Sunday, September 07, 2014

Catholic church bullied into silence on Catholic moral teachings

A day after the New York City St. Patrick’s Day Parade announced a step toward LGBT inclusion, a pastor at the Archdiocese of Washington said that it is time to end such events altogether as they have been “hijacked.”

Instead of wearing green and attending St. Patrick’s Day celebrations, Monsignor Charles Pope, said Catholics should “enter their churches and get down on their knees on St. Patrick’s Day to pray in reparation for the foolishness, and to pray for this confused world to return to its senses.”

The statements were published on Pope’s designated blog on the Archdiocese of Washington’s website, but the post was apparently removed from the site shortly after BuzzFeed inquired about the post to a spokesperson. The original link to the post now leads to an error page.

“Now the St. Patrick’s Parade is becoming of parade of disorder, chaos, and fake unity,” Pope wrote in the blog post. “Let’s be honest: St. Patrick’s Day nationally has become a disgraceful display of drunkenness and foolishness in the middle of Lent that more often embarrasses the memory of Patrick than honors it.”

Pope also decried the Al Smith Dinner Memorial Foundation Dinner as “a night of frivolity.” Additionally, he said attendees celebrate along “with those who think it is acceptable to abort children by the millions each year, with those who think anal sex is to be celebrated as an expression of love and that LGBTQIA… (I=intersexual, A= Asexual) is actually a form of sanity to which we should tip our hat, and with those who stand four-square against us over religious liberty.”



Anonymous said...

Did the Catholic rep also mention the disorder and depravity of RC priests molesting children in so many countries for so many years, and the way the RC Church covered it up (illegally)? And haven't many Catholics resorted to anal sex because the RC Church forbids birth-control?
The RC Church should pay more attention to the passages in its own Bible about priestly hypocrisy and "throwing stones"!

Anonymous said...

"religious liberty" does not mean the liberty or right to undermine the rights and liberties of other citizens in living their lives with equivalent freedom and liberty under the law of the land, or to seek to prevent these other citizens campaigning legally to improve their democratic rights and freedoms!

slinky said...

I was a Catholic until I reached the age of reason.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:21 --

A) You realize of course that such molesting was going on in public schools and non-Catholic churches at the same time and were often handled in the same sort of fashion.

B) No, many Catholics have NOT resorted to anal sex because of the Churches position on birth control.

C) The Catholic church is like many other Christian denominations, they don't express themselves as being perfect people living a life everyone should emulate, they express the fact they they realize they are sinners needing forgiveness and redemption. Part of that is helping people to recognize sin when they come across it, doing that is not throwing stones or hypocrisy.

Anon 1:41 -- Rights and liberty are not standalone concepts, they are balanced by responsibility and civility. Without the balancing factors neither truly exist. But speaking of undermining the freedom and liberty of others why do the queers demand that the Catholic Church who is sponsoring those parades include messages completely contrary to the teachings of those sponsors?

That seems to be much more of an attempt to deny liberty and rights than the sponsors denying those queers a place in the parade.

Anon 6:24 -- I was never a Catholic but have learned over the years to appreciate the stand of the Catholic Church on their moral issues even when I actually disagree with their stance.

Anonymous said...

Let's face it, the modern free world is starting to look more and more like Sodom and Gomorrah every day with the US leading the way.

Anonymous said...

2:28 you are just making excuses for Catholics in general instead of dealing with the case in question here; and in pointing out that others are as bad or worse is called the "hypocrisy fallacy".
PS. "Many" doesn't mean "most" or "a majority".
PPS. I'm sure you'd be happy for Muslims to help you realize how misguided you are in not following their beliefs.

Anonymous said...

2:28 PM You choose to refer to your fellow citizens who are homosexual only by the deliberately disparaging term "queers" - so much for your morals (Christian or otherwise)!

Anonymous said...

2:28 Please tell me about any Gay Pride Parade that has denied (or suggested denying) the participation of a Catholic or Christian group. In fact I have seen a Gay Pride Parade in Copenhagen with a contingent of "gay christians" in it, though how they can stomach the bigotry of so many co-religionists amazes me. Perhaps that's the "hope" part of "faith, hope and charity", that there may be more charity from other christians in that supposedly christian message.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:48 -- I was pointing out that there was a general problem with child molestation in that age of society as a whole and not one solely contained in the Catholic Church as Anon 1:21 implied.

You however ignored the fact that his post on such molestations had nothing to do with the moral stand of the church which has always stood against such acts, even if they way they handled them was ineffective.

"Many" was used to imply a large percentage when "some" would have been much more truthful.

The Muslims would put all such openly homosexual men to death, never minding the fact that some of their societies (Afghanistan) have been practicing such while calling it something else entirely (a practice that seems to have been going on since the ancient Greek influence was spread into that area by Alexander).

Anon 7:26 -- "Queer" is a label sometimes embraced (Queer Nation comes to mind) and sometimes rejected by the homosexuals (you , I'd surmise though it's quite possible you are yet another asshole assuming offense on the behalf of others who are quite capable of saying on their own what is or is not offensive), the assumption it is disparaging is yours. It is a word that identifies and I prefer using it over "gay" which was never an appropriate choice even though it seems to be completely bastardized now by that usage. However, I will move to the standard fallback of "homosexuals" which is probably most appropriate.

Anon 2:00 --- Show me where the Catholic Church has asked to participate in any of those Gay Pride parades. You can't of course, they can't be denied when they don't ask.

On the other hand what about the crude and ugly invasion of some Catholic services that a few of those homosexuals felt compelled to do? Is that defensible in your mind?

Coming out of their closet is one thing, trying to step into every other closet is another. That is what the article is truly about.

Anonymous said...

@ 11:43 - As well as being very rude (calling fellow posters here "assholes"), you are also dishonest as nobody is fooled that you didn't use the term "queers" in any way but as a disparaging term to reflect your own bigotry towards homosexuals, and it's disingenuous to imply you used it because some gay activists have tried to neutralize the negative term by embracing it themselves.

In view of the huge global population of Roman Catholics, even a small percentage would be "many" people.

If I am getting "offended" on behalf of "gays", then you are too on behalf of Catholics.

You are almost using the "No True Scotsman (or Catholic) fallacy, in excusing what RC priests and the institution does in relation to the Church's official principles/dogmas.

The reference to Muslims was not about their attitude to homosexuality but about how you would welcome people telling you that you were sinful according to their beliefs rather than your own.

You again use the "hypocrisy fallacy" now about some activisits invading Catholic meetings, when some Christian activists rudely invade gay events and atheist meetings. It is obvious that homosexuals or gay groups wouldn't care less about what Catholic or Christians do among themselves but when they (including the corrupt Vatican) go on the offensive (very offensively) about gays, what do you expect gays to do - some of them have balls!

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:51 -- You repeatedly show no ability to comprehend what you read.

Anonymous said...

@ 2:07/11:43 - Your "hit & run" comment suggests you have no effective counter-arguments, or you are just very lazy. Either way your comment is as deceitful as it is rude and ignorant!

Bird of Paradise said...

The Big Rotten Apple and the District of Crinimals are Sodum & gemorrha of the east coast

Anonymous said...

Is the St.Patrick's Day parade only under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church? If not then it is only their opinion as to who should particiate,and if the actual sponsors and organizers want to have gay groups or individuals, that it their prerogative.
The parade is in any case more about Irish heritage than it is about Roman Catholicism, and people of Irish descent obviously include gays, just as those participating in gay pride parades include some catholics, even if the prejudiced church authorities disapprove.