The usual suspects:
LifeSiteNews reported Jan. 25 that seven bishops and one cardinal had signed a statement in partnership with the pro-homosexual advocacy group Tyler Clementi Foundation in support of young people who identify as LGBT. Since this report, four more bishops have been added along with the Ursuline Sisters of Louisville. The list of one cardinal and 11 bishops who support the statement are the following (names in bold are newly added):
- Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin
- Archbishop John C. Wester
- Bishop Steven Biegler
- Bishop John P. Dolan
- Bishop Thomas Gumbleton (retired)
- Bishop Joseph R. Kopacz
- Bishop Robert McElroy
- Bishop Denis Madden (retired)
- Bishop Ricardo Ramirez (retired)
- Bishop John Stowe
- Bishop Anthony B. Taylor
- Bishop Edward Weisenburger
The Ursuline Sisters of Louisville, an order originally founded by Italian Saint Angela Merici, added their names to the statement on Feb. 5.
“We, the leadership of the Ursuline Sisters of Louisville, support the recent statement, ‘God Is On Your Side,’ by twelve U.S. Catholic Bishops in support of at-risk LGBT youth and the work of the Tyler Clementi Foundation,” the sisters stated in a press release. “LGBT youth are children of God, created by God and loved by God. We stand in solidarity with them.”
Go here to read the rest. The mendacity is nauseating. Imagine the reaction if a statement was issued by any clergy stating: Racist youth are children of God, created by God and loved by God. We stand in solidarity with them. We are all children of God which gives no excuse for the sins we embrace, no matter how politically popular or unpopular they are. Sin remains sin no matter what numbers of people embrace a particular sin.
Active homosexual clergy acting on conscience.
(Deep down they know homosexual acts are wrong, their motive in teaching it’s ok is their conscience.)
The Clementis as people are rather less vindictive than the median. The fact remains, however, that they did not object when the State of New Jersey filed criminal charges against another family’s son and a different family’s daughter for making fun of their son. Their son was emotionally fragile and committed suicide. It’s not quite known why he did this (his homosexuality was not concealed; a copybook he was keeping in longhand was concealed from the family and the court by the local police and prosecutors); it is known that he did it quite impulsively (he’d actually grabbed dinner before driving to the GW bridge and jumping off). Note, ‘ere he committed suicide, residential life apparatchiks at Rutgers had already agreed to transfer him to a single-occupancy room and had already dressed down his room-mate. Dharun Ravi, Molly Wei, and the gaggle of girls in Molly Wei’s dorm room may have been late-adolescent sh!ts, being a late-adolescent sh!t is not a criminal offense and shouldn’t be made into one because liberals have male homosexuals as their preferred mascot group. The prosecutor found among the burgesses of Middlesex County NJ a dozen fools to participate in her vicious project (which threatened young Mr. Ravi with a multi-year prison sentence and deportation for installing a web cam on his own computer in his own dorm room); Mr. Ravi was fortunate to have a judge who made use of the discretion New Jersey law allows to dismiss the salient charges. Mrs. Clementi’s reaction to this sequence of events was to quit her useful job, inveigle her 26 year old bachelor son into putting aside any career plans, and set up a witless NGO devoted to campaigning against ‘bullying’. Her son was never bullied; he was held up to ridicule consequent to inviting a sketchy character into his dorm room for sexual assignations. Instead of doing useful work (she was a nurse, her husband a civil engineer) and encouraging her remaining sons to do useful work, she embarks on this exercise. Instead of asking herself how it was that the intramural dynamics of their household were such that two of her three sons landed in the gay box, she’s on a crusade inspired by the notion that a claque of youths in a dormitory at Rutgers were Very Bad People for regarding her son as risible rather than Special. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that a mess of clergymen sign on to her Kool-Aid peddling rather than telling her that the pathos in regard to her son isn’t a proper inspiration for moral instruction or public policy.
A solid list of ambassadors to the Church from the spirit of the age.
What does the group do or say that is opposed to Church teaching? I mean, they could be heretical and awful; I’d never heard of them before, and who knows how bad they might be. But their website describes their group as “anti-bullying”, and I don’t see anything in the group’s description or the Bishops’ statement that seems wrong.
Their stance has zip to do with anti-bullying and everything thing to do with being pro-homosexual.
I’m not saying I trust the bishops or the group, but I don’t see any evidence on your side. And yeah, I know that anti-bullying can be used as a foot in the door, and some of the worst bullying I’ve ever seen is by anti-bullying groups.
No evidence is needed Pinky since facts speak for themselves. Wake me the next time the Bishops get upset at bullying of conservative students, or bullying of white students by black students or bullying of women by men pretending that they are women.
I’m not saying I trust the bishops or the group, but I don’t see any evidence on your side.
Because you didn’t bother to contemplate the implications of the remarks of the Bishop of Covington and the remarks of Nicholas Frankovich (quondam Catholic publishing functionary, now employed by Richard Lowry) in re Nicholas Sandmann et al. Their assumptions, loyalties, and sensibilities are just what you’d expect of a randomly selected NGO functionary.
Art Deco, your words speak to me as to why the bishops and the nuns take this public stand
“ because liberals have male homosexuals as their preferred mascot group“
“because liberals have male homosexuals as their preferred mascot group”
“Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.” Romans 1:32
A statement like this is shaped by the cultural context. Every other group that makes a statement like this is convinced that homosexual relations are not only unobjectionable but in fact laudatory. For the bishops to use the same language, and to supplement it with statements like “God is on your side” in that context at minimum creates scandal by giving the appearance of agreeing to the same beliefs. At minimum their statement needed to included a clause like “although homosexual acts are gravely disordered and an offense to God….”
Consider a parallel example. Suppose that theories about Jewish bankers controlling the world and blood libel were not fringe, but were mainstream. Imagine that news agencies openly discussed such things, that mainstream politicians made speeches about their opposition to Jewish control of the financial sector, and movies were full of rich Jewish bankers as villains. In the midst of this bishops make a statement about opposing usury and other excesses of bankers, all the while using the exact same language that those who attack Jews do and making no attempt to say that we should not take action against the Jewish people as a whole. Would it be plausible to defend them on the basis that usury really IS a sin that cries out to heaven?
Hell, even WITHOUT mainstream support of such narratives bishops would probably be attacked for talking too much about usury because it MIGHT be misinterpreted as anti-semitism. So why should we accept this statement, which undoubtedly WILL be “misinterpreted” as a support for homosexual acts?
Again, not doing their jobs. Which is supposed to be condemning the bullying and at the same time clearly condemning homosexuality acts as a sin. That is what is expected of them. God is not on the side of sin. If they don’t like their job description then step down from the Priesthood.