From Cardinal Dolan's website.
I did not oppose the former policy; nor did I push, condone, or oppose the new one. While the Parade committee was considerate in advising me of the change, they did not ask my approval, nor did they need to.
Thank you for letting me know of such concerns. I share some of them.
However, the most important question I had to ask myself was this: does the new policy violate Catholic faith or morals? If it does, then the Committee has compromised the integrity of the Parade, and I must object and refuse to participate or support it.
From my review, it does not. Catholic teaching is clear: “being Gay” is not a sin, nor contrary to God’s revealed morals. Homosexual actions are—as are any sexual relations outside of the lifelong, faithful, loving, lifegiving bond of a man and woman in marriage—a moral teaching grounded in the Bible, reflected in nature, and faithfully taught by the Church.
So, while actions are immoral, identity is not! In fact, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us, people with same-sex attraction are God’s children, deserving dignity and respect, never to be treated with discrimination or injustice.
To the point: the committee’s decision allows a group to publicize its identity, not promote actions contrary to the values of the Church that are such an essential part of Irish culture. I have been assured that the new group marching is not promoting an agenda contrary to Church teaching, but simply identifying themselves as “Gay people of Irish ancestry.”
If the Parade Committee allowed a group to publicize its advocacy of any actions contrary to Church teaching, I’d object. As Cardinal John O’Connor remarked, we do not change the Creed—and I’d add, the Ten Commandments—to satisfy political correctness.
In fact, the leaders of the Parade Committee tried to be admirably sensitive to Church teaching. They worried that the former policy was being interpreted as bias, exclusion, and discrimination against a group in our city, which, if true, would also be contrary to Church teaching. While they were quick to acknowledge that, in reality, the policy was not unfair at all, they were also realistic in worrying that the public perception was the opposite, no matter how often they tried to explain its coherence and fairness.
I found their sensitivity wise, and publicly said so.
If, in doing so, I have shown an insensitivity to you, I apologize. - Cardinal Dolan
Works for me. Kinda.
Monsignor Pope has a great post today entitled: Homosexual Acts Cannot Be Approved or Celebrated By the Church and Here's Why. Monsignor's post is very good instruction BTW - it would be good to bookmark and keep for future reference - I think you're going to need it.
If I may, I'd like to suggest that a limited or incomplete emphasis on 'homosexual acts' alone leads to this: Gay in Christ: Dimensions in Fidelity. Not that that there is necessarily anything wrong with that...
It's just that fuzzy thinking can lead to fuzzy points of view - sort of like cataracts. A sort of spiritual macular degeneration can occur, frequently more common in the aging, but it can happen at any age - even after corrective
On the question of homosexual unions, legalized by the Brazilian Supreme Court in 2011, Cardinal Damasceno Assis is quoted as saying,
Yeah. So otherwise I have nothing to say.
Trivia: Know how to say Dolan's name with a Boston accent? Cad-nel Dho-lun.
I never thought of gay as happy,
much less an identity.