Friday, March 27, 2015

Enemies of Archbishop Cordileone betray Bishop McElroy, fellow Priests

A week to the day before Holy Thursday, a priest or priests from the Archdiocese of San Francisco seems hellbent (we hope the term does not become literally true) on following Judas rather than Jesus.

Yesterday, the National Catholic Reporter published the confidential minutes of a "mid-February" meeting of the Council of Priests of the Archdiocese of San Francisco. The Reporter "obtained a copy of the minutes from an anonymous priest."

The priest who gave the minutes to the Reporter not only violated the confidentiality of his fellow priests at the meeting, but also that of Bishop Robert McElroy, who was there also.

The minutes appeared under the byline of the Reporter's Dan Morris-Young, who has authored a recent series of articles attacking the new policy of Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, which is designed to restore fidelity to the Catholic Church in the high schools of the Archdiocese.

The portions of the minutes the Reporter published dealt with Fr. Joseph Illo at Star of the Sea. One of the commenters to the story said:

"I've heard from several friends now about the parish where the pastor introduced the Archdiocesan Appeal a few weeks ago by noting that it's as likely to be successful 'as selling signed LA Dodgers photos to SF Giants fans.' Many people I know gave $1 to support our pastors' 'percentage contributing' targets, but no more."

Well, that certainly isn't Fr. Illo's parish. About a month into the Archbishop's (not 'Archdiocesan') Annual Appeal, Fr. Illo's parish has already exceeded their assessment, and a usually well-informed person told me they have exceeded it by about 25%.


Thursday, March 12, 2015

Congratulations, Spokane! Bishop Daly Heads North

Congratulations to the good Catholics of Spokane! Pope Francis has sent them a wonderful San Francisco boy: Bishop Thomas Daly. He is young, dynamic, orthodox, and fearless. While we in the Bay Area will miss him, it is good for the Church for him to be in charge of a diocese.

Congratulations, Spokane and congratulations, Bishop Daly!

Friday, March 6, 2015

Sacred Heart Chaplain Fr. Mark Doherty hits a Home Run on School Initiative Interview

KPCC Radio's Air Talk had a show on March 5 about the new Archdiocesan initiative to re-Catholicize the Archdiocesan High Schools. It's a must listen.

In the first minutes the host, Larry Mantle, interviewed Michael Vezzali, the Chairman of the English Department at Archbishop Riordan High School, who, opposes the Church's teaching. I don't think it's unfair to say he did not exactly make a great showing, but I invite you to listen.

He was followed (at about 6:16 into the interview) by Fr. Mark Doherty, the Chaplain of Sacred Heart Cathedral Prep, who absolutely hit it out of the park. Logical, educational, persuasive.

The final guest was Rick Garnett, Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Notre Dame, specializing in freedom of speech, association, and religion, who was also excellent.

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Archbishop Cordileone Evangelizes Editorial Board of SF Chronicle

Our great archbishop Cordileone continues the fight against what our Holy Father Pope Francis has called the 'new ideological colonization that tries to destroy the family.'

Last week, Archbishop Cordileone met with the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle, and discussed the new Archdiocesan school initiative. This is very important, not only because His Excellency does such a good job on the video, but because those reporters, who listened to the whole thing, are also part of the Archbishop's flock, and their souls are just as important to him as are yours and mine.




Monday, March 2, 2015

USF Blacklists Walk for Life West Coast: "No Results Found"

An edited version of this post appeared in today's California Catholic Daily.

On January 24, San Francisco’s Walk for Life West Coast drew pro-life student groups from all over the western United States. The presence of such groups is one of the Walk’s distinguishing features. Every year, the Walk is covered from start to finish by EWTN. The coverage is led by Fr. Mark Mary, the host of Life on the Rock. Fr. Mark walks the Walk, and interviews participants along the way. Because Life on the Rock is geared to a younger audience, Fr. Mark makes a special effort to interview student groups. This year, at 3:01:53 into the coverage, Fr. Mark conducted an interview that provoked both concern and anger among Catholics. Here’s the transcript:

“Fr. Mark Mary: What group are you with?

Young woman: University of San Francisco.

How many are with you today?

We have 3 her, we were not allowed to post any flyers at our school.

Really? The administration wouldn’t let you?

Cause it was an off-campus function, so liability. But we are a Catholic school and there was no email or any mention of the Walk.

But you’re undaunted, you’re here anyway, and do you go to this every year?

Yes, this is our third year, well second year for USF Students for Life.

What does it do for you to come?

Um, it remotivates us to face our campus every day and to try to change our campus to pro-life and uphold authentic Catholic values.

Do you have hope for your fellow students, your peer group, that they’ll be converted on this issue?

Yes! Absolutely we do have hope.

Fr. Mark Mary then asked a young man with the USF group “Are you motivated by faith to come out?

By faith and reason, faith and reason, yeah.

OK, thanks for chatting with us.”


A search the website of the University of San Francisco supported the contention of the USF Students for Life representative that the university has blacklisted the Walk. A search for “Walk for Life West Coast” or “Walk for Life” returns absolutely zero results.



USF’s refusal to allow any publication of the Walk is in marked contradiction to the school’s attitude towards San Francisco’s annual celebration of sodomy, the gay pride parade. A search on the same website using the term “pride parade” returns 3,380 results:


 One example detailed participation in the 2014 gay pride parade:

“Proudly Part of the City That Defines ‘Pride’ Dons March in SF Annual Parade

“About 200 USFers took part in San Francisco's Pride Parade on June 29….Some USFers saw the event as a special way to bond with co-workers. ‘I don’t remember experiencing that much school spirit in my 10 years at USF,’ said Julia Hing, assistant director of employer relations at USF. ‘It was a fantastic day.’

The LGBTQ Caucus USF’s parade contingent, which was co-sponsored by the Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and the Common Good, Human Resources, the Office of Diversity Engagement and Outreach, and the Office of Communications and Marketing. The groups say they will march again in 2015….”

The professed concern about “liability” at “off-campus” events does not bear scrutiny. The USF administration obviously has no problem about endorsing off-campus events when it fits the schools agenda, or even whether safety is an issue or not. On February 18, the San Francisco Chronicle reported the gay pride organizers had cancelled the so-called “Pink Saturday” event, held the day before the gay pride parade: “The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are pulling the plug on this year’s Pink Saturday due to ‘an escalation in violence’ that marred the staple of Pride weekend.”

Another result promoted a planning session for the 2015 gay pride parade. The faithful young woman interviewed on the EWTN segment asserted “but we are a Catholic school.” That, unfortunately, is incorrect. The Walk for Life West Coast, which USF refused to even mention, was attended by 12 Catholic Bishops as well as Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, and included a message of support from Pope Francis. A real Catholic school would have done everything in its power to support such an event. By contrast, there has never been one iota of Catholic support for the gay pride parade, indeed, there is opposition, yet USF supports it wholeheartedly.

Baronelle Stutzman, American Heroine

Baronelle Stutzman is the florist from the state of Washington who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex "wedding." As a result she was sued by the ACLU and Bob Ferguson, Attorney General of the state of Washington. On February 18, Judge Alexander C. Ekstrom ruled against Mrs. Stutzman. Mrs. Stutzman's attorney Kristin Waggoner, of the Alliance Defending Freedom, will appeal the ruling. Following the ruling, Mrs. Stutzman sent this beautiful letter to Attorney General Ferguson:

Dear Mr. Ferguson,
 Thank you for reaching out and making an offer to settle your case against me.
 As you may imagine, it has been mentally and emotionally exhausting to be at the center of this controversy for nearly two years. I never imagined that using my God-given talents and abilities, and doing what I love to do for over three decades, would become illegal. Our state would be a better place if we respected each other’s differences, and our leaders protected the freedom to have those differences. Since 2012, same-sex couples all over the state have been free to act on their beliefs about marriage, but because I follow the Bible’s teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, I am no longer free to act on my beliefs.
Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important.
Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.
 I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so.
I truly want the best for my friend. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case.

You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating, and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process.

Thanks again for writing and I hope you will consider my offer.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

"Leather-themed" public plaza planned for San Francisco

When you read or hear of objections to Archbishop Cordileone from the press, politicians, and many of the citizens of San Francisco, it is a good idea to keep things like this in mind, to remember where they are coming from. "Leather" is a synonym for Sado-Masochism.
A leather-themed public plaza would be built on the roadway outside the Eagle bar in San Francisco's South of Market neighborhood under a proposal backed by the developer of a new mixed-use housing and retail development.
 The plan would turn a block of 12th Street, between Harrison and Bernice, fronting the gay-owned bar into a parklet with design elements celebrating SOMA's ties to both the LGBT and leather communities. Since the 1950s the neighborhood has been home to a number of gay bars and nightclubs, many catering to the leather scene.
 Today, most of the remaining LGBT nightlife establishments are centered on or near 11th Street between Folsom and Harrison streets, with the Eagle a block away. The city has designated that section of western SOMA as part of an LGBTQ cultural heritage district.
"I am super excited about it. I think it is beautiful," said District 6 Supervisor Jane Kim, whose office has been involved in the initial talks about the proposed plaza.




Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Supporting Archbishop Cordileone at tonight's anti-Catholic protest

Photo: Mike Koozmin, SF Examiner.
Thanks, Mike, but I'm praying in SUPPORT of the Archbishop
and real Catholic Education, not against him!
I went to the plaza in front of St. Mary's Cathedral tonight while the protest against Archbishop Cordileone's initiative to re-Catholicize Archdiocesan high schools was taking place. While the protesters posed for the cameras and encouraged passing motorists to honk their horns, I knelt on the hard stones for about 90 minutes praying the Rosary for our great Archbishop. You know Our Lady loves him!

One of the recent California Catholic Daily articles about the protests was headlined "Gays herd high schoolers to St. Mary's" and boy, were they being herded tonight. While I was praying someone with a megaphone announced (I don't claim this is verbatim--I was praying, not taking notes, but it is accurate) something like "the 6:00 news is here...we need signs for photos over here" and then, a little later "OK, now, we need signs over here."

Nothing's real with these guys--only how it looks. Counterfeit marriage, counterfeit "genders," deliberate misunderstanding of Pope Francis, counterfeits all the way down.

Anyway, I had a great time praying for His Excellency. The Good Lord knew what he was doing when he sent ABC to the city of St. Francis! What a blessing!


Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Archbishop Cordileone acts on Catholic Schools: they "exist to affirm and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ as held and taught by the Catholic Church"

Bless his Lionheart! Forgive the long post  title, but this initiative is so important every word is also important. Excerpts from Valerie Schmalz's article on the front page of today's Catholic San Francisco are below.

The Archdiocese has also released a special supplement to this week's Catholic San Francisco which consists of: the Archbishop's letter to school faculty; the documentitself: "Statement of the High Schools of the Archdiocese of San Francisco Regarding the Teachings and Practice of the Catholic Church”; a statement from Maureen Huntington, Superintendent of the S.F. Department of Catholic Schools; and Q and A about the new teachers' union contract. The supplement may be found here (PDF).

Here's a (very) short video of His Excellency outlining the initiative:




Archdiocese: Catholic schools exist to ‘affirm and proclaim’ Gospel of Jesus
February 3rd, 2015
By Valerie Schmalz
 
Faculty handbook changes emphasize that teachers, staff must not publicly contradict Catholic teaching
 The Archdiocese of San Francisco is proposing three new clauses to the contracts for the teachers in the archdiocesan Catholic high schools. The purpose is to further clarify that Catholic schools – as the first clause states – “exist to affirm and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ as held and taught by his Catholic Church.”
 The archdiocese is also adding detailed statements of Catholic teaching on sexual morality and religious practice – taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church – into the faculty and staff handbooks of the four archdiocesan high schools, Archbishop Riordan, Marin Catholic and Junipero Serra high schools and Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory. The handbook additions will take effect in the 2015-16 school year and are not part of the contract.
 While the handbook and contract changes reiterate more strongly the responsibility of teachers and staff not to contradict Catholic teaching in school and in their public lives, they do not contain anything essentially new and are intended to clarify existing expectations that Catholic teachers in their professional and public lives uphold Catholic teaching, archdiocesan Catholic Schools Superintendent Maureen Huntington said.
The intent is not to drive any teacher out of the schools, Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone and Huntington said....

Archbishop’s letter
Archbishop Cordileone specifically addressed concerns about job security in a letter dated February 2015 to teachers. 
“At the outset, I wish to state clearly and emphatically that the intention underlying this document is not to target for dismissal from our schools any teachers, singly or collectively, nor does it introduce anything essentially new into the contract or the faculty handbook,” the archbishop wrote in the letter.
The handbook additions clearly state that the institution believes in the listed items, and does not require each individual staff member or teacher to assent to each stated item of Catholic doctrine. That is because the archdiocese recognizes that some Catholic teachers and other non-Catholic teachers may not agree with all that the Catholic Church teaches, Archbishop Cordileone said. The aim of the handbook additions is to specify for all what the church teaches and require that high school staff and teachers not contradict Catholic teachings in a school environment or in public actions. ...
 Archbishop Cordileone explained the reasoning in his letter to the archdiocesan teachers, saying “I see a need to provide more clarity for our teachers.” “For a Catholic high school to attain excellence, it must be at one and the same time an excellent institution of secondary education and a truly Catholic institution,” he said. “Changes in our secular society over the last few decades have brought new challenges to this endeavor in both senses, as we now face both increased difficulties in educating our students well in an array of academic subjects, and unprecedented challenges in forming our young people with a deep and strong Catholic identity as well as knowledge and practice of the Catholic faith,” the archbishop wrote....

Changes cover ‘hot button’ issues
The additions to the faculty handbooks cover what Archbishop Cordileone termed “hot button” issues and are drawn directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. They include statements of Catholic teaching on abortion, same-sex marriage, artificial contraception and artificial means of reproduction such as in-vitro fertilization as well as affirming the authority of the magisterium of the Catholic Church and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
 “Confusion about the church’s stance is prevalent in areas of sexual morality and religious practice,” Archbishop Cordileone said. “For this reason, the statements for inclusion in the faculty handbook focus on these two areas. This focus does not imply lesser importance to Catholic teachings on social justice, which in fact are widely accepted and well interpreted in Catholic educational institutions.”
 “There is nothing new under the Catholic sun with this approach,” said Jesuit Father John Piderit, moderator of the curia/vicar for administration for the archdiocese. “It is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is straightforward.” 

Read the whole thing.



Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Anti-Family, Anti-Catholic Activists hosted at Most Holy Redeemer

Today's California Catholic Daily reports on SF's Most Holy Redeemer Church's January 22 hosting of a town hall meeting for the LGBT political action group Equality California. The article is aptly titled "Is this a Catholic Church?"

Of all the anti-Catholic events hosted at MHR, and there have been many (drag show, obscene bingo, years of sado-masochistic gatherings, etc.) this is the most obscene and the most anti-Catholic. No group that MHR has hosted, not the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, or the S/m Golden Gate Guards or the Inter-Club Fund are worse than EQCA.

The meeting was sold as focusing on access to health care. But that took up only a small part of the meeting. The majority of the discussion covered Equality California's broadening political agenda. That political and legislative agenda is diametrically opposed to the Catholic Church, That agenda will also target individual Catholics and Christians who attempt to uphold the truth of the faith.

The transcripts of some of the items under discussion, taken from the California Catholic Daily article are reproduced below in red. The speaker is Executive Director Rick Zbur.

On EQCA's opposition to religious exemptions to laws that the Catholic Church and its members could not obey without violating their faith, the moderator asked: "Do you see some of these religious liberty laws they’ve tried to get started in other states over the last year or so? And they did have an effort in California that I don’t think went anywhere. Do you see this happening again in the legislative session, and if so will Equality California oppose that?"

“Well, we definitely would oppose it. You know, I haven’t heard very much about them doing that, I think they’re focus is on unraveling AB 1266, that’s what we we’re hearing their focus is, but in California I haven’t heard anything recently, but obviously we would oppose it. The thrust really though, I think is at the federal level with the version of ENDA that passed the Senate that included a broad religious exemption that we were very very uncomfortable about, and most of the LGBT organizations that weighed in expressed a lot of nervousness about the decision to pass it with that broad religious exemption, and so we’ve already spoken out against that. 
“I think the thing that makes me nervous is the fact that it passed with that version and we’ve got a lot of states now that I don’t think that the next phase of us earning civil rights protection is going to happen at the federal level with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress. It’s really going to happen, as it has in California, in the states that don’t have that. So I’m really nervous about this religious exemption being used to sort of weaken civil rights laws that pass in the states. So that’s, we’ll continue engaging on that where we see it.”

This means EQCA opposes an exemption for, say, a photographer or a baker who refuses to participate in a same-sex 'wedding.'  They will work to prevent a Catholic from being faithful to the Church. They are announcing this intention in what calls itself a Catholic Church.

Note that in his answer, Mr. Zbur brought up AB 1266. The California Catholic Bishops were very clear about that bill: "If signed into law by the governor, AB 1266 will require public schools to allow a child of any age 'to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.'"

What the bill means is that if a second grade girl (who is biologically a female) decides she wants to be a boy, she can use the boys’ bathroom if she chooses. She can insist on being called 'he' instead of 'she'. If a twelve year old boy (who is biologically a male) self-identifies as a girl, he—or 'she'—must be allowed to play on the girls’ softball team and share the locker room with the girls.

Explain that to your eight or ten year old, or your six year old."


The moderator followed up: "You just mentioned AB 1266, which is the law that went into effect last January, that provides that all students have access to the same facilities [bathrooms], including transgender students too, athletics and other things too. What do you see in different parts of the state around implementing that and how can Equality California help with that. You did mention earlier you were working on some school issues." Zbur responded:

“We’ve been partnering with other LGBT organizations, not us alone. The ACLU, one of our partners, has been really taking a lot of leadership on this. For example, I think it’s next week we are participating in a pretty big convening meeting in the Coachella Valley in which I think there is something like 8 or 9 smaller school districts that the ACLU and Equality California are helping provide some training for members of the school district and administrators and the school board on AB 1266 implementation. 
“What we’re finding is implementation is spotty, that a lot of districts really don’t want to do it, that AB 1266 is one of those laws that there is a fair amount of controversy on. We saw a member of the California Assembly who lost re-election in Orange County and one of the key issues that was raised in her political campaign was the fact that she voted for AB 1266. So I think our opponents know that is an area where the public, where there is a lack of full understanding among the public. And they’re using that as a bit of a wedge issue.
“So we think that we need to really engage in education ahead of a potential ballot measure that they may very well try to put back on the ballot in the 2016 election cycle. They did try to gather signatures for 2014 and just fell short in gathering enough signatures to get on the ballot but we’re hearing that they are going to try again and so that’s an issue that we’ll be working on with the Transgender Law Center & the ACLU & National Center for Lesbian Rights and all of our partners”

AB 1266 is a vastly unpopular law, certainly opposed by a majority of Californians. As Zbur admits even "a lot of (public school) districts really don't want to do it." And we repeat: it was publicly opposed by the California Catholic Bishops. But EQCA announces, in what calls itself a Catholic Church, that, working with the ACLU, will be forcing compliance with this idiotic and immoral law in direct opposition to the Catholic Church.

EQCA's actions corrupt the minds of California's children by teaching them that it is simply their decision which determines whether they are a boy or a girl. But AB 1266 is not the only attack EQCA is making on children, the family, and reason in the public schools.  The moderator asked Mr. Zbur what EQCA's priorities were for the coming year. Zbur listed three, one of which was:

“We are talking to the ACLU about co-sponsoring a bill that would update sex-education criteria that are imposed in the schools, and there are requirements now that sex education programs in a very general way address and educate kids about the diversity of what a family looks like and because the standards are so general most school districts don’t really do what was intended by the existing legislation. So that the curriculum is being updated, the ACLU really wants more standards than that, so we’re really going to be focused on that as well.”

So the propaganda that goes under the name of 'sex education' in the public schools does not go far enough in Mr. Zbur's (or the ACLU's) opinion. To 'educate kids about the diversity of what a family looks like' is simply propaganda against the family, what Pope Francis himself called on January 16 the 'new ideological colonization that tries to destroy the family.'

Once again, Zbur announces that he will attack the fundamental teaching of the Church (exemplified by Pope Francis words) on the reality of man and woman and the family. Once again he announces his attack on the faith, (and the Pope), in what calls itself a Catholic Church.

Mr. Zbur is also seeking clerical allies in castrating the Churches. (He has two--two priest were in attendance at the meeting, probably Frs. McClure and Link of MHR). He unveiled EQCA's 'Faith Initiative'--apparently made public for the first time, at Most Holy Redeemer.

The moderator asked: "I know that when we talked you had mentioned something about Equality California planning a faith initiative. What would that entail?"

Mr. Zbur: “So we’ll be announcing the details, but I’ll give you a little bit of a preview. We’ve been in discussions with a group of faith leaders throughout the state who’ve actually already been engaging in work to both educate and outreach to the faith communities about the LGBT community and to advance LGBT equality and acceptance in the faith community, talking with them about providing a home and support for that and part of their ministry. 
“The group of faith leaders are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, includes a large group or them, so for us it recognizes the fact that some of achieving our goal of full acceptance of LGBT people will require us I think to have more outreach and education within faith communities and so that’s a priority for us and we are hoping that this new initiative is completed, but we’re hoping soon to announce the details of the faith initiative that is sort of really aimed at more outreach in the faith communities in California. 
“I think that other than that what makes me really excited is that you look at where the opponents of full equality are coming from, they’re using faith based arguments and religious exemptions to try and carve away the legal rights that we have already earned here in California and in other parts of the country, so having a group of faith leaders who are standing with us in our fight for full equality and acceptance, I think will be something that’s going to be important for us all as we engage in the political advocacy that we need and in the public education to sort of protect the rights that we have already earned.”

Equality California is at war with the Catholic Church. Inexplicably, the Archdiocese of San Francisco provided them with a beachhead. That Most Holy Redeemer would provide aid and comfort to the enemies of the Church will surprise no one who has been paying attention. As far back as August 28, 2007, in the post 'MHR and how it got that way,'  I argued that, existentially, Most Holy Redeemer is not a Catholic Church, it is a gay spiritual institution. I wrote at that time:

"The moral credibility of the Catholic Church, then, will be determined (by the members of MHR) by the extent to which it supports, or fails to support, the community-forming experience of the gay community. If...the sexuality is experienced as more important than the doctrines of the Catholic Church, one would expect the doctrines of the Church to be discarded when they come into conflict with the community-forming experience. And this is exactly what happens...And this leads to the acceptance of blasphemy in an ostensibly Catholic Church. But such events will not be experienced by the parishioners as blasphemous, because they validate the community-forming experience...Indeed, at this point, what will be experienced by the parishioners as blasphemous is that which denies the value of the community-forming experience." Such as the teaching that marriage is only between one man and one woman.

I also wrote at that time that the fault does not lie with MHR but with the Archdiocese.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

AB Cordileone: The heart of a lion, the patience of a saint


Our great Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone joins his predecessor the great Archbishop (and 'pink brick' award winner) George Niederauer in trying to open the closed heart of his lost sheep, Nancy Pelosi.




LifeSiteNews reports:

San Fran. archbishop responds to Pelosi: ‘No Catholic can dissent in good conscience’ on abortion

SAN FRANCISCO, January 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi repeatedly refused to say last week whether an unborn child at 20 weeks is a “human being,” her archbishop in San Francisco has responded by insisting that “no Catholic can dissent in good conscience” on abortion. 
CNSNews posed the question to Pelosi on January 22 in light of debate in the House of Representatives on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortions after 20 weeks except in cases of rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother. 
After twice refusing to say whether an unborn child at 20 weeks is a “human being,” she stated: “As a mother of five, in six years, I have great standing on this issue, great understanding of it, more than my colleagues.” She added that she knows more about “having babies” than even the pope. 
"It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception," he said. "This has been established in medical science for over 100 years. Catholic moral teaching acknowledges this scientific fact, and has always affirmed the grave moral evil of taking an innocent human life.” 
“This has been the consistent teaching of the Church from the very beginning, a teaching already discernible in the natural moral law, and so a teaching from which no Catholic can dissent in good conscience,” he added.
Pastors, he said, have an “obligation … to reach out to their people who have difficulty understanding and accepting such important teachings of the Church in order to extend to them true pastoral care and, where appropriate, to establish a regular dialogue.”
“This is something I have always striven to do in the various ministries I have exercised as a priest and bishop, including now as the Archbishop of San Francisco. I ask for people’s prayers for success as I continue to strive to do this,” he said.

God bless His Excellency and His Excellency Niederauer before him.  I point out that even Don Bosco, one of the most beloved and kindest of Saints, threw a couple of boys out of the Oratory because he feared they would become a bad influence on others.

It's about 8 year's now since our dear Fr. Malloy (who was also very kind and patient) told Pelosi not to receive communion:

From the Pastors Desk
Nancy, you are fooling yourself and I fear fooling many good Catholics. You are simply not in sync with the Catholic Church. Until you change your non-Catholic positions, you should stop calling yourself Catholic. Your record shows that you support embryonic stem cell research, Planned Parenthood, contraception, family planning funding, allowing minors to have an abortion without parental consent, and are against making it a crime to harm a fetus, etc. etc.
The fact that you favor married priests and women priests certainly would not classify you as conservative, but your answer to the question are you a conservative Catholic was:
“I think so. I was raised in a very strict upbringing in a Catholic home where we respected people, were observant, were practicing Catholics, and that the fundamental belief was that God gave us all a free will, and we were accountable for that, each of us. Each person had that accountability, so it wasn’t for us to make judgments about how people saw their responsibility and that it wasn’t for politicians to make decisions about how people led their personal lives; certainly, to a high moral standards, but when it got into decisions about privacy and all the rest, then that was something that individuals had to answer to God for, and not to politicians.”
That sounds fair and tolerant, but your record belies high moral standards.
The NARAL rates you 100% pro-abortion. Your statement: “To me it isn’t even a question. God has given us a free will. We’re all responsible for our actions. If you don’t want an abortion, you don’t believe in it, [then] don’t have one. But don’t tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their responsibilities. My family is very pro-life. They’re not fanatics and they’re not activists. I think they’d like it if I were not so vocally pro-choice.”
Do we not elect politicians to make laws that help people honor their responsibilities, such as protecting life itself? Can politicians not tell someone else not to kill? If you can kill a baby in the womb, Nancy, why not outside of it? Oh wait, you are in favor of partial birth abortion, so-called because the baby sticks out of the “mother” about halfway, while the “doctor” sucks out the baby's brain. That seems comparable to the choice the Nazis made killing six million Jews.
Yes, Nancy, we (together with your pro-life family) would all like it if you were not so vocally pro-choice, i.e. pro-death. Until your choice is in line with Catholic doctrine, please, Nancy, do not receive the Eucharist when you attend Mass.
Rev. John Malloy, SDB

San Francisco, CA

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Kristor on counterfeit "gay marriage"

Kristor writes over at the Othosphere:

"...no one is ever really fooled by such linguistic or legal circumlocutions and euphemisms. Whatever it is that homosexuals will get when homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land – as seems likely to happen this summer, when the Supreme Court takes up the matter – it won’t be the true and honest social approval for their arrangements that is given to real marriage, and that they so want. None of the actual, ineluctable differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality will be changed by the legal fiction. Thus it won’t be homosexual relations that are ennobled by the new PC code; rather, the term 'marriage,' and all the social appurtenances thereto, will be debased, in exactly the way that currency is debased by artificial inflation."
It's the argument we have been making for years. It remains to be seen if counterfeit marriage becomes the law of the land, of course. If so, not only does the term marriage 'and all the social appurtenances thereto' become debased, the law itself becomes debased, just as the term 'American' is becoming debased.