Bishop Dolan and the homo church or: when pious hopes are not enough.

Jesuit church of St. Francis Xavier, New York. Restoration works urgently needed.

If you wonder why this blog has so many Michael Voris videos, the answer is: because they are so good!

This one is rather shocking because it catches even Bishop Dolan (generally considered one of the good, if not of the very good) in a dangerous slip of – probably ill-advised – “diplomacy”.
As I have explained in the last entry about Michael Voris, the times when a Bishop could make such mistakes and get away with it are gone.

Bishop Dolan’s (referred) answer remains highly unsatisfactory not in its doctrinal basis (which is very sound) but in the implications about how able he is of sound judgment and, when necessary, tough love.

The truth is that the only thing coming out from St. Francis Xavier seems to be serial ambiguities (well they are Jesuites, aren’t they….) meant not to go in open conflict with the Bishop whilst at the same time giving an implied but still very clear support to the homosexual agenda. Just look at what they put in their internet site. The thin veil of not-openly-denied orthodoxy cannot conceal the scandal. This must be stopped.

The contrast with Courage (a thoroughly orthodox, highly commendable organisation) is rather impressive.

I do hope that Bishop Dolan will understand that a harder line needs to be taken here. There comes a point where the lie is so big that naivete in believing it is no less culpable than weakness in dealing with it.


Posted on July 31, 2010, in Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. It puzzles me as to why homosexuals want to be treated as different from other Catholics by having their own special Masses. Surely they want to be integrated into society and not be regarded as unusual?Why do they not just attend the ordinary Sunday Mass at their own parishes and there make the decision, according to their consciences, as to whether or not they feel able to receive communion? Is it really necessary for them to parade their sexuality so publically?

    There are other Catholics who have fallen foul of, or are opposed to, some of the Church’s teachings and who have to face the disapproval of the Church. Co-habiting couples, re-married divorcees, even couples practising contraception, face similar problems of being out of communion with the Church, but they don’t get their own special Masses, nor do they ask for them.

    The average congregation is made up of saints and sinners, and the sinners predominate, but nobody other than homosexuals are prepared to flaunt their sins so openly. The Bishops should not assist them to do so and these Masses should be stopped forthwith.

    • Misericordia,

      if you follow the link provided you’ll see that here (as in Soho) the game is a completely different one. What they say (in all possible ways sort of saying it openly) is that their inclination is all right, and what they do as a result of this inclination is concequently all right too.

      This goes through all they do and what they write. This is why they go to the damn pride thing, which is made to (as they say) “celebrate” homosexuality.

      If they wanted a place where they can get specific attention to their problem and help to deal with it in a Christian way, they’d go to Courage instead.

      These Jesuits do not cater to the need of redemption of homosexuals, they cater to their needs of self-justification. If you listen to the video, you’ll hear Michael Voris talking of the kind of kisses they exchange by the sign of peace, forcing people to leave the church.
      This in the church. In front of everyone. With the priest present.


  2. Dear Mundabor:

    Just a minor correction: the gentleman in question is Timothy Dolan, not “Nolan”. He was the Archbishop of our diocese before being transferred to New York.

    Sadly, but truthfully, he wasn’t much of an archbishop here. He was a politician more than anything else and while not antagonistic to the ancient Mass here he didn’t exactly encourage its use.

    A few years ago the fine priest who used to say the traditional Mass for us set up a Confirmation ceremony for the children of the families who attended. Bishop Dolan agreed to administer the sacrament. One week before the Confirmations were to take place he suddenly pulled out without an explanation. Our priest, who was (and is) well-known in Rome got on the phone with Jan Cardinal Schotte who agreed to fly in from Europe to do the Confirmations, which he did, beautifully. I have no doubt Dolan was a bit taken aback by this.

    The following year, when the next set of Confirmands were ready for the Sacrament, lo and behold Bishop Dolan came and gave the Sacrament! His method was anything but edifying but at least he showed up this time.

    But very litle was done by him to repair the damage brought about by the unspeakable Rembert Weakland, his predecessor. In fact, Dolan kept Weakland “on staff”, so to speak, even delegating tasks for him to perform when he himself was too busy. This was after, mind you, the horrible scandal about Weakland’s poofdom became public knowledge.

    Our new Bishop, Jerome Listecki, thus far is no great shakes. He, too, had the execrable taste to have the wretched Weakland at his installation ceremoney in Milwaukee. We’re hoping that he will begin to get serious soon and start sweeping some filth out of the local Church but only time will tell.

    And a question, please: are you the “mundabor” who used to contribute responses on Damian Thompson’s blog? If so, I am happy to be able to read you again.

    • Hello Schmenz and thanks for the correction, I apologise for the mistake (Nolan is a well-known Italian producer of helmets. For some strange reason I keep reading “Dolan” and writing “Nolan”.. :(..).

      It is sad to read that a bishop hailed as a good choice when appointed for New York (and I personally also remember him criticising Notre Dame University when they invited Obama) proves below expectation. It goes to show that Pope Benedict’s appointments are far from showing the courage wich would be necessary in the present circumstances. Wagner’s appointment and acceptance of his resignation after the Austrian protests immediately come to mind.

      Yes, I am “that” Mundabor and thank you for the nice words. Unfortunately, over there poofdom extends to the very editor of the place and this heavily colours the editorial line of the blog and, unavoidably, the moderation.


  3. To be fair, it’s not just on Damian’s blog that comments critical of homosexuality are deleted. I think that everything that’s reported gets looked at and is liable to be deleted; and if it’s critical of homosexuality the Telegraph moderators will treat it very strictly. I don’t think it’s directly anything to do with Damian. (And you did push things a bit.)

    I did a little experiment a few weeks ago. I wrote something anodyne, and reported myself. The comment was gone shortly after.

    • Damian is the editor of all the blog section, therefore it is no suprise that the same “lavender policy” applies to all blogs.
      Before he became the editor of all the blog section, such deletions did not happen. I know that because I know what I write 😉
      Protests against this “policy” are now, unsurprisingly, widespread through the “Telegraph” blogs.
      On other sites, expressions that get immediately deleted by the “Telegraph” go through without the slightest problem. That the moderators do not follow the editorial line is in my eyes just not credible.

      We’ll have to agree to disagree as to who pushed whom a bit, and more than a bit. It is clear to me that Damian had a policy of systematic mobbing away those who didn’t comply with his lavender approach to the issue.


%d bloggers like this: