Rorate Caeli

Timely!

Congratulations to the bishops of New York State for releasing a collective letter against the approval of "same-sex marriage" after its actual approval by the legislature and at about the same time the self-declared Catholic governor was proudly signing it into law.

Yes, it is said that the Metropolitan Archbishop fought against it - but one wonders if these things would move forward if Bishops acted towards Catholic politicians with at least half the vehemence with which Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II acted towards Archbishop M. Lefebvre - or with the same "love" which some of them still dedicate to Traditional-minded Catholics in their respective dioceses... Or will priests and bishops in New York be any less inclined to fawn over Catholic Assembly Members and Senators who voted for this abomination, and the Governor who signed it, when they meet and greet them, in parish halls, cocktail parties, and dinners?  Will priests and lay faithful who publicly celebrate this abomination be punished or warned? And so continues this disconnect between what the Church says and how her representatives act, as if what they said had no influence on how they behave: to those on the outside, it all looks like a farcical act.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Reminds me of the Raymond Gravel case here in Canada. The papal nuncio waited until he had been nominated as a party candidate for election before announcing that he had no permission from the Holy See to do so. It's the oldest trick in the book.

P.K.T.P.

Jack said...

What are the Bishops of New York State doing to make divorce between heterosexuals difficult to get and remarriage almost impossible? I mean at civil law.

As long as the Church tolerates this abuse of marriage in civil law, she is in no position to condemn others.

pclaudel said...

As New Catholic's questions suggest, the timing of the bishops' letter suggests any of a number of things, none of them consistent with perennial Catholic teaching or even a minimal standard of Catholic fortitude. Noteworthy by its absence is any reference to the popular will—that great American (and Americanist) universal solvent that the bishops, good Americans (and Americanists) all, frequently appeal to as a frustrating example of a force that ties their hands.

Alas, in this instance the popular will—as calculated in good old head counts—only serves to increase the gravity of New Catholic's implicit indictment of these recreants. Just like the media, which have been leading the cheers for the passage of this abomination, the bishops know full well that, outside the People's Republic of Massachusetts, no poll (or to speak more accurately, none of which I am aware) of any state's citizens has ever demonstrated the support of a clear majority for recognition of sodomite "marriage." Even some lay adherents of the conciliar church who wink at abortion on demand draw the line at this particular bit of degeneracy.

The bishops know full well that powerful non- and anti-Catholic interest groups—groups to which they are beholden and in whose good graces they wish to remain—have pushed aggressively for passage of the New York State bill and for similar others both passed and still unpassed. Mention of the violence this and so much other legislation does to the democratic fiction of elected officials' devotion to the needs and desires of the mugs and stooges who elected them would merely muddy the waters and poison the wells. Better to keep the many in the dark—dark being the preferred illumination level for watching one's 72-inch HDTV.

Indeed, in this regard and this regard only, one might take some small comfort from the bishops' spinelessness, since any repudiation, no matter how tentative or implicit, of the absurd notion that vox populi and vox Dei are one and the same thing is cause, if not for rejoicing, at least for a grim smile through tears of rage.

May Our Blessed Lord, who performed his first public miracle at the wedding feast of Cana, see fit to show the bishops the full extent of their peril and ours.

Anonymous said...

(1)Archbishop Timothy Dolan at the 2011 Midnight Mass in St. Patrick's Cathedral warmly greeted Governor Andrew Cuomo and HUGGED his live-in girlfriend (this was part of the entrance processional which has come to resemble a political rally under Cardinal O'Connor and Archbishop Dolan).

(2) The Catholic Church in New York State has come to rely on State funding of Catholic schools and hospitals and other institutions. Can you ever imagine this scenario: the Archbishop of New York meeting Cuomo in Albany and saying, "Hello Governor. The Church needs tens of millions of dollars in fiscal assistance for our schools and hospitals. Oh, and by the way: since you support abortion and homosexual 'marriage' you will not be able to receive Holy Communion."

Our bishops are in the tank with the politicians -- no matter what their "public" comments. Money has corrupted the Church they have led into and sustain in chaos.

Anonymous said...

The Catholics, so-called, who allowed this travesty to become "law" should be excommunicated at once. Otherwise, the Church is to be seen speaking out of both sides of its mouth - a practice most often associated with politicians.

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Tom said...

Yes, it reminds me of Cardinal Mahony's response to Prop 8 here in California. He condemned gay marriage with a public statement AFTER the people of California had voted to protect marriage. If he said anything before the election it was muted and confusing.

That said, Abp Dolan is to be commended for what he did do in this case.

Anonymous said...

ABp Dolan's advocacy against the bill was genuine and admirable. However, ultimately there need to be consequences for those Catholics who undermine Catholic teaching by passing this legislation.

They have long since rationalized it in their own minds. Excommunication, or at least denial of Communion, would seem appropriate.

Hope Springs Eternal said...

Check out Father Michael Rodriguez in El Paso, TX who spoke in front of the city council to remind them of Church teaching on the matter of homosexuality! And who do you think questioned his motives? A baptized Catholic, of course!

http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2011/06/we-need-more-priests-like-this.html

Anonymous said...

To the Anonymous above who praised Archbishop Dolan's "admirable" opposition:

Actions speak more loudly than words.

Anonymous said...

IT has passes! SO what are the bishops going to do, EXCOMMUNICATE THE SO CALLED CATHOLIC GOVERNOR an LEGISLATORS.
I think not. After all Vac ii won't dare let them.

Louis E. said...

As a lifelong New Yorker who,despite not being religious,refuses to ever marry within this state while SSM remains legal,I believe there should be a concerted effort by SSM opponents to disengage from the marriage process of SSM-recognizing states.

If at all possible,MOVE YOUR WEDDINGS to states where SSM remains illegal,the SSM supporters claim that same-sex weddings will be a boon to a local economy but if a state loses a sufficient fraction of opposite-sex weddings this argument is destroyed.

If religious,DO NOT CIVILLY REGISTER your marriages...remain single in the eyes of man's law because it has lost the right to your respect,just have your religious ceremony.

Be loud and public about doing these things.

Jack said...

\\1)Archbishop Timothy Dolan at the 2011 Midnight Mass in St. Patrick's Cathedral warmly greeted Governor Andrew Cuomo and HUGGED his live-in girlfriend (this was part of the entrance processional which has come to resemble a political rally under Cardinal O'Connor and Archbishop Dolan).
\\

Was the Archbishop supposed to spit in their faces instead?

The errant sheep are part of the shepherd's flock, too.

Anonymous said...

Jack

Does your last name contain 3 letters beginning with "a"?

R U the guy who's been asked several times about your advocacy of a liberal liturgist?

Why r u here?

Dolan could have greeted these "sheep" (who act as if they are in no need of shepherds) with the demeanor which bespeaks the dignity of his office -- and not the emoting "hugs and kisses" of a media sycophant.

Jordanes551 said...

No, not spit in their faces, Jack. But you know what he was supposed to do, and not supposed to do. Errant sheep who knowingly flout God's laws and/or work to overturn them should not be warmly given a special Mass in their honor.

If religious,DO NOT CIVILLY REGISTER your marriages...remain single in the eyes of man's law because it has lost the right to your respect,just have your religious ceremony.

The thought is well intentioned, but I'm not sure that is proper response. Civil registration of marriage involves both legal permission for a particular couple to marry and permission for a minister to conduct that couple's ceremony and solemnise the marriage. Failure to publicly state one's intention to marry in accordance with society's agreed procedures, besides being, as far as I can tell, an offense against natural law, would deprive the minister of his legal right to conduct the marriage, making him complicit in an act contrary to law. Is that really the hill we want our clergy to die on?

Dan said...

Speaking here from the environs of Milwaukee, where Archbishop Dolan once reigned, and in watching with interest his subsequent actions in New York, I am actually amazed that he did as much as he did, which was, as usual, too little too late. But I suppose something is better than nothing? Here in Milwaukee he was not much more than a politician, telling whatever crowd he was addressing the things they wanted to hear.

He was not antagonistic to the traditional Mass, like his predecessor, the unspeakable Rembert Weakland, but he did try (so far successfully) to ghettoize it in one parish, like many other Bishops are doing. He gave mild support to the anti abortion forces. Little else, I'm afraid. About the best that could be said about him is that he was better than Weakland.

In New York he has aleady done some highly questionable things vis-a-vis organized buggery, notably his tolerance (thus far) of homo-friendly parishes and "masses", etc. I did not know he embraced Cuomo and his current squeeze at St Patrick's but I'm not at all surprised. Very typical of him. He even had Mr Weakland by his side at his Milwaukee installation - as did, by the way, the current politician here in Milwaukee, Bishop Listecki.

These are the kinds of people that the Pope keeps sending to us beleagured Catholics and so it is no wonder that these atrocities like sodomarriage get passed by venal and corrupt politicians. Isn't there at least one Mindszenty lurking about in the Church that Benedict could send to the US?

Anonymous said...

We need to pray for our bishops and elected officials. Those officials who are Catholic and those who are not.
The Roman empire fell because it had lost all of its family values, promoted abortion, same sex unions, fornication, etc. We need to pray for our country and write to our bishops and with Catholic charity and firmness ask them to help us become a HOLY people and nation, to "Be not afriad" and let the Holy Spirit guide them in Truth and for Truth.

Anonymous said...

What happens next............there are many people who love their mothers proably more than some love their spouses are we then going to say a son may marry his mother. Laughing don't, many thought two men married or two woman married was absurd, now look.

Gratias said...

The NY bishops are not exactly profiles in courage.

One would think they would have learned after the damage that homosexuals in the seminary did to the Church. Very sad. The Mormons put up much more of a fight during the Proposition 8 election here in California.

Anonymous said...

I am so ashamed to be Catholic a New Yorker. Timothy Dolan offered only mild criticism of this abomination if we look back at the resistance his predecessors carried on against Gay rights legislation when that was on the agenda. As for Cuomo, why isn't he publicly ex-communicated. My wife and I are thinking about attending the local SSPX mass on a regular basis at least until people like Cuomo, Pelosi and Carolyn Kennedy are excommunicated and publicly outed as non-Catholics. We have to do something for the sake of our children.

Anonymous said...

This is as timely as the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary!

Anonymous said...

Jack asks:

"Was the Archbishop supposed to spit in their faces instead?"

No, he was supposed to drive them out of the church with a whip.

And your suggestion that the Church cannoto oppose inverted marriage without railing against divorce is risible. One is not forbidden from opposing one error unless one engages in an obviously-fruitless campaing to oppose another. Try reading up on basic principles of Moral Law before shooting your mouth off.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes's comments on marriage really make one wonder where he is coming from. In fact, one legitimate strategy would be for the Church to refuse to inform the civil authorities of real Catholic marriages so as to be completely dissociated from the direct evil of inverted marriage. In law, the real marriages would be 'counted' as 'common law marriages' in time (two years here).

The State has no right in Natural Law to invert marriage; only a duty to foster true marriage and the family. Had the bishops removed Catholic marriage from civil law, it would have been a way for her to throw down the gauntlet against the miscreants out there, people such as Cuomo, Pelosi, and Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The alternative is to lie down and die. Our bishops are only too willing to do that because they wish to ingratiate themselves wtih the rulers of this world. Who knows? Some of that lovely lovely secular power just might rub off on them.

We are descending into a black age and courageous Lefebvre-like leadership is needed, not more compromise with evil. What we have are bishops who preach and whine and then wine and dine.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Wake up, people. In California, there are pseudo-Catholic hospitals which deliver babies prematurely, to kill them, so as to get around the abortion restriction. Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, the bishops have capitulated on 'emergency contraception' (Plan D or whatever), which is, in fact, not contraception at all but an abortifacient. There are murderers and those complicit in murder.

So leading bishops are already looking the other way while children are being murdered in their own hospitals. They are not bishops but jackals.

Again, I ask everyone to pray that the Pope will just recognise publicly and at law (not in private letters signed by a Commission secretary) that Society Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation. That's all. No ordinariate is needed and perhaps this is the wrong time for it after all. As we descend into hell-on-earth, some of us will need to repair to S.S.P. chapels; others will have other traditional choices. But we need all the oases we can find as the storm breaks on Christendom.

What I see ahead includes the following: the legalisation of euthanasia and plural marriage, inverted marriage everywhere, rejection of all physicians who refuse to co-operate in abortions, even the Bible declared as 'hate literture' and banned, forced indoctraination of all children to make them tolerant of aberrent behaviour. Etcetera. The sky's the limit.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes551 said...

In fact, one legitimate strategy would be for the Church to refuse to inform the civil authorities of real Catholic marriages so as to be completely dissociated from the direct evil of inverted marriage. In law, the real marriages would be 'counted' as 'common law marriages' in time (two years here).

Again, I'm not sure that is an appropriate response, nor one that would accomplish anything except introduce various needless potential legal hassles for Catholic couples. If a state illegitimately and disgustingly declares that sodomitic couplings are marriages, why should Christians refuse to obey legitimate and sensible marriage regulations? And if this is the appropriate route to take in response to this outrage, why wasn't it appropriate to do so when the state introduced the divorce and pseudo-remarriage of divorced persons? Compare abortion -- should a Catholic decline to serve on a jury at a murder trial so long as the government allows the twistedly gruesome murder of unborn children? That's an acceptable response, but it doesn't seem an obligatory one to me. I like the proposal of refusing to have one's marriage in New York, but simply refusing to obtain society's permission to marry doesn't strike me as an effective strategy.

Louis E. said...

Treating an official institution that accords same-sex couples the same rights as a legitimate form of marriage aids in that institution's undeserved success.Opponents of same-sex marriage should be unafraid to remain single in the eyes of the civil law until they can have their marriage solemnized in a jurisdiction,no matter how far from home,that bars same-sex couples from eligibility...they can be married in the eyes of God wherever they please.

Jordanes551 said...

The "institution" you're talking about is the state. I would be curious to see how your proposal might be show to mesh with St. Paul's instructions in Romans 13 to submit to the civil authorities since their authority is of divine origin, and therefore to render tribute to whom tribute is due. . . . The pagan Roman Empire allowed and required things about as bad if not worse than the sodomitic imitation of marriage.

Louis E. said...

The "institution" I refer to is marriage as recognized by the state.If the state has become so blind that it can't tell a marriage from a same-sex sexual relationship,its opinion on whether people are married has become worthless.