Three Cardinals — and I Don’t Mean Baseball Players — and Their Grand Slam of Confusion

Three Cardinals — and I Don’t Mean Baseball Players — and Their Grand Slam of Confusion September 15, 2014

I’m late to the party.

But then, I often am.

It takes me a while to think through certain events. There are also times when it takes me a while to care about certain events.

The three cardinals — Dolan, Kasper and McCarrick — and their grand slam of confusion is a case in point. I’m going to take their statements/actions one at a time.

Lesseeeee ….


Cardinal Dolan and his parade.

It seems that the New York St Patrick’s Day Parade is going to allow a group of gay people to join in the march. It has been noted in some circles that the writers here at the Catholic Portal at Patheos have been — up to now — silent on this subject. I guess they overlooked — or perhaps didn’t like — the commentary by the Anchoress on this subject. For my part, I’ll attempt to add a bit of perspective from fly-over America.

I’ve been writing a lot about beheadings, mass murder and possible war. So, when I read that homosexuals were going to march in a parade in New York (which I hasten to remind you is almost 2,000 miles and a whole culture away from me) I thought, ummm … it’s a parade. Big whooping deal.

Then I heard that Cardinal Dolan was going to be the grand master at this hoe down, and I thought ummm … it’s a parade. Big whooping deal.

Then, I heard the plunk, plunk, plunk of the sky falling in the New York outpost of the faithful Catholic blogosphere and I thought ummm … it’s a New York thing. Big whooping deal.

To be honest, I’m sorta stuck at it’s a parade and a New York deal.

We’ll see how it comes off. If Cardinal Dolan ends up two-stepping down the road leading the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence or some such, I may decide that, in addition to being a parade, it is an embarrassment.

But basically, I’m still kind of caught up in the fact that we’ve got a blood-red Christian genocide going on and that, well, it’s not a parade. Or a New York deal.


Cardinal McCarrick and his newfound universalism.

Cardinal McCarrick attended a press conference arranged by the Muslim Affairs Council and managed to do such a good job of  Muslim apologetics that one headline brayed that “Catholic Cardinal McCarrick Embraces Islam.” All in all, it sounds like the Cardinal put on a pretty good show. It might help if he gave another press conference with Eastern Church leaders to show solidarity with our persecuted brothers and sisters in Christ. You know; just to even things out.


Cardinal Kasper and his protestantized view of the sacrament of marriage.

My colleague, Dr Greg Popcak already wrote a post about this, so I’ll pick up the salient quote from him. Here it is:

If a Catholic who is divorced and civilly remarried, without a decree of nullity, “repents of his failure to fulfill what he promised before God, his partner and the church in the first marriage, and carries out as well as possible his new duties and does what he can for the Christian education of his children and has a serious desire for the sacraments, which he needs for strength in his difficult situation, can we after a time of new orientation and stabilization deny absolution and forgiveness?”

I’m not any kind of theologian. In fact, I’m only a Christian and a Catholic due to enormous unmerited forgiveness. So, I “get” the desire to let people in, no matter what they’ve done. I also “get” that in this post-Christian world the Church is flat-out counter-cultural. I’m sure that these cardinals deal with the fallout of that counter-culturalism every day when they interact with civic and social leaders in the upper strata.

I’ve had a few doses of that poison myself.

I also “get” that, due to pew-sitting Catholics drinking great draughts of that cultural poison, divorce and remarriage are increasingly a source of alienation for many of the “faithful.”

However, I don’t “get” slam-dunking 2,000 years of Christian teaching in order to make the Church fit in with this fallen world.

I’m not big fan of the annulment process as it is used today, anyway. I know there are times when a sacrament may not have taken place at a wedding, and I also know that the Church always errs on the side of forgiveness and compassion.

I have benefitted from that forgiveness and compassion. When I accepted Christ and changed, no one else would forgive me. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, not only took me in, but treated what I had done as a thing of the past that did not pertain to me as I am now.

I will be grateful for this loving compassion and forgiveness to the end of my days.

I understand that this deep compassion and desire to forgive animates all that the Church does. But compassion can not overwrite the plain teachings of the Gospels. In fact, it is misguided compassion to try. The compassion that I received was a firm and abiding belief in the power of Christ to redeem sinners, including me.

If the Church had told me — as a number of denominations would have — that it was ok for me to be pro abortion (that was my public sin that others would not forgive) that would have been a terrible injustice to me, a false compassion that would have led me into deeper sign, and ultimately hell.

The Church has the same responsibility to the truth in the area of marriage, divorce and remarriage that it has about abortion.

The Church is bending over backwards to allow people who’ve divorced and remarried to come back into the fold. It does this via a somewhat complicated and terribly faulty annulment process.

As I said, I know that there are times when, for various reasons, a marriage is not sacramental and an annulment is justified. But I honestly believe that those times are much more rare than the number of annulments reflect.

I realize that this is one of the more contentious issues facing the Church today. But the fact remains that the facts remain. I know what I’ve seen. And what I’ve seen is people getting annulments for marriages that

they willingly contracted when they were free adults

they undertook after lengthy premarital counseling by the Church that took place in Catholic Churches

whose vows were given in front of many witnesses and before a priest

were not abusive but were cases where the people simply decided — for various reasons — to get out and go and get annulments so they could try again with someone else.

I know the annulment system is a mess because I’ve also seen people who entered into marriage

when both were drunk during the ceremony and they were both sleeping with other people at the time they married and they both knew it not getting an annulment  because they couldn’t get the paperwork filled out.

Add to that, I’ve also seen someone refused entry into the Church because they couldn’t get the paperwork filed out concerning a common law marriage from decades in their past.

The annulment process isn’t working for people who deserve annulments. And it’s chunking out annulments for people who should not get them.

But what the Cardinal seems to be suggesting is to toss the whole thing overboard and shake hands and call it even. In essence, what he’s leading up to is a revocation of the sacramental nature of marriage. I say that because, if marriage is a sacrament, you can’t undo it. Can’t. Not possible.

And if marriage, after 2,000 years, isn’t a sacrament, then what is? I mean, if marriage isn’t a sacrament, then why would Holy Orders, which is akin to it, be a sacrament?

The real problem with all of these actions taken by these various Cardinals is that they are deeply disturbing to the people who actually hold the Church together. I do not mean the hierarchy. I mean the pew-sitting Catholics who believe and try to follow what the Church teaches. It’s a mistake of Homeric proportions to abandon those people and go off chasing after the ones who have left the Church.

Remember when Jesus said, If you do not eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you will have no eternal life within you? His frank discussion of the sacrament of the Eucharist, of which this statement is a part, caused a number of people to abandon Him. They went off muttering about cannibalism or some such.

But Our Lord didn’t go chasing after them and say, Wait a minute, I didn’t mean it that way.


He let what He’d said stand and He allowed them to leave.

If the princes of the Church start teaching that 2,000 years of Christian teaching on the sacraments is up for grabs because it’s an embarrassment to them, we are in big trouble. In truth, sex outside of marriage, including homosexual sex, is a sin. In truth, marriage is between one man and one woman and it is for life. In truth, there are radical differences between Christianity and every other belief system. Christianity alone has the empty tomb and the words that lead to eternal life.

Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. There is no other.

On the other hand, it is just a parade and a New York deal, and it was just a speech, and then  another speech.

Confusing leadership is … well … confusing. In times such as these, it can be frightening. It seems to be almost impossible for the American bishops to give clear teaching on what is in fact the 2,000 year old teachings of the Church for which they claim to speak. They’re trying so hard to be loved by everybody that they trip over their own eagerness.

That scares people who’ve paid a great price to follow the Church, and it angers them. I think the best way to deal with that is to remember that it has always been so, and it will always be so until the Lord comes again. Your task is to stay faithful, in spite of it.

As for the New York parade deal; I just hope that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence stay away.


Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

19 responses to “Three Cardinals — and I Don’t Mean Baseball Players — and Their Grand Slam of Confusion”

  1. What’s the point of having a grand marshal if it isn’t for the purpose of honoring a person with being the primary name-and-face associated with the event? Why do politicians march if the image of them marching doesn’t send a message or impact peoples’ opinions of them? Isn’t that why they show up at gay pride parades all over the country? Why on earth is Cardinal Dolan leading this parade when it will undoubtedly — 100% CERTAIN — be used as propaganda for the homosexual lobby?

    Re: Cardinal “Peace be upon him” McCarrick. Nice job relativizing the invocation of the singular Allah to the invocation of the Holy Trinity. Does no one care that the Koran openly blasphemes the Holy Spirit?

    Kasper. ‘Nuff said.

    Utter madness all around. Is this Church just suicidal now?

    And please, please — I know this is your blog and I’m not trying to be a nudge, but I really do think that images of “The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” and other mockeries of the Church are pornographic, outright vehicles of the demonic. I don’t think it’s a small concern in the realm of spiritual battle that we are locked in. Others may disagree. My .02.

    Again, your blog, not mine. Thank you for your work here…

  2. Re: Sister of Perpetual Indulgence. You may be right, I dunno. My reasoning was/is that the people who never see this sort of thing and who need to become aware of it are often found among the readership of blogs like Public Catholic. People need to know. That’s my thinking.

  3. Ken, I’m slowly getting up to speed on the St Pat’s Day Parade, but it’s so far out of my sphere, that the process is sssslllloooowwwwww. For instance, what you just said? I didn’t know that.

  4. The St Patrick’s Day Parade is a 501c3 organization. But it starts with mass at the Cathedral of St Patrick. Before groups could march but without the rainbow banners, etc. Now, I don’t know.
    I do not like most of the outrageous behavior from some of the gay groups and think accommodation is a mistake.
    Some of the stuff the bishops pull may be the reason St John Chrysostom said the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of unfaithful priests and bishops.
    I hate the way annulments work. Some of the converts I’ve known have even been denied baptism because of some of the screwy rules while some Catholics just seem to know the right answers.
    I think rather than starting the process after civil divorce they should have to seek the annulment and go through the process first.

  5. A young atheist told an elderly priest that in 20 years they would have destroyed the Church. The priest responded that we’ve been trying to do that for centuries and that we haven’t been able to is proof that it is God’s Church.

  6. Being from NYC I can fill you in on the context. The fight to allow homosexuals to march in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade under a banner identifying themselves as gay (they are free to march like anyone else without such identification) has been going on for twenty to thirty years. Maybe more. It has been at times a viscous fight. For Cardinal Dolan to capitulate is an actual betrayal. And given Cardinal Dolan was absent in the NY State SSM debate (the one that initiated it all across the country) it feels like Dolan has either been on the homosexual side all along or not up to arguing for Church teaching. I think he’s just not up to it. He just likes to party. He’s been a profound disappointment.

  7. One thing I am curious about with regard to annulments is whether this is an “American” problem or a problem world-wide. I don’t know much about other countries and the challenges they face with regard to issues like divorce, abortion, homosexuality and other such political and religious hot buttons. It does seem to me that there are a lot more annulments being granted than the so-called standards would merit. Wow. I just sounded so stuffy with those questions/observations. Anyway, as a widow who briefly contemplated dating again, only to find it too complicated because of where I live (Oklahoma) and the lack of faithful Catholic men who are actually eligible to marry in the Church. I’ve decided remaining single is a lot easier than figuring all that out.

  8. As it turns out, the Orthodox aren’t keen to claim him, either.

    In any event, Cardinal Kasper either badly misunderstands, or deliberately misrepresents the Orthodox practice regarding second and third “marriages,” which he erroneously labels as “sacramental.”

    In any event, it should go without saying that Protesant (specifically mainline Protestant, more specifically mainline Lutheran) thought figures far more prominently in Cardinal Kasper’s formation and theology than anything on the other side of the Bosporus.