
well, i really don’t care about these ministers’ weight(!)
These men are just blinded by bigotry. Marriage is a sacrament there is nothing in the bible to justify denying it to LGBT people. Don’t they have better issues to worry about like hunger and poverty (Reverend Al Sharpton posed that question) why are they spending so much time and money that would be better spent on the needy to stop adults in loving relationship from sanctifying their love?
@CitizenGeek: You’re wrong. Obama does support gay marriage, but he hasn’t publicly declared his support.
FYI. A catholic priest who preaches homophobic lies, and is against gay marriage is a bigot. He is also a religious zealot.
You maybe one yourself!
Catholocism sucks, and needs to be destroyed!
@Flex: “Obama does support gay marriage, but he hasn’t publicly declared his support.”
A lot of good that does us. Please. Unless he says so and does something about it, that “he supports it in his heart…” bull holds no water.
@Brianna: Your posts are always negative.
If it bothers you, why keep reading?
Mark in Indiana
I’d like to see actual proof of your statement that Obama supports gay marriage. If he does, then he has publicly lied in various statements, forums, speeches, etc.
If the President is a liar, that’s something we all need to know.
@Mark in Indiana: I’ve noticed some conflicting statements. He has stated, repeatedy, that he does not support same-sex marriage, but he also distributed a letter to a CA gay rights group congratulating newly married couples in the summer of 2008, and he appears to favor repealing DOMA so that the federal government will recognize marriages perfomed in states that have marriage equality. But he’s a politician, what did you expect?
Queerty posted an article on Obama supporting same sex marriage. He answered a questionnaire in 1996 when he ran for Illinois State Senate saying he supports it. So, yes, he has lied since he has said he believes marriage is only between a man and a woman and he does not support same sex marriage. So either he lied in 1996 or he is lying now..either way, a liar is a liar….and thank you Queerty for bringing it to our attention. Obama now uses the false argument that he supports federal civil unions but he opposes abolishing the “incidents of marriage” of provision of DOMA. Thus, with that provision in place, the federal civil unions legislation is a nullity. Again, so much for “change we can believe in”.
The Catholic Church’s orthodoxy is they love us, even as homosexuals..provided we remain celibate..you know just like the priests…..for those that don’t see the dripping sarcasm in that one..it is said with extreme sarcasm.
I have always said that if Jesus Christ came back He would be look at all organized religion and say that is not what I intended with all the gold, ornate buildings, etc…when he preached “show mercy, do justice, walk humbly with thy God and help the least amongst us”….no where does it say unless you are Gay….Jesus hung out with least amongst us from lepers to prostitutes.
I am a Roman Catholic…and I really don’t much for such organized hierachy…I rather look to the tenets of Jesus Christ then what a politician from the Catholic Church hierarchy says.
@Slider: Obama now uses the false argument that he supports federal civil unions but he opposes abolishing the “incidents of marriage” of provision of DOMA.
There’s no such language in DOMA. That was proposed language in the federal marriage amendment, which President Obama opposed.
With all due respect…try reading DOMA and it indicates and has been interpreted that the federal government shall not recognize same sex relationships as marriage. Therefore, if there is a federal civil unions law that provides the same rights as marriage, it has been determined that would violate DOMA and constitute as being “the incidents of marriage” and thus not valid. The bottom line is Obama has lied regardless of how one interprets DOMA. In 1996, Obama said he was for same sex marriage and in running for President he said he has never supported same sex marriage and doesn’t believe in it. So much for “change we can believe in”.
@Slider: If the federal government passes a civil unions law, they’d implicitly overwrite any prior statutes that prohibited recognition of same-sex relationships. That interpretation is just silly; that’s not how the legislative process works. A more specific, later in time statute controls. DOMA is not a constitutional amendment and Congress can repeal it explicitly or by implication, by providing for civil unions and federal recognition of unions performed in the various states.
Criticize Obama all you like on his marriage stance, but your conclusions with respect to civil unions are legally incorrect.
Alec, good to see that you are sound in your legal arguments and because you say so, it is the law? Maybe you should check out what legal scholars have said about it. Just maybe…but once again, you miss the forest between the trees which is Obama lied once again. nothing new there. Be an apologist all you want for him but the facts remain he lied.
Alec, you might also know that DOMA would have to be repealed and would be in conflict with your line of reasoning..but hey, you are the law so we must abide by what you say. Sort of like Obama..he says so, so we must believe him….he is more and more like good old GWB every day…..good to see you enjoy the kool aid.
@Slider: Whatever. Where statutes conflict the later in time, more specific statute will control barring something very unusual. This doesn’t have anything to do with what I “believe” about Obama, just the nature of the legislative process.
Yeah and I barely ever post.
I am a gay, Roman Catholic. The Church does teach for others to respect and show compassion towards homosexuals. However, the Church does not condone homosexual acts, and the Church encourages all homosexuals to be celibate.
Comments are closed.