Dale O’Leary

To same-sex attracted boys - wait

Dale O’Leary
By Dale O'Leary

June 12, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - While your friends seem obsessed with girls, you are experiencing feelings of attraction to guys. You find yourself fantasizing about being close – really close – to a teacher or macho guy in your school. You long for something more, but it isn’t a girl.

The culture—teachers in your school, the Gay Straight Alliance—is telling you that all this is a sign you were born gay. You might as well accept it and “come out” because there is nothing you can do to change it. That’s how God made you.

But before you act on this advice, take time to look at the facts. You may have heard the claim that science has found a “gay gene.” This is not true. In spite of a lot of looking, no scientist has found anything resembling a gay gene. The head of the human genome project says they have looked and it isn’t there.1

Other studies offer conclusive evidence that people are not “born” that way. If same-sex attraction were genetic or caused by some other pre-natal influence then identical twins would virtually always have the same pattern of sexual attraction. In a large sample of identical twins, only 27 pairs were found where one had same-sex attraction, and of these only 3 pairs or 11% both had same-sex attraction.2 These means same-sex attraction can’t be genetic and so no matter what you are feeling today or how young you were when you first felt different, you were not born that way.

Those who have studied the origins of same-sex attraction don’t believe there is a single cause, rather there are a number of paths that lead to these feelings.

Before you decided to “come out” you can explore how you got to this point.

Many persons who experience same-sex attractions in adolescence were victims of sexual child abuse or sexual exploitation by adults or by other children. Over 40% of persons who self-identify as “gay” say they were victimized as children.3 If this was your experience, you need to deal with this. Having sex with another male won’t heal this wound.

Some victims were so needy and longing for same-sex affection that they felt the abuse was a positive experience, because it was better than their other experiences. They may believe that since they experienced pleasure it means they were “gay.” It doesn’t. It just means their body works. Using a child as a sexual object is never good for the child.

Many men with same-sex attraction did not properly identify with their fathers or with other boys in early childhood.4 They felt different. Perhaps they identified with their mothers or female playmates, perhaps they were afraid of rough and tumble play, perhaps they lacked athletic ability, perhaps they were interested in art, music, or quiet pursuits.5 This could leave a young boy feeling left out of the male world and longing for masculinity. Such boys do not need to have sex with a male, they need to find their own manhood.6

Perhaps you didn’t fit the stereotypes. Perhaps you were teased or even labeled “gay,” but that was a lie. Real men come in all shapes and sizes with all kinds of interests and different levels of abilities. None of these experiences makes you unchangeably “gay.” You just need to find your own masculine identity.

There are other reasons why you shouldn’t “come out.”

Although you may think that coming out means entering into a loving committed relationship with a person who will really meet your needs, too often it means falling into a temporary relationship which, when it dissolves, leaves you more devastated and feeling more lost than you were before. You may be looking for security, but men who have sex with men end up going from one relationship to another – with all the attendant heartbreak or falling into a pattern of short-term relationships – short-term being an hour or two.

Some adolescent boys fall into prostitution with all the risks of violence, disease and shame. One can hardly be proud of a work history that includes a year or two of hustling or be pleased to end up as the poster boy on some pornographic website.

Disease is a real problem for adolescent males who come out. You may promise yourself that you would never be so stupid as not to use a condom, but the research shows that very few men who have sex with men keep this promise.7 They suffer from condom fatigue. They have sex when they are drunk or high. They believe a partner who says he is HIV negative, forgetting the score of other sexually transmitted infections the man might not even know he is carrying or that in the heat of passion men often lie.8 The younger a man is when he begins to have sex with men the greater the risk he will become HIV positive.9

Disease is not the only health risk. Persons with same-sex attractions are more likely to have problems with drugs and alcohol. In particular, the use of crystal meth is a real problem for this community and the results are devastating.10 Not only does crystal meth lead to physical problems and mental problems, it also causes the user to think they are invulnerable and therefore don’t need a condom. This is leading to a rise in HIV infections.11

Sex is addictive. Once you begin to have sex with men, you may not be able to stop. You may have programmed your brain for this particular activity.

