In the end they caved for the oldest of reasons. Money. And now, flush with cash, the world has yet another parade devoted to (anti-evolutionary) sexual desire.
As if we needed it.
Last year, anti-Catholic brewers Guinness and Heineken pulled funding for the parade in the name of “diversity” and “inclusion” and, of course, sodomy. This encouraged other sponsors to either do the same or threaten it this year.
Parade organizers, anxious for their fees, caved, though each undoubtedly wondered whether political leader Timothy Dolan, this year’s Grand Marshall, would forget that the purpose of the parade was “honor of the Patron Saint of Ireland and the Archdiocese of New York“.
They needn’t have fretted. The far-left New York Times reports Dolan saying that “[I] pray that the parade would continue to be a source of unity for all of us.”
At press time here, it was unknown whether Dolan offered that prayer to Saint Patrick.
Good thing for organizers they have Dolan and not some more recalcitrant leader like, say, this gentleman:
In 1993, then-Cardinal John O’Connor, facing gay protesters who staged a sit-in during the parade, vowed that he “could never even be perceived as compromising Catholic teaching” by entertaining their admission as an identifiable group in the event. “Neither respectability nor political correctness is worth one comma in the Apostles’ Creed,” O’Connor declared in his homily at a Mass for St. Patrick’s Day that year.
The parade has always allowed adulterers, murderers, thieves, pederasts, puppy haters, those who don’t call their mothers, and yes even those who are sexually “oriented” toward goats or toward those of the opposite sex. But none of those sinners—and each of us is—was allowed to carry a sign “celebrating” their personal favorite perversion.
Now they are.
Strike that. Now only the homosexuals are. Those sinners without advocacy groups will either have to get organized fast, or continue to disguise their noncomformities.
I ask you: is that fair?
Well, maybe it isn’t. But your mother was once legally allowed to ask you rhetorically, who said life was fair?
The dominoes have already began to tumble. The press is gleeful, naturally. Dolan, a masterful politician, murmurs nice-sounding nothings. And even walking volcano William Donohue, president of the Catholic League and former fighter-to-the-death, has been quieted. He said “there should be no controversy” at this year’s parade.
The committee that organizes the parade insists that it is “remaining loyal to church teachings”—except, of course, for those teachings which are expedient to disavow.
Which makes one wonder if these people really understand what they have done. Doubtful, very doubtful. Why?
Yours Truly lives in Manhattan and has been to this parade many times. The loudest cheers are usually for the garbage men who scoop up horseshit, though at times, active duty military units have had that honor, and on one notable occasion, even the cops (in 2002).
But is there anybody who will bet against me, for any amount, that this year it will be the unit which advertises it sexual hobbies? The press will be there in force. The other 300-some units, except for a bagpipe group which will flit across your screens to set the context, will be ignored. The parade will be all sodomy all the time.
We’ve all seen “pride” parades, and to call these lewd and lascivious would be a gross understatement. Yet the St Patrick’s parade probably won’t meet that fate, if only because snow is not rare on March 17th, and the route is cold and long. Still, I predict at least once incident of near undress, probably in the audience. Don’t worry about missing it. The media will be sure to spotlight it.
Since there will be at least two cameras per “LBGT” marcher, the high-school and pipe bands, police benevolent groups, and military veterans will become jealous. After this year, a few groups will elect to eschew the parade, half for the jealousy and half because of the abandonment of tradition.
The organizers this year are only allowing one “orientation” unit. This will not be seen to be enough. The 2016 parade will have at least three.
Finally, there will be some squirming about the name. Saint Patrick? Isn’t that rather religious? Why not be more inclusive and call it Paddy’s Day? An event where “all” (where “all” means politically active) are welcome?
Update Monsignor Pope: It’s time to cancel the St. Patrickâ€™s Day Parade and the Al Smith Dinner. Looks like Msgr Pope took the post down. Curious, that.
Update Here’s why.
Update Rorate Caeli has the entire text of Msgr Pope’s original post. Worth a read. “We don’t need parades and dinner with people who scoff at our teachings, insist we compromise, use us for publicity, and make money off of us. W’â€™re being played for (and are?) fools.”
The implicit problem here is in perceiving this event & the accommodating decisions by the Catholic Church authorities as matters of principle, as if that had anything to do with it.
It is, and has always been, about power. As former Ford Pres. & Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca put it:
“There are times when even the best manager is like the little boy with the big dog, waiting to see where the dog wants to go so he can take him there.”
AS FOR the “The committee …insists that it is â€œremaining loyal to church teachingsâ€â€”except, of course, for those teachings which are expedient to disavow” …WELL…that’s par with the historical approach. As the article notes (http://www.religionnews.com/2014/09/03/gay-parade-catholic-cardinal-dolan/) :
“Pope Francis …has made it clear he wants church leaders to highlight Catholicismâ€™s outreach to the poor and vulnerable rather than always fighting culture war issues on gay marriage and the like…The churchâ€™s teachings on gays and lesbians have not changed, [two recent examples are given]…But THE St. PATRICK’s DAY PARADE, WHICH IS NOT RUN BY THE CHURCH, ALLOWS FOR SOME WIGGLE ROOM.” [Emphasis in CAPITALS added]
In this article (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/St-Patricks-Day-Parade-Gary-Group-March-Banner-NYC–273727021.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_NYBrand) Cardinal Dolan stated: “Neither my predecessors as Archbishop of New York nor I have ever determined who would or would not march in this parade … but have always appreciated the cooperation of parade organizers in keeping the parade close to its Catholic heritage,”
– Given the Catholic Church, or a Church authority, NEVER determined who could & would march in that parade, the parade was was/is clearly a community event, albeit one that was accommodating to that Church’s values & positions; and,
– Given the fact that the Catholic Pope has formally extended outreach to gays; and,
– Given the fact the Catholic Church’s local authority, Cardinal Dolan, supports this latest bit of inclusiveness (while still holding limits of tolerance on gay behaviors–see examples where gays have been fired for certain BEHAVIORS in first link, above);
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE to honestly assert that the committee for the parade is expediently disavowing certain Church teachings?
What this seems to indicate is Briggs, while asserting membership with the Catholic institution, doctrine, and recent positions of the Catholic Magisterium has in actual fact been highly selective in accepting the new Pope’s recent position regarding friendly outreach to gays…including how that position may be exercised via a parade.
Put another way, is one who overtly opposing that Church’s positions & actions as expressed by its highest authorities on a matter of high contemporary social interest truly expressing the official Church doctrine as they assert, or are they expressing the values of something else?
This will continue until people stop supporting it. Right now, I’d put that at AD2300 or so. People love anarchy and lack of rulesâ€”right up to the point they are destroyed by it. I currently refer to our society as an old lady who throws chickens to the hungary alligator every morning, proudly proclaiming the alligator will never decide that her 120 lbs of meat is a better deal than the 5 lb chicken.
And I thought life wasn’t fair?
I typed this into google, crime rate gays and lesbians united states hoping to find whether the LGBT crowd was more prone to anarchy and other lawlessness than the general population. In its wisdom, teh google told me about the rate of hate crimes against the LGBT folk instead. Why doesn’t the Internet ever have the information I want?
Brandon: I ask that question daily while screaming at my computer and the internet how completely useless it is. Anyone developing a search engine that actually searches for what is typed in would be rich.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Having said that, I will now say this: We Christians need to accept the fact that our symbols (St Patrick, Christmas, the cross, etc) have been appropriated by popular culture, and the resulting distorted monstrosities no longer belong to us (But the original, authentic traditions do).
America observes St. Patrick’s Day not as a feast day, but as an excuse to party.
The St. Patrick’s Day parade is no more a Catholic event than Santa Monica California is a Catholic city.
Spot on, I’m afraid.
Briggs, authentic Christianity is subversive. The old mainlines — Catholic and Protestant — long ago ceased to be. Silverfiddle rightly points out that their symbols are following suit. Their subversive meanings have been lost. It all was predicted.
Please don’t take my comments as a deprecation of Christianity. Far from it.
This is the flip side of what can happen when you try to Christianize or Catholicize a society. Maybe it will become more Christian or Catholic, or more likely, it will appropriate your culture and adapt it in some way. That is the way of humans.
I think Christianity is still subversive, in that it stands for higher things, and stands against self-worship, angry atheism, lust, greed and much of the cultural sewer we now bob in.
What would the organizers say to a parade entry devoted to promoting natural family planning, for example? The rhythm method is not morally objectionable, and yet it would be absolutely bizarre to see it celebrated in a parade. Wouldn’t the organizers be justified in saying that sexually oriented entries of any sort are simply out of place?
Silverfiddle, I don’t. We agree.
John: Sex is never out of place and the more off the scale bad behaviour it constitutes, the better. This is about getting rid of those pesky rules and living freely in anarchy. (Note: In anarchy, might makes right and those with the biggest clubs win. It’s not about everyone being free to practice their views. That’s a mistake concept.)