As you've undoubtedly heard, a famous black Irish alcoholic drink (one I've never liked) has withdrawn its support for the New York St. Patrick's Day parade, because gay activists have been banned from politicising it. The same step has been taken by other
I haven't heard any complaints from the usual quarters about big business trying to dictate what people say and do. In fact, despite interventions like this, Marxists and semi-Marxists and quasi-Marxists of every type will continue to propagate the myth that big business promotes a 'conservative' agenda.
I don't care much about any of the parades. I don't care where Enda Kenny marches. St. Patrick's Day is not a celebration of Irishness, traditional or contemporary (except incidentally). It's not a celebration of diversity. It's a celebration of the saint who converted the Irish people to Christianity, and of the glorious fifteen-hundred-year history of Christianity in Ireland.
The real celebration of St. Patrick's Day is happening in Christian churches and homes, in Ireland and all over the world. Whatever secular celebrations take place are the business of the people conducting them. The only reason they have a day to celebrate today is because St. Patrick converted the Irish to Christianity.
It's not that I'm a killjoy. I'm all in favour of pretty much every parade. A parade is a good thing. People having fun and celebrating life is a good thing. Tourists wearing inflatable leprechaun hats are good thing. But why pretend they are celebrating St. Patrick if they are not?
Happy St. Patrick's Day to all my readers.
It's never enough for the LGBT community. They've got their own little cringey parade but they're not happy until they're shoving that filth in everyone's face.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, the priest who did the Mass on St Patrick's Day at my church gave a truly excellent homily; certainly very unexpected. He was a bit upset (in an angry kind of way, though not dramatically so) at the low number of people attending Mass, especially on that particular day, despite the number of people living in the area. He also attacked the concept of pluralism, stating that Catholics are not the same as everyone else and that we need to make it known that is the case. I think he talked about something else, but I can't think of it right now.
Unfortunately I never got to thank him for it because headed to the back of the church afterwards. I think he was an older priest, and I don't think he does Mass much, so I'm not sure if I'll see him any time soon.
Isn't 'filth' a harsh word to use?
ReplyDeleteI do think it's good to hear a priest actually rebuking the congregation for once-- although, of course, he was complaining to the people who WERE there. But it's nice to hear that one of your local priests is actually presenting the Faith in a spirit that is not 'it's there for you if you want it'. There's far too little of that kind of spiritedness about.
Maolsheachlann, as you have probably gathered I am not the most patient person in the world. However, let me clarify. When I say "filth" I am not referring to homosexuals themselves. I'm sure everyone has at least seen pictures of gay parades. The way these people dress and act in public really cannot be described in any other way than filthy. If somebody decided to randomly do that in the street one day they would be arrested, and rightly so. Being a gay seems to be a great excuse for doing lots of things these days. A bunch of people dressed down to their underwear and acting provocatively in public is disgusting. I'm sure they don't all do it, but it's definitely there.
ReplyDeleteI will admit I have a particular uneasiness when it comes to homosexuality, or at least homosexual intimacy, which I think I expressed in the forums once. That's probably a big mark next to my name right there, but what can I do?
The priest actually wasn't giving out to the people there. As a matter of fact he thanked and congratulated us for being there. Perhaps the other priests knew not many people would attend and that's why they let him give the mass though. Who knows.
That's a very good point. Not only gay pride parades, but elements of the whole gay rights movement can often behave in a way that seems to throw their own cause into disrepute. I'm not sure the gay marchers who wanted to march in the New York St. Patrick's Day parade would have been so tacky, although who knows.
ReplyDeleteI do remember you saying that on the forum and I don't see why it should be a big mark against your name at all, or that you should have to defend that reaction.
I like the sound of that priest!
I'm sure they wouldn't have acted like that in the St. Patrick's Day parade as I can't see that people, even supporters of LGBT, would be comfortable with it. The fact that they feel the need to parade their sexuality on a day that has nothing to do with them is pretty infuriating though.
ReplyDeleteThe reason it would be a mark against my name is because people could use it against me in an argument. Not that I go around telling people that's how I feel, but if they knew then I would expect a response along the lines of "Yeah, but your points are all mute. Everyone knows how you feel about homosexuals", and of course I'm sure the word homophobe would find its way in there somewhere.
Well, it would certainly put you arguing under a disadvantage in some peoples' eyes, although logically it shouldn't.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, many people assume that anyone who argues against same-sex marriage (for instance) are homophobic anyway, so maybe it wouldn't make that much difference after all.