The good news is that studies show that a majority of those who think they are “gay” in their early teens discover in their 20’s that they are not.12 They just grow up.13 Maybe that will happen to you spontaneously, maybe through counseling you will discover where your feelings came from.14 It would be a shame if before that happened you became a sex addict or meth addicted or infected with an incurable disease.

You have a choice. You can explore the origins of your feelings. You can get help to discover your manhood.

You can wait.

Endnotes:

1.  B.S. Mustanski, et al. “A genome wide scan of male sexual orientation,” Human Genetics, 116, 4 (2005): 272-278.

2. Michael Bailey et al. (2000) “Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and its Correlates in an Australian Twins Sample,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, March, 78 (3) 524-536; John de Cecco, David Parker (ed), (1995) Sex, Cells, and Same-Sex Desire: The Biology of Sexual Preference, Harrington Park Press: NY. This book presents the debate on biology. The editors conclude, “Current research into possible biological bases of sexual preference has failed to produce any conclusive evidence.” 

3. Lynda Doll et al. (1992) “Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual and bisexual men,” Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, p. 855-864. (Over 40% of adult homosexual and bisexual men in this study reported a history of sexual abuse.) Johnson, R., Shrier, D. (1985) Sexual victimization of boys: Experience at an adolescent medicine clinic. Journal of Adolescent Health Care. 6: 372 - 376; Siegel, J., Sorenson, S., Golding, J., Burnam, Stein, J. (1987) The prevalence of childhood sexual assault: The Los Angeles epidemiological catchment area project. American Journal of Epidemiology. 126, 6: 1141; Gregory Dickson, Dean Byrd, (2006) “An Empirical study of the mother-son dyad in relation to the development of male homosexuality,” Journal of the Association of Mormon Counselors and Psychotherapists,  Vol. 30. The study found that 49% of homosexual men versus. 2% of heterosexual men had a history of sexual abuse.

4. Kenneth Zucker, Susan Bradley, (1995) Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Childhood and Adolescence (Guilford: NY; George A Rekers, (1995)  Gender Identity Disorder,  www.leaderu.com/jhs/rekers.html (George Rekers, Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems (Lexington/Jossey-Bass/Simon & Schuster); Susan Bradley, Kenneth Zucker (1998) “Drs. Bradley and Zucker reply,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37 (3) p. 244-245.

5. Friedman, R. Stern, L. (1980) Juvenile aggressivity and sissiness in homosexual and heterosexual males. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis. 8 (3) p. 427 - 440.

6. Elizabeth Moberly, Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic )Cambridge, England: James Clarke, 1983); Joseph Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, (Northvale NJ: Aronson, 1991).

7. David Ostrow, et al (1994) “Sexual Behavior research on a chohort of gay men 1984-1990: Can we predict how men will respond to interventions”, Archives of Sexual Behavior , 23, 5: 531-552.

8. Binh An Diep et al. (2008) “Emergence of Multidrug-Resistant, Community Associated, Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Clone USA300 in men who have sex with men,”  Annals of Internal Medicine,  148 (4)

9 Richard Stall, et al. (2003) “Association of Co-Occurring Psychosocial Health Problems and Increased Vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among Urban Men who Sex with Men,” American Journal Of Public Health,  93 (6) p. 939-942; R. Hogg, et al. (1997) “Modeling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men,”  International Journal of Epidemiology, 26 (3) p.657-661; J. Diggs, (2002) “Health Risks of Gay Sex” Corporate Research Council, (480) 444-0030; M. Xiridou, (2003) “The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17, 7 1029-1038: Gabriel Rotello (1997) Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men,  Dutton: NY.

10. Milton Wainberg et al, ((2006) Crystal Meth and Men who Have Sex with Men: What mental health care professionals need to know,  Haworth Medical Press, NY; Perry Halkitis, Leo Wilton, Jack Drescher, ed. (2005)  Barebacking: Psychosocial and Public Health Approaches,  Haworth Medical Press: NY; Sean Esteban McCabe, et al (2005) Assessment of Difference in Dimensions of Sexual Orientation: Implications for Substance Use Research in a College-Age Population, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66, p. 602-629.

11. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review (2008) “Trends in HIV/AIDS Diagnoses among Men Who Have Sex with Men,” June 12. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5725a2,htm: In 2006 new infections in men who have sex with men aged 113-24 increased by 18 percent over the previous year.

12. Edward Lauman et al. (1994) The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, (Chicago: University of Chicago); K. K. Kinnish, et al. (2005). “Sexual Differences in the Flexibility of Sexual Orientation: A Multidimensional Retrospective Assessment,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34 (2), 173-83; Nigel Dickson, et al. (2003) “Same-sex attraction in a birth cohort: prevalence and persistence in early adulthood, Social Science & Medicine, 56, p. 1607-1615.

13. Warren Throckmorton, “Hiding Truth From School Kids: It’s Elementary Revisited,” June 16, 2004 http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=78.

14. Robert Spitzer, (2006) “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation,” (in J. Frescher, K. Zucker, eds., Ex-Gay research: Analyzing the Spitzer Study and Its Relation to Science, Religion, Politics, and Culture, Harrington House; NY) p. 35-66. Stanton Jones, Mark Yarhouse, (2007) Ex-Gays’ A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation,(Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL).

Support hard-hitting pro-life and pro-family journalism.

Donate to LifeSite's fall campaign today


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry

, ,

Are you praying for the upcoming Synod on the Family? You should be, and here’s why

John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

Catholics, and all Christians who value family values, should be praying earnestly for the Catholic Church as a struggle over critical family issues is coming to a head in the run-up to the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, which takes place October 5-19. 

Augmenting the concerns is the fact that some of the cardinals closest to Pope Francis himself are increasingly in public disagreement over crucial matters related to faith and family. For some, the concerns reach right to the pope himself.

While Synod preparations have been going on for a year, Sunday’s weddings of 20 couples in St. Peter’s Basilica by Pope Francis presented a figurative, and perhaps foreboding launch.

In a press release prior to the ceremony, the Rome diocese inexplicably went out of its way to highlight the fact that some of couples the pope was going to marry were cohabiting. "Those who will get married Sunday are couples like many others,” it said. “There are those who are already cohabitating; who already have children.”

Unsurprisingly, the mainstream press took the bait and seized upon this statement to run headline after headline pushing the confusing notion that the event was a prelude to, or evidence of, a change in Church teaching on marriage.

Headlines like: 

All I can do is pray that the public fallout from these wedding ceremonies does not foreshadow the public outcome of the Synod. If so, we could be headed for a tragedy akin to the tragedy of the late sixties when, despite the proclamation of the truth of Humanae Vitae against contraception, the effect among ordinary Catholics was a near universal rejection of the teaching in practice.

What to expect at the Synod

The official list of those taking part in the Synod includes 114 presidents of Bishops’ Conferences, 13 heads of Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris, 25 heads of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, nine members of the Ordinary Council for the Secretariat, the Secretary General, the Undersecretary, three religious elected by the Union of Superiors General, 26 members appointed by the Pontiff, eight fraternal delegates, and 38 auditors, among whom are 13 married couples and 16 experts.

You’ve undoubtedly heard of Cardinal Kasper’s intervention at the Consistory of Cardinals earlier this year, in which he laid out a contentious proposal to allow Catholics who have been divorced and then ‘remarried’ outside the Church to receive Communion. 

Since then a bevy of heavy-hitter cardinals have fought that proposal, including:

Today, however, Cardinal Kasper said the “attacks” from these cardinals were not so much directed at him but at Pope Francis, since, claims Kasper, he discussed his intervention with the pope and gained his approval.

The claim has some basis, since the day after Kasper made the proposal, before it was made public, Pope Francis praised it publicly.  According to Vatican Information Service, the Holy Father said:

I read and reread Cardinal Walter Kasper's document and I would like to thank him, as I found it to be a work of profound theology, and also a serene theological reflection. It is pleasant to read serene theology. And I also found what St. Ignacius described as the 'sensus Ecclesiae', love for the Mother Church. ... It did me good, and an idea came to mind – please excuse me, Eminence, if I embarrass you – but my idea was that this is what we call ‘doing theology on one's knees’. Thank you, thank you.

