People are quick to throw out the "just like the Nazis" or "you're a Nazi." Such comparisons have become the emblem of bad ad hominem argumentation.
I am doing the Nazi comparison here, but I could just as easily do it with Socialism, it's just that more people are aware of the history of Nazism than of Socialism. But what I am saying here of the Church's relationship with Nazism from about 1929 to 1945 can be applied to Socialism over a much wider period. It is even going on today, especially in places like South America.
I am not saying any one is a Nazi, though. I want to make a comparison between the way German bishops dealt with Nazis in the 1930s with the way many bishops are dealing with homosexualists today. Cardinal Dolan made a very disappointing statement in relation to a homosexual football player recently. Let's take it as an example.
Look at Dolan. Bishop of what might be considered perhaps the most important diocese in the world, next to Rome. How did he get there? Look at your own place of work: how did your bosses get there? Government especially. I've never worked for the government, but I have spoken to enough people who have, and I have been in enough places of business to see my impression confirmed again and again. If you are looking for virtue, for integrity, the higher up you go the less you will surely find. How can I say that? Simply, today - maybe it has always been the case, but I don't think so - to succeed you cannot be inflexible. Now, flexibility might sound like a virtue, but as a complete character type, it is far from that. It means you don't stand by anything. Everything is up for grabs for the sake of advancement. Politician and business leaders are not to be respected. I know they are, but in fact, quite the opposite should be the case. Take any of them, even the one I most naturally admire, Chancellor Angela Merkel. Anyone who can attain preferment in a modern democracy is the very worst kind of person. And, people of integrity can go some distance to attain success, but their integrity will stand almost always in inverse relation to their success. What I am saying, in other words, is that the best of our politicians, say MP Woodworth, is limited precisely insofar as he sees something as a non-negotiable. He does, therefore he is.
Back to Dolan. I can't even imagine the vested interests present in New York. I assume that a see like that functions no differently than the important sees in the Ancien Regime. Let me put it this way: Pope Benedict, and whoever was Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops before Ouelett, did not by themselves, as from a tabula rasa, suddenly decide to appoint Dolan to New York. There was likely more political wrangling going on with that than at a Medici family reunion. And what kind of person can survive such heated contests? Only a person who is more form than substance, usually. Again, I don't know Dolan from a hole in the ground, but anyone who says 'bravo' in the context of a homosexual declaration is form, not substance.
He doesn't seem to grasp that he is bravo-ing someone who is a part of a movement that wants to declare his religion illegal.
But was what he said false? No. A successful slippery person is not that careless. I don't understand why so few bishops have not realized that this movement is one aimed at annihilating Christianity. And here's the point of comparison: looking back, how was it that so few German bishops saw this about Nazism? Nazism, just like homosexualism stands for some positive things: the Nazis were pro-economic success - only a German-hater would be against that, right? The homosexualists are against the persecution of homosexuals, right, and only a Christian-hater would espouse the persecution of gays, right?
Calling a Nazi "someone who is interested in economic prosperity" is like calling a homosexualist "someone who is interested in increasing love in the world" or a socialist "someone who loves the poor."
These are all lies - dangerous lies. And so it is completely unintelligible to me how someone as well-educated and as experienced as the Archbishop of New York does not see that he is aiding the Church's most dangerous enemies.