Cardinal Dolan Runs for President

by

What’s so funny?

Timothy Dolan, Cardinal of New York, has taken to the Washington Post to assassinate the character of the leading Republican presidential candidate just because he holds a position with which most of the country agrees.

During those happy days decades ago when I taught American religious history to university students, I spent a chunk of time in class on the ugly phenomenon called nativism, defined by the scholar and author Ray Allen Billington as, “organized, white, Protestant antagonism toward the Catholic immigrant.”

I’ve seen the cardinal chuckle and blab.  He doesn’t strike me as the type of man to have had happy days decades ago.  Cardinal Dolan is a climber.  He couldn’t have been too satisfied teaching history.  Apparently he was also one of those who presented history mainly in terms of groups and grievances.

It flourished in our country during the 1840s and 1850s — actually becoming a popular political party, the Know-Nothings — and appeared again, in the 1870s, as the American Protective Association; in the 1920s, as the KKK; and during post-World War II America, as Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

From what I understand the KKK was a murderous group which terrorized black people.  Not two paragraphs in and a Catholic bishop has condemned an entire country as killers. I detect some disparity between the cardinal and the everyman.  Dolan doesn’t have to endure the effects of illegal immigration like the rest of his poor flock.  He just has to keep those federal Catholic Charities funds rolling.

These nativists believed the immigrant to be dangerous, and that America was better off without them. All these poor degenerates did, according to the nativists, was to dilute the clean, virtuous, upright citizenry of God-fearing true Americans.

They were Protestants and wary of Catholics.  They weren’t Nazi’s trying to preserve a master race.  It was a culture shock.  Catholics brought poverty, gangs, Mafia and other bad things they’d never had to endure.  Most disastrously Catholics have always voted poorly, ushering in city bosses, high taxes, redistribution, and other unconstitutional government.  It wasn’t a purity thing, but it’s not like it wasn’t messy.  It’s not that Catholics didn’t fear God but they were certainly less ‘American.’

There’s nothing upright about leftist politics.  Even today, unfortunately, Catholics don’t vote like Baptists and their bishops don’t really want them to.

(Among other American minorities, it must be said, Catholics like me often drew the ire of nativists.)

I made the point to my students that nativism never really did disappear completely, but was a continual virulent strain in the American psyche, which would probably sadly show up again.

Liberals are always finding ‘virulent strains’ out there which must be eradicated from our minds.  Who’s calling people dirty now?

This point my students would not buy. “Father Dolan,” they would say, “there’s no denying that this bigotry was there in our past. But, come on! Who could ever believe now that immigrants are dirty, drunken, irresponsible, dangerous threats to clean, white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon America! Those days are gone.”

I wish I were in the college classroom again, so I could roll out my “Trump card” to show the students that I was right. Nativism is alive, well — and apparently popular!

Oh that’s funny, my ‘Trump card.’  Yes, those must have been happy days back when Father Dolan was teaching.  He’s just so jolly!

“Who could ever believe now that immigrants are dirty, drunken, irresponsible, dangerous threats to clean, white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon America!”

Does Cardinal Dolan hate white people and Protestants?  It sure sounds like it.  Donald Trump was not saying that all immigrants are dirty, drunk, and dangerous.  He was saying that too many of them are, so therefore the border should be ‘legally’ controlled.  People understand this but Dolan shamefully abuses his vital Christian role to ‘correct’ them about it.

From here the Cardinal repeats himself, explaining how we don’t value any immigrants at all, ever, because they’re people, I guess.  He even uses the word ‘enlightened.’  Whenever you hear that, think darkness.

I am not in the business of telling people what candidates they should support or who deserves their vote. But as a Catholic, I take seriously the Bible’s teaching that we are to welcome the stranger, one of the most frequently mentioned moral imperatives in both the Old and New Testament.

What a pile from the chancery!  Is it possible that back in those bad old days a few prescient souls imagined uncontrolled immigration might leave us with an America full of religious leaders like this?  When will the Lord give us Catholics for bishops instead of these dishonest elitist FrancisChurch shills?

 

 

 

 

Gay Sexuality is Not Something Immutable. Vices Can Just Seem That Way Sometimes.

by
Human beings make choices and that's what sin is all about.

Human beings make choices and that’s what sin is all about.

Crisis Magazine notes how Rachel Maddow tried in vain to pin Rick Santorum down on the so-called ‘immutability’ of gayness – as if she doesn’t know.  People are much more than sexual organs; their loves and preferences are much more than physical, but if you’re a woman, and you don’t like the idea of sex with men, it probably has less to do with the fact that you don’t like heterosexual sex and more to do with the fact that you don’t like men so much.  And that of course is most certainly a choice.

When Rick Santorum recently appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show, the host spent quite a bit of time during the interview trying to pin down Santorum on the question of whether sexual preference is an immutable characteristic.

Maddow: Can I ask you if you believe people choose to be gay?

Santorum: Ya know, I’ve sort of never answered that question. But I suspect there’s all sorts of reasons why people end up the way they are, and I’ll sort of leave it at that.

Maddow: But it matters in terms of whether or not—I mean, legally, in terms of the types of things that we’re describing here, in terms of whether or not the Congress should challenge the Supreme Court on these issues. I mean, if it’s an immutable characteristic. You don’t know if it’s an immutable?

Santorum: I don’t know. [Later in the interview] There are people who are alive today who identified themselves as gay and lesbian and who no longer are. That’s true. I do know—I’ve met people in that case. So, I guess maybe in that case, may be they did.

So is sexual preference, whether heterosexual or homosexual, theoretically immutable, or is it subject to change?

From here the writer, Kevin Clark, discusses the APA’s definition of homosexuality, which is entirely biased, unreliable, and recently changed from a mental disorder to an ‘immutable characteristic.’  Polling data in this area is also, I believe, inconclusive for many reasons.

On being interrogated, Santorum correctly cites examples of gay celebrities and others who have switched their stated orientations as evidence of ‘mutability,’ but he declines to draw the obvious conclusion because he’s a politician.  Yet, the fact is gay sex could never have been considered a sin and a moral failing for thousands of years up until now if it were not also a choice and a perversion of sexuality.    You can’t pervert something that is naturally there.  Gay people are groomed into the habit of gay sex; fall in with groups of gay friends; or respond to family situations so bleak that they reject their own nature and their roles as men or women.  People also have more gay sex in situations where there is no one of the opposite sex around, like prison.

Gay attraction is an inclination, but it’s also a cultivated habit and a choice.  Still, pretending otherwise is key to the gay agenda, which seeks to normalize and spread gay sexuality. They say you can’t make people gay, but it’s exactly what they want to do.   That wouldn’t be possible if homosexual attraction were simply an immutable reality of nature, but they can’t achieve their gay-topia if they don’t convince everyone that they’re just ‘born that way’ first.

The vast majority of people with gay attractions never act on them.  The next biggest group of those people act on them but settle into a natural male/female lifestyle.  Experts might call all these people ‘bisexual’ if they responded honestly to polls, but they’re really not, since they generally lead heterosexual lives.

The smallest group of people with SSA have sex almost exclusively with others of the same sex and reject the opposite sex.  Just like that other victim group, ‘the poor,’  this consists of a shifting group of people.  Nevertheless, we all know someone who lives a gay lifestyle for practically his or her entire life.

That rejection is a much deeper choice than sexual because men and women are much more than their bodies.  It’s a rejection of the opposite sex and the role of husband, wife, mother or father.  It’s also a rejection of one’s own nature as a man or a woman, of who one was born to be.  Like someone in prison, for various reasons this person has lost all hope in the possibility of a happy heterosexual relationship.  It’s not an ‘acceptance’ of a natural immutable orientation like they say, but a rejection, and it’s enabled and encouraged by the habitual sin of sodomy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does the Bishop of Cadiz, Spain Rule At the Whim of Some Tranny?

by
I AM a man, I AM a Catholic, I AM a Godparent, and YOU kicked me!

I AM a man, I AM a Catholic, I AM a Godparent, and YOU kicked me!

Huffpo reports on the latest outrage being perpetrated against one unsuspecting Spanish bishop and faithful Catholics everywhere.

Alex Salinas is 21 years old. He was assigned female at birth, but is now living as his authentic self as a man. He is a “firm believer” and wants to be a godparent at his nephew’s baptism but the diocese of Cadiz and Ceuta is standing in his way. According to them, he is not a “suitable” person because of the life he leads, a life not “congruent with faith.”

Alex is a good name for this human.  It can go both ways.  Who designated its original female assignation, the furies?  Whoever assigned it, it was definitely not the same one who ‘authenticated’ its manhood later.

At least it wants to be a godparent. A godfather would give the bishop too many insane battles at once.

I suppose if we let this ‘it’ and its friends at the Huffington Post decide what is congruent with the faith instead of its bishop, that makes our faith really gay now.  Everything is gay, even Christ’s Church.

However, they do not find their argument to be discriminatory.

The diocese insists that “no discrimination is implied” by impeding a transgender man from being the godfather at the baptism of his nephew in the parish of San Fernando (Cadiz), indicating that it “happens frequently” with people who are not considered “suitable” because of their “lifestyle, opinions, and lack of congruence with Christian life and the Church’s regulations.”

Discrimination is good.  It’s a word stolen from us by liberals in an effort to make us their mind-slaves.  It simply means to tell one thing from another, to choose.  Rashly judging a person based on superficial or unrelated characteristics is a mistake – even a sin, but being able to see that a gay person who can’t figure out if it’s a man or a woman makes an evil choice for godparent is the good kind of ‘discriminating.’  But there’s no sense in arguing that it’s not discrimination.

When ‘discriminating’ is illegal, the only ones who are permitted to do it are judges, and even bishops have to leave their deciding to experts.

“To the church, I am still a woman, even though my documents of identification have changed,” explained Alex Salinas, who wants the diocese to reconsider their decision, which he took “as a kick in the stomach” because he is a “firm believer.”

Why do they always say you kicked them in the stomach when the only thing that happened was that they wished they could kick you in the stomach?

If you say you’re a man then you’re a man.  If you say you’re a firm believer then you’re a firm believer.  If you say you’re a bishop then provide a statement for the paper and call your lawyers.