Cardinal Dolan Uses NYPD To Bar Gay Catholics From Sunday Worship In St. Patrick’s Cathedral

[muriel_volestrangler]

(this happened 2 weeks ago, but I don't think it was posted in this group)

Cardinal Timothy Dolan today used the NYPD to prohibit from Sunday worship services gay Catholics and their allies by barring their entry into NYC’s historic St. Patrick’s Cathedral, the iconic home of the Roman Catholic Church in New York.

The small group of silent Catholic protestors were threatened with arrest by a New York City Police detective — unless they first washed their hands.

The ten Catholics, who are LGBT and not LGBT, and even parents of LGBT people, were responding to Cardinal Dolan’s April 25 blog post, “All Are Welcome!,” which tells gay people who wish to participate in the Catholic faith, you must first “wash your hands!” They labeled their actions today a “Dirty Hands Vigil.”

“I have never been denied a seat at Christ’s table. In fact, today marks the first day that I have ever felt disowned, abandoned, and lost,” Joseph Amodeo, organizer of the action, writes at the Huffington Post. He adds that “the ten of us [who] gathered were greeted by four police cars, eight uniformed officers, a police captain, and a detective from the Police Commissioner’s LGBT liaison unit. The detective informed us that the Cathedral would prohibit us to enter because of our dirty hands.”

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/cardinal-dolan-uses-nypd-to-bar-gay-catholics-from-sunday-worship-in-st-patricks-cathedral/discrimination/2013/05/05/66442

[longship]

1. Quickly! Call the Church Police!!

[Bluenorthwest]

2. Dolan is a loutish jerk.

Stephen Colbert promotes him and does appearances with him, tries to spin this bigot as a witty, charming man about town. He should be ashamed of himself.

[skepticscott]

3. Hate to say it

but Joseph Amodeo is one seriously deluded fellow.

This realization was particularly difficult for me in light of the private meeting that I had with Cardinal Dolan on November 27, 2012, at his office in Manhattan. It was during that meeting that he expressed such love and welcome that I find his subsequent “conditional welcome” to be difficult to understand.

It's not hard to understand at all, sir...Dolan is a homophobe, plain and simple, and he is a leader in a blatantly and arrogantly homophobic organization. You were used and played for PR, but you've changed nothing. And apparently learned nothing, since you came back for more.

[rug]

4. Imagine that, Catholics promoting social justice despite a bishop's opposition.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/gay-catholic-leaders-weigh-in-on-use-of-nypd-to-bar-gay-catholics-from-st-pats-cathedral/news/2013/05/07/66528

[Goblinmonger]

6. That's been happening for decades and decades

What change has it made in the hierarchy? If anything, the hierarchy has gotten more conservative.

I really don't understand staying in a church that doesn't support your view of what is right and which clearly won't be changed from within. I'm not trying to be an ass or say anything about supporting bigotry or anything like that, but why continue? As an atheist, I staying in the Catholic church because it was important to my mom (whole long story I can get into some other point--she died never knowing I was an atheist because she would have disowned me and my kids had she known) and because I thought it would be good for my kids to have some sense of community and understanding of Christianity. When my son came home and told us that his Sunday School teacher said that gay people were going to hell (something obviously supported by the hierarchy of the church), I'd had enough. That was also in the middle of the pedophile scandals coming out. I could have continued to go while not believing but could no longer in good conscience give my support of numbers (I did not give them any money) nor expose my children to that any longer. Had I been a believer still, I would have moved to the Episcopal Church. We found that the local UU Fellowship fit our views very nicely. Our kids loved it there (them both being atheists probably helped--my wife is not an atheist but probably some level of Deist without the creationist bent). I don't know. I just don't get it.

[rug]

7. I'll give you an honest answer.

Religion at root is not political. That is not to say that religions have been used for political purposes or that often religion itself intrudes into politics.

Religion at heart is an attempt to understand if there is a god that imbues the universe and, if so, to understand that god as best as we are able.

The political aspects of religion are, imo, easy to deal with. Any political overreaching in the name of religion or by religion is not difficult to identify. These activists have and are opposing it.

That still does not change the nature of religion, i.e., to know God.

You will remember the Donatist controversy in the third century. No matter how fucked up religious people get and no matter what horrible things are done in the name of religion, its purpose, intent and validity remain. If there is a god, the value of seeking that god remains.

[Goblinmonger]

8. Appreciated

I'm not trying to make a case for just giving up religion all together. I am quite sure that my "ability" to "just believe" is probably the same as your ability to "not believe." It can't just happen. For me it was a very long process (though, in retrospect, probably longer because I was afraid to admit that that was what I was thinking). Also, I fully realize the impact that religion plays on how you were raised and what you see as being important, etc.

But I really don't understand, even given what you typed above, why someone who is Catholic and a progressive and sees religion as you describe it above, wouldn't be just as happy in a more liberal church like the Episcopal church. Sure there's no pope. The emphasis on Mary is perhaps a little less. They don't really take a stand on transubstantiation but you are free to believe that if you wish. But the mass is the same. It's the same God. It's the same Jesus. It's the same readings. But they aren't as homophobic and misogynistic as the RCC. And though I really do understand that at the core for the individual that religion is political, the RCC (and many other religions) does make it political. When they do that, shouldn't one try to find a place that is more in line with what they believe is right while still being able to have the fundamentally similar thoughts on God?

[rug]

9. That is more a matter of ecclesiology than belief.

The present corporate Church of England itself was birthed from a political act. 16th century politics, like 21st century politics, is still politics. It has as much virtue and as much vice as the RCC. And then there is the question of the validity of its Orders.

I find there is much to admire in the RCC. It has a coherence, both historically and theologically, that commends it.

Misogyny and homophobia are very specific political terms that are often used too loosely and inaccurately.

Hatred or bias against other humans, particularly based on gender or attraction, is considered sinful. So I would not simply accept the characterization of it as either.

Its spokesmen (sic) can, and usually do, make misogynist and homophobic statements on matters of public policy. These statements usually reflect a misogynist, homophobic and conservative mindset but I don't think those statements can be justified on the grounds of religion or theology. If someone makes political statements or commits a political act in the name of or on behalf of the Church, those statements or acts should properly be smacked down.

Here's an example. The Church is within its competence to declare that human beings exist from conception through pregnancy to death. The Church is not within its competence to declare that a state should criminalize abortion. I don't think either statement is misogynist.

Similarly, the Church is within its competence to declare that sexual acts outside a sacramental marriage are wrong. But it is not within its competence to declare that a state should prohibit persons from civilly marrying another person of the same sex. I don't think either statement is homophobic. (Disclaimer: I am not in a sacramental marriage so the RCC considers me to be in a state of sin as well.)

The heat, fire and smoke from applying these points of view is what starts the political epithets flying.

All that aside, the Catholic Church has for hundreds of years done many good things, along with many bad, and continues to do both. It is an imperfect institution, often imperfectly run. There is a probably a reason Peter was called as its first leader.

[Phillip McCleod]

5. though i can't fathom *why* they want back in to a homophobic institution..

..the world definitely needs *more* actions like this, by laity taking a stand against the hierarchy.

yes, plz.. more, plz.