Of note, Vatican correspondent Sébastien Maillard, writing for France’s La Croix, reports today that Pope Francis is “irritated” by the release of a book containing criticisms of the Kasper proposal by five cardinals.

As LifeSiteNews.com reported yesterday, one of those authors, Cardinal Raymond Burke, is being demoted from his headship of the Apostolic Signatura. The only post planned for the 66-year-old cardinal thus far is patron of the Order of Malta. 

Cardinal Burke’s pre-Synod interventions go beyond the divorce and remarriage question and into the matter of homosexuality.  In a recent interview Cardinal Burke gave a clear refutation of the misuse of Pope Francis’ famed ‘Who am I to judge’ quote to justify homosexuality.

While the issue of the Church’s teachings on homosexuality is seldom raised in reference to the Synod, with most of the emphasis being placed on the question of divorce and remarriage, it is mentioned in the working document, or ‘Instrumentum Laboris’, of the Synod.

As with the matter of divorce, no doctrine regarding homosexuality can be changed, but much confusion can still be sown under the auspices of adjustments to “pastoral” practice. Without a clear teaching from the Synod, the effects could be similar to the shift in “pastoral” practice among dissenting clergy after the promulgation of Humanae Vitae, which led to the use of artificial contraception by most Catholics.

Already and for many years there has been de facto broad acceptance of homosexual sexual practices in many Catholic schools, universities and many other institutions, with many staff being active homosexuals in open defiance of Catholic moral teaching.

Regarding the Synod’s deliberations on homosexuality, it does not bode well that one of Pope Francis’ personal appointees to the Synod is retired Cardinal Godfried Danneels.  The selection is remarkable because of Danneels was caught on tape in 2010 urging a victim who had been sexually abused by a bishop-friend of Danneels, to be silent.  Then, only last year Danneels praised as a “positive development” that states were opening up civil marriage to homosexuals.

Then, just this week, as reported on the Rorate Caeli blog, one of the three Synod presidents gave an interview with the leading Brazilian newspaper in which he said that while stable unions between homosexual persons cannot be equated to marriage, the Church has always tried to show respect for such unions.

The statement matches that of another prominent Synod participant, Vienna’s Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, who in 2010 spoke of giving more consideration to ‘the quality’ of homosexual relationships. “We should give more consideration to the quality of homosexual relationships. A stable relationship is certainly better than if someone chooses to be promiscuous,” Schönborn said.

In the end, while there is currently a public battle in the Vatican that is unprecedented in modern history, the faith will not and cannot change.  As faithful Catholics, and Christians, we must cling to the Truths of Christ regarding the family and live them out in our own lives first and foremost.  That is difficult, to be sure, especially in our sex-saturated culture, but with Christ (and only with Him) all things are possible. 

Plead with heaven for the pope and the bishops in the Synod.  LifeSiteNews will be there reporting from Rome, and, with your prayers and support, be of service to those defending truth.

Share this article

Advertisement
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

Poet: I ‘would’ve died’ for my aborted daughter’s ‘right to choose,’ just ‘like she died for mine’ (VIDEO)

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

What kind of mother asks her baby to die for her? And what kind of media outlet celebrates that?

To take the second question first, The Huffington Post is promoting a video featuring Scottish “poet” Leyla Josephine, celebrating her decision to abort her daughter. The video, “I Think She Was a She,” was uploaded to YouTube a month ago.

In the video Josephine, decked out in military camouflage, justifies herself in part by saying that she would have been willing to serve as a sacrifice to abortion just as she offered her daughter to the idol of “choice.”

“I would’ve supported her right to choose – to choose a life for herself, a path for herself. I would’ve died for that right like she died for mine,” she said.

In the next rhyming line, she addresses her unborn daughter: “I’m sorry, but you came at the wrong time.”

“I am not ashamed. I am not ashamed. I am not ashamed," she continues – a phrase she repeats a total of six times. She repeats the phrase "This is my body" three times. (She also takes the Lord's name in vain once.)

In the early part of the video, she describes her belief that her child was a girl and imagines a life where she had given birth to her daughter.

“I know she was a she,” she says. “I would have made sure that there was space on the walls to measure her height,” she adds. “I would have made sure I was a good mother.”

At one point she appears to describe the emotional aftermath of her choice as “a hollowness that feels full, a numbness that feels heavy.”

But she later calls the idea that her child was a girl or a boy “bull---t” and affirms, yet again, she is not ashamed.

This provokes a few observations:

1. If she knew her child's sex, she must have had a late-term abortion. Our gentle, healing restoration is needed in a world marred by so much aggression and anger in the name of political orthodoxy.

2. Fr. Frank Pavone has written, ”Did you ever realize that the same four words that were used by the Lord Jesus to save the world are also used by abortion advocates? 'This is My Body.'” To paraphrase him, he notes the difference. One, by surrendering His life on the Cross, gave life to the world. The abortion industry uses this phrase to impose its will on the bodies of separate, living human beings who have not harmed anyone.

3. The most chilling phrase in the video is her statement, “I would’ve supported her right to choose...I would’ve died for that right like she died for mine.”

First of all, her daughter did not die for the “right to choose.” Her daughter was not sacrificed for the inalienable “good” of keeping abortion-on-demand legal (and, in the UK, taxpayer-subsidized). Politicians are bribed to maintain it; no baby needs to die for it. Josephine's child died because HuffPo's hero of the moment chose not to carry the baby to term and place him/her in the hands of loving adoptive parents who would have cherished her baby – whether it was actually male, female, or intersex.

Josephine describes the emotions that actually led to the abortion only metaphorically – e.g., she compares the abortion to chopping down a cherry tree – but that angst is the root (so to speak) of the abortion, not the great and grand cause of assuring that other women have the right to go through the same soul-crushing grief.

That intimation that her daughter died for “choice” – that she offered her baby as a living sacrifice on the altar of abortion – confirms the darkest rhetoric of the pro-life movement: That for some in the movement, abortion is sometimes regarded as an idol.

And that raises one other, more universally held question: What kind of parent asks his son or daughter to die for the “right” to abortion? Parents are supposed to be the one who sacrificially care for their children, who forsake their own comfort, who do whatever is necessary – even die – to keep their children safe, healthy, and well. Josephine's blithe, “Sorry, but you came at the wrong time” sounds as hollow as a gangland assassin's apology to the family caught in the crossfire of a drive-by shooting. Abortion severs the love that God, or Mother Nature, or evolution, or whatever you choose to believe in placed within every pregnant woman to link the mother to her child.

The abortion lobby's rhetoric, which increasingly disregards the value of unborn life, is untethered by the bonds of human compassion, is fundamentally selfish and cold-blooded, and lacks a sense of humanity and brotherhood to the point of obliterating maternal love itself.

“Will a woman forget her child, so as not to have compassion upon the offspring of her womb?” God asks through the prophet Isaiah. “But if a woman should even forget these, yet I will not forget thee, saith the Lord.”

The pro-life movement exists precisely to set this upside-down order aright, to reinstate the natural love and compassion everyone should have for all of God's creation – most especially that between a mother and the innocent child she has helped create and fashion with her own DNA.

Cross-posted at TheRightsWriter.com.

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Cardinal Dolan greets worshipers and guests on the steps of Saint Patrick's Cathedral in Manhattan after Easter mass on April 8, 2012 in New York City. Lev Radin / Shutterstock.com
Lisa Bourne

,

Catholic leaders criticize Cardinal Dolan’s defense of gay group at St. Patrick’s Parade

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne
Image
New York Cardinal John O'Connor on the cover of the New York Post on January 11, 1993. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan defended his decision to serve as grand marshal for the 2015 St. Patrick’s Day Parade on Wednesday, in the wake of widespread criticism from Catholics after he praised the organizing committee for allowing a homosexual activist group to march.

“If the Parade Committee allowed a group to publicize its advocacy of any actions contrary to Church teaching, I’d object,” Dolan stated in his weekly column. On the contrary, he argued, “The committee’s decision allows a group to publicize its identity, not promote actions contrary to the values of the Church that are such an essential part of Irish culture.”

Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, was not impressed with the cardinal’s argument. This is precisely about publicizing advocacy contrary to Catholic teaching,” he said.

“As a Catholic father I find there is rapidly contracting space where this shameful agenda is not stuck in the faces of my children,” Ruse told LifeSiteNews. “The Church should be protecting our children rather than abetting those who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of innocent souls."

Pat Archbold, a popular blogger at the National Catholic Register and who runs the Creative Minority Report blog, lambasted Dolan for suggesting the embrace and promotion of “gay identity” can be separated from the sin of homosexuality.

“This identity is not a morally-neutral God-given attribute such as male or female, black or white,” he said. “The identity is with the immoral choice to engage in immoral behavior.”

“The best that can be said in this situation is that these people choose to proudly identify themselves with an intrinsic disorder.  But in reality, it is worse than that,” he continued. “The people find their identity and pride in sin.  Either the Cardinal knows this or he doesn't, either way Cardinal Dolan reveals himself unequal to his responsibility as a successor of the Apostles.”

The parade committee changed its longstanding policy on September 3 after decades of pressure from homosexual groups. Upon being announced as the parade’s grand marshal later the same day, Cardinal Dolan said he had no trouble with the decision at all, calling it “wise.”

The organizers had never prohibited any marchers, but did not ban issue-focused banners and signs, whether promoting homosexuality or the pro-life cause.

Cardinal Dolan stated in his column Wednesday that he did not oppose the previous policy.

“This was simply a reasonable policy about banners and public identification, not about the sexual inclinations of participants,” he explained.

“I have been assured that the new group marching is not promoting an agenda contrary to Church teaching,” he said as well, “but simply identifying themselves as ‘Gay people of Irish ancestry.’”

The homosexual activist group that will march is called OUT@NBCUniversal, which describes itself as the employee resource group for LGBT & Straight Ally employees at the media giant.

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

The network held the broadcast contract for parade coverage. Reports indicated the contract was about to expire, and that NBC joined in pressuring on parade officials.

Cardinal Dolan conceded in his column there were many thoughtful reasons for criticizing the parade policy change, and noted that he shared some of them.

“While a handful have been less than charitable in their reactions, I must admit that many of you have rather thoughtful reasons for criticizing the committee’s decision,” he said. “You observe that the former policy was fair; you worry that this is but another example of a capitulation to an ‘aggressive Gay agenda,’ which still will not appease their demands; and you wonder if this could make people think the Church no longer has a clear teaching on the nature of human sexuality.” 

However, he said, the most important question he had to ask himself was whether the new policy violated Catholic faith or morals.

In stressing that homosexual actions are sinful while identity is not, Cardinal Dolan said, “Catholic teaching is clear: ‘being Gay’ is not a sin, nor contrary to God’s revealed morals.”

Making opinion paramount, the cardinal offered that the parade committee “tried to be admirably sensitive to Church teaching,” and even though the original policy was not at all unfair, the committee was “realistic in worrying that the public perception was the opposite, no matter how often they tried to explain its coherence and fairness.”

“They worried that the former policy was being interpreted as bias, exclusion, and discrimination against a group in our city,” Cardinal Dolan wrote. “Which, if true, would also be contrary to Church teaching.”

When the decision was announced and Cardinal Dolan named the parade’s grand marshal, Philip Lawler, director of Catholic Culture and editor for Catholic World News, called it a significant advance for homosexual activists, and a significant retreat for the Catholic Church.

Pointing out in his column that the media will be correct to concentrate on that narrative at next March’s event, Lawler identified what he said is almost certain to be the result of the 2015 St. Patrick’s Day Parade.

“Next year there will be only one story-line of interest to the reporters who cover the annual parade in the world’s media capital: the triumph of the gay activists,” Lawler wrote.

“Photographers will be competing for the one ‘money’ shot: the picture of the contingent from OUT@NBCUniversal marching past the reviewing stand at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, under the benign smile of Cardinal Timothy Dolan.”

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook