"“Jesus is merciful, but he is not stupid;”

Love it, from Catholic News Agency:

"Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago, Ill., is defending his decision to cease funding of an immigration organization after it declared support and encouragement for same-sex “marriage.”

The board of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights “broke faith with its member organizations when it publicly supported so called 'same-sex marriage,'” said Cardinal George in a July 29 statement.

“For its own political advantage, it introduced a matter extraneous to its own purpose and betrayed its own members, who were not consulted....

Of those who signed the letter, he said that because they are Catholic, they know that “in a few years, like each of us, they will stand before this same Christ to give an account of their stewardship.”

“Jesus is merciful, but he is not stupid;” he said, “he knows the difference between right and wrong. Manipulating both immigrants and the Church for political advantage is wrong.”

Madagascar Archbishop on Catholic Relief Services: "I threw them the hell out of my office"

We had followed but not yet commented on the accusations made by the Population Research Institute against Catholic Relief Services' work in Madagascar.

Over the past few days we had read the PRI report, which claimed to document specific instances of CRS employees pushing contraception and abortafacient drugs in Madagascar. Because the report was quite specific, we were waiting to see CRS's response.

On July 30, the CRS published a press release written by John Rivera with the headline:"CRS Refutes Inaccurate and Misleading Report from Population Research Institute." But that is boilerplate: the headline is not backed up in any way in the body of the release. Had they replaced "refutes" with "denies" that would have been more accurate, because nothing in the release refutes the PRI report at all. The release begins:

"Catholic Relief Services (CRS) is a pro-life organization dedicated to preserving the sacredness and dignity of human life from conception to natural death. Every aspect of our work is to help life flourish. We are resolute in our commitment to the Church and its teaching.

Population Research Institute (PRI) has alleged that CRS has used funding from American Catholics to distribute contraceptive and abortifacient drugs and devices in Madagascar. This allegation is simply false. As a pro-life organization, CRS programming does not include the promotion or distribution of artificial family planning or distribution of abortifacients in any country in which we work."

That's fair enough although not responsive. It would be a fine preamble if the rest of the release went on to address the incidents documented by PRI. The release continues:

"We are confused by the strong allegations coming from PRI regarding CRS programs, as we simply do not engage in such work. All current CRS grants in Madagascar clearly delineate what activities CRS will implement within its programming portfolio, and artificial family planning and abortifacients are most definitely not included in any of our programming grants. At the end of every grant, a full report of our activities is submitted to the grant agency. Our reports clearly indicate that CRS did not engage in the distribution of contraceptive or abortifacients drugs or devices."

Emphasis in original. That, too, is not responsive. If it is the policy of CRS is not to distribute contraceptives or abortifacients, of course it will not appear in the report.  The question is not: did it appear in the report? the question is: did it happen? In the next paragraph, Mr. Rivera writes:

"Yet in order to remain vigilant, we are reviewing the allegations to ensure that all CRS programming is consistent with the teaching of the Church. This review is ongoing, but this is what we have determined so far regarding PRI’s allegations:

"PRI reported it interviewed a program manager for USAID-SantéNet named Jean Patrick Bourahimou, who made statements about CRS and USAID’s work. However, CRS staff in Madagascar do not know this person, and the USAID Madagascar office reported that Jean Patrick Bourahimou is not a USAID employee and therefore could not make statements on USAID’s behalf about programming related to CRS and USAID. Mr. Bourahimou worked for the Research Triangle Institute (RTI), a contractor on the SanteNet2 project that PRI references."

So nowhere are Mr. Bourahimou's words "refuted" or even challenged. All that this portion of the CRS release does is say Mr. Bourahimou "is not a USAID employee and therefore could not make statements on USAID’s behalf about programming related to CRS and USAID." But that does not address the issue--it does not matter who exactly he is working for, the question is, was what he was saying in the PRI report true?

Mr. Rivera then writes:

"PRI also quotes two CRS staff, Nicolas Ragalison and Jean Ferlin Nambana, describing family planning activities. Both were short-term contractual employees who are no longer with CRS. Note that the two short-term contractual employees are native speakers of Malagasy and may have a low level of French-speaking ability. We are concerned that there may have been some misunderstandings during the interview if not conducted in their native language. We find their statements posted on the PRI website extremely odd since CRS simply does not engage in any artificial family planning activities. Still, we are looking into these reported statements very carefully and trying to reach these former employees." Emphasis added.

That they were "short-term contractual employees who are no longer with CRS" is utterly irrelevant.   Mr. Rivera then expresses concern that there may have been a language problem between the interviewer and Mr. Ragalison and Mr. Nambana. That is certainly possible. But the more important fact is that Mr. Rivera is stating that he has not spoken with the two, and that CRS is still looking into the reported statements. In other words, despite his claim to have "refuted" the PRI report, he simply does not know whether it is true or not.

_____________________________________________

Jump forward to today, and our headline "I threw them the hell out of my office," taken from a statement by Archbishop Odon Razanakolona of Antananarivo, Madagascar's capitol. On July 26, as the story began to unfold, CRS had issued a press release, with the title "CRS Responds to Concerns About Programs in Guinea and Madagascar." The release began:

"CRS works in many countries throughout the world to protect human life and human dignity. Within each of the countries where we work, we approach our mission of serving the poor and vulnerable very seriously. Committed to our Catholic identity, we review all organizations via a vetting process that begins with our local Bishops in-country."

But LifeSiteNews today covered PRI's latest report, which was the responses of at least two Madagascar Archbishops, plus a number of other clergy who have very serious problems with CRS's work in Madagascar. Please read the whole article. And here is the full quote from Archbishop Razanakolona, part of which we used as our headline:

"Archbishop Odon Razanakolona of Antananarivo, Madagascar’s capital, expressed concern over the Catholic agency’s apparently tight relationship with the U.S. government.

'One time, for ‘visibility’ purposes, they [CRS-Madagascar representatives] came in here [to my office] and asked me to put up this thing, this sign, with ‘USAID’ on it; to put it up behind my desk,' he said. 'I threw them the hell out of my office: ‘Take your sign and your money out of here. I don’t need it. I’ve lived in my poverty; leave me in my poverty.’ ”

We've been down this road with Catholic Charities, with the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, and with Development and Peace (Canada's version of the CRS). Denial, stonewalling, sometimes an admission of improper oversight when confronted with overwhelming evidence, then reform. 

The entire Church should be thanking groups like Reform CCHD Now the Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, LifeSiteNews, and now PRI.

Contact info:

Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Piazza del S. Uffizio, 11, 00193 Roma, Italy
phone: (011) 39-06-6988-3357
phone: (011) 39-06-6988-3413
Fax: (011) 39-06-6988-3409
E-mail: cdf@cfaith.va

Find contact information for all U.S. Bishops here.

Holy Father Warns Catholic Charities: Sometimes Must Say NO to Partnerships

Patrick Crain writes in LifeSiteNews:

"ROME, Jan. 22, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI says Catholic agencies must sometimes refuse partnerships that would even indirectly support activities opposed to the Christian view of the human person.

'We must exercise a critical vigilance and at times refuse funding and collaborations that, directly or indirectly, favour actions or projects that are at odds with Christian anthropology,' the Pope stressed in a Jan. 19th address to the Pontifical Council Cor Unum and its president, Cardinal Robert Sarah, in excerpts released by the Vatican Information Service.

The remarks come only a month after the Pope’s surprise release of a formal legislative document, known as a Motu Proprio, stipulating that Catholic charitable organizations must fully comply with Catholic teaching.

His address on Saturday reiterated many of the points he made in the Motu Proprio, which came amidst growing concern from the Vatican over scandals at national agencies in the Church’s Caritas network that have been caught funding partners promoting legal abortion, contraceptives, and the normalization of homosexual activity."

The Holy Father Teaches It: Catholic Charities Must be Catholic!

God Bless our good Pope Benedict! He is asserting control over the out of control "Catholic" charitable organizations, many of which are really government organizations with "Catholic" in their names.

This is very important to us, because one of the original aims of this website was to call attention to, and to change, the horrific situation at Catholic Charities of San Francisco, where children were being given to adoptive homosexual couples.Newcomers can read about that at the Catholic Charities CYO page of our sister website Homosexual Activism in the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

LifeSiteNews has the story:

Pro-life leaders praise Pope for ‘huge move’ of ordering Catholic Church charities to be Catholic

By John Henry Westen

WASHINGTON, December 4, 2012  “I’m elated beyond words.” “An early Christmas present.” “Deo gratsias!” “It is a welcome and huge move…” “One of the most important papal directives in the last half-century”. These were some of the reactions of pro-life leaders to Pope Benedict XVI’s directive called ‘On the service of charity’ released Saturday which mandated (ordered) that charitable activities undertaken by the Catholic Church never offend Catholic teaching.Kathleen Gilbert/LifeSitenews

In the directive, the Pope stated: “I order that everything I have laid down in this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio be fully observed, notwithstanding anything to the contrary....”

And God bless the good folks at LifeSiteNews, who have been fighting this battle for years (particularly in regards to the Canadian "Development and Peace" group) in the face of ecclesiastical opposition.

Corporate Giant General Mills Comes Out Against Family in Minnesota

From LifeSiteNews:

"ST. PAUL, Minnesota, June 15, 2012 - Minnesota-based food giant General Mills has publicly come out in opposition to a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Minnesota."

You can show your support for those in Minnesota who are defending marriage and the family by clicking on the Minnesota for Marriage button on the right banner.

And you can show your displeasure with General Mills by boycotting their products. Here is a list of General Mills products to be avoided--substitutes are easy to find.

Betty Crocker

Big G Cereals

Bisquick

Bugles

Cascadian Farms

Cheerios

Chex

Cinnamon Toast Crunch

Diablitos Underwood

Fiber One

Food Should Taste Good

Gardetto’s

Gold Medal

Good Earth

Green Giant

Haagen-Dazs

Hamburger Helper

Jus-Rol

Kix

Knack & Back

La Santena

Larabar

Latina

Liberte

Lucky Charms

Macaroni Grill

Monsters

Mountain High

Muir Glen

Nature Valley

Old El Paso

Pillsbury

Pillsbury Atta

Progresso

Total

Totisno’s/Jeno’s

Trix

V.Pearl

Wanchai Ferry

Wheaties

Yoplait

Yoplait France

Former CCCYO Boss / Current "Catholic San Francisco" Columnist Attacks Bishops On HHS Mandate

That would be Brian Cahill, immediate past Executive Director of San Francisco's Catholic Charities. Cahill, whose column Catholic San Francisco, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, publishes from time to time, had a column published in today's San Francisco Chronicle. In the column, Cahill attacked each and every Catholic bishop in the United States for opposing Obama's unconstitutional HHS Mandate.

We point out that A Shepherd's Voice nailed this Cahill as an enemy of the Church years ago, when some of the Bishops whom he now attacks (he attacks all of them, since they have all opposed Obama's mandate) were perfectly happy with him, employed him, supported him, and attended his going away party.

We won't rehash Cahill's misdeeds here (follow the second link above for an exhaustive list)--suffice it to say they included honoring big-time abortion supporters, contributing money in support of counterfeit marriage and in opposition to Proposition 8, and allowing transvestites to "entertain" at CCCYO events. And who can forget the "gay adoptions" fiasco:

"It was under Mr. Cahill’s leadership that Catholic Charities embarked on the ill-advised “partnership” with Family Builders by Adoption -- 'the gayest adoption agency in the country.' That three-year partnership, which came to an end in 2009, united Catholic Charities with an organization that thought it was a good idea to advertise for gay adoptive 'dads' on the 'leather' and 'porn' pages of San Francisco’s two homosexual-oriented newspapers. The ad campaign, exposed by CalCatholic, was so outrageous that even the city government of San Francisco realized it had to shut it down."

UPDATE: And perfectly, on March 21, 2012, Cahill will be the Lenten Vespers speaker at (where else?) San Francisco's Most Holy Redeemer Church.

IMPORTANT Statement From Bishop Cordileone

Like many Catholics, we were surprised by the delayed response by the great Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland to the unconscionable Obama/HHS mandate. His Excellency is nothing if not forthright, and in this statement he makes his position clear.

Not only that, but he appears to be taking steps to address the insurance coverage situation at Catholic Charities East Bay. Emphasis in the statement is ours.

A Message from Bishop Cordileone

To the Clergy, Religious and Lay Faithful of the Diocese of Oakland
February 10, 2012


The backlash provoked by the recent announcement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services mandating all employers to provide insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives and sterilization is an encouraging sign that our nation’s collective conscience is still around. People of all political and religious persuasions rightly understood this as an attack on our God-given and constitutionally-protected right to religious freedom, and the recent reaction of the Administration gives us hope that this right can still be protected when we join together to voice our common concern. Its willingness to reopen the discussion is a helpful start to reaching a resolution, although the details of any such revision will still have to be studied and evaluated as they are made known.


The possibility of such a resolution notwithstanding, I wish now to add my own voice of protest to those of over 160 of my brother bishops and to many other people of good will all across the political spectrum. Some people have asked why I have not done so sooner. I hope to make that clear with this statement.


The new federal mandate does allow an exemption for religious organizations, but it gives the most restrictive definition possible. To qualify as a “religious organization,” the organization must (1) employ primarily people of its own faith, (2) serve primarily people of its own faith, and (3) have as its primary purpose the inculcation of religious values.


What many may not know is that the requirements of the HHS mandate are almost identical to a state law we have had in California for over ten years now. In fact, the 2004 decision of the State Supreme Court in the lawsuit challenging the law, Catholic Charities of Sacramento vs. Superior Court of the State of California, established quite explicitly that it is for the state, and not the Church, to decide for us who is and is not Catholic and what constitutes the “inculcation of religious values.” Now the federal government has stepped way beyond the boundaries of its authority by deeply breaching the wall of separation between Church and state.


While our dioceses as such and our Catholic schools qualify as religious organizations even with this most narrow of definitions, the real problem lies with our institutions that are committed to serving all people in need regardless of their faith or lack thereof, especially our Catholic hospitals, institutions of higher education, and Catholic Charities agencies. Only very recently was it brought to my attention that, in order to continue serving the poor as only they can, our Catholic Charities of the East Bay made some accommodations in the insurance coverage it offers its employees. I judged that I could not issue my own statement in good conscience without first gathering information and assessing the situation, and then begin to take steps to correct it. That is exactly what I have been doing these last several days. I have now had an initial discussion with the leadership of CCEB, and will continue working with them to make the necessary adjustments. I pledge to do whatever may be possible to enable CCEB to continue its good work in a way that fully respects our moral principles, but it is quite possible that we will not be able to do so without making some changes to allow for increased expense for employee compensation.


There are those who would say that, if our social service agencies are going to accept government funding, then they must do the government’s bidding. However, the government’s bidding is not to invade the sanctuary of peoples’ consciences. The role of the government is to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.” In this, faith-based organizations are the most helpful – and should be the most welcome – partners with government agencies, for they accomplish more with fewer resources in serving the poor, the sick and the marginalized, thus contributing to the promotion of justice and the common good. Here in the Diocese of Oakland we can be rightfully proud of all that our Catholic Charities and Catholic schools accomplish in showing the face of the compassionate Christ to those in great need. When we are pushed out of our ministry of serving the needy by not being allowed to do so with reasonable protections of our conscience, everyone loses.


I therefore call on all of you, our good people in the Diocese of Oakland, to write to your congressional representatives and urge them to pass legislation to reverse this mandate. I also ask you to contact President Obama and encourage him to continue to be open to putting into place robust protections of religious liberty for faith-based health, educational and social service organizations. The contact information to do this may be found on the Diocese home page at www.oakdiocese.org


There is one more thing I ask you to do. Our beloved nation has reached a critical point in finding its moral compass; we need God’s help now more than ever. As we are now about to begin the holy season of Lent, I ask you to join me in offering your Lenten prayer and fasting in supplication to God. Please especially take fasting seriously this Lent; offer up your fasting both as a means for imploring God once again to grace this great land with His blessing and as a form of bodily penance in reparation for our sins, especially sins of negligence and omission. May God grant us the grace to truly “turn away from sin and be faithful to the Gospel,” for the general welfare of our nation and the salvation of our souls.

Catholic Charities of Southern Illinois Decides: We're the Government

On August 19, we asked "Can Catholic Charities Remain "Catholic" and "Charitable" While Accepting Government Contracts?" We showed that Catholic Charities are not really charities--in San Francisco 73% and in Chicago 86% of their revenue comes from the taxpayers. We showed that push was coming to shove in Illinois, and indicated that the deciding factor could be the institutional self-interest of Catholic Charities. We concluded:

"Catholic Charities can be true to their name by forgoing government contracts. Then they will have no worries about being Catholic, and they will be forced to once again become a charity. But in disentangling themselves from the government the biggest hitch will be what to do with all their staff: according to GuideStar, Catholic Charities of Chicago has 1,452 full-time and 1,221 part-time employees."

Well, this is from yesterday's Belleville, IL News: (emphasis added)

"The Belleville-based Catholic Social Services of Southern Illinois is getting a new name and is splitting with the Catholic church in an attempt to maintain its state contracts to provide foster and adoption services.

The new organization will be called Christian Social Services of Illinois and will be ending its relationship with the Catholic Diocese of Belleville, according to a joint announcement from the Diocese and Social Services."

The story also included a confusing excerpt from a press release of the Belleville Diocese:

"Unable to remain faithful to the moral teaching of the Catholic Church while adhering to the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, the 64-year-old social service agency chose to dissociate from the Diocese," the Belleville Diocese said in a prepared statement. 'It is hoped that this new entity will experience no interruption in its services and programs.'"

A group that was sponsored by the Church for 64 years, left because it was "unable to remain faithful to the moral teaching of the Catholic Church," and the Diocese hopes it will "experience no interruption in services or programs?" Hell, I hope they go out of business--but there's no fear of that. The article continued with a statement from Gary Huelsmann, Executive Director of the (former) Catholic Charities:

"'We had to make a choice,' Huelsmann said. 'It was a very difficult choice.'

The new Social Services will allow placements to civil unions, Huelsmann said. The agency also withdrew earlier this week from a lawsuit filed by Catholic Charities in response to the state's decision.

Huelsmann said his organization is currently negotiating with the state to maintain foster care and adoption contracts that were to end Nov. 30 and to start receiving new cases. Catholic Charities had not had any foster care cases transferred to new agencies since the department's decision to terminate the contracts but it hadn't received any new cases either.

The article's final paragraph gets to the pivotal issue, even (as we predicted) mentioning the number of employees who would have had to have been laid off:

"Losing the state contracts for foster care and adoption services would be a huge financial blow to Social Services, considering they account for 72 percent of the organization's annual revenue of $13.1 million, according to Huelsmann. He had said the loss of that state revenue could have forced the organization to lay off three-quarters of its 187 employees."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Can Catholic Charities Remain "Catholic" and "Charitable" While Accepting Government Contracts?

This is something that has bothered me ever since I first looked into Catholic Charities of San Francisco's adoptions fiasco--the fact that by far the largest portion of Catholic Charities CYO's revenue is in the form of government contracts.

Today, the Chicago Tribune reported on Judge John Schmidt's ruling that the state of Illinois is not obligated to renew its foster care contract with Catholic Charities of Illinois. The sticking point, of course, was that the state now requires that foster children be placed in same-sex households--something Catholic Charities will not do:

"In discussions after the civil union bill went into effect in June, Catholic Charities told the state that accommodating prospective foster parents in civil unions would violate Catholic Church teaching that defines marriage between a man and a woman.

Pointing to a clause in the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act that they believe protects religious institutions that don't recognize civil unions, the agencies said they would refer those couples elsewhere and only license married couples and single parents living alone.

But lawyers for the Illinois attorney general said that exemption only shields religious clergy who don't want to officiate at civil unions. The policy of Catholic Charities violates state anti-discrimination laws that demand couples in civil unions be treated the same as married couples, they said"

Well, if that's the current law, then that's the current law, and Judge Schmidt seems to say it is. It would also seem to indicate the need for Catholic Charities to disentangle itself from the government. I looked at the financial statement for Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago, just to see to what level they are a government organization. I'd though Catholic Charities CYO of San Francisco was bad-- for the fiscal year ending in June 2010 they got over 73% of their revenue in the form of government/contract revenue.

But CCCYO is nothing compared to Catholic Charities of Chicago. Out of a total revenue of over $171 million for FY 2010, over $148 million, or 86.6% is from "fees/grants from government agencies." In other words, 86.6% of Catholic Charities of Chicago's revenue is not charitable donations at all--it comes from the taxpayers.

Catholic Charities (in Chicago or San Francisco or wherever) could remain Catholic, and accept government contracts, so long as the government was sufficiently in agreement with Catholic teaching. But once a government is in opposition to Catholic teaching, Catholic Charities either has to abandon Catholic teaching, or forgo government contracts. (The perverse genius of CCCYO consisted in its first abandoning Catholic teaching, and then foregoing the government contract anyway.)

The Chicago Tribune article also quoted one foster parent, who seems to understand the situation more clearly than the lawyers for Catholic Charities of Illinois: "'If the state doesn't respect our morals, then we don't want to do work for them,' Casey Teckenbrock said." That seems right to me. Catholic Charities can be true to their name by forgoing government contracts. Then they will have no worries about being Catholic, and they will be forced to once again become a charity. But in disentangling themselves from the government the biggest hitch will be what to do with all their staff: according to GuideStar, Catholic Charities of Chicago has 1,452 full-time and 1,221 part-time employees.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Brian Cahill tells the Truth--Finally

Today, our friends over at Calfornia Catholic Daily linked to an article in the National Catholic Reporter by Brian Cahill, immediate past Executive Director of Catholic Charities CYO. It was under Cahill's leadership that CCCYO embarked on the disastrous partnership with Family Builders by Adoption--a partnership that saw CCCYO bound by contract to increasing the numbers of children placed into adoptive LGBT households.

Left: Brian Cahill with openly homosexual San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who acted as a "consultant" on the CCCYO/Family Builders by Adoption partnership.

When news that the partnership was to be dissolved was made public back in 2008, due to outside pressure by the likes of us, Mr. Cahill stated:

"CCCYO officials told Catholic San Francisco that, as planned, the agency’s placing of two full-time employees at California Kids Connection will end in June 2009. 'The action is completely consistent with our 2006 announcement on adoption. At that time, we said that our plan was for a three-year partnership with California Kids Connection. That period concludes in June of 2009,' [CCCYO Executive Director Brian] Cahill stated."

We demolished the assertion that CCCYO had ever planned the partnership to be three-year deal in a post we wrote back on October 21, 2008. Today, Mr. Cahill finally comes clean and shows he was not telling the truth (which, to repeat, we showed at the time) in 2008. From today's column:

"When the collaboration was announced, we had a positive response from our local government partners and from the secular press, but the reaction of the conservative Catholic press was scathing in its criticism and condemnation. In spite of the archbishop's support of the program, there was strong conservative pressure to end the program.

Why would that matter if the program was only for three years? If that was the case, it was due to end anyway. Mr. Cahill's very next sentence:

"As the recession hit, the Catholic Charities budget deficit forced some painful choices. I retired at the end of 2008, the collaboration with Family Builders ended in 2009..."

"Forced" implies that it was budgetary constraints (coupled with the "conservative" pressure) that caused the dissolution of the partnership. But if Mr. Cahill was telling the truth back in 2008, nothing was "forced"--everything was moving along a pre-planned timeline. As he wrote then:

"At that time, we said that our plan was for a three-year partnership with California Kids Connection. That period concludes in June of 2009..."

But he was not telling the truth in 2008. He's a heck of a lot more honest now. Check out Mr. Cahill's column, as well as his previous NCR column, to see what Mr. Cahill really thinks. It's a condemnation of the culture at Catholic Charities that such a man can serve in a leadership position.

Catholic Charities Supports New Ways Ministry 'Behind the Scenes' says New Ways Spokesman

Today LifeSiteNews picked up a July 14 story from the Washington Blade called "Catholic Charities Gay Lobbyist." LifeSite's story began:

"As Catholic Charities agencies across the country are fighting government efforts to shut down their adoption services, the group’s national office in Washington has employed a firm founded by a homosexual activist to lobby for them on Capitol Hill, the Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper, reported recently.

A spokesman for Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) confirmed to LifeSiteNews that they hired the Sheridan Group, a lobbying firm founded by Tom Sheridan. A self-professed “gay Catholic,” Sheridan began his lobbying career with the AIDS Action Council in the 1980s, and his firm has since represented numerous AIDS advocacy groups.

What caught our eye was how homosexual activists responded to the news:

At the same time, the dissident New Ways Ministry, which purports to support “LGBT” Catholics, claimed to the Blade that CCUSA and some local Catholic Charities agencies have been backing them 'behind-the-scenes.'

'Catholic Charities in general have been the most progressive wing of the church other than the nuns,' said Sister Jeannine Gramick, one of the founders of New Ways, which has been condemned by both the Vatican and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. 'In some cases, Catholic Charities USA has supported our events. I feel they personally are pro-gay but they can’t do this publicly.'”

That is certainly not news to readers of "A Shepherd's Voice"--except that here Catholic Charities CYO of San Francisco, until recently, DID do it publicly. The infiltration of the Archdiocese of San Francisco by homosexual activists was one of the motivations in the construction of this website. Check it out in complete detail on our sister site: http://www.sanfrancisco-catholic.com/catholic_charities_cyo.htm

"Proclaiming the Gospel is an Integral Part of Charitable Activity"

On July 15, Cardinal Robert Sarah, Cardinal President of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, discussed the proper role of the charitable arms of the Catholic Church. From his address:

"It is significant that even (c.1970) then Paul VI had identified the response to some of the misunderstandings that undermined the proper understanding of charity within the Church and that would unfortunately be confirmed in time: the witness to charity finds its measure in Christ. The search for justice does not fulfill the task of charity. Proclaiming the Gospel, which is not proselytism, is an integral part of charitable activity.....

"Confirming the divine dimension of charity, and therefore its connection to evangelization, does not mean disregarding human poverty. Rather, on the contrary, it indicates deeply searching within the needs of man, as Paul VI affirmed in his Encyclical, Populorum Progressio (n. 21). It means looking to the heart of his pain, loneliness and state of abandonment, to then announce to him, at that point, the presence of Christ who loves him. Benedict XVI also stated: 'Often the deepest cause of suffering is the very absence of God” (DCE n. 31). This too is the role of the Church and institutions of charity of the Church. I believe that this deep insight allows for the activities of the Church in this field to be so successful and so generally appreciated. For a society that often does not know Him, we can in this way allow others to concretely experience that God is Love and that He takes care of His children. Cor Unum carries out this mission through specific interventions in the name of the Holy Father, but above all by keeping the true meaning of the pastoral works of charity alive in the Church.'"

Supreme Court Declines to Hear "Catholic League v. San Francisco"

Today the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of Catholic League v. San Francisco, the suit brought by two San Francisco Catholics against the city of San Francisco. The suit was brought in reponse to the Board of Supervisors March, 2006 issuing of Resolution 168-06, which can be read here.

When the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, they generally don't say why, nor did they in this case. Although the Supremes denied a hearing, the case did inspire powerful arguments, which still stand:

Judge Kleinfeld, among the dissenters in the Ninth Circuit appeal:

"The 'message' in the resolution, unlike, say, the message that might be inferred from some symbolic display, is explicit: a Catholic doctrine duly communicated by the part of the Catholic church in charge of clarifying doctrine is 'hateful,' 'defamatory,' 'insulting,' 'callous,' and 'discriminatory,' 'showing 'insensitivity and ignorance,' the Catholic Church is a hateful foreign meddler in San Francisco’s affairs, the Catholic Church ought to 'withdraw' its religious directive, and the local archbishop should defy his superior’s directive. This is indeed a 'message of . . . disapproval.' And that is all it takes for it to be unconstitutional.”

Professor Jonathon Turley, who objected to the resolution even though he personally agreed with the city's position:

"The resolution has the Board directly calling on Catholic leaders to defy the Cardinal and directly objects to the Vatican policy. That would seem to take an 'official position on religious doctrine.' I would be less concerned if the resolution solely addressed the Cardinals statement as hateful rhetoric as opposed to an official rejection of the religious based policy....

There is a good-faith debate as to whether such anti-discrimination laws violate the religion clauses. I would not criticize leaders participating in such a debate. However, the resolution in this case calls for defiance of the Cardinal and the removal of the policy."

Good Jesuit Fr. James Schall, of Georgetown, who gets right down to the nub:

"Children need a parent of each sex, whether they be 'in need' or not. Compassion does not trump principle. The Board obscures what human life and nature are about. It does this by the suasive power of civil resolution. In the end, it is not the Board that is protecting the needs and nature of real children, but the hapless Vatican.

In San Francisco, such a voice perhaps cries in the wilderness, but it cries the truth about children and their needs. It puts children first, not the self-interest of single-sex advocates. To refuse to deprive children of what they most need, a mother and a father, is this really so difficult to understand? Is it really 'hateful?' 'ignorant?' 'discriminatory?' 'insulting?' or 'callous?' to use the Board's own words, for anyone to strive to give all children what they most need, a mother and a father?"
_______________________________________________

We have always considered this case important for the light it sheds on the infiltration of the Archdiocese of San Francisco by homosexualist activists, and the results of that infiltration. Here's the origin of "Catholic League v. San Francisco":

• Between 2001-2005 Catholic Charities of San Francisco facilitates adoptions into same-sex households.

• March 13, 2006: Those actions compelled the Vatican, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to reiterate its 2003 statement, and instruct Catholic adoption agencies to stop placing children in same-sex households. On March 13, 2006, Cardinal William Levada wrote “The reasons given in the (2003) document, as well as the potential scandal for the faithful should an archdiocesan agency act contrary to the clear teaching of the church's magisterium, require that a Catholic bishop follow this clear guidance from the Holy See in his oversight of Catholic diocesan agencies."

• March 21, 2006: The Cardinal’s response to the actions of Catholic Charities results in the Board of Supervisors issuance of Resolution 168-06.

• April 4, 2006: in response to the March 21 resolution, the two San Francisco Catholics bring the suit against the city of San Francisco.

CCCYO Ex-Director Comes Clean, Supports Counterfeit Marriage

Brian Cahill, immediate past Executive Director of Catholic Charities of San Francisco published an op-ed in last Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle, declaring his support for counterfeit marriage, and reavealing that he had donated financially to the opponents of Proposiition 8.

Of course, to the readers of "A Shepherd's Voice" this is no surprise--we revealed it back in October of 2008.

For new readers, Mr. Cahill is the guy who thought it would be a good idea for Catholic Charities CYO to provide staffing to an organization that advertised for adoptive "dads" on the s/m page of the Bay Area Reporter and the "Porn" page of the San Francisco Bay Times, two homosexualist publications. That action outraged even the city government of San Francisco--which is not easy to do.

Thankfully, Mr. Cahill's tenure at Catholic Charities ended in 2009, along with CCCYO's partnership with Family Builders by Adoption. But as this post about his CCCYO going away party shows, much more needs to be done.

For an in-depth report on the how this situation arose, visit our sister website "Homosexual Activism in the Archdiocese of San Francisco."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Catholic Charities/Most Holy Redeemer Update.

Back on November 25, 2008 we posted on the upcoming “Salute to Brian Cahill” which took place in San Francisco on December 1.

We noted that the Honorary Committee was filled with opponents of the Catholic Church, and included people like Supervisors Ammiano, Mirkirami, and Sandoval, all of whom signed Resolution 168-06 which condemned the Church for daring to say a child should be brought up in a home with a mother and father; City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who sued the state of California to legalize same-sex marriage; plus other luminaries who have contributed to and worked for the legalization of same-sex "marriage."

He wasn’t on the honorary committee but Supervisor Bevan Dufty showed up and addressed the gathering. Dufty is the man who, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, acted as a consultant to Catholic Charities at the time the disastrous partnership between Catholic Charities and Family Builders by Adoption was created.

I wonder what all those churchmen thought as they were being addressed by a man who: a) is openly homosexual; b) voted to condemn the Catholic Church as “hateful” and “discriminatory”; c) champions the legalization of same-sex “marriage”; d) is on record as supporting pornography; and e) is a “homosexual” man who had a daughter with a “lesbian” mother via artificial insemination? (I put the words “homosexual” and “lesbian” in quotes, since, like everybody, Dufty and the mother are biologically heterosexual—the adorable little girl is the proof of that. Sometimes our bodies are wiser than our minds--see footnote 1.) No pictures of Dufty appear on the Catholic Charities photo page covering the event, but his presence is well documented on the site of Drew Alitzer. Mr. Alitzer photographs many “society” functions in San Francisco, including this one.

Most Holy Redeemer was represented, too. Here’s a photo, from the Catholic Charites website, of Monsignor Harry Schlitt with Nanette Miller and Olga Barrera.

As readers of “A Shepherd’s Voice” know, Ms. Miller is an open lesbian who also happens to be Treasurer of Catholic Charities. According to the “Bay Area Career Women” website (a now defunct lesbian networking site) Miller and Barrera were “LGBT Newlyweds” on February 22, 2004—back when Mayor Gavin Newsom was “marrying” same-sex couples. At Most Holy Redeemer Church, Miller serves at Mass as a lector and acolyte, and is also a member of the Liturgy Planning Committee. Ms. Barrera serves Mass there as a Eucharistic Minister. That’s a direct violation of Redemptionis Sacrementum #46, but the folks at MHR hold that teaching in contempt. We've shown that here and here. Ms. Miller herself honestly laid out the agenda in the pages of the San Francisco Chronicle on September 27, 2005:

"I'm someone who believes you have to live how you believe, and by doing that people will change"

One wonders if the Monsignor was aware of these facts. But is Ms. Miller right? Mr. Cahill is gone from Catholic Charities and that's good. But why is an openly lesbian, same-sex "married" lady still serving as treasurer of an Archdiocesan organization? Is there not a single faithful Catholic in the entire Archdiocese capable of reading a balance sheet? Ms. Miller's presence as treasurer would only be absurd if it were a mistake, but it is not a mistake.

How (and why) can our Archdiocese continue to remain passive with MHR? This is no longer about gay people who are sinners like the rest of us. As I've argued before, this is about the establishment of a new religion, a religion using the trappings of Catholicism but that is actually something else.

"Is it less appropriate for gays to imagine Jesus as gay than for African Christians to picture him as black, Asian Christians as Asian?"

That's from Fr. Donal Godfrey, SJ, "Gays and Grays. The Story of the Gay Community at Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church." p134.

Footnote 1) According to published reports Dufty and the child’s mother live together and are raising the little girl together. I guess this means he thinks it best for a child to be brought up by his or her parents, who are always a man and a woman. Of course, this makes him a bigot, too. Welcome to the club, Bevan—“Bigots for Reality!”

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Catholic Charities Director's Going-Away Party

This Monday, December 1, Catholic Charities of San Francisco will hold a farewell reception for its outgoing Executive Director Brian Cahill. That's Mr. Cahill (right) with openly homosexual San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty at a 2008 Catholic Charities event.

We remind the reader that under Mr. Cahill’s leadership, Catholic Charities, among other things:

Formed the disastrous partnership with “Family Builders by Adoption,” which saw Catholic Charities staff an organization whose mission included "Increasing the number of children adopted by Lesbian, Gay Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) adults." Thankfully, the partnership will be dissolved next year.

Invited male transvestite, same-sex “marriage” activist, and Equality California Institute borad member “Donna Sachet” to be a featured entertainer at one of their parties;

Honored Mr. George Marcus at their 2008 “Loaves and Fishes” dinner, ignoring the fact that Mr. Marcus had given over $175,000 to political campaigns in California promoting the culture of death, and which were unwaveringly opposed by the Catholic Church;

In between time, Mr. Cahill found time to personally donate $600 to "Equality for All" and “Equality California --No on Proposition 8.”

It’s no secret that “A Shepherd’s Voice” is glad to see Mr. Cahill leave, and a look at the “Honorary Committee” for Mr. Cahill’s going-away reception just underscores why.

Committee members include:

San Francisco Supervisors Tom Ammiano, Ross Mirkarimi, and Gerald Sandoval, all of whom voted for Resolution 168-06 on March 21, 2006, which called the Catholic Church “hateful” and “discriminatory” for daring to say that a child should be raised in a home with a mother and a father;

Senator Dianne Feinstein, who made a television ad supporting same-sex marriage, and who has throughout her career garnered a 100% pro-death rating from NARAL;

Dr. Sandra Hernandez, CEO of the San Francisco Foundation, who personally donated $1,000 to the Campaign opposing Proposition 8, and whose webpage states “The San Francisco Foundation endorsed a No on 8 position and in the coming weeks and months we will be tracking closely the next steps to continue the strategy for justice.”

Dennis Herrera, City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, who is currently suing the State of California to outlaw the definition of marriage and the will of the voters by invalidating Proposition 8;

Jim Illig, Director of Government Relations for “Project Open Hand,” who gave $300 to oppose Proposition 8;

Father Anthony McGuire, former pastor of Most Holy Redeemer parish, of whom an admiring Fr. Donal Godfrey wrote: "Under Father Anthony McGuire—‘Fr. Tony—the parish was reborn…” The “reborn” Most Holy Redeemer Church now has “married” lesbians serving as lectors, acolytes, and Eucharistic Ministers, and a Liturgy Planning Group Coordinator who participates at events that are pictured on a website requiring an obscenity disclaimer.

San Francisco City Assessor Phil Ting, who in June, 2008 officiated at at least one same-sex “wedding.” From Sing Tao Daily: “Phil Ting spoke after the ceremony and said that he is very glad to marry gay and lesbian couples and very happy to see the day that the California government will allow their gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.”

We are glad to see the last of Mr. Cahill, and we pray Catholic Charities can find a way to fulfill its mission while being true to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Catholic Charities of San Francisco Adoptions (Conclusion)

This week's "Catholic San Francisco" printed an article confirming the dissolution of the relationship between Catholic Charities CYO and Family Builders by Adoption/Adoption SF ("the gayest agency in the country") in the words of their Executive Director, Jill Jacobs.

While the dissolution is itself good news, the article is confused and confusing, and begs at least two questions:

1) The article asserts that only a three-year partnership with FBA was ever envisaged:

"CCCYO officials told Catholic San Francisco that, as planned, the agency’s placing of two full-time employees at California Kids Connection will end in June 2009. 'The action is completely consistent with our 2006 announcement on adoption. At that time, we said that our plan was for a three-year partnership with California Kids Connection. That period concludes in June of 2009,' [CCCYO Executive Director Brian] Cahill stated."

Where, when, and to whom was this said? The only CCCYO announcement mentioned in the entire article is the CCCYO Press Release of August 2, 2006 (to this day the only document on the CCCYO website addressing the issue) which gives no indication whatsoever that the partnership was temporary.

And if that was the plan, why, in a Bay Area Reporter article published eight days later, on August 10, 2006, did Mr. Cahill himself say:

"Partnering with Family Builders actually will allow Catholic Charities to help even more children than before, he [Mr. Cahill] emphasized.

'It's impossible not to use the word 'irony' in this situation. Out of what could have been a crisis came a great opportunity,' said Cahill.

'We actually are going to increase our role in adoptions...'

And why, a little more than two weeks after that, in a San Francisco Chronicle article published on August 27, 2006, did Mr. Cahill himself say:

"This place started with adoptions -- how could we ever consider not doing them?''

And why did the body of that article open with:

"In an adroit end-run against a Vatican ban on granting adoptions to same-sex couples, Catholic Charities of San Francisco will launch a new project in coming weeks that experts say will lead to the placement of hundreds of foster children around the state every year."

(All emphases above are added.) None of that sound to me like the arrangement was seen as temporary.

___________________________________________________________

So, on October 17, 2008 Mr. Cahill says that in 2006 it was announced that only a three-year partnership was envisaged.

But contradicting this:

1) the August 2, 2006 CCCYO press release addressing the issue does not say or give even the slightest indication that the partnership was temporary;

2) on August 10, 2006 Mr. Cahill said CCCYO was going to "increase its role in adoptions";

3) on August 27, 2006 Mr. Cahill said: "This place started with adoptions -- how could we ever consider not doing them?''

If, as he said last week, Mr. Cahill knew back in August of 2006 that only a three-year partnership with FBA was planned, why did he make the above statements to the press? For if what Mr. Cahill said last week was true, in August of 2006 CCCYO had not only considered not doing them, they had already decided not to do them--after a three-year period.

Conversely, if what he said in the August, 2006 statements to the press were true, why did he say last week:

"The action is completely consistent with our 2006 announcement on adoption. At that time, we said that our plan was for a three-year partnership with California Kids Connection."

The second strange contention in the article come from Jill Jacobs, Executive Director of Family Builders by Adoption:

"According to Jacobs of Family Builders and CCCYO officials, the strategic goal of the expanded CKC outreach was to establish data that supported its effectiveness in placing foster care children in adoptive families, and, thereby, provide an economic incentive to the state to step in when CCCYO vacated."

This is ridiculous. According to the Catholic San Francisco article, from 2006-2009 CCCYO was giving $110,000 annually to FBA. Over that same period, state & federal government was already giving over $1,100,000 annually to FBA--more than 10 times the contribution of CCCYO.

They did not need to "step in" when CCCYO "vacated"--they were already in to the hilt. The contract specifying government funding to FBA is below. Click on the image for a larger version.

Why all the contradictions? I think the simplest explanation of what happened is this: Catholic Charities partnered with Family Builders by Adoption, "the gayest (adoption) agency in the country." From the moment the partnership was created, Catholics loyal to the teaching of the Church were outraged. It was a disaster. Catholic Charities is now pulling out, but trying to find a way to do so without admitting their mistake.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Catholic Charities to Sever Ties with Family Builders by Adoption: Archdiocesan Confirmation

Today's "Catholic San Francisco" has an article confirming the dissolution of the partnership between Catholic Charities CYO and Family Builders by Adoption. The article is an official Archdiocesan confirmation of an article published in the October 12 issue of "Our Sunday Visitor" by Valerie Schmalz.

We will comment on the "Catholic San Francisco" article soon.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

BREAKING: Catholic Charities to Sever ties with Family Builders by Adoption

Our Sunday Visitor has the story.

As readers of "A Shepherd's Voice" know, this is one of the battles we have been fighting since the beginning. To see some of our posts on this issue, go here.

We will comment on this development soon.

How Catholic Charities Committed itself to INCREASING "LGBT" Adoptions

The story is over at California Catholic Daily this morning:

"On Aug. 2, 2006, Catholic Charities of San Francisco issued a press release describing their new “partnership” with Family Builders by Adoption, which calls itself “the gayest [adoption] agency in the country.”

The release did not mention that the very day before, Aug. 1, 2006, Family Builders by Adoption had just begun fulfilling a $1,755,000 contract with another “partner”-- the City and County of San Francisco. That contract required Family Builders to meet the conditions spelled out in the city’s “Request for Proposal to Provide Various Adoption Services” (RFP #309), issued on May 15, 2006. RFP #309 specified “Increasing the number of children adopted by Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender (LGBT) adults,” as well as providing, “The plan should include targeted recruitment of LGBT adults.”

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney