My Response to A Comment Regarding Cardinal Dolan

Charlotte B left a comment on my post dealing with Cardinal Dolan's "bravo" comment.  The post is HERE. Below is her comment, with my responses in blue.

I came here from the blog of Elliot Bougis and after reading your conversations with him on the blog.

I want to, out of Catholic charity, point out some problems in your reasoning. 

1) You assert that the Cardinal's comments are fine because none of the prominent gay news outlets seem to think positively or have noticed it. 

But this is a misunderstanding on your part. The fact that the Cardinal gave some bad advise/comment does not suddenly become neutral advise or good advise depending on how the people react to the comment. If anything, you should be thanking God that they did not use his words to further justify sinful acts.

Just as me blaspheming is a bad thing regardless of whether someone gets offended or picks up on it, bad advise is bad advise regardless of ones reaction to it.  

It is your opinion that it is bad advice.  Cardinal Dolan was most definitely not condoning the sin of homosexuality. He made that clear in other parts of the interview. But he said we are told by the Bible that we are not to judge. The gay community knew exactly what Cardinal Dolan was doing. His point was not to condone homosexuality but to not condemn an INDIVIDUAL about whom he knows nothing, and by doing so, the worst that can be said is that he overcompensated. It is amazing that so few Catholics can understand this. 

2) Jesus acted like Cardinal Dolan in the case of Adultery

Here there are lots of misunderstandings.

You claim that the Adulteress did not show signs of repentance. Well, does the gospel describe her attitude to you? That she seemed pretty obstinate about carrying out her adulterous ways and had identified herself with a community that is out to justify the act of adultery around the world as a good thing? All I see here is you reading back your own views in to the gospels. 

There is nothing in story to indicate that the adulterous woman had repented in any way. This is a story of great mercy shown by our Lord who refused to condemn a sinner.  Cardinal Dolan who, as stated, made it very clear in the rest of the interview that he does not condone homosexuality, nonetheless showed mercy and compassion to an individual trapped in this sin.  As I have written, the gay community got this message loud and clear. Many Catholics, who are suppose to be channeling the mercy and love of Jesus Christ to the world, seem totally unable to understand this great message. 

You do the same with the thieves during the crucifixion. 

You need to expand on that.  Just making a statement as  you have makes it impossible to respond. What have I read into the story of Dismas that is not there?

Yet, you also forget the positive examples of public rebuke by St. John the Baptist of Herod. You are forgetting that this is the man who Jesus hailed as the greatest prophet. But you have forgotten these passages.

John the Baptist is hailed as  the last of the Old Testament prophets. At the time John the Baptist preached, the Old Covenant was still in force.  That is not to say that his message is to be dismissed. Sin definitely needs to be pointed out, and there are times when a sinner has to be publicly called out. But there is something new which Christ instituted in the New Covenant, and that is mercy, which He exercised constantly in His earthly ministry. There was no mercy under the Old Testament. Our Lord brought a new way, a way of mercy and forgiveness. I think some Catholics feel we are still under the Old Covenant, and that sinners should be at least spiritually stoned.

We can also look a little deeper in to the New Testament. You seem to have missed St. Paul's chastising of the Corinthian community in 1 Corinthians 5 regarding their inaction toward the sinner in sexual immorality. 

That is a good point, but look at the passage, I Corinthians 5, especially verse 2:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this?

The Corinthians were actually celebrating this man's sin. There is a huge difference between showing mercy and celebrating sin. That is not mercy at all but actually joining in the destruction of a sinner. This is what St. Paul was condemning.  This man's sin had infected the rest of the congregation to the extent that they no longer recognized that the actions of this man were wrong.  The Corinthians had in effect become part of the sin.  When it gets to that point, there is no choice but to put such a sinner outside the congregation.  You could argue, and of course many have argued, that Cardinal Dolan's "bravo" was a celebration of sin. However, LifeSiteNews, in an article entitled, "Cardinal Dolan applauds football player for ‘coming out’, but didn’t back homosexuality: Diocese", reported the next day:

"The Archdiocese of New York has told LifeSiteNews that Cardinal Timothy Dolan's decision to congratulate a homosexual football player for coming out of the closet did not mean the cardinal “was unconcerned about Church teaching on homosexual activity.”

This is far different from the incident reported by St. Paul in I Corinthians. Cardinal Dolan has most definitely distanced himself from the sin of homosexuality, and the gay community knows it.  

As I pointed out in the comment section of Elliott's blog, Blessed Pope John XXIII made a rather astounding statement in his opening message to Vatican II:

"At the outset of the Second Vatican Council, it is evident, as always, that the truth of the Lord will remain forever. We see, in fact, as one age succeeds another, that the opinions of men follow one another and exclude each other. And often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun. The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations."

This is where I say we need to look at the message of Divine Mercy. This does not mean condoning sin, but it does mean NOT condemning the sinner. As shown in the example of the thieves crucified with Jesus, not everyone will respond to mercy, and Our Lord says through St. Faustina that those who do not accept His Mercy will then have to face His terrible judgment. But He is the judge, not us.

We can also look at the history of the Church and find ample examples where heretics were rebuked publicly by the Saints when to do so threatened their own life.

See above.

There is also an elephant in the room that you are missing. You have conveniently forgotten about the Pharisees in the gospels. Perhaps you conveniently identified them as "NOT SINNERS". So you forgot how Jesus himself very publicly rebuked them multiple times.

You need to re-read my post. I said the Pharisees identified themselves as sinless. Our Lord, in contrast, said they were the greatest of sinners. And they were the only sinners He ever publicly condemned. He most definitely rebuked them many times. That was my point entirely.

I think it is safe to say that you are lacking some understanding here and trying perhaps a bit too hard to justify what is clearly scandalizing.

The mercy of God is all about separating the sinner from the sin.  It is saying that what you are doing, the sin you are involved in, is wrong.  If you persist in this sin, you will be condemned.  But Our Lord offers you His Loving Mercy and Forgiveness.  I like the way Cardinal Dolan put it:

"And so Francis is reminding us, look, if we come across as some crabby, nay saying shrill, we’re not gonna win anybody. If we come across as a loving, embracing holy mother church who says, “Come on in. We love you. We need you. We want you. And once you get to know us, then maybe we can invite you to the conversion of heart that is at the core of the gospel. And then maybe we can talk about changing behavior. That’s a very effective pedagogy."

3) Jesus spoke in a confusing way as well.

Hmm, did he? The bread of life discourse in John 6 was pretty straight forward. Jesus meant what he said and people left because they couldn't accept it. If he was misunderstood, why did he not stop them and explain?

The statement of "eat my body, drink my blood" was easily understood at the time Jesus said it?!  Are you serious?!  No one had any concept of the Eucharist at that time. Our Lord had not even introduced it yet. This statement was completely incomprehensible at the time Jesus said it, and those who stayed did so despite the fact that they did not understand. Jesus did not expect anyone to understand this at the time He said it because it was not possible.  But he knew that those who truly had faith in him would not leave despite the confusing nature of his statement.

Second, Jesus has already given the revelation to the Church. The duty of these men is not to give you some new revelation that has not yet been understood. It is to rather pass down and explain what has already been said. To that extent, the Cardinal (and many others prelates in our age) failed because he seemed to not explain Church teaching too well. 

You are pointing to one part of the interview where Cardinal Dolan refused to condemn an individual. He made the teachings of the Church very clear in rest of the interview. As stated, the gay community got the message loud and clear. Why don't you?

Divine Mercy is not new. As I have abundantly shown, Our Lord exemplified this in His earthly ministry. There is no new teaching. What is new, as Blessed Pope John XXIII explained, is how the Church relates to sinners, and this great message was given by Jesus Himself to St. Faustina, who was then to give it to the world.

I have truly come to believe that the reason so many Catholics do not understand the Church of our time, and the reasons why so many find statements by Pope Francis and here by Cardinal Dolan so confusing is because they do not understand that now is the time of Mercy, as Our Lord explained to Sister Faustina.  Our Lord told St. Faustina that He is returning soon as judge, but before that terrible day of judgment, He is giving us a time of mercy, when all who come to Him will be forgiven their sins.  No one is denied mercy at this time.  

"Let the greatest sinners place their trust in My mercy. They have the right before others to trust in the abyss of My mercy. My daughter, write about My mercy towards tormented souls. Souls that make an appeal to My mercy delight Me. To such souls I grant even more graces than asked. I cannot punish even the greatest sinner if he makes an appeal to My compassion, but on the contrary, I justify him in My unfathomable and inscrutable mercy. Write: before I come as a just Judge, I first open wide the door of My mercy. He who refuses to pass through the door of My mercy must pass through the door of My justice. . ." (Diary 1